Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New Volcanic Activity This Week- Three~~ Total 16 active
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: PD on 18 Sep 2009 15:03 On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > your own words". > > You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > blurred distinction? > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > aisles! NoEinstein All of them. Imagine! Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry is based on physics. And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of biology is based on chemistry. Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be believed! All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is probably wrong, too.
From: doug on 18 Sep 2009 16:07 PD wrote: > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: >> >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce >>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything >>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status >>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In >>>>your DREAMS, that is! � NoEinstein � >> >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in >>>your own words". >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a >>>blurred distinction? >> >> >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION >>aisles! � NoEinstein � > > > All of them. Imagine! > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > is based on physics. > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > biology is based on chemistry. > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > believed! > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > probably wrong, too. This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own criteria. >
From: PD on 18 Sep 2009 15:31 On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>your own words". > >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>blurred distinction? > > >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>aisles! NoEinstein > > > All of them. Imagine! > > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > is based on physics. > > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > biology is based on chemistry. > > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > believed! > > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > probably wrong, too. > > This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > criteria. John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get the license.
From: doug on 18 Sep 2009 16:38 PD wrote: > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>PD wrote: >> >>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: >> >>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to >>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made >>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic >>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my >>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce >>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything >>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status >>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any >>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In >>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! � NoEinstein � >> >>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in >>>>>your own words". >>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the >>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a >>>>>blurred distinction? >> >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION >>>>aisles! � NoEinstein � >> >>>All of them. Imagine! >>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry >>>is based on physics. >>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of >>>biology is based on chemistry. >>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be >>>believed! >>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is >>>probably wrong, too. >> >>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they >>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own >>criteria. > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > the license. And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are from the architects who did read the books?
From: PD on 18 Sep 2009 15:56
On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>PD wrote: > > >>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>>>your own words". > >>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>>>blurred distinction? > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > >>>All of them. Imagine! > >>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > >>>is based on physics. > >>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > >>>biology is based on chemistry. > >>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > >>>believed! > >>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > >>>probably wrong, too. > > >>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > >>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > >>criteria. > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > the license. > > And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > from the architects who did read the books? Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close to right! |