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 14 May 2010 10:27 On May 14, 2:54 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: ... and what does THAT have to do with > the price-of-eggs in China? NE You made this claim: the longer a theory is debated, the less its validity. The roundness of the earth has been debated five times longer than relativity has been debated. According to YOU, then, the theory that the earth is round is five times more invalid than relativity. That's what it has to do with the price of eggs in China, John. > > > > > On May 6, 9:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Consider this, PD: The validity of any science theory is inversely > > > proportional to the time spend debating it. Einstein's 'relativity' > > > has been debated for over a century, and such is patently WRONG! > > > NoEinstein > > > There is ongoing debate about whether the Earth is flat, John.http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm > > Since this debate has been going on for 500 years, by your argument, > > the claim that the earth is round is 5x as wrong as relativity is. > > > > > On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > > > > > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > > > > > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > > > > > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > > > > > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > > > > > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, > > > > then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. > > > > > Now you don't seem so sure. > > > > > You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing > > > > to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law. And I > > > > want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark > > > > ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 > > > > years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are > > > > the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:28 On May 14, 3:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: Tell us, PD: How have you "cast doubt" on my ability to > practice architecture? If you think you have any insights at all > regarding my qualifications, list them one-by-one. If I was so a- > mind, I could sue you for every penny in your worthless bank account! Be my guest to try. Looking forward to it. Or are you nothing but hot air, John? > NoEinstein > > > > > On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, > > > architecture. > > > I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your > > qualifications to practice that profession. > > > > If I had a choice between designing great concert halls > > > or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of > > > humanity, I would choose the latter every time! > > > Then why did you choose architecture instead? > > > > Concert halls are for > > > the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU > > > built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > > > > On May 6, 8:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 5, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Tell me, PD: If I'm so "poorly suited" for scientific work, how is it > > > > > that I've made a greater contribution to physics than all of the > > > > > previous physicists put together? NoEinstein > > > > > And if you're so poorly suited for architecture, how is it that you > > > > have designed the grandest performance halls and the tallest buildings > > > > in the world? > > > > > What's the weather like today in NoEinsteinLand? > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD: You are Mr. Negativity. You can only feel superior (sic) by > > > > > > > putting others down. I wish I had had you for my teacher. I'd have > > > > > > > made you the laughing-stock of the school! NE > > > > > > > Oh dear. So you DO think reality checks are just negative put-downs. > > > > > > Such a fragile ego you have, John. > > > > > > You are very poorly suited for scientific work. This is not the place > > > > > > for the thin-skinned. > > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is talking down to the student, John, as I made > > > > > > > > clear. Would you think of this as an emotional smack-down if it > > > > > > > > happened to you, or would you consider it a fair reality-check? Or do > > > > > > > > you not like reality checks? Do you find reality checks to be nothing > > > > > > > > but negativism?- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:33 On May 14, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD hasn't quoted any authoritative source showing that WORK is in any > way involved in calculating KE. Oh, yes, I have, John. You don't seem to remember anything that was told to you the day before. Do you like easy to read pages? Here's one for students at West Virginia University: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/WorkEngergyTheorem.html "The energy associated with the work done by the net force does not disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), it is transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this the Work- Energy Theorem." > And he hasn't quoted any > authoritative source saying that "work" can be done simply by > COASTING, against no resistance! The definition of work is in high school books, John. > And he certainly can't explain how > 'gravity' could possibly 'know' the velocities of every falling object > (like hail from varying heights) and add the exact semi-parabolic KE > increase to each. Doesn't have to, John. The force is not solely responsible for the increase in energy. The work is. The work is the product of both the force and the displacement. That's how the work increases in each second. It's simple, John. Seventh graders can understand it. I don't know why you're so much slower than the average 7th grader. > In short, PD is a total, sidestepping FRAUD! And > 95% of the readers know that he's a fraud! NoEinstein > > > > > On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 > > > isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until > > > you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- > > > head FRAUD! NoEinstein > > > Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask > > you this time to print it out. > > > The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy > > of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. > > > The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of > > the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely > > to this work. > > > In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the > > increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by > > the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of > > kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work > > that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law > > of conservation of energy has been respected. > > > In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it > > will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an > > additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has > > remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the > > second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that > > it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the > > second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. > > > Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, > > after the first second, is the force of gravity times the > > displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic > > energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, > > we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's > > the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic > > energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 > > ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger > > than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll > > add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the > > displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this > > added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it > > now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 > > ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first > > second. > > > Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since > > the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in > > subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which > > gravity added. The energy is conserved. > > > It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in > > the ratios 1:4:9. > > Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios > > 1:2:3. > > > Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, > > losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as > > the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. > > > There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is > > proportional to v^2. > > > Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of > > this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > > > > > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > > > > > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not > > > > remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your > > > > newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times > > > > when it has been explained to you. > > > > > I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins > > > > anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. > > > > > I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to > > > > you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by > > > > morning, do you? > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:34 On May 14, 3:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 6:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD won't answer a simple question: WHAT IS MOMENTUM, PD?? NE Oh, but I HAVE answered it, John. What I won't do is repeat myself endlessly, just because you can't remember things from day to day, and just because you don't know how to look things up that happened yesterday. > > > > > 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 14 May 2010 10:42
On May 14, 3:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 Oh, come on, John. Really? All of the Barnes & Noble College Outline Series books have got both LC numbers and ISBNs. For example, the College Outline book by Clarence E. Bennett called Physics Problems and How to Solve Them has ISBN 0064602036. I gave you a long list of books by Clarence E. Bennett, all with ISBNs and LC numbers, and I just wanted you to identify with ISBN which one it was, so that I could secure a copy and look at it. You gave me two LC numbers, neither of which the Library of Congress recognizes. Clearly, you either cannot read a number or you are fabricating. Then you assert that this is an authoritative book that supports what you are saying, and yet you now claim the publisher did not think highly enough of the book to order either an ISBN or file it with the Library of Congress. And you'll note that you claimed the publisher did not file it with the Library of Congress after all, even after giving me TWO different LC numbers. I think you have a chronic problem with lying, John. Blustering and lying. I think it must be very hard for you to look at your own face in the morning knowing this, and so you bluster and lie some more to cover it up. Your actions speak for themselves, John. Even a high school kid could see you're a sham. > > > > > 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 - > > |