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 10:45 On May 14, 3:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > Oh, but I have explained things to you John, repeatedly. And then you've forgotten them the next day. Is your dementia your problem or mine?
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:48 On May 14, 3:28 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 11, 9:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The publisher, Barnes and Nobel, goofed, not me, PD. NE John, YOU were the one that supplied me with TWO DIFFERENT LC catalog numbers. Now, did the publisher goof by changing the LC number that is printed on your book from day to day in the past week? Neither LC catalog number is recognized by the Library of Congress, by the way. Do you have a problem owning up to any goof, John? Even when caught in a lie? Have you no shred of dignity left, and this is the only way you can protect what remains of your fragile ego? > > > > > 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. >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:49 On May 14, 3:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 11, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Where is your evidence, PD? You only CLAIM that you showed evidence. > PARAPHRASE everything! NE I did exactly what you asked for. I paraphrased the evidence that you will not look up yourself. That paraphrased evidence is below. If you do not believe the paraphrasing, then you will have to look at the evidence yourself. I'd be happy to provide you the reference for where you can do that. > > > > > On May 7, 5:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 3:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: No. Since you are a fraud, I would be > > > > happy if you could find, and paraphrase, even one bit of evidence > > > > supporting, Lorentz. He and Einstein (ha!) were meant for each other! > > > > NE > > > > Oh, this is easy. There is a circular track that circulates muons at a > > > lab called g-2. > > > > Here is a picture of it, in case you doubt it's real:http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/pictures/g2magnet2.jpg > > > > The ring is about 30 feet across and about 90 feet around. Muons at > > > rest live for 2.2 microseconds, which is easily observed with a Navy > > > surplus oscilloscope. If the muons lived that long in the ring, they > > > would go around the ring about 24 times before decaying. Instead, they > > > go around 37 times. That is, they live longer when they are traveling > > > fast around the ring. But the extra time they have before decaying is > > > exactly what Lorentz time dilation says they will have. Perfect > > > example of just one bit of evidence that time dilation is real. There > > > is of course scads and scads of further evidence. > > > > There. Short and sweet, and indisputable. > > > I hope you see, John, that the Lorentz equations are fully consistent > > with experimental measurements.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 14 May 2010 10:52 On May 14, 3:32 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 11, 2:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Claiming to have shown evidence NOT shown nakes you a fraud's fraud, > PD. NE Oh, but I DID show it, and it's still printed below, John. All you have to do is read it. A 7th grader would be able to follow it. Of course, if your strategy is to demand something and then fold your arms and shut your eyes and mutter, "No, no, no, no, no, I won't take it and you can't make me -- nyah," then there's not a lot that anyone can do for you, is there? > > > > > On May 7, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > So, John, do you now see how 1/2mv^2 is not in violation of the > > conservation of energy? > > I showed you how below, in plain language, step by step. Even a 7th > > grader can follow it. > > > > 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 11:48
On May 14, 2:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 7, 12:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: My New Sciencethat has Varying Ether Flow and Density > accounting for everything in the Universeis the Science truth! So, > it is YOU who must disprove my New Science; not me who must prove it. John, you must be under a serious delusion about how science is done. If you were under the impression that any fruitcake can make an assertion that makes sense to him, and that it stands as correct until someone takes the time to convince the fruitcake it's wrong, then I'm afraid you're horribly naive. Scientists put ideas out by publishing them where they can be examined in great detail. If it is experimental work, then the publication is used to try to replicate or improve on the result. If it is theoretical work, then the work is examined for holes or necessary consequences that would reveal its problems, if it has any. Stuff that is examined and immediately found to be obviously wrong is usually ignored, published but unreferenced in further work and put to no further use. If you find this to be not to your liking, then you probably should find another hobby. |