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 14 May 2010 04:16 On May 7, 6:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD won't answer a simple question: WHAT IS MOMENTUM, PD?? 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 14 May 2010 04:19 On May 10, 10:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: Authors APPLY to get LC book numbers. But those won't be listed until the publisher actually sends a copy or copies of the book to the LC. That's the publisher's mistakem PDnot mine. 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 -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 04:24 On May 11, 8:25 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Note: Somehow, the thread changed to be on sci.physics.relativity. But I started the post! NE
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 04:27 On May 11, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD never explains anything, he just CLAIMS that he already has. He's to lazy to explain his definition of MOMENTUM. Is a single sentence of SCIENCE too much to ask? NE > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 04:28
On May 11, 9:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The publisher, Barnes and Nobel, goofed, not me, PD. NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |