There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: spudnik on 4 May 2010 19:39 whoever thinks that "p = mv" has units of a force -- and what in Hell is the role of the Coriolis force in all o'this? > Dear spudnik: To whom are you replying? NE thus: most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor on your so-called theory. but, why do you say that conversation of momentum supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum of light in some standard theory? and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and that F = ma is not, merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > - The future determines the past > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair > - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits > simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having > a change in momentum. > - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move > - Michelson's "aether displacement to the electric current" is > different than Maxwell's displacement current > - Mass is not conserved. > - An electromagnetic field to have momentum. --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 19:57 On May 3, 12:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, Dunce: That little physics book I which referenced ERRED by implying that the 'units' of momentum is... "pound-feet/second." Momentum is velocity PROPORTIONAL. The latter doesn't require that the... "units" of the math be in the result! The air-head physicists who teach the courses don't know that a Momentum is simply a FORCE in pounds (not pound-feet/sec). Realizing the latter fact allows setting Newton's F = ma and F = mv to be equal. FORCES are the same in both cases! Since everyone with half a brain knows that ACCELERATION isn't = Velocity, then one of those equations has to be WRONG. Newton erred by having the 'm' in his equation at all! His equation should have been written: F = v / 32.174 (m). Note: for unit masses, the 'm' isn't there! If the 'v' is also 32.174 ft./sec., then the "force" would be just the static, Earth weight of the object. Double the v, and the force becomes two Earth weights, and etc. You should note that that latter equation is the second part of my... KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). VELOCITY is the determinate! And there is no need to explain about... SLUGS! NoEinstein > > On May 1, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Several times before you have referenced > > Newton's ERRANT F = ma. > > Ah, excellent, just so it's clear. You're problem then isn't with > Einstein and the physics of the 20th century. It's with all of physics > since the 1600's. Basically, it's just ALL plain wrong, everything > that is taught to schoolchildren from the 3rd grade on. And you, in > your infinite genius, have discovered this by the power of reason. > > > Most equations that contain a "mass" can be > > changed to be a UNIT mass of one pound (or whatever). The "textbook" > > definition of MOMENTUM is F = mv. > > I'm sorry, but that equation appears in no textbook anywhere. > If you disagree, cite the textbook and the page number. > > > The latter mass can also be changed > > to be a unit mass of one pound (or whatever). SO... Since both > > equations are forces, > > First of all, you just said it was an equation for momentum (though > you got it wrong), not a force. > > Good heavens, John, you've gotten confused two equations for two > different quantities, you can't even get one written down right and > you call the other one wrong. > > You're a mental case, John. > > > > > set the right half of the two equations to be > > EQUAL, or: ma = mv. Since the masses are both one pound unit masses, > > then, the resulting equation says: ACCELERATION = VELOCITY! Even an > > imbecile like you, PD, should realize that velocity, (or say) feet/ > > sec, isn't the same as feet/second EACH second! > > > Ironically, I was studying for college physics when I realized the > > conflict between those two equations. That same week, I concluded > > that the entire chapter on mechanics was screwed up. Newton' "Law", > > in words, says: For every uniform force, there is one and only one > > associated acceleration. The correct equation for that should have > > been F = a, provided, of course, that the relationships between those > > two variables are stipulated, or are included in a less generalized > > equation. > > > The equation for MOMENTUM, F = mv, is correct! For objects in free > > fall, or objects that are accelerating, the correct kinetic energy > > formula is my own: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The latter replaces > > both KE = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2 / beta. What contributions have > > YOU made to science, PD? Ha. ha, HA! NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 19:58 On May 3, 12:49 pm, Ralph Garbage <ralph.rabbi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 7:53 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. > > He wouldn't accept it if you did. The ghost of Einstein so severely > vexes John that he's paralyzed with the fear of having to face the > obvious fact that he's very, very stupid. The only thing remarkable > about John is just how vacant he is.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ralph WHO? NE
From: Timo Nieminen on 4 May 2010 19:59 On Tue, 4 May 2010, NoEinstein wrote: > On May 3, 5:10 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > Dear Timo: There was a jealous tone to your insistence that I stop > whatever I'm doing and start doing experiments to define how best to > correct Newton's errant Law of Universal (sic) Gravitation. Don't lie. I insisted no such thing, did not suggest that _you_ do any such experiments. I said it might be worthwhile for _me_ to do the experiment. _I_ am not _you_, and I don't see why, given your great intellect, you would misunderstand. What is necessary for the experiment to be worth doing is a quantitative prediction of how large the effect should be. If your ability is within an order of magnitude of what you claim, this should take you no more than a few hours (at the absolute most; well under an hour is far more likely). You don't care to provide the necessary information - not my problem, I simply won't do the experiment.
From: NoEinstein on 4 May 2010 19:58
On May 3, 12:53 pm, Ralph Garbage <ralph.rabbi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 8:02 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 1, 9:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Several times before you have referenced > > > Newton's ERRANT F = ma. > > > Ah, excellent, just so it's clear. You're problem then isn't with > > Einstein and the physics of the 20th century. It's with all of physics > > since the 1600's. Basically, it's just ALL plain wrong, everything > > that is taught to schoolchildren from the 3rd grade on. And you, in > > your infinite genius, have discovered this by the power of reason. > > > > Most equations that contain a "mass" can be > > > changed to be a UNIT mass of one pound (or whatever). The "textbook" > > > definition of MOMENTUM is F = mv. > > > I'm sorry, but that equation appears in no textbook anywhere. > > If you disagree, cite the textbook and the page number. > > > > The latter mass can also be changed > > > to be a unit mass of one pound (or whatever). SO... Since both > > > equations are forces, > > > First of all, you just said it was an equation for momentum (though > > you got it wrong), not a force. > > > Good heavens, John, you've gotten confused two equations for two > > different quantities, you can't even get one written down right and > > you call the other one wrong. > > > You're a mental case, John. > > He's just extremely stupid.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ralph WHO? NE |