Dropping Coriolis Like a Feather (is Copyrighted.)
NoEinstein
the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
velocity 'c'"... has been allowed to limit man's vision for the future.
Though he was obsessively hard working, moronic Einstein got the above
mistaken notion from the 1830 kinetic energy equation of Coriolis, KE
= 1/2mv^2. And Coriolis formulated such equation in an attempt to
quantify the impact effects of falling objects--most dropped in ranges
below 100 feet.
No one before yours truly has considered that a large portion of the
destructive effects of falling objects--or any speeding object, such as
a cannon ball--results from this simple fact: "All materials have
strengths which vary depending upon the speeds of application of the
loads." But since the destructive effects of, say, a dropped stone or
a fired cannonball "seemed" to be the result of the velocities of
those objects, it is understandable--but not scientifically justifiable--
that Coriolis's equation tried to account for 100 percent of the
effect of a falling unit weight by making the KE increase
exponentially as a function of its velocity.
If, say, 50% of the destructive effects of a falling unit mass is due
to the reduced strengths of the materials when subjected to high speed
loading, and the other 50% is due to the unit mass's velocity at the
instant just before impact, then it is easy to see how Coriolis erred
in making KE a function of v^2. Since the "strength of materials"
aspect of any KE experiment depends on the materials being hit, and on
their geometries, a proper KE equation can only describe the force of
the impact, not any certain description of the destructive effects.
The equation for 'momentum', F = mv, has coexisted in the texts with
Coriolis's flawed KE equation. Both describe impact effects, but as I
explained above, Coriolis's equation is WRONG. And the momentum
equation is correct only if the mass is expressed in "slugs". One
slug is equal to 32.174 pounds. Being the practical person that I am,
I don't believe that a person should have to look up values, or have
to read the "fine print", to be able to correctly utilize an
equation. So I have rewritten the momentum equation: F = v/32.174
(m). That "32.174" is under the 'v', because forces of impact
increase in multiples of the velocity used to define the acceleration
due to gravity. Such velocity value--that happens to be the velocity
at the end of the first second of a compact object's free fall--is
32.174 feet/second. The earliest texts gave the value at 32; later
texts showed 32.2; and the exact value, without rounding off, is
32.174.
I am the first person to realize that any object about to be dropped
is ALREADY ACCELERA-TING! The Force of Gravity is causing the mass to
have weight. And the "destructive potential" of that weight doesn't
require a distance of fall, nor a velocity in which to accrue. For
example: Roll a cannonball off of a level table onto a stretched-level
piece of tissue paper. The instant application of the load to the
tissue paper will rip it. So, to correctly describe the KE of any
falling object, that object must begin with an impact potential equal
to its own weight!
The correct KE equation for falling objects is my own: KE = a/g (m) +
v/32.174 (m). Such has been verified in an experiment to determine
the height (velocity derived) from which a small clevis pin must be
dropped to equal the inertia (weight) of a larger clevis pin. And my
equation correctly predicted the height. The errant Coriolis equation
missed the drop height prediction by close to fifty feet! Why was
that so? Because, even though Coriolis's equation is a second power
function of 'v', MY equation begins with a KE value of 1 weight
multiple of force, while Coriolis's equation begins with a KE value of
ZERO.
A final nail in Coriolis's KE equation's coffin is that his equation
would require that gravity have some unexplained mechanism to SENSE
the velocity of falling objects--so that gravity can impart more KE to
a faster falling object, than to a slower falling one. If a billion
equal size hail stones were falling, but every one of them began
falling from a different height, the Force of Gravity would have to
have a super computer and speed detection devices under each and every
hail stone. And gravity would need to have some magic mechanism for
continuing to apply the most KE to the fastest falling hail stones.
Correct laws of physics can't have a zillion special conditions as
would be required for those hailstones. My correct KE equation,
above, only requires that gravity impart a uniform continuous downward
force equal to any object's static weight. Correct simplicity trumps
the incorrect and complicated every time!
Values, like 'g' forces, have been calculated for a long time using
Coriolis's errant KE equation. As with the Richter Scale for
Earthquakes, it isn't necessary that values be... linear... in order to
serve as a basis for comparison. The tragedy of Coriolis's errors is
that Albert Einstein used that man's ideas to write his own theories
of relativity. I have now summarily disproved both of those. I've
disproved the FOUNDATIONS of Einstein's theories, not just moot
quantitative particulars. By this simple to understand disproof of
Coriolis, the entire direction of science and technology in the world
is changed.
-- NoEinstein --
See also: Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Cleaning Away Einstein's Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
PD
> For too long Einstein's mistaken notion: "There isn't enough energy in
> the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
> velocity 'c'"... has been allowed to limit man's vision for the future.
> Though he was obsessively hard working, moronic Einstein got the above
> mistaken notion from the 1830 kinetic energy equation of Coriolis, KE
> = 1/2mv^2. And Coriolis formulated such equation in an attempt to
> quantify the impact effects of falling objects--most dropped in ranges
> below 100 feet.
Fortunately, in the years between 1830 and 1905, this expression for
kinetic energy was tested hundreds of times in settings completely
different than the experiments used by Coriolis.
Of course, none of this has occurred to you.
>
> No one before yours truly has considered that a large portion of the
> destructive effects of falling objects--
You seem to think that KE is *defined* in terms of the destructive
effects of falling objects. Nothing could be further from the truth.
> or any speeding object, such as
> a cannon ball--results from this simple fact: "All materials have
> strengths which vary depending upon the speeds of application of the
> loads." But since the destructive effects of, say, a dropped stone or
> a fired cannonball "seemed" to be the result of the velocities of
> those objects, it is understandable--but not scientifically justifiable--
> that Coriolis's equation tried to account for 100 percent of the
> effect of a falling unit weight by making the KE increase
> exponentially as a function of its velocity.
>
> If, say, 50% of the destructive effects of a falling unit mass is due
> to the reduced strengths of the materials when subjected to high speed
> loading, and the other 50% is due to the unit mass's velocity at the
> instant just before impact, then it is easy to see how Coriolis erred
> in making KE a function of v^2. Since the "strength of materials"
> aspect of any KE experiment depends on the materials being hit, and on
> their geometries, a proper KE equation can only describe the force of
> the impact, not any certain description of the destructive effects.
>
> The equation for 'momentum', F = mv, has coexisted in the texts with
> Coriolis's flawed KE equation. Both describe impact effects,
If you'd actually pick up the texts, open them, and *read* them, you'd
find that neither momentum or kinetic energy are defined in terms of
destructive impact effects. I don't know where you got the idea that
momentum and energy are defined in terms of how big a dent something
makes.
Momentum and energy are quantities that are *conserved* -- that is,
they obey conservation laws. These conservation laws are central to
physics and the reason that these quantities are interesting at all.
These conservation laws apply in any closed system, *regardless* of
what happens inside the system -- and this is true whether there is a
collision or not, whether there is a dent or not, whether there is a
"bong" or "clank" or not.
> but as I
> explained above, Coriolis's equation is WRONG. And the momentum
> equation is correct only if the mass is expressed in "slugs". One
> slug is equal to 32.174 pounds. Being the practical person that I am,
> I don't believe that a person should have to look up values, or have
> to read the "fine print", to be able to correctly utilize an
> equation. So I have rewritten the momentum equation: F = v/32.174
> (m).
The left hand side features an "F", which commonly denotes force in
most physics equations. Yet you call it a momentum equation. It
appears you don't know the difference between force, momentum, and
energy. To you, an impact is an impact is an impact, and if a force
and momentum and energy are all involved in impacts, then they must
mean the same thing, or there must be only one formula that should
apply in impacts.
> That "32.174" is under the 'v', because forces of impact
> increase in multiples of the velocity used to define the acceleration
> due to gravity. Such velocity value--that happens to be the velocity
> at the end of the first second of a compact object's free fall--is
> 32.174 feet/second. The earliest texts gave the value at 32; later
> texts showed 32.2; and the exact value, without rounding off, is
> 32.174.
>
> I am the first person to realize that any object about to be dropped
> is ALREADY ACCELERA-TING!
This is counter to the *definition* of acceleration. Please look up
the definition of acceleration.
> The Force of Gravity is causing the mass to
> have weight.
Yes, but having weight does not mean having acceleration.
> And the "destructive potential" of that weight doesn't
> require a distance of fall, nor a velocity in which to accrue. For
> example: Roll a cannonball off of a level table onto a stretched-level
> piece of tissue paper. The instant application of the load to the
> tissue paper will rip it.
Yes, but the ability to rip does not imply acceleration or kinetic
energy or momentum.
So it appears you now think that the capacity for creating a dent
implies acceleration, kinetic energy, and momentum.
Hold on. Let me look in my Funny Things drawer. I may have a Bonehead
pin in there.
> So, to correctly describe the KE of any
> falling object, that object must begin with an impact potential equal
> to its own weight!
>
> The correct KE equation for falling objects is my own: KE = a/g (m) +
> v/32.174 (m). Such has been verified in an experiment to determine
> the height (velocity derived) from which a small clevis pin must be
> dropped to equal the inertia (weight) of a larger clevis pin. And my
> equation correctly predicted the height. The errant Coriolis equation
> missed the drop height prediction by close to fifty feet! Why was
> that so? Because, even though Coriolis's equation is a second power
> function of 'v', MY equation begins with a KE value of 1 weight
> multiple of force, while Coriolis's equation begins with a KE value of
> ZERO.
>
> A final nail in Coriolis's KE equation's coffin is that his equation
> would require that gravity have some unexplained mechanism to SENSE
> the velocity of falling objects
Actually, no, it's pretty straightforward. You are under the
impression that gravity can only provide energy at a constant rate
with time. This is a bonehead mistake without any rational
justification at all.
The energy supplied by a force is called Work, and the common
expression for work is (force)x(distance). This also has been
*thoroughly* tested, and in fact energy is *defined* as the ability to
do Work as described above.
Now, if you will kindly look at that expression (force) x (distance).
If a force is applied to an object that is moving slowly, then it will
cover a small distance per unit time, and so the energy supplied as
work to that object by the force will be small. However, if an object
is moving quickly, then the distance covered per unit time will be
large, and the energy supplied as work to that object by the force
will be large.
Now, you may ask, "But how does the force KNOW how fast the object is
going, to be able to dispense energy to it faster?" It doesn't HAVE
to. Energy is not supplied out of a tap, at a given rate per second,
by a force. I don't know where you got the ridiculous notion that it
is.
The formula for Work, the energy supplied by a force, is taken because
it *works*, because it is *tested*. It does NOT have to meet your
criterion for sensibility or expectations about how energy is doled
out by a force. You have the expectation that energy is supplied at a
constant rate with time by a force. This expectation does not match
experiment. Therefore that expectation is WRONG. The fact that you do
not understand HOW it could be wrong is completely irrelevant.
I can point you to a 7th grade science textbook that also mentions
that Work = (force) x (distance), if you like. If you are not
convinced by the formula there, then I suggest you do some of the
experiments recommended in the 7th grade book until you ARE convinced
that the formula works.
Then you stand a chance of seeing that the rate of energy supplied by
gravity is NOT constant with time, but increases as the object's speed
increases, because the distance that force works over increases.
> --so that gravity can impart more KE to
> a faster falling object, than to a slower falling one. If a billion
> equal size hail stones were falling, but every one of them began
> falling from a different height, the Force of Gravity would have to
> have a super computer and speed detection devices under each and every
> hail stone.
BS. You don't have to know HOW the force supplies energy faster to
faster-falling objects. All you have to know is that it DOES.
> And gravity would need to have some magic mechanism for
> continuing to apply the most KE to the fastest falling hail stones.
Well, since this is what is verified to happen, then I suggest you
turn your efforts to figuring out what that mechanism is, rather than
just spluttering, "But... but... that can't BE!"
>
> Correct laws of physics can't have a zillion special conditions as
> would be required for those hailstones. My correct KE equation,
> above, only requires that gravity impart a uniform continuous downward
> force equal to any object's static weight. Correct simplicity trumps
> the incorrect and complicated every time!
>
> Values, like 'g' forces, have been calculated for a long time using
> Coriolis's errant KE equation. As with the Richter Scale for
> Earthquakes, it isn't necessary that values be... linear... in order to
> serve as a basis for comparison. The tragedy of Coriolis's errors is
> that Albert Einstein used that man's ideas to write his own theories
> of relativity. I have now summarily disproved both of those. I've
> disproved the FOUNDATIONS of Einstein's theories, not just moot
> quantitative particulars. By this simple to understand disproof of
> Coriolis, the entire direction of science and technology in the world
> is changed.
>
> -- NoEinstein --
>
> See also: Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
> Cleaning Away Einstein's Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Igor
> Cleaning Away Einstein's Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
If you want to waste money copyrighting nonsense, go right ahead.
Your treatise is juvenile and without any basis.
Eric Gisse
> For too long Einstein's mistaken notion: "There isn't enough energy in
> the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
> velocity 'c'"... has been allowed to limit man's vision for the future.
> Though he was obsessively hard working, moronic Einstein got the above
> mistaken notion from the 1830 kinetic energy equation of Coriolis, KE
> = 1/2mv^2. And Coriolis formulated such equation in an attempt to
> quantify the impact effects of falling objects--most dropped in ranges
> below 100 feet.
I had hot dogs for lunch. I bought them yesterday along with some
awesome sweet and hot mustard. That shit is so hot it burns my sinus
cavity when I exhale, but is still sweet.
I'd pay good money to see you try to work any problem from Goldstein.
[snip remaining, unread]
none
Be careful though, since all of physics is wrong, the answers you have
are obviously wrong so, if he gets the wrong answer, he is automatically
correct. He has worked his way through Einstein, Coriolis and Newton.
Next he will be working on Archimedes.
NoEinstein
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD is a persona non grata, determined to reinsert himself into
a conversation he is too stone headed to be objective in. All his
"issues" have been patiently explained to him dozens of times. But is
mantra is: "My mind is made up; don't confuse me (PD) with the
facts." Though his replies are long, his reasoning is short. Give PD
his childish due: Ignore him completely--wherever, and however he
replies. I repeat: PD is a persona non grate, NOT welcomed to reply
on my posts!!!!! :-} ~ -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Igor2: You are a coward. You attack the fringes of my post, not
the substance. Since you are without substance yourself, then that
explains it. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Folks: Maybe "hot food" will clean out Eric's brain cavity. (That's
all there is.) For someone who couldn't calculate the side angle of a
pyramid that fits inside of, and just touches, a hemisphere. And
someone who can't write an algebraic equation for calculating the time
required for a light beam to travel from a source to a mirror that is
moving. And someone who can't plot a parabola for d = t^2. And
someone who keeps failing his college courses... Eric sure likes to
imply that there are 'other things' that I can't do. Should the need
ever arise, I can best Eric in any intellectual area. Why? Because I
can do something Eric is incapable of: REASON. -- NoEinstein --
Replicating NoEinstein's Invalidation of M-M
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: None, a PNG, is so threatened by my new truths in science that
he follows me around like PD, Gisse, and Igor2. The replies of those
who are threatened by truths should just be ignored. The likes of
those four discourages those who can think--without cook-booking
supposed physics--from replying. Don't be afraid, smart people; the
"barks" of those four are worse than their bites! :-) --
NoEinstein --
none
Lets see, you hate PD because he points out in great detail your
mistakes and Igor2 since he points them out in general. What level
of pointing out your mistakes do you approve of?
(Not admitting your mistakes is not an option since they are obvious
for all educated people to see).
none
He is PNG with you, not the group. He points out your mistakes and you
do not like that. Either ignore him or fix your mistakes. He took
the time to carefully list them and you should get to work. The
things you claimed you have explained to him are just repeating your
mistakes.
Physics is just fine, you have changed nothing.
Dirk Van de moortel
cb07b09f-435a-48c3...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> On Apr 8, 10:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 7:16 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> Well, since this is what is verified to happen, then I suggest you
>> turn your efforts to figuring out what that mechanism is, rather than
>> just spluttering, "But... but... that can't BE!"
[snip]
> Folks: PD is a persona non grata,
Persona non graspa, you mean.
Dirk Vdm
PD
>
> Folks: PD is a persona non grata, determined to reinsert himself into
> a conversation he is too stone headed to be objective in. All his
> "issues" have been patiently explained to him dozens of times. But is
> mantra is: "My mind is made up; don't confuse me (PD) with the
> facts." Though his replies are long, his reasoning is short. Give PD
> his childish due: Ignore him completely--wherever, and however he
> replies. I repeat: PD is a persona non grate, NOT welcomed to reply
> on my posts!!!!! :-} ~ -- NoEinstein --
1. You didn't respond to any of the physics corrections I gave you.
2. You still haven't addressed why you think gravity has to dispense
energy at a constant rate with time, when the work-energy theorem
clearly shows that it doesn't.
3. You continue to post on a public group thinking that you have
either the power or the right to say who gets to reply to your posts.
4. You continue to think that you have the power or right to control
who should respond to MY posts. Just because you've dressed up as a
pirate captain and have fashioned a cardboard-box pirate ship, does
not make the rest of the world your crew.
PD
none
It is noeinstein who is afraid of the truth. Anyone who wants can
do experiments and see that his kinetic energy formula is wrong.
That truth is independent of what I think or say. Any reader can
do it themselves. Noeinstein just wants to bully people into
accepting his flawed experiment where he actually did not measure
kinetic energy.
His MM "explanation" relies on having the velocity average of
light slowed by the motion with respect to the universe in one
direction and accelerated by that motion on the return path be
equal to C. It is simple algebra to show that this is wrong. The
fact that it is not equal to c is what MM were depending on to
measure our speed. They did not find it. So noeinstein's explanation
is DOA and relativity is doing just fine.
Since the facts do not support noeinstein, who is it that is threatened?
Igor
What substance? It's all fringe. You post like a five year old girl.
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 8, 7:08 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 4:16 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > For too long Einstein's mistaken notion: "There isn't enough energy in
> > > the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
> > > velocity 'c'"... has been allowed to limit man's vision for the future.
> > > Though he was obsessively hard working, moronic Einstein got the above
> > > mistaken notion from the 1830 kinetic energy equation of Coriolis, KE
> > > = 1/2mv^2. And Coriolis formulated such equation in an attempt to
> > > quantify the impact effects of falling objects--most dropped in ranges
> > > below 100 feet.
>
> > I had hot dogs for lunch. I bought them yesterday along with some
> > awesome sweet and hot mustard. That shit is so hot it burns my sinus
> > cavity when I exhale, but is still sweet.
>
> > I'd pay good money to see you try to work any problem from Goldstein.
>
> > [snip remaining, unread]
>
> Folks: Maybe "hot food" will clean out Eric's brain cavity. (That's
> all there is.) For someone who couldn't calculate the side angle of a
> pyramid that fits inside of, and just touches, a hemisphere.
I calculated the side angle, just not the side angle you wanted.
> And
> someone who can't write an algebraic equation for calculating the time
> required for a light beam to travel from a source to a mirror that is
> moving. And someone who can't plot a parabola for d = t^2. And
> someone who keeps failing his college courses... Eric sure likes to
> imply that there are 'other things' that I can't do. Should the need
> ever arise, I can best Eric in any intellectual area. Why? Because I
> can do something Eric is incapable of: REASON. -- NoEinstein --
I melted a beer bottle in the microwave.
Want to see pictures?
Darwin123
> On Apr 8, 8:03 pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Eric Gisse wrote:
> > > On Apr 8, 4:16 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Folks: None, a PNG, is so threatened by my new truths in science that
> he follows me around like PD, Gisse, and Igor2.
I am hurt. You left me out.
Timo Nieminen
> I melted a beer bottle in the microwave.
>
> Want to see pictures?
Yes!
I only managed to explode bottles when I tried such tricks. Perhaps a
difference between clear and coloured glass?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
none
working but, in any case, I want to see pictures. Uncle Al had
a nice example of ionic conductivity in glasses in another thread
where if you put a piece of glass in series with a 100 watt bulb
and heat the glass it eventually gets conductive enough to
keep the bulb lit.
Eric Gisse
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Eric Gisse wrote:
> > I melted a beer bottle in the microwave.
>
> > Want to see pictures?
>
> Yes!
OK. Apologies for the un-uniform quality of the shitbox camera.
I also include AWESOME FOOTAGE of a lightbulb failing to deal with
its' reality and the aftermath. I didn't know a lightbulb could make
that many pieces!
I wonder what makes the various colors....the purple was quite
intense!
http://rapidshare.com/files/106263583/microwave.zip.html
>
> I only managed to explode bottles when I tried such tricks. Perhaps a
> difference between clear and coloured glass?
The lightbulb exploded in a satisfactory manner. Try that!
Warning: exploding light bulbs make a mess. A lot of it. I probably
shouldn't be doing this 5 feet from my bed.
Maybe your microwave is too good - too much thermal flux too fast =
pieces of bottle. This is some little shitheap I picked up off the
floor and fixed with tin foil.
The rotating plate shattered in two pretty evenly when I tried to do
the same thing with it.
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0804101019570.2734-100000@localhost...
| On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Eric Gisse wrote:
|
| > I melted a beer bottle in the microwave.
| >
| > Want to see pictures?
|
| Yes!
|
| I only managed to explode bottles when I tried such tricks. Perhaps a
| difference between clear and coloured glass?
|
Or flint glass and polymerised ethane/styrene which makes just as
good a bottle with a much lower melting point.
NoEinstein
Dear Folks: A theorem can't hold sway to reasoning and experiments
that disprove such. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> It is noeinstein who is afraid of the truth. Anyone who wants can
> do experiments and see that his kinetic energy formula is wrong.
> That truth is independent of what I think or say. Any reader can
> do it themselves. Noeinstein just wants to bully people into
> accepting his flawed experiment where he actually did not measure
> kinetic energy.
> His MM "explanation" relies on having the velocity average of
> light slowed by the motion with respect to the universe in one
> direction and accelerated by that motion on the return path be
> equal to C. It is simple algebra to show that this is wrong. The
> fact that it is not equal to c is what MM were depending on to
> measure our speed. They did not find it. So noeinstein's explanation
> is DOA and relativity is doing just fine.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: More over-the-hill babble from a desperate persona non grata
(and non "graspa!). -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: Igor2 posts like a pedophile. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Darwin123: You haven't been replying long enough for me to make
any generalizations! -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
Do you have extensive pedophile experience to make such a observation?
mitc...@hotmail.com
Gamma energy resists acceleration. While Gamma motion goes infinite.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
PD
1. A theorem IS reasoning.
2. It is supported by experiments. You have not published any
experiments that disprove anything.
NoEinstein
>
Folks: Since Eric is a college flunkout, my guess is that he doesn't
have any girlfriends. While he dreams of Angelina Jole, he blows up
light bulbs and glass bottles in his microwave oven, and pesters
everyone in the news groups. If anyone has a... "sexual problem", it
is Eric Gisse. He has used that word "pedophile" many times. So,
there is a good chance... -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain KE
due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one weight
multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
experiment to high accuracy! -- NoEinstein --
PD
You haven't published any experimental verification of this claim.
Moreover, the claim is counter to experimental evidence. The work-
energy theorem has been verified thousands of times in thousands of
applications. The energy supplied by a force is proportional to the
force and the *distance* through which the force acts, not the time.
Seventh-grade science books write this as work = force x distance. It
is verified in everything from playground teeter-totters to
hydroelectric dams. Thus, when an object is falling slowly and covers
a small distance in a second, then the energy supplied by the force of
gravity is small in that second. In the next second, when the object
is moving faster and covers more distance in that next second, then
the energy supplied by the force of gravity is larger in that next
second.
NoEinstein's claim that the force of gravity adds the same amount of
energy in each second is simply and flatly wrong. He has no
experimental evidence that he care's to share. He is unwilling,
however, to admit that he made a foolish mistake and has been sending
letters to university presidents and in fact the president of the
United States with that foolish mistake in it. It would bother him a
great deal to appear the fool.
Prediction: he will not listen or talk to anyone who tells him he has
made a foolish mistake.
PD
Greg Neill
news:cae93046-7df9-42f6...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> Prediction: he will not listen or talk to anyone who tells him he has
> made a foolish mistake.
Perhaps we should send 'round a petition and get it
over with then.
Randy Poe
> Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain KE
> due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one weight
> multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
> experiment to high accuracy!
Where was this experimental verification published?
- Randy
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:631a6e72-5262-4171...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Same place as Phuckwit Duck's "speed of light" experimental verifications -
ex recto, as you call it.
Randy Poe
> --
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
>
> news:631a6e72-5262-4171...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> | On Apr 11, 5:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> | > Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain KE
> | > due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one weight
> | > multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
> | > experiment to high accuracy!
> |
> | Where was this experimental verification published?
>
> Same place as Phuckwit Duck's "speed of light" experimental verifications -
> ex recto, as you call it.
Incorrect. There are many published experiments available
in the research literature. The Relativity FAQ has many.
- Randy
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a53cc737-3433-41a1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
| On Apr 11, 11:12 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > --
| > This message is brought to you by Androcles
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
| >
| > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:631a6e72-5262-4171...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Apr 11, 5:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| > | > Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain
KE
| > | > due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one
weight
| > | > multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
| > | > experiment to high accuracy!
| > |
| > | Where was this experimental verification published?
| >
| > Same place as Phuckwit Duck's "speed of light" experimental
verifications -
| > ex recto, as you call it.
|
| Incorrect.
Oh... out of his arse, then.
Dirk Van de moortel
In the eyes of the imbeciles these are all lies of course.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Gisse
> On Apr 10, 10:38 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: Since Eric is a college flunkout, my guess is that he doesn't
> have any girlfriends. While he dreams of Angelina Jole, he blows up
> light bulbs and glass bottles in his microwave oven, and pesters
> everyone in the news groups. If anyone has a... "sexual problem", it
> is Eric Gisse. He has used that word "pedophile" many times. So,
> there is a good chance... -- NoEinstein --
Good call on Angelia Jole - have you SEEN those lips?
[...]
Timo A. Nieminen
> On Apr 11, 4:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain KE
>> due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one weight
>> multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
>> experiment to high accuracy! -- NoEinstein --
>
> You haven't published any experimental verification of this claim.
> Moreover, the claim is counter to experimental evidence. The work-
> energy theorem has been verified thousands of times in thousands of
> applications. The energy supplied by a force is proportional to the
> force and the *distance* through which the force acts, not the time.
> Seventh-grade science books write this as work = force x distance. It
> is verified in everything from playground teeter-totters to
> hydroelectric dams.
Energy in = energy out for a lossless lever is a pretty good verification.
There aren't many places where, every day, you see somebody huffing
and puffing against physics that's been known for over 2000 years (this
dates back to (Pseudo-)Aristotle Mechanics and Archimedes). Isn't usenet
wonderful!
--
Timo
PD
This is probably the moment where most normal people would have the
"oh, crap" moment, crumple up the piece of paper and chuck it in the
trash. However, this is also the moment where some other people
convince themselves that they have reinvented science and start
writing letters to university presidents, with the special favor of
offering them a first look at a revolution. The difficulty is that,
after months or years of conviction and letter writing campaigns, it's
much, much harder to crumple up that piece of paper and chuck it in
the trash.
The secret to poker is to fold when you've just got your ante on the
table, not when you've got your whole life's savings, your watch, and
the title to your car on the table.
PD
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb55265e-9d61-4008...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
You are so right about that, Duck. Why do you continue to bluff
and back a dead man who said the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A'?
Most normal people would have the "oh, crap" moment, crumple up
the ridiculous postulate and chuck it in the trash. But then you'd have
to admit you were wrong and you'd rather bluff because you are a true
fuckwit.
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 8:03 pm, none <""doug\"@(none)"> wrote:
> >> Eric Gisse wrote:
> >>>> For too long Einstein's mistaken notion: "There isn't enough energy in
> >>>> the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
> >>>> velocity 'c'"... has been allowed to limit man's vision for the future.
> >>>> Though he was obsessively hard working, moronic Einstein got the above
> >>>> mistaken notion from the 1830 kinetic energy equation of Coriolis, KE
> >>>> = 1/2mv^2. And Coriolis formulated such equation in an attempt to
> >>>> quantify the impact effects of falling objects--most dropped in ranges
> >>>> below 100 feet.
> >>> awesome sweet and hot mustard. That shit is so hot it burns my sinus
> >>> cavity when I exhale, but is still sweet.
> >>> I'd pay good money to see you try to work any problem from Goldstein.
> >>> [snip remaining, unread]
> >> Be careful though, since all of physics is wrong, the answers you have
> >> are obviously wrong so, if he gets the wrong answer, he is automatically
> >> correct. He has worked his way through Einstein, Coriolis and Newton.
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > who are threatened by truths should just be ignored. The likes of
> > those four discourages those who can think--without cook-booking
> > supposed physics--from replying. Don't be afraid, smart people; the
> > "barks" of those four are worse than their bites! :-) --
> > NoEinstein --
>
> > Cleaning Away Einstein's Mishmash
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
>
> It is noeinstein who is afraid of the truth. Anyone who wants can
> do experiments and see that his kinetic energy formula is wrong.
> That truth is independent of what I think or say. Any reader can
> do it themselves. Noeinstein just wants to bully people into
> accepting his flawed experiment where he actually did not measure
> kinetic energy.
> His MM "explanation" relies on having the velocity average of
> light slowed by the motion with respect to the universe in one
> direction and accelerated by that motion on the return path be
> equal to C. It is simple algebra to show that this is wrong. The
> fact that it is not equal to c is what MM were depending on to
> measure our speed. They did not find it. So noeinstein's explanation
> is DOA and relativity is doing just fine.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Folks: Jaw-wagging by an echo-for-a-brain, None. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD is a vacuum for a brain. He can't stand that I have done
things in science. But vacuums don't matter, do they? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: The present science establishment is about as biased as
PD. Read my posts, again. Those explanations should convince any
reasonable person. Of course one must have "reasoning" ability. How
about you? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> news:631a6e72-5262-4171...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> | On Apr 11, 5:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> | > Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain KE
> | > due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one weight
> | > multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
> | > experiment to high accuracy!
> |
> | Where was this experimental verification published?
>
> Same place as Phuckwit Duck's "speed of light" experimental verifications -
> ex recto, as you call it.
Androcles: Actually, I have explained all of my science findings,
repeatedly, on this sci.physics. The explanations I give are the same
as in my technical articles, that are Copyrighted. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Plastic... probably, plastic. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD should take his own advice and fold! -- NoEinstein --
Randy Poe
Blather on a newsgroup is not "experimental verification".
"Experimental
verification" involves an actual, reproducible experiment, one
described
sufficiently that a reader could verify it independently.
I just went to Mars and back using my old Corolla and 2 gallons
of gas. There, I just proved that space travel can be achieved
cheaply by anyone. And any "reasonable" person should believe
me. My claim should convince anyone. How about you?
- Randy
PD
Umm... there's that physics stuff up there you ignored.
Tell me, NoEinstein, is work = force x distance also wrong?
PD
PD
> --
> This message is brought to you by Androcles
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
Why would I need to bluff when all the cards are face up? Now, you can
continue to proclaim that there aren't any cards, that they aren't
face up, and that the one that looks like the queen of spades can't be
the queen of spades because the queen of spades is impossible.
PD
> On Apr 11, 8:51 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 5:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain KE
> > > due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one weight
> > > multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
> > > experiment to high accuracy!
>
> > Where was this experimental verification published?
>
> > - Randy
>
> Dear Randy: The present science establishment is about as biased as
> PD.
So you haven't published it? Even on your own blog, where the science
establishment can't touch it? Why not? Think they'll come and take you
away and beat you up?
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:78fd9808-2464-4ad6...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> and back a dead man who said the "time" required by light to travel
> from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A'?
>
> Most normal people would have the "oh, crap" moment, crumple up
> the ridiculous postulate and chuck it in the trash. But then you'd have
> to admit you were wrong and you'd rather bluff because you are a true
> fuckwit.
[mid sentence interruption fixed]
[Your reply goes here]
| Why would I need
That looks like a question coming up. Answer mine first.
Why do you continue to bluff and back a dead man who said the
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Apr 11, 6:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 8:51 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 5:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain KE
>>>> due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one weight
>>>> multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
>>>> experiment to high accuracy!
>>
>>> Where was this experimental verification published?
>>
>>> - Randy
>>
>> Dear Randy: The present science establishment is about as biased as
>> PD.
>
> So you haven't published it? Even on your own blog, where the science
> establishment can't touch it? Why not? Think they'll come and take you
> away and beat you up?
That's the point.
They *will* come and take him away and beat him up.
Dirk Vdm
none
Again no answer to the physics, only personal insults. This means
he is very sure he is wrong.
none
What bothers PD is that everything you have done is physics is wrong.
You did an experiment you did not understand so you assumed that
the world was wrong. Your mistakes would be embarrassing for a high
school person.
none
We have read your posts. You did an experiment you did not understand
and so you thought the world was wrong.
PD
Why would you do that?
>
> [Your reply goes here]
Why would I do that?
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7bbfc073-76b3-4db3...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
PD
Now even Androcles is going to lengths to prove that he has nothing
new to say.
PD
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fc90aef-ed1c-4f35...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Nothing new? Ok... <shrug>
Why do you continue to bluff and back a dead crank who said the
"time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
it requires to travel from B to A on his short trip to Wrong?
Most normal people would have the "oh, crap" moment.
Are you too dumb for even the "oh crap" moment, Duck?
Yes, of course you are. Do carry on blustering.
Randy Poe
Nothing new.
>
> Why do you continue to bluff and back a dead crank who said the
> "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
> it requires to travel from B to A on his short trip to Wrong?
This is not new. It appears on at least half your posts.
>
> Most normal people would have the "oh, crap" moment.
> Are you too dumb for even the "oh crap" moment, Duck?
> Yes, of course you are. Do carry on blustering.
This is not new. It also appears on most of your posts.
So... nothing new. Including the snipping.
- Randy
Androcles
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b896542-060b-46a2...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<shrug>
|
| >
| > Why do you continue to bluff and back a dead crank who said the
| > "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time"
| > it requires to travel from B to A on his short trip to Wrong?
|
| This is not new. It appears on at least half your posts.
Still can't answer it, though, can you? That's because you are dumb.
| >
| > Most normal people would have the "oh, crap" moment.
| > Are you too dumb for even the "oh crap" moment, Duck?
| > Yes, of course you are. Do carry on blustering.
|
| This is not new. It also appears on most of your posts.
Duck's "oh crap" moment IS new, I happen to agree with it.
Are you too dumb for the "oh crap" moment, Poe?
Here it is: the "time" required by light to travel from A to B
equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A-- "oh crap".
| So... nothing new. Including the snipping.
At least you have to common courtesy not to interrupt
before the subject of the sentence is stated, even if you don't
understand it. Knee-jerk Draper interrupts before anything
is said. Typical idiot schoolmarm.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Randy: Get real! You are on the cusp of being declared a PNG
(someone without hope of comprehension of any truths). Earlier this
year you made the correct calculations for the distance of fall of
objects during seconds 1, 2, 3, and 4. If you could also do the
elementary school math to calculate the velocity at the END of seconds
1, 2, and 3. And if you would (or could) SUBTRACT the latter NUMERIC
velocity values from those correct distances of fall... you will
discover and confirm that GRAVITY is adding exactly 16.087 feet of NEW
fall distance above the COASTING distance (which doesn't contribute to
KE)! And adding such same distance of fall each and every second
equates to a force input, by gravity, that is uniform, and thus
linear! And a LINEAR input of gravitational force (in pounds = to the
object's static weight) equates to ONLY a linear increase in KE, NOT
to an exponential KE increase--as was claimed by Coriolis, and was
blindly accepted by Einstein WITHOUT any experiments that would
conform to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD!
So, Randy, unless you will hold Coriolis and Einstein to at least the
same requirements of "repeatability" as you do me, then it is YOU who
have the fatal bias toward non-science! At your request, I will give
you the sizes of the clevis pins used in my KE vs. inertia
experiment. My guess is that you are both too biased, and too lazy to
verify the test. For you--and most repliers on my posts--it is far
easier to just bitch (like a female dog).
Please confirm the simple subtraction in: Dropping Einstein Like a
Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
or take you childish replies elsewhere! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Folks: The 'Force acting through a Distance' equation yields the
correct work if such is AGAINST A RESISTANCE, only. The fall
distances of objects in free fall include a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second(s), that has no corresponding counter
force. Remove the COASTING distance, and the force acting through a
distance must use the same distance increase EACH second of 16.087
feet. Adding the same distance each second will result in a linear
increase in the KE, or the "work producing" potential of every falling
object.
The above is beyond the reasoning capacity of PD's frontal
lobes. Regardless of the proofs presented, his lone brain neuron
keeps firing... "wrong". People should judge my science with a brain
power more than by PD's one errant neuron! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD is the antithesis of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. His method, is
the last man standing is right. And he won't be that person! --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Dirk: They will do that, because no supposed physicist likes to
be shown to have 'egg' on his or her face. They just use their non-
existent 'status' to belittle my new science truths, that they were
too DUMB to realize when they first heard about Einstein's moronic
ideas! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: None should speak for himself! He clings to the status quo,
because he isn't smart enough to reason anything correctly on his
own! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
NoEinstein
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Prediction: he will not listen or talk to anyone who tells him he has
> > made a foolish mistake.
>
> over with then.
Dear Greg: Truths are their own best defense. No polls or votes are
required as "a means" of confirmation! -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
Why do you think we care?
[snip stupidity]
Dirk Van de moortel
6caa7b9e-57be-44e2...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> On Apr 12, 4:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
> SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> 89f4f455-5af8-43d6-ba57-60c189934...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 6:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 11, 8:51 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 11, 5:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Dear Folks: How about this theorem of my own: "Falling bodies gain KE
>>>>>> due to Earth's gravity at a uniform rate with time, adding one weight
>>>>>> multiple per second." Such correct theorem has been verified via
>>>>>> experiment to high accuracy!
>>
>>>>> Where was this experimental verification published?
>>
>>>>> - Randy
>>
>>>> Dear Randy: The present science establishment is about as biased as
>>>> PD.
>>
>>> So you haven't published it? Even on your own blog, where the science
>>> establishment can't touch it? Why not? Think they'll come and take you
>>> away and beat you up?
>>
>> That's the point.
>> They *will* come and take him away and beat him up.
... and the harder they beat, the more he will do his
best to earn even more beatings :-)
Fun!
Dirk Vdm
PD
Not so, and I have no idea whatever gave you that stupid idea. Please
refer to a 7th grade science book. Work = force x distance, whether
against a resistance or not. Thoroughly tested in thousands of
applications.
> The fall
> distances of objects in free fall include a COASTING component carried
> over from the previous second(s), that has no corresponding counter
> force. Remove the COASTING distance, and the force acting through a
> distance must use the same distance increase EACH second of 16.087
> feet. Adding the same distance each second will result in a linear
> increase in the KE, or the "work producing" potential of every falling
> object.
> The above is beyond the reasoning capacity of PD's frontal
> lobes. Regardless of the proofs presented, his lone brain neuron
> keeps firing... "wrong". People should judge my science with a brain
> power more than by PD's one errant neuron! -- NoEinstein --
Yes, I certainly invite people to judge what you call proofs, too.
How's that working for you, NoEinstein? Any positive judgements yet?
PD
PD
But you failed to fetch an egg before flinging your arm. As it was,
you just threw an empty load. And missed, to boot.
> They just use their non-
> existent 'status' to belittle my new science truths,
If they were true, we wouldn't belittle them. But you haven't said
anything true yet. All you've done is write a string of mistakes,
which have been pointed out to you, and then you fling insults.
PD
Not so. I let you have the last word quite often, and you're STILL
wrong. This isn't about who says "uncle". I'm not going to make you
say "uncle", and I know that. You wouldn't dream of owning up to a
mistake. It would fracture whatever teeny ego you have left, and I
understand that.
But tell me, NoEinstein: what do you think the scientific method
involves, exactly? Can you briefly describe what the scientific method
is?
> And he won't be that person!
Oh, I know that. You are the one with the compulsion to respond to
EVERY SINGLE ONE of my posts. It is EXTREMELY CRITICAL to you that you
always get the last word, to show that you're still standing, no
matter how juvenile your response is. This matters to you more than
just about anything.
--
> NoEinstein --
Randy Poe
Damn. I'm not trying hard enough.
> Earlier this
> year you made the correct calculations for the distance of fall of
> objects during seconds 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Yes. I can also tell you what the distance is at 1.5 seconds,
or 4.3 seconds, or in between them.
Can you?
- Randy
none
ignoring the truth.
none
I am happy to see people do the experiments and see the results. You
do not want this since you know you are wrong. I do not have to do
anything more than watch the experiments. You are afraid to show yours
and only want to bluster hoping that people are stupid enough to
accept them without question even though they have been shown to be
wrong millions of times. Show you experiment so it can be discussed
and your mistakes pointed out to you. I have already pointed out
your math mistakes in the MM experiment you claim to have done.
Let us see your other mistakes or shut up and admit you are
bluffing.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric = PNG. So, why should I care? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> 6caa7b9e-57be-44e2-ba70-d35a43276...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Dirk: If a fellow was being beaten on the street, would you
stand and watch, or try to break it up? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Folks: This one is too good to pass up! Newton requires that for
every action there be an equal and opposite reaction! So, to apply a
force to a mass, there MUST be a resistance. PD "imagines" that he is
applying, say, ten pounds of force to an object on a table. But he
can do no such thing if the object weighs one pound, and the table top
is made of slick Teflon. To apply a force, there MUST be a
resistance! Falling objects that are coasting have a constant energy
potential. The 'work' in elevating the object is just that height of
lift necessary to cause that specific velocity. The 'work' doesn't
increase just because the object coasts a long distance.
PD's one brain neuron is over-worked. He should find himself a
new hobby, like watching gold fish breath. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD is mired in insults. He would be a great 'discovery' in
archeology; his garbage gives clues to his useless. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD (still) = PNG! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: What about d = t^2 don't you understand? Can you state
the correct VELOCITY at the end of seconds 1, 2, and 3? That is a yes
or no question; not a change-the-subject question. If an object has a
'final' velocity in an acceleration, such velocity will predict how
far the object will coast. Since you have already given me the
correct fall distance during seconds 1, 2, 3, and 4, all you need to
do is to subtract the coasting distances carried over from the
previous second.
Like I've explained, the new distance increase, each and every
second, caused by the uniform force of gravity is 16.087 feet. Equal
non-coasting distance increase = linear increase in velocity and in
KE. And that equality disproves Coriolis and Einstein's theories of
relativity. Admit that simple truth, or quit masquerading as someone
who is objective about science. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
None = PNG -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
None = PNG -- NoEinstein --
Randy Poe
That you don't understand that it says "d is equal to
the square of t".
> Can you state
> the correct VELOCITY at the end of seconds 1, 2, and 3? That is a yes
> or no question; not a change-the-subject question.
The answer is yes.
The velocity is v = v0 + a*t.
Can *you* state the velocity at 1.5 seconds? At 5.1 seconds?
At 1.2 seconds if the initial velocity was 10 m/sec upward?
- Randy
PD
:>)
Oh, you're priceless!
So you think that Newton's third law means that there is resistance to
every force?
This is a junior high mistake.
Think about it for just a second, NoEinstein.
Newton's 1st law says that if there is no *net* force on an object,
then it cannot accelerate.
Now, Newton's 3rd law says that the reaction force is *equal* and
*opposite* to the action force. Now, if every force on an object
induced an *equal and opposite* force on the same object, then there
would never be a net force on an object (because the equal and
opposite ones would always cancel out), and then we'd never see an
object accelerate. But drop an egg from waist-height, and it will
surely accelerate.
So something appears to be amiss. Wonder what it is? (Hint: It's not
Newton's laws.)
> PD "imagines" that he is
> applying, say, ten pounds of force to an object on a table. But he
> can do no such thing if the object weighs one pound, and the table top
> is made of slick Teflon.
Sure I can. If I sit on the object on the table, I'm applying a force
to that object considerably more than one pound, even if the table top
is made of slick Teflon.
> To apply a force, there MUST be a
> resistance! Falling objects that are coasting have a constant energy
> potential.
"Constant energy potential". I wonder what that means. It appears to
be another term that *sounds* like physics, but not quite.
> The 'work' in elevating the object is just that height of
> lift necessary to cause that specific velocity. The 'work' doesn't
> increase just because the object coasts a long distance.
Work = force x distance.
If gravity is applied to an object and the object covers a larger
distance because it is going faster, then gravity will supply more
work, exactly in accordance with the expression above.
And indeed, if an elevator descends 40 stories at 10 mph, the force of
gravity contributes more energy to the elevator than if an elevator
descends 5 stories at 10 mph.
PD
So you don't have an idea what the scientific method entails?
Dirk Van de moortel
If it was someone like you who was being beaten up, I'd ask
if you would like me to join the beating. Although I would hate
beating someone, I would gladly oblige, provided you asked
politely - as you always do.
Dirk Vdm
none
This shows your interest in truth. You ignore facts and expect others to
just agree with you. You are wrong.
none
wrong. Why not show them for the world to see if you actually think
they are correct?
none
Thank you, you have outdone yourself in showing how little you actually
understand about physics. You really should read at least a high school
level physics book to see how silly your statements are.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD talks the talk, but can't respond to reason. That why he's
a PNG. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD = PNG -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Dirk: Some have called boxing a gentleman's game. Thanks for at
least being polite! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
None = PNG, also. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: In most days, I give one or more descriptions of either my M-M
disproof (no CONTROL) or my Coriolis invalidation. This post explains
the latter quite well. None could understand my disproofs if the will
was there. But like the female dog that None is, she would rather
just "bitch". -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: Like most females, None likes cooking. That's why cook-
booking physics is the only game she knows. -- NoEinstein --
none
have to now attack algebra. You did not calculate average velocity
correctly, a mistake that would have been embarrassing for you in
high school. The rest of your MM description is laughable.
Your KE experiment is one you do not understand so you assume the
world is wrong.
If you believed you were right, you would present results for discussion
instead of bluster.
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: Your equation is correct, of course. But I asked you for
the VALUES. You keep avoiding doing that 5th grade math, because if
and when you do, you will be forced to admit that KE accrues
linearly. And that simple fact disproves Einstein and all of his
space-time garbage.
I don't need to be going on any of your wild goose chases, but...
the v at 1.5 sec. = 72.3915 ft. per sec.; at 5.1 sec. = 836.846 ft.
per sec.
3.281 ft. x 10 m per sec. = 32.81 ft. per sec. vertical velocity
at the start. Excluding air resistance, for each second that gravity
acts, the velocity will drop by 32.174 ft. per sec. So, at 1.02
seconds the object reaches its max. height. At clock time 1.2
seconds, the object will have fallen back to earth for .18 seconds.
At the later drop time the velocity is: 1.046 ft. per second.
Now, it's your time to "do the coasting distance math" or shut
up. -- NoEinstein --