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 13 May 2010 11:11 On May 12, 10:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 Why would I have to incessantly repeat things to you, John? You can't remember what I told you yesterday. Why would it be in my interest to repeat it again? > > > > > 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: PD on 13 May 2010 11:12 On May 12, 10:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 6:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: F = mv is IDENTICAL to P = mv. No, it is not. > P is the symbol for forces > applied at a point in every Engineering text I know. Citations, please. > 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: PD on 13 May 2010 11:13 On May 12, 10:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 It's the PUBLISHER'S failure that YOU'VE given me two different Library of Congress catalog numbers, John, and neither of them is correct? You know you are a nutjob, right? > > > > > 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 - > >
From: PD on 13 May 2010 11:14 On May 12, 10:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 10, 10:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: In arguments over FORCES, the engineers and architects, who > deal in real world problems, trump the HEP Physics majors who only > know about the small and the insignificant. If a 250 pound linebacker > hits you with a stated velocity, you will experience the action of a > weight and velocity proportional FORCE. And all forces are in POUNDS, > only! NE > > Gotta love that.
From: spudnik on 13 May 2010 15:21
on the wayside, directly proportional means, not inversely proportional, as in the "inverse second-power law" that Hooke derived from Kepler's orbital constraints (and, it has nothing in particular to do with "skwares" .-) thus: the M-set's property of "universality" or self- similarity -- the mini-bugs like the big cardioid -- is strictly an artifact of the floating-point spec (and its many implimentations); however, monsieur M. could only beg the question, over ten years ago, because he never bothered to speak with the engineers at his IBM fellowship. (he had not gotten any further, when he came to campus & spoke, again, couple o'years ago .-) > http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0112/0112317v1.pdf > Fractals are usually build with complex numbers, like the Mandelbrodt thus: yeah, but what is the integer, Avagadro's number?... do you know the surfer's value of pi? thus: well, that is where the problem with assigning a particle to a wave, a la de Broglie et al, comes. the assumption, that causes folks to say "particle," is that because a quantum (wave) of light is absorbed by one atom of siver dioxide (say, in the photographic emulsion; or, other detector) --some how-- that it must be that a rock of light hit the electronic orbital (although this is never specified, as to how it could be, and the whole problem of EM is also hard to describe, and is confounded with the absurd notion of the "plane wave"). this is really all of a confusion from Newton's "geometrical optics," that is, the "ray" of light, which is just one "normal" to the wave (or Huyghens wavelet). > You assume the particle exits both slits because you assume the > particle creates the interference pattern in and of itself. thus: about your five "cloture" events, the real problem is that "the Fed" was never properly ratified (and is unconstitutional for that reason, if not directly; it is modeled upon the Federal Reserve System of England). of coursel the 527 cmtes. have essentially taken over the TV advertizing on all national issues & candidates, through an Act that was passed unaanimously in both houses. > "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" --http://GreaterVoice.org/60 thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made, and gasoline fuel cells, what is the problem with Fossilized Fuels (TM), which ain't fossilized? ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > Thorium has other interesting features. For example, in > oxide form as would probably be used, Thorium has a > higher thermal conductivity than Uranium oxide. That > means the fuel will be cooler for any given power output. > It's got interesting mechanical properties also. > There are a number of new reactor designs being touted. > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: Copenhagen's "reifiying" of the mere probabilities of detection, is the biggest problem, whence comes both "perfect vacuum" and "quantum foam" etc. ad vomitorium, as well as the brain-dead "photon" of massless and momentumless and pointy rocks o'light, perfectly aimed at the recieving cone in your eye, like a small pizza pie. thus: all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. thus: magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes; not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and, where did the link about YORP, include any thing about the air-pressure?... seems to me, it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum. twist your mind away from the "illustrated in _Conceptual Physics/for Dummies_" nothingness of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon" of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an electronic device -- yeah, CCDs -- the Committee's lame attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's corpuscle. also, please don't brag about free God-am energy, til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile! > It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids thus: so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com |