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 10 May 2010 10:57 On May 9, 7:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. Ah, I see. Keep in mind that you've already AGREED with the facts as I stated them below, and all I did was do use simple arithmetic to find the ratios. Are you now recanting the facts? If so, which ones below do you take issue with? Is it the values of the displacement? Is it the values of the velocity? Is it the constancy of the force? Or do you find that there is an arithmetic error somewhere? Or are you claiming that if the arithmetic result is in conflict with your common sense, then arithmetic must also be fundamentally in error? > 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. This is why TV shows are not to be taken as good references, John. > 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). Which textbooks show those units of momentum? > 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. No, sir. You've just made that up. It does not appear in any textbooks. > In many texts, the letter p is substituted for force or reactions. No sir. On this you are simply mistaken. The letter p is used to denote MOMENTUM, not force, in physics. I really don't care if you found somewhere in an Steel Handbook where a force is labeled with a p. In the formula p = mv, none of those variables denotes force. None. > 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. Yes, indeed, you are lying. > Because pwhich means FORCE, It does not. You are lying. > 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. Sorry, but you've just made that up, and it is wrong. Newton was right. You are wrong. > > 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. No, John, that is just plain wrong. You don't have the foggiest idea how to use Newton's equations. Here's a way to tell, John. According to you, if a baseball pitcher throws a baseball at a catcher at the same speed, then the force delivered to the catcher will be the same, whether the catcher "gives" with his hand or not. Any 8-year-old boy will tell you this is wrong. You've used Newton's 2nd law wrong all these years, and you still passed exams enough to be certified as an architect? I'm horrified, John. All your customers should be horrified as well. > 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: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:01 On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the incurable Parasite Dunce: It would be FANTASTIC for you to finally realize that attacking me (without ever actually discussing SCIENCE) is a total waste of your, mine and everyone's time. Please note that I am the author of this original post. You comment on MY post; I've never commented on yours, because you've never made any. You are a total fraud to be talking about physics at all. Your having been a dumb teacher of physics... somewhere, doesn't stand you in good graces. NoEinstein > > 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: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:13 On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Please PARAPHRASE, in your own words, any experiment which you... "claim" supports RUBBER RULERS. Note: You are hoping to 'change the subject' to relativity, because there is more SMOKE and MIRRORS, there. You also, said that I stated that the Rubber Rulers contraction (sic) of Lorentz is linear. You can't find such a reply. I've always called... "beta" a waterfall curve. It is YOU, PD, who make things up. You never state actual science, because you dont UNDERSTAND science! NoEinstein > > On May 4, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Whatever the truth is, PD contorts it. "Rubber Rulers" has no > > supporting experiment! Lorentz, the imbecile, used RR to 'explain' > > the nil results of M-M. Then, supposed scientists say that M-M > > SUPPORTS Lorentz! Where are the brains, and WHERE is the scientific > > method! NE > > Of course there are supporting experiments, John. You seem to be under > the impression that the MMX was the only experiment ever done to test > relativity and that the whole of relativity rests on this one > experiment, so that if you somehow fault the MMX, then all of > relativity falls. > > Nothing could be further from the truth, John. Relativity has been > tested in scores of experiments, all independent of each other. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > 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? > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:24 On May 5, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is a post about GRAVITY, PD. If you wish to discuss... Relativity, go were so many other dunces are: sci.relativity! NE > > On May 4, 7:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Whatever the truth is, PD contorts it. "Rubber Rulers" has no > > supporting experiment! Lorentz, the imbecile, used RR to 'explain' > > the nil results of M-M. Then, supposed scientists say that M-M > > SUPPORTS Lorentz! Where are the brains, and WHERE is the scientific > > method! NE > > Of course there are supporting experiments, John. You seem to be under > the impression that the MMX was the only experiment ever done to test > relativity and that the whole of relativity rests on this one > experiment, so that if you somehow fault the MMX, then all of > relativity falls. > > Nothing could be further from the truth, John. Relativity has been > tested in scores of experiments, all independent of each other. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > 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? > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:25
On May 5, 11:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is a post about GRAVITY, PD. If you wish to discuss... Relativity, go were so many other dunces are: sci.relativity! NE > > 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 - |