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 09:15 On May 6, 8:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: I learned to play the Cornet, by ear, to professional quality. > There were no lessons required, nor books to be read. NoEinstein And your assessment of professional quality is made by professionals? Or is all the assessment of your own accomplishments done by yourself? > > > > > On May 4, 7:24 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 11:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD: In large measure, BOOKS bias the readers. But my logical > > > thinking is without bias! NE > > > Just like "Professor" Harold Hill in Music Man, who teaches music via > > "the Think Method". > > > > > 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 - > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 09:17 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. >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 12:47 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 - > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 12:52 On May 6, 9:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No imbecile, not even you, PD, instructs me to do anything! NE > You can understand, John, why this would give the appearance of your being afraid to have your claims examined. You claim something is backed up in your references, and so -- unlike you -- I am more than willing to check out your cited references. Now suddenly you are waffling and being vague. This is the sure sign of someone caught in a lie. You wouldn't be a compulsive liar, would you John? I mean, that too would be reason not to trust you or your firm to do any architectural work. Are you a liar and a cheat? Remember, I'm specifically looking for the equation F=mv, where F is taken to denote force. If you're willing to recant the lie before it gets too deep, then you might salvage a small portion of your remaining dignity. > > > > > > Dear PD: A 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. Momentum and Impulse. (1.) Momentum > > > > > is defined as the product of the mass times velocity (mv)..." The > > > > > letter F is used for momentum, because the equation defines forces. > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > 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. > > > > > If this is what you learned physics from in your architectural > > > > studies, then I have absolutely no doubt that you and your firm are on > > > > thin legal ground. > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > The AUTHOR and the Title are all you need. NE > > > Then let me make sure we're talking about the same title, because > > Clarence E. Bennett has written the following: > > Physics Problems and How to Solve Them (1958, 1959, 1960, 1968, 1972, > > 1985) > > College Physics (College Outline Series) (1962, 1972) > > Physics Without Mathematics (College Outline Series) (1949, 1953, > > 1960, 1970) > > New Outline of First Year College Physics (1944, 1946, 1948) > > An Outline of First Year College Physics (College Outline Series) > > (1937, 1943) > > Physics (1952, 1954) > > First Year College Physics (1954) > > Descriptive Physics (1945) > > > As you can see, it's important that I know more about the particular > > title you own. The ISBN is either in the frontmatter or is printed on > > the back of the paperback. It's a 10-digit number right next to the > > letters I-S-B-N. Can you do that, John? >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 12:54
On May 6, 9:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Consider this, PD: The validity of any science theory is inversely > proportional to the time spend debating it. Einstein's 'relativity' > has been debated for over a century, and such is patently WRONG! > NoEinstein There is ongoing debate about whether the Earth is flat, John. http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Since this debate has been going on for 500 years, by your argument, the claim that the earth is round is 5x as wrong as relativity is. > > > > > On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > > > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > > > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > > > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > > > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > > > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, > > then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. > > > Now you don't seem so sure. > > > You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing > > to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law. And I > > want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark > > ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 > > years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are > > the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. > > > PD > > |