Dropping Coriolis Like a Feather
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
Helmut Wabnig
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
snisnipsnipp
>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.
snisnipsnipp
You are wrong, as always.
Things have WEIGHT only if put on a balance or scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale
w.
PD
Let's count the mistakes:
> 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.
There's one. (1/2)mv^2 is completely compatible with objects traveling
faster than c and incompatible with Einstein's claim.
> 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.
There's two. Increasing as the square is not exponential growth.
>
> 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.
There's three. Kinetic energy is not intended to account completely
for destructive effects, nor is it coupled to them strictly. In a
collision between billiard balls, for example, there is a transfer of
kinetic energy which involves no destructive effects whatsoever.
Furthermore, energy is not force, force is not momentum, though
transfer of energy and momentum and a force all appear in impacts.
>
> The equation for ‘momentum’, F = mv,
There's four. That's not an equation for momentum used in texts.
> has coexisted in the texts with
> Coriolis’s flawed KE equation. Both describe impact effects,
There's five. Momentum's value is as a conserved quantity, not so much
as a descriptor of impact effects. Again, momentum is transferred in
the billiard ball case.
> but as I
> explained above, Coriolis’s equation is WRONG. And the momentum
> equation is correct only if the mass is expressed in “slugs”.
There's six. You can use any proper system of units and it's
appropriate unit for MASS (not weight).
> One
> slug is equal to 32.174 pounds.
There's seven. A slug is the mass that has a weight of 32.174 pounds
(at certain locations). Weight is a force, not a mass.
> 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.
There's eight. You've demonstrated that this practice leads to using
an equation incorrectly consistently.
> So I have rewritten the momentum equation: F = v/32.174
> (m)
There's nine, for obvious reasons.
>. 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.
There's ten. The force of impact depends on the distance the object is
decelerated, and can vary for two identical objects falling from
exactly the same height. This is the reason why you will break your
ankles jumping onto pavement from a 2nd story window but will not
break your ankles if you jump onto a mattress from a 2nd story window.
> 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.
There's eleven. That value is an average value. The value for the
acceleration of gravity varies with geographical location and
elevation.
>
> I am the first person to realize that any object about to be dropped
> is ALREADY ACCELERA-TING!
There's twelve. Acceleration is DEFINED as the rate of change of
motion. If an object is at rest for any interval of time, its
acceleration is zero during that interval by DEFINITION of
acceleration.
> 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.
There's thirteen. You have confused force of impact with the inability
of a tissue to provide sufficient tensile strength to support the
weight of the cannonball. They are not the same thing, which an
architect should know.
> So, to correctly describe the KE of any
> falling object, that object must begin with an impact potential equal
> to its own weight!
There's fourteen. The fact that you have identified kinetic energy
with "destructive impact" has led to this mess. As just mentioned, if
a substance doesn't have enough strength to provide a force to support
an object, this has nothing to do with any impact, and CERTAINLY
doesn't have to do with kinetic energy which is DEFINED as the energy
associated with motion. If an object has a speed of zero, its kinetic
energy is zero BY DEFINITION, regardless whether that object can be
supported or not.
>
> The correct KE equation for falling objects is my own: KE = a/g (m) +
> v/32.174 (m).
There's fifteen, for obvious reasons.
> 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.
There's sixteen. The experiment is not replicable and it hasn't been
sufficiently documented to permit replication.
> 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.
There's seventeen. The reason is that you don't know how to apply the
kinetic energy equation.
>
> 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.
There's eighteen. You've assumed that the constant application of a
force should yield the constant increment of kinetic energy. This is
simply an erroneous assumption.
> 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.
There's nineteen. Since you have made an erroneous assumption, this
leads you to think that the force has to do something to compensate
for your erroneous assumption and counter it, which leads to further
wild projections about "supercomputers" and the like. Magic appears
like magic to the audience because they make mistaken assumptions
about what's going on on stage.
>
> 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.
There's twenty. You calculate "gees" simply by computing the
acceleration of a body, and finding out how many times larger that is
than g.
> 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,
There's twenty-one. On the contrary, the foundations of Einstein's
theories were the principle of relativity and the constancy of the
speed of light.
> 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.
There's twenty-two. Since you've convinced NO ONE of your ideas, there
has been and there will be no directional change of science and
technology activities due to your efforts.
PD
Androcles
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:596b7c7b-7053-4a0e...@t13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 26, 2:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Let's count the mistakes:
> 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.
There's one. (1/2)mv^2 is completely compatible with objects traveling
faster than c and incompatible with Einstein's claim.
> 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.
There's two. Increasing as the square is not exponential growth.
>
> 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.
There's three. Kinetic energy is not intended to account completely
for destructive effects, nor is it coupled to them strictly. In a
collision between billiard balls, for example, there is a transfer of
kinetic energy which involves no destructive effects whatsoever.
Furthermore, energy is not force, force is not momentum, though
transfer of energy and momentum and a force all appear in impacts.
>
> The equation for �momentum�, F = mv,
There's four. That's not an equation for momentum used in texts.
> has coexisted in the texts with
> Coriolis�s flawed KE equation. Both describe impact effects,
There's five. Momentum's value is as a conserved quantity, not so much
as a descriptor of impact effects. Again, momentum is transferred in
the billiard ball case.
> but as I
> explained above, Coriolis�s equation is WRONG. And the momentum
> equation is correct only if the mass is expressed in �slugs�.
There's six. You can use any proper system of units and it's
appropriate unit for MASS (not weight).
> One
> slug is equal to 32.174 pounds.
There's seven. A slug is the mass that has a weight of 32.174 pounds
(at certain locations). Weight is a force, not a mass.
> 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.
There's eight. You've demonstrated that this practice leads to using
an equation incorrectly consistently.
> So I have rewritten the momentum equation: F = v/32.174
> (m)
There's nine, for obvious reasons.
>. 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.
There's ten. The force of impact depends on the distance the object is
decelerated, and can vary for two identical objects falling from
exactly the same height. This is the reason why you will break your
ankles jumping onto pavement from a 2nd story window but will not
break your ankles if you jump onto a mattress from a 2nd story window.
> 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.
There's eleven. That value is an average value. The value for the
acceleration of gravity varies with geographical location and
elevation.
>
> I am the first person to realize that any object about to be dropped
> is ALREADY ACCELERA-TING!
There's twelve. Acceleration is DEFINED as the rate of change of
motion. If an object is at rest for any interval of time, its
acceleration is zero during that interval by DEFINITION of
acceleration.
> The Force of Gravity is causing the mass to
> have weight. And the �destructive potential� of that weight doesn�t
> 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.
There's seventeen. The reason is that you don't know how to apply the
kinetic energy equation.
>
> 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.
There's eighteen. You've assumed that the constant application of a
force should yield the constant increment of kinetic energy. This is
simply an erroneous assumption.
> 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.
There's nineteen. Since you have made an erroneous assumption, this
leads you to think that the force has to do something to compensate
for your erroneous assumption and counter it, which leads to further
wild projections about "supercomputers" and the like. Magic appears
like magic to the audience because they make mistaken assumptions
about what's going on on stage.
>
> 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.
There's twenty. You calculate "gees" simply by computing the
acceleration of a body, and finding out how many times larger that is
than g.
> 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,
There's twenty-one. On the contrary, the foundations of Einstein's
theories were the principle of relativity and the constancy of the
speed of light.
> 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.
There's twenty-two. Since you've convinced NO ONE
======================================
You are the NO ONE.
--
No math, just more verbal diarrhea from a sociopathic bully.
"c is 1 and unitless" -- Mallard
"(x1-x2)^2 + (y1-y2)^2 + (z1-z2)^2 - (t1-t2)^2 is invariant" -- Mallard.
"It turns out that you can verify curvature of a space without
ever stepping away from the space to see it embedded in a
higher dimension." - Mallard.
"Requests for *proof* will be routinely ignored in science because
theories are not proven in science."-- Mallard.
Algebra and irrational numbers have you fucked, Mallard.
If you do not comprehend it, it is only by virtue of your choice NOT
TO TRY, not to expend the effort.
You are a fucked up blind duck.
The rancid fat, Mal-lard, has nothing better to do with his time and
my computer is too dumb to care.
It is a lazy man who whines in the way you do, Mallard.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to appear]
NoEinstein
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:50:21 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
>
>
> snisnipsnipp>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.
>
> snisnipsnipp
>
> You are wrong, as always.
>
> Things have WEIGHT only if put on a balance or scale.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighing_scale
>
> w.
So, Helmut. You suppose you are weightless sitting in your chair,
simply because you aren't sitting on a (ha!) scale. And I suppose a
mountain is weightless because there is no scale under it. If you
suppose I am "wrong as always" why is it that in the three years or so
I have replied on sci.physics, you have only replied to be, like, ten
times? My guess is that you don't reply, because you know you can't
out-reason me on anything. If you think otherwise, I invite you to
give a list of
the names and the links to '+ new posts' that you have made, if any.
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He is incapable of learning; and
he's a pathological liar. — NE —
NoEinstein
wrote:
> "PD" <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:596b7c7b-7053-4a0e...@t13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 2:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Let's count the mistakes:
>
> > the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
> > 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.
>
> There's one. (1/2)mv^2 is completely compatible with objects traveling
> faster than c and incompatible with Einstein's claim.
>
> > And Coriolis formulated such equation in an attempt to
> > below 100 feet.
>
> > No one before yours truly has considered that a large portion of the
> > a cannon ball—results from this simple fact: “All materials have
> > strengths which vary depending upon the speeds of application of the
> > a fired cannonball “seemed” to be the result of the velocities of
> > those objects, it is understandable—but not scientifically justifiable—
> > effect of a falling unit weight by making the KE increase
> > exponentially as a function of its velocity.
>
> There's two. Increasing as the square is not exponential growth.
>
>
>
> > 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
> > instant just before impact, then it is easy to see how Coriolis erred
> > 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.
>
> There's three. Kinetic energy is not intended to account completely
> for destructive effects, nor is it coupled to them strictly. In a
> collision between billiard balls, for example, there is a transfer of
> kinetic energy which involves no destructive effects whatsoever.
> Furthermore, energy is not force, force is not momentum, though
> transfer of energy and momentum and a force all appear in impacts.
>
>
>
>
> There's four. That's not an equation for momentum used in texts.
>
> > has coexisted in the texts with
>
> There's five. Momentum's value is as a conserved quantity, not so much
> as a descriptor of impact effects. Again, momentum is transferred in
> the billiard ball case.
>
> > but as I
> > equation is correct only if the mass is expressed in “slugs”.
>
> There's six. You can use any proper system of units and it's
> appropriate unit for MASS (not weight).
>
> > One
> > slug is equal to 32.174 pounds.
>
> There's seven. A slug is the mass that has a weight of 32.174 pounds
> (at certain locations). Weight is a force, not a mass.
>
> > Being the practical person that I am,
> > to read the “fine print”, to be able to correctly utilize an
> > equation.
>
> There's eight. You've demonstrated that this practice leads to using
> an equation incorrectly consistently.
>
> > So I have rewritten the momentum equation: F = v/32.174
> > (m)
>
> There's nine, for obvious reasons.
>
> > increase in multiples of the velocity used to define the acceleration
> > due to gravity.
>
> There's ten. The force of impact depends on the distance the object is
> decelerated, and can vary for two identical objects falling from
> exactly the same height. This is the reason why you will break your
> ankles jumping onto pavement from a 2nd story window but will not
> break your ankles if you jump onto a mattress from a 2nd story window.
>
> > 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.
>
> There's eleven. That value is an average value. The value for the
> acceleration of gravity varies with geographical location and
> elevation.
>
>
>
> > I am the first person to realize that any object about to be dropped
> > is ALREADY ACCELERA-TING!
>
> There's twelve. Acceleration is DEFINED as the rate of change of
> motion. If an object is at rest for any interval of time, its
> acceleration is zero during that interval by DEFINITION of
> acceleration.
>
> > The Force of Gravity is causing the mass to
> > 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.
>
> There's seventeen. The reason is that you don't know how to apply the
> kinetic energy equation.
>
>
>
> > would require that gravity have some unexplained mechanism to SENSE
> > a faster falling object, than to a slower falling one.
>
> There's eighteen. You've assumed that the constant application of a
> force should yield the constant increment of kinetic energy. This is
> simply an erroneous assumption.
>
> > 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.
>
> There's nineteen. Since you have made an erroneous assumption, this
> leads you to think that the force has to do something to compensate
> for your erroneous assumption and counter it, which leads to further
> wild projections about "supercomputers" and the like. Magic appears
> like magic to the audience because they make mistaken assumptions
> about what's going on on stage.
>
>
>
> > would be required for those hailstones. My correct KE equation,
> > above, only requires that gravity impart a uniform continuous downward
> > the incorrect and complicated every time!
>
> > Coriolis’s errant KE equation.
>
> There's twenty. You calculate "gees" simply by computing the
> acceleration of a body, and finding out how many times larger that is
> than g.
>
> > As with the Richter Scale for
> > 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,
Androcles: Being on the right side of science is fun, isn't it? PD
is on the wrong side. He only seeks to discredit, never to
comprehend. If anyone knows anything positive that PD has ever done
in his life, please explain. We all need a good laugh! — NE —
PD
> On Oct 27, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He is incapable of learning; and
> he's a pathological liar. — NE —
I've lied about nothing. You just find people who point out your
stream of mistakes to be "negative" and turn your back on them. I can
pretty well imagine that you have your back turned to just about
everyone.
jbriggs444
> > One
> > slug is equal to 32.174 pounds.
>
> There's seven. A slug is the mass that has a weight of 32.174 pounds
> (at certain locations). Weight is a force, not a mass.
If you consistently adopt the slug-pound-second system
then the "pound" is unambiguously a force. Point for PD.
If you adopt the U.S. customary system, the "pound" is
often used carelessly as either denoting a force (as in
a "pound-foot" of torque, a "foot-pound" of energy or a
"15 pound test" fishing line) or denoting a mass (as
in "net weight 1 pound", or "1/4 pounder with cheese").
It is possible to use the "pound-pound-second" system
carefully. If one does so, the correct meaning of
"pound" can be determined from context. In this
context, it would be the pound-mass that is defined
as 0.45359237 kilograms.
I am not convinced that the slug actually has a
standard definition that is as precise as
32.174 * 0.4539237 kilograms. But NoEinstein
is at least close on this one.
[...]
>
> > So I have rewritten the momentum equation: F = v/32.174
> > (m)
>
> There's nine, for obvious reasons.
Yowza.
Generous scoring there, only counting that one as a single
error. Maybe you're awarding just the +1 for "not even wrong".
PD
>
> Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He is incapable of learning; and
> he's a pathological liar. — NE —
>
Just so you know... As long as you continue to post nonsense that is
full of errors both in fact and in reason, you will find people will
continue to comment that you are talking out of your ass. You will not
find here that you have a forum where you can say what you want,
unmolested and uncriticized. That is not how this newsgroup operates
typically. No devout wish on your part will alter that fact. You do
not have that kind of influence, even in prayer. Moreover, you know
you will have to look at each and every one of those responses and
suffer the pain of seeing people say that you are talking out of your
ass. I know this because you respond to each and every response to
you.
The only behavior that you can control to alter this outcome is your
own. So, John Armistead, how do you plan to alter your behavior to
alter this outcome?
PD
NoEinstein
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a persona non grata. His main expertise is in knowing
how to twist the meaning of any term so that only he is correct
(sic). A "mass" is a quantity of matter that will exert a force equal
to the Earth weight when subjected to a force capable of accelerating
the object 32.174 feet per second EACH second. PD is a shell-game con
artist who distorts the truth for selfish and destructive reasons. He
has never made a '+new post' on sci.physics. He is mister "everything
is wrong"—a worthless and negative (non) human being. — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot
Busting MythBusters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e95660ecf69048d/ae6c137610ee3437?hl=en#ae6c137610ee3437
Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7f59b900f24e881/38262930c6655db1?hl=en#38262930c6655db1
Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/85646434c6d7cd3b/fa38761134ee8408?hl=en#fa38761134ee8408
Dropping Coriolis like a feather.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/182d6fbe7e70b75f/21c92e2427fd7e98?hl=en#21c92e2427fd7e98
PD
> On Oct 27, 12:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD is a persona non grata. His main expertise is in knowing
> how to twist the meaning of any term so that only he is correct
> (sic).
Don't be silly. I'm telling you the definition that physicists use. If
you don't use the same definition, then only you are wrong.
> A "mass" is a quantity of matter that will exert a force equal
> to the Earth weight when subjected to a force capable of accelerating
> the object 32.174 feet per second EACH second.
No sir. That is not the definition of mass.
> PD is a shell-game con
> artist who distorts the truth for selfish and destructive reasons. He
> has never made a '+new post' on sci.physics.
I've made two new posts in the last few days. Can you not find even
those?
> He is mister "everything
> is wrong"—a worthless and negative (non) human being.
I'm only Mister "Most of what NoEinstein writes is wrong". That's
because most of what you write is wrong.
That's not my fault, it's yours. Do you think you have the right to
say wrong things and have them go unchallenged?
>
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He is the defender (to the death)
of the errant status quo in science which I have now disproved and
corrected. His standard of correctness is any twisting of the truth
(lies) that will discredit honest science truths. He has been the
parasite dunce dogging my every step for the past three years. Should
free speech allow such negativity? If there is no... "fire", why is
PD allowed to cause harm and to disrupt progress via his mindless
lies? I invite any reasonable thinkers among you to reply. — NE —
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD
> On Oct 28, 9:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He is the defender (to the death)
> of the errant status quo in science which I have now disproved and
> corrected. His standard of correctness is any twisting of the truth
> (lies) that will discredit honest science truths. He has been the
> parasite dunce dogging my every step for the past three years. Should
> free speech allow such negativity?
If it's free, I'd think that criticism should certainly be *promoted*,
let alone tolerated.
Whatever gave you the idea that free speech meant that what you said
would be free from criticism?
My, you have a thin skin.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Pedant: It is symptomatic of the "smoke-and-mirrors" nature of
physics that people keep arguing over the difference between mass and
weight. I've made those arguments moot in my New Science:. All of
the following have the units POUNDS: Weight; mass, force, inertia,
potential energy, kinetic energy, momentum, impulse, and power. In
mechanics only WORK and torque have a different unit: foot-pounds or
inch-pounds. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He can't learn and is a
pathological liar. He hates the truth, reason, honesty, and progress
in science, and has never done a positive thing in his pitiful life.
— NE —
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He can't learn and is a
pathological liar. He hates the truth, reason, honesty, and progress
in science, and has never done a positive thing in his pitiful life.
— NE —
>
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He can't learn and is a
pathological liar. He hates the truth, reason, honesty, and progress
in science, and has never done a positive thing in his pitiful life.
— NE —
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear Readers: There are two main types of “science” indicated in
textbooks: The useful and the useless. In mechanics, 75% or so is
useless. For example: The impact effects of moving objects are
affected by both the FORCE of impact, in pounds, and by the velocity
of the impact. There is no logic whatsoever in having a confusing
quantity, misnamed “momentum”, that includes velocity and mass in the
units. Results obtained with such units only allows one to say that a
particular moving object will have a more destructive effect on
“comparable” materials when hit. BUT the latter information could be
ascertained by considering the FORCE of impact in pounds, separate
from the velocity of the impact in feet per second.
For at least a generation prior to Coriolis writing his kinetic energy
equation, KE = ½ mv^2, people were miffed by the varying failure rates
of plank foot bridges resulting from the downward velocity of a
person’s body. Initially, these were casual harmonic effects caused
by walking across a plank. That evolved into deliberately jumping up
and down in the middle of a plank to observe the increase
‘power’ (apparently) resulting from velocity.
It was well known that a rapidly moving cannon ball will knock down
the wall of a fort better than a slower-moving cannon ball. In 1830,
Coriolis gave his best effort to write: KE = 1/2mv^2. Unfortunately
for him, kinetic energy is still “energy”, and all energy equations
must conform to the Law of the Conservation of Energy. For a unit
mass, the only variable (input of energy) is the velocity, v. Since a
continuous uniform FORCE (or any greater-value impetus force) is
associated with an increase in velocity, for any linear increase in
velocity, the KE must be increasing linearly as well. Clearly, in
the Coriolis equation, the velocity is causing a semi-parabolic
increase in the “output” energy—which invalidates his equation.
What Coriolis never took into consideration is that the destructive
effects of cannon balls on stone walls have much to do with the
reduction in the strengths of the stone and mortar when subjected to
fast loading. But Coriolis was attributing 100% of the destruction to
the velocity, which he should not have done!
Newton wrote a useless equation: F = ma. If that is all that is
explained, no valid and useful information can be obtained from the
errant equation. But the accelerations that are associated with a
given uniform, axial applied force on a unit mass CAN be obtained from
my modified momentum formula: F = v / 32.174 (m). For example: A
mass of one pound (near the Earth, of course) traveling 32.174 feet
per second will hit with a force on one pound. For each increase in
velocity of 32.174 feet per second, the force of impact will increase
one weight unit! And, in the case of falling objects near the Earth,
the force of impact will increase one weight unit per second of fall!
Any surface or fixed object being hit by a moving object will
experience a force as in the above paragraph. If the object is
accelerating, its inertia, or static weight, will add in one
additional weight unit of impact force. The correct equation is KE =
a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m). The ‘unit’ is pounds, because the
mathematical aspect needing to be “corrected” was the VELOCITY, not
the mass! That old correction, “SLUGS”, required that the mass be
expressed in 32 pound increments. Here is a case where the know-
little mathematicians screwed-up physics, royally. If not for the
mistaken definition of momentum, and the units, Einstein never would
have written his ridiculous SR “theory”.
The force of the impact of a bullet on, say, a steel plate (in pounds
only) usually won’t dent the metal. But the near total drop in the
strength of the steel due to the high speed application of that force
makes the steel behave closer to butter. Most of the information in
this subject area has come from actual experiment, not from the
application of any equation. MythBusters refers to the “force” of a
moving car hitting a duct tape barrier as so many… “foot-pounds of
force.” Folks, forces are measured in POUNDS, not in foot-pounds! A
‘pound’ of impact force can have vastly different results depending on
the speed the force is applied. The majority of research in this area
will remain experimental. Equations for high speed material
destruction just won’t “cut it”! — 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...
PD
> On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Readers: There are two main types of “science” indicated in
> textbooks: The useful and the useless. In mechanics, 75% or so is
> useless. For example: The impact effects of moving objects are
> affected by both the FORCE of impact, in pounds, and by the velocity
> of the impact. There is no logic whatsoever in having a confusing
> quantity, misnamed “momentum”, that includes velocity and mass in the
> units.
I find it amazing that you would declare anything that you find
confusing and over your head to be "useless".
By that measure, most of the functions available in every bit of
software you use on your computer are "useless" because you have no
idea what they mean or do.
Momentum finds value in physics by virtue of the fact that it is a
*conserved* quantity. You find it confusing when you use it to
describe the effects of impact. That's alright. Momentum is not
particularly interesting because of its use in describing impact.
> Results obtained with such units only allows one to say that a
> particular moving object will have a more destructive effect on
> “comparable” materials when hit. BUT the latter information could be
> ascertained by considering the FORCE of impact in pounds, separate
> from the velocity of the impact in feet per second.
This turns out to be incorrect as well. For example, the SAME object
delivered with the SAME speed impinging on two different targets will
have dramatically different destructive effects. So has the SAME
object delivered with the SAME speed somehow generated two different
FORCES of impact in pounds, by your formula below? If so, you'll have
to explain how, because it sure looks like your formula says the force
of impact will be the same regardless of target.
Then why haven't you read more of the explanation devoted to this
equation. There are whole chapters written on it in even elementary
physics books.
NoEinstein
> of impact will be the same regardless of target.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > equation, KE = ½ mv^2, people were miffed by the varying failure rates
> > of plank foot bridges resulting from the downward velocity of a
> > person’s body. Initially, these were casual harmonic effects caused
> > by walking across a plank. That evolved into deliberately jumping up
> > and down in the middle of a plank to observe the increase
> > ‘power’ (apparently) resulting from velocity.
>
> > It was well known that a rapidly moving cannon ball will knock down
> > the wall of a fort better than a slower-moving cannon ball. In 1830,
> > for him, kinetic energy is still “energy”, and all energy equations
> > must conform to the Law of the Conservation of Energy. For a unit
> > mass, the only variable (input of energy) is the velocity, v. Since a
> > continuous uniform FORCE (or any greater-value impetus force) is
> > associated with an increase in velocity, for any linear increase in
> > velocity, the KE must be increasing linearly as well. Clearly, in
> > increase in the “output” energy—which invalidates his equation.
>
> > effects of cannon balls on stone walls have much to do with the
> > reduction in the strengths of the stone and mortar when subjected to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD is a persona non grata. He can't learn, and is a
pathological liar. He only has "time" to denigrate the positive posts
of others. But he never has had time to make a single '+new post' on
the groups! His only expertise is the "put-down". And I will not be
a party to it! — NE —
PD
SPAMMER
NoEinstein
NoEinstein
>
Folks: “Someone” said: “Kinetic energy is not intended to account
completely for destructive effects, nor is it coupled to them
strictly. In a collision between billiard balls, for example, there is
a transfer of kinetic energy which involves no destructive effects
NOTE: A set arrangement of billiard balls on a table gets DESTROYED
with every collision. If each ball was an atom in a material’s
matrix, bursting the atoms apart would be quite a destruction. To say
otherwise would be like saying blowing up a man isn’t destruction so
long as his heart, liver, and etc. stay in units. Some may suppose
they have beaten me with interpretations and “meanings”, but no one
will ever beat me on the clear science. — NoEinstein —
>
> On Oct 26, 3:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Dear Readers: There are two main types of “science” indicated in
> textbooks: The useful and the useless. In mechanics, 75% or so is
> useless. For example: The impact effects of moving objects are
> affected by both the FORCE of impact, in pounds, and by the velocity
> of the impact. There is no logic whatsoever in having a confusing
> quantity, misnamed “momentum”, that includes velocity and mass in the
> units. Results obtained with such units only allows one to say that a
> particular moving object will have a more destructive effect on
> “comparable” materials when hit. BUT the latter information could be
> ascertained by considering the FORCE of impact in pounds, separate
> from the velocity of the impact in feet per second.
>
> For at least a generation prior toCorioliswriting his kinetic energy
> equation, KE = ½ mv^2, people were miffed by the varying failure rates
> of plank foot bridges resulting from the downward velocity of a
> person’s body. Initially, these were casual harmonic effects caused
> by walking across a plank. That evolved into deliberately jumping up
> and down in the middle of a plank to observe the increase
> ‘power’ (apparently) resulting from velocity.
>
> It was well known that a rapidly moving cannon ball will knock down
> the wall of a fort better than a slower-moving cannon ball. In 1830,Coriolisgave his best effort to write: KE = 1/2mv^2. Unfortunately
> for him, kinetic energy is still “energy”, and all energy equations
> must conform to the Law of the Conservation of Energy. For a unit
> mass, the only variable (input of energy) is the velocity, v. Since a
> continuous uniform FORCE (or any greater-value impetus force) is
> associated with an increase in velocity, for any linear increase in
> velocity, the KE must be increasing linearly as well. Clearly, in
> the Coriolisequation, the velocity is causing a semi-parabolic
> increase in the “output” energy—which invalidates his equation.
>
> WhatCoriolisnever took into consideration is that the destructive
> effects of cannon balls on stone walls have much to do with the
> reduction in the strengths of the stone and mortar when subjected to
> fast loading. ButCorioliswas attributing 100% of the destruction to
> > = 1/2mv^2. AndCoriolisformulated 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—
> > thatCoriolis’sequation 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 howCorioliserred
> > 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’sflawed KE equation. Both describe impact effects, but as I
> > explained above,Coriolis’sequation is WRONG. And the momentum
> > that so? Because, even thoughCoriolis’sequation is a second power
> > function of ‘v’, MY equation begins with a KE value of 1 weight
> > multiple of force, whileCoriolis’sequation begins with a KE value of
> > ZERO.
>
> > A final nail inCoriolis’sKE 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’serrant 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 ofCoriolis’serrors is
> > that Albert Einstein used that man’s ideas to write his own theories
> > of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On Nov 1, 4:10 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Folks: “Someone” said: “Kinetic energy is not intended to account
> completely for destructive effects, nor is it coupled to them
> strictly. In a collision between billiard balls, for example, there is
> a transfer of kinetic energy which involves no destructive effects
> whatsoever.”
>
> NOTE: A set arrangement of billiard balls on a table gets DESTROYED
> with every collision. If each ball was an atom in a material’s
> matrix, bursting the atoms apart would be quite a destruction. To say
> otherwise would be like saying blowing up a man isn’t destruction so
> long as his heart, liver, and etc. stay in units. Some may suppose
> they have beaten me with interpretations and “meanings”, but no one
> will ever beat me on the clear science. — NoEinstein —
Keep flailing, John. Have you ever considered reading a book?
Oh, that's right, you don't like to read, it's hard on your eyes.
You've complained about the size of the font on the screen before. No
wonder the thought of reading is distasteful to you. You prefer to
just make stuff up.
> ...
>
> read more »
NoEinstein
>
Folks: I wonder if PD, the now perpetual PNG. has ever "considered"
making a '+new post' to expound his non-science? Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —
PD
> On Nov 4, 4:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: I wonder if PD, the now perpetual PNG. has ever "considered"
> making a '+new post' to expound his non-science? Ha, ha, HA! —
> NoEinstein —
You can't read. I told you already that I've made two new posts in the
last 3 weeks.
You can't use Google groups. You can't find them.
> ...
>
> read more »
NoEinstein
becomes a persona non grata on my posts. PD has never said anything
credible in the last three years he has pestered me. And he has
never made a "white paper" '+new post' that he names and links to. He
just berates me for not going on his wild goose chases to search out
his replies—as if I give a damn. He called me a 'spammer' for tagging
him a PNG, when it is HE who has been STALKING me, daily. Where is a
well-placed lightening bolt from God when we all need one? Ha, ha,
HA! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Folks: No person who has anything credible to say about science
becomes a persona non grata on my posts. PD has never said anything
credible in the last three years he has pestered me. And he has
never made a "white paper" '+new post' that he names and links to. He
just berates me for not going on his wild goose chases to search out
his replies—as if I give a damn. He called me a 'spammer' for tagging
him a PNG, when it is HE who has been STALKING me, daily. Where is a
well-placed lightening bolt from God when we all need one? Ha, ha,
HA! — NE —
>
PD
18 posts in his own thread, out of 30 posts total to date.
11 out of those 18 were devoted to declaring someone persona non
grata.
For those of you quantitatively inclined, that's 60% in both cases.
Do you think, John, that you are demonstrating your intelligence to
the world by doing this?
You're a park-bench mutterer, John.
spudnik
known as "*vis viva*;" now, please,
go away, and come again to play,
some other day!
the Coriolis effect/force is another,
wonderful thing, pretty-much more fundamental
than most physical constraints or "laws" ... and
so easy to demonstrate in the classroom, or
at the God-am beach (no, not that, "on that,"
thank *you* .-)
thus:
you're lucky, it wasn't the list
of the last of the uninteresting numbers.
thus: Einstein cannot be disproven,
merely exemplified with better illustrations
than the pants-diagrams of Minkowski's followers.
thus: the soi-dissant news is that some folks
in the northern tier of states don't really
get the "warmingth" part of it,
probably having some thing to do with the differential
of insolation from the equator to the pole,
thence a bit of trigonometry ... a tiny, raw smidgeon,
just enough to project the direction cosine
onto a simplified case, the equinox at noon e.g.
ad vomitorium et an emergency bag
in the correctly accessible sickness compartment.
two, vast/emptyish parts of Canada!
--les ducs d'oil sont Beyondish Petroleumish!
http://tarpley.net
--Lumiere, Un Histoire!
http://wlym.com
NoEinstein
Folks: No person who has anything credible to say about science
NoEinstein
Folks: Spudnik, like Burt, has his own ideas about the Universe. As
far as Spudnik and the truth goes: "Never the twain shall meet." —
NoEinstein —
spudnik
on Coriolis to Wookiepoopeya; a small excerpt, but
all of the rest of it was concerning the C. "effect:
In addition, objects traveling upwards or downwards will be deflected
to the west or east respectively. This effect is also the greatest
near the equator. Since vertical movement is usually of limited extent
and duration, the size of the effect is smaller and requires precise
instruments to detect.
[edit]Draining in bathtubs and toilets
thus:
you're lucky, it wasn't the list
of the last of the uninteresting numbers.
thus: Einstein cannot be disproven,
merely exemplified with better illustrations
than the pants-diagrams of Minkowski's followers,
following upon his oddball **** about phase-space..
thus: the soi-dissant news is that some folks
in the northern tier of states don't really
get the "warmingth" part of it,
probably having some thing to do with the differential
of insolation from the equator to the pole,
thence a bit of trigonometry ... a tiny, raw smidgeon,
just enough to project the direction cosine
onto a simplified case, the equinox at noon e.g.
ad vomitorium et an emergency bag
in the correctly accessible sickness compartment.
two, vast/emptyish parts of Canada!
--les ducs d'oil sont Beyondish Petroleumish!
NoEinstein
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
Spudnik: Congratulations on your investigation of Coriolis! His
exacting explanations for the rotations of fluids (clockwise or
counterclockwise) depending on the latitude north or south, are still
influencing weather predictions. In 1830, the same Coriolis wrote: KE
= 1/2mv^2, the errant equation that is still screwing up science. All
of the stated 'g' forces experienced by pilots and astronauts are
wrong, because that equation exaggerates the KE. The actual KE
(simply a force in pounds) increases linearly with the time of fall of
an object, and adds one weight unit of force for every 32.174 feet per
second of increase in velocity. It's highly unlikely that a pilot,
pressure suit or not, could experience a 9g force, or .75 tons for a
180 pound man, and not be killed. The actual force can be obtained
from my correct kinetic energy equation: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174
(m). — NoEinstein —
spudnik
else other than his great "effect"
-- did you notice that my citation shows that
it is totally three-dimensional? -- but
it is certainly more newsworthy to challenge Liebniz's *vis viva*,
which is the equation for KE, as every Physics One Plus Lab kid,
knows about it.
why don't you also challenge Fermat, say,
and broaden your math-phys horizon?
thus:
the briarpatch of your typography doesn't appear
to contain an aether, either. but, at least,
it might be *some* thing, compared
to a regurgitation of Einstein's fuzz-factor,
hiding his sources, as well as the soi-dissant SF
of the cosmic constant, Big Bango and accleratingly
expanding Universe, with or without a God-am porgramme
d'espace.
"factoring planck's constant;" oh, yeah.
thus: ah, so; Eisentstein numbers?
> i = w, j = w^2, w^3 - 1 = 0
--leas ducs d'oils sont Beyondeesh Petroeumeesh!
PD
> On Nov 5, 4:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 2:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > 18 posts in his own thread, out of 30 posts total to date.
> > 11 out of those 18 were devoted to declaring someone persona non
> > grata.
> > For those of you quantitatively inclined, that's 60% in both cases.
> > Do you think, John, that you are demonstrating your intelligence to
> > the world by doing this?
>
> > You're a park-bench mutterer, John.
>
> Folks: No person who has anything credible to say about science
> becomes a persona non grata on my posts. PD has never said anything
> credible in the last three years he has pestered me. And he has
> never made a "white paper" '+new post' that he names and links to.
Shouldn't have to, John. You should know how to use your tool of
choice -- Google Groups. If you don't know how to use Google to search
for new posts, don't blame others for your inability.
> He
> just berates me for not going on his wild goose chases to search out
> his replies—as if I give a damn. He called me a 'spammer' for tagging
> him a PNG, when it is HE who has been STALKING me, daily.
You don't know what SPAM means?
spudnik
it's an allegedly funny song!
thus:
does he think,
the twin "paradox" is wrong e.g.,
as the undedicated amateurs like Quubly-doo,
do, because he's so voluble & bubbly
in his postings (but, at least,
teh last one did not contain so much
of regurgitation of the thread .-)
do, Tee Hee, I'd appreciate it if
you could explain Lanczos use of quaternions
in his _Variational Mechanics_ (Dover), beyond
the obvious part about Hamilton's "real, scalar part,"
hereinat requisitioned for "t" (NB,
"ct" is just length, duh).
thus: y'trying to get points onto the surface, but
I was going to suggest an analog to Buffon's ...
Buffon's pointy-thing-for-sewing-stuff --
what he did to that!
--les ducs d'oil sont Beyondeesh Petroleumeesh!TM
NoEinstein
> likeI said, I don't know whether monsieur C. did any thing,
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
spudnik: Answer this simple question (yes or no): "Do you believe
that increasing the velocity of any object will cause more atoms to be
added so as to increase the mass of the object?" And if you answer...
"yes", where does the necessary energy, or the building blocks for
those atoms, come from in the 'vacuum' of space? — NoEinstein —
spudnik
Huh?
thus:
more correctly, Fermat did not give a demonstration
of his soi-dissant "last" theorem, nor
did he make any other mistake, known to me.
> Fermat did not have a demonstration, period....
> Solve my problem set, or go away.
thus: as so inclined, beg the question put,
dish-out to your flabbergasting theory,
that may be better than Newton's
"theory of light & its 0d rocky missiles
of ray-tracing Copenhagenschooler joking-around
about the God-am, unlooked-at cat,
embrace the scare quotes <<
around "of light, going faster
in a denser medium, ignoring the brachistochone and
the creation of 'the' calculus,
_Principia/ Book Two/ Section Two/ Scholium Two/
Paragraph Two_, not <endquote>>>.
> (regards from Leonerd Cohen) ... AND MORE DOTS.
thus: you are in my "really, really boring would-
be correspondent" file, roundfile, or
"the 3-sphere as the first,
actually demonstrable 'black hole solution
to Einstein's God-am gravitational ****;'
congradulation and
have a nice ________ <fil-in the empty space>. <endquote>
> Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
--leas ducs d'oil sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM!
NoEinstein
> the proper answer to taht question is,
> Huh?
>
question. I repeat:
spudnik: Answer this simple question (yes or no): "Do you believe
that increasing the velocity of any object will cause more atoms to be
added so as to increase the mass of the object?" And if you answer...
"yes", where does the necessary energy, or the building blocks for
those atoms, come from in the 'vacuum' of space? — NoEinstein —
>
>
> --leas ducs d'oil sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM!http://tarpley.net
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
NoEinstein
>
Alright, if spudnik is a coward, I'll ask any of you "brave" readers
willing to reply "yes or no":
"Do you believe that increasing the velocity of any object will cause
more atoms to be added so as to increase the mass of the object?" If
> > --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com- Hide quoted text -
spudnik
-- if it weren't so God-am obvious --
Duh!
did you try to look-up *vis viva* of Liebniz,
ne' Coriolis?
NoEinstein
Dear spudnik: For your failure to answer a required yes-or-no
question on "relativity" (HA!), you FLUNK the course! Look up
"Coriolis" on the wicked-pedia. He is credited with writing KE = 1/2
mv^2. As early as 1740 William Sir Gravison (Dutch) had observed that
"lead balls dropped with twice the velocity penetrated four times as
far into clay." Note: Penetrations into clay don't have LINEAR force
(or velocity) to depth relationships. Clay, once disturbed, is much
easier to penetrate. The beauty of my $40.00 KE experiment is that it
compares EQUAL KEs based on Coriolis's own equation to see if the
penetrations are equal—they weren't. Equal KEs with equal size balls
will always have matching depths of penetration into the same bed of
soft clay. There was nothing "scientific" about what Gravison, nor
Coriolis, wrote regarding kinetic energy. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> On Nov 12, 2:43 pm, spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > well, probably most of us'd say
> > -- if it weren't so God-am obvious --
> > Duh!
>
> > did you try to look-up *vis viva* of Liebniz,
> > ne'Coriolis?
>
> Dear spudnik: For your failure to answer a required yes-or-no
> question on "relativity" (HA!), you FLUNK the course! Look up
> "Coriolis" on the wicked-pedia. He is credited with writing KE = 1/2
> mv^2. As early as 1740 William Sir Gravison (Dutch) had observed that
> "lead balls dropped with twice the velocity penetrated four times as
> far into clay." Note: Penetrations into clay don't have LINEAR force
> (or velocity) to depth relationships. Clay, once disturbed, is much
> easier to penetrate. The beauty of my $40.00 KE experiment is that it
> penetrations are equal—they weren't. Equal KEs with equal size balls
> will always have matching depths of penetration into the same bed of
This link explains the $40.00 experiment: Dropping Einstein Like a
Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alright readers, surely some of you have $40.00 and an afternoon to
give to science. Those of you who will email me, directly, I will
reply with a color photograph showing the disparate depths of
penetration in my experiment. The fraudulent profs. at universities
continue to "teach" KE = 1/2 mv^2, but none of those profs. have been
objective enough to let Coriolis's own equation REFUTE his equation.
Either the equation predicts heights of drop to have equal KEs for
different weight/same-size balls, or it doesn't. Well it certainly
doesn't! Do the experiment, guys, and get the vicarious thrill of
knowing you have just replicated the disproof of Einstein's SRT! —
NoEinstein —
spudnik
disprove "Coriolis's" *vis viva*, mvv/2 is KE?... (well,
in the Wookypoopyia, it only listed Coriolis's "effect," but
I'd never heard of it being totally 3d, before that, either .-)
are you saying, faster-falling rocks made deeper impressions
in the clay -- so?
thus:
so, smarty, why do *you* refer to them,
as Fossilized Fuels TM?... I mean, we know why,
the industry does that; it's a God-am tradename!
thus: wouldn't make any difference, strategically, if
it were abiotic, but there is really no need
of that hypothesis, if it is really at the level of a hypothesis;
the biosphere produces multitons of oil per annum.
(OK, if not, Why not?)
thus: he says, "Coriolis's'" *vis viva* is just wrong, because
of his little experiment with kinetic energy.; but, it is Liebniz's!
angular momentun of atoms is not just abstract;
it has physical consequences, like "relativistic effects."
thus: why, why, O why, do some folks believe that
oilcos are against my Congressman's cap&trade bill,
new or old (circa '91 per acid rain) ??... I mean,
were the pharmcos really against those other bills, of his
-- what ever they were?
thus: there is no way to tell a chemtrailTM
from a contrail, without one of those giant coke-straws
sticking out of your private plane.
thus: the rate of exctinction is not dissimilar to that
at the end of an interglacial, and this one is well-known
to be quite overdue. as a layman, I see the records of cold,
that kill more per annum than heat, as a telling indicator, although
that also could be an artifact of humans extending their range, since
the equator is not exactly a barrier -- you don't notice it,
without a GPS a-crossing!
thus: why, so serious about the effects of CO2 or H2O or
other gasses, whose effect depends upon the zero-to-
one differential of insolation (from pole to equators, sik), and
yet most of the causes of this effluent are more important
to the biosphere, than that completely notoxic gas? (NB:
John Muir almost died at fourteen, digging a well
to 40', because of the accumulation of it .-)
"your question is ill-posedness, embodied;"
El Nino and La Nina are not "global," and neither
is the Southern Oscillation (ne, the QSO;
used to be about 26 months long .-)
--les dukes d'Enron sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM!
NoEinstein
>
Dear spudnik: KE = 1/2 mv^2 yields KE values; right? If one ball is,
say, half the mass of another same-size ball, by setting the KEs of
the two balls to be equal, or 1/2 x .5v^2 = 1/2 x v^2, then the
velocity for each necessary to have equal KEs can be calculated. If
Coriolis is correct, then, dropping the balls from heights calculated
to yield the required velocities, SHOULD cause the two balls to
penetrate equally into soft clay. But the penetration isn't even
CLOSE! Send me a direct email, spudnik, and I will reply and attach a
color photograph showing the resulting penetrations, with the balls
resting in the clay. — NoEinstein —
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
>
> why should different penetrations from different heights,
> disprove "Coriolis's" *vis viva*, mvv/2 is KE?... (well,
> in the Wookypoopyia, it only listedCoriolis's"effect," but
> I'd never heard of it being totally 3d, before that, either .-)
> are you saying, faster-falling rocks made deeper impressions
> in the clay -- so?
>
> thus:
> so, smarty, why do *you* refer to them,
> as Fossilized Fuels TM?... I mean, we know why,
> the industry does that; it's a God-am tradename!
>
> thus: wouldn't make any difference, strategically, if
> it were abiotic, but there is really no need
> of that hypothesis, if it is really at the level of a hypothesis;
> the biosphere produces multitons of oil per annum.
> (OK, if not, Why not?)
>
> thus: he says, "Coriolis's'" *vis viva* is just wrong, because
> of his little experiment with kinetic energy.; but, it is Liebniz's!
>
> angular momentun of atoms is not just abstract;
> it has physical consequences,like"relativistic effects."
> --les dukes d'Enron sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM!http://tarpley.net
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
spudnik
the momentum (mv); so, you've disproven exactly nothing, and
I want to congradulate you, in the next reply.
anyway, it's the formula of *Liebniz*, known
for centuries as his *vis viva*, not Coriolis -- but,
yeah, his "effect" is great and 3-dimensional, and
so is his force (so easy, to demonstrate by hand).
thus:
can't be too difficult to replace one
with the other, although I hanker for phi,
more often than natural logs, probably because
I'm not so good at algebra.
thus: I knew from an article, that Michelson and Morley had
found a small, annual anomaly, if not so large
as they had expected. recently, someone posted a link
to the M&M paper, and this was mentioned on the first page
of the journal article.
so, I just have to shrug, mightily, when ever I hear that
"M&M had a null result." anyway, what is it about atoms,
that cannot produce electromagnetism (as a wave,
with some speed of propogation, not a particle,
with a velocity of travel) ??
> > 5. The Haefle-Keating experiment confirms time-dilation
> This experiment actually proves relative simultaneity wrong.
--les ducs d'Enron sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM!
NoEinstein
> that isn't a problem, that twice the mass gives twice
> the momentum (mv); so, you've disproven exactly nothing, and
> I want to congradulate you, in the next reply.
>
issue with Momentum, or FORCE, = mv. The only issue I have is that
the writer of that equation applied the "proportionality correction"
to the MASS, when he should have applied such to the velocity. The
"old" SLUGS was a mass increment that will yield the correct FORCE,
but NOT the correct units! Momentum is NOT pound-feet/sec! It is
simply POUNDS (without the feet/second crap). My own CORRECTLY
WRITTEN momentum equation (used in the case of a constant velocity,
but not an acceleration) is: F = v / 32.174 (m). The UNITS are
always in POUNDS, only. — NoEinstein —
>
> anyway, it's the formula of *Liebniz*, known
> for centuries as his *vis viva*, not Coriolis -- but,
> yeah, his "effect" is great and 3-dimensional, and
> so is his force (so easy, to demonstrate by hand).
>
> thus:
> can't be too difficult to replace one
> with the other, although I hanker for phi,
> more often than natural logs, probably because
> I'm not so good at algebra.
>
> thus: I knew from an article, that Michelson and Morley had
> found a small, annual anomaly, if not so large
> as they had expected. recently, someone posted a link
> to the M&M paper, and this was mentioned on the first page
> of the journal article.
> so, I just have to shrug, mightily, when ever I hear that
> "M&M had a null result." anyway, what is it about atoms,
> that cannot produce electromagnetism (as a wave,
> with some speed of propogation, not a particle,
> with a velocity of travel) ??
>
> > > 5. The Haefle-Keating experiment confirms time-dilation
> > This experiment actually proves relative simultaneity wrong.
>
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
spudnik
you want to use the English language, eventually.
otherwise, you will never be able to communicate any thing, and
you will continue to believe that your **** smells like flowers.
thus:
noting that "correlation os not causation," and that the cycle of
obliquity may
be closer to 92K (just read in a pop.sci. book) than 100K;
probably more liekly that the cycle of glaciation causes
the obliquity; eh?
NoEinstein
> try to read Shakespeare, if
> you want to use the English language, eventually.
>
> otherwise, you will never be able to communicate any thing, and
> you will continue to believe that your **** smells like flowers.
>
> thus:
> noting that "correlation os not causation," and that the cycle of
> obliquity may
> be closer to 92K (just read in a pop.sci. book) than 100K;
> probably more liekly that the cycle of glaciation causes
> the obliquity; eh?
>
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
Dear spudnlk: My New Science isn't "tricky sounding language". So,
why your mention of Shakespeare? — NE —
spudnik
insipid errors (not at-all concerning attribution to Liebniz, though),
or
just that your use of English is so horrible, as to have forbidden you
to be able to utter a proper sentence in English (or,
possibly, in any language, as many folks get stuck between two,
or more, which is such a potential boon ... just look
at those crazy Hungarians e.g. .-)
what you don't see is that
Shakespeare actually created the classical form of English,
as a literacy project which included that translation
of the Septuagint into the KJVBible. just the act of *trying*
to read Shakespeare, seeing the play, later, will instantly
improve your comprehension & rhetoric (viz,
the Trivium of logic, grammer, rhetoric, or "the 3Rs," or
"the basics," or "what you have to know,
to be a literate slave," instead of just a dumb one.
Ref.: "Why [do] the British Hate Shakespeare [?],"
concerning in particular "The Merchant of Venice"
-- ain't Shylock!
thus:
there is no medium but the medium of space;
the "speed of light in a vacuum, not it's velocity,"
is just a limit; like, a mathematical limit.
all of the reifiers of Newton's untheory of corpuscles,
Let Newton be taken seriously, and there's light, because
the Nobel prize cmte. said, Yeah;
we've really got to say that Einstein's "photon" is not
just an unspecified quantum of light, but it's got
to be a massless, momentumless zero-dimensional zit
with quantified frequency and stuff?... well,
not referring to the all-consuming theory of nuttin!
thus: if "stable" is to mean stationary electrons, tten
it is kind of a pat problem, til you get to five; but,
the tetragon-based pyramid is self-dual.
the most generic ordering that I know of,
is called the Moon model of the atom,
after a doctor Robert Moon.
--les ducs d'Enron sont Beyoneesh Peak-petroeumeeshTM
NoEinstein
>
Dear spudnik: All I know about my English talent is that I came in
second in my architecture class of 23 who took the Graduate Record
Exam at the end of senior year. Those architecture students scored
higher on MATH than the those majoring in math; and higher on English
than those majoring in English. I am a published author [THE SHORTEST
DISTANCE; Harmony Through Prosperity]; a poet and a composer. My top
two or three activities is writing. At no time do I feel challenged
to explain anything, well. The patents I'm getting, I write myself.
Does this answer your concerns about my ability to express myself? —
NoEinstein —
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
spudnik
that I personally found to be quite effective,
"just trying to read Shakespeare,
even though it could get him killed."
thus:
EOS says, it's not receding "like the Arctic <endscarequote>.
thus: Joyce Foundation started CCX; thank you, had have a nice
Tanksgivin
and an even better posterior expectation!
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_40-49/2007_40-49/2007-41/pdf/30-32_740.pdf
>>> "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the USA." --George Soros
thus: may be nonsense, except for the part about "no penguins
etc. ad vomitorium ... I mean, there's nothing to eat, there, or
'there's no where, thereat, in terms of 1-star restaurants,'
in more scientifical terminology.
so, it actually requires evaporating s o m e water. what it
is,
is that Antarctica has always been at a tipping point, in that
it is impossible to add any additional ice to it. see:
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/
thus: see Fred Singer's old retrospective
metastudy on glaciers, and give a critique, I double-dare you, all
(including you, who call yourselves Denierists or Skeptics,
which I do not .-)
thus: surely pushing the envelope of "computer science," and
of numerical algorithms, Grobner bases etc. anyway,
I should check the account, to see how much They have
already paid me, since I've been a critic of "global" warming
since about '82.
thus: I just saw a recent "Research Reports" in EOS,
stating that the Antarctic sea ice is not receding,
as it is in the Arctic. of course, the Peninsula is sticking-out
into any increased differentials that may be caused
by the Glass House Effects of H2O, CO2 etc.
thus: that is really good of Al, Jr., who could have
been even worse than Dubya (although
no-one was as bad as H-Dubya, or dumber;
see the Unauth.Bio. at Tarpley.net .-)
> corn-based ethanol in the United States was “not a good policy”,
> weeks before tax credits are up for renewal.
--les ducs d'Enron sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM
NoEinstein
>
Dear spudnik: Your personality is so split, there aren't enough
"couches" to do an analysis of you. Ha! — NE —
>
> it was just a suggestion,
> that I personally found to be quite effective,
> "just trying to read Shakespeare,
> even though it could get him killed."
>
> thus:
> EOS says, it's not receding "like the Arctic <endscarequote>.
>
> thus: Joyce Foundation started CCX; thank you, had have a nice
> Tanksgivin
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
spudnik
-- keep the units for the D.A. !!
thus:
have you heard of cyclones or anticyclones?
> void cannot cause an object to deviate from its state of motion.
thus: a significant fraction of natural helium is He3, because
that generated at the midocean rifts has about the same ratio
of He3/He4 as is seen spectroscopically on Sun.
thus: CCX may have been given a rest, but
ICE, which is headquartered in Atlanta, but
is run from London juridicially, goes on. so, anyway,
which brand Fossilized Fuel TM dost thou useth "up" --
what's the difference between biodieselTM and "regular?"
--les ducs d'Enron sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM
avec mon Congressman, Henri "Capitan Taxx, serving the industry
since '91" Waxman's Cap and Trade, "free-er trade" nostrum!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Save_U-23...
spudnik
most physicsists probably don't know,
that he discovered "kinetic energy can
be formulated as 'mass times the second-power
of velocity,' so, There.
thus:
have you heard of cyclones or anticyclones?
> void cannot cause an object to deviate from its state of motion.
thus: a significant fraction of natural helium is He3, because
that generated at the midocean rifts has about the same ratio
of He3/He4 as is seen spectroscopically on Sun.
thus: CCX may have been given a rest, but
ICE, which is headquartered in Atlanta, but
is run from London juridicially, goes on. so, anyway,
which brand Fossilized Fuel TM dost thou useth "up" --
what's the difference between biodieselTM and "regular?"
--les ducs d'Enron sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM
avec mon Congressman, Henri "Capitan Taxx, serving the industry
since '91" Waxman's Cap and Trade, "free-er trade" nostrum!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Save_U-23...
--Lumiere, Un Histoire!
http://wlym.com
NoEinstein
Dear spudnik: Suggestion: Keep you replies to less than three
sentences. That way the search crews won't need to be called out when
you wander off into the unintelligible! — NE —
NoEinstein
Dear spudnik: Momentum = mv is one of the few correct equations in
mechanics... IF the proportionality correction is made in the
VELOCITY, rather than in the mass. The correct momentum equation then
becomes: Force (in pounds) = m (v / 32.174). KE = 1/2 mv^2, or your
Liebniz's KE = mv^2, BOTH violate the Law of the Conservation of
Energy. So, why keep talking about equations which I have DISPROVED,
as a class? — NoEinstein —
spudnik
what in Hell are you refering to?
iff you have never proven one of the 3d versions
of the Pythagorean theorem e.g., then forget you,
dood!... in the meantime,
you could study any of the zillion and one proofs
of the 2d version.
have a nice ____________, and
make the best of your typing skills.
thus:
in what base would you represent the rTH root of m,
other than base-one?
thus: have you heard of cyclones or anticyclones?
> void cannot cause an object to deviate from its state of motion.
thus: a significant fraction of natural helium is He3, because
that generated at the midocean rifts has about the same ratio
of He3/He4 as is seen spectroscopically on Sun
thus: CCX may have been given a rest, but
ICE, which is headquartered in Atlanta, but
is run from London juridicially, goes on. so, anyway,
which brand Fossilized Fuel TM dost thou useth "up" --
what's the difference between biodieselTM and "regular?"
--les ducs d'Enron sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM
avec mon Congressman, Henri "Capitan Taxx, serving the industry
NoEinstein
>
> --Lumiere, Un Histoire!http://wlym.com
Dear spudnik: Like I've told you before, always state what you are
replying to. What exactly was I claiming to have proved? My New
Science is its own best proof! Varying ether flow and density
explains everything in the Universe, except your usual babbling.
Limit your replies to three sentences. "Shakespeare" isn't increasing
your credibility on these groups. — NoEinstein —
spudnik
give your shortest or simplest alleged proof, and
try to retain the units of mensurement!
NoEinstein
Dear spudnik: How's this?: I have conclusively proved, both
mathematically and experimentally, that Coriolis's 1830 equation for
kinetic energy: KE = 1/2 mv^2, is WRONG. Such equation violates the
Law of the Conservation of Energy by getting OUT more energy than a
uniformly increasing velocity (actually, the uniformly accruing force
CAUSING the velocity) has put IN. That equation fails to realize that
the "distance of travel" for a falling or accelerating object is
PRIMARILY due to the coasting carry-over from previous seconds—which
keep right on carrying-over all the way to infinity! The ACTUAL
kinetic energy is determined from the MOMENTUM equation, M or FORCE =
mv. Without a proportionality correction, the latter equation is
useless. In the past, some mathematician or physicist who didn't know
their ASS from a hole in the ground, applied the proportionality
correction to the MASS (as from: "The mass must be expressed in
SLUGS.") such that the ridiculous "units" for the equation was pound-
feet/sec.(sic). Simply by correctly applying the proportionality
correction to the VELOCITY, and only to the VELOCITY (!), the results
for KE will have the UNITS: POUNDS! My correct, and doubly PROVEN to
be correct, equation for kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174
(m). The latter equation increases ADDITIVELY with increasing
velocity, and thus doesn't violate the Law of the Conservation of
Energy! — NoEinstein —
spudnik
"the proof is way too small for this margin,
that is way to large for me to fill with characters
at my usual rate of 5768x10^Avagadro's# per googolenium."
see; I *knew* that you were going to say that ... and
you knew that I was going to say, you said that !??
thus:
is the collision of two lightconeheads, elasticity?
> most opticians do not really change the equations,
> in working on the problem of propagating light in air, or
> in "generic SF space thingies." contrast this
> with the historic, calculus-defining challenge
> of Liebniz, the path of least time in a medium,
> thickening lower,
> like the atmosphere e.g. ... thank you.
thus: what is supposed to be the cause of the expeimental drift,
whether or not we can get a standard deviation without the raws?
> predicted by SR. Ditto for Miller's. And Illingworth's.
> sEe My PaPeR, hTtP://aRxIv.OrG/aBs/PhYsIcS/0608238
thus: have I heard of cyclones or anticyclones?... well, yeah.
> void cannot cause an object to deviate from its state of motion.
thus: a significant fraction of natural helium is He3, because
that generated at the midocean rifts has about the same ratio
of He3/He4 as is seen spectroscopically on Sun.
thus: CCX may have been given a rest, but
ICE, which is headquartered in Atlanta, but
is run from London juridicially, goes on. so, anyway,
which brand Fossilized Fuel TM dost thou useth "up" --
what's the difference between biodieselTM and "regular?"
--les ducs d'Enron sont Beyondeesh Peak-petroleumeeshTM
avec mon Congressman, Henri "Capitan Taxx, serving the industry
since '91" Waxman's Cap and Trade, "free-er trade" nostrum!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Save_U-23...
--Lumiere, Un Histoire!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Belarus_Repopulation.pdf
http://wlym.com
spudnik
but of momentum, "kilogram-meters-per-second" e.g. "ipso facto,
whereby" force would be in units
of kilogram-square_meters-per-square_second, or,
as used to be commonplace, "per second per second," or
acceleration.
seen in this light, c is in units of square meters per second per
second,
which is easy to visualize as the rate of growth of the wavefront ...
but not as Einstein's silly, Newtonian "photon," taken ipso facto
to "be" a massless, momentumless, zero-D rock.
NoEinstein
Dear spudnik: Instead of skimming my well-thought-out replies to you,
reduce your replies to me to THREE sentences, and spend the remaining
time actually READING my clear explanations: I'm copying, below, the
reply you only skimmed!
Dear spudnik: How's this?: I have conclusively proved, both
mathematically and experimentally, that Coriolis's 1830 equation for
kinetic energy: KE = 1/2 mv^2, is WRONG. Such equation violates the
Law of the Conservation of Energy by getting OUT more energy than a
uniformly increasing velocity (actually, the uniformly accruing force
CAUSING the velocity) has put IN. That equation fails to realize
that
the "distance of travel" for a falling or accelerating object is
PRIMARILY due to the coasting carry-over from previous seconds—which
keep right on carrying-over all the way to infinity! The ACTUAL
kinetic energy is determined from the MOMENTUM equation, M or FORCE =
mv. Without a proportionality correction, the latter equation is
useless. In the past, some mathematician or physicist who didn't
know
their ASS from a hole in the ground, applied the proportionality
correction to the MASS (as from: "The mass must be expressed in
SLUGS.") such that the ridiculous "units" for the equation was pound-
feet/sec.(sic). *** Simply by correctly applying the proportionality
spudnik
you have never proven a theorm in geometry, such as Fermat's
"reconstruction
of Euclid's porisms."
your explanation is mostly bizarre.
spudnik
what are the units for kinetic energy?
Earle Jones
<f01b6d6a-3ad0-4bda...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...clippy...]
>
> The equation for Śmomentumą, F = mv
*
...is wrong.
F is not equal to mv.
F is equal to d(mv)/dt
That is, the time differential of momentum.
F = d(mv)/dt
F = m dv/dt + v dm/dt (product rule)
If the mass m is constant, dm/dt = 0
and F = m dv/dt.
dv/dt = acceleration a.
Therefore f = ma (for constant mass.)
Phys 101.
earle
*
NoEinstein
> in particular, momentum & force are defined in different units;
> what are the units for kinetic energy?
Dear spudnik: The "units" for mass, weight, inertia, force, momentum,
KE and PE are all in POUNDS, only. Work has the units foot-pounds. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Earle: Your science "credibility" depends on copying what
someone else—who didn't know his or her ass from a hole-in-the-ground—
managed to get published in some screwed-up science textbook. My
credibility results from being so intelligent that I instantly saw the
stupid errors of others and proceeded to write my New Science that
CORRECTS things. If you suppose your credibility exceeds mine, please
edify the readers by giving the names and the links to sci.physics
posts by you. Mine are copied, below. — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot
Busting MythBusters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e95660ecf69048d/ae6c137610ee3437?hl=en#ae6c137610ee3437
Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7f59b900f24e881/38262930c6655db1?hl=en#38262930c6655db1
Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/85646434c6d7cd3b/fa38761134ee8408?hl=en#fa38761134ee8408
Dropping Coriolis like a feather.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/182d6fbe7e70b75f/21c92e2427fd7e98?hl=en#21c92e2427fd7e98
>
> In article
> <f01b6d6a-3ad0-4bda-bdb9-1a21f2386...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [...clippy...]
>
>
>
> > The equation for momentum , F = mv
NoEinstein
Folks: I left out that the "units" for POWER is also POUNDS. The only
provision is that the FORCE constituting the "power" be available to
be used continuously, whether or not the power is actual used
continuously. Because, say, a kwh is a convenient "billing increment"
for electric power, that doesn't necessitate that power itself is
anything other than a continuously applied force! — NoEinstein —
PD
Good grief, what an idiot.
NoEinstein
> In article
> <f01b6d6a-3ad0-4bda-bdb9-1a21f2386...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
> [...clippy...]
>
>
>
> > The equation for momentum , F = mv
>
> *
> ...is wrong.
>
> F is not equal to mv.
>
> F is equal to d(mv)/dt
>
> That is, the time differential of momentum.
>
> F = d(mv)/dt
> F = m dv/dt + v dm/dt (product rule)
>
> If the mass m is constant, dm/dt = 0
>
> and F = m dv/dt.
>
> dv/dt = acceleration a.
>
> Therefore f = ma (for constant mass.)
>
> Phys 101.
>
> earle
> *
Dear Earl: You can't "derive" that which you don't understand.
Understand, and no equations are necessary! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
As written by the perennial, jealous GROUPIE of the "idiot". Ha, ha,
HA! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Earl: Forces of impact for an object moving with a velocity, v—
as in F = mv—depend on the velocity as an increment of 32.174 feet per
second. If an object is accelerating, the momentum portion will
depend on the INSTANTANEOUS velocity, not on the acceleration, per
se. The convention for expressing all accelerations is the distance
of travel in the first second of the acceleration. The latter value
happens to be a VELOCITY value, not an acceleration value. My correct
and doubly-proven-by-experiments, kinetic energy equation is KE = a/g
(m) + v / 32.174 (m). The units, as I so often explain, is Earth
pounds. If the acceleration value is say 1.5g, then the force of
impact would be the momentum, F = m (v / 32.174) PLUS 1.5 (m). In all
cases accelerating objects impact with a force that also includes the
object's INERTIA, adjusted to Earth units. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: Earl Jones "popped-in" like a science expert, then he
disappears. I've written, I think, expert explanations of the areas
of science that Earl needed to be enlightened about. If any of you
readers need clarifications on anything that I've said, just ask. —
NoEinstein —
spudnik
mv is defined as momentum, not force!
your new kind of science is mistaken puffery.
I don't even know, without looking it up,
whther kinetic energy is calibrated in terms
of force, unless mvv is, also.
your experiment with the balls in clay is not new, and
it doesn't prove what you say, it does.
well, what a waste of typing -- for me.
spudnik
it is easy to just keep the units
in the whole series of equations;
have to do that for the sake of proofology,
dood.
NoEinstein
>
Dear spudnik: Apparently, you have a short memory. I’ve walked you
through this before, but here goes, again: A mass moving with
velocity, what you call “momentum”, will hit HARDER the faster a mass
is moving. How hard something hits is the same as the FORCE of
impact. And all forces are measured in pounds. Similarly, Kinetic
energy is “energy due to kinetics“, or MOTION; and motion is identical
to VELOCITY. So, momentum (force) is identical to the FORCE of
kinetic energy, with this one proviso: If an object is ACCELERATING,
it’s inertia, or static weight, adjusted to Earth units, will ADD to
the impact force. But if the object has just a fixed velocity (fixed
at the moment of impact) the “momentum” formula F = mv ’would’ give
the correct results, if the missing proportionality factor is applied
to the VELOCITY rather than to the mass. Mathematicians, who didn’t
know their asses from holes in the ground, WRONGLY used slugs to
correct the WEIGHT. The problem with that is that the UNITS are in
useless “pound-feet/second”. In rare cases, the velocity can be a
concern for the impact effects of objects. But in all cases, that is
a SEPARATE issue from the force of impact. My CORRECT kinetic energy
equation gives the forces of impact for all velocities: KE = a/g (m) +
v / 32.174 (m). The latter equation has been exactly verified in two
separate experiments. It replaces KE = ½ mv^2 and E = mc^2 / beta.
That’s not science to take lightly! — NoEinstein —
P. S.: My reply to “Earl Jones” is also, apt.
Dear Earl: Forces of impact for an object moving with a velocity, as
in F = mv—depend on the velocity as an increment of 32.174 feet per
second. If an object is accelerating, the momentum portion will depend
on the INSTANTANEOUS velocity, not on the acceleration, per se. The
convention for expressing all accelerations is the distance of travel
in the first second of the acceleration. The latter value happens to
be a VELOCITY value, not an acceleration value. My correct and doubly-
proven-by-experiments, kinetic energy equation is KE = a/g (m) + v /
32.174 (m). The units, as I so often explain, is Earth pounds. If the
acceleration value is say 1.5g, then the force of impact would be the
momentum, F = m (v / 32.174) PLUS 1.5 (m). In all cases accelerating
objects impact with a force that also includes the object's INERTIA,
adjusted to Earth units. — NoEinstein —
>
spudnik
"experimentally," but cannot do the dimensional analysis?
well, OK.
Earle Jones
<8267b15f-0c0c-4d84...@p7g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
spudnik <Spac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
*
Force = mass times acceleration.
Momentum = mass times velocity.
Go back and do the math again.
earle
*
NoEinstein
>
> spudnik <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > force equals mass times velocity -- you are so sure about that,
> > "experimentally," but cannot do the dimensional analysis?
>
> > well, OK.
>
> *
> Force = mass times acceleration.
>
> Momentum = mass times velocity.
>
> Go back and do the math again.
>
> earle
> *
Earl, who understands little, bosses me around. On what authority? —
NE —
PD
Proof that you can't boss stupid into being smart.
NoEinstein
Earl Jones could be pushing-up-daisies for all I know. He pops-in
like a ghost, then disappears before he gets revealed as being a
shallow. Another Dunce who worms around sci.physics would be a great
one for pushing-up-daisies! Ha, ha, HA! — NE —