There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "The Einstein Hoax"
Next: ALL DIZEAZZEZ ARE DEZERVED ! ESPECIALLY THE CANCER GOODY, BACKBONE OF THE JUICY DIZEAZZEZ INDUSTRY
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 03:40 On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On May 1, 8:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 1, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You just said that "physics isn't > > > > determined by logic". Of course, you would think that! That's > > > > because you don't know HOW to reason! > > > > Well, it's because physics is a science, which means that it invokes > > > the scientific method, and it determines truth by experimental test, > > > not by logic. > > > Dear PD: WHERE was the "scientific method" when Lorentz proposed his > > ANTI-ENGINEERING, "rubber ruler" explanation for the nil results of M- > > M? > > Lorentz's proposal was subject to experimental test, NoEinstein. > Dear PD: Show me any "test" proving that all materials shrink (or expand) an identical percentage in response to velocity changes, and the same amount regardless of the size and shape of the material. If such a contraction occurred, loose paperclips on your desk would rotate like compass needles to be aligned perpendicular to the compressive force (sic) of velocity. Additionally, all of the matter in the Earth would be alternately squeezed and relaxed (due to the ever-changing velocity component of the Earth), until either the Earth became a molten BLOB, or until the Earth stopped rotating on its axis and orbiting the Sun. Of course, all of those would mean that none of us are alive... So very sad... that you are so BRAINLESS! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > That's how science works. > And what on earth makes you think that this stuff is "anti- > engineering"? > Perhaps you don't know that engineers make use of relativity in their > designs whenever it is needed? If it's anti-engineering, why are > engineers happy to use it as needed? > > > And where was the scientific method when both Coriolis and > > Einstein wrote energy equations that were exponential, and thus in > > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > Those energy equations have also been thoroughly tested in experiment, > John, exactly as I was stating. You on the other hand are trying to > rule them out with your bandy-legged logic, rather than considering > independently verified experimental tests. > > > When the truth be > > known, PD, is this low I. Q. flunky who compensates by constantly > > faulting his superiors. He has never stated a single contribution > > that he has made to science. For one who devotes so much time to... > > 'science' shouldn't PD have... "something" to show for it? > > NoEinstein > > What do you think I should have to show for it, John? > > PD
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 03:42 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 > > 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 03:47 On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: You are Mr. Negativity. You can only feel superior (sic) by putting others down. I wish I had had you for my teacher. I'd have made you the laughing-stock of the school! NE > > On May 3, 9:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 2, 11:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 2, 4:40 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > Dear Timo: You ask the right sort of questions to be a 'specialist' > > > > or a 'technician'. I'm a generalist. Those can tell the two former > > > > types what needs being done. In short, I get the "whole picture".. I > > > > wouldn't seek NSF funding for any projects, because I know that such > > > > organization, and the NSB are corrupt. While you, apparently, were > > > > caught up in statistics, numbers, and funding trivia, I was actually > > > > figuring out how the various pieces of the universe work in unison. > > > > So, don't fault me for my processes. If you were a pragmatist, you > > > > wouldn't dare. NoEinstein > > > > Since you can't seem to find any of my original posts, I'll reproduce > > > one here for you: > > > ========================================================================= > > > I had a high school student come into my office on campus one day. He > > > had been encouraged by his mother to come visit the physics department > > > to discuss his ideas because she thought he was brilliant. The > > > department chair, in his infinite wisdom, sent the young man to me. > > > > For a half hour, the lad drew pictures on my chalkboard of a new > > > unified field theory. No math, mind you, just a lot of enthusiastic > > > description and squiggly figures and semiplausible notions. > > > > Still chewing on my sandwich, I stopped him at one point and asked him > > > to calculate something ... anything ... with his model -- or at least > > > set it up so that I knew in principle the calculation could be done. > > > > He looked at me in all earnestness and said, "Oh, I view myself as > > > sort > > > of the Einstein type. I come up with the Big Idea, and then I let > > > everyone else work out the details." > > > > I stopped chewing, swallowed carefully, and composed my thoughts. > > > > For the next half hour, we discussed what it really meant to be a > > > physicist, how Einstein had to study the state of the art for years > > > before even being ready to work on a Big Idea, and what would be > > > required of this young man on his journey to becoming a theoretical > > > physicist, which is what he wanted more than anything else in the > > > world. Unquestionably, he was shaken. He had no idea that it took more > > > than just intelligence and a blinding stroke of insight. > > > > I have no qualms about having directed him this way. Any profession in > > > the world requires an extraordinary amount of work to become tops in > > > the field, and much of it is grinding toil. Physics is no different. > > > Anyone who enters into such a field should not be shielded from this > > > information, lest the moment of disillusionment come after years of > > > wasted, dreamy ignorance. The good ones will embrace the challenge. > > > > The other aspect of this, though, was my alarm at his perception of > > > how > > > Einstein worked, how he did what he did. Few of the everday Einstein > > > fans recall, for example, that the same year he was publishing his > > > seminal papers, he was struggling to get his PhD thesis approved, and > > > he was working at a side job because no one at the university could > > > find money to support him. In this 100th anniversary of some of his > > > singular accomplishments, I think it's worthwhile reminding people > > > about how much hard work, how much formal training, and how much time > > > spent simply learning, went into those accomplishments. > > > > PD > > > ============================================ > > > NoEinstein, you are a deluded, egomaniacal basketcase. > > > Dear PD: That's a nice story for your... biography. Unfortunately, > > you haven't contributed anything noteworthy to the world of science. > > "Talking down" to a high school student doesn't require... 'smarts'; > > it only requires a lack of tact! NE > > I don't think this is talking down to the student, John, as I made > clear. Would you think of this as an emotional smack-down if it > happened to you, or would you consider it a fair reality-check? Or do > you not like reality checks? Do you find reality checks to be nothing > but negativism?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 03:48 On May 4, 11:44 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 10:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 3, 12:02 pm, 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. > > > > > 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 - > > > 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
From: NoEinstein on 5 May 2010 03:50
On May 4, 2:07 pm, af...(a)FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote: > Dear John: Everything I do is reasonable; that's how I work! NoEinstein > > 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. > > --John Park- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |