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 12 May 2010 23:37 On May 9, 8:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Nice humor! The gravity acting on me at the top of the hill (flat ground) will be less than the gravity on PD, halfway up the hill. Plus, I am trim; while PD is a couch potato. His bottom covers 2/3rds of the couch! NE > > On May 9, 5:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:> On May 7, 9:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: In spite of what you might be wishing, defending against YOU > > is making me stronger. You have yet to get even halfway up the hill > > that I am King of! NE > > Maybe you'lll be pushed down the hill! > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 23:39 On May 10, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Not MY failure, but the publisher's failure. On page 19 it says F = mv. That's all you need to know. NE > > On May 8, 10:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > Thank you for trying to correct your typo. However, it still doesn't > work with the Library of Congress index. > I do suggest the ISBN. You've tried twice to provide me a correct > Library of Congress catalog number and have failed at that. > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 23:46 On May 10, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: In arguments over FORCES, the engineers and architects, who deal in real world problems, trump the HEP Physics majors who only know about the small and the insignificant. If a 250 pound linebacker hits you with a stated velocity, you will experience the action of a weight and velocity proportional FORCE. And all forces are in POUNDS, only! NE > > On May 9, 7:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD, the Parasite Dunce, is hamstrung to the science formulas in > > textbooks. He, and perhaps some of you, cant fathom that simple > > logic can invalidate many of those. > > Ah, I see. Keep in mind that you've already AGREED with the facts as I > stated them below, and all I did was do use simple arithmetic to find > the ratios. Are you now recanting the facts? If so, which ones below > do you take issue with? Is it the values of the displacement? Is it > the values of the velocity? Is it the constancy of the force? Or do > you find that there is an arithmetic error somewhere? Or are you > claiming that if the arithmetic result is in conflict with your common > sense, then arithmetic must also be fundamentally in error? > > > The most common error in many > > equation types, is to allow the units of proportionality factors to > > be included in the units of the results. > > > The interesting TV show, MythBusters, enjoys crashing things or > > hitting things. I was amazed to hear those guys state that the > > calculated forces of impact are such-and-such foot-pounds. > > This is why TV shows are not to be taken as good references, John. > > > Foot- > > pounds? The latter is, actually the term for MOMENT, or the tendency > > of a force to cause a rotation about some fulcrum or point of pivot. > > The laughable units for MOMENTUM thats shown in many textbooks is: > > pound-feet/sec (sic). > > Which textbooks show those units of momentum? > > > That might be logical, because momentum is = > > mass times velocity, or mv. However, the v, in this case, is part > > of a proportionality fraction that becomes unit-less. To explain: > > > If a mass, like say, a 250 pound linebacker, has a velocity in some > > direction, and you are standing in his path, you will be hit by a > > force. Since that force is dependent on how heavy the linebacker > > is, and how fast he is moving just before hitting you, then the > > correct way to write the equation for momentum is F (or force) = mv. > > No, sir. You've just made that up. It does not appear in any > textbooks. > > > In many texts, the letter p is substituted for force or reactions. > > No sir. On this you are simply mistaken. The letter p is used to > denote MOMENTUM, not force, in physics. I really don't care if you > found somewhere in an Steel Handbook where a force is labeled with a > p. In the formula p = mv, none of those variables denotes force. None. > > > In > > fact, the letter p is used in all of the beam analysis equations in > > the AISC Steel Handbook that must show a point load or force. When I > > told PD that the equation for momentum is F = mv, stated in POUNDS, he > > accused me of lying. > > Yes, indeed, you are lying. > > > Because pwhich means FORCE, > > It does not. You are lying. > > > fis different > > alphabetically PD supposes that momentum must be a different > > animal than force. But, as usual, he is wrong! > > > Newtons second law states: A continuous, uniform forcewhen applied > > to a frictionless and unrestrained bodywill accelerate the body in > > the direction of the force, and in proportion to the force. The > > equation for Newtons law thats usually shown in texts is: F = ma. > > The momentum formula, thats in the above paragraph, is a close cousin > > to Newtons when it comes to measuring the force of impact, because > > the aspect of acceleration which quantifies the expected force to be > > delivered is the instantaneous VELOCITY right before the object (like > > the 250 pound linebacker) impacts. > > Sorry, but you've just made that up, and it is wrong. Newton was > right. You are wrong. > > > > > A 250 pound linebacker traveling 8 feet/second (1/4th of the g > > velocity increase) will deliver a force (f or p) of 62.5 pounds. > > No, John, that is just plain wrong. You don't have the foggiest idea > how to use Newton's equations. > > Here's a way to tell, John. According to you, if a baseball pitcher > throws a baseball at a catcher at the same speed, then the force > delivered to the catcher will be the same, whether the catcher "gives" > with his hand or not. Any 8-year-old boy will tell you this is wrong. > > You've used Newton's 2nd law wrong all these years, and you still > passed exams enough to be certified as an architect? I'm horrified, > John. All your customers should be horrified as well. > > > > > That > > would be exactly how hard a 250 pound linebacker would hit if he was > > accelerating 32 ft./sec. for ¼ second. A proviso is that he not > > continue to accelerate once the other player is impacted. > > > Since kinetic energy is the force-delivery potential of falling > > objects, as well as for objects traveling at any set velocity, Ive > > determined that KE and momentum are interchangeable terms, with THIS > > important exception: Objects that are RESTRAINED, but being acted on > > by a potentially propulsive force, will have the latter propulsive > > force ADDED to the force of impact. My mathematically and > > experimentally verified formula for kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + > > v / 32.174 (m). The a/g will be 1 for objects being acted on by > > Earth gravity. So, the KE of objects being restrained prior to > > release is already one weight unit, even before any downward motion > > happens! The v / 32.174 (m) is the same unit-less PROPORTIONALITY > > factor that is in the momentum equation. Heretofore, the masses were > > required to be converted to SLUGS (32 pounds) in order to find the > > force. My velocity-variant fraction is more intuitive and doesnt > > require an explanation of usage below the equation. It is the > > omission of the conditions of usage, or applicability, that cause the > > proliferation of errant equations. The way I was able to master > > equations was to express what those say in clear English. When > > different users of equations have different ideas what the variables > > and the constants mean, there can be big trouble. > > > In most cases, my New Science will make the equations simpler and more > > intuitive. Does anyone, other than PD, fault that? 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 23:49 On May 11, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, the Dunce, never, ever discusses SCIENCE! NE > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 23:51
On May 11, 9:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: ISBN numbers must be bought. Since Barnes and Nobel sold the books in their own stores, they needed nothing "international". NE > > On May 11, 7:36 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > This from the man who can't find the ISBN number of a book, and can't > accurately copy down a Library of Congress catalog number. > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |