There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: BURT on 24 Apr 2010 22:10 On Apr 24, 11:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The big difference between us is that I > > > acknowledge TRUTHS where those be found. You, on the other hand, > > > attack the truths wherever they be found, probably because TRUTHS > > > invalidate much of what you were taught was high-and-mighty in > > > school. Have fun defending the errors in science to your grave, > > > PD. No Einstein > > > Well, it appears that we are just acknowledging different statements > > as truth. You maintain yours are. > > I maintain the ones that are supported by experimental evidence and > > aren't merely the result of just "thinking about things" are the > > truth. > > So, when there is a conflict between experimental evidence and the > > result of just "thinking about things," then one or the other needs to > > be acknowledged and the other dismissed. I think I've chosen properly, > > and I think you've chosen out of ego. > > Believing the future determines the past needs to be dismissed. > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > - The future determining the past > - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair > - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having > a change in momentum. > - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move > - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is > different than Maxwell's displacement current > - Mass is not conserved. > > The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: > > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends > past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced > by the plates forces the plates together > - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. > When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its > spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, > the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by > matter. > - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is the > same conceptually as Maxwell's displacement current. > - Matter and aether are different states of the same material. > In E=mc^2, Energy is matter transitioning to aether. > Mass is conserved.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein thought of time as a predetermined order of course which is the opposite of this order from the future. Anyway you look at it have you ever gone anywhere and it wasn't in its own "now?" Mitch Raemsch; Forever now
From: NoEinstein on 26 Apr 2010 12:05 On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear BLOCKHEAD PD, the Parasite Dunce: You have only a one neuron brain (encased in concrete). So, to you 'experimental evidence' matters even when the conclusions of such are WRONG. IF as you say (sic) the KE of falling objects accrues non-linearly (sic), then the INPUT energyfrom the force of gravitymust be non linear, too (sic). NOTE: You must agree to that statement if you accept that the Law of the Conservation of Energy is correct. Agreed? Then, tell me, PD, what about the UNIFORM force of gravity is non linear? You've already agreed that the VELOCITY of falling objects is increasing uniformly in simple accelerations. Newton's Laws of Motion state that a uniform force will cause one and only one associated acceleration. If the acceleration is... 'g', then the uniform FORCE causing the acceleration is the unchanging static WEIGHT of the falling object. You typically escape from the above statements of truth by digging into your dusty textbooks. You then SHOEHORN the errant mechanical definition of 'work' into the dropped object results. The latter are errant simply because the equation doesn't clarify that the 'distance of travel' is indicative of... 'work done' ONLY if there is a FORCE being applied against a RESISTANCE which is equal and opposite. That means that when the force increases, the RESISTANCE increases by the same amount. For dropped objects, the only force causing the one rate of acceleration is the object's static weight. And the only RESISTANCE is the object's INERTICthat exactly matches the static weight, applied FORCE. Since the distance of fall with respect to time isn't LINEAR, but parabolic, then, the ENTIRE non linear component of the distance of fall has to be due to COASTINGbecause there isnt an associated increase in either the applied force, OR the resistance. Folks, PD majored in high energy particle physics. I majored in architecture and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. Of those majors, which one would likely be the most proficient in understanding... the applications of FORCES? Im sure PD will invent ways to sidestep even the clearest statements of truths. But as long as you readers out there understand what I've explained, then PD can go jump-in-a-lake! NoEinst > > On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The big difference between us is that I > > acknowledge TRUTHS where those be found. You, on the other hand, > > attack the truths wherever they be found, probably because TRUTHS > > invalidate much of what you were taught was high-and-mighty in > > school. Have fun defending the errors in science to your grave, > > PD. No Einstein > > Well, it appears that we are just acknowledging different statements > as truth. You maintain yours are. > I maintain the ones that are supported by experimental evidence and > aren't merely the result of just "thinking about things" are the > truth. > So, when there is a conflict between experimental evidence and the > result of just "thinking about things," then one or the other needs to > be acknowledged and the other dismissed. I think I've chosen properly, > and I think you've chosen out of ego. > > > > > P. S.: You never have acknowledged that there is a COASTING > > component accruing within the 'distance of fall' of all near Earth > > objects that causes the time vs. distance plot to be a parabola, > > rather than a straight line. > > Oh, but I have. This is built into Newtonian mechanics. You think it > is something new, but it is not. > > > Until you understand the COASTING > > component, you can't understand that KE is accruing UNIFORMLY with > > respect to time. Side-stepping science TRUTHS is your specialty, > > isn't it, PD. > > No, sir, the experimental evidence shows that the KE accrues > NONuniformly with time. This is even with the coasting element > acknowledged. > I showed you several times that this is the case. > Kinetic energy accrues with work. > Work is the product of force and distance. > Even when the force is nonzero and constant, the distance increases in > subsequent intervals, even including the coasting component. If the > distance is L in the first time increment, it will be *3L* in the next > time increment, and no subtraction of a coasting component will > restore that to the same contribution as in the first time increment. > This is *measured* to extreme precision. > > You're hosed, NoEinstein. Sorry. > Don't let your ego stand in the way of the confrontation between > experiment (truth) and reasoning (hit or miss). > > PD > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 5:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 3:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 12:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 12:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 23, 12:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth..net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 10:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear mpc755: I read that delightful little book in which A. A. > > > > > > > > > > > Michelson wrote the quote you cite. My "varying ether flow and > > > > > > > > > > > density" is the unifying discovery in all of nature. Michelson would > > > > > > > > > > > be thrilled that I found out why his experiment didn't work (no > > > > > > > > > > > control), and thrilled that I have found the grand unification > > > > > > > > > > > mechanism for all of nature. The latter is varying pressure and > > > > > > > > > > > velocity, much like in weather systems on Earth. But the ether ISN'T > > > > > > > > > > > displaced by matter! Ether flows THROUGH matter, only to be slowed by > > > > > > > > > > > the nuclei, in proportion to the mass. When you can realize that > > > > > > > > > > > fact, you and I will be on the same track. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > In the quote Michelson discuss aether displacement, "an aether > > > > > > > > > > displacement to the electric current". This is conceptually the same > > > > > > > > > > as Maxwell's displacement current. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, no. Displacement current and aether displacement have > > > > > > > > > absolutely nothing to do with each other. Please return to the > > > > > > > > > starting line and try again. > > > > > > > > > You must have missed this post: > > > > > > > > You must have missed the point of my statement, which is that > > > > > > > *Maxwell's* displacement current, which has nothing to do with > > > > > > > anything that de Broglie ever did, also has nothing to do with aether > > > > > > > displacement. So you are either wrong, or a bald-faced liar. Which is > > > > > > > it? > > > > > > > You must have missed this post: > > > > > > Well I could have guessed this was your strategy. > > > > > > You feel free to make any half-assed statement you feel like making, > > > > > and when you get a response -- any response at all -- that is your > > > > > opportunity to drop in your cut-and-paste book-in-progress, whether it > > > > > is relevant to the response or not. > > > > > > This is a combination of trolling and spamming, and you, sir, are an > > > > > abomination for being so shameless about it. Nothing here that is > > > > > worth more than mockery.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I just gave PD five stars for saying an absolute truth! Rare, rare > > > > indeed! NoEinstein > > > > I don't care about any stinking star ratings, let alone yours. Wallow > > > in whatever ego-stroking mechanisms you need, but don't include me.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 26 Apr 2010 12:09 On Apr 24, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear mpc755: Ether has zero drag on LIGHT, but a mass-proportional drag on matter. You should understand that difference. NE > > On Apr 24, 12:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear mpc755: If your agreeing with the science notions of A. A. > > Michelson makes you happy, BE happy. But you must realize that he was > > only speculating about how science MIGHT be, not saying how science > > IS. Like I explained, Michelson was a top technician of science, but > > NOT a top analyzer of the mechanisms of science. To his credit, > > Michelson, until his death, never accepted Lorentz's 'rubber ruler' > > velocity-transformation of all matter. Michelson had built enough > > things with his own two hands to KNOW that materials don't change > > lengths due to being exposed to various velocities. That said, > > Michelson was clueless to explain why his M-M experiment, and his mile- > > long Chicago interferometer experiment, got nil results. The REASON > > for the latter: Ether drag on light never occurs anywhere in the > > Universe! NoEinstein > > There does not seem to be much difference between aether drag and > aether 'slowing down' due to its interaction with matter. > > Either way, it doesn't make any difference until you are able to > describe what occurs physically in nature in order to cause the aether > to 'slow down'. > > Aether is 'localized' with respect to the matter because it is > displaced by the matter. The aether 'displaces back'. The 'displacing > back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter. The > pressure the aether exerts towards the matter is gravity. This > pressure causes the aether to be 'localized' with respect to the > matter. > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid > medium, or not. > > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 1:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear mpc755: Michelson was a very nice, detail-oriented man. But he > > > > lacked some critical analytical abilities. In Berlin, at Maxwell's > > > > urging, he 'tested' a low-cost version of his new interferometer > > > > design. Apparently, he lived next to a train station, so the > > > > interference fringes got obliterated by the vibrations, frequently. > > > > Michelson showed his general lack of analytical abilities by not > > > > realizing that the few seconds, to maybe a minute, in which he could > > > > see the interference rings (or bands) he should have been able to > > > > generalize that his design wasn't working as a detector of velocity.. > > > > Instead, he figured that his instrument wasn't precise enough, or > > > > vibration free enough, to detect the supposed (sic) drag of the ether > > > > on the velocity of light. > > > > > That same book has an illustration in back that shows a professional > > > > quality pen-and-ink perspective drawing of the M-M apparatus, that is > > > > located in a basement of what is now Case Western Reserve University. > > > > Of course, the precise version of the interferometer didn't work to > > > > detect velocity changes in light, either. Michelsonbeing a basically > > > > naive mentalitydecided to construct a 'mile long' interferometer near > > > > the University of Chicago. That instrument, too, failed to detect > > > > velocity changes in the light. Michelson showed both his humor, and > > > > his deceptiveness, by taking advantage of the optics alignment issues > > > > with the mile-long, to create the illusion that he had... detected the > > > > 'sine curve' he hoped to see. The reason he could do so, was because > > > > the mile-long was at a fixed location that couldn't be rotated. He > > > > realized that by selecting the right times of the day or night to plot > > > > the oscillations of the fringe pattern about the optical center of the > > > > instrument, he could cause the plotted points to approximate a sine > > > > curve. Someone with my analytical ability easily realized that he had > > > > selected the times of day to FAKE getting positive results. But I'm > > > > not laughing that he was a deeply honest man, nor very smart. I do > > > > applaud him for designing the Mt. Wilson interferometer to determine > > > > THE most accurate out-and-back measurement of the velocity of light > > > > (in air); and his most accurate measurement, in terms of the > > > > wavelength of light, of the length of the official METER stick in > > > > England. He would have been a great partner for constructing my own > > > > interferometer designs that DO detect Earth velocity in the cosmos. > > > > But not because of ether... drag on light. There is no such drag! > > > > NoEinstein > > > > Nothing you state above has anything to do with the quote where > > > Michelson discusses "aether displacement to the electric current". > > > This is conceptually the same as Maxwell's displacement current. > > > > If aether is 'slowed down' when it interacts with a nucleus then that > > > is due to its being displaced by the nuclei. > > > > A better term for the interaction of aether and matter is to describe > > > the aether as 'localized' by the matter. > > > > If a single nucleus is moving with constant momentum then the aether > > > is exerting equal pressure to each and every part of the nuclei. This > > > equal pressure is due to the nuclei displacing the aether. This equal > > > pressure is due to the aether 'displacing back'. The 'displacing back' > > > is the pressure the aether exerts towards the nuclei. > > > > The greater the constant momentum the more aether is displaced by the > > > nuclei the greater the aether 'displaces back'. This is what causes > > > the pressure to vary depending upon momentum. > > > > What your 'theory' is incapable of doing is describing what occurs > > > physically in order for the aether to 'slow down'. It can't be > > > friction or there would be no momentum. It is pressure. How does the > > > aether exert pressure towards the nucleus? Because the aether is > > > displaced by the nucleus and the aether 'displaces back'. > > > > The analogy is a particle moving through a frictionless super fluid/ > > > solid. > > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > > > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > > > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > > > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > > > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > > > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > > > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > > > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > > > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > > > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > > > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > > > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid > > > medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the > > > super fluid medium. > > > > A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is > > > at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an > > > individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in > > > the aether. > > > > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity > > > as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what > > > is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every > > > nucleus which is the matter which is the object. > > > > Once you add the concept of displacement to your theory you will then > > > understand what is causing the aether to 'slow down', or more > > > correctly to be 'localized'.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 26 Apr 2010 12:21 On Apr 24, 10:10 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: I forced myself to watch the first hour and a half of the 'History Channel" show about the Universe. The Big Bang was taken as a GIVEN (sic); and TIME was said not to exist until seconds after the super-expansion had taken place. Be it known: "TIME doesn't require the existence of energy, mass, nor SPACE for its existence!" If all of the latter ceased to exist, TIME would still be measuring the... boredom! NoEinstein > > On Apr 24, 11:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The big difference between us is that I > > > > acknowledge TRUTHS where those be found. You, on the other hand, > > > > attack the truths wherever they be found, probably because TRUTHS > > > > invalidate much of what you were taught was high-and-mighty in > > > > school. Have fun defending the errors in science to your grave, > > > > PD. No Einstein > > > > Well, it appears that we are just acknowledging different statements > > > as truth. You maintain yours are. > > > I maintain the ones that are supported by experimental evidence and > > > aren't merely the result of just "thinking about things" are the > > > truth. > > > So, when there is a conflict between experimental evidence and the > > > result of just "thinking about things," then one or the other needs to > > > be acknowledged and the other dismissed. I think I've chosen properly, > > > and I think you've chosen out of ego. > > > Believing the future determines the past needs to be dismissed. > > > Explain how what you choose to believe occurs physically in nature: > > > - The future determining the past > > - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing > > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair > > - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having > > a change in momentum. > > - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move > > - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is > > different than Maxwell's displacement current > > - Mass is not conserved. > > > The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: > > > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > > - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends > > past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced > > by the plates forces the plates together > > - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. > > When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its > > spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, > > the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. > > - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate > > aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits > > - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by > > matter. > > - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is the > > same conceptually as Maxwell's displacement current. > > - Matter and aether are different states of the same material. > > In E=mc^2, Energy is matter transitioning to aether. > > Mass is conserved.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Einstein thought of time as a predetermined order of course which is > the opposite of this order from the future. Anyway you look at it have > you ever gone anywhere and it wasn't in its own "now?" > > Mitch Raemsch; Forever now- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 26 Apr 2010 13:30
On Apr 26, 11:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear BLOCKHEAD PD, the Parasite Dunce: You have only a one neuron > brain (encased in concrete). So, to you 'experimental evidence' > matters even when the conclusions of such are WRONG. I'm sorry, John, but if you think that experimental results make no sense because it conflicts with your common sense, then your common sense is what's wrong. > IF as you say > (sic) the KE of falling objects accrues non-linearly (sic), then the > INPUT energyfrom the force of gravitymust be non linear, too > (sic). The input of energy comes from work. There is more to work than just the force. Recall the work is the *product* of force and displacement. So it is entirely possible for the force to be linear and the work to be nonlinear, or the force to be constant and the work to be non- constant. This is really not complicated, John, and 7th graders have no difficulty with it, so I don't know why you have such a problem with it. > NOTE: You must agree to that statement if you accept that the > Law of the Conservation of Energy is correct. Agreed? Then, tell me, > PD, what about the UNIFORM force of gravity is non linear? You've > already agreed that the VELOCITY of falling objects is increasing > uniformly in simple accelerations. Newton's Laws of Motion state that > a uniform force will cause one and only one associated acceleration. > If the acceleration is... 'g', then the uniform FORCE causing the > acceleration is the unchanging static WEIGHT of the falling object. Yes, indeed. But the work is not the force alone. The work is the *product* of the force times the displacement. In the first second, a gravitational force of 2 lbs will cause a rock to cover 16 ft, if it starts from rest. In the next second, the same gravitational force of 2 lbs on the same rock will cause the rock to cover an additional 48 ft. So you see, the work done on the rock, which is the amount of energy that gravity supplies to the rock, is three times higher in the second interval compared to the first interval, even though the force stays a constant 2 lbs. > > You typically escape from the above statements of truth by digging > into your dusty textbooks. Nope. Real experiments, done in freshman labs. > You then SHOEHORN the errant mechanical > definition of 'work' into the dropped object results. The latter are > errant simply because the equation doesn't clarify that the 'distance > of travel' is indicative of... 'work done' ONLY if there is a FORCE > being applied against a RESISTANCE which is equal and opposite. That simply isn't correct, John. If there were a resistance force that were equal and opposite, then the net force on the object would be zero. Newton advised us in the late 1600's that the net force is the product of mass and acceleration (F=ma, surely you've heard of it), so that if the net force is zero, then the acceleration is zero. So a dropped rock that is accelerating cannot possibly have zero net force on it. In fact, NOTHING that is accelerating can have a net force of zero acting on it. > That > means that when the force increases, the RESISTANCE increases by the > same amount. > > For dropped objects, the only force causing the one rate of > acceleration is the object's static weight. And the only RESISTANCE > is the object's INERTICthat exactly matches the static weight, > applied FORCE. Since the distance of fall with respect to time isn't > LINEAR, but parabolic, then, the ENTIRE non linear component of the > distance of fall has to be due to COASTINGbecause there isnt an > associated increase in either the applied force, OR the resistance. > > Folks, PD majored in high energy particle physics. I majored in > architecture and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. Of those majors, which one > would likely be the most proficient in understanding... the > applications of FORCES? Well, John, since the introductory courses that structural engineers and architects have to take are taught in physics departments, I'm sure it would be physicists that are more proficient. And since you seem have trouble with F=ma, let alone work, which are 7th grade concepts that are needed for a HIGH SCHOOL diploma, let alone structural engineer certification, I'm a little surprised you fooled your instructors enough to be admitted to college at all. > Im sure PD will invent ways to sidestep even > the clearest statements of truths. But as long as you readers out > there understand what I've explained, then PD can go jump-in-a-lake! > NoEinst > > > > > On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The big difference between us is that I > > > acknowledge TRUTHS where those be found. You, on the other hand, > > > attack the truths wherever they be found, probably because TRUTHS > > > invalidate much of what you were taught was high-and-mighty in > > > school. Have fun defending the errors in science to your grave, > > > PD. No Einstein > > > Well, it appears that we are just acknowledging different statements > > as truth. You maintain yours are. > > I maintain the ones that are supported by experimental evidence and > > aren't merely the result of just "thinking about things" are the > > truth. > > So, when there is a conflict between experimental evidence and the > > result of just "thinking about things," then one or the other needs to > > be acknowledged and the other dismissed. I think I've chosen properly, > > and I think you've chosen out of ego. > > > > P. S.: You never have acknowledged that there is a COASTING > > > component accruing within the 'distance of fall' of all near Earth > > > objects that causes the time vs. distance plot to be a parabola, > > > rather than a straight line. > > > Oh, but I have. This is built into Newtonian mechanics. You think it > > is something new, but it is not. > > > > Until you understand the COASTING > > > component, you can't understand that KE is accruing UNIFORMLY with > > > respect to time. Side-stepping science TRUTHS is your specialty, > > > isn't it, PD. > > > No, sir, the experimental evidence shows that the KE accrues > > NONuniformly with time. This is even with the coasting element > > acknowledged. > > I showed you several times that this is the case. > > Kinetic energy accrues with work. > > Work is the product of force and distance. > > Even when the force is nonzero and constant, the distance increases in > > subsequent intervals, even including the coasting component. If the > > distance is L in the first time increment, it will be *3L* in the next > > time increment, and no subtraction of a coasting component will > > restore that to the same contribution as in the first time increment. > > This is *measured* to extreme precision. > > > You're hosed, NoEinstein. Sorry. > > Don't let your ego stand in the way of the confrontation between > > experiment (truth) and reasoning (hit or miss). > > > PD > |