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: PD on 5 May 2010 12:23 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
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:34 On May 5, 2:48 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 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? PD
From: PD on 5 May 2010 12:36 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 - > >
From: spudnik on 5 May 2010 17:15 hey; what about the Coriolis force !?! may be this just goes to show, that being (say) Hungarian and trying to learn English (as a second or Nth language), does not always turn one into a genius. whether or not von Neumann (e.g) tried to read Shakespeare, he did at least write his own books in English ... which takes time! of course, these two guys (Neinstein and MPC#) could be perfectly competent at some other things. > 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 thus: you can get rid of phase-space ("spacetime") with "movies" (or flip-books), becuase it is totally useless in a non-mathematical-formalist sense, "visualization" e.g. -- death to the lightcones!... and, it gives you an extra spatial dimension to play with. as for the idea of using two quaternions for "in & out," I don't really see, why it'd help, since you can use the same quaternion coordination for both, unless there's some dimensional analysis that needs a pair of them. (see Lanczos' _Variational Mechanics_, Dover Publ., for his treatment of SR -- good luck .-) thus: the second root of one half is just the reciprocal of the second root of two -- often obfuscated as the second root of two, divided by two -- but the rest is indeed totally obscure or ridiculous. since Fermat made no mistakes, at all, including in withdrawing his assertion about the Fermat primes (letter to Frenicle), all -- as I've popsted in this item, plenty -- of the evidence suggests that the "miracle" was just a key to his ne'er-revealed method, and one of his very first proofs. (I wonder, if Gauss was attracted to the problem of constructbility, after reading of the primes.) thus: so, you applied Coriolis' Force to General Relativity, and **** happened? > read more » --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: spudnik on 6 May 2010 01:26
yeah, of course; you tell us that you're not biased, and we must believe that it is true, becuase you *really* believe it. almost as simple as two and two make pi, more or less. |