PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
NoEinstein
capacity. He considers the status quo to be his Bible of what’s
what. In particular, he accepts—without question—the equations and
definitions in his high school science books, and he expects all
others to do the same. His “status” as a science expert (sic) hinges
on his firm belief that others who read his prolific replies will
consider him ‘authoritative’ if he says: (1.) “The experimental
evidence shows that…”; (2.) “The definition in any high school physics
book says that…; and (3.) “I’ve already explained that to you before;
you should look it up.”
Those of you who have read any of his many replies know that PD is
very reluctant to actually paraphrase, or to name, the experiments
that he claims refute new science. And he has never actually quoted a
definition from any text, which might be pivotal in a debate about
theory. PD only CLAIMS that a definition (somewhere) is damning,
without saying what that definition is. For example: PD believes,
adamantly, that MOMENTUM doesn’t have the units of FORCE—or pounds.
But when asked, repeatedly, to state his definition of momentum, and
the units, he never replies.
My own New Science proves that the kinetic energy of falling objects
is increasing LINEARLY; not like the 1830 Coriolis equation, KE = ½
mv^2, implies would be increasing semi-parabolically. The only INPUT
of energy to an object that’s about to fall is the uniform force of
gravity, which equals the object’s static weight. Since the static
weight of the object doesn’t change all the way to the ground, then,
the falling object would be analogous to a space object being
accelerated by a force of one ‘g’ that matches the object’s static
weight.
The above discussion areas are killers of PD’s delusions of science
greatness, unless he can somehow PROVE this key issue: “That KE isn’t
determined by the force IN, but by the WORK in.” He considers that
the KE is proportional to the distance of fall vs. the time of fall
(which plots as a parabola.) But my own insights have determined,
beyond any doubt, that: (1.) Accelerating objects are increasing in
velocity LINEARLY; (2.) The force causing the acceleration is the
uniform (unchanging) static weight of the object; (3.) The only force
resisting the static weight is the object’s matching INERTIA; (4.) The
object’s distance of fall is predominately due to the COASTING
component, which keeps the distance of fall from being a straight
line. And (5.) The linearly accruing KE is the FORCE DELIVERY
POTENTIAL of the object; and all forces are measured in pounds.
In spit of the above truths, PD insists that coasting objects (those
traveling at an unchanging speed) are increasing in KE in proportion
to the distance traveled (sic). He supposes that a hockey puck
sliding 100 feet on frictionless ice has twice the KE as that same
puck, going the exact same speed, but only traveling 50 feet. PD
believes that because the definition of “work”, in elemental texts,
is: W = fd, or force times distance, that such equation holds true
even if the distance can increase (as is the case for all falling
objects) without any additional force being needed—as will always be
the case for the portion of the distance of fall that's due to
coasting.
In order for any person, animal or machine to do a quantity of work
which increases parabolically, the FORCE determining the work has to
be increasing parabolically, too. Suppose a lazy person is standing
with one hand propped against a wall. They will be exerting a force
against the wall, just in leaning against it. Now, suppose that
instead of a firm wall, that man had his hand against an elevator door
which, suddenly, opens. Since there is no longer any resistance to
support the man’s weight, he falls into the elevator shaft and is
killed…
PD’s entire “work” rationale hinges on there being an increasing FORCE
even when there is no resistance. He supposes that as that man’s hand
moves 12” toward the shaft, the “the air”, or something, keeps pushing
harder and harder, simply because his hand moved 12”… Pushing against
AIR is work, to PD. And he imagines that the force “pushing
back” (sic) will keep the man from falling down the shaft.
Those readers among you who agree that work can be done WITHOUT there
being a resistance, please line-up behind your mentor, PD. But those
of you who believe that doing work requires the applying of a FORCE,
you‘re all welcomed to line up behind ME! — NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
> PD (AKA Paul Draper) used to teach science, or physics, in some
> what. In particular, he accepts�without question�the equations and
> definitions in his high school science books, and he expects all
> others to do the same.
Perhaps you have forgotten that the ideal world pretty much behaves
as the physics textbooks describe. Newtonian mechanics is adequate
for describing the behavior of the world that most experience.
Furthermore, advance texts teaching relativity and the quantum
mechanics are right on also.
Does NoEinstein for get that science laws and theories are testable
and that the has never been an observation that has contradicted
a prediction of the QED or relativity. All are very fruitful theories
and help us to understand nature.
Do some self-education NoEinstein, instead of wasting your time
trying to disparage what you don't understand.
Y.Porat
> On 5/18/10 7:26 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > PD (AKA Paul Draper) used to teach science, or physics, in some
> > what. In particular, he accepts—without question—the equations and
> > definitions in his high school science books, and he expects all
> > others to do the same.
>
> Perhaps you have forgotten that the ideal world pretty much behaves
> as the physics textbooks describe. Newtonian mechanics is adequate
> for describing the behavior of the world that most experience.
>
> Furthermore, advance texts teaching relativity and the quantum
> mechanics are right on also.
>
> Does NoEinstein for get that science laws and theories are testable
> and that the has never been an observation that has contradicted
> a prediction of the QED or relativity. All are very fruitful theories
> and help us to understand nature.
>
> Do some self-education NoEinstein, instead of wasting your time
> trying to disparage what you don't understand.
-------------------------
one of the disasters that happened to modern science
is that
untalented people like Sam Wormley
are 'teaching' others physics!!
byjust quoting others....from existing text books!
just a few hundreds of years a go
people were teaching others from text books
that determined that the sun is orbiting earth
and exactly the same
the parrots of today teach every body that
"NO MASS CAN REACH c !!!!--
AND THEREFORE THERE ARE MASS LESS
PARTICLES !!!
keep well
Y.Porat
--------------------------------------
Uncle Ben
John, you focus your argument on one man, PD. You seem to be unaware
that there are thousands of physicists in the world, all of whom hold
the same beliefs in the matters you discuss that PD does. These
questions have been settled for hundreds of years. You are a member of
a tiny minority.
If there is a high school, a college, or a university near you, and
if you are so lucky as to find a physics teacher willing to spend a
few minutes with you, pose your questions to him or her, and you will
find that ANY and EVERY such teacher will agree with PD. You will
also find that ANY and EVERY physics textbook being used in ANY and
EVERY physics course also agree with PD.
You are a deluded Don Quixote attacking windmills.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:d587e724-0f9e-401d...@w3g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
====================================
Bonehead thinks Nature is a democracy.
SANITY WARNING (Bonehead Green)
On March 7th 2009
Bonehead Green claimed Einstein's first postulate: "relative motion"
implies that space and time is homogeneous and space is isotropic.
Einstein's 2nd postulate: "light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body" bears no resemblance whatsoever to Green's:
"Einstein's 2nd postulate of SR says that the speed of light is c in
every inertial frame."
Green makes no apology for misrepresenting Einstein, instead he
mumbles "I insist on using a modern form of the 2nd postulate."
Green is guilty of lying and has lost all credibility by attempting to
excuse himself.
He is a cheat with zero integrity to be treated with contempt by all.
Even if what he says on other subjects were to be proven true he
cannot be trusted, one would always need to check the source for
verification or denial.
> You are a deluded Don Quixote attacking windmills.
=====================================
You are a deluded wooden windmill tilting at Donkey Hotey.
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
My cuddly friend Androcles, who loyally follows me around, can be
evaluated as to mental acuity by referring to articles linked at
www.greenba.com, relativity section. You will find it amusing how he
"proves" that Einstein was insane, and argues for the existence of a
smallest real number greater than zero. He cannot understand why he
has not yet been awarded a Nobel Prize.
U.B.
Androcles
U.B.
==============================================
Paranoid Bonehead ambles in off the street to sci.physics once in a while
and claims he's being followed! Far from stalking you, Bonehead, I've
been here all the time, you can fuck off anytime and be left alone, you
are not welcome here.
Bonehead Green is guilty of lying and has lost all credibility.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Sam: You, too, are a 'know-it-all" (sic) teacher. The primary
QUESTION of this post is: "Can WORK be done without there being a
resistance?" In order, even, to apply a FORCE, there must be the
capacity of the... "object" to push BACK. One of Newton's correct
Laws of Motion says: "For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction." Since COASTING requires no force to cause PD's love-word,
displacement (change of location), then, the FORCE side of the Work =
force x distance isn't there! No FORCE = no work done! So the
COASTING portion of the distance of fall can't be increasing the KE of
the falling object, because there is no force. Of course you won't
agree… As with PD, your fragile science ego demands that everything
ever printed in a high school science text be true. It's very sad,
indeed, when fragile egos—like yours and PD's—try to trump science
truths by assuming that everyone reading your replies is as stupid as
you two. Actually, no more than 5% of the readers are that naive.
You should find another hobby, Sam. You pretending to understand
science just isn't cutting it! — NoEinstein —
>
> On 5/18/10 7:26 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > PD (AKA Paul Draper) used to teach science, or physics, in some
> > what. In particular, he accepts—without question—the equations and
NoEinstein
>
Dear Y.Porat: BRAVO! Thanks for confirming that you are from the
Land of the Thinkers, rather than from the Land of the Brain Dead.
Stay on the job! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Ben: What you have just said is: "Truths are determined by
the number of people agreeing, and by the length of time a truth has
gone unchallenged." American patriot Thomas Paine said: "Right is
right even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong even if
everyone is in favor of it!" If, as you so stupidly assert, WORK can
be done without needing to apply a force (i.e., just keep sliding
across frictionless ICE, like a hockey puck), then Newton's Law: "For
every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." would have to
be patently wrong (But it isn't wrong!).
Several years ago, one of the replies on sci.physics said: "One 'aw-
shit...' nullifies a hundred "atta-boys!" A thousand physicists
agreeing with something that is grossly in error only proves that
being a physicist is the anti-thesis of being a rational
intellectual. Believing the irrational does not an intellectual
make! — NoEinstein —
> Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
— NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear U. Ben: Are YOU... up for a Nobel Prize? Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —
> "proves" that Einstein was insane, and argues for the existence of a
> smallest real number greater than zero. He cannot understand why he
> has not yet been awarded a Nobel Prize.
>
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Massless energy is not infinitely dense.
Mitch Raemsch
Benj
> John, you focus your argument on one man, PD. You seem to be unaware
> that there are thousands of physicists in the world, all of whom hold
> the same beliefs in the matters you discuss that PD does. These
> questions have been settled for hundreds of years. You are a member of
> a tiny minority.
Oh, this settles it for sure. Science by popular vote! "Uncle Ben" is
using the "everybody knows" proof. Probably he needs some blood
drained out to get rid of his bad humors. "Everybody" used to pretty
much agree on that.
Idiot.
> If there is a high school, a college, or a university near you, and
> if you are so lucky as to find a physics teacher willing to spend a
> few minutes with you, pose your questions to him or her, and you will
> find that ANY and EVERY such teacher will agree with PD. You will
> also find that ANY and EVERY physics textbook being used in ANY and
> EVERY physics course also agree with PD.
Ah, now comes the "appeal to authority" proof. Sorry "Ben" but ANYONE
who teaches High School and a great many who teach at the college
level are not authorities but merely political parrots for the status
quo. Their jobs depend on it. High School teachers (and I use that
term advisedly) are the worse in that they aren't even real college
graduates! Education Majors are widely known to be collegiate bottom
of the barrel, unable to make it in the classes others are required to
take and hence study "physics appreciation" without any math instead
of physics. Yeah, those are real "authorities"!
Moron.
> You are a deluded Don Quixote attacking windmills.
And your final "proof' is an ad hominem attack. Oh that one causes me
to loose a debate every time!
The bottom line "Uncle Ben" is that you've offered absolutely no
logical refutation of ANY of the points made. All your babblings are
invalid illogical debating ploys. You have nothing of value to add
here. Why don't you just shut up instead of showing everyone in this
world-wide forum how ignorant you are?
Benj
> On May 19, 4:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
> Way to GO, Androcles! Glad to have you on the side of REAL science!
> — NoEinstein —
You bet! All us Kooks have to stick together. I hate it when I end up
on the same side as Andro!
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:9e1ac4b3-da65-4985...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Idiot.
Moron.
===============================================
Bonehead is 80 years old and boasts he can be looked up in "American
Rednecks of Science".
There isn't much left in life for him except ad hoc ad hominem attacks,
I do it to humour the old fart and give him a challenge. He takes the bait
so easily.
(God I hate it when I end up on Andro's side!) -- Binge Jocaby,
http://tinyurl.com/cn8dlm March 19,2009 1:00 pm
Androcles
=============================================
This is real science:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
and this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
Whatever theory you have, it has to fit ALL the data.
--
NEWTON'S RULES OF REASONING IN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.
To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
RULE II.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign
the same causes.
We kooks are in good company.
PD
I don't mind you hanging yourself with your own comments, but I would
like to make sure your lies about what *I* say are corrected.
>
> In spit of the above truths, PD insists that coasting objects (those
> traveling at an unchanging speed) are increasing in KE in proportion
> to the distance traveled (sic).
No, I've explicitly told you otherwise.
> He supposes that a hockey puck
> sliding 100 feet on frictionless ice has twice the KE as that same
> puck, going the exact same speed, but only traveling 50 feet.
No, I've explicitly told you otherwise.
> PD
> believes that because the definition of “work”, in elemental texts,
> is: W = fd, or force times distance, that such equation holds true
> even if the distance can increase (as is the case for all falling
> objects) without any additional force being needed—as will always be
> the case for the portion of the distance of fall that's due to
> coasting.
Yes, this is true. And here you see is the difference.
In the case of a hockey puck sliding at constant speed, the net force
applied to the puck is ZERO. This is because constant velocity means
zero acceleration, and zero acceleration means zero net force.
(Newton's 2nd law: F=ma.) So I have NEVER said that the work is
different than zero for an object traveling at constant speed. Indeed,
the work-energy theorem says that the work equals the change in
kinetic energy. Since it is traveling at constant speed, the kinetic
energy is not changing, and so the work is expected to be zero.
But a falling object is not traveling at constant speed. It is
accelerating, which means that there is a net force that is not zero
acting on it. So since neither F nor d is zero for a falling object,
the work is not zero. Moreover, since the work is not zero, then the
kinetic energy must be changing.
>
> In order for any person, animal or machine to do a quantity of work
> which increases parabolically, the FORCE determining the work has to
> be increasing parabolically, too.
That's simply not true. The work is force times displacement. If the
force stays constant and the displacement increases parabolically,
then the work will increase parabolically. Any 7th grader can see
that.
PD
Sam Wormley
> Dear Sam: You, too, are a 'know-it-all" (sic) teacher. The primary
> QUESTION of this post is: "Can WORK be done without there being a
> resistance?" In order, even, to apply a FORCE, there must be the
> capacity of the... "object" to push BACK. One of Newton's correct
> Laws of Motion says: "For every action there is an equal and opposite
> reaction." Since COASTING requires no force to cause PD's love-word,
> displacement (change of location), then, the FORCE side of the Work =
> force x distance isn't there! No FORCE = no work done! So the
> COASTING portion of the distance of fall can't be increasing the KE of
> the falling object, because there is no force. Of course you won't
> ever printed in a high school science text be true. It's very sad,
> truths by assuming that everyone reading your replies is as stupid as
> you two. Actually, no more than 5% of the readers are that naive.
> You should find another hobby, Sam. You pretending to understand
>> >
What's your beef?
This is a perfectly good workable definition of work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)
If the force is zero, then force * distance is zero.
Hidden in the law of inertia is the fact that whether a body is in
motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of the observer.
A bit of self-education wouldn't hurt you, NoEinstein.
Uncle Ben
It is ironically amusing that the kooks in this newsgroup complain
that all that has been learned about nature by those who call
themselves physicists is false. They complain that the great expansion
of science in the 19th and 20th centuries by physicists is nonsense.
They are using a medium for their complaints that did not exist 100
years ago but came into being through the work of those physicists and
the engineers who followed them to create the transistor, the
integrated circuit, the computer, and now the internet.
It is a laughable absurdity that they use this medium to deny the
truth of the science that gave rise to it.
Physics is not confirmed by arguments but by nature itself. We propose
answers to nature, and nature tells us whether we are right or wrong.
But this is a line of argument that PD has made repeatedly here. It
falls on the deaf ears of the pitiful kooks, whose works have led to
nothing.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
==========================================
Benj has you weighed up, Bonehead. You have nothing of value to add
here. Why don't you just shut [the fuck] up instead of showing everyone in
this world-wide forum how ignorant you are, you old poofter?
PD
>
> The bottom line "Uncle Ben" is that you've offered absolutely no
> logical refutation of ANY of the points made. All your babblings are
> invalid illogical debating ploys. You have nothing of value to add
> here. Why don't you just shut up instead of showing everyone in this
> world-wide forum how ignorant you are?
I'm not sure why the objective of "logical refutation" is desirable
here.
If you're interested debate as a sport, then you should be chatting on
alt.arguing.for.the.hell.of.it.
The truth of a physical assertion is not based on starting from
mutually acceptable axioms and then logically deriving everything from
that. That isn't the LEAST how science works.
The "truth" of a model's assertions is a competitive evaluation -- it
is the best of those models presented so far at satisfying one simple
criterion: In the broadest variety of applications, it has the
greatest success in accurately and quantitatively predicting the
measurable outcomes of systems placed or found in certain conditions.
That is, it is experiment that decides. Not plausibility of axioms,
not soundness of logic from them.
PD
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
BTW, John, do you still have online your clever animation of
Einstein's thought experiment about simultaneity, with the lightning
flashes, the conductor and the station? Or have you taken it down? I
have mislaid the URL.
John Polasek
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> For example: PD believes,
>adamantly, that MOMENTUM doesn�t have the units of FORCE�or pounds.
>But when asked, repeatedly, to state his definition of momentum, and
>the units, he never replies.
PD is right: units of momentum are not force in pounds, but Force*Time
or pound seconds.
The units of work are force times Distance or pound feet.
It sounds like you have never studied any part of physics.
As long as there is force being applied to the mass the instant power
is force times average velocity which when multiplied by time gives
the energy. Energy equals force times average velocity times time.
snip
Jean Polasek
Androcles
====================================================
a.. The back of the train reaches the start of the fence when the light is
turned on.
b.. The light travels the length of the fence, 80 units.
c.. The time for light to travel 80 units is 16 us. Speed of light is thus
80/16 = 5 units/us.
d.. The light travels the length of the train, 40 units.
e.. The time for light to travel 40 units is 8 us. Speed of light is thus
40/8 = 5 units/us.
f.. The light travels back along the fence 20 units.
g.. The time for light to travel 20 units is 4 us. Speed of light is thus
20/4 = 5 units/us.
h.. The light travels back along the train 40 units.
i.. The time for light to travel 40 units is 8 us. Speed of light is thus
40/8 = 5 units/us.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/LT.gif
The time for light to travel from A to B is equal to the time is takes to
travel from B to A and the velocity of light is the same in all inertial
frames of reference, 5 units per microsecond, which is clear and in
agreement with experience therefore why we see trains move by peristalsis.
Gee, I hope I didn't make any errors, I so much want to understand
relativity.
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I was thinking of the one that is much clearer -- even self-
explanatory:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/simultaneous.gif
which I found still up on your site. Readers will be amused by
comparing this with Einstein's description:
http:/www.bartleby.com/173/8.html
Uncle Ben
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/simultaneous.gif
http:/www.bartleby.com/173/8.html
Uncle Ben
===============================================
Yes, Einstein is very amusing.
He claims "We thus require a definition of simultaneity" AFTER he says
"I make the additional assertion that these two lightning flashes occurred
simultaneously.
"As long as this requirement is not satisfied, I allow myself to be deceived
as a physicist (and of course the same applies if I am not a physicist)."
We thus require a definition of "physicist", but whatever it is, Einstein
wasn't one.
"But an examination of this supposition would only be possible if we already
had at our disposal the means of measuring time."
Of course, the means of measuring time is called a "clock". Clocks operate
independently of simultaneous light beams.
"If the observer perceives the two flashes of lightning at the same time,
then they
are simultaneous"
Too funny!
Einstein says simultaneous events are not simultaneous if the watcher moves.
This is just the old chestnut "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is
there,
is there any sound?
The guy was a babbling fuckwit, the watcher has nothing to do with it.
Of course I don't expect to teach new tricks to a senile old dog like you.
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burt, That's brilliant! — NE —
NoEinstein
clear thinkers like you. Thanks! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Benj: Take your allies where you can get them. Androcles is a
FIGHTER! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
Androcles: A person's age isn't the important issue. Pretending to
talk science without actually doing so is the main problem. — NE —
NoEinstein
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
> On May 19, 2:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 4:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
> > Way to GO, Androcles! Glad to have you on the side of REAL science!
> > — NoEinstein —
>
> You bet! All us Kooks have to stick together. I hate it when I end up
> on the same side as Andro!
>
> This is real science:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
> and this:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
>
> Whatever theory you have, it has to fit ALL the data.
> --
> NEWTON'S RULES OF REASONING IN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
>
>
> RULE I.
> We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
> and sufficient to explain their appearances.
>
> To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
> more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
> and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.
>
> RULE II.
> Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign
> the same causes.
>
> We kooks are in good company.
Androcles: You must be off-the-sauce; your comments are all starting
to make sense! — NE —
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Missed a slash. Einstein's description is at
Uncle Ben
>
> Way to GO, Androcles! Glad to have you on the side of REAL science!
> — NoEinstein —
>
1. One can define a smallest real number greater than zero,
2. Einstein mistakenly proved that a moving rod is LONGER than the
same rod at rest.
3. Einstein contradicted himself in 1905 by saying that light also
travels at c+v and c-v.
in addition to your own assertion that
4. Momentum (mv) and work (Fd) are both in units of force (ma).
Any sophomore physics or math student can prove at least one of these
to be wrong.
But it's a free country! Go for it!
UB
NoEinstein
> I don't mind you hanging yourself with your own comments, but I would
> like to make sure your lies about what *I* say are corrected.
>
science statements are “pick and choose”, all-over-the-board, from one
day till the next. The KEY issue in our debate is that you insist
that ’displacement’ can increase the KE of a falling object because of
the displacement alone. KE, essentially, defines to how much DAMAGE a
speeding object will cause. Simply because the object traveled twice
as far (‘displacement’ against zero resistance—as in coasting) will
never increase the damage. A car hitting a wall at 30 mph will do the
identical damage whether it traveled a hundred yards or a hundred
miles. VELOCITY alone determines the KE of falling objects of a unit
mass. And the velocity of all falling objects increases uniformly, or
linearly—NOT semi-parabolically. So, the KE has to be increasing
uniformly, or LINEARLY, too. Which is true!
>
> > In spit of the above truths, PD insists that coasting objects (those
> > traveling at an unchanging speed) are increasing in KE in proportion
> > to the distance traveled (sic).
> No, I've explicitly told you otherwise.
>
PD, you repeatedly say that the KE of falling objects is equal to the
‘work’ done on them. If work was part of the calculation process (But
it isn’t.), the formula would be W = fd. The KE increase during a
given second of fall adds to the KE at the end of the previous
seconds. *** But the KE increase can only be counted ONCE! ***
You’ve agreed that the momentum portion of the curve—which plots as a
straight line—is correct. But, then, you see the parabolic
displacement and call THAT the KE (above and beyond the momentum).
Your error is in thinking that the ALREADY totally utilized force of
one pound is still available for use in your WORK equation. That one
pound of force was TOTALLY utilized in the straight line portion of
the momentum! You are doing two different math calculations, but the
FORCE isn’t available for the work portion. That’s why COASTING, even
with increasing displacement, can’t increase work—there is no
associated force!
>
> > He supposes that a hockey puck
> > sliding 100 feet on frictionless ice has twice the KE as that same
> > puck, going the exact same speed, but only traveling 50 feet.
> No, I've explicitly told you otherwise.
>
All falling objects have a HUGE coasting component which you consider
to be causing the KE to increase. That’s analogous to one saying that
a hockey puck, coasting across the ice, increases in KE in proportion
to the distance traveled.
>
> > PD
> > believes that because the definition of “work”, in elemental texts,
> > is: W = fd, or force times distance, that such equation holds true
> > even if the distance can increase (as is the case for all falling
> > objects) without any additional force being needed—as will always be
> > the case for the portion of the distance of fall that's due to
> > coasting.
> Yes, this is true. And here you see is the difference.
> In the case of a hockey puck sliding at constant speed, the net force
> applied to the puck is ZERO. This is because constant velocity means
> zero acceleration, and zero acceleration means zero net force.
> (Newton's 2nd law: F=ma.) So I have NEVER said that the work is
> different than zero for an object traveling at constant speed.
>
PD, you just put your foot in the bear trap! The COASTING components
in any second ARE at constant speed (i.e., the velocity at the END of
the previous second)! So, according to your statement, above, there
is ZERO work associated! For those of you who are interested: The
distance of fall in the first second is 16.087’, which is taken as the
datum. During the second second of fall, 2/3rds of the distance is
from coasting; during the third second, 4/5ths; and during the fourth
second, 6/7ths is from coasting. In total, during a four second fall
12/16ths or 75% of the total distance of fall is due to coasting. And
THAT is exactly how much the errant KE = 1/2mv^2 exaggerates the KE!
>
Indeed,
> the work-energy theorem says that the work equals the change in
> kinetic energy. Since it is traveling at constant speed, the kinetic
> energy is not changing, and so the work is expected to be zero.
> But a falling object is not traveling at constant speed. It is
> accelerating, which means that there is a net force that is not zero
> acting on it. So since neither F nor d is zero for a falling object,
> the work is not zero. Moreover, since the work is not zero, then the
> kinetic energy must be changing.
>
PD, you are WAY over your head, and “making things up” as you go.
>
> > In order for any person, animal or machine to do a quantity of work
> > which increases parabolically, the FORCE determining the work has to
> > be increasing parabolically, too.
> That's simply not true. The work is force times displacement.
>
You need to learn this fact, PD: The calculation of KE only requires
knowing the mass of the object and the object’s velocity at a given
instant. The WORK, or the distance of fall aren’t involved. That so-
called “Work-Energy Theorem” SCRAMBLED your one neuron brain. Ha, ha,
HA! — NoEinstein
NoEinstein
>
Dear Sam: One of my beefs is: "Teachers who can't learn." Because
their... students never questioned their explanations, they think they
are Gods. Well, my "economic plan" calls for firing 50% of the
teachers. And that's just for a start! — NoEinstein —
>
> On 5/19/10 1:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Dear Sam: You, too, are a 'know-it-all" (sic) teacher. The primary
> > QUESTION of this post is: "Can WORK be done without there being a
> > resistance?" In order, even, to apply a FORCE, there must be the
> > capacity of the... "object" to push BACK. One of Newton's correct
> > Laws of Motion says: "For every action there is an equal and opposite
> > reaction." Since COASTING requires no force to cause PD's love-word,
> > displacement (change of location), then, the FORCE side of the Work =
> > force x distance isn't there! No FORCE = no work done! So the
> > COASTING portion of the distance of fall can't be increasing the KE of
> > the falling object, because there is no force. Of course you won't
> > ever printed in a high school science text be true. It's very sad,
> > truths by assuming that everyone reading your replies is as stupid as
> > you two. Actually, no more than 5% of the readers are that naive.
> > You should find another hobby, Sam. You pretending to understand
>
> What's your beef?
>
> This is a perfectly good workable definition of work:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)
>
> If the force is zero, then force * distance is zero.
>
> Hidden in the law of inertia is the fact that whether a body is in
> motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of the observer.
>
NoEinstein
>
> But this is a line of argument that PD has made repeatedly here. It
> falls on the deaf ears of the pitiful kooks, whose works have led to
> nothing.
>
NoEinstein
>
John: In your case, a "little knowledge" is a dangerous thing. For
the readers benefit, please give the titles and links to your '+new
posts'. — NoEinstein —
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:26:46 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
>
Androcles
On May 19, 2:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Way to GO, Androcles! Glad to have you on the side of REAL science!
> � NoEinstein �
>
So, friend No, you agree with Androcles that
1. One can define a smallest real number greater than zero,
======================================================
One can define x' = x-vt, and
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A".
Defining h as the smallest real number greater than zero, as in
f'(x) = [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h
is small potatoes.
======================================================
2. Einstein mistakenly proved that a moving rod is LONGER than the
same rod at rest.
======================================================
Einstein DELIBERATELY attempted to prove that a moving rod is
longer than the same rod at rest. Bonehead is mistaken.
======================================================
3. Einstein contradicted himself in 1905 by saying that light also
travels at c+v and c-v.
========================================================
Tsk tsk....
Einstein contradicted himself in 1905 by saying that light also
travels at c and c-v. Bonehead is mistaken.
========================================================
in addition to your own assertion that
4. Momentum (mv) and work (Fd) are both in units of force (ma).
Any sophomore physics or math student can prove at least one of these
to be wrong.
========================================================
Bonehead never learnt rooky physics or mathematics, the senile old faggot
challenges any definitions that are not Einstein's.
PD
Independently confirmed experiment is how nature is interviewed.
You don't have that yet.
PD
> On May 18, 7:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> I don't mind you hanging yourself with your own comments, but I would
> > like to make sure your lies about what *I* say are corrected.
>
> Dear PD: Glad you found this post! I mean no offense, but your
> science statements are “pick and choose”, all-over-the-board, from one
> day till the next. The KEY issue in our debate is that you insist
> that ’displacement’ can increase the KE of a falling object because of
> the displacement alone.
As long as the force is nonzero, yes, an increasing displacement will
increase the amount of work. If you take a case where the net force is
zero, then no amount of displacement will amount to nonzero work.
> KE, essentially, defines to how much DAMAGE a
> speeding object will cause.
Nonsense. That is a crappy definition of KE.
> Simply because the object traveled twice
> as far (‘displacement’ against zero resistance—as in coasting) will
> never increase the damage. A car hitting a wall at 30 mph will do the
> identical damage whether it traveled a hundred yards or a hundred
> miles. VELOCITY alone determines the KE of falling objects of a unit
> mass. And the velocity of all falling objects increases uniformly, or
> linearly—NOT semi-parabolically. So, the KE has to be increasing
> uniformly, or LINEARLY, too. Which is true!
>
>
>
> > > In spit of the above truths, PD insists that coasting objects (those
> > > traveling at an unchanging speed) are increasing in KE in proportion
> > > to the distance traveled (sic).
> > No, I've explicitly told you otherwise.
>
> PD, you repeatedly say that the KE of falling objects is equal to the
> ‘work’ done on them.
Yes.
> If work was part of the calculation process (But
> it isn’t.), the formula would be W = fd.
Yes. It is.
> The KE increase during a
> given second of fall adds to the KE at the end of the previous
> seconds. *** But the KE increase can only be counted ONCE! ***
> You’ve agreed that the momentum portion of the curve—which plots as a
> straight line—is correct. But, then, you see the parabolic
> displacement and call THAT the KE (above and beyond the momentum).
> Your error is in thinking that the ALREADY totally utilized force of
> one pound is still available for use in your WORK equation. That one
> pound of force was TOTALLY utilized in the straight line portion of
> the momentum! You are doing two different math calculations, but the
> FORCE isn’t available for the work portion. That’s why COASTING, even
> with increasing displacement, can’t increase work—there is no
> associated force!
>
>
>
> > > He supposes that a hockey puck
> > > sliding 100 feet on frictionless ice has twice the KE as that same
> > > puck, going the exact same speed, but only traveling 50 feet.
> > No, I've explicitly told you otherwise.
>
> All falling objects have a HUGE coasting component which you consider
> to be causing the KE to increase. That’s analogous to one saying that
> a hockey puck, coasting across the ice, increases in KE in proportion
> to the distance traveled.
No, it's not analogous at all, for the reasons I've stated. In the ice
case, the net force on the puck is zero and THAT'S why the work is
zero. In the case of the falling object, the net force on the object
is not zero.
I don't see why you can't understand that. It's so simple.
>
>
>
> > > PD
> > > believes that because the definition of “work”, in elemental texts,
> > > is: W = fd, or force times distance, that such equation holds true
> > > even if the distance can increase (as is the case for all falling
> > > objects) without any additional force being needed—as will always be
> > > the case for the portion of the distance of fall that's due to
> > > coasting.
> > Yes, this is true. And here you see is the difference.
> > In the case of a hockey puck sliding at constant speed, the net force
> > applied to the puck is ZERO. This is because constant velocity means
> > zero acceleration, and zero acceleration means zero net force.
> > (Newton's 2nd law: F=ma.) So I have NEVER said that the work is
> > different than zero for an object traveling at constant speed.
>
> PD, you just put your foot in the bear trap! The COASTING components
> in any second ARE at constant speed (i.e., the velocity at the END of
> the previous second)! So, according to your statement, above, there
> is ZERO work associated! For those of you who are interested: The
> distance of fall in the first second is 16.087’, which is taken as the
> datum. During the second second of fall, 2/3rds of the distance is
> from coasting;
That's numerically incorrect. You've made a mistake. In the second
second, the object will fall 48 feet, three times what it did in the
first second. Therefore, at most 1/3 of the distance fallen is from
coasting. Note that the amount that is NOT from coasting is TWICE as
big as the amount it ever had in the first second. Clearly the
displacement is increasing even subtracting off the coasting
component. And so the work is increasing, even subtracting off the
coasting component.
Finally, please note that the expression for work that you will find
in all textbooks is
work = force x displacement
It is NOT
work = force x (displacement over and beyond what it would have gone
by coasting)
It is JUST
work = force x displacement, period.
> during the third second, 4/5ths;
Again, you've made a mistake. Can you find your simple arithmetic
error?
> and during the fourth
> second, 6/7ths is from coasting. In total, during a four second fall
> 12/16ths or 75% of the total distance of fall is due to coasting. And
> THAT is exactly how much the errant KE = 1/2mv^2 exaggerates the KE!
>
> Indeed,
> > the work-energy theorem says that the work equals the change in
> > kinetic energy. Since it is traveling at constant speed, the kinetic
> > energy is not changing, and so the work is expected to be zero.
> > But a falling object is not traveling at constant speed. It is
> > accelerating, which means that there is a net force that is not zero
> > acting on it. So since neither F nor d is zero for a falling object,
> > the work is not zero. Moreover, since the work is not zero, then the
> > kinetic energy must be changing.
>
> PD, you are WAY over your head, and “making things up” as you go.
I'm sorry, but I'm not. It's in high school texts, even. It is
understood by thousands of physicists the same way. Moreover, it is
understood by tens of thousands of architects the same way.
>
>
>
> > > In order for any person, animal or machine to do a quantity of work
> > > which increases parabolically, the FORCE determining the work has to
> > > be increasing parabolically, too.
> > That's simply not true. The work is force times displacement.
>
> You need to learn this fact, PD: The calculation of KE only requires
> knowing the mass of the object and the object’s velocity at a given
> instant. The WORK, or the distance of fall aren’t involved.
The work tells you how the kinetic energy can change without violating
the law of conservation of energy.
You, on the other hand, are saying that all you need to do is find the
kinetic energy at different times, and if it's different, then it just
is, and don't worry about conservation of energy. The change can't
possibly come from work, according to you. It can come from nothing at
all!
John Polasek
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On May 19, 11:01�pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>John: In your case, a "little knowledge" is a dangerous thing.
It appears that a "little knowledge" is more than you can stand.
The units of momentum are force times time, not,
as you insist below, force.
The units of work are force times distance.
Please feel free to refute. Use mathematics if possible.
>For the readers benefit, please give the titles and links to your '+new
>posts'. � NoEinstein �
I would be glad to cite 'titles and links' if I knew what you were
talking about. ??'+new posts'??
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:26:46 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
>>
>> <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > For example: PD believes,
>> >adamantly, that MOMENTUM doesn�t have the units of FORCE�or �pounds.
It doesn't.
>> - Show quoted text -
John Polasek
Uncle Ben
wrote:
snip
> Bonehead never learnt rooky physics or mathematics, the senile old faggot
> challenges any definitions that are not Einstein's.
My physics publications can be found in any university physics
library. Where are yours, Mr. Parker?
UB
Androcles
On May 20, 11:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z>
wrote:
If Androcles had learned any logic, he would know that even if you
define an integer x as greater than 5 and less than 3, that does not
mean that such a number exists.
=================================================
If Bonehead had learned any logic, he would know that even if you define
tau(x'/(c-v)) equals tau(x'/(c+v)), that does not mean such an equality
exists
and it certainly wouldn't be linear if it did. Nor can one make a derivable
function from a coordinate, even if the fuckwit Einstein says you can.
Bonehead never learnt rooky physics or mathematics, the senile old faggot
challenges any definitions that are not Einstein's.
<rest snipped as requested in following post>
My work is to be found here, Bonehead:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/aeronautics/1977-45.aspx
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_002_(G-BSST)
Androcles
On May 20, 11:53 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z>
wrote:
snip
=======================================
Mission accomplished as requested.
Anything else I can snip for you, senile old faggot?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mass is the state of energy whereby it is infinitely dense. Mass is
always an infinitely dense infinitely small point of energy. Point
particles are mass.
Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD: I invite YOU to perform the "confirming" experiment. Send
me your mailing address and I will mail you the materialsw you'll need
to conduct the KE experiment in a singlr afternoon. — NoEinstein —
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD: I’ll pretend to be a ‘time traveler’; go into the future;
and reply to your (probable) response to my last reply to you
regarding... ‘work’ vs. the KE of falling objects. I’m doing this
without reading your mix of science/non-science in the actual reply.
Since you and I have been arguing for nearly three years, I know
pretty well how your mind works.
Whether or not you acknowledge saying this… a year or so ago you
stated that momentum (mass x velocity) shares total energy with the
work. However, since 75% of the distance of fall (in a convenient
four-second free-drop experiment) is due to coasting; and because
coasting has no associated force being required to maintain such
(overcoming friction accepted); then the coasting distance, or
displacement, has no associated force which could cause ’work’. No
work done, means the KE increase due to coasting must be zero.
But PD is arguing for his science life, here. He knows that a one
pound “unit” mass has a one pound, continuous, static force acting
downward. He’ll bypass the “logic” of there being two separate parts
of the KE computation and simply say that the WORK computation
accounts for 100% the energy computation. A one pound force, times
the distance at any point (increasing parabolically with respect to
time) will yield work amounts that would be increasing parabolically,
too. Well and good… PD “wins”. But wait! Coriolis’s “accepted” KE
equation, KE = 1/2mv^2, is increasing SEMI-parabolically with respect
to velocity. So, PD’s distance-determined work will be exaggerating
the “KE” by 100 percent. He’s got ‘that’ problem, plus the following:
Not surprisingly, all objects dropped near the Earth increase in
velocity 32.174 feet per second, EACH second. Not “per” second!
Objects having that rate of acceleration will have exactly 16.087 feet
of the fall, each second, which can be attributed to the force of
gravity. The remaining distance of fall is COASTING, or the carry-
over distance due to the velocity from the end of the last second, and
so-on. The combined carryover distances, plus the straight line,
velocity-change distances, will plot to be a parabola, even if one
doesn’t know that d = t^2. I developed my New Science without
reference to any textbook. The latter method is how I determined that
the free-drop curve is a parabola.
*In order to placate PD, assume that doubling the input “work” will
double the output kinetic energy. But PD insists that work is
distance proportional… In the first second, 1/16th of the total
distance and KE (*) will occur; second second; 3/16ths (*); third
second, 5/16ths (*); and fourth second, 7/16ths. Note the HUGE
disparity in the distances and KE values over the four seconds. The
force is one pound and the resistance (the inertia of the object) is
one pound, too. So, how can the identical force/resistance have
anything other than identical kinetic energy values per unit of time?
The answer: It can’t! Here’s why:
If a given force, say, one pound causes a doubling of the distance
traveled in a succeeding second, then, the RESISTANCE of the object
must be cut in half. If the resistance were to be cut to 1/4th, the
distance that one pound force would move the object would be four
times as great. The above science facts are catastrophic to PD’s
‘work-in’-determines-KE-out hypothesis. PD’s theory would require the
falling object to get… lighter, or the force of gravity get greater,
each second of fall. If no such changes in the force/inertia
relationship happen, then, PD’s… WORK couldn’t be directly
proportional to the distance, because there would be coasting-caused
distances that could neither increase the work, nor the kinetic
energy.
As PD sinks further into the mire, he should realize that Coriolis’s
equation EXAGERATES the KE so much, that different mass (same
diameter) balls dropped into soft clay from heights “predicted” by his
formula to have identical KEs, don’t even come close to having equal
penetration into the same bed of soft clay. And Note: PD’s parabola-
based (rather that semi-parabola based) work-to-KE hypothesis would
show DOUBLE the penetration disparity. I’ll be more than happy to
send PD the balls and the artist’s clay so that he can replicate my
important KE experiment, explained below. That experiment, and the
above rationale, are hugely important, because those things prove that
Coriolis’s lame-brain equation—that’s been in physics textbooks for
180 years—is totally wrong. Such equation violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy. If you think that’s not very important…
please consider that Albert Einstein used Coriolis’s equation to
develop his E = mc^2 / beta, Special Relativity theory—which ALSO
violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Obviously, my work in
those areas is very important, indeed! — NoEinstein —
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=
IF it was only a two second experiment. My graph paper allowed me to
draw a good parabola and indicate four seconds of fall. THAT has 75%
coasting which increases exponentially all the way to infinity.
> > > that. PD- Hide quoted text -
Androcles
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:85108bc0-d2e0-443d...@y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 12:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear PD: I invite YOU to perform the "confirming" experiment. Send
me your mailing address and I will mail you the materialsw you'll need
===============================================
http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/Draper_pointer.html
The webpage cannot be found
HTTP 404
Most likely causes:
a.. There might be a typing error in the address.
b.. If you clicked on a link, it may be out of date.
What you can try:
Retype the address.
Go back to the previous page.
Go to and look for the information you want.
More information
http://www-hep.uta.edu/hep/draper/paul.gif
NoEinstein
>
Dear John: Nice try, IF you are wishing to impress dunces, like PD.
Simply stated: Momentum is the increase in the force that any moving
mass can exert by virtue of its velocity, as a percentage of the
standard velocity of 32.174 feet per second. Since a percentage, like
a simple fraction, has NO unites, then the force that the moving mass
can exert is in POUNDS. Time isn't needed in the equation, only the
mass and the velocity, as: M = v / 32.174 (m). — NoEinstein —
>
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:14 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Ben: One's intelligence in science is inversely
proportional to the years spent at any university or universities!
Ha, ha, HA! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Burt: The definition of mass: "Any concentration of energy which
can slow the passage of ether through such, and, while so doing,
experience a force in the same direction as the flowing ether, and in
proportion to the concentration of energy-mass. Additionally, a mass
must be capable of giving off at least one photon." — NoEinstein —
Tom Potter
>falls on the deaf ears of the pitiful kooks, whose works have led to
>nothing.
>
>Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben makes a good point when he suggests
that the works of Newton provided a model and tools
by which man could design and maintain mechanisms and structures,
and the works of Faraday and Maxwell provided a model and tools
by which man could design and maintain electrical, magnetic and electronic
devices, and to model and understand chemistry,
that the works of Watson and Crick provided a model and tools
to model DNA, a tool that is used every day to improve health,
food crops, fight crime, reconstruct history, etc.
whereas the works of Einstein have been more like
the works of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, David Koresh, etc.
and gave rise to cultists that use rubber clocks and rulers
to waste time, money and minds on such pursuits
as time travel, worm holes, space warps, gravity waves,
and things beyond man's capacity to ever experience
in time and space, like the beginning and end of the universe
and the mind of God.
--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.tompotter.us
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/
http://tdp1001.wordpress.com/
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com
http://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
> whereas the works of Einstein have been more like
> the works of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, David Koresh, etc.
>
> and gave rise to cultists that use rubber clocks and rulers
> to waste time, money and minds on such pursuits
> as time travel, worm holes, space warps, gravity waves,
> and things beyond man's capacity to ever experience
> in time and space, like the beginning and end of the universe
> and the mind of God.
Yet if Einstein were wrong, how would we understand the behavior of
particles in every particle accelerator, the operation of every
positron tomography scanner, nuclear power, the hydrogen bomb, the
corrections to GPS clocks, not to mention the multiple scores of
experiments testing the accuracy of the predictions of SR and GR?
The test of scientific theories is not whether the layman can easily
understand them. It is whether they correctly predict observable
phenomena.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
John, if we can agree with Newton that F=ma, we don't need an
experiment to settle your dispute with PD:
Define work done by force F over distance X as
W=integral 0 to X (Fdx)
F = m dv/dt, according to Newton
Change variable from x to t:
W=integral t1 to t2 (m dv/dt dx/dt dt)
But dx/dt=v
Change variable from t to v:
W=integral v1 to v2 (m v dv)
W= 1/2m*[sqr(v2)-sqr(v1)]
In words, work done = increase in (1/2) m sqr(v)
OK?
I have assumed that you know first-year calculus, also due to Newton.
UB
Androcles
Define work done by force F over distance X as
W=integral 0 to X (Fdx)
F = m dv/dt, according to Newton
Change variable from x to t:
W=integral t1 to t2 (m dv/dt dx/dt dt)
But dx/dt=v
Change variable from t to v:
W=integral v1 to v2 (m v dv)
W= 1/2m*[sqr(v2)-sqr(v1)]
In words, work done = increase in (1/2) m sqr(v)
OK?
I have assumed that you know first-year calculus, also due to Newton.
UB
============================================
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I have assumed Bonehead doesn't know W = 1/2 mv^2 and first-year calculus,
that is why he's called Uncle Bonehead Green, American Redneck of Science.
Now he's proven he doesn't know the difference between roots and squares.
Did you really think you can define sqr(x) = x^2 when convention demands
sqrt(x) = x^0.5, Bonehead?
And can you, by no drift of conference,
Get from him why he puts on this confusion,
Grating so harshly all his days of quiet
With turbulent and dangerous lunacy?
Hamlet
William Shakespeare.
Uncle Ben
Sure. Why not?
>
> And can you, by no drift of conference,
> Get from him why he puts on this confusion,
> Grating so harshly all his days of quiet
> With turbulent and dangerous lunacy?
> Hamlet
> William Shakespeare.
In my usage
sqr(x) = square(x)
sqrt(x) = square root(x), just as you have it 11 lines above.
Is this the best you've got, John?
UB
Androcles
Sure. Why not?
====================================================
Same reason I can't define h as the smallest possible integer > 0, that's
why not.
But of course I can, all I'm doing is giving it a name.
That's a bit different to Einstein's postulate "the 'time' for light to
travel from
A to B equals the 'time' it takes to return", which is only true for a
special case
and in general untrue, and certainly not a definition as the lying bastard
claims
it to be.
> And can you, by no drift of conference,
> Get from him why he puts on this confusion,
> Grating so harshly all his days of quiet
> With turbulent and dangerous lunacy?
> Hamlet
> William Shakespeare.
In my usage
sqr(x) = square(x)
sqrt(x) = square root(x), just as you have it 11 lines above.
Is this the best you've got, John?
=======================================
No, Bonehead, I can piss all over your definition as you pissed on mine
and I can piss higher than you in any pissing contest.
The derivative of sqr(x) is the limit as h goes toward zero of
[sqr(x+h) - sqr(x)]/h
= [sqr(x)+ 2hx + sqr(h) - sqr(x)]/h
= [2hx + sqr(h)]/h
= 2x +h
where h is non zero and thus the smallest number > 0.
h cannot be zero as division by zero is UNDEFINED.
If you deny it, sqr(x) has no derivative.
I have proven that you DON'T know first-year calculus, due to Newton,
and you don't know the difference between a definition and a postulate.
QED.
Put that on your web page and blush with your embarrassment.
"Get from him why he puts on this confusion" --Bill Shakespeare.
Uncle Ben
> - Show quoted text -
The difference between you and calculus (note John's arrogance in
denying calculus) is that you define something that cannot exist,
while calculus uses the concept of "limit" (of which you are ignorant)
to save the derivative without need of your definition.
I tire of teaching someone who thinks he already knows everything.
UB
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can't even state your "postulate" correctly. You say:
> Same reason I can't define h as the smallest possible integer > 0, that's
> why not.
> But of course I can, all I'm doing is giving it a name.
>
Yes, of course you can, because you said "integer" instead of "real
number". Yes, there is a smallest possible integer > 0. It is called
"one" and written "1". But that does not get you close to the
derivative.
John Polasek
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On May 20, 3:15�pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>Dear John: Nice try, IF you are wishing to impress dunces, like PD.
>Simply stated: Momentum is the increase in the force that any moving
>mass can exert by virtue of its velocity, as a percentage of the
>standard velocity of 32.174 feet per second. Since a percentage, like
>a simple fraction, has NO unites, then the force that the moving mass
>can exert is in POUNDS. Time isn't needed in the equation, only the
>mass and the velocity, as:
>M = v / 32.174 (m). � NoEinstein �
That equation is truly unique, not to be found anywhere in the annals
of physics.
32 fps is not a standard velocity. (check it out!) It is a standard
acceleration though.
Momentum can be measured by the force time product FT that includes
the time required to stop it. MV = FT slug feet per second equals
pound seconds. Consider the wide disparity in stopping times between
steel or mush.
>>
snip
John Polasek
Uncle Ben
After the mass gives off its one photon, is it then not a mass?
(Continue the insanity!)
UB
Androcles
============================================
I did, didn't I? Well spotted.
Starting to learn to read carefully, Bonehead?
Who said I can't teach an old dog a new trick?
Now prove
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]
IS EQUAL TO
tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v))
(Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif )
using any logic or calculus at your disposal and we'll see how close to
'gamma' you can get.
Hint: You can discard tau(0,0,0,t), it is equal to t(0,0,0).
You'll get tired of teaching before I will, arrogant fuckwit.
Androcles
UB
============================================
Is this the best you've got, Bonehead?
sqr(x) has no derivative.
QED.
I note you have no logical argument in rebuttal and have resorted to
merely pissing, you fucking worthless ugly arrogant old faggot.
Your tiredness pleases me no end, you useless ignorant shithead.
Drop dead, you could only teach bigotry anyway, you miserable
bastard.
Will Shakespeare had you weighed in your dotage:
"Grating so harshly all his days of quiet
With turbulent and dangerous lunacy".
Want some more pissing, American Scumbag of Science?
I can piss higher than you in any childish pissing contest.
Uncle Ben
>
>
> > The derivative of sqr(x) is the limit as h goes toward zero of
> > [sqr(x+h) - sqr(x)]/h
> > = [sqr(x)+ 2hx + sqr(h) - sqr(x)]/h
>
> > = [2hx + sqr(h)]/h
> > = 2x +h
> > where h is non zero and thus the smallest number > 0.
> > h cannot be zero as division by zero is UNDEFINED.
>
> > If you deny it, sqr(x) has no derivative.
>
> sqr(x) has no derivative.
-
Androcles, you derived the derivative of sqr(x)
beautifully up until the last step.
All you need to do now is to take the limit as h tends to zero.
Lim(h ->0) 2x + h
= 2x. Ta Dah!
You see, there is no division by h left in the expresion, so there is
no difficulty -- no need for h>0.
You thought it impossible, but then you proved yourself wrong. You
were too modest. You may yet pass Calculus 101.
Congratulations!
UB
Androcles
= 2x. Ta Dah!
=============================================
You don't see because you are a snipping bigot.
[2hx + sqr(h)]/h
QED.
Nor can you derive your 'gamma' from Einstein's third postulate:
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]
IS EQUAL TO
tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v))
(Ref:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif )
Use any logic or calculus at your disposal and we'll see how close to
'gamma' you can get.
Hint: You can discard tau(0,0,0,t), it is equal to t(0,0,0).
You'll get tired of teaching before I will, arrogant fuckwit.
.
Uncle Ben
when h >0, and find the cancellation by dividion before the limit is
taken. Only then do you let h approach zero. It is similar to how to
find the slope of a curve at a point: you draw a chord between two
points, and only then do you slide the points together,
Your counter-challenge from Einstein 1905 is merely the algebraic
expression of the claim that c is independent of the inertial frame in
which it is measured. You may not agree with that claim, but
experiment supports it. AE uses it to derive the time portion of the
LT.
Androcles
On May 22, 8:40 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cdf4b6c0-c8ff-4b55...@o15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> = 2x. Ta Dah!
> =============================================
> You don't see because you are a snipping bigot.
> [2hx + sqr(h)]/h
>
> QED.
>
> Nor can you derive your 'gamma' from Einstein's third postulate:
> 1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]
> IS EQUAL TO
> tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v))
>
> (Ref:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif)
> Use any logic or calculus at your disposal and we'll see how close to
> 'gamma' you can get.
>
> Hint: You can discard tau(0,0,0,t), it is equal to t(0,0,0).
> You'll get tired of teaching before I will, arrogant fuckwit.
>
> .
The idea of the limit is to form the expression for the derivative
when h >0, and find the cancellation by dividion before the limit is
taken. Only then do you let h approach zero. It is similar to how to
find the slope of a curve at a point: you draw a chord between two
points, and only then do you slide the points together,
Like this, Bonehead?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Derivative.gif
===========================================
Your counter-challenge from Einstein 1905 is merely the algebraic
expression of the claim that c is independent of the inertial frame in
which it is measured. You may not agree with that claim, but
experiment supports it. AE uses it to derive the time portion of the
LT.
==============================================
You'll get tired of teaching before I will, arrogant fuckwit.
Nor can you derive your 'gamma' from Einstein's third postulate:
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]
IS EQUAL TO
tau(x',0,0, t+ x'/(c-v))
because it isn't, and neither can x' be infinitessimally small and a limit
while still referring to c and v.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Einstein.html
"He studied mathematics, in particular the calculus, beginning around 1891.
In 1895 Einstein failed an examination that would have allowed him to study
for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgen�ssische Technische
Hochschule in Zurich. "
He was born in Feb 1879, was 12 years old "around" 1891, and he FAILED after
three years study, Bonehead.
I didn't fail at that age, Bonehead. You never learnt rookie calculus
anymore than Einstein did, Bonehead, you were too busy trying to pull the
dicks of other boys, you faggot.
Tom Potter
Uncle Ben makes a good point when he suggests that Einstein,
like Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, David Koresh
was right on some points,
but this does not negate that fact that General Relativity
was an effort by Einstein to apply the model ( Stresses and strains)
and the tools ( Tensors ) of the stress analysis gurus of the 1800's
to the universe, and although stress analysis works very well
on inanimate objects, it is not useful for modeling volumes
inhabited by sentient beings.
Furthermore, Einstein Cultists do not like to acknowledge the fact
that Galileo discovered centuries ago that the period of oscillators
was affected by acceleration, and England sent ships all over the
world with standard pendulums, and Newton used the data collected
to compute the shape of the Earth and the tides in many places.
Considering that Newton did this using his model and hand calculation
perhaps Uncle Ben or some Einstein Cultists will compute the tide in one
place
using General Relativity to demonstrate its' superiority,
and I trust that they will demonstrate that the acceleration effect
on oscillators discovered by Galileo does not apply
to the frequency of atomic oscillators in the GPS System.
What model can be best used by sentient beings
to understand, control, and maintain their environment,
in such a way as to optimize their time, resources and well being?
1. A model that adopts ONE standard unit,
and uses that unit to map things and events
onto the minimum number of rigid orthogonals,
2. or a model that fixes things and events at constant points,
on the required number of orthogonals,
and allows the orthogonals to bend,
3. or a model that fixes things and events at constant points,
on the required number of orthogonals,
and allows the units to vary?
Considering that model #1 uses a standard time unit
derived from sets of stable oscillating systems,
and orders things and events on rigid orthogonals,
and is used every day
by mechanics, technicians, engineers, scientists,
and managers to explain, design, and maintain
bridges, buildings, machines, spring-mass systems,
electronics and the GPS System,
and models #2 and #3 use rubber clocks and rulers,
or non-orthogonal frames
to model time travel, worm holes, gravitons,
the beginning and end of the universe,
and the mind of God.
Einstein created a Tower of Babel
when he allowed objects to distort Cartesian Coordinates
in General Relativity.
"Resources are terrible things to waste."
Uncle Ben
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing, isn't it, that in spite of so many apparent faults, GR works
better than any competing theory in predicting observable phenomena.
Uncle Ben
Androcles
Amazing, isn't it, that in spite of so many apparent faults, GR works
better than any competing theory in predicting observable phenomena.
Uncle Ben
=================================================
Unamazing, isn't it, that in spite of so many obvious faults, GR works
worse than Newtonian Mechanics in predicting observable phenomena
but some stupid bigots will chant their ignorant mantras like relativisitic
monks... or monkeys.
PD
> On May 20, 12:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD: I invite YOU to perform the "confirming" experiment. Send
> me your mailing address and I will mail you the materialsw you'll need
> to conduct the KE experiment in a singlr afternoon. — NoEinstein —
You have my email address by virtue of this newsgroup. (If you don't
know how to do that, then I suggest the Help file.)
I don't need equipment, I need specifications for equipment, and
precise documentation on the experimental procedures used, your raw
data obtained, and your analysis of the data. This documentation you
can send in an email attachment.
PD
> On May 20, 1:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD: I’ll pretend to be a ‘time traveler’; go into the future;
> and reply to your (probable) response to my last reply to you
> regarding... ‘work’ vs. the KE of falling objects. I’m doing this
> without reading your mix of science/non-science in the actual reply.
Let me explain something to you. When you deride people for not
replying to you with science, and then you respond further by saying
that you do not read the replies at all, this lets people know that
you are a passive-aggressive jerk, with whom there is little point in
attempting a substantive discussion.
> Since you and I have been arguing for nearly three years, I know
> pretty well how your mind works.
>
> Whether or not you acknowledge saying this… a year or so ago you
> stated that momentum (mass x velocity) shares total energy with the
> work.
No, I did not. Your memory is crap.
You utter despicable untruths.
> However, since 75% of the distance of fall (in a convenient
> four-second free-drop experiment) is due to coasting; and because
> coasting has no associated force being required to maintain such
> (overcoming friction accepted); then the coasting distance, or
> displacement, has no associated force which could cause ’work’. No
> work done, means the KE increase due to coasting must be zero.
>
> But PD is arguing for his science life, here. He knows that a one
> pound “unit” mass has a one pound, continuous, static force acting
> downward. He’ll bypass the “logic” of there being two separate parts
> of the KE computation
That's YOUR "logic".
If you look in a textbook, you'll see there are no two separate parts.
There is ONE contribution to the energy of an object, and that's the
work.
The work is THE net force acting on the object, times THE displacement
of the object in the direction of that force.
There is no separation in either of these statements.
> and simply say that the WORK computation
> accounts for 100% the energy computation. A one pound force, times
> the distance at any point (increasing parabolically with respect to
> time) will yield work amounts that would be increasing parabolically,
> too. Well and good… PD “wins”. But wait! Coriolis’s “accepted” KE
> equation, KE = 1/2mv^2, is increasing SEMI-parabolically
Don't be ridiculous. You don't even know what "semiparabolically"
means. You see the 1/2 and think, "Well, that's what the semi must be
referring to."
Idiot.
Desperate are you?
Notice that at least you've now agreed that the kinetic energy has to
grow as the velocity squared, because of the work.
> with respect
> to velocity. So, PD’s distance-determined work will be exaggerating
> the “KE” by 100 percent. He’s got ‘that’ problem, plus the following:
>
> Not surprisingly, all objects dropped near the Earth increase in
> velocity 32.174 feet per second, EACH second. Not “per” second!
That's what it MEANS. Idiot.
> Objects having that rate of acceleration will have exactly 16.087 feet
> of the fall, each second, which can be attributed to the force of
> gravity.
That's ALSO wrong.
> The remaining distance of fall is COASTING, or the carry-
> over distance due to the velocity from the end of the last second, and
> so-on. The combined carryover distances, plus the straight line,
> velocity-change distances, will plot to be a parabola, even if one
> doesn’t know that d = t^2. I developed my New Science without
> reference to any textbook. The latter method is how I determined that
> the free-drop curve is a parabola.
>
> *In order to placate PD, assume that doubling the input “work” will
> double the output kinetic energy.
Yes.
> But PD insists that work is
> distance proportional… In the first second, 1/16th of the total
> distance and KE (*) will occur; second second; 3/16ths (*); third
> second, 5/16ths (*); and fourth second, 7/16ths. Note the HUGE
> disparity in the distances and KE values over the four seconds. The
> force is one pound and the resistance (the inertia of the object) is
> one pound, too. So, how can the identical force/resistance have
> anything other than identical kinetic energy values per unit of time?
It's simple. The work is proportional to the PRODUCT of force and
displacement. If the force is held constant and nonzero, and the
displacement increases, the work increases.
You have it fixed in your head that constant force means constant
work. This is simply wrong, as any CHILD would understand from the
fact that the work is the PRODUCT of TWO factors, not one.
> The answer: It can’t! Here’s why:
>
> If a given force, say, one pound causes a doubling of the distance
> traveled in a succeeding second, then, the RESISTANCE of the object
> must be cut in half. If the resistance were to be cut to 1/4th, the
> distance that one pound force would move the object would be four
> times as great. The above science facts are catastrophic to PD’s
> ‘work-in’-determines-KE-out hypothesis. PD’s theory would require the
> falling object to get… lighter, or the force of gravity get greater,
> each second of fall. If no such changes in the force/inertia
> relationship happen, then, PD’s… WORK couldn’t be directly
> proportional to the distance, because there would be coasting-caused
> distances that could neither increase the work, nor the kinetic
> energy.
>
> As PD sinks further into the mire, he should realize that Coriolis’s
> equation EXAGERATES the KE so much, that different mass (same
> diameter) balls dropped into soft clay from heights “predicted” by his
> formula to have identical KEs, don’t even come close to having equal
> penetration into the same bed of soft clay.
Nor should they. I don't know why you would think that Coriolis'
formula would predict that they would have equal penetration.
> And Note: PD’s parabola-
> based (rather that semi-parabola based) work-to-KE hypothesis would
> show DOUBLE the penetration disparity.
Why would you think so?
> I’ll be more than happy to
> send PD the balls and the artist’s clay so that he can replicate my
> important KE experiment, explained below. That experiment, and the
> above rationale, are hugely important, because those things prove that
> Coriolis’s lame-brain equation—that’s been in physics textbooks for
> 180 years—is totally wrong. Such equation violates the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy. If you think that’s not very important…
> please consider that Albert Einstein used Coriolis’s equation to
> develop his E = mc^2 / beta, Special Relativity theory—which ALSO
> violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Obviously, my work in
> those areas is very important, indeed! — NoEinstein —
>
> KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Ben: Varying ether flow and density can explain everything
in nature. High Energy Particle Research is the greatest science
WASTE in all of history! — NoEinstein —
>
> On May 22, 4:14 am, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:55b13dc8-32ea-42c7...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >On May 19, 3:16 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > >> On May 19, 2:04 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > that there are thousands of physicists in the world, all of whom hold
> > >> > the same beliefs in the matters you discuss thatPDdoes. These
> > >> > a tiny minority.
>
> > >> Oh, this settles it for sure. Science by popular vote! "Uncle Ben" is
> > >> using the "everybody knows" proof. Probably he needssomeblood
> > >> drained out to get rid of his bad humors. "Everybody" used to pretty
> > >> much agree on that.
>
> > >> Idiot.
>
> > >> > If there is a high school, a college, or a university near you, and
> > >> > if you are so lucky as to find a physics teacher willing to spend a
> > >> > find that ANY and EVERY such teacher will agree withPD. You will
> > >> > also find that ANY and EVERY physics textbook being used in ANY and
> > >> > EVERY physics course also agree withPD.
>
> > >> Ah, now comes the "appeal to authority" proof. Sorry "Ben" but ANYONE
> > >> who teaches High School and a great many who teach at the college
> > >> level are not authorities but merely political parrots for the status
> > >> quo. Their jobs depend on it. High School teachers (and I use that
> > >> term advisedly) are the worse in that they aren't even real college
> > >> graduates! Education Majors are widely known to be collegiate bottom
> > >> of the barrel, unable to make it in the classes others are required to
> > >> take and hence study "physics appreciation" without any math instead
> > >> of physics. Yeah, those are real "authorities"!
>
> > >> Moron.
>
> > >> > You are a deluded Don Quixote attacking windmills.
>
> > >> And your final "proof' is an ad hominem attack. Oh that one causes me
> > >> to loose a debate every time!
>
> > >> The bottom line "Uncle Ben" is that you've offered absolutely no
> > >> logical refutation of ANY of the points made. All your babblings are
> > >> invalid illogical debating ploys. You have nothing of value to add
> > >> here. Why don't you just shut up instead of showing everyone in this
> > >> world-wide forum how ignorant you are?
>
> > >It is ironically amusing that the kooks in this newsgroup complain
> > >themselves physicists is false. They complain that the great expansion
> > >of science in the 19th and 20th centuries by physicists is nonsense.
> > >They are using a medium for their complaints that did not exist 100
> > >years ago but came into being through the work of those physicists and
> > >the engineers who followed them to create the transistor, the
> > >integrated circuit, the computer, and now the internet.
>
> > >It is a laughable absurdity that they use this medium to deny the
> > >truth of the science that gave rise to it.
>
> > >Physics is not confirmed by arguments but by nature itself. We propose
> > >answers to nature, and nature tells us whether we are right or wrong.
>
> > >falls on the deaf ears of the pitiful kooks, whose works have led to
> > >nothing.
>
> > >Uncle Ben
>
> > Uncle Ben makes a good point when he suggests
> > that the works of Newton provided a model and tools
> > by which man could design and maintain mechanisms and structures,
>
> > and the works of Faraday and Maxwell provided a model and tools
> > by which man could design and maintain electrical, magnetic and electronic
> > devices, and to model and understand chemistry,
>
> > that the works of Watson and Crick provided a model and tools
> > to model DNA, a tool that is used every day to improve health,
> > food crops, fight crime, reconstruct history, etc.
>
> > whereas the works of Einstein have been more like
> > the works of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, David Koresh, etc.
>
> > and gave rise to cultists that use rubber clocks and rulers
> > to waste time, money and minds on such pursuits
> > as time travel, worm holes, space warps, gravity waves,
> > and things beyond man's capacity to ever experience
> > in time and space, like the beginning and end of the universe
> > and the mind of God.
>
> > --
> > Tom Potter
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> > whereas the works of Einstein have been more like
> > the works of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, David Koresh, etc.
>
> > and gave rise to cultists that use rubber clocks and rulers
> > to waste time, money and minds on such pursuits
> > as time travel, worm holes, space warps, gravity waves,
> > and things beyond man's capacity to ever experience
> > in time and space, like the beginning and end of the universe
> > and the mind of God.
>
> Yet if Einstein were wrong, how would we understand the behavior of
> particles in every particle accelerator, the operation of every
> positron tomography scanner, nuclear power, the hydrogen bomb, the
> corrections to GPS clocks, not to mention the multiple scores of
> experiments testing the accuracy of the predictions of SR and GR?
>
> The test of scientific theories is not whether the layman can easily
> understand them. It is whether they correctly predict observable
> phenomena.
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Ben: You misunderstand. My issue with PD's stupidity
ISN'T about Newton's F = ma, it is about PD's NON definition of
MOMENTUM, while he continually attacks my CORRECT definition, which
is: Force (in pounds) = mass (in pounds) x velocity (in feet per
second) / 32.174 feet per second—which is the DATUM velocity of
ACCELERATION 'g'. Since a velocity divided by a velocity is a unit-
less FRACTION or percentage, the UNITS of MOMENTUM is POUNDS, only! —
NoEinstein —
>
> On May 21, 11:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 1:04 pm,PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and reply to your (probable) response to my last reply to you
> > regarding... ‘work’ vs. the KE of falling objects. I’m doing this
> > without reading your mix of science/non-science in the actual reply.
> > Since you and I have been arguing for nearly three years, I know
> > pretty well how your mind works.
>
> > Whether or not you acknowledge saying this… a year or so ago you
> > stated that momentum (mass x velocity) shares total energy with the
> > work. However, since 75% of the distance of fall (in a convenient
> > four-second free-drop experiment) is due to coasting; and because
> > (overcoming friction accepted); then the coasting distance, or
> > work done, means the KE increase due to coasting must be zero.
>
> > pound “unit” masshasa one pound, continuous, static force acting
> > downward. He’ll bypass the “logic” of there being two separate parts
> > of the KE computation and simply say that the WORK computation
> > accounts for 100% the energy computation. A one pound force, times
> > the distance at any point (increasing parabolically with respect to
> > time) will yield work amounts that would be increasing parabolically,
> > too. Well and good…PD“wins”. But wait! Coriolis’s “accepted” KE
> > equation, KE = 1/2mv^2, is increasing SEMI-parabolically with respect
> > the “KE” by 100 percent. He’s got ‘that’ problem, plus the following:
>
> > Not surprisingly, all objects dropped near the Earth increase in
> > velocity 32.174 feet per second, EACH second. Not “per” second!
> > Objects having that rate of acceleration will have exactly 16.087 feet
> > of the fall, each second, which can be attributed to the force of
> > gravity. The remaining distance of fall is COASTING, or the carry-
> > over distance due to the velocity from the end of the last second, and
> > so-on. The combined carryover distances, plus the straight line,
> > velocity-change distances, will plot to be a parabola, even if one
> > doesn’t know that d = t^2. I developed my New Science without
> > reference to any textbook. The latter method is how I determined that
> > the free-drop curve is a parabola.
>
> > double the output kinetic energy. ButPDinsists that work is
> > distance proportional… In the first second, 1/16th of the total
> > distance and KE (*) will occur; second second; 3/16ths (*); third
> > second, 5/16ths (*); and fourth second, 7/16ths. Note the HUGE
> > disparity in the distances and KE values over the four seconds. The
> > force is one pound and the resistance (the inertia of the object) is
> > one pound, too. So, how can the identical force/resistance have
> > anything other than identical kinetic energy values per unit of time?
> > The answer: It can’t! Here’s why:
>
> > If a given force, say, one pound causes a doubling of the distance
> > traveled in a succeeding second, then, the RESISTANCE of the object
> > must be cut in half. If the resistance were to be cut to 1/4th, the
> > distance that one pound force would move the object would be four
> > ‘work-in’-determines-KE-out hypothesis. PD’stheory would require the
> > falling object to get… lighter, or the force of gravity get greater,
> > each second of fall. If no such changes in the force/inertia
> > proportional to the distance, because there would be coasting-caused
> > distances that could neither increase the work, nor the kinetic
> > energy.
>
> > equation EXAGERATES the KE so much, that different mass (same
> > diameter) balls dropped into soft clay from heights “predicted” by his
> > formula to have identical KEs, don’t even come close to having equal
> > penetration into the same bed of soft clay. And Note:PD’sparabola-
> > based (rather that semi-parabola based) work-to-KE hypothesis would
> > show DOUBLE the penetration disparity. I’ll be more than happy to
> > important KE experiment, explained below. That experiment, and the
> > above rationale, are hugely important, because those things prove that
> > Coriolis’s lame-brain equation—that’s been in physics textbooks for
> > 180 years—is totally wrong. Such equation violates the Law of the
> > Conservation of Energy. If you think that’s not very important…
> > please consider that Albert Einstein used Coriolis’s equation to
> > develop his E = mc^2 / beta, Special Relativity theory—which ALSO
> > violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Obviously, my work in
> > those areas is very important, indeed! — NoEinstein —
>
> > KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
>
> > > On May 20, 10:12 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 18, 7:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> I don't mind you hanging yourself with your own comments, but I would
> > > > > like to make sure your lies about what *I* say are corrected.
>
> > > > science statements are “pick and choose”, all-over-the-board, from one
> > > > day till the next. The KEY issue in our debate is that you insist
> > > > that ’displacement’ can increase the KE of a falling object because of
> > > > the displacement alone.
>
> > > As long as the force is nonzero, yes, an increasing displacement will
> > > increase the amount of work. If you take a case where the net force is
> > > zero, then no amount of displacement will amount to nonzero work.
>
> > > > KE, essentially, defines to how much DAMAGE a
> > > > speeding object will cause.
>
> > > Nonsense. That is a crappy definition of KE.
>
> > > > Simply because the object traveled twice
> > > > as far (‘displacement’ against zero resistance—as in coasting) will
> > > > never increase the damage. A car hitting a wall at 30 mph will do the
> > > > identical damage whether it traveled a hundred yards or a hundred
> > > > miles. VELOCITY alone determines the KE of falling objects of a unit
> > > > mass. And the velocity of all falling objects increases uniformly, or
> > > > uniformly, or LINEARLY, too. Which is true!
>
> > > > > > traveling at an unchanging speed) are increasing in KE in proportion
> > > > > > to the distance traveled (sic).
>
> snip
>
> John, if we can agree with Newton that F=ma, we don't need an
> experiment to settle your dispute withPD:
>
> Define work done by force F over distance X as
> W=integral 0 to X (Fdx)
>
> F = m dv/dt, according to Newton
> Change variable from x to t:
> W=integral t1 to t2 (m dv/dt dx/dt dt)
>
> But dx/dt=v
> Change variable from t to v:
> W=integral v1 to v2 (m v dv)
>
> W= 1/2m*[sqr(v2)-sqr(v1)]
>
> In words, work done = increase in (1/2) m sqr(v)
>
> OK?
>
> I have assumed that you know first-year calculus, also due to Newton.
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Ben: COMMON SENSE is a greater teacher than calculus has
ever been! Not once in my entire architecture career has calculus
been required to solve any structural analysis problem. The equations
for things like areas and volumes required others to use calculus to
write the equations. But the equations for those things, once
written, don't require structural engineers to use any more calculus.
Most of the problems in science are caused by mathematicians who
understand very little about the laws of nature. Lorentz is a prime
example of such a fool. — NoEinstein —
>
> > I have proven that you DON'T know first-year calculus, due to Newton,
> > and you don't know the difference between a definition and a postulate.
> > QED.
>
> > Put that on your web page and blush with your embarrassment.
>
> > "Get from him why he puts on this confusion" --Bill Shakespeare.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The difference between you and calculus (note John's arrogance in
> denying calculus) is that you define something that cannot exist,
> while calculus uses the concept of "limit" (of which you are ignorant)
> to save the derivative without need of your definition.
>
> I tire of teaching someone who thinks he already knows everything.
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Ben: You are both a PEDANT and a math fool. Your
stupidity precedes you! — NE —
>
> > I have proven that you DON'T know first-year calculus, due to Newton,
> > and you don't know the difference between a definition and a postulate.
> > QED.
>
> > Put that on your web page and blush with your embarrassment.
>
> > "Get from him why he puts on this confusion" --Bill Shakespeare.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You can't even state your "postulate" correctly. You say:
>
> > Same reason I can't define h as the smallest possible integer > 0, that's
> > why not.
> > But of course I can, all I'm doing is giving it a name.
>
> Yes, of course you can, because you said "integer" instead of "real
> number". Yes, there is a smallest possible integer > 0. It is called
> "one" and written "1". But that does not get you close to the
NoEinstein
>
Dear John (I'm so sorry that we have the same name.): Like so many
dunces, you use the annals of science to uphold your non-understanding
of science. Those who "taught" you didn't understand science,
either. Nor the generations of teachers before them. My equation is
truly unique, because it’s the first time in science history that
MOMENTUM has been correctly defined. And the UNITS are in pounds,
only! — NoEinstein —
>
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 20:32:04 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
>
> >On May 20, 3:15 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Dear John: Nice try, IF you are wishing to impress dunces, likePD.
> >Simply stated: Momentum is the increase in the force that any moving
> >mass can exert by virtue of its velocity, as a percentage of the
> >standard velocity of 32.174 feet per second. Since a percentage, like
NoEinstein
>
Dear U. Ben: Great question! Charged particles, like electrons and
protons, have a mass. Collectively, they are capable of illuminating
by their 'at least one' photon. But once they become deficient in the
ether which forms the photons, they can absorb the needed
replenishment ether and continue to emit photons. However, unlike in
larger mass concentrations, the photons are widely spaced and have no
specific frequency. If, say, gamma ray streams are emitting photons,
such can carry away some of the ether near the beam, and result in
gravity being able to bend the beam. No mass can be a mass unless
ether flow can impart a force to it! — NoEinstein —
>
> On May 21, 11:48 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 21, 11:04 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Burt: The definition of mass: "Any concentration of energy which
> > can slow the passage of ether through such, and, while so doing,
> > experience a force in the same direction as the flowing ether, and in
> > proportion to the concentration of energy-mass. Additionally, a mass
> > must be capable of giving off at least one photon." — NoEinstein —
>
> > > On May 20, 5:58 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 19, 3:09 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 18, 9:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 19, 3:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 5/18/10 7:26 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > capacity. He considers the status quo to be his Bible of what’s
> > > > > > > > what. In particular, he accepts—without question—the equations and
> > > > > > > > definitions in his high school science books, and he expects all
> > > > > > > > others to do the same.
>
> > > > > > > Perhaps you have forgotten that the ideal world pretty much behaves
> > > > > > > as the physics textbooks describe. Newtonian mechanics is adequate
> > > > > > > for describing the behavior of the world that most experience.
>
> > > > > > > Furthermore, advance texts teaching relativity and the quantum
> > > > > > > mechanics are right on also.
>
> > > > > > > Does NoEinstein for get that science laws and theories are testable
> > > > > > > and that thehasnever been an observation thathascontradicted
> > > > > > > a prediction of the QED or relativity. All are very fruitful theories
> > > > > > > and help us to understand nature.
>
John Polasek
<noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On May 20, 3:15�pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>Dear John: Nice try, IF you are wishing to impress dunces, like PD.
>Simply stated: Momentum is the increase in the force that any moving
>mass can exert by virtue of its velocity, as a percentage of the
>standard velocity of 32.174 feet per second. Since a percentage, like
>a simple fraction, has NO unites, then the force that the moving mass
>can exert is in POUNDS. Time isn't needed in the equation, only the
>mass and the velocity, as: M = v / 32.174 (m). � NoEinstein �
Yes the speed of gravity is 32 fps only AFTER ONE SECOND, which seems
like an added nuisance but you can get rid of the one second by
multiplying it over to the left side and thus get the correct answer
pounds* 1 seconds = MV or, generally, any other combination of
pounds and seconds equaling MV.
Incidentally the quantity force times time is known as "impulse" and
you would do yourself a favor if you would look it up and try to
understand it. Impulse seems to be treated as a second cousin to F =
MA. it's very valuable to easily solve tricky cases such as what
happens when a driver impacts a golf ball.
Your na�vet� would be more charming if it were accompanied by less
rancor.
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:24:14 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
>>
>> <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On May 19, 11:01�pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >John: �In your case, a "little knowledge" is a dangerous thing.
>>
>> It appears that a "little knowledge" is more than you can stand.
>> The units of momentum are force times time, not,
>> as you insist below, force.
>> The units of work are force times distance.
>> Please feel free to refute. Use mathematics if possible.>For the readers benefit, please give the titles and links to your '+new
>> >posts'. �� NoEinstein �
snip
>>
>> >> <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> > For example: PD believes,
>> >> >adamantly, that MOMENTUM doesn�t have the units of FORCE�or �pounds.
>> It doesn't.
>> >> >But when asked, repeatedly, to state his definition of momentum, and
>> >> >the units, he never replies.
>>
>> >> PD is right: units of momentum are not force in pounds, but Force*Time
>> >> or pound seconds.
>> >> The units of work are force times Distance or pound feet.
>> >> It sounds like you have never studied any part of physics.
>>
snip
John Polasek
PD
> On May 22, 4:32 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Dear John (I'm so sorry that we have the same name.): Like so many
> dunces, you use the annals of science to uphold your non-understanding
> of science. Those who "taught" you didn't understand science,
> either. Nor the generations of teachers before them. My equation is
> truly unique, because it’s the first time in science history that
> MOMENTUM has been correctly defined. And the UNITS are in pounds,
> only! — NoEinstein —
Gotta love this.
"I reject your reality and I substitute mine."
Tell me, NoEinstein, if you didn't like the definition of the word
"blue" and you wanted to redefine it, in what possible sense could
your definition be more "correct" than the prevailing one?
NoEinstein
>
Dear U. Ben: WRONG. The equations of GR were written by Einstein
over a decade (It should have taken him only two months.) to define
the precession orbit of the planet Mercury. Since that moron had
absolutely NO idea what the mechanism of gravity is, he, like the ego-
maniac that he was, proclaimed that his equations were the mechanism.
And since both the forces and the velocities of orbiting objects
increased according to the inverse square law, he proclaimed that
space and time were varying according to the distance between the
centers and the velocities. Amazingly, Einstein's space-time
mechanism has never explained how the force of gravity can always be
acting toward the center of the Earth. His moronic attempt to explain
the latter was to claim that everything on Earth has a different
"world line", so it only SEEMS like people are held on the Earth in
opposing directions at the same instant. Whatever the problems were
with that man's imagined science, he would keep imagining new OUTS for
every question that arised. Sort of reminds me of PD. Ha, ha, HA! —
NoEinstein —
>
> On May 23, 6:22 am, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:38ed82b1-6c56-4fd4...@c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >On May 22, 4:14 am, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > >> "Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:55b13dc8-32ea-42c7...@y21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> >On May 19, 3:16 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > >> >> On May 19, 2:04 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > that there are thousands of physicists in the world, all of whom
> > >> >> > hold
> > >> >> > the same beliefs in the matters you discuss thatPDdoes. These
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > a tiny minority.
>
> > >> >> Oh, this settles it for sure. Science by popular vote! "Uncle Ben" is
> > >> >> using the "everybody knows" proof. Probably he needssomeblood
> > >> >> drained out to get rid of his bad humors. "Everybody" used to pretty
> > >> >> much agree on that.
>
> > >> >> Idiot.
>
> > >> >> > If there is a high school, a college, or a university near you, and
> > >> >> > if you are so lucky as to find a physics teacher willing to spend a
> > >> >> > will
> > >> >> > find that ANY and EVERY such teacher will agree withPD. You will
> > >> >> > also find that ANY and EVERY physics textbook being used in ANY and
> > >> >> > EVERY physics course also agree withPD.
>
> > >> >> Ah, now comes the "appeal to authority" proof. Sorry "Ben" but ANYONE
> > >> >> who teaches High School and a great many who teach at the college
> > >> >> level are not authorities but merely political parrots for the status
> > >> >> quo. Their jobs depend on it. High School teachers (and I use that
> > >> >> term advisedly) are the worse in that they aren't even real college
> > >> >> graduates! Education Majors are widely known to be collegiate bottom
> > >> >> of the barrel, unable to make it in the classes others are required to
> > >> >> take and hence study "physics appreciation" without any math instead
> > >> >> of physics. Yeah, those are real "authorities"!
>
> > >> >> Moron.
>
> > >> >> > You are a deluded Don Quixote attacking windmills.
>
> > >> >> And your final "proof' is an ad hominem attack. Oh that one causes me
> > >> >> to loose a debate every time!
>
> > >> >> The bottom line "Uncle Ben" is that you've offered absolutely no
> > >> >> logical refutation of ANY of the points made. All your babblings are
> > >> >> invalid illogical debating ploys. You have nothing of value to add
> > >> >> here. Why don't you just shut up instead of showing everyone in this
> > >> >> world-wide forum how ignorant you are?
>
> > >> >It is ironically amusing that the kooks in this newsgroup complain
> > >> >themselves physicists is false. They complain that the great expansion
> > >> >of science in the 19th and 20th centuries by physicists is nonsense.
> > >> >They are using a medium for their complaints that did not exist 100
> > >> >years ago but came into being through the work of those physicists and
> > >> >the engineers who followed them to create the transistor, the
> > >> >integrated circuit, the computer, and now the internet.
>
> > >> >It is a laughable absurdity that they use this medium to deny the
> > >> >truth of the science that gave rise to it.
>
> > >> >Physics is not confirmed by arguments but by nature itself. We propose
> > >> >answers to nature, and nature tells us whether we are right or wrong.
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> better than any competing theory in predicting observable phenomena.
>
PD
> On May 23, 8:09 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> Dear U. Ben: WRONG. The equations of GR were written by Einstein
> over a decade (It should have taken him only two months.) to define
> the precession orbit of the planet Mercury.
Ah, good. So since you've set the bar for what acceptable performance
is, I assume you are willing to live up to the same standard.
You've had three years to come up with your equations for the
precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury, based on your
ether flow ideas.
Where are your equations?
If you have not thought to produce them until now, then you have two
months from this date to produce them.
If you do not produce them, then the comment above will be recognized
as coming from a fraudulent, do-nothing blowhard.
> ...
>
> read more »
Uncle Ben
Do these bits of knowledge come to you in a dream, or what?
Androcles
| Do these bits of knowledge come to you in a dream, or what?
Is that how you found out about "time dilation" tau= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
(so moving clocks run slow) and "length contraction" xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
(so moving lengths get longer), Bonehead? In a dream, was it?
Or should it be tau = t' * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where t' = t-x/v?
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD: Years ago, as Paul Draper, you emailed me directly. My
address is noein...@bellsouth.net. Send me your mailing address and
I will send you the materials. You could spend a week or more trying
to locate the balls, which I already have. The clay needs to be mixed
soft enough to EXTRUDE when you squeeze a lump in your hand, about as
hard as when you are shaking hands. Once the clay is put into the
flower pot, put a tight plastic bag around the pot to keep the surface
of the clay from drying out. I will also send you a digital photo of
the embedment depths of the balls into the clay. You will note that
the balls landed about 1/2" apart. I was well aware that those two
balls could have hit. I was very lucky, and got a usable experiment
with just one try. Hint. Use a pointer, like a taped-in-place ruler
to make sure you drop the lighter ball from the same point. Make a
leveled and cleared place in the dirt (outside a window or balcony) so
the ball will make a dent where it hits. After several tries—to
verify that the ball hits in the same dent each time—place the pot in
the location over the dent so you know where the ball “should” hit.
Helpful hint: Hold the light ball between your index finger and
thumb, on the TOP most hemisphere of the ball. Try to hold the ball
only by the friction of your fingers, not by the pressure. The
further away you can grip the ball from its EQUATOR, the less likely
it will have a lateral component when you drop it.
I'm aware that air-resistance is slowing the velocity of the lighter
ball. But because the penetration into the clay was grossly less than
Coriolis predicts, an air resistance correction wouldn't have
mattered. But I give you my permission to increase the drop height of
the lighter ball by 20%. Still the penetration of the two balls won't
come close. You will see. The calculations of the drop heights of
the two balls is well explained in the link below. It would be
WONDERFUL if other objective physicists out there (if that not a
conflict of terms) would also replicate the described experiment. The
balls were purchased from www.smallparts.com. PD, thanks for
beginning to show some objectivity! — NoEinstein —
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=
>
> On May 21, 10:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 12:52 pm,PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > DearPD: I invite YOU to perform the "confirming" experiment. Send
> > me your mailing address and I will mail you the materialsw you'll need
> > to conduct the KE experiment in a singlr afternoon. — NoEinstein —
>
> You have my email address by virtue of this newsgroup. (If you don't
> know how to do that, then I suggest the Help file.)
>
> I don't need equipment, I need specifications for equipment, and
> precise documentation on the experimental procedures used, your raw
> data obtained, and your analysis of the data. This documentation you
> can send in an email attachment.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 20, 10:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 19, 6:22 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 19, 3:16 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 19, 2:04 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > John, you focus your argument on one man,PD. You seem to be unaware
> > > > > > > that there are thousands of physicists in the world, all of whom hold
> > > > > > > the same beliefs in the matters you discuss thatPDdoes. These
> > > > > > >questionshave been settled for hundreds of years. You are a member of
> > > > > > > a tiny minority.
>
> > > > > > Oh, this settles it for sure. Science by popular vote! "Uncle Ben" is
> > > > > > using the "everybody knows" proof. Probably he needssomeblood
> > > > > > drained out to get rid of his bad humors. "Everybody" used to pretty
> > > > > > much agree on that.
>
> > > > > > Idiot.
>
> > > > > > > If there is a high school, a college, or a university near you, and
> > > > > > > if you are so lucky as to find a physics teacher willing to spend a
> > > > > > > few minutes with you, pose yourquestionsto him or her, and you will
> > > > > > > find that ANY and EVERY such teacher will agree withPD. You will
> > > > > > > also find that ANY and EVERY physics textbook being used in ANY and
> > > > > > > EVERY physics course also agree withPD.
>
> > > > > > Ah, now comes the "appeal to authority" proof. Sorry "Ben" but ANYONE
> > > > > > who teaches High School and a great many who teach at the college
> > > > > > level are not authorities but merely political parrots for the status
> > > > > > quo. Their jobs depend on it. High School teachers (and I use that
> > > > > > term advisedly) are the worse in that they aren't even real college
> > > > > > graduates! Education Majors are widely known to be collegiate bottom
> > > > > > of the barrel, unable to make it in the classes others are required to
> > > > > > take and hence study "physics appreciation" without any math instead
> > > > > > of physics. Yeah, those are real "authorities"!
>
> > > > > > Moron.
>
> > > > > > > You are a deluded Don Quixote attacking windmills.
>
> > > > > > And your final "proof' is an ad hominem attack. Oh that one causes me
> > > > > > to loose a debate every time!
>
> > > > > > The bottom line "Uncle Ben" is that you've offered absolutely no
> > > > > > logical refutation of ANY of the points made. All your babblings are
> > > > > > invalid illogical debating ploys. You have nothing of value to add
> > > > > > here. Why don't you just shut up instead of showing everyone in this
> > > > > > world-wide forum how ignorant you are?
>
> > > > > It is ironically amusing that the kooks in this newsgroup complain
> > > > > that all thathasbeen learned about nature by those who call
> > > > > themselves physicists is false. They complain that the great expansion
> > > > > of science in the 19th and 20th centuries by physicists is nonsense.
> > > > > They are using a medium for their complaints that did not exist 100
> > > > > years ago but came into being through the work of those physicists and
> > > > > the engineers who followed them to create the transistor, the
> > > > > integrated circuit, the computer, and now the internet.
>
> > > > > It is a laughable absurdity that they use this medium to deny the
> > > > > truth of the science that gave rise to it.
>
> > > > > Physics is not confirmed by arguments but by nature itself. We propose
> > > > > answers to nature, and nature tells us whether we are right or wrong.
>
> > > > By that 'test', all that I say in my New Science is correct! — NE —
>
> > > Independently confirmed experiment is how nature is interviewed.
> > > You don't have that yet.
>
> > > > > But this is a line of argument thatPDhasmade repeatedly here. It
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you confess that you are ignorant of mathematics, I can see that
you must not have understood my post deriving the work/kinetic energy
theorem from Newton's Second Law. So I will tell you the moral of the
story.
If you accept Newton's Second Law, it is an iron-clad logical
implication that work done equals increase of kinetic energy. And if
you deny the work/KE theorem, you are denying Newton's Second Law.
Therefore, your quarrel with PD is actually a quarrel with Isaac
Newton.
Uncle Ben
PD
> On May 24, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Yes, I found your email the same way you should find mine. Are you so
incapable with Google groups that you cannot figure out how to do
that? (I'll give you a hint: try "reply to author". If you cannot find
that, then you are truly an ignoramus.)
> My
> address is...[snipped].
I don't need your email address. I already have it, because you've
posted here on a newsgroup.
> Send me your mailing address and
> I will send you the materials.
Read my lips. I do not want you to send me materials. I want you to
send documentation.
I do not want to touch anything you have touched. Capiche?
> You could spend a week or more trying
> to locate the balls, which I already have.
How is that likely? You showed me where to order the balls, below.
All I need is the item numbers of what you purchased. Surely you kept
that information.
> The clay needs to be mixed
> soft enough to EXTRUDE when you squeeze a lump in your hand, about as
> hard as when you are shaking hands. Once the clay is put into the
> flower pot, put a tight plastic bag around the pot to keep the surface
> of the clay from drying out. I will also send you a digital photo of
> the embedment depths of the balls into the clay. You will note that
> the balls landed about 1/2" apart. I was well aware that those two
> balls could have hit. I was very lucky, and got a usable experiment
> with just one try. Hint. Use a pointer, like a taped-in-place ruler
> to make sure you drop the lighter ball from the same point. Make a
> leveled and cleared place in the dirt (outside a window or balcony) so
> the ball will make a dent where it hits. After several tries—to
> verify that the ball hits in the same dent each time—place the pot in
> the location over the dent so you know where the ball “should” hit.
> Helpful hint: Hold the light ball between your index finger and
> thumb, on the TOP most hemisphere of the ball. Try to hold the ball
> only by the friction of your fingers, not by the pressure. The
> further away you can grip the ball from its EQUATOR, the less likely
> it will have a lateral component when you drop it.
Please tell me the above is not the full extent of your documentation.
Please.
The documentation from a 4th grade science fair project is better than
this.
>
> I'm aware that air-resistance is slowing the velocity of the lighter
> ball. But because the penetration into the clay was grossly less than
> Coriolis predicts, an air resistance correction wouldn't have
> mattered.
How do you know until you *calculate* the air resistance correction?
How do you KNOW it is small or large at all?
> But I give you my permission to increase the drop height of
> the lighter ball by 20%. Still the penetration of the two balls won't
> come close.
The fundamental question remains. What makes you think the penetration
of the two balls with equal kinetic energy SHOULD be the same?
> You will see. The calculations of the drop heights of
> the two balls is well explained in the link below. It would be
> WONDERFUL if other objective physicists out there (if that not a
> conflict of terms) would also replicate the described experiment. The
> balls were purchased fromwww.smallparts.com. PD, thanks for
> beginning to show some objectivity! — NoEinstein —
I'm not showing any more objectivity than at any time before. I have
told you repeatedly that your claims are not worth anything until
experiments are replicated by an independent investigator. You have
repeatedly refused to publish the full details of your experiment, and
even including the above, you have still failed to do so.
>
> KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
PD
>
> Dear Uncle Ben: Varying ether flow and density can explain everything
> in nature.
"Explain" in science necessarily demands quantitative predictions. If
you have some, let's see some from your ether flow calculations. If
you don't have anything, then you do not have an explanation, as far
as science is concerned.
Tom Potter
>
>Amazing, isn't it, that in spite of so many apparent faults, GR works
>better than any competing theory in predicting observable phenomena.
>
>Uncle Ben
Considering that my pal Uncle Ben asserts
"GR works better than any competing theory in predicting observable
phenomena."
I trust that he will use his powerful, esoteric knowledge of GR
to "predict" the following,
so that folks can see how much "better" GR is than
Newton's and Maxwell's models.
1. Connect a 10 volt battery across a 5 ohm resistor.
Predict how much current flows.
2. The Earth revolves about the Sun
in 365.25 days,
and is at a distance of 93,000,000 miles.
What is the mass of the Sun?
Of course, it's a little more complex,
but as GR is "better" than Newton's model,
I trust that Uncle Ben will compute just one of
the many tides Newton computed using hand calculations
and his inferior model.
This should be a piece of cake for a :better" model like GR.
As my Pappy used to say:
"Better is cheaper, faster, simpler, smaller, lighter."
PD
He did say "competing theory". A theory that predicts electrical
circuit parameter competes with GR about as much as a ski jumper
competes with a 400 meter hurdler.
By your argument, any "rule of thumb" is a better theory than a more
comprehensive or more accurate one, because the rule of thumb is
faster and easier to use. Therefore, any useful approximation is to be
considered a superior theory than the one the approximation
approximates, according to you. By this standard:
- 2D projectile motion equations would be preferred for ballistic
launches, since they are easier and simpler than the ones that account
for air resistance, curvature of the earth, and Coriolis effects.
- effective annual interest rate would be preferred for bank accounts,
since that is easier and simpler than actually compounding daily.
- a constant index of refraction would be preferred for optical
telescopes, since that is easier and simpler than the model that would
allow you to correct for chromatic aberration.
PD
Uncle Ben
> snip
> but as GR is "better" than Newton's ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had a graduatge student once who wanted to use my entire supply of
chromic acid cleaning solution to clean a filthy piece of copper. Now
chromic acid cleans very, very well the last bit of organic
contamnation from experimetal equipment, I told the student to first,
wipe the part with a paper towel, second, wash it with soap and water,
third rinse it with acetone, and then come back for a small bit of
chromic acid.
The point is, you don't use fine sandpaper on a fresh-cut log.
Newtonian gravity theory is simple and easy to use. In this sense, Tom
Potter is correct: Newtonian theory is "better" when your precision
needs are within its reach. GR gives the same answers as Newton until
you need very high precision.
Where you do need GR is when its results differ from Newton's and you
want to choose between the theories. Particularly in the precession
of non-circular orbits does GR excel over Newton's theory.
If your criterion is accuracy to the limit of observation, GR is
better. In no case is its accuracy worse.
But if you want to eat a coconut, a hammer is "better" than a pile
driver. That much, I concede to Tom.
Uncle Ben
Uncle Ben
>
> - Show quoted text -
What does the theory of "varying ether flow" predict for the
precession of the perihelion of Mercury? If you can get a better
answer than GR does, then I'll have to take you seriously.
Uncle Ben
Y.Porat
------------------------
oneof the great lies of GR worshoers is that it is because of
curved space
it has nothing to do with curved space
curved motion is one of the properties
of mass !!!
and its sun constituents !!
**the precision is not by the THEORY
IT IS MORE PRECISE BECAUSE
MUCH MORE WAS INVESTED IN IT
TO ADD CORRECTION FACTORS
BY A LONG PROCESS OF TRIAL AND ERROR!!
AGAIN:
A LONG PROCESS OF TRIAL AND ERROR
TOF IT IS TO EXPERIMENTAL DATA
IOW
if** another theory**!! would spend so much in the above process
of
'fiddling in ' experimental corrections to it-----
it could do not less succesfuly
(may be even better including
places that GR cannot as for now
do it for instance
in strong forces
GR failed to **combine all forces**
and it is not accidental that it failed !!!
i
space has no properties beside
hosting mass
NO MASS (THE ONLY ONE) --
NO REAL PHYSICS !!
(said old 'Catto' )
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Androcles
Where you do need GR is when its results differ from Newton's and you
want to choose between the theories. Particularly in the precession
of non-circular orbits does GR excel over Newton's theory.
If your criterion is accuracy to the limit of observation, GR is
better. In no case is its accuracy worse.
==================================================
Perhaps Bonehead has more to offer than assertion, although considering
his pathetic lack of knowledge of SR it is doubtful the bluffing old fool
can demonstrate he even knows what precession is, let alone make a GR
prediction.
Tell us, Bonehead, when will Mercury next transit the Sun according to
Newtonian theory and according to GR, that we may compare the theories
and determine which is the more accurate when the event next occurs?
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/catalog/MercuryCatalog.html
To the nearest second, please, I want to compare the accuracy of
theories, you bullshitting old bastard.
NoEinstein
>
Dear PD: Einstein's MATH turned out to be a close analogy of the
forces of gravity. I've explained that fact dozens of times! What
Einstein got WRONG was to think that space-time variance was causing
the precession. The actual mechanism of all gravity is: "Varying
ether flow and density, which is maintained by photon (or charged
particle) exchange between the bodies being attracted." The discovery
of the mechanism of gravity, by yours truly, is one of my greatest
contributions to science! What have YOU ever contributed to science,
PD? — NoEinstein —
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Ben: Thinking about science issues, objectively, over a
lifetime, greatly helps in figuring out the particulars. The 'dream
time' of analytical and creative people shouldn't be mocked, over the
effect such has on finding solutions. The mind is like a loyal
worker: Give them an assignment, and they won't rest until the
assignment has been well done.
Too many people—in seeking... "solutions"—go running to books to get
the answers of others. I knew, even in grade school, that I was as
smart, or smarter, than any teacher; and likely so for the writers of
the texts. Instead of letting others tell me what's what, I decided I
would figure things out for myself, with as little outside
interference as possible. I got to see Einstein on a live TV show a
few years before his death. He spoke at about 1/2 the normal speed,
and took at least ten seconds to think what he would say when asked
questions that he must have answered many times before. I, as that
innocent kid, concluded that Einstein was retarded, not brilliant.
Nothing that has happened since has caused me to change that opinion.
— NoEinstein —
> Do these bits of knowledge come to you in a dream, or what?- Hide quoted text -
PD
> On May 24, 4:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD: Einstein's MATH turned out to be a close analogy of the
> forces of gravity. I've explained that fact dozens of times! What
> Einstein got WRONG was to think that space-time variance was causing
> the precession. The actual mechanism of all gravity is: "Varying
> ether flow and density, which is maintained by photon (or charged
> particle) exchange between the bodies being attracted."
Sorry, but that is just empty hand-waving.
If you have a model, you have to do what Einstein was able to do. You
have to derive the math from your ether flow model to show how to
calculate the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury.
Einstein was able to show how to do that calculation, based entirely
on a general rule between mass and spacetime curvature. (Contrary to
your misbegotten assertions, there was no empirical fitting done at
all.) This math is tied directly to Einstein's model. You can't simply
"borrow" the math, because it doesn't apply to an ether flow model. An
ether flow model would produce its own math. You haven't produced
that. Until you DO produce that, you ain't got a thing, and it's
pointless to posture and pretend that you do.
> The discovery
> of the mechanism of gravity, by yours truly, is one of my greatest
> contributions to science! What have YOU ever contributed to science,
> PD?
My record is public, NoEinstein. Do you know how to find it? (Hint:
unlike you, not everyone's accomplishments are recorded in usenet
posts.)
Uncle Ben
wrote:
The testing of general relativity by experiment is a big field of
study and is taken on by specialists much more competent than I. They
choose experiments that are sensitive to the differences between GR
and Newton's theory, of course, but also between GR and competing
metrical theories of gravity, such as those associated with Prof.
Dicke at Princeton.
A summary of tests up to 1970 is available in Chapter 38 of
Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler. But in the 40 years since
that book was published, there have been large advances in technology
that greatly increase the precision of measurements.
In particular, a measurement reported in 2003 by Bertotti et al. (2003
Nature 425, p. 379) is said to have increased precision by a factor of
fifty. They measured the round-trip time of pulse sent to the
satellite Cassini on its way to Saturn and then passing near the sun.
The bending and delay of a pulse is proportional to a parameter gamma
that is 1 in GR but 0 in Newtonian gravity' The Cassini experiment
yields 1 to a precision of 20 ppm. No other theory did as well.
I am no expert in GR, being a solid-state physicist, but I can watch
and read the work of my colleagues in relativity. As such a fan of
relativity, I find it easy to poke holes in the deeply ignorant
writings of fools in this newsgroup. And I profit greatly from the
occasional contributions of those who specialize in SR and GR.
Androcles in particular has his feet firmly locked in the hard
concrete of the Nineteenth Century, with no understanding of SR or
modern mathematics. His postulation of a smallest real number greater
than zero is obvious testimony of his ignorance of mathematical
analysis.
Uncle Ben