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 18:29 On May 14, 4:27 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Correction: Make that "too" lazy... NE > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 18:30 On May 14, 4:28 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Correction: Make that... Barnes & Noble NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 19:42 On May 14, 7:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > Dear Timo: Since my New Science has gravity being temperature and surface area dependent, you can't "know" the correct masses of those stars. The "new" mass of each must consider the color temperature and the surface area. All you know for sure is: The color temperature; the orbital period; and the eccentricity (wobble). You can't know the diameter(s) of the stars, because such is obscured by their own brightness. Michelson successfully used his interferometer to measure very small angles, but the width of stars wasn't possible I dont think. However, you should verify this. Obviously, you are intrigued with trying to confirm my New Science from astronomy rather than from a simple Earthly experiment(s). Be it known: The Laws of Physics are the SAME all across the Universe. Doing experiments, here, makes the most sense, I think. You can measure what you "think" is the total brightness. But you are actually only measuring the very tiny cone of light that has come all the way from the star(s) to the photoelectric cell. The color of that tiny beam will match the color temperature of the star(s), but won't give you a true idea of the actual lumen of a star, nor its surface area. There could, indeed, be valid indicators of the surface areas, but I'm not yet privy to how those could be determined. I clearly implied that the total gravity of a star is the total luminosity over the known surface area of the star. The absolute best place to make those gravity revisions is to correct for the gravity of the Sun. The much colder outer planets were probably over- estimated as to the mass. The mass of the Sun was over-estimated for sure. The gas giants like Jupiter may not have a well enough defined surface to say from whence its photon emissions emanate. Timo, the changes to astronomy, because of my new temperature and surface-area-variable gravity, are probably too broad for your and me, alone, to do anything definitive. Even the Earth/Moon gravity system probably needs adjustments. There is a tremendous amount of data on the likely density of the Moon. So, that would be a good place for someone, other than me, to look for variances. Except for the scientific curiosity, Im not sure how useful it will be knowing exactly how much gravity a certain star has. I suspect that I can devise a gravity drive design for spaceships without needing anything quantitative about stars gravities. The Romans built un reinforced concrete domes long before they knew what the strength of their concrete was, nor knew how to calculate the loads and the stresses on domes. Sometimes just do it is more practical than figure out the physics THEN do it. I already KNOW that the Big Bang didnt happen, and that there is no mass at the center of most galaxies. So, why is it important to know the gravity of stars? I suppose Im a pragmatist. If someone will give some practical application for knowing the new star gravities, I would like to hear. NoEinstein P.S.: Because of the time required to reply to your comments, I exited Google. So, I missed replying to your questions about the Cavendish experiment. I'll think on your questions and reply, soon. > > On May 14, 8:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 13, 2:29 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > What you arent considering (relative to your 1,000 fold gravity > > difference) is that those stars, with the masses that you state, > > arent rotating about the midpoint between their centers. > > The size of the orbit - which we can directly measure since this > binary system is very close to us - and the orbital period - which we > can also directly measure - together give us the combined mass of the > two stars. Where the centre of the orbital motion lies along a line > joining them tells us where the centre of mass is, and how that > combined mass is divided between them. The figures of m_A = 2M, m_B = > 1M come from this. So, you now know where the centre of motion is, > relative to the 2 stars. If, according to your theory, this > calculation should be done differently, do it. > > > And you > > arent including the surface area of each star in the equation. > > Brighter stars will have a larger surface area per unit mass. Also, > > though the TOTAL gravity of a star is equal to the product of the > > luminosity and the surface area, > > No, "luminosity" is the total emitted power. It already includes the > surface area. "Luminosity" = "surface brightness" times surface area. > As I said in the previous post. Sirius A radiates about 1000 times as > much power as Sirius B. This already includes the effect of surface > area. Yes, Sirius A has a much larger surface area - that's why it's > brighter. Go and look for yourself - Sirius A is the brightest star in > the night sky, and Sirius B isn't visible to the naked eye. It's a big > difference in luminosity. > > Look up the numbers for yourself, at your fingertips via www. > > > the fraction of the gravity thats > > holding two objects together is the illuminated area, or the > > percentage of the total stars light that actually hits the other > > star. It is the addition of photons to the facing sides of stars that > > allows the ether pressure on the opposing sides to hold the two stars > > together. Please re read my original post, There is no PULL of > > gravity; only the PUSH of flowing ether! > > You're the one who said that the gravity is proportional to the photon > emission. You didn't give any other usable quantitative model of the > strength of gravity. If the gravitational force should be found some > other way, perhaps you should have said so, and said how. All I did > was test the quantitative model that you gave me. If it's the wrong > model, why did you give it? If it's the wrong model, give the right > one. > > One star emits 1000 times as many photons as the other, yet only > appears to have twice the gravity. This is compatible with > conventional physics, including conventional theories of gravitation. > If it isn't compatible with your theory, then perhaps reality has cast > its vote, the only vote which counts in science. > > > The easiest way for you to confirm my theory would be to heat the > > larger ball in the Cavendish experiment as hot as possible. The > > torsion slowing should occur quicker with the hot ball than with the > > same ball cold. No other measurements are required. Do THAT > > experiment, and find that the heated ball has more gravity, and you > > can sit back and let the astronomers and scientists all over the world > > quantify the temperature-variant gravity! I, the generalist, provided > > the spark of inspiration. If others get to determine more of the > > specifics, they can share in the glory. NoEinstein > > As I keep asking, and as you keep refusing to say: How large is the > effect supposed to be? In other words, how sensitive does the > experiment need to be to detect it? There isn't much point in trying > it without knowing this. Since you claim that gravity is proportional > to "photon emission", for masses above some threshold mass (which you > haven't explained or given even an approximate value for yet), and > radiation by hot bodies is well known and understood, why can't you > say how large the effect should be? A simple calculation, surely, and > should be trivial for you. Why not just answer? > > For example, double the absolute temperature of the balls; easy to do, > just heat to about 330C. 16 times the radiated power, at double the > peak frequency, as compared with a room temperature ball. How much > larger should the gravitational force be?
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 19:53 On May 14, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Guy: You are a CAD for implying that I make up anything. I strongly suspect that you... MADE UP that there is a description of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, that has WORK in any way associated with the computation. And I doubt that if there was an expression that there would be a statement saying that WORK happens due to "displacement", even if such is due to COASTING against zero resisting load. And you are a CAD for implying that my f or p = mv definition of MOMENTUM is wrong, when you have never cold copied the text and the equations that say otherwise. The letter p stands for FORCE in most engineering texts. You CLAIM that p means something else, but you never quote your source. The reason you fault that little College Outline Series book that says f = mv, is because you don't want anyone faulting your... WORK definition of Conservation of ENERGY. Put up or shut up, PD. You are hanging by a 5% thread that will strangle you, if your don't! NE > > On May 14, 2:02 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 13, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: You are an absolute paradox: On the one hand you shun "what > > I am sellingmy New Science"; and on the other you survive only to, > > hopefully, elevate your lame intellectual status by protecting the > > status quo of physics from being disproved. Your only means of > > raising your status is now FAILING, PD, by about 19 to one. That's > > because no more than 5% of your fellow dunces support what you are > > doing. [*** An actual poll of the readers would be welcomed.] > > Fascinating. Love this policy of yours of just making data up. > > > > > > > Your "right" to be here, if it were just a matter of free speech, > > would be clear. But since your motive is to ANCHOR having there be > > any progress, by anyone, in SCIENCE, then, you are a person to be > > disdained by the Human Race. "Without CHANGE there can be no > > progress." Without the PDs of this world, there SHALL be progress! > > NoEinstein > > > P. S.: I don't need PD as "a client", nor would I accept such a > > failed pedant as him for a client. > > > > On May 12, 9:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I chose Architecture, PD, because the subject is BIG, like my > > > > capabilities. You chose High Energy Particle Physics, because those > > > > objects are TINY, like your BRAIN! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > Then stick to architecture, John. Not that I'll be a customer. > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 20:01
On May 14, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: Answer this: What the hell is your definition of MOMENTUM? Quote that from the text which says that WORK is involved in calculating the Law of the Conservation of ENERGY. That law says: ENERY in must = ENERGY out. Is that too difficult for you, PD? NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |