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 14 May 2010 10:34 On May 14, 3:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 6:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD won't answer a simple question: WHAT IS MOMENTUM, PD?? NE Oh, but I HAVE answered it, John. What I won't do is repeat myself endlessly, just because you can't remember things from day to day, and just because you don't know how to look things up that happened yesterday. > > > > > On May 7, 3:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD: Alright, then. What IS momentum? You have the floor to showcase > > > your stupidity. NE > > > I've just explained that elsewhere in another post. Perhaps you can > > use your tools properly to find it. > > > > > 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: PD on 14 May 2010 10:42 On May 14, 3:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 10, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: Authors APPLY to get LC book numbers. But those won't be > listed until the publisher actually sends a copy or copies of the book > to the LC. That's the publisher's mistakem PDnot mine. NE Oh, come on, John. Really? All of the Barnes & Noble College Outline Series books have got both LC numbers and ISBNs. For example, the College Outline book by Clarence E. Bennett called Physics Problems and How to Solve Them has ISBN 0064602036. I gave you a long list of books by Clarence E. Bennett, all with ISBNs and LC numbers, and I just wanted you to identify with ISBN which one it was, so that I could secure a copy and look at it. You gave me two LC numbers, neither of which the Library of Congress recognizes. Clearly, you either cannot read a number or you are fabricating. Then you assert that this is an authoritative book that supports what you are saying, and yet you now claim the publisher did not think highly enough of the book to order either an ISBN or file it with the Library of Congress. And you'll note that you claimed the publisher did not file it with the Library of Congress after all, even after giving me TWO different LC numbers. I think you have a chronic problem with lying, John. Blustering and lying. I think it must be very hard for you to look at your own face in the morning knowing this, and so you bluster and lie some more to cover it up. Your actions speak for themselves, John. Even a high school kid could see you're a sham. > > > > > 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: PD on 14 May 2010 10:45 On May 14, 3:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 11, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD never explains anything, he just CLAIMS that he already has. He's > to lazy to explain his definition of MOMENTUM. Is a single sentence > of SCIENCE too much to ask? NE > Oh, but I have explained things to you John, repeatedly. And then you've forgotten them the next day. Is your dementia your problem or mine?
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:48 On May 14, 3:28 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 11, 9:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The publisher, Barnes and Nobel, goofed, not me, PD. NE John, YOU were the one that supplied me with TWO DIFFERENT LC catalog numbers. Now, did the publisher goof by changing the LC number that is printed on your book from day to day in the past week? Neither LC catalog number is recognized by the Library of Congress, by the way. Do you have a problem owning up to any goof, John? Even when caught in a lie? Have you no shred of dignity left, and this is the only way you can protect what remains of your fragile ego? > > > > > 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. >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:49
On May 14, 3:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 11, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Where is your evidence, PD? You only CLAIM that you showed evidence. > PARAPHRASE everything! NE I did exactly what you asked for. I paraphrased the evidence that you will not look up yourself. That paraphrased evidence is below. If you do not believe the paraphrasing, then you will have to look at the evidence yourself. I'd be happy to provide you the reference for where you can do that. > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |