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: spudnik on 7 May 2010 16:28 and, can you demonstrate the Coriolis effect or force?... couldn't be anything more important to the weather! --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:32 On May 7, 9:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Everyone can form their own opinions. You, with certainty, are a jealous imbecile. You never talk science, only processeswhich never caused you to accomplish anything worthy. NE > > On May 6, 9:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Common sense sure... "cheated" you, PD, because you don't have any! > > That's why YOU are a liarto compensate! NoEinstein > > If you will answer the multiple-choice question below on the basis of > your common-sense, then this will be an excellent test of whether > common-sense is a liar and a cheat. > > Are you afraid to confront the truth about your common sense, John? > Are you not strong enough to inspect common sense in the face to learn > whether it should be trusted? Are you a man, John, or a spineless > weakling? > > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:42 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 11:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Dunce: Those who... escape into books are the ones with the > > > > phobiasmainly being found-out not to have much common sense. > > > > NoEinstein > > > > Common sense is a liar and a cheat, NoEinstein. > > > Here is an example, in a multiple-choice question. Which answer is > > > correct? > > > You toss a watermelon horizontally off the roof of a 10-story > > > building. Which statement is correct about the motion of the > > > watermelon, according to your common sense? > > > a) The horizontal motion slows down until gravity can overcome the > > > horizontal motion and drive vertical motion. > > > b) Gravity turns horizontal motion into vertical motion. > > > c) The horizontal motion stays completely unchanged, and vertical > > > motion is added by gravity. > > > d) The watermelon proceeds in a diagonal line to the ground, with > > > constant components of horizontal and vertical motion.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:35 On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Alright, then. What IS momentum? You have the floor to showcase your stupidity. NE > > On May 6, 9:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: The L. C. catalogue card number is: 5241857. (look on page 19). > > Here's the response to my query at the Library of Congress: > The LCCN you entered [ 5241857 ] was not found in the Library of > Congress Online Catalog. > Are you lying, John? > What's the ISBN? > > > Also, my The Wiley Engineer's Desk Reference, by Stanford I. Heisler, > > on page 94, says momentum = mv. > > That is different than F=mv. Momentum is not force. > > Moreover, this is not a good definition of momentum, though it is a > useful approximation for engineers, not suitable for physics. > > > A scripted style of the "m" is used > > to differentiate from "mass". That book errs by saying that the > > "units" is: (mass)-feet/secondwhich is bullshit! > > And yet you would have me trust this Wiley Engineer's Desk Reference, > when you don't believe it yourself. When are you going to support any > of your assertions, John, other than blustering about what comes out > of your own head? > > > > > Momentum is > > measured in pounds! It is velocity proportional, and that is a > > simple, unit-less FRACTION NE > > > > On May 5, 2:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD loves to extrapolate things into unworkability, so he can claim > > > > everything was invalid. MOMENTUM is: F = mv, expressed in pounds. > > > > He'll find that same equation (but not the correct units, pounds) in > > > > most textbooks. NE > > > > No, I won't, John. That equation F=mv is not listed in most > > > textbooks. > > > When you can clearly identify which title you think DOES have that > > > listed, then I can look for myself. > > > As it is, since you obviously have problems reading an understanding a > > > single sentence from beginning to end, I have my doubts. > > > > > > On May 4, 1:07 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > > > > > > > PD (thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com) writes: > > > > > > > On May 3, 10:07=A0pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Dear PD: =A0A thin "College Outline Series" book (that fits into the > > > > > > >> bookcase behind my computer chair) entitled "Physics", by Clarence E > > > > > > >> Bennett, states on page 19: "G. =A0Momentum and Impulse. =A0(1.) =A0Momen= > > > > > > > tum > > > > > > >> is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." =A0The > > > > > > >> letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. =A0= > > > > > > > =97 > > > > > > >> NoEinstein =97 > > > > > > > > Oh, good grief. John, what is the ISBN on this book? I'd like to > > > > > > > secure it to look at it. > > > > > > > From what it is you just told me is in it, if I can verify that you > > > > > > > can indeed read it correctly, it is a horrible, horrible booklet and > > > > > > > should be burned as worthless. > > > > > > > To quote the Spartans on a quite different occasion: If. > > > > > > > I can't help noticing that the actual quoted passage is reasonable and > > > > > > the inference about forces is purely in NE's words. > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > For what it's worth, momentum's *definition* is not mv, either. > > > > > Electromagnetic fields have momentum, but this expression certainly > > > > > does not work for them. The formula works for a certain class of > > > > > matter-based objects traveling at low speed, and that's it. > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 16:36 true, I'm more into the *theory* of music, which is a part of numbertheory, which is a part of *mathematica*. > I can hold-my-own in any brass band. And you? thus: why should Leibniz's rule on KE, violate conservation of energy -- isn't the onus upon you, to show that? why do you believe that waves of light have mass or momentum -- because of an equation? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 16:38
OK; how about: define what you think is the Coriolis effect or force, or why you think it is wrong in your application. thus: why should Leibniz's rule on KE, violate conservation of energy -- isn't the onus upon you, to show that? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop) |