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 16:35 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 > > 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 -
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 16:36 true, I'm more into the *theory* of music, which is a part of numbertheory, which is a part of *mathematica*. > I can hold-my-own in any brass band. And you? thus: 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? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: spudnik on 7 May 2010 16:38 OK; how about: define what you think is the Coriolis effect or force, or why you think it is wrong in your application. thus: why should Leibniz's rule on KE, violate conservation of energy -- isn't the onus upon you, to show that? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's #2 capNtrade rip-off (unless, you like gasoline at a dime per drop)
From: PD on 7 May 2010 17:21 On May 7, 3:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > The question below is about science. There is only one correct answer. Opinion doesn't enter into it. What does your common sense tell you the one correct answer is, John? Suddenly you seem very timid... > > > > 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 - > >
From: PD on 7 May 2010 17:22
On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your qualifications to practice that profession. > 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! Then why did you choose architecture instead? > 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 - > > |