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 12 May 2010 23:25 On May 7, 6:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Put up or shut up, PD. WHAT is your definition of MOMENTUM?? NE > > On May 7, 3:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > I've just explained that elsewhere in another post. Perhaps you can > use your tools properly to find it. > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 23:28 On May 7, 6:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: F = mv is IDENTICAL to P = mv. P is the symbol for forces applied at a point in every Engineering text I know. Put up or shut up, PD. WHAT is your definition of MOMENTUM?? NE > > On May 7, 3:35 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > In the meantime, you could confess that what your reference actually > says does not support in any way your ridiculous claim that F=mv. It's > just something you made up. > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 23:33 On May 9, 12:29 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 9, 6:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 5, 12:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 'C' is close, PD. 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 - > > ------------------- > indeed gravity is a push force > **but not by aether ** > > see the circlon idea > 2 > you are quite right about PD > (Paul Draper ) > he is a very little physicist (a parrot !!!) > and a even a much smaller personality !!!!! (in understatement > because he is dishonet as well - > while a real scientist cannot be dishonest !!) > being honest is one the differences between > science and Politics !!!) > ATB > Y.Porat > ----------------------------- > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------------- > > ATB > Y.Porat > ----------------- > thrte if push- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Y.Porat: Please peddle your science theories on your own posts. Mine is THE grand unification theory: "Varying ether density and pressure account for everything observable in the Universe." NE
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 23:37 On May 9, 8:49 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Nice humor! The gravity acting on me at the top of the hill (flat ground) will be less than the gravity on PD, halfway up the hill. Plus, I am trim; while PD is a couch potato. His bottom covers 2/3rds of the couch! NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 23:39
On May 10, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: Not MY failure, but the publisher's failure. On page 19 it says F = mv. That's all you need to know. NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |