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 7 May 2010 09:10 On May 6, 8:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 11:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: When Maxwell urged Michelson to conduct the M-M experiment, > they were expecting a uniform, velocity-proportional, drag on light. And this was 20 years before relativity was ever introduced. My post to you was about what *relativity* says, not what was thought 20 years before relativity was discovered. > The major variant was the orientation of the instrument relative to > Earth's velocity vector. Since velocity alone has NO effect on the > length of any material (or ruler), then it's moot, indeed, to argue > whether the plot of the... contraction (sic) is a waterfall curve, or > linear. Neither contraction occurs! NoEinstein > > > > > On May 5, 2:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > First of all, it would help if you understood what relativity actually > > says. > > * It does not say that materials shrink "an identical percentage in > > response to velocity changes". The functional relationship between > > length and velocity is certainly not a proportional one. It involves > > the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is nothing like a proportionality > > to v. > > * You seem to think that this shrinkage would be obvious to the naked > > eye if it were in effect. It would be worth it for you to sit with a > > calculator and actually figure out how much shorter something is if > > it's moving at 10 mph, 100 mph, 1000 mph. Take a paper clip, measure > > it, and then use the factor above to calculate how much shorter it > > would be at those speeds. Then tell me whether this is in fact > > something you should expect to notice with the naked eye. Numbers are > > important, John. > > * The shrinkage predicted by relativity only applies to reference > > frames in which the object is observed to be *moving*. The paper clip > > sitting on your desk is not moving in your reference frame, is it? (If > > you claim it is, then you claim you are as well, and in that case, I > > would ask you what you think your velocity is right this second. You > > don't even have to give me a number. Just tell me how you *would* > > calculate it. What is the reference point that you would mark your > > velocity with respect to?) > > > > 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. > > > Again, you have a confusion about what relativity actually says. > > Relativistic length changes are NOT due to a physical compression like > > squeezing something in a vise or driving something through a wind. > > > > 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? > > > You haven't answered this question, John. > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 09:12 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: PD on 7 May 2010 09:14 On May 6, 8:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Tell me, PD: If I'm so "poorly suited" for scientific work, how is it > that I've made a greater contribution to physics than all of the > previous physicists put together? NoEinstein And if you're so poorly suited for architecture, how is it that you have designed the grandest performance halls and the tallest buildings in the world? What's the weather like today in NoEinsteinLand? > > > > > On May 5, 2:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Oh dear. So you DO think reality checks are just negative put-downs. > > Such a fragile ego you have, John. > > You are very poorly suited for scientific work. This is not the place > > for the thin-skinned. > > > > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
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. > |