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 9 May 2010 20:30 On May 7, 9:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: In spite of what you might be wishing, defending against YOU is making me stronger. You have yet to get even halfway up the hill that I am King of! 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 9 May 2010 20:36 On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, the Parasite Dunce, is hamstrung to the science formulas in textbooks. He, and perhaps some of you, cant fathom that simple logic can invalidate many of those. The most common error in many equation types, is to allow the units of proportionality factors to be included in the units of the results. The interesting TV show, MythBusters, enjoys crashing things or hitting things. I was amazed to hear those guys state that the calculated forces of impact are such-and-such foot-pounds. Foot- pounds? The latter is, actually the term for MOMENT, or the tendency of a force to cause a rotation about some fulcrum or point of pivot. The laughable units for MOMENTUM thats shown in many textbooks is: pound-feet/sec (sic). That might be logical, because momentum is = mass times velocity, or mv. However, the v, in this case, is part of a proportionality fraction that becomes unit-less. To explain: If a mass, like say, a 250 pound linebacker, has a velocity in some direction, and you are standing in his path, you will be hit by a force. Since that force is dependent on how heavy the linebacker is, and how fast he is moving just before hitting you, then the correct way to write the equation for momentum is F (or force) = mv. In many texts, the letter p is substituted for force or reactions. In fact, the letter p is used in all of the beam analysis equations in the AISC Steel Handbook that must show a point load or force. When I told PD that the equation for momentum is F = mv, stated in POUNDS, he accused me of lying. Because pwhich means FORCE, fis different alphabetically PD supposes that momentum must be a different animal than force. But, as usual, he is wrong! Newtons second law states: A continuous, uniform forcewhen applied to a frictionless and unrestrained bodywill accelerate the body in the direction of the force, and in proportion to the force. The equation for Newtons law thats usually shown in texts is: F = ma. The momentum formula, thats in the above paragraph, is a close cousin to Newtons when it comes to measuring the force of impact, because the aspect of acceleration which quantifies the expected force to be delivered is the instantaneous VELOCITY right before the object (like the 250 pound linebacker) impacts. A 250 pound linebacker traveling 8 feet/second (1/4th of the g velocity increase) will deliver a force (f or p) of 62.5 pounds. That would be exactly how hard a 250 pound linebacker would hit if he was accelerating 32 ft./sec. for ¼ second. A proviso is that he not continue to accelerate once the other player is impacted. Since kinetic energy is the force-delivery potential of falling objects, as well as for objects traveling at any set velocity, Ive determined that KE and momentum are interchangeable terms, with THIS important exception: Objects that are RESTRAINED, but being acted on by a potentially propulsive force, will have the latter propulsive force ADDED to the force of impact. My mathematically and experimentally verified formula for kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The a/g will be 1 for objects being acted on by Earth gravity. So, the KE of objects being restrained prior to release is already one weight unit, even before any downward motion happens! The v / 32.174 (m) is the same unit-less PROPORTIONALITY factor that is in the momentum equation. Heretofore, the masses were required to be converted to SLUGS (32 pounds) in order to find the force. My velocity-variant fraction is more intuitive and doesnt require an explanation of usage below the equation. It is the omission of the conditions of usage, or applicability, that cause the proliferation of errant equations. The way I was able to master equations was to express what those say in clear English. When different users of equations have different ideas what the variables and the constants mean, there can be big trouble. In most cases, my New Science will make the equations simpler and more intuitive. Does anyone, other than PD, fault that? NoEinstein > > 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: BURT on 9 May 2010 20:49 On May 9, 5:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 9:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: In spite of what you might be wishing, defending against YOU > is making me stronger. You have yet to get even halfway up the hill > that I am King of! NE > Maybe you'lll be pushed down the hill! > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 10 May 2010 10:46 On May 8, 10:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hell, PD! I wrote the BOOK on mechanics! If you insist: The LC no. > is 52-41875, published by Barnes and Noble. Thank you for trying to correct your typo. However, it still doesn't work with the Library of Congress index. I do suggest the ISBN. You've tried twice to provide me a correct Library of Congress catalog number and have failed at that. > And I never said I > believed everything in that Wiley Handbook. Some of the conversion > factors are useful. Since you are a book-a-holic, how is it you've > never made a single positive contribution to the world of science? > 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: PD on 10 May 2010 10:47
On May 8, 11:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 'C' is close, PD. "Close" or is the the correct answer, John? > If you like quizzes, how come you never took my: > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > ? You're more than happy to divert attention from your non- > understanding of science. 90% of the readers surely realize that. > NE > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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 - > > |