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 11 May 2010 09:15 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 - > >
From: PD on 11 May 2010 14:14 On May 11, 7:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Please PARAPHRASE, in your own words, > any experiment which you... "claim" supports RUBBER RULERS. Note: You > are hoping to 'change the subject' to relativity, because there is > more SMOKE and MIRRORS, there. You also, said that I stated that the > Rubber Rulers contraction (sic) of Lorentz is linear. You can't find > such a reply. I've always called... "beta" a waterfall curve. It is > YOU, PD, who make things up. You never state actual science, because > you dont UNDERSTAND science! NoEinstein > > Sure. You also asked for experimental evidence for time dilation and I gave you a good example. I sure hope that hasn't slipped your mind already. After all, that was just a day or so ago. But in the present case, I'll tell you about the RHIC collider, where nuclei are scattered from nuclei. Here, it is important that the density of the material in the nuclei be high enough to generate the signal they are looking for. And the relativistic shortening of the nuclei along the direction of travel lowers the nuclear volume and therefore increases the density. This effect was directly built into the RHIC design, so that it would fail catastrophically if it weren't there. But the effect has indeed been seen, and so we know that RHIC did not fail catastrophically, and therefore we know that relativistic length contraction does in fact act. Again, this is but one example. So, recapping, you asked for any single experiment that shows evidence of time dilation, and I gave you one. You asked for any single experiment that shows evidence of length contraction, and I gave you one. PD
From: PD on 11 May 2010 14:16 On May 7, 5:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 3:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: No. Since you are a fraud, I would be > > happy if you could find, and paraphrase, even one bit of evidence > > supporting, Lorentz. He and Einstein (ha!) were meant for each other! > > NE > > Oh, this is easy. There is a circular track that circulates muons at a > lab called g-2. > > Here is a picture of it, in case you doubt it's real:http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/pictures/g2magnet2.jpg > > The ring is about 30 feet across and about 90 feet around. Muons at > rest live for 2.2 microseconds, which is easily observed with a Navy > surplus oscilloscope. If the muons lived that long in the ring, they > would go around the ring about 24 times before decaying. Instead, they > go around 37 times. That is, they live longer when they are traveling > fast around the ring. But the extra time they have before decaying is > exactly what Lorentz time dilation says they will have. Perfect > example of just one bit of evidence that time dilation is real. There > is of course scads and scads of further evidence. > > There. Short and sweet, and indisputable. > I hope you see, John, that the Lorentz equations are fully consistent with experimental measurements.
From: PD on 11 May 2010 14:20 On May 7, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 > > isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until > > you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- > > head FRAUD! NoEinstein So, John, do you now see how 1/2mv^2 is not in violation of the conservation of energy? I showed you how below, in plain language, step by step. Even a 7th grader can follow it. > > Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask > you this time to print it out. > > The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy > of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. > > The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of > the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely > to this work. > > In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the > increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by > the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of > kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work > that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law > of conservation of energy has been respected. > > In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it > will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an > additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has > remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the > second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that > it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the > second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. > > Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, > after the first second, is the force of gravity times the > displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic > energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, > we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's > the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic > energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 > ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger > than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll > add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the > displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this > added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it > now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 > ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first > second. > > Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since > the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in > subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which > gravity added. The energy is conserved. > > It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in > the ratios 1:4:9. > Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios > 1:2:3. > > Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, > losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as > the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. > > There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is > proportional to v^2. > > Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of > this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > > On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > > > > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > > > > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > > > > NoEinstein > > > > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not > > > remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your > > > newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times > > > when it has been explained to you. > > > > I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins > > > anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. > > > > I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to > > > you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by > > > morning, do you? > > > > PD > >
From: spudnik on 12 May 2010 16:11
yeah, kinetic & potential energies, and the relations between them -- it is so high-school (but there is no reason not to do the experiments in grade-school, instead of babysitting & learning dysorders from teh force-feeding of the three Rs .-) thus: Copenhagen's "reifiying" of the mere probabilities of detection, is the biggest problem, whence comes both "perfect vacuum" and "quantum foam" etc. ad vomitorium, as well as the brain-dead "photon" of massless and momentumless and pointy rocks o'light, perfectly aimed at the recieving cone in your eye, like a small pizza pie. <verbatim deleted> > So both setups are needed to get the direct > measurement of what happens in both cases. > What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only > involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing > changes if the detector is not at the slits. > > read more » thus: all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. ao, what is the "ruling out" in the article? > From what I've read so far I'm not buying any pure vacuum effect has > been explained theoretically. Relying on Thomas's article from Baez thus: magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes; not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and, where did the link about YORP, include any thing about the air-pressure?... seems to me, it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum. twist your mind away from the "illustrated in _Conceptual Physics/for Dummies_" nothingness of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon" of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an electronic device -- yeah, CCDs -- the Committee's lame attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's corpuscle. also, please don't brag about free God-am energy, til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile! > > In the link mentioned above is stated, that the > > vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard > > vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. > It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids thus: so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |