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: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:24 On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is a post about GRAVITY, PD. If you wish to discuss... Relativity, go were so many other dunces are: sci.relativity! NE > > 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:25 On May 5, 11:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is a post about GRAVITY, PD. If you wish to discuss... Relativity, go were so many other dunces are: sci.relativity! NE > > On May 5, 2:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Dear PD: Show me any "test" proving that all materials shrink (or > > expand) an identical percentage in response to velocity changes, and > > the same amount regardless of the size and shape of the material. > > First of all, it would help if you understood what relativity actually > says. > * It does not say that materials shrink "an identical percentage in > response to velocity changes". The functional relationship between > length and velocity is certainly not a proportional one. It involves > the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is nothing like a proportionality > to v. > * You seem to think that this shrinkage would be obvious to the naked > eye if it were in effect. It would be worth it for you to sit with a > calculator and actually figure out how much shorter something is if > it's moving at 10 mph, 100 mph, 1000 mph. Take a paper clip, measure > it, and then use the factor above to calculate how much shorter it > would be at those speeds. Then tell me whether this is in fact > something you should expect to notice with the naked eye. Numbers are > important, John. > * The shrinkage predicted by relativity only applies to reference > frames in which the object is observed to be *moving*. The paper clip > sitting on your desk is not moving in your reference frame, is it? (If > you claim it is, then you claim you are as well, and in that case, I > would ask you what you think your velocity is right this second. You > don't even have to give me a number. Just tell me how you *would* > calculate it. What is the reference point that you would mark your > velocity with respect to?) > > > If > > such a contraction occurred, loose paperclips on your desk would > > rotate like compass needles to be aligned perpendicular to the > > compressive force (sic) of velocity. Additionally, all of the matter > > in the Earth would be alternately squeezed and relaxed (due to the > > ever-changing velocity component of the Earth), until either the Earth > > became a molten BLOB, or until the Earth stopped rotating on its axis > > and orbiting the Sun. > > Again, you have a confusion about what relativity actually says. > Relativistic length changes are NOT due to a physical compression like > squeezing something in a vise or driving something through a wind. > > > > > > > Of course, all of those would mean that none of > > us are alive... So very sad... that you are so BRAINLESS! Ha, ha, > > HA! 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? > > You haven't answered this question, John. > > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:30 On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Energy IN must = energy OUT. Since KE = 1/2mv^2 can't meet that requirement, then it is 100% in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy; and no 'consensus' of physicists (ha!) who say otherwise, can change that fact! NE > > On May 4, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: IF, as you've just said, everyone knows > > that the KE equation (KE = 1/2mv^2) is inconsistent with the Law of > > the Conservation of energy, then you've just agreed that the former is > > WRONG! > > But I didn't say that, John. I said that the KE equation above is > completely CONSISTENT with the Law of Conservation of Energy. > > I think I've isolated the source of your great difficulties, John. You > cannot comprehend the meaning of a single sentence that you read. Did > you understand THAT? > > > > > The physicists whom YOU know may not be concerned, but the > > Laws of Nature are very, very mad, indeed! NoEinstein > > > > 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. That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, > > > or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers > > > didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that > > > all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > > > > > Einstein got physicists > > > > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > > > > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > > > > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > > > > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > > > > publication. > > > > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > > > > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > > > > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > > > > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). > > > > I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the > > > Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the > > > expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only > > > you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? > > > > If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a > > > zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class > > > genius or a world-class fool? > > > > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > > > > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > > > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > > > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > > > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > > > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > > > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you. > > > > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > > > > here to you. > > > > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > > > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > > > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > > > > professional musician. > > > > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > > > > judge. > > > > > > > I've made two most > > > > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta. > > > > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > > > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > > > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > > > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > > > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > > > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > > > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > > > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > > > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > > > > to one! > > > > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > > > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing. > > > > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're > > > > > > > talking about is beyond 7th grade science level. > > > > > > > > You on the other hand seem to be more worried about winning some kind > > > > > > > of battle or contest, and to you winning means: > > > > > > > - that you talk longer than anyone else, ensuring that you always have > > > > > > > the last word > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* you to believe what 7th graders have no > > > > > > > difficulty understanding > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* to you stop talking > > > > > > > - that you stick by your guns, no matter what, regardless of how > > > > > > > stupid it starts to sound even to you > > > > > > > - disparaging your respondents by calling them negativists and other > > > > > > > assorted names > > > > > > > - that you have offered a retort to every single response to your > > > > > > > posts. > > > > > > > > By that metric, someone who firmly believes that 17+4=32, and who > > > > > > > insists on this long after the last person has walked away, and who > > > > > > > insists that 2nd grade math teachers are obviously wrong, and who is > > > > > > > proud that no one has been able to get him to stop saying 17+4=32, and > > > > > > > who calls people who believe otherwise to be ninnies and brainwashed > > > > > > > -- well, by golly, in your eyes that person has won > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:36 On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Dunce: You take any TRUTH; generalize it to absurdity; then claim that the truth is wrong. Actually, the only thing wrong is your (sidestepping) generalizations into absurdity! NoEinstein > > 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 11 May 2010 09:14
On May 11, 7:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: Energy IN must = energy OUT. Since KE = 1/2mv^2 can't meet that > requirement, then it is 100% in violation of the Law of the > Conservation of Energy; and no 'consensus' of physicists (ha!) who say > otherwise, can change that fact! NE But it does meet that requirement. I showed you exactly how, just the other day. It seems you are slipping, NoEinstein, no longer able to remember what was said the day before. So each day is brand new to you. You could hide your own Christmas presents. It's a shame you've slipped into senility, but it does give me pause on how much effort to expend on a serious reply to you. > > > On May 4, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: IF, as you've just said, everyone knows > > > that the KE equation (KE = 1/2mv^2) is inconsistent with the Law of > > > the Conservation of energy, then you've just agreed that the former is > > > WRONG! > > > But I didn't say that, John. I said that the KE equation above is > > completely CONSISTENT with the Law of Conservation of Energy. > > > I think I've isolated the source of your great difficulties, John. You > > cannot comprehend the meaning of a single sentence that you read. Did > > you understand THAT? > > > > The physicists whom YOU know may not be concerned, but the > > > Laws of Nature are very, very mad, indeed! NoEinstein > > > > > 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. That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, > > > > or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers > > > > didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that > > > > all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > > > > > > Einstein got physicists > > > > > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > > > > > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > > > > > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > > > > > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > > > > > publication. > > > > > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > > > > > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > > > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > > > > > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > > > > > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). > > > > > I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the > > > > Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the > > > > expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only > > > > you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? > > > > > If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a > > > > zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class > > > > genius or a world-class fool? > > > > > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > > > > > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > > > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > > > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > > > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > > > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > > > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > > > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > > > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > > > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > > > > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > > > > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > > > > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > > > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > > > > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > > > > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you. > > > > > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > > > > > here to you. > > > > > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > > > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > > > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > > > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > > > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > > > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > > > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > > > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > > > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > > > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > > > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > > > > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > > > > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > > > > > professional musician. > > > > > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > > > > > judge. > > > > > > > > I've made two most > > > > > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > > > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > > > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > > > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta. > > > > > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > > > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > > > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > > > > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > > > > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > > > > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > > > > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > > > > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > > > > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > > > > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > > > > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > > > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > > > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > > > > > to one! > > > > > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > > > > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > > > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > > > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > > > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > > > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing. > > > > > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're > > > > > > > > talking about is beyond 7th grade science level. > > > > > > > > > You on the other hand seem to be more worried about winning some kind > > > > > > > > of battle or contest, and to you winning means: > > > > > > > > - that you talk longer than anyone else, ensuring that you always have > > > > > > > > the last word > > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* you to believe what 7th graders have no > > > > > > > > difficulty understanding > > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* to you stop talking > > > > > > > > - that you stick by your guns, no matter what, regardless of how > > > > > > > > stupid it starts to sound even to you > > > > > > > > - disparaging your respondents by calling them negativists and other > > > > > > > > assorted names > > > > > > > > - that you have offered a retort to every single response to your > > > > > > > > posts. > > > > > > > > > By that metric, someone who firmly believes that 17+4=32, and who > > > > > > > > insists on this long after the last person has walked away, and who > > > > > > > > insists that 2nd grade math teachers are obviously wrong, and who is > > > > > > > > proud that no one has been able to get him to stop saying 17+4=32, and > > > > > > > > who calls people who believe otherwise to be ninnies and brainwashed > > > > > > > > -- well, by golly, in your eyes that person has won > > > ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |