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: PD on 7 May 2010 18:15 On May 7, 3:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 I've just explained that elsewhere in another post. Perhaps you can use your tools properly to find it. > > > > > 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: PD on 7 May 2010 18:16 On May 7, 3:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 In the meantime, you could confess that what your reference actually says does not support in any way your ridiculous claim that F=mv. It's just something you made up. > > > > > 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: bert on 7 May 2010 18:40 On May 7, 6:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 3:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: No. Since you are a fraud, I would be > > happy if you could find, and paraphrase, even one bit of evidence > > supporting, Lorentz. He and Einstein (ha!) were meant for each other! > > NE > > Oh, this is easy. There is a circular track that circulates muons at a > lab called g-2. > > Here is a picture of it, in case you doubt it's real:http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/pictures/g2magnet2.jpg > > The ring is about 30 feet across and about 90 feet around. Muons at > rest live for 2.2 microseconds, which is easily observed with a Navy > surplus oscilloscope. If the muons lived that long in the ring, they > would go around the ring about 24 times before decaying. Instead, they > go around 37 times. That is, they live longer when they are traveling > fast around the ring. But the extra time they have before decaying is > exactly what Lorentz time dilation says they will have. Perfect > example of just one bit of evidence that time dilation is real. There > is of course scads and scads of further evidence. > > There. Short and sweet, and indisputable. > > > > > > > > On May 6, 8:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If you have "other" supporting evidence > > > > for Lorentz (ha!), paraphrase it! You are all bluster and no > > > > substance! NoEinstein > > > > John, as I said, there are SCORES of independent experiments that have > > > all provided experimental evidence. You might as well be asking for a > > > paraphrased summary of the support for Newton's laws of motion. > > > > If you want to understand the depth of the experimental support, then > > > you're going to have to immerse yourself in the OVERWHELMINGLY MASSIVE > > > documentation of that support. That's the only way to truly convince > > > yourself. > > > > > > On May 4, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Whatever the truth is, PD contorts it. "Rubber Rulers" has no > > > > > > supporting experiment! Lorentz, the imbecile, used RR to 'explain' > > > > > > the nil results of M-M. Then, supposed scientists say that M-M > > > > > > SUPPORTS Lorentz! Where are the brains, and WHERE is the scientific > > > > > > method! NE > > > > > > Of course there are supporting experiments, John. You seem to be under > > > > > the impression that the MMX was the only experiment ever done to test > > > > > relativity and that the whole of relativity rests on this one > > > > > experiment, so that if you somehow fault the MMX, then all of > > > > > relativity falls. > > > > > > Nothing could be further from the truth, John. Relativity has been > > > > > tested in scores of experiments, all independent of each other. > > > > > > > > On May 3, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > > > > > > > > > > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > > > > > > > > > > because you don't know HOW to reason! > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes > > > > > > > > > the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, > > > > > > > > > not by logic. > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: WHERE was the "scientific method" when Lorentz proposed his > > > > > > > > ANTI-ENGINEERING, "rubber ruler" explanation for the nil results of M- > > > > > > > > M? > > > > > > > > Lorentz's proposal was subject to experimental test, NoEinstein. > > > > > > > That's how science works. > > > > > > > And what on earth makes you think that this stuff is "anti- > > > > > > > engineering"? > > > > > > > Perhaps you don't know that engineers make use of relativity in their > > > > > > > designs whenever it is needed? If it's anti-engineering, why are > > > > > > > engineers happy to use it as needed? > > > > > > > > > And where was the scientific method when both Coriolis and > > > > > > > > Einstein wrote energy equations that were exponential, and thus in > > > > > > > > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > > > > > > > Those energy equations have also been thoroughly tested in experiment, > > > > > > > John, exactly as I was stating. You on the other hand are trying to > > > > > > > rule them out with your bandy-legged logic, rather than considering > > > > > > > independently verified experimental tests. > > > > > > > > > When the truth be > > > > > > > > known, PD, is this low I. Q. flunky who compensates by constantly > > > > > > > > faulting his superiors. He has never stated a single contribution > > > > > > > > that he has made to science. For one who devotes so much time to... > > > > > > > > 'science' shouldn't PD have... "something" to show for it? > > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > What do you think I should have to show for it, John? > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Lets go with both push and pull. Brian Greene can live with that. My concave & convex theory has that at its heart. Reality is all "forces" can be push pull or both. O ya Trebert Push Pull works for magnetisim
From: NoEinstein on 8 May 2010 23:58 On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hell, PD! I wrote the BOOK on mechanics! If you insist: The LC no. is 52-41875, published by Barnes and Noble. And I never said I believed everything in that Wiley Handbook. Some of the conversion factors are useful. Since you are a book-a-holic, how is it you've never made a single positive contribution to the world of science? 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: NoEinstein on 9 May 2010 00:13
On May 5, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 'C' is close, PD. If you like quizzes, how come you never took my: Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... ? You're more than happy to divert attention from your non- understanding of science. 90% of the readers surely realize that. NE > > 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. > > > > > > > > On May 3, 9:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 11:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 1, 8:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 1, 11:04 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Nice "try" PD: Like I've told you a hundred times, PARAPHRASE, or > > > > > > copy, what you want me to read. You, an imbecile, don't qualify to > > > > > > tell me (who's off the top of the I. Q. chart) what I should do.. You > > > > > > can only dream that I would care to follow your instructions, in any > > > > > > regard. NoEinstein > > > > > > OK, so I take it that you refuse to do one of these steps > > > > > 1) Vacate your chair > > > > > 2) Take your butt to the library > > > > > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > > > > > 4) Read > > > > > either because you're incapable of it or you are too lazy. > > > > > > Sorry, but I am not a nursemaid, and I don't cut other people's meat > > > > > for them, and I don't serve their meat on a rubber coated spoon, even > > > > > if they whine that they won't eat it any other way. Starve, if you > > > > > like. > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I'm not "starving" for any information > > > > that you are unwilling to provide. And I'm pretty certain that the > > > > readers aren't starving for what you have to say, either. > > > > Other readers don't seem to have the same phobias about opening books > > > that you do, John. > > > > > The few > > > > times that you've opened your mouth and said anything at all about > > > > science, youve put your foot in you mouth. You must be surviving > > > > on... toenails, PD. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: I, sir, am King of the Hill in science. > > > > > > > > If you would like for the readers to see some "textbook definition" > > > > > > > > which you claim is more valid than my F. & W. Standard College > > > > > > > > Dictionary, then copy and paste your definition for the world to see. > > > > > > > > *** Put up or shut up, PD! *** You've done nothing to even hint that > > > > > > > > you have objectivity in scienceonly empty bluster. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > Good grief. OK, I'll come part way. You do some work too. > > > > > > > Go to the library and ask for Giancoli, Physics, any edition more > > > > > > > recent than than the 4th. > > > > > > > See sections 2-2 and 2-3. In my copy, that's pages 21-23. > > > > > > > There, I have made the search bonehead simple for you. All you have to > > > > > > > do is > > > > > > > 1) Vacate your chair > > > > > > > 2) Take your butt to the library > > > > > > > 3) Open the book to the pages I mentioned > > > > > > > 4) Read- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |