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 7 May 2010 16:21 On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, architecture. If I had a choice between designing great concert halls or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of humanity, I would choose the latter every time! Concert halls are for the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 16:24 why should Leibniz's rule on KE, violate conservation of energy -- isn't the onus upon you, to show that? why do you believe that waves of light have mass or momentum -- because of an equation? > Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 isn't > in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. thus: so, why do *you* believe that oil companies do not "like" the Kyoto Protocol and other capNtrade schemes ... even though several openly support them and GW ("Beyond Petroleum (TM)" e.g.) ?? thus: find Hipparchus' "lunes" proof of the pythagorean theorem -- if it was not the original proof -- and you'll see that circles are better fro areal mensuration; generalize to prove the spatial pythagorean theorems -- there are two of them -- and you'll see that, not only does second-powering have nothing in particular to with the tetragon, but also not with a two-dimensional object. thus: like I said, dimensional analysis is fine, and woe to he who ignores it, but it cannot be used ex post facto to remake a wave-form into a particle. surely, the wave can impart, at least, internal "momentum" to the atomic system that is tuned to absorb it. that is, whatever energy propogates through the *medium* of space, not a vacuum, is in its effect upon that medium just as waves in H2O. so, do not apply "momentum" to the wave, only as a formalism for the seemingly-aimed "photon" that was speared by the cone of your eye. so, you can use other, valid formlisms, like E=hf, or what ever. otherwise, you get absurdities like the EPR paradox, and simplistic statements about the photoelectrical effect. not to say that a total formalism of rocks o'light is not possible, and a gravity that is "pushed" by such-like, but it is probably at present "intractible," even as Huyghens wavelets are intractible, except for getting a concept of light, propogating. (photons are massless & cannot propogate at any speed, because they don't exist, is my feeling, even though they are the only "zero-D particle" that can "go at c.") as for wlym.com, folks who pretend to "do the math," should know what *mathematica* ("maths") is; if you "go" to wlym.com, and hit the Fermat button, and find the Geometrical Fragments pdf, you''ll find his reconstruction of Euclid's porisms, whis are quite elementary (and planar). lastly, here is a thought experiment: what are those little black & white paddle-wheels, tht rotate in the sunlight in clear globe?... since there is no actual vacuum in the globe, provide an *aerodynamical/thermal* explanation of the force, after waves of light have been absorbed by the black pigment in the vanes. thought of that, yesterday, after more of this chat. > Get rid of that [M] dimension in the photon equation thus: Moon could have supported life, a long time ago (i.e., smaller bodies have shorter lives), as is evidences by the remnants of plate tectonics (maria & highlands). > >http://www.meteorite.com/meteorite-gallery/meteorites-alpha_frame.htm thus: you call that, an explanation, "photons wedged apart by light rays?" an interesting relationship between two things that only exist as mathematics, both representing "rocks o'light!" thus: you are pretending to define "complex 4-vectors," but "real" 4-vectors are part of the gross and unfinished porgramme of Minkowski, to "spatialize" time, while it is quite obvious that the "time part" is not symmetrical with the spatial coordinates, either in 4-vectors or quaternions. anyway, bi-quaternions would be 8-dimensional or octonions. and, it is all obfuscation, trying to insist that a phase-space tells you what time really is; it's very useful for seeing patterns "in" time though, as in electronics (although, NB, electronics is mostly done in "1-1" complex phase-space, instead of quaternions, as it could be, for some reason .-) maybe, all you and polysignosis need to do, is work the math of quaternions ... that'll take me wome time, as well. (I mean, what is the difference in labeling a coordinate axis with a "different sign" and a different letter, whether or not negatives are even needed?) --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:27 On May 7, 9:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Musical talent and mathematical ability are the most demanding of the brain traits to develop, and are indicative of higher intellect. I can hold-my-own in any brass band. And you? NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 16:28 and, can you demonstrate the Coriolis effect or force?... couldn't be anything more important to the weather! --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: NoEinstein on 7 May 2010 16:32
On May 7, 9:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Everyone can form their own opinions. You, with certainty, are a jealous imbecile. You never talk science, only processeswhich never caused you to accomplish anything worthy. NE > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |