SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
NoEinstein
has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v. The latter is the
velocity of the mass in question. Obviously, in Einstein’s mind, the
right half of the equation manifests energy that can change in
accordance with changing velocity. And since the only variable
causing that energy to vary is the object’s velocity, v; then v, too,
is a manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force. Momentum—which is
given by the equation F = mv—increases linearly with increasing
velocity.
The Law of the Conservation of Energy says: “Energy IN must equal
energy OUT.” Or, said another way: “Energy cannot be CREATED, it must
come for other sources.” A linearly increasing velocity is inputting
energy LINEARLY. That is on the right side of the above SR equation.
To abide by the Law of the Conservation of Energy, the left side of
the SR equation must be increasing at the exact same LINERAR rate.
But Einstein’s SR equation is so written that the ‘E’ increases
exponentially, rather than linearly. That violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy and thus PROVES Einstein’s SR theory to be
wholly and completely wrong!
The above rationale apples only to mathematical equations that relate
to energy. All other types of exponential equations are exempt from
the requirement to have absolute equality between the lone variable
and the resultant quantity being sought.
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
Pmb
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:d1e43349-575a-4940...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>Einstein�s Special Relativity Equation, E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^�,
>has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v.
The m (proper mass) in that expression is not a constant. It is as just as
much a variable as the mass-energy E is. This means that when you change the
value of the proper mass there is a corresponding change in the value E of
the body's mass-energy.
> The latter is the velocity of the mass in question. Obviously, in
> Einstein�s mind, the
> right half of the equation manifests energy ...
What exactly do you mean when you say "the right half of the equation
manifests energy"?
> ...that can change in accordance with changing
> velocity. And since the only variable causing that energy to vary is the
> object�s velocity,
> v; then v, too, is a manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force.
It only means that mass-energy is a function of both the bodies speed as
well as the body's proper mass.
If the body is at rest and you add energy to it then it's proper mass will
increase. That's why you should think of E as being a function of both m and
v.
> Momentum�which is
> given by the equation F = mv�increases linearly with increasing velocity.
Momentum is normally labled with the letter "p". When you express the
3-momentum of a particle as p = Mv then M is called the particle's
"relativistic mass." Relatvistic mass M is related to proper mass by M = m
/ (1 - v^2 / c^2)^�,
> The Law of the Conservation of Energy says: �Energy IN must equal
> energy OUT.�
More precisely it's stated as follows - The total energy of a closed system
is constant.
> Or, said another way: �Energy cannot be CREATED, it must
> come for other sources.� A linearly increasing velocity is inputting
> energy LINEARLY.
That is incorrect. Mass-energy is not linearly dependant on velocity.
> That is on the right side of the above SR equation.
> To abide by the Law of the Conservation of Energy, the left side of
> the SR equation must be increasing at the exact same LINERAR rate.
> But Einstein�s SR equation is so written that the �E� increases
> exponentially, rather than linearly.
That is incorrect. You're confusing "c" with "v". c is a constant whereas v
isn't
> That violates the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy and thus PROVES Einstein�s SR theory to be
> wholly and completely wrong!
You made an error above.
Pete
Uncle Al
>
> Einstein�s Special Relativity Equation, E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^�,
> has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v. The latter is the
> velocity of the mass in question. Obviously, in Einstein�s mind, the
> right half of the equation manifests energy that can change in
> accordance with changing velocity.
No, fucking stoooopid - four-momentum.
> And since the only variable
> causing that energy to vary is the object�s velocity, v; then v, too,
> is a manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force. Momentum�which is
> given by the equation F = mv�increases linearly with increasing
> velocity.
[snip rest of crap]
Look at the Lorentz-invariant equation.
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dale Robbins
and had managed to combined symbols!
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:d1e43349-575a-4940...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
" How I no brane here posting? "
Androcles
Fuck off, cunt.
"Dale Robbins" <em...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:h3suds$3uq$1...@aioe.org...
Ray Vickson
> Einstein’s Special Relativity Equation, E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½,
> has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v. The latter is the
> velocity of the mass in question. Obviously, in Einstein’s mind, the
> right half of the equation manifests energy that can change in
> accordance with changing velocity. And since the only variable
> causing that energy to vary is the object’s velocity, v; then v, too,
> is a manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force. Momentum—which is
> given by the equation F = mv—increases linearly with increasing
> velocity.
No. Your 'm' is the so-called 'rest mass', because you have the factor
1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) in your E = mc^2 equation. Therefore, you must also
include this in the definition of momentum: p = mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
NOT just p = mv. The quantity P_total = sum mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is
conserved in perfectly elastic collisions in all inertial frames, but
the classical quantity P_Newton = sum mv is not.
>
> The Law of the Conservation of Energy says: “Energy IN must equal
> energy OUT.” Or, said another way: “Energy cannot be CREATED, it must
> come for other sources.” A linearly increasing velocity is inputting
> energy LINEARLY. That is on the right side of the above SR equation.
> To abide by the Law of the Conservation of Energy, the left side of
> the SR equation must be increasing at the exact same LINERAR rate.
> But Einstein’s SR equation is so written that the ‘E’ increases
> exponentially, rather than linearly. That violates the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy and thus PROVES Einstein’s SR theory to be
> wholly and completely wrong!
No, it just proves that if you mix up classical and relativistic
expressions in the same problem you will get an inconsistency.
Sticking to perfectly elastic collisions for illustration, we have:
(1) Classical: E = sum (1/2) mv^2 and P = sum mv are conserved in all
reference frames; and (2) SR: E = sum mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and P = sum
mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) are conserved in all reference frames. You can't
use the relativistic expression for energy together with the classical
expression for momentum.
>
> The above rationale apples only to mathematical equations that relate
> to energy. All other types of exponential equations are exempt from
> the requirement to have absolute equality between the lone variable
> and the resultant quantity being sought.
What on earth does this mean? It sounds to me like word salad, but
maybe you really do have some concept in mind.
R.G. Vickson
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> — NoEinstein —
Puppet_Sock
[blah blah relativity]
Hey knob. You can't seem to find the news group where
this is on topic, namely sci.physics.relativity. You are off
topic here.
And you knobs who are responding to this, take it to a
news group where it's on topic.
Socks
Ray Vickson
Are you saying that an article which is about relativity does not
belong in a physics newsgroup? Of course, the article is all wrong,
but I still don't see why you judge it to be off-topic. Admittedly,
there is no reasoning with "NoEinstein", but responding to his
messages may, still, save some naive newbie from falling for his
fallacious arguments. Or maybe not, but that is the reason I
responded, anyway.
R.G. Vickson
Puppet_Sock
[snicker
> Are you saying that an article which is about relativity does not
> belong in a physics newsgroup?
That is *exactly* what I'm saying. It's in the charter of
this news group and sci.physics.relativity. It's off topic
here, and on topic there. That's why s.p.relativity was
created, so the relativity nuts could be swept into their
own little ghetto and ignored.
As they deserve.
Socks
NoEinstein
has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v. The latter is the
velocity of the mass in question. Obviously, in Einstein’s mind, the
right half of the equation manifests energy that can change in
accordance with changing velocity. And since the only variable
causing that energy to vary is the object’s velocity, v; then v, too,
is a manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force. Momentum—which is
given by the equation F = mv—increases linearly with increasing
velocity.
The Law of the Conservation of Energy says: “Energy IN must equal
energy OUT.” Or, said another way: “Energy cannot be CREATED, it must
come for other sources.” A linearly increasing velocity is inputting
energy LINEARLY. That is on the right side of the above SR equation.
To abide by the Law of the Conservation of Energy, the left side of
the SR equation must be increasing at the exact same LINERAR rate.
But Einstein’s SR equation is so written that the ‘E’ increases
exponentially, rather than linearly. That violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy and thus PROVES Einstein’s SR theory to be
wholly and completely wrong!
The above rationale apples only to mathematical equations that relate
to energy. All other types of exponential equations are exempt from
the requirement to have absolute equality between the lone variable
and the resultant quantity being sought.
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
Paul Cardinale
> Einstein’s Special Relativity Equation, E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½,
> has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v. The latter is the
> velocity of the mass in question. Obviously, in Einstein’s mind, the
> right half of the equation manifests energy that can change in
> accordance with changing velocity. And since the only variable
> causing that energy to vary is the object’s velocity, v; then v, too,
> is a manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force. Momentum—which is
> given by the equation F = mv—increases linearly with increasing
> velocity.
>
> The Law of the Conservation of Energy says: “Energy IN must equal
> energy OUT.” Or, said another way: “Energy cannot be CREATED, it must
> come for other sources.” A linearly increasing velocity is inputting
> energy LINEARLY.
Not true. Not even in Newtonion physics.
Idiot.
Paul Cardinale
Androcles
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:c3ea6350-4ea4-44f3...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Not true. Not even in Newtonion physics.
Idiot.
Paul Cardinale
=================================
NewtoniOn?
Illiterate cretin.
Uncle Al
>
> Einstein�s Special Relativity Equation, E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^�,
> has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Pete: You are a narrow-minded Einsteiniac if you actually
believe that, say, a steel ball becomes more massive due to velocity!
IF mass was created, then, while firing that ball into a pool of
water, the reduction of velocity must suddenly cause the excess mass
to be converted back to energy. The water should boil away as STEAM!
But velocity alone has never, and will never create mass! And even if
mass WAS created, the sum total MUST ALWAYS OBEY THE LAW OF THE
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY!
You may feel high and mighty for having read one or more books about
Einstein's CRAP. If you defend that man in any way, then you are more
of a MORON than he has been proved to be! — NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Al: Sadly, your 'intellectual" self esteem hinges of
siding with that now disproved MORON, Albert Einstein. The only
person dumber than Einstein was Lorentz. That idiot believed that all
matter—regardless of its composition or its physical geometry—will
CONTRACT identically due to VELOCITY alone. And he believed that such
a velocity, while remaining constant, will cause all matter to REMAIN
contracted that identical amount... until the all-powerful velocity is
REDUCED.
You, sir, have voluntarily decided to argue against rational thinking
and against all known principles of engineering and Strength of
Materials. For over a century, 'thinking men' have avoided arguing
the RELIGION of Einstein, because those defending that MORON are too
hard-headed to be saved by the truth. Uncle Al, if your brain was
pigeon droppings... you would have a CLEAN CAGE! — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Einstein’s Special Relativity Equation, E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½,
> > has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v. The latter is the
> > velocity of the mass in question. Obviously, in Einstein’s mind, the
> > right half of the equation manifests energy that can change in
> > accordance with changing velocity.
>
> No, fucking stoooopid - four-momentum.
>
> > And since the only variable
> > causing that energy to vary is the object’s velocity, v; then v, too,
> > is a manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force. Momentum—which is
> > given by the equation F = mv—increases linearly with increasing
> > velocity.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> Look at the Lorentz-invariant equation.
>
> http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
> Special Relativity for yard apes
>
> <http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments....>
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> idiot
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
NoEinstein
> Look! A Google-poster has an opinion on something,
> and had managed to combined symbols!
>
>
> news:d1e43349-575a-4940...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> " How I no brane here posting? "
Dear Dale: "Thanks"... I think. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Ray: Apparently Lorentz is your GOD. Your inability to realize
his true stupidity make you unqualified to discuss my science or my
math. For you, picking and choosing your stupidity is a defense, NOT
a fair argument against TRUTH. Replying alone doesn't make your
statements any more valid. I hereby request that you give a LIST of
your recent posts so that I and others can know even more so, how off-
base you really are. — NoEinstein —
>
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
Dear Puppet Sock: "Science" is WHERE YOU FIND IT! Those who
gravitate to sci.physics.relativity are mostly Einsteiniacs who are
beyond help. I hope you are not too far gone to comment about the
SIBSTANCE of my new post. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Ray: If your goal in life is the "save" clear thinkers from that
ability, YOU have chosen the wrong side. Einstein anything is beyond
being defensible! Such is just the "badge" of having very shallow
minds. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Paul: Please list the links to your posts, so that your
'credentials' to criticize anyone will be clear. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle Al: None of your replies has risen to the level of
justifying my taking the time to read any of your... links. Sorry! —
NoEinstein —
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Einstein’s Special Relativity Equation, E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½,
> > has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
> Special Relativity for yard apes
>
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> idiot
>
> --
Michael Moroney
>On Jul 18, 11:04=A0am, "Pmb" <p...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>Dear Pete: You are a narrow-minded Einsteiniac if you actually
>believe that, say, a steel ball becomes more massive due to velocity!
>IF mass was created, then, while firing that ball into a pool of
>water, the reduction of velocity must suddenly cause the excess mass
>to be converted back to energy. The water should boil away as STEAM!
Well, DUH-H-H! What do you think would happen if you accelerated a
steel ball so much that it had a measurable increase in mass and then
had it hit water? (Hint: Watch a disaster movie involving a giant
asteroid striking Earth. Or just ask a dinosaur, if you can find one.)
pmb
a1a8-1ab...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 18, 11:04 am, "Pmb" <p...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Pete: You are a narrow-minded Einsteiniac if you actually
> believe that, say, a steel ball becomes more massive due to velocity!
It is a proven fact that that the quantity M which is called
"relativistic mass" and defined by M = p/v is a function of the
particle's speed. You seem to be confusing it with proper mass, m,
which is an intrinsic property of a body. If the object alwauys
travels at speeds less than the speed of light then relativistic mass
(aka mass energy) and proper mass are related by
M = m/ (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½
If you don't think this is correct then you don't know relativity. If
you think relativity is wrong then I'm not interested in what yu have
to say. There are too many crackpots who claim its wrong but none of
them have ever been able to prove it.
> IF mass was created, ...
You're going to keep misunderstanding this if you don't get these
definitions straight. You used the term "mass" without qualifying it
with "proper" or "relativistic". The way you've been talking about it,
it appears to me that you mean "proper mass" aka "rest mass". As such
I've never said that mass defined that way was a function of speed.
<flames snipped>
Since you can't post like an adult I'm ending this post
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Moroney: You are entitled to have any ridiculous idea you choose
to believe about science. Obviously, you are beyond reason and beyond
help. But for any thinking people who read this, the LAW OF THE
CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN NATURE! Moroney
supposes that "velocity' can simultaneously add mass to fast objects,
AND add momentum. He doesn't accept that energy IN must = energy
OUT. What is a DUHHNCE like him doing commenting about science
truths? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Dear pmb: "SR is the delusion of a MORON, perpetuated by idiots."
There is no such thing as "relativistic mass" except in the science
fiction books like you probably consider to be your Bible. You either
believe in the Law of the Conservation of Energy or you don't. I
didn't discover that law, but I have used it to shoot the HELL out of
Albert Einstein and all of you non-thinking worshipers of his stupid
CRAP! — NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a8fcc5e1-3a70-4a45-
> a1a8-1abfedbf4...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
PD
> Einstein’s Special Relativity Equation, E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½,
> has two constants, m & c, and one variable, v. The latter is the
> velocity of the mass in question. Obviously, in Einstein’s mind, the
> right half of the equation manifests energy that can change in
> accordance with changing velocity. And since the only variable
> causing that energy to vary is the object’s velocity, v; then v, too,
> is a manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force.
After a longish period, our friend from South Carolina is back. And
with "manifestation of ENERGY, as is momentum force," he demonstrates
that his clown shoes have been polished to a high shine.
> Momentum—which is
> given by the equation F = mv
Actually, it's not given by this equation. This may be what's thrown
you off course.
> —increases linearly with increasing
> velocity.
>
> The Law of the Conservation of Energy says: “Energy IN must equal
> energy OUT.” Or, said another way: “Energy cannot be CREATED, it must
> come for other sources.” A linearly increasing velocity is inputting
> energy LINEARLY.
No, it is converting ONE kind of energy into ANOTHER kind (kinetic),
exactly in accordance with the law of conservation of energy.
But clearly E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½ is not linear with velocity.
Yet you say that energy and momentum MUST be equivalent, and that
momentum MUST be mv, and therefore energy MUST be linear in velocity.
Well, clearly mv is linear in v, and mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½ is not
linear in v, so something must be amiss.
Gee, I wonder what it is?
> That is on the right side of the above SR equation.
> To abide by the Law of the Conservation of Energy, the left side of
> the SR equation must be increasing at the exact same LINERAR rate.
> But Einstein’s SR equation is so written that the ‘E’ increases
> exponentially, rather than linearly.
No, mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^½ is not exponential. Do you need to know
what exponential functions look like?
> That violates the Law of the
> Conservation of Energy and thus PROVES Einstein’s SR theory to be
> wholly and completely wrong!
>
> The above rationale apples only to mathematical equations that relate
> to energy. All other types of exponential equations are exempt from
> the requirement to have absolute equality between the lone variable
> and the resultant quantity being sought.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> — NoEinstein —
Well, we'll see how much respect you really offer. I predict that any
respect you offer is short-lived and empty, as soon as you find that
people start laughing at you again.
PD
> On Jul 20, 3:29 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> Dear Moroney: You are entitled to have any ridiculous idea you choose
> to believe about science. Obviously, you are beyond reason and beyond
> help. But for any thinking people who read this, the LAW OF THE
> CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN NATURE! Moroney
> supposes that "velocity' can simultaneously add mass to fast objects,
> AND add momentum. He doesn't accept that energy IN must = energy
> OUT. What is a DUHHNCE like him doing commenting about science
> truths? — NoEinstein —
>
So, according to you, nothing can change velocity, because that would
amount to a change in energy, which would mean a violation of the law
of conservation of energy....
PD
well done, noeinstein, you have tripped over your clown shoes.
PD
You see, NoEinstein seems to think that original posts to an
unmoderated newsgroup constitute "credentials". NoEinstein is a boob.
Michael Moroney
>On Jul 20, 3:29 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>Dear Moroney: You are entitled to have any ridiculous idea you choose
>to believe about science. Obviously, you are beyond reason and beyond
>help. But for any thinking people who read this, the LAW OF THE
>CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN NATURE! Moroney
>supposes that "velocity' can simultaneously add mass to fast objects,
>AND add momentum. He doesn't accept that energy IN must = energy
>OUT. What is a DUHHNCE like him doing commenting about science
>truths? NoEinstein
So what are you claiming now? A moving object doesn't contain more
energy than a stationary object, or an object cannot move because if it
did it would require energy to do so, but "energy IN must = energy OUT".
?
PD
wrote:
NoEinstein doesn't really quite know WHAT he thinks, but he knows he's
seen it somewhere and it is the TRUTH, regardless of how ridiculous it
sounds. This is what happens when older guys without female
companionship end up with too much time on their hands.
NoEinstein
enough shallow thinkers on these groups to keep your delusions
regarding physics intact. I have no motive to edify those, like you,
who can't think rationally. Have fun with your own insanity! —
NoEinstein —
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a8fcc5e1-3a70-4a45-
> a1a8-1abfedbf4...@k6g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a parasite who tries to sucker clear thinkers into
conversing with him. Anyone doing so will learn that PD will never
accept reasonable explanations. If one gets close to making that fool
realize the truth, he throws up some untrue "analogy" of what you've
said. In short, PD is a WILD GOOSE CHASE personified. Avoid him like
the plague! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a parasite who tries to sucker clear thinkers into
conversing with him. Anyone doing so will learn that PD will never
accept reasonable explanations. If one gets close to making that fool
realize the truth, he throws up some untrue "analogy" of what you've
said. In short, PD is a WILD GOOSE CHASE personified. Avoid him like
the plague! — NoEinstein —
>
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a parasite who tries to sucker clear thinkers into
conversing with him. Anyone doing so will learn that PD will never
accept reasonable explanations. If one gets close to making that fool
realize the truth, he throws up some untrue "analogy" of what you've
said. In short, PD is a WILD GOOSE CHASE personified. Avoid him like
the plague! — NoEinstein —
>
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD is a parasite who tries to sucker clear thinkers into
conversing with him. Anyone doing so will learn that PD will never
accept reasonable explanations. If one gets close to making that fool
realize the truth, he throws up some untrue "analogy" of what you've
said. In short, PD is a WILD GOOSE CHASE personified. Avoid him like
the plague! — NoEinstein —
>
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jul 21, 12:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD is a parasite who tries to sucker clear thinkers into
> conversing with him. Anyone doing so will learn that PD will never
> accept reasonable explanations. If one gets close to making that fool
> realize the truth, he throws up some untrue "analogy" of what you've
> said. In short, PD is a WILD GOOSE CHASE personified. Avoid him like
> the plague! � NoEinstein �
John says something stupid and then people point that out.
John has a tantrum and tells people not to read the replies.
John is not trying to learn anything as he keeps tripping over his ego.
>
>>On Jul 21, 10:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Jul 20, 3:29 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>Dear Moroney: You are entitled to have any ridiculous idea you choose
>>>to believe about science. Obviously, you are beyond reason and beyond
>>>help. But for any thinking people who read this, the LAW OF THE
>>>CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN NATURE! Moroney
>>>supposes that "velocity' can simultaneously add mass to fast objects,
>>>AND add momentum. He doesn't accept that energy IN must = energy
>>>OUT. What is a DUHHNCE like him doing commenting about science
>>>truths? � NoEinstein �
PD
> On Jul 21, 12:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD is a parasite who tries to sucker clear thinkers into
> conversing with him. Anyone doing so will learn that PD will never
> accept reasonable explanations. If one gets close to making that fool
> realize the truth, he throws up some untrue "analogy" of what you've
> said. In short, PD is a WILD GOOSE CHASE personified. Avoid him like
> the plague! — NoEinstein —
Yes, I know you'd like the freedom to say remarkably stupid things in
a public forum and have no one comment that it was a stupid thing to
say.
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Michael: The intrinsic energy due to velocity is the
conglomerate FORCES that were required to get the mass up to that
velocity. And those conglomerate FORCES represent the absolute
maximum 'E' which can be on the "energy OUT" side of the equation.
Plot Einstein’s SR equation with a UNIFORM, or linearly increasing
velocity (momentum), and the resultant 'E' will go to infinity at...
'c'. But the velocity input side remains LINEAR. Einstein's moronic
delusions, aided by that idiot Lorentz, create MASS from thin air!
There is zero evidence that mass can be created by velocity alone.
Unless you know otherwise, you are on the wrong side of the physics.
— NoEinstein —
PD
So where did you get the crazy idea that F=mv?
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jul 21, 1:40 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> Dear Michael: The intrinsic energy due to velocity is the
> conglomerate FORCES that were required to get the mass up to that
> velocity. And those conglomerate FORCES represent the absolute
> maximum 'E' which can be on the "energy OUT" side of the equation.
> Plot Einstein�s SR equation with a UNIFORM, or linearly increasing
> velocity (momentum), and the resultant 'E' will go to infinity at...
> 'c'. But the velocity input side remains LINEAR. Einstein's moronic
> delusions, aided by that idiot Lorentz, create MASS from thin air!
> There is zero evidence that mass can be created by velocity alone.
> Unless you know otherwise, you are on the wrong side of the physics.
> � NoEinstein �
This should be required reading in all science classes as an
example of what happens when you sleep through all the
classes and try to substitute the dreams you had for the
science that was taught. John is demonstrating monumental
misunderstandings of even high school physics.
Michael Moroney
>On Jul 21, 1:40=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>Dear Michael: The intrinsic energy due to velocity is the
>conglomerate FORCES that were required to get the mass up to that
>velocity. And those conglomerate FORCES represent the absolute
>maximum 'E' which can be on the "energy OUT" side of the equation.
Do you even know the difference between energy and "FORCES"? It doesn't
look like it.
>Plot Einstein=92s SR equation with a UNIFORM, or linearly increasing
>velocity (momentum),
Do you know the difference between velocity and momentum?
You really can't criticize relativity until you understand it. You
can't understand relativity until uou learn the very fundamentals of
physics.
>There is zero evidence that mass can be created by velocity alone.
Anyone who has worked with particle accelerators knows how wrong this is.
(well OK, the mass increase is from energy (E=mc^2), not "velocity")
doug
Michael Moroney wrote:
> NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>
>>On Jul 21, 1:40=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>>wrote:
>>
>>Dear Michael: The intrinsic energy due to velocity is the
>>conglomerate FORCES that were required to get the mass up to that
>>velocity. And those conglomerate FORCES represent the absolute
>>maximum 'E' which can be on the "energy OUT" side of the equation.
>
>
> Do you even know the difference between energy and "FORCES"? It doesn't
> look like it.
No einstein is actually a retired architect named john. John has
a big ego and no education. He claims that energy and force are
the same thing. He claims that classical mechanics is wrong. He
claims he knows something about relativity. John is completely
ignorant but he is very jealous of Einstein.
>
>
>>Plot Einstein=92s SR equation with a UNIFORM, or linearly increasing
>>velocity (momentum),
>
>
> Do you know the difference between velocity and momentum?
>
> You really can't criticize relativity until you understand it. You
> can't understand relativity until uou learn the very fundamentals of
> physics.
All he has is his hatred and jealousy of Einstein.
>
>
>>There is zero evidence that mass can be created by velocity alone.
>
>
> Anyone who has worked with particle accelerators knows how wrong this is.
> (well OK, the mass increase is from energy (E=mc^2), not "velocity")
John does not understand algebra. He actually claims that if you
do the algebra for the MMX that you do not expect fringes. He
says that people have made the same algebra mistake for over
a century. His mistake is to think that the average velocity
is the average of the velocities. I am giving the him the benefit
of the doubt that he actually knows any algebra.
John's only use here is for us to have someone who we are very
positive knows far less than we do.
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Michael: You are among the gullible who accepted that anything
shown in textbooks must be true. For the edification of the thinkers
who read this, momentum is the additional FORCE (in pounds) with which
a mass will impact due to that mass's velocity. The correct units of
energy is pounds, NOT foot-pounds. Note: Foot-pounds is the units of
TORQUE. KE; PE; force; mass; and power all have the simple units:
POUNDS. Work is identical to existing formulas and units. The latter
was correct as is. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD just gave one of his ridiculous restatements of my science
truths. He is a parasite who specializes in misconstruing any truth
that he is shown. PD is utterly without a redeeming virtue. Pity
him, while staying out of any conversations with that fool. —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Michael: Either your science is screwed up, or your English to
express it is. Please give the links to your recent posts so that the
readers can better understand your credentials to be replying. —
NoEinstein —
PD
> On Jul 22, 3:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> Dear Michael: You are among the gullible who accepted that anything
> shown in textbooks must be true. For the edification of the thinkers
> who read this, momentum is the additional FORCE (in pounds) with which
> a mass will impact due to that mass's velocity. The correct units of
> energy is pounds, NOT foot-pounds. Note: Foot-pounds is the units of
> TORQUE. KE; PE; force; mass; and power all have the simple units:
> POUNDS. Work is identical to existing formulas and units. The latter
> was correct as is. — NoEinstein —
And John is sure it's this way because it's simpler to remember, and
simpler is always better. Oh and by the way, 2+2=4 and 3+5=4 too
because it's so much simpler that way. If it's complicated, it's got
to be wrong.
PD
> On Jul 21, 12:54 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD just gave one of his ridiculous restatements of my science
> truths.
So do you agree or not? If not, then explain what you mean. Explain
how energy can be conserved when a car speeds up. It's kinetic energy
has increased!
PD
> On Jul 21, 1:40 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> Dear Michael: Either your science is screwed up, or your English to
> express it is. Please give the links to your recent posts so that the
> readers can better understand your credentials to be replying. —
> NoEinstein —
Because, as you know, posts=credentials.
Michael Moroney
>Dear Michael: You are among the gullible who accepted that anything
>shown in textbooks must be true. For the edification of the thinkers
>who read this, momentum is the additional FORCE (in pounds) with which
>a mass will impact due to that mass's velocity.
I see Doug is correct in his earlier post where he stated you think energy
and force are the same thing, don't understand algebra and are jealous of
Einstein.
> The correct units of
>energy is pounds, NOT foot-pounds. Note: Foot-pounds is the units of
>TORQUE.
1) Why not use metric units like every real physicist?
2) High school physics teaches that if the units don't work out, you know
that the answer to the problem is automatically wrong. This is a simple
concept, you don't measure time in square meters or mass in seconds. So...
Let's check units: E=mc^2. (Pounds) = (pound mass) * (feet/second)^2.
Units don't work out. Flunk.
3) Learn the difference between foot-pounds and pound-feet (torque).
> KE; PE; force; mass; and power all have the simple units:
>POUNDS.
Until you understand the simple basics of high school physics, you'll
never get anywhere, and will be condemned to continue blabbering on
sci.physics. Of course, part of your confusion is that in English units,
"pounds" can be either a weight (force) or a mass. But these two pounds
are not the same.
Michael Moroney
>Dear Michael: Either your science is screwed up, or your English to
>express it is. Please give the links to your recent posts so that the
>readers can better understand your credentials to be replying.
My "credentials" are that I know how to use a newsreader. You can use
groups.google.com to find my posts yourself, and from that you'll see that
I learned how to post in newsgroups quite some time ago.
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jul 22, 3:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> Dear Michael: You are among the gullible who accepted that anything
> shown in textbooks must be true. For the edification of the thinkers
> who read this, momentum is the additional FORCE
Momentum is not force. Rest of nonsense is therefore completely
wrong as usual. John, you need to study so you do not look so
stupid. But you have been told that before.
(in pounds) with which
> a mass will impact due to that mass's velocity. The correct units of
> energy is pounds, NOT foot-pounds.
Wrong as usual. John has no idea what energy is.
Note: Foot-pounds is the units of
> TORQUE. KE; PE; force; mass; and power all have the simple units:
> POUNDS.
Completely wrong. This has been known for centuries. Why don't
you try to at least learn physics up to 1800?
Work is identical to existing formulas and units. The latter
> was correct as is. � NoEinstein �
PD
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 3:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > wrote:
>
> > Dear Michael: You are among the gullible who accepted that anything
> > shown in textbooks must be true. For the edification of the thinkers
> > who read this, momentum is the additional FORCE
>
> Momentum is not force. Rest of nonsense is therefore completely
> wrong as usual. John, you need to study so you do not look so
> stupid. But you have been told that before.
>
> (in pounds) with which
>
> > a mass will impact due to that mass's velocity. The correct units of
> > energy is pounds, NOT foot-pounds.
>
> Wrong as usual. John has no idea what energy is.
>
> Note: Foot-pounds is the units of
>
> > TORQUE. KE; PE; force; mass; and power all have the simple units:
> > POUNDS.
>
> Completely wrong. This has been known for centuries. Why don't
> you try to at least learn physics up to 1800?
>
> Work is identical to existing formulas and units. The latter
>
>
> >>NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
> >>>On Jul 21, 1:40=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>Dear Michael: The intrinsic energy due to velocity is the
> >>>conglomerate FORCES that were required to get the mass up to that
> >>>velocity. And those conglomerate FORCES represent the absolute
> >>>maximum 'E' which can be on the "energy OUT" side of the equation.
>
> >>Do you even know the difference between energy and "FORCES"? It doesn't
> >>look like it.
>
> >>>Plot Einstein=92s SR equation with a UNIFORM, or linearly increasing
> >>>velocity (momentum),
>
> >>Do you know the difference between velocity and momentum?
>
> >>You really can't criticize relativity until you understand it. You
> >>can't understand relativity until uou learn the very fundamentals of
> >>physics.
>
> >>>There is zero evidence that mass can be created by velocity alone.
>
> >>Anyone who has worked with particle accelerators knows how wrong this is.
> >>(well OK, the mass increase is from energy (E=mc^2), not "velocity")
Does it worry anyone that a certified architect, who was presumably
trained in statics, does not know the units for force, energy, and
momentum?
NoEinstein
>
Folks: If PD, the Parasite Dunce says it, it's got to be wrong! —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Michael: Do you have any links to 'new posts' that you have
made? If not, crawl back into the woodwork with the other termites in
your pod. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Michael: Oh... So you don't have any 'new posts' that you would
like to share with the readers. Shame on you! Nothing you have said
would be justification for anyone 'wild-goose-chasing' any of your
trivia. Bug off, Michael! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Folks: Does it speak well for a student in engineering, like myself,
to have questioned the entire chapter(s) on mechanics because I
realized that KE, or energy due to Motion, was indicated as a
different quantity from Momentum, or energy due to VELOCITY (i.e.,
MOTION)?? Coriolis GOOFED with his 1830 equation for kinetic energy,
KE = 1/2 mv^2! The only variable in the latter (assuming a UNIT mass)
is the velocity. Momentum force, F = mv, has one variable, velocity
when there is a unit mass. So why aren't those two equations
identical? The reason: CORIOLIS'S MORONIC EQUATION IS PATENTLY
WRONG! KE does NOT increase exponentially with velocity, only the
DISTANCE OF FALL increases exponentially! Most of the distance of
fall is due to the "carry over" of COASTING velocity from the previous
seconds, not from the input of that same velocity due to an increase
in the force of gravity (or propulsion). Since the force of gravity
which causes a uniform acceleration, 'g', causes a UNIFORM change in
the velocity of the falling object(s), then the KE has to be accruing
at a UNIFORM rate, too.
My correct equation for kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + [ v /
32.174 feet per second X m]. Such equation exactly matches the
"momentum equation" except for my addition of the object's static
weight to the total. Static weight adds to the force of impact of
every falling object. If my correct science happens to be easy to
understand, that would be a negative ONLY for Parasite Dunces like PD,
who has Brown-Nosed the status quo from the moment he emerged from the
womb. With PD, it is an inherited genetic abnormality that causes him
to nix anything resembling rational thinking. — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
> momentum?- Hide quoted text -
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jul 24, 10:55 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: Does it speak well for a student in engineering, like myself,
You were never a student of engineering or you would not be spouting
your absolute ignorance of any science or engineering. Even diploma
mills have some standards you cannot meet.
> to have questioned the entire chapter(s) on mechanics because I
> realized that KE, or energy due to Motion, was indicated as a
> different quantity from Momentum, or energy due to VELOCITY (i.e.,
> MOTION)??
So you understood nothing in class and decided the dreams you
had were better than reality.
Coriolis GOOFED with his 1830 equation for kinetic energy,
> KE = 1/2 mv^2! The only variable in the latter (assuming a UNIT mass)
> is the velocity. Momentum force, F = mv, has one variable, velocity
> when there is a unit mass. So why aren't those two equations
> identical? The reason: CORIOLIS'S MORONIC EQUATION IS PATENTLY
> WRONG! KE does NOT increase exponentially with velocity, only the
> DISTANCE OF FALL increases exponentially! Most of the distance of
> fall is due to the "carry over" of COASTING velocity from the previous
> seconds, not from the input of that same velocity due to an increase
> in the force of gravity (or propulsion). Since the force of gravity
> which causes a uniform acceleration, 'g', causes a UNIFORM change in
> the velocity of the falling object(s), then the KE has to be accruing
> at a UNIFORM rate, too.
You keep repeating this same nonsense which only proves how
amazingly stupid you actually are.
>
> My correct equation for kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + [ v /
> 32.174 feet per second X m].
This proves you have no idea of algebra or units either.
Such equation exactly matches the
> "momentum equation" except for my addition of the object's static
> weight to the total.
It matches only your other delusions.
Static weight adds to the force of impact of
> every falling object. If my correct science
You have no science at all.
happens to be easy to
> understand, that would be a negative ONLY for Parasite Dunces like PD,
> who has Brown-Nosed the status quo from the moment he emerged from the
> womb. With PD, it is an inherited genetic abnormality that causes him
> to nix anything resembling rational thinking. � NoEinstein �
So john has a tantrum when people point out how stupid he
is.
For a good laugh and to see how stupid john is, read the
following complete nonsense: (The amazing part is that
he is too stupid to realize he should be totally ashamed
to have posted and reposted this complete nonsense).
>
> Where Angels Fear to Fall
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
> An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> Another look at Einstein
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
> Three Problems for Math and Science
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
> Matter from Thin Air
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
> Curing Einstein�s Disease
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
> Replicating NoEinstein�s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
> Cleaning Away Einstein�s Mishmash
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
> Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
> Copyrighted.)
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
> Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
> The Gravity of Masses Doesn�t Bend Light.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
> KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
> Light rays don�t travel on ballistic curves.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
> A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
>
>
>>On Jul 23, 10:20 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jul 22, 3:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Dear Michael: You are among the gullible who accepted that anything
>>>>shown in textbooks must be true. For the edification of the thinkers
>>>>who read this, momentum is the additional FORCE
>>
>>>Momentum is not force. Rest of nonsense is therefore completely
>>>wrong as usual. John, you need to study so you do not look so
>>>stupid. But you have been told that before.
>>
>>>(in pounds) with which
>>
>>>>a mass will impact due to that mass's velocity. The correct units of
>>>>energy is pounds, NOT foot-pounds.
>>
>>>Wrong as usual. John has no idea what energy is.
>>
>>> Note: Foot-pounds is the units of
>>
>>>>TORQUE. KE; PE; force; mass; and power all have the simple units:
>>>>POUNDS.
>>
>>>Completely wrong. This has been known for centuries. Why don't
>>>you try to at least learn physics up to 1800?
>>
>>> Work is identical to existing formulas and units. The latter
>>
>>>>was correct as is. � NoEinstein �
PD
> On Jul 23, 5:32 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: If PD, the Parasite Dunce says it, it's got to be wrong! —
> NoEinstein —
My father used to call this, "cutting off your nose to spite your
face".
PD
> On Jul 23, 7:30 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> wrote:
>
> Dear Michael: Do you have any links to 'new posts' that you have
> made? If not, crawl back into the woodwork with the other termites in
> your pod. — NoEinstein —
Because, as we know, 'new posts' = credentials.
PD
> On Jul 24, 10:55 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: Does it speak well for a student in engineering, like myself,
> to have questioned the entire chapter(s) on mechanics because I
> realized that KE, or energy due to Motion, was indicated as a
> different quantity from Momentum, or energy due to VELOCITY (i.e.,
> MOTION)??
Yes it certainly does if you went on to become a licensed architect
and used your own principles rather than the ones you were taught. The
ones you were taught were the ones you were tested on for your
certification. Getting certified and then not using the principles on
which that certification is based constitutes fraud in my mind. When
was your license stripped?
> Coriolis GOOFED with his 1830 equation for kinetic energy,
> KE = 1/2 mv^2! The only variable in the latter (assuming a UNIT mass)
> is the velocity. Momentum force, F = mv, has one variable, velocity
> when there is a unit mass. So why aren't those two equations
> identical? The reason: CORIOLIS'S MORONIC EQUATION IS PATENTLY
> WRONG! KE does NOT increase exponentially with velocity, only the
> DISTANCE OF FALL increases exponentially! Most of the distance of
> fall is due to the "carry over" of COASTING velocity from the previous
> seconds, not from the input of that same velocity due to an increase
> in the force of gravity (or propulsion). Since the force of gravity
> which causes a uniform acceleration, 'g', causes a UNIFORM change in
> the velocity of the falling object(s), then the KE has to be accruing
> at a UNIFORM rate, too.
>
> My correct equation for kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + [ v /
> 32.174 feet per second X m]. Such equation exactly matches the
> "momentum equation" except for my addition of the object's static
> weight to the total. Static weight adds to the force of impact of
> every falling object. If my correct science happens to be easy to
> understand, that would be a negative ONLY for Parasite Dunces like PD,
> who has Brown-Nosed the status quo from the moment he emerged from the
> womb. With PD, it is an inherited genetic abnormality that causes him
> to nix anything resembling rational thinking. — NoEinstein —
>
> Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
> Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
> An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
> Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
> Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
> Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe...
> Curing Einstein’s Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e...
> Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
> Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
> Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8...
> Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe...
> The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99...
> KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
> Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a...
> A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702...
NoEinstein
>
Folks: PD, the Parasite Dunce, is screwed up about... FRAUD. He
believes that if a student is taught erroneous things; passes the
tests using such; then becomes certified, that such person isn't a
fraud. But PD calls a student who accepts only logical scientific
truths, whether shown in textbooks or not, and insists on using only
those truths in his 'business' a fraud. Which person is more of a
FRAUD, the one who accepts the falsehoods that were presented just
to... pass the tests? Or the person who would rather nix higher
education all together rather than be forced at accept FALSEHOODS as
truths? Since this is a moral issue, and because PD is deficient in
the required moral... genes, one must excuse his uncontrollable
shortcomings. — NoEinstein —
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jul 25, 11:15 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD, the Parasite Dunce, is screwed up about... FRAUD. He
> believes that if a student is taught erroneous things; passes the
> tests using such; then becomes certified, that such person isn't a
> fraud. But PD calls a student who accepts only logical scientific
> truths, whether shown in textbooks or not, and insists on using only
> those truths in his 'business' a fraud. Which person is more of a
> FRAUD, the one who accepts the falsehoods that were presented just
> to... pass the tests? Or the person who would rather nix higher
> education all together rather than be forced at accept FALSEHOODS as
> truths? Since this is a moral issue, and because PD is deficient in
> the required moral... genes, one must excuse his uncontrollable
> shortcomings. � NoEinstein �
Since the science education in schools is fine, what part of
your education as an architect did you feel was fraudulent?
Why did you accept your certificate if you felt it was
fraudulent? What does that say about you?
When are you going to take some time and learn some
science so you do not look so stupid?
>>>to nix anything resembling rational thinking. � NoEinstein �
>>
>>>Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
>>>Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
>>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
>>>An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
>>>Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
>>>Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f...
>>>Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe...
>>>Curing Einstein�s Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e...
>>>Replicating NoEinstein�s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526...
>>>Cleaning Away Einstein�s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
>>>Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
>>>Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
>>>Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8...
>>>Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe...
>>>The Gravity of Masses Doesn�t Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99...
>>>KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
>>>Light rays don�t travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a...
>>>A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702...
>>
>>>>On Jul 23, 10:20 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>NoEinstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Jul 22, 3:41 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>>>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Dear Michael: You are among the gullible who accepted that anything
>>>>>>shown in textbooks must be true. For the edification of the thinkers
>>>>>>who read this, momentum is the additional FORCE
>>
>>>>>Momentum is not force. Rest of nonsense is therefore completely
>>>>>wrong as usual. John, you need to study so you do not look so
>>>>>stupid. But you have been told that before.
>>
>>>>>(in pounds) with which
>>
>>>>>>a mass will impact due to that mass's velocity. The correct units of
>>>>>>energy is pounds, NOT foot-pounds.
>>
>>>>>Wrong as usual. John has no idea what energy is.
>>
>>>>> Note: Foot-pounds is the units of
>>
>>>>>>TORQUE. KE; PE; force; mass; and power all have the simple units:
>>>>>>POUNDS.
>>
>>>>>Completely wrong. This has been known for centuries. Why don't
>>>>>you try to at least learn physics up to 1800?
>>
>>>>> Work is identical to existing formulas and units. The latter
>>
>>>>>>was correct as is. � NoEinstein �
PD
> On Jul 25, 11:15 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: PD, the Parasite Dunce, is screwed up about... FRAUD. He
> believes that if a student is taught erroneous things; passes the
> tests using such; then becomes certified, that such person isn't a
> fraud. But PD calls a student who accepts only logical scientific
> truths, whether shown in textbooks or not, and insists on using only
> those truths in his 'business' a fraud.
Yes, indeed.
> Which person is more of a
> FRAUD, the one who accepts the falsehoods that were presented just
> to... pass the tests?
Depends on whether you intend to use the certification. If you don't
intend to use the certification, then you can do whatever you want.
If you intend to claim the right to do business by virtue of the
certification, then yes, passing the tests is crucial.
I take it you never did pass the certification tests.
Michael Moroney
>On Jul 23, 7:30=A0pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>Dear Michael: Do you have any links to 'new posts' that you have
>made? If not, crawl back into the woodwork with the other termites in
>your pod.
I already told you how to find my posts, new and old, using groups.google.com.
Since you are apparently incapable of figuring out how to use the site,
and seem interested in my newer posts, try Google's advance search site:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&
Type in my name in the "this exact wording or phrase" box at the top, and
select either the time period or the appropiate date range in the
"Message Dates" section near the middle, then click the "Advanced Search"
box near the bottom. There, I've spoonfed you, don't expect me to
chew for you as well.
Each and every post returned by such a search shows my "credentials" for
posting to an unmoderated Usenet group, the simple knowledge of knowing
how to do so.
And to PD: if in fact he does/did work as an architech, it does bother me.
Let me know which buildings he helped design so I know which ones to
avoid. I suspect, however, any such building has already collapsed,
probably before any bricks or concrete blocks were stacked more than 4
high during construction.
Eleaticus
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> 61848e7a-b393-4681-bca6-43f3c22bd...@e27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> > On Jul 29, 5:58 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> > <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Dirk: I detect a certain fatalism regarding whether or not you
> > believe Einstein will ever be dethroned as a... genius (ha, ha, HA!).
> > I'm not fatalistic, but I know that 95% of those on these groups who
> > comment about SR and GR do so because they wish to be associated with
> > "a genius" so that they themselves will "seem" smart.
>
> I know that 100% of the crackpots on these groups who
> comment about SR and GR do so because they are really
> truly honestly convinced that they are infinitely smarter than
> one particular person who is more or less universally
> considered to have been a genius.
>
> Dirk Vdm
SR ignores symmetry:
E E
= =
E = MCCM = E
= =
E E
Uncle Al
[snip]
> SR ignores symmetry:
> E E
> = =
> E = MCCM = E
> = =
> E E
idiot
It also ignores the "New York Times" crossword puzzle, sidoku,
tamaguchis, and little boys in short pants who foul themselves when
startled by soft sighs.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eleaticus: You sir are a RARE thinker! The Law of the
Conservation of energy demands that: E sub OUT = E sub IN. All
mathematicians worth their salt should realize that E = (mc^2) / (1 -
v^2/c^2)^1/2 has the energy OUT being a variable exponent greater than
unity, while the energy IN, 'v' is increasing LINEARLY. The latter——
as you say——"isn't symmetrical", and thus violates the LCE, as well as
disproves SR as a "correct" (Ha, ha, HA!) theory. Congratulations for
finally allowing the TRUTHFUL 'tail' to wag the ERRANT 'dog' that is
Einstein's notions about anything! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> Eleaticus wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > SR ignores symmetry:
> > E E
> > = =
> > E = MCCM = E
> > = =
> > E E
>
> idiot
>
> It also ignores the "New York Times" crossword puzzle, sidoku,
> tamaguchis, and little boys in short pants who foul themselves when
> startled by soft sighs.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dear Uncle Al: You, Sir, are one of the dunces who have defended
Einstein's errant theories. In one fell swoop, Eleaticus has
confirmed that SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy.
It's not fun being found out to be dumb, like you. Your taking pot
shots at Eleaticus only shows your futile defensiveness in the face of
simple truths. Folks, be it known: Uncle Al is a non thinking arm-
chair scientist whose ideas don’t now hold, nor never have held, any
water. Pity him and his ilk. — NoEinstein —
PD
Oh, dear.
doug
NoEinstein wrote:
You are right--he rarely thinks.
The Law of the
> Conservation of energy demands that: E sub OUT = E sub IN. All
> mathematicians worth their salt should realize that E = (mc^2) / (1 -
> v^2/c^2)^1/2 has the energy OUT being a variable exponent greater than
> unity, while the energy IN, 'v' is increasing LINEARLY. The latter��
> as you say��"isn't symmetrical", and thus violates the LCE, as well as
> disproves SR as a "correct" (Ha, ha, HA!) theory. Congratulations for
> finally allowing the TRUTHFUL 'tail' to wag the ERRANT 'dog' that is
> Einstein's notions about anything! � NoEinstein �
However, you continue to prove that you never think.