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 11 May 2010 08:30 On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Energy IN must = energy OUT. Since KE = 1/2mv^2 can't meet that requirement, then it is 100% in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy; and no 'consensus' of physicists (ha!) who say otherwise, can change that fact! NE > > On May 4, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: IF, as you've just said, everyone knows > > that the KE equation (KE = 1/2mv^2) is inconsistent with the Law of > > the Conservation of energy, then you've just agreed that the former is > > WRONG! > > But I didn't say that, John. I said that the KE equation above is > completely CONSISTENT with the Law of Conservation of Energy. > > I think I've isolated the source of your great difficulties, John. You > cannot comprehend the meaning of a single sentence that you read. Did > you understand THAT? > > > > > The physicists whom YOU know may not be concerned, but the > > Laws of Nature are very, very mad, indeed! NoEinstein > > > > 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. That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, > > > or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers > > > didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that > > > all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > > > > > Einstein got physicists > > > > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > > > > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > > > > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > > > > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > > > > publication. > > > > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > > > > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > > > > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > > > > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). > > > > I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the > > > Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the > > > expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only > > > you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? > > > > If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a > > > zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class > > > genius or a world-class fool? > > > > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > > > > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > > > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > > > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > > > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > > > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > > > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you. > > > > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > > > > here to you. > > > > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > > > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > > > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > > > > professional musician. > > > > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > > > > judge. > > > > > > > I've made two most > > > > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta. > > > > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > > > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > > > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > > > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > > > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > > > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > > > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > > > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > > > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > > > > to one! > > > > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > > > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing. > > > > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're > > > > > > > talking about is beyond 7th grade science level. > > > > > > > > You on the other hand seem to be more worried about winning some kind > > > > > > > of battle or contest, and to you winning means: > > > > > > > - that you talk longer than anyone else, ensuring that you always have > > > > > > > the last word > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* you to believe what 7th graders have no > > > > > > > difficulty understanding > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* to you stop talking > > > > > > > - that you stick by your guns, no matter what, regardless of how > > > > > > > stupid it starts to sound even to you > > > > > > > - disparaging your respondents by calling them negativists and other > > > > > > > assorted names > > > > > > > - that you have offered a retort to every single response to your > > > > > > > posts. > > > > > > > > By that metric, someone who firmly believes that 17+4=32, and who > > > > > > > insists on this long after the last person has walked away, and who > > > > > > > insists that 2nd grade math teachers are obviously wrong, and who is > > > > > > > proud that no one has been able to get him to stop saying 17+4=32, and > > > > > > > who calls people who believe otherwise to be ninnies and brainwashed > > > > > > > -- well, by golly, in your eyes that person has won > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 11 May 2010 08:36 On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Dunce: You take any TRUTH; generalize it to absurdity; then claim that the truth is wrong. Actually, the only thing wrong is your (sidestepping) generalizations into absurdity! 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: PD on 11 May 2010 09:14 On May 11, 7:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: Energy IN must = energy OUT. Since KE = 1/2mv^2 can't meet that > requirement, then it is 100% in violation of the Law of the > Conservation of Energy; and no 'consensus' of physicists (ha!) who say > otherwise, can change that fact! NE But it does meet that requirement. I showed you exactly how, just the other day. It seems you are slipping, NoEinstein, no longer able to remember what was said the day before. So each day is brand new to you. You could hide your own Christmas presents. It's a shame you've slipped into senility, but it does give me pause on how much effort to expend on a serious reply to you. > > > On May 4, 6:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 11:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: IF, as you've just said, everyone knows > > > that the KE equation (KE = 1/2mv^2) is inconsistent with the Law of > > > the Conservation of energy, then you've just agreed that the former is > > > WRONG! > > > But I didn't say that, John. I said that the KE equation above is > > completely CONSISTENT with the Law of Conservation of Energy. > > > I think I've isolated the source of your great difficulties, John. You > > cannot comprehend the meaning of a single sentence that you read. Did > > you understand THAT? > > > > The physicists whom YOU know may not be concerned, but the > > > Laws of Nature are very, very mad, indeed! NoEinstein > > > > > 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. That is taught to 4th graders. Were you absent that day, > > > > or did you determine in the 4th grade that your science teachers > > > > didn't know what they were talking about and you realized then that > > > > all of scientific truths could be determined by logic? > > > > > > Einstein got physicists > > > > > believing that ILLOGIC is where the most... I.Q. is. Since you > > > > > understood nothing taught to you in physics (the right stuff nor the > > > > > WRONG), you figured your strength was to fight anything and everything > > > > > that wasnt COOKBOOKED from some out-of-date, McGraw-Hill, Jewish > > > > > publication. > > > > > > Tell me, PD, WHO on this EARTH is a qualification to confirm YOUR > > > > > ideas about science? Anyone who understands math, and knows what the > > > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy requires, will immediately confirm > > > > > that Coriolis and Einstein had no earthly idea that KE and 'E' must > > > > > not be exponential equations, but LINEAR equations (or additive). > > > > > I'm sorry, John, but just about everyone except for you knows that the > > > > Law of Conservation of Energy is completely consistent with the > > > > expressions for kinetic energy and total energy. It seems to be only > > > > you with the problem. Shouldn't that be a flag to you? > > > > > If everyone in the world points to the same animal and calls it a > > > > zebra, and you call it a penguin, does that make you a world-class > > > > genius or a world-class fool? > > > > > > Since you don't think COASTING increases an object's distance of > > > > > travel, it is YOU, not me, needing others to confirm your stupidity! > > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:05 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "We" (you and I) aren't having a > > > > > > > discussion about science. You simply take the anti-thesis of any > > > > > > > science truth, knowing that there are some naive readers who won't > > > > > > > know the difference. It may sound 'high-and-mighty' for you to keep > > > > > > > referring to... the experimental evidence, and the 'textbook' > > > > > > > definitions, but you NEVER paraphrase a possible counterargument. You > > > > > > > only claim that there is 'something', somewhere that disagrees with > > > > > > > me. And you expect me to go look that up. > > > > > > > Yes, indeed, because physics is not something that is settled by > > > > > > puffed-up posturing and debate. > > > > > > It is not something that is determined by force of logic. > > > > > > You may be confusing physics with philosophy. > > > > > > > Ultimately, the truth in physics is determined by careful and > > > > > > independently confirmed experimental measurement. > > > > > > That body of experimental evidence is documented and available to you. > > > > > > It is referred to in textbooks, and references to it have been made > > > > > > here to you. > > > > > > > So yes, you are expected to look it up. > > > > > > > ANYBODY doing physics is expected to look it up. > > > > > > > > Folks, PD is the deep thinker (sic) who said that atomic decay is a > > > > > > > "chemical reaction". And just today, he said that a car which is > > > > > > > COASTING isn't increasing its "displacement". He has just proposed > > > > > > > that... "displacement" is only apt to calculating, or measuring, an > > > > > > > object's unit velocity. And since the unit velocity of the car > > > > > > > doesn't change, he claims that coasting isn't increasing the distance > > > > > > > of travel of the car. Can't most of you see how little PD cares about > > > > > > > truth and logic? Does he think everyone but him is a fool? > > > > > > > > *** Tell us this, PD: How many science experiments, of any kind, have > > > > > > > YOU designed, built, and successfully tested? > > > > > > > Are you sure you want to ask this question? My professional history is > > > > > > as an experimental physicist, and my record is public. > > > > > > Please don't puff yourself up as a songwriter when talking to a > > > > > > professional musician. > > > > > > It's not smart to put on airs as an expert on law when talking to a > > > > > > judge. > > > > > > > > I've made two most > > > > > > > definitive tests which support the LOGIC that Coriolis's KE equation > > > > > > > is not only WRONG, its so obviously in violation of the Law of the > > > > > > > Conservation of Energy, that no experiments are needed, at all, to > > > > > > > disprove: KE = 1/2mv^2; nor to similarly disprove E = mc^2 / beta. > > > > > > > For you, a proof is only valid if it involves experiments which you > > > > > > > have never cited, nor paraphrased, and definitions that you claim are > > > > > > > in textbooks, but which you never quote. > > > > > > > Two comments: > > > > > > 1. Your experimental results will be worth something when confirmed by > > > > > > an independent investigator. That is how it is done in science. Until > > > > > > then, you are a self-feeding loop. > > > > > > 2. Yes, I expect you to look up textbooks, as they are easy to find > > > > > > even in your local library. I'm assuming that you are not under house > > > > > > arrest, you aren't bedridden, that you have bus fare to get you > > > > > > downtown, and that you are capable of reading when you get there. I'm > > > > > > also assuming that you are not so pathologically lazy that you refuse > > > > > > to budge your butt from your chair. > > > > > > > > I recently told you that I had suspected that the readers agreed with > > > > > > > my correctness our yours by two to one. But in light of your recent > > > > > > > statements of utter stupidity, that number is probably closer to ten > > > > > > > to one! > > > > > > > This is just like you, to suspect something is true without a single > > > > > > shred of tangible evidence. It's your style. > > > > > > > > *** No scientist on Earth has more credibility than yours > > > > > > > truly. *** If any think that they do, I would love for them to go > > > > > > > head-to-head with me, so that I can kick their asses into solar > > > > > > > orbit. Like those purported scientists, you, PD, dont have a leg, > > > > > > > nor a stump to stand on. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: Some readers, who don't know either of us from Adam, may > > > > > > > > > think that your sidestepping of science is credible. An attack on... > > > > > > > > > the messenger (me) is a quick put-down that you had to have learned > > > > > > > > > (tongue-in-cheekha!) very early won't work on me. If the regular > > > > > > > > > readers of my posts and replies got to vote, they'd probably say that > > > > > > > > > I'm beating you in the "one-up-manship" by a two to one margin. But > > > > > > > > > you're still around because you won't stay on any discussion long > > > > > > > > > enough to get the life squished out of your... 'science'. I enjoy > > > > > > > > > knowing that you haven't won; can't; and won't win, PD. That > > > > > > > > > qualifies you as a looser; doesn't it? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > I'm fascinated by this idea you have of winning or losing. > > > > > > > > > We're having a discussion about physics. I'm explaining to you what we > > > > > > > > know matches experiment, and what the definitions of the words are > > > > > > > > that are used in physics, what the equations mean, and how that is > > > > > > > > exemplified in measurements, and the fact that none of what we're > > > > > > > > talking about is beyond 7th grade science level. > > > > > > > > > You on the other hand seem to be more worried about winning some kind > > > > > > > > of battle or contest, and to you winning means: > > > > > > > > - that you talk longer than anyone else, ensuring that you always have > > > > > > > > the last word > > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* you to believe what 7th graders have no > > > > > > > > difficulty understanding > > > > > > > > - that no one can *force* to you stop talking > > > > > > > > - that you stick by your guns, no matter what, regardless of how > > > > > > > > stupid it starts to sound even to you > > > > > > > > - disparaging your respondents by calling them negativists and other > > > > > > > > assorted names > > > > > > > > - that you have offered a retort to every single response to your > > > > > > > > posts. > > > > > > > > > By that metric, someone who firmly believes that 17+4=32, and who > > > > > > > > insists on this long after the last person has walked away, and who > > > > > > > > insists that 2nd grade math teachers are obviously wrong, and who is > > > > > > > > proud that no one has been able to get him to stop saying 17+4=32, and > > > > > > > > who calls people who believe otherwise to be ninnies and brainwashed > > > > > > > > -- well, by golly, in your eyes that person has won > > > ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 11 May 2010 09:15 On May 11, 7:36 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Dunce: You take any TRUTH; generalize it to absurdity; > then claim that the truth is wrong. Actually, the only thing wrong is > your (sidestepping) generalizations into absurdity! NoEinstein This from the man who can't find the ISBN number of a book, and can't accurately copy down a Library of Congress catalog number. > > > > > 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 11 May 2010 14:14
On May 11, 7:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > > Sure. You also asked for experimental evidence for time dilation and I gave you a good example. I sure hope that hasn't slipped your mind already. After all, that was just a day or so ago. But in the present case, I'll tell you about the RHIC collider, where nuclei are scattered from nuclei. Here, it is important that the density of the material in the nuclei be high enough to generate the signal they are looking for. And the relativistic shortening of the nuclei along the direction of travel lowers the nuclear volume and therefore increases the density. This effect was directly built into the RHIC design, so that it would fail catastrophically if it weren't there. But the effect has indeed been seen, and so we know that RHIC did not fail catastrophically, and therefore we know that relativistic length contraction does in fact act. Again, this is but one example. So, recapping, you asked for any single experiment that shows evidence of time dilation, and I gave you one. You asked for any single experiment that shows evidence of length contraction, and I gave you one. PD |