Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.)
NoEinstein
mc^2 (sic) and Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 (sic), is to use a graph type
calculator, computer, or graph paper to draw a turned down parabola.
Galileo found that at any point in time, dropped objects will have
total fall distances according to the equation: d = t^2. The unit of
time is in seconds. The experimentally measured distance of fall at
the end of second one is 16.087'. Such distance is the 'units', and
the equation's numeric value can be found by substituting a specific
time, in seconds, into Galileo's equation.
At time 1 sec. the fall distance factor = 1; 2 sec. = 4; 3 sec. =
9; 4 sec. = 16; 5 sec. = 25; and etc., all the way to infinity. The
distance of fall curve should show the time, in seconds, on the +xx
axis, and the fall distances on the -yy axis. Because of the "1/2"
factor in Coriolis's equation, his curve on the same graph will have
the -y values being 1/2 as much per second, or values: .5; 2; 4.5; 8;
12.5; and etc., all the way to infinity.
Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
(or KE) increases as the square of the velocity at any point in time.
Since both his and Galileo's equation are functions of the square,
then, both curves will exactly match and can be superimposed one upon
the other. Galileo's parabola represents distance of fall, while
Einstein's represents the supposed accruing vector KE. Since the
slope of Galileo's curve of distance vs. time is velocity, then, the
slope of Einstein's curve must correlate to velocity as well, because
both equations increase equally with respect to time.
Looking at the turned down parabola, you will note that the
distance increase (in 'd' multiples) in second 1 = 1; sec. 2 = 3; sec.
3 = 5; sec. 4 = 7; sec. 5 = 9; and etc., all the way to infinity.
Einstein's equation (or Coriolis's equation without that factor 1/2) has
the KE progression in weight multiples of: 1; 4; 9; 16, 36, 49...
Clearly, Einstein's energy increase is greater each second than the
previous second. But the force of gravity is equal to an object's
static weight, only. And static weight doesn't change for objects
near the Earth. Einstein's equation would require that gravity keep
applying the most energy to objects which happen to be falling faster--
which is impossible!
A big reason the errors in both Coriolis's and Einstein's
equations weren't realized before now is that everyone accepted that a
farther falling object hits harder (which is true). But they
erroneously equated the KE exactly to the fall distance. But the only
thing that will truly increase KE is to increase velocity. The
distance of fall curve of Galileo is NOT a velocity increase curve, it
is a distance increase curve! The velocity is the SLOPE of his curve,
and that slope increases UNIFORMLY, or additively, from the previous
second's velocity value all the way to infinity.
Uniform velocity plots as a straight line that begins at zero and
has values of 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; and etc. As NoEinstein has proved,
the KE increase will correspond to the velocity increase factors
above, IF one adds in the falling object's static weight, or weight
unit 1. All falling objects begin with a 'g' force value of 1, NOT
zero! Heretofore, no one has considered that static weight
contributes to KE. My equation is: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m), and
plots as a straight line. All near Earth objects begin falling with a
KE equal to their weight. The starting KE of an object would be zero
only if it was motionless in deep outer space at the moment a rocket
engine is turned on.
A metal ball rolling on a level table in a lab is ACCELERATING
into the table 32.174' per second EACH second, or it has a potential
fall distance of 16.087' in one second. Let that same ball roll off
of the table onto a precision scale and the scale will instantaneously
register a KE (force) equal to the ball's weight. No downward
velocity of the ball is required.
The fact that no one before NoEinstein has considered that static
weight adds to KE, helps to explain why it has taken nearly two
centuries for Coriolis's equation to be disproved. -- NoEinstein --
Cleaning Away Einstein's Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
__________
Randy Poe
> Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
It's a scalar.
> (or KE)
It's not KE.
> increases as the square of the velocity at any point in time.
In E = gamma*mc^2, c is not the velocity of an object and
is not changing in time.
- Randy
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c0aa1d28-859a-455c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
|
| It's a scalar.
HAHAHAHA!
Idiot!
PD
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
PD
PD
> A simple way to visualize the similarity between Einstein's E =
> mc^2 (sic) and Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 (sic), is to use a graph type
> calculator, computer, or graph paper to draw a turned down parabola.
> Galileo found that at any point in time, dropped objects will have
> total fall distances according to the equation: d = t^2.
Galileo found no such thing. That is the incorrect equation.
> The unit of
> time is in seconds.
And the unit of t^2 is seconds^2, which is decidedly NOT a unit of
distance.
Unless you also want to write equations that equate sheep with
bushels, or milliliters with degrees Celsius.
> The experimentally measured distance of fall at
> the end of second one is 16.087'. Such distance is the 'units', and
> the equation's numeric value can be found by substituting a specific
> time, in seconds, into Galileo's equation.
> At time 1 sec. the fall distance factor = 1; 2 sec. = 4; 3 sec. =
> 9; 4 sec. = 16; 5 sec. = 25; and etc., all the way to infinity. The
> distance of fall curve should show the time, in seconds, on the +xx
> axis, and the fall distances on the -yy axis. Because of the "1/2"
> factor in Coriolis's equation, his curve on the same graph
His curve of what? What are you going to use for time in the Coriolis
equation? Where do you see time in seconds in the Coriolis equation?
Normally, if you plot a second function on the same graph, the units
of the x and y axes should be the same as for the first function.
> will have
> the -y values being 1/2 as much per second, or values: .5; 2; 4.5; 8;
> 12.5; and etc., all the way to infinity.
> Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
E is not a vector.
> (or KE)
KE is not the same as E, and Einstein knew this too. You don't,
apparently.
> increases as the square of the velocity at any point in time.
It implies no such thing. c is not a variable velocity. It is a
*constant*. There is no different value for c to put on the x-axis.
> Since both his and Galileo's equation are functions of the square,
> then, both curves will exactly match and can be superimposed one upon
> the other.
And here is where you show *profound* ignorance. To you, any equation
that is of the form (something) = (something else)^2 is the same
equation and can be superimposed on the same graph and taken to have
the same physical meaning. It apparently means nothing to you whether
the (something) or the (something else) is a constant or a variable,
or what the units are.
> Galileo's parabola represents distance of fall, while
> Einstein's represents the supposed accruing vector KE. Since the
> slope of Galileo's curve of distance vs. time is velocity,
That is because slope is *defined* as the ratio of the change in the y
variable to the rate of change of the x variable. You'll note that on
a *distance* vs *time* graph, this ratio has units distance/time,
which is recognizable as the units of velocity. THAT is why the slope
is the velocity.
> then, the
> slope of Einstein's curve must correlate to velocity as well,
Not at all. In what you take to be "Einstein's curve", you are
plotting energy vs c. The units of the y axis are energy, and the
units of the x axis are velocity. The slope then would have the units
of energy/velocity, and that is not at all recognizable as the units
of velocity. The slope of this curve has nothing to do with velocity.
Moreover, as noted before, c is not a variable. It is a constant. You
only plot on the x axis that which is allowed to *vary*, and c doesn't
vary.
> because
> both equations increase equally with respect to time.
There is no function of time in Einstein's formula. t is not a
variable in that equation.
> Looking at the turned down parabola, you will note that the
> distance increase (in 'd' multiples) in second 1 = 1; sec. 2 = 3; sec.
> 3 = 5; sec. 4 = 7; sec. 5 = 9; and etc., all the way to infinity.
> Einstein's equation (or Coriolis's equation without that factor 1/2) has
> the KE progression in weight multiples of: 1; 4; 9; 16, 36, 49...
Again an error. You are doing different things for the distance curve
than you are for the velocity curve.
> Clearly, Einstein's energy increase is greater each second than the
> previous second. But the force of gravity is equal to an object's
> static weight, only. And static weight doesn't change for objects
> near the Earth. Einstein's equation would require that gravity keep
> applying the most energy to objects which happen to be falling faster--
> which is impossible!
The application of gravity doesn't add energy at a constant rate if
gravity is constant. I don't know where you got the stupid idea that
it should.
> A big reason the errors in both Coriolis's and Einstein's
> equations weren't realized before now is that everyone accepted that a
> farther falling object hits harder (which is true). But they
> erroneously equated the KE exactly to the fall distance. But the only
> thing that will truly increase KE is to increase velocity.
Note that for a falling object, increasing fall distance
*automatically* increases velocity. You cannot increase fall distance
without increasing velocity.
> The
> distance of fall curve of Galileo is NOT a velocity increase curve, it
> is a distance increase curve! The velocity is the SLOPE of his curve,
> and that slope increases UNIFORMLY, or additively, from the previous
> second's velocity value all the way to infinity.
> Uniform velocity plots as a straight line that begins at zero and
> has values of 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; and etc. As NoEinstein has proved,
> the KE increase will correspond to the velocity increase factors
I dispute that. Show your proof or your experimental evidence that KE
increases linearly with velocity.
> above, IF one adds in the falling object's static weight, or weight
> unit 1. All falling objects begin with a 'g' force value of 1, NOT
> zero! Heretofore, no one has considered that static weight
> contributes to KE.
That's because no one, even Coriolis has considered the force a
resting object applies to the ground to be included in the kinetic
energy. You seem to be under the impression that he did. He did not.
> My equation is: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m), and
> plots as a straight line. All near Earth objects begin falling with a
> KE equal to their weight. The starting KE of an object would be zero
> only if it was motionless in deep outer space at the moment a rocket
> engine is turned on.
> A metal ball rolling on a level table in a lab is ACCELERATING
That is also incorrect. Do you know what the definition of
acceleration is?
> into the table 32.174' per second EACH second, or it has a potential
> fall distance of 16.087' in one second. Let that same ball roll off
> of the table onto a precision scale and the scale will instantaneously
> register a KE (force) equal to the ball's weight. No downward
> velocity of the ball is required.
> The fact that no one before NoEinstein has considered that static
> weight adds to KE, helps to explain why it has taken nearly two
> centuries for Coriolis's equation to be disproved. -- NoEinstein --
>
> Cleaning Away Einstein's Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
>
> __________
A substantial number of goofball errors happily pointed out. When the
errors are corrected, perhaps NoEinstein can give it another shot.
PD
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00968030-3bfa-4cdb...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
therefore a vector.
HAHAHA! Shithead!
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ah, very good. So the binding energy of the electron in hydrogen is
13.6 eV. In which direction is that pointed?
If I add heat to a pot of soup, I can increase that soup's energy by
548 J. In which direction is that energy pointed?
And if I have a potential energy of 136 J at a location (x1, y1, z1),
and a potential energy of 23 J at a location (x2, y2, z2) and a
potential energy of 49 J at a location (x3, y3, z3), then it is
certainly true that potential energy appears to be a scalar field.
Perhaps you could tell me what the direction of the potential energy
is at (x1, y1, z1) is. Here's a hint: the *gradient* of a *scalar*
field is a vector. The *gradient* of the potential energy is related
to the force, which is indeed a vector, which is why rocks do not fall
up to hit your skull. Which in your case is numb.
PD
Androcles
On Mar 6, 8:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:00968030-3bfa-4cdb...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:c0aa1d28-859a-455c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > | On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > | > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
> > |
> > | It's a scalar.
>
> > HAHAHAHA!
> > Idiot!
>
> | Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
>
> Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
> That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
> therefore a vector.
> HAHAHA! Shithead!
| Ah, very good.
Thank you.
| So the binding energy of the electron in hydrogen is
| 13.6 eV. In which direction is that pointed?
From the electron to the nucleus, of course. Sheesh,
you are thick.
PD
Gee, I thought that was the direction of the force, not the energy.
The frorce being the vector quantity, the negative gradient of the
potential energy scalar field and all. You being versed in mathematics
and all.
And the question about the soup? In which direction is that energy
pointed? Or were you too thick to get that far?
PD
PD
Just as a general note, let me add that I fully support NoEinstein's
claim to the copyright of complete and utter gibberish.
PD
Androcles
You? Think? Never! Find a textbook, thinking is beyond you.
HAHAHAHA!
Idiot!
Androcles
| PD
Certainly pointless since nobody would make a red cent out of it
even if they did copy it. How are Seto's book sales coming along?
Is he rich yet?
PD
Yes, that's what I did. What textbook do you recommend that says your
statement is right?
> thinking is beyond you.
> HAHAHAHA!
> Idiot!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Androcles
Nope, you having a thought is too incredible to be believable.
Like many students you confuse force with energy and fail to
realise a force acts between two bodies, not one, and energy
is also relative.
The Ghost In The Machine
<TheDrap...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
<00968030-3bfa-4cdb...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
Since E = Fd in most scalar formulations, but F and d are
both vectors in most 3-D problems, one has to ask what
the operator is.
Best I can do is note that a transverse force (F dot d = 0)
won't move the item in the indicated direction; therefore
E = F dot d would work but makes E a scalar.
This logic clearly won't work in AndrocleanPhysics(tm).
(I'm not sure how well it works in regular Newtonian physics. ;-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Not a text file
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:94g5a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics, PD
| <TheDrap...@gmail.com>
| wrote
| on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
| <00968030-3bfa-4cdb...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
| > On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >>
| >>
news:c0aa1d28-859a-455c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| >> | On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| >> | > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
| >> |
| >> | It's a scalar.
| >>
| >> HAHAHAHA!
| >> Idiot!
| >
| > Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
| >
| > PD
|
| Since E = Fd in most scalar formulations, but F and d are
| both vectors in most 3-D problems, one has to ask what
| the operator is.
|
| Best I can do is note that a transverse force (F dot d = 0)
| won't move the item in the indicated direction; therefore
| E = F dot d would work but makes E a scalar.
|
"How to transform force to energy and make it a scalar" by GITM!
PD
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, PD
> <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
>
> > On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:c0aa1d28-859a-455c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> | On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> | > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
> >> |
> >> | It's a scalar.
>
> >> HAHAHAHA!
> >> Idiot!
>
> > Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
>
> > PD
>
> Since E = Fd in most scalar formulations, but F and d are
> both vectors in most 3-D problems, one has to ask what
> the operator is.
>
> Best I can do is note that a transverse force (F dot d = 0)
> won't move the item in the indicated direction; therefore
> E = F dot d would work but makes E a scalar.
In particular PE = - F dot d, or even better, PE = - int[ F dot ds],
or equivalently F = - grad (PE).
Of course, Androcles is so rusty on his mathematics that the nail
holding his diploma to the wall has corroded in two, so he'll likely
spout and fume without much meaningful content.
Dirk Van de moortel
1WTzj.249929$3m6.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk
Don't forget that you have less brainpower left than the
intersection of Seto's and NoEinstein's. For uneducated
imbeciles like them it is understandable to be dumb - after
all, they probably can't help it. For a retired engineer like
you, it is far worse. One wonders how on Earth you ever
managed to lure your professors into believing that you had
anything remotely resembling a well functioning brain in that
little bald head of yours. Painful.
Dirk Vdm
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:20:58 GMT
<KRUzj.249973$3m6.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
Well, that is the question. Which direction does E point
in the following problems?
[1] A car moves at 30 m/s along a road. The drag force
F points backwards. Which way does the
power vector [*] point?
[2] A rock falls on an airless planet such as the moon.
Describe which way the energy vector points as the rock
falls, hits the ground, and bounces. Include crater
formation if necessary.
[3] A rock falls through a planet's atmosphere. Assuming
the rock makes it to the ground and bounces as in [2],
what does the energy vector for the rock, the ground, and
the air look like?
[4] A planet orbits the sun. Which way does the energy
vector point, if there is a vector at all (since the planet
is not consuming or producing energy)?
[5] A person pushes a box along the ground, exerting a
constant force F on the box. The ground is resisting
because of friction. Which way does the energy vector point?
[6] An electrical current flows through a coil. Because of
resistance, the coil produces heat, enough to boil a pan
of water. Describe the energy vector(s) in the coil, the pan,
and the water.
[7] A star explodes. Describe the energy vector field [+] during
the explosion, assuming no spin and a circular shell expulsion.
[8] A sink full of water is draining, expending energy as
it forms a vortex. Describe the energy vector field in
this vortex.
[9] An airplane flies through the air. Describe the energy
vector fields of the airplane and the air.
[10] A helicopter flies through the air. Describe the energy
vector fields of the blades of the helicopter, the air,
and the helicopter body.
[*] power = energy divided by time; therefore, it's a vector
if energy is a vector. Assuming a flat road, constant
temperature, and constant velocity, the power is constant.
[+] roughly put, a vector field is simply a function mapping
points to vectors. The usual representation in a
diagram, for lack of a better method, is lots of little
vectors attached at various points in 2- or 3-space.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
The Ghost In The Machine
<TheDrap...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:38:27 -0800 (PST)
<e03e5e08-2375-48e9...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
He's not the only one who's a little rusty; I've not done
grads since college. ;-)
>
>>
>> This logic clearly won't work in AndrocleanPhysics(tm).
>> (I'm not sure how well it works in regular Newtonian physics. ;-) )
>>
>> --
>> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
>> /dev/signature: Not a text file
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
Androcles
Along the road. Did you think it was a fuckin' helicopter?
|
| [2] A rock falls on an airless planet such as the moon.
Moons are satellites of planets. "The Moon" (capital M, aka Luna, Selene)
is Earth's moon. It is not earth's (aka dirt, soil, ground) moon.
| Describe which way the energy vector points as the rock
| falls, hits the ground, and bounces. Include crater
| formation if necessary.
Down.
This is getting boring.
[rest snipped by A for brevity]
Randy Poe
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, PD
> <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
>
> > On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:c0aa1d28-859a-455c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> >> | On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> | > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
> >> |
> >> | It's a scalar.
>
> >> HAHAHAHA!
> >> Idiot!
>
> > Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
>
> > PD
>
> Since E = Fd in most scalar formulations, but F and d are
> both vectors in most 3-D problems, one has to ask what
> the operator is.
In books advanced enough to write the vector
quantity, they also include the dot product and the
integral:
Work = integral (F . ds )
where ds is along the path of motion.
> Best I can do is note that a transverse force (F dot d = 0)
> won't move the item in the indicated direction; therefore
> E = F dot d would work but makes E a scalar.
And in fact that is correct. The dot product is used
in the definition of work. That is why no work is done
by the central force on a satellite in a circular orbit,
and why the KE of such a satellite is thus constant.
- Randy
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: SR purports to describe the amount of 'E' that will be
required to carry any mass to velocity 'c'. The only variable in his
SR equation is: velocity. Einstein himself said: "There isn't enough
energy in the entire Universe to accelerate even a speck of matter to
velocity 'c'." (sic) Einstein acknowledges using the "recognized" KE
equation of Coriolis as the basis for his E = mc^2.
According to Einstein, the 'E' of objects accelerating toward 'c'
has both a vector component and a 'scalar' component. The divisor (or
Lorentz transformation) doesn't have a "2" as in Coriolis's KE = 1/2
mv^2. So, Einstein--for whatever reason--must have figured that the
"vector component" of an object's total energy due to motion is TWICE
as great as Coriolis, erroneously, said was the case.
I am only commenting on the VECTOR side of Einstein's screwed up
reasoning, NOT on the non-existent 'scalar' side of his most screwed
up, and thus WRONG, SR equation. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Androcles: I answered your comment in my above reply to Randy. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Folks: PD is going for the World Record in stupidity. I'm sure he
will appreciate your votes! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Tell him like it is, Androcles! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: I never said that ALL energy is directional! Only the energy
due to acceleration; 'a. of the a.'; or steady motion is directional.
-- NoEinstein --
none
> On Mar 6, 12:26 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
>> It's a scalar.
>>
>>> (or KE)
>> It's not KE.
>>
>>> increases as the square of the velocity at any point in time.
>> In E = gamma*mc^2, c is not the velocity of an object and
>> is not changing in time.
>>
>> - Randy
>
> Dear Randy: SR purports to describe the amount of 'E' that will be
No that is not what it says. Look at the equation. Read what it says.
The only variable in his
> SR equation is: velocity.
No there are two variables E and m. C is a scaling factor and is a
constant. Velocity of motion does not appear in this equation.
Read what the equation says.
Einstein himself said: "There isn't enough
> energy in the entire Universe to accelerate even a speck of matter to
> velocity 'c'." (sic) Einstein acknowledges using the "recognized" KE
> equation of Coriolis as the basis for his E = mc^2.
No, read what he said.
> According to Einstein, the 'E' of objects accelerating toward 'c'
> has both a vector component and a 'scalar' component. The divisor (or
> Lorentz transformation) doesn't have a "2" as in Coriolis's KE = 1/2
> mv^2. So, Einstein--for whatever reason--must have figured that the
> "vector component" of an object's total energy due to motion is TWICE
> as great as Coriolis, erroneously, said was the case.
No. You erroneously made this up. Read what he said.
> I am only commenting on the VECTOR side of Einstein's screwed up
> reasoning, NOT on the non-existent 'scalar' side of his most screwed
> up, and thus WRONG, SR equation. -- NoEinstein --
>
No. Since all of your comments are mathematically, historically and
physically wrong, you cannot make any conclusion. We, however, can
conclude that you are showing your complete lack of knowledge and
interest in learning anything.
NoEinstein
Folks: Eventually, I will get royalties for my explanations of
science. PD will get only laughs for his! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Androcles: I agree that PD doesn't know how to think (reason). Those
who can think (reason) don't need textbooks as much. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Guys: "The proof is in the pudding!" 'Making money' isn't the main
issue. Getting credit for my own explanations is! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Androcles: Your answer is mostly right. My "new science" definition
of KE and PE has the values in pounds of force, or in multiples of an
object's weight. Two bodies are required for a force to be applied.
In the case of a rocket ship, the second 'body' is the mass ejected by
the rocket motor. Since energy is relative, as you say, then KE and
PE require that a direction be evident. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in messagenews:94g5a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | In sci.physics, PD
> | wrote
> | on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
> | > On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> | >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | >>
> | >>news:c0aa1d28-859a-455c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> | >> | On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> | >> | > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
> | >> |
> | >> | It's a scalar.
> | >>
> | >> HAHAHAHA!
> | >> Idiot!
> | >
> | > Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
> | >
> | > PD
> |
> | Since E = Fd in most scalar formulations, but F and d are
> | both vectors in most 3-D problems, one has to ask what
> | the operator is.
> |
> | Best I can do is note that a transverse force (F dot d = 0)
> | won't move the item in the indicated direction; therefore
> | E = F dot d would work but makes E a scalar.
> |
> Hahahahaha!
>
> "How to transform force to energy and make it a scalar" by GITM!
Androcles: If an upward force is applied to an object, it can be
raised against gravity, and thus it will "acquire" PE. When the PE is
efficiently 'utilized' the effect is the recovery of the FORCE that
was used to elevate the object. Important: An elevated object has
ZERO inherent energy when it gets to some height! All that it has is:
The POTENTIAL of a distance of fall in which the force of GRAVITY can
impart KE to the object. To utilize that full 'potential', a rope or
other mechanical device must be in place to allow the KE to accrue
gradually. The reason? If an object is simply dropped, the total
impact force won't equal the amount of force used to elevate the
object against gravity. That's because gravity can't impart in a few
seconds of drop (to the ground) a force equal to the total used to
elevate that same object, slowly. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If PD doesn't like "spouting and fuming" he should just go away! --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Androcles <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
> 1WTzj.249929$3m6.237...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:5470a93a-4541-45b8...@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 5, 11:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> Just as a general note, let me add that I fully support NoEinstein's
> >> claim to the copyright of complete and utter gibberish.
>
> >> PD
>
> > Certainly pointless since nobody would make a red cent out of it
> > even if they did copy it. How are Seto's book sales coming along?
> > Is he rich yet?
>
> Don't forget that you have less brainpower left than the
> intersection of Seto's and NoEinstein's. For uneducated
> imbeciles like them it is understandable to be dumb - after
> all, they probably can't help it. For a retired engineer like
> you, it is far worse. One wonders how on Earth you ever
> managed to lure your professors into believing that you had
> anything remotely resembling a well functioning brain in that
> little bald head of yours. Painful.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dear Dirk: Your guns shoot "both ways". -- NoEinstein --
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Folks: PD is going for the World Record in stupidity. I'm sure he
> will appreciate your votes!
How, by spending so much time on you? That *is* stupid.
But he's got some pretty stiff competition in you. Pretty much
everything he said was correct. You are a clue free zone.
Socks
NoEinstein
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
Dear Ghost: Your long list of "requests" sounds more like suggestions
for doctorial theses than items that anyone would waste their time
trying to explain to you. You seem to be a "data" junkie. Once you
get your information, what positive use would you make of the
information? Instead of trying to get people to go on your wild goose
chases, discuss the simple issues at hand, without trying to inform
others how little you know, but wish you knew. -- NoEinstein --
>
> In sci.physics, Androcles
> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics>
> wrote
> on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:20:58 GMT
>
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> >news:94g5a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> > | In sci.physics, PD
> > | wrote
> > | on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Randy Poe
> On Mar 6, 12:26 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
>
> > It's a scalar.
>
> > > (or KE)
>
> > It's not KE.
>
> > > increases as the square of the velocity at any point in time.
>
> > In E = gamma*mc^2, c is not the velocity of an object and
> > is not changing in time.
>
> > - Randy
>
> Dear Randy: SR purports to describe the amount of 'E' that will be
> required to carry any mass to velocity 'c'.
No it does not. SR explicitly states that this is impossible.
So whatever theory you are commenting on, it is not
SR but some garble you made up from stuff you misunderstood.
> The only variable in his
> SR equation is: velocity. Einstein himself said: "There isn't enough
> energy in the entire Universe to accelerate even a speck of matter to
> velocity 'c'." (sic)
Exactly. And E = mc^2, the expression for rest energy,
has nothing to do with that statement.
The equation you are looking for (though you've demonstrated
that you can't actually understand equations) is
E = gamma*mc^2
where gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
That's where the velocity-dependence is contained.
- Randy
PD
I look forward to seeing that. It would be unexpected enough that I
would pay money to see it happen. Kind of like a magic trick.
PD
Randy Poe
Alas, direction of fall has nothing to do with direction
of energy (which, being a scalar, has no direction).
Androcles tells it like he imagines it.
But you're welcome to use him as a teacher of
physics.
Like you, he can't keep straight the distinction
between energy, force and acceleration.
Fortunately, like you, nobody is paying him to
actually calculate anything useful.
- Randy
PD
Well, you've certainly got the credit you've given yourself. Of
course, getting credit from others will depend on others finding value
in what you offer. So far, I don't see any more value in this than I
would in a used kitty litter box full of watermelon rinds.
PD
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9ed5df4d-67e5-4de9...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| > On Mar 6, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > > Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
| > > That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
| > > therefore a vector.
| > > HAHAHA! Shithead!
| >
| > Tell him like it is, Androcles! -- NoEinstein --
|
| Alas, direction of fall has nothing to do with direction
| of energy
Sputter...damn, more coffee stains on my keyboard.
Tell that to the cop pointing a gun at you.
The area of the face of a coin is pi.r^2
Every coin has two faces.
Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
obverse or the reverse?
Androcles
You've both made correct points.
1) Einstein sought fame as NoEinstein is now doing and
2) there is less value in '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' than a used kitty litter box full of
watermelon rinds, the latter can be cleaned out and reused by kitty.
Just as a general note, let me add that I fully support Einstein's
claim to the fame of used kitty litter boxes full of orange peel.
none
Steve Hausman
> On Mar 6, 8:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>>"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>news:c0aa1d28-859a-455c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>| On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>| > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
>>>|
>>>| It's a scalar.
>>
>>>HAHAHAHA!
>>>Idiot!
>>
>>| Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
>>
>>That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
>>therefore a vector.
>>HAHAHA! Shithead!
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> | So the binding energy of the electron in hydrogen is
> | 13.6 eV. In which direction is that pointed?
>
> From the electron to the nucleus, of course. Sheesh,
> you are thick.
>
No - the energy is pointed from the nucleus to the electron - That is
obvious. The nucleus is what draws the electron in, so that is the
direction of the energy. Nucleus to electron.
Bob Remeaux
>
> You? Think? Never! Find a textbook, thinking is beyond you.
> HAHAHAHA!
> Idiot!
>
Just find a fricking textbook and quote it straight back at him.
OG
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message news:co0Aj.252057
> Sputter...damn, more coffee stains on my keyboard.
> Tell that to the cop pointing a gun at you.
> The area of the face of a coin is pi.r^2
> Every coin has two faces.
> Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
> obverse or the reverse?
One more push and we can probably make his head spin around!
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9ed5df4d-67e5-4de9...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> | On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> | > On Mar 6, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> | > > Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
> | > > That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
> | > > therefore a vector.
> | > > HAHAHA! Shithead!
> | >
> | > Tell him like it is, Androcles! -- NoEinstein --
> |
> | Alas, direction of fall has nothing to do with direction
> | of energy
>
> Sputter...damn, more coffee stains on my keyboard.
> Tell that to the cop pointing a gun at you.
And what energy do you think is represented
by that, and which direction do you think the energy
"vector" is pointing?
> The area of the face of a coin is pi.r^2
The surface area is a bit more than that, since
coins have stamped images on them.
> Every coin has two faces.
> Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
> obverse or the reverse?
Depends on the complexity of the design.
I'm looking at a US 5-cent piece (a "nickel") and I'd
bet on the reverse (a detailed image of a monument
and more words than the obverse) over the obverse
(a raised image of Thomas Jefferson).
- Randy
OG
>> Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
>> obverse or the reverse?
>
> Depends on the complexity of the design.
>
> I'm looking at a US 5-cent piece (a "nickel") and I'd
> bet on the reverse (a detailed image of a monument
> and more words than the obverse) over the obverse
> (a raised image of Thomas Jefferson).
>
An interesting diversion perhaps as to how one could experimentally
determine (using household or lab apparatus) which has the greater area.
It amuses me to think that 'Androcles' would say that the side that's facing
you has the greater area because:-
- you can see the one that faces you and you can't see the other face so it
is not possible to measure its area
- by perspective, the further face is smaller
- Einstein had it as a postulate that the further face had the same area as
the near face.
- everyone else is a fuckwit and - plonk (but this one is a cheat because it
shows he's realised he goofed)
- again
Androcles
| On Mar 6, 7:55 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >
| >
news:9ed5df4d-67e5-4de9...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
| > | > On Mar 6, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| > | > > Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
| > | > > That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional
and
| > | > > therefore a vector.
| > | > > HAHAHA! Shithead!
| > | >
| > | > Tell him like it is, Androcles! -- NoEinstein --
| > |
| > | Alas, direction of fall has nothing to do with direction
| > | of energy
| >
| > Sputter...damn, more coffee stains on my keyboard.
| > Tell that to the cop pointing a gun at you.
|
| And what energy do you think is represented
| by that, and which direction do you think the energy
| "vector" is pointing?
Hey Poe! Look carefully at these pictures:
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2000/images/jpg/MTI-Launch.jpg
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/news/swift_launch_big.jpg
Which way is the energy going?
|
| > The area of the face of a coin is pi.r^2
|
| The surface area is a bit more than that, since
| coins have stamped images on them.
|
| > Every coin has two faces.
| > Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
| > obverse or the reverse?
|
| Depends on the complexity of the design.
|
| I'm looking at a US 5-cent piece (a "nickel") and I'd
| bet on the reverse (a detailed image of a monument
| and more words than the obverse) over the obverse
| (a raised image of Thomas Jefferson).
|
Oh, so areas DO have direction, then?
Androcles
"Steve Hausman" <Hau...@spammed.com> wrote in message
news:63bkatF...@mid.individual.net...
He asked for the binding energy, not the escape energy. :-)
Actually, energy is the ability to do work. Does the Moon
do work on the Earth?
Sure it does, the tides are obvious (and directional).
This is a falling tree in the forest type of question. Is there
any sound if there is nobody to hear it?
The answer is no, sound is defined as vibration in the cochlea.
The answer is yes, sound is defined as vibration in the air.
When a rocket takes off which way is the energy going?
The rocket gains KE.
The ground is heated.
Which is the work we wish to consider, heating the ground
or moving the rocket?
A satellite in circular orbit has no energy at all. If it falls
to the ground and does work on Poe's or Duck's head then
it isn't in circular orbit where it can do no work.
Androcles
"Bob Remeaux" <B...@spammed.com> wrote in message
news:63bkn4F...@mid.individual.net...
| Androcles wrote:
|
| >
| > You? Think? Never! Find a textbook, thinking is beyond you.
| > HAHAHAHA!
| > Idiot!
| >
|
| Just
Did you snip something vital to the discussion? I wonder what it was...
Randy Poe
There is light energy, carried in the form of photons.
The photons which made the bright trail are heading
toward the camera. That is the direction of their motion.
Their energy is a scalar quantity related to their
wavelength or frequency by E = hf.
The object which made the trail has momentum
and KE. The KE is a scalar property of the object,
equal to 0.5*mv^2.
> | > The area of the face of a coin is pi.r^2
A scalar.
> | The surface area is a bit more than that, since
> | coins have stamped images on them.
> |
> | > Every coin has two faces.
> | > Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
> | > obverse or the reverse?
> |
> | Depends on the complexity of the design.
> |
> | I'm looking at a US 5-cent piece (a "nickel") and I'd
> | bet on the reverse (a detailed image of a monument
> | and more words than the obverse) over the obverse
> | (a raised image of Thomas Jefferson).
> |
> Oh, so areas DO have direction, then?
Why, no. Did I say that? Objects have faces
which are in different directions. If I told you I
had an object where the top was red and the
bottom was blue, would that mean that "red"
and "blue" were vectors?
- Randy
Eric Gisse
[...]
I gotta give you credit for finding a new thing for Androcles to
totally misunderstand in a hilariously pathetic way.
Androcles
Negligible in the situation described. You are the kind of
fuckhead that makes molehills out of salt grains, you don't even
know what a mountain is. I'll take what you say with a pinch,
even photons have direction.
Hey Poe! Look CAREFULLY at the pictures.
Which way is the energy going?
| > Oh, so areas DO have direction, then?
| Why, no. Did I say that?
No, you didn't, you missed it.
So the areas on coin faces do not have direction.
We are used the things that are not.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it,
is there any sound?
The Ghost In The Machine
<poespa...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:16:38 -0800 (PST)
<3b6dd598-8b49-4774...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
> On Mar 6, 10:44 am, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> In sci.physics, PD
>> <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
>> <00968030-3bfa-4cdb-8be2-3e9937551...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> | On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> | > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
>> >> |
>> >> | It's a scalar.
>>
>> >> HAHAHAHA!
>> >> Idiot!
>>
>> > Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
>>
>>
>> Since E = Fd in most scalar formulations, but F and d are
>> both vectors in most 3-D problems, one has to ask what
>> the operator is.
>
> quantity, they also include the dot product and the
> integral:
>
> Work = integral (F . ds )
>
> where ds is along the path of motion.
Hm. Logical enough.
>
>> Best I can do is note that a transverse force (F dot d = 0)
>> won't move the item in the indicated direction; therefore
>> E = F dot d would work but makes E a scalar.
>
> And in fact that is correct. The dot product is used
> in the definition of work. That is why no work is done
> by the central force on a satellite in a circular orbit,
> and why the KE of such a satellite is thus constant.
>
> - Randy
Actually, it gets a little weird in an elliptical orbit.
Of course KE + PE = E = constant for such an orbit, but
for an elliptical orbit both vary, in a periodic fashion.
(It turns out, at least in Newtonian theory, that the
important item is the semimajor axis; he determines the
orbit period.)
In a purely circular orbit, of course, the force is
perpendicular to the motion vector and KE and PE are
both constant, even though both the motion and the
force/acceleration vectors are continually changing.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
fortune: not found
The Ghost In The Machine
<"">
wrote
on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:37:35 -0800
<13t16ib...@corp.supernews.com>:
> NoEinstein wrote:
[snip by TGITM for brevity]
> In other words, you cannot answer any of his questions.
I wasn't asking him in any event. NoEinstein's theory does not
require that energy have a vector component.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
fortune: not found
--
Androcles
| [snip by TGITM for brevity]
That's a good idea, I will too. Oops! Nothing left.
Well, at least people know we are alive, even if you are dead
from the neck up.
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:ahv6a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
[snip by A for brevity]
Dirk Van de moortel
13t16ib...@corp.supernews.com
> NoEinstein wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 12:28 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
>> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> Dear Ghost: Your long list of "requests" sounds more like suggestions
>> for doctorial theses than items that anyone would waste their time
>> trying to explain to you. You seem to be a "data" junkie. Once you
>> get your information, what positive use would you make of the
>> information? Instead of trying to get people to go on your wild goose
>> chases, discuss the simple issues at hand, without trying to inform
>> others how little you know, but wish you knew. -- NoEinstein --
[snip]
> In other words, you cannot answer any of his questions.
As can be seen from Androcles' and NoEinstein's replies,
Ghost's questions for were a school book example of the
" 'Never Challenge a Malicious Imbecile' Violation".
Dirk Vdm
The Ghost In The Machine
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:06:49 +0100
<TA7Aj.408883$Ec3.2...@newsfet18.ams>:
Also "Hope springs eterne in the human breast", I suppose. ;-)
But never mind; at least I acknowledge my errors, which is more
than some others can say.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
PD
> On Mar 6, 10:12 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > On Mar 6, 8:26 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On Mar 6, 8:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:00968030-3bfa-4cdb...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:c0aa1d28-859a-455c...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > | On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > | > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
> > > > > |
> > > > > | It's a scalar.
>
> > > > > HAHAHAHA!
> > > > > Idiot!
>
> > > > | Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
>
> > > > That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
> > > > therefore a vector.
> > > > HAHAHA! Shithead!
>
>
> > > Thank you.
>
> > > | So the binding energy of the electron in hydrogen is
> > > | 13.6 eV. In which direction is that pointed?
>
> > > From the electron to the nucleus, of course. Sheesh,
> > > you are thick.
>
>
> > You? Think? Never! Find a textbook, thinking is beyond you.
> > HAHAHAHA!
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> who can think (reason) don't need textbooks as much. -- NoEinstein ---
Just keep telling yourself that... You're much more amusing just the
way you are.
PD
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:5eo7a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
[snip local village idiot]
| Also "Hope springs eterne in the human breast", I suppose. ;-)
|
| But never mind; at least I acknowledge my errors, which is more
| than some others can say.
What's the value of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for the LHC smashing
two protons into each other? C'mon, acknowledge that error.
PD
Actually, it is serving a purpose. Androcles is cluttering up
NoEinstein's garbage-spawned post with even larger piles of toilet
paper, banana peels, and packaging filler, giving the entire thread
the credibility it warranted from the outset.
PD
PD
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, none
> <"">
> wrote
> on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:37:35 -0800
>
> > NoEinstein wrote:
>
> [snip by TGITM for brevity]
>
> > In other words, you cannot answer any of his questions.
>
> I wasn't asking him in any event. NoEinstein's theory does not
> require that energy have a vector component.
>
What theory?
PD
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In sci.physics, Randy Poe
> <poespam-t...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
> on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:16:38 -0800 (PST)
That's absolutely right. It is an example of the central force doing
work (though the net work done, aside from tidal effects, is zero).
>
> (It turns out, at least in Newtonian theory, that the
> important item is the semimajor axis; he determines the
> orbit period.)
>
> In a purely circular orbit, of course, the force is
> perpendicular to the motion vector and KE and PE are
> both constant, even though both the motion and the
> force/acceleration vectors are continually changing.
>
> --
> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
> fortune: not found
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
bri...@encompasserve.org
> Androcles wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:653349a9-f7e2-4b8e...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>> | So the binding energy of the electron in hydrogen is
>> | 13.6 eV. In which direction is that pointed?
>>
>> From the electron to the nucleus, of course. Sheesh,
>> you are thick.
>>
>
> No - the energy is pointed from the nucleus to the electron - That is
> obvious. The nucleus is what draws the electron in, so that is the
> direction of the energy. Nucleus to electron.
I don't think you've grokked the nutter's claims in fullness.
Here's my attempt to make [semi-]coherent sense of them.
The potential energy of the electron in the electrical field of the
nucleus is negative. A positive potential energy vector would point
inward, in the direction of the force. A negative potential energy
vector points outward, opposite to the direction of the force.
Similarly, the potential energy of the nucleus in the electrical field
of the electron is negative. Its potential energy vector points
away from the electron.
Note that the potential energy of the nucleus is much smaller than
that of the electron. That's because the path traversed by the nucleus
during a hypothetical separation of the nucleus from its electron
would be much shorter than the path traversed by the electron.
Nutter definitions: (based on guesswork)
Kinetic energy is a vector quantity whose magnitude is given by
the formula E = 1/2 mv^2 and whose direction is given by the current
direction of motion of the object.
Potential energy is a vector quantity that exists when an object is
in a conservative vector force field. The magnitude of the potential
energy is given by the path integral of force dot incremental displacement
on a path going from the object's current position to a chosen
reference point. The direction of the potential energy vector
is given by the vector force at the object's current position. If the
path integral is negative, this direction is reversed.
[Since the nutter will only consider simple situations there's
less ambiguity in the choice of direction than one might suppose and
there's never a need to explicitly compute a path integral]
This works out so that the potential energy of a rock on the top of
a cliff is identical to the kinetic energy vector that it would wind
up with if it fell off the cliff.
Or so that the potential energy of an electron at the bottom of the
energy well in a hydrogen atom is the initial kinetic energy vector
that it would need to escape from that energy well in a path going
radially outward. Assuming I have the sign convention right.
[Continuing hypothetical nutter definitions...]
When adding kinetic energies, one adds the magnitudes. Thermal energy
is thus the scalar sum of a very large number of tiny kinetic energy
vectors. It has no defined direction and is accordingly an invariant
quantity! Similarly the chemical energy in a stick of dynamite or
the electrical energy in a charged capacitor are scalars.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:12:12 GMT
<MabAj.256625$3m6....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
0.57735 * i, of course, where i^2 = -1.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
The Ghost In The Machine
<TheDrap...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Fri, 7 Mar 2008 05:18:03 -0800 (PST)
<6c67516a-c421-4168...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
The "standard" theory, as Androcles (mis-)interprets it.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.
--
NoEinstein
> On Mar 6, 3:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 12:26 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
>
> > > It's a scalar.
>
>
> > > It's not KE.
>
> > > > increases as the square of the velocity at any point in time.
>
> > > In E = gamma*mc^2, c is not the velocity of an object and
> > > is not changing in time.
>
> > > - Randy
>
> > Dear Randy: SR purports to describe the amount of 'E' that will be
> > required to carry any mass to velocity 'c'.
>
> No it does not. SR explicitly states that this is impossible.
>
Randy: Obviously you are angry... Just be objective, want you! I
did NOT say that SR states that getting to velocity 'c' is
"possible". Believe me, I know better than anyone on this Earth that
Einsteiniacs, like you, worship the "fact" that man or matter is
forever limited to travel below velocity 'c'. Why am I an expert on
that?" Because I've devoted the last seven years of my life to
getting my Einstein disproofs acknowledged. Those with 'Einstein's
disease' have soft skins. They reel at even the hint that Einstein's
limits on rational thought don't hold sway.
The primary reason you "bother" to argue against much of what I
say is: Your supposed intellectual esteem is riding on your "coat-
tailing" on the "intellectual greatness" of that Jewish moron, Albert
Einstein. When your idol falls, you, and all of the sicko
Einsteiniacs out there, fall with him. The SOUND of all of those
falls will be like an Earthquake that will rock the world!
>
> So whatever theory you are commenting on, it is not
> SR but some garble you made up from stuff you misunderstood.
>
Till you can show some objectivity, Randy, it is YOU who
misunderstand.
>
> > The only variable in his
> > SR equation is: velocity. Einstein himself said: "There isn't enough
> > energy in the entire Universe to accelerate even a speck of matter to
> > velocity 'c'." (sic)
>
> Exactly. And E = mc^2, the expression for rest energy,
> has nothing to do with that statement.
>
Now you're talking through your DUNCE hat! SR gives the energy--both
scalar and vector--of objects being made to accelerate toward velocity
'c'. But that fool Einstein considered that because his "E" results
from VELOCITY, then, the energy must be "locked into the material"
until the VELOCITY is reduced. Einstein requires that there be some...
"energy ratchet" that holds energy inside matter. And such ratchet
will only release if the velocity lowers. Einstein has said that an
object approaching velocity 'c' will become infinite in mass while
being flattened, by its inertia, like a pancake. But Einstein didn't
major in structural design like me. Every architect or structural
engineer on this Earth will tell you that materials under loads
compress ELASTICALLY. That means they will rebound ELASTICALLY as
soon as the acceleration of the acceleration stops!
Morons are incapable of realizing that acceleration is: "A
uniform and steady, linear increase in velocity!" Therefore,
accelerations have ONE and only ONE inertial force of compression on
the person or object being accelerated. Stop accelerating, and all
compressed objects rebound to a "zero gravity" state. The last
century of STUPIDITY from Einstein is because: He thought acceleration
was what could only be: acceleration of the acceleration. Just the
latter, if continued, would cause an 'infinite inertial compression'
of any object. But such would NEVER cause even and ounce of increase
in the (non existent) scalar energy or mass!
>
> The equation you are looking for (though you've demonstrated
> that you can't actually understand equations) is
>
> E = gamma*mc^2
>
> where gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>
SR is usually written without the "gamma", or as I prefer to call it,
the "beta" Lorentz transformation. Why? because for normally
encountered velocities, the value of beta remains close to unity.
Readers please note: I have invalidated the Michelson-Morley
experiment that gave us that beer-hall-conceived, never verified, and
unworkable explanation for the nil results of M-M. Even mentioning SR
is an argument in HISTORY, not in science, because I have disproved
Einstein, up, down, and sideways!
>
>
> That's where the velocity-dependence is contained.
>
Thanks for "teaching" me what I already know. I wish your 'Einstein's
disease' would let YOU learn some truths in science! -- NoEinstein
--
>
> - Randy- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
> On Mar 6, 2:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 9:56 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 5, 11:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Just as a general note, let me add that I fully support NoEinstein's
> > > claim to the copyright of complete and utter gibberish.
>
> > > PD
>
> > Folks: Eventually, I will get royalties for my explanations of
> > science. PD will get only laughs for his! -- NoEinstein --
>
> I look forward to seeing that. It would be unexpected enough that I
> would pay money to see it happen. Kind of like a magic trick.
>
> PD
Folks: Buy your tickets now! Einstein has been disproved! --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> > > Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
> > > That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
> > > therefore a vector.
> > > HAHAHA! Shithead!
>
>
> of energy (which, being a scalar, has no direction).
> Androcles tells it like he imagines it.
>
> But you're welcome to use him as a teacher of
> physics.
>
> Like you, he can't keep straight the distinction
> between energy, force and acceleration.
>
> Fortunately, like you, nobody is paying him to
> actually calculate anything useful.
>
> - Randy
Dear Randy: As I explained yesterday: Forces can increase energy (as
in compressing a spring or elevating an object against gravity.) When
the stored energy is release, forces are the result. So, energy and
forces have the same units: pounds. The only distinction is that
energy is a force that isn't yet utilized; while "force" is one that
is being utilized.
Acceleration is: "A uniform, linear increase in velocity." --
NoEinstein --
Randy Poe
> On Mar 6, 4:42 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 3:29 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 12:26 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
>
> > > > It's a scalar.
>
> > > > > (or KE)
>
> > > > It's not KE.
>
> > > > > increases as the square of the velocity at any point in time.
>
> > > > In E = gamma*mc^2, c is not the velocity of an object and
> > > > is not changing in time.
>
> > > > - Randy
>
> > > Dear Randy: SR purports to describe the amount of 'E' that will be
> > > required to carry any mass to velocity 'c'.
>
> > No it does not. SR explicitly states that this is impossible.
>
> Randy: Obviously you are angry...
Standard refuge of the crank: The claim to mental
telepathy.
I read and write on Usenet for relaxation. If doing this
made me angry, I wouldn't do it.
> Just be objective, want you!
"Won't"
- Randy
Randy Poe
> On Mar 6, 4:45 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> > > > Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
> > > > That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
> > > > therefore a vector.
> > > > HAHAHA! Shithead!
>
> > > Tell him like it is, Androcles! -- NoEinstein --
>
> > Alas, direction of fall has nothing to do with direction
> > of energy (which, being a scalar, has no direction).
> > Androcles tells it like he imagines it.
>
> > But you're welcome to use him as a teacher of
> > physics.
>
> > Like you, he can't keep straight the distinction
> > between energy, force and acceleration.
>
> > Fortunately, like you, nobody is paying him to
> > actually calculate anything useful.
>
> Dear Randy: As I explained yesterday:
My daily commute takes me through a large city
twice a day. There are any number of people sitting
on grates or screaming at corners with all kinds of
"explanations".
Neither repetition nor volume adds validity to their
ramblings.
- Randy
Androcles
| In sci.physics, Androcles
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
| wrote
| on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:12:12 GMT
| <MabAj.256625$3m6....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
| > news:5eo7a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| >
| > [snip local village idiot]
| >
| > | Also "Hope springs eterne in the human breast", I suppose. ;-)
| > |
| > | But never mind; at least I acknowledge my errors, which is more
| > | than some others can say.
| >
| > What's the value of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) for the LHC smashing
| > two protons into each other? C'mon, acknowledge that error.
| >
|
| 0.57735 * i, of course, where i^2 = -1.
Sheesh, when I went to school sqrt(1-4) was 1.732i.
Modern physics must have changed the rules of arithmetic.
If you ask it nicely the local village idiot will record my
fumble for you.
none
nonsense. You have no clue about math or units or physics or ...
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
<gxoAj.259985$3m6.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
You're right up to a point.
Gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Since v = 2c, gamma is 0.57735 * i.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Androcles
I see. Your psychosis is boring, to be sure, but not OK.
" But never mind; at least I acknowledge my errors, which is more
than some others can say." -- GITM
Truth is you'll acknowledge your errors only when caught out by a
fellow fuckwit, you hypocritical bastard.
Let's see... I said "What's the value of sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)... ?"
You replied " 0.57735 * i" and the reason I'm right up to a point
is because you hallucinated I asked what the reciprocal was?
But at least we have it straight now (up to a point), v = 2c.
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless"
- SR is meaningless according to Albert Fuckwit Einstein.
NoEinstein
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics, none
<"">
wrote
on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:37:35 -0800
> NoEinstein wrote:
[snip by TGITM for brevity]
> In other words, you cannot answer any of his questions.
I wasn't asking him in any event. NoEinstein's theory does not
require that energy have a vector component.
>
Dear Ghost: You are the first person to use the words: "NoEinstein's
theory". Sounds sort of nice! Since my niche is Mechanics, not
atomic physics, nothing that I have postulated negates thermal,
chemical, electrical and magnetic energy. But I suspect that the
ETHER will prove to be the Holy Grail that unifies all of the forces
of nature. One day super computers should be able to predict answers
to the type of "thesis" subjects (or questions) you proposed. Thanks
for admitting that you weren't expecting me to "prove myself" by
answering each of those to your satisfaction. I'll bet, no one in the
groups could do so. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Mar 6, 6:09 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I gotta give you credit for finding a new thing for Androcles to
> totally misunderstand in a hilariously pathetic way.
Dear Eric: Few people "totally misunderstand". But some, such as
you, are totally committed to protecting the status quo. When the
latter blinds you to the truth, then it is YOU who lack objective
understanding. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Mar 6, 9:19 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > | On Mar 6, 7:55 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> > | > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > | >
> > | > | On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > | > | > On Mar 6, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> > | > | > > Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
> > | > | > > That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional
> > and
> > | > | > > therefore a vector.
> > | > | > > HAHAHA! Shithead!
> > | > | >
> > | > | > Tell him like it is, Androcles! -- NoEinstein --
> > | > |
> > | > | Alas, direction of fall has nothing to do with direction
> > | > | of energy
> > | >
> > | > Tell that to the cop pointing a gun at you.
> > |
> > | And what energy do you think is represented
> > | by that, and which direction do you think the energy
> > | "vector" is pointing?
>
> > Hey Poe! Look carefully at these pictures:
> > http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2000/images/jpg/MTI-Launch.jpg
> > http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/news/swift_launch_big.jpg
>
> > Which way is the energy going?
>
> There is light energy, carried in the form of photons.
> The photons which made the bright trail are heading
> toward the camera. That is the direction of their motion.
> Their energy is a scalar quantity related to their
> wavelength or frequency by E = hf.
>
> The object which made the trail has momentum
> and KE. The KE is a scalar property of the object,
> equal to 0.5*mv^2.
>
Dear Randy: You can't learn, can you. Don't you remember? I've
disproved both Coriolis and Einstein. The correct formula for kinetic
energy (a VECTOR quantity) is: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m). That same
formula, which I myself derived, replaces Einstein's SR equation,
too. Such is because there is *no scalar energy increase due to
velocity. *Note: The following lone exception to the latter applies
to subatomic particles, only: "The 'ether' that pervades even the
insides of vacuum chambers will bank up in front of high speed
particles." The reason? Ether is polar (has + & - sides). The ether
units, which I call IOTA, can clump like magnets to the front of
charged particles. The faster a particle is moving, the more ether
clumps in front of it, and the more drag there is on the particle's
forward motion. That's the correct reason why subatomic particles
can't be made to exceed velocity 'c'. And it's the reason that the
half lives of some particles gets extended at very high velocities.
The ether glob simply holds it together--sort of like glue. --
NoEinstein --
>
> > | > The area of the face of a coin is pi.r^2
>
> A scalar.
>
> > | The surface area is a bit more than that, since
> > | coins have stamped images on them.
> > |
> > | > Every coin has two faces.
> > | > Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
> > | > obverse or the reverse?
> > |
> > | Depends on the complexity of the design.
> > |
> > | I'm looking at a US 5-cent piece (a "nickel") and I'd
> > | bet on the reverse (a detailed image of a monument
> > | and more words than the obverse) over the obverse
> > | (a raised image of Thomas Jefferson).
> > |
> > Oh, so areas DO have direction, then?
>
> Why, no. Did I say that? Objects have faces
> which are in different directions. If I told you I
> had an object where the top was red and the
> bottom was blue, would that mean that "red"
> and "blue" were vectors?
NoEinstein
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message news:co0Aj.252057
> > Sputter...damn, more coffee stains on my keyboard.
> > Tell that to the cop pointing a gun at you.
> > Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
> > obverse or the reverse?
>
Dear OG: Gee, you come out of the woodwork and comment on the
ridiculous 'side issues' that Randy Poe often escapes into. Maybe you
and Androcles are rivals from other posts. But my present post
relates to serious science. Please comment, objectively, on the
science, or visit the posts of others in the future. -- NoEinstein --
Androcles: Great science-crammed reply! Regarding the satellite: You
should stipulate that there is no KE unless the force of gravity
magically turns off (the satellite would get thrown out on a tangent),
or if you happen to be 'up there', and in the satellite's path of
motion. Getting hit by something traveling that fast wouldn't be
nice... -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
"figuratively" of a... coin having two sides with such and such [pi
(r^2)] surface area; you "counter" that: The surface areas of each
side aren't equal. That is an interesting "side issue". But if you
knew how to read--and thus how to communicate--you would know that
Androcles meant: the PROJECTED surface area. That is the ONLY
conclusion you should have reached--because he gave you the FORMULA for
the surface area of a flat disk! If he was intending to measure the
"effective surface area", there is NO such formula on this Earth for
embossed coins.
Unfortunately, you make an art out of misreading what I,
Androcles, and others say. Then, you make fun of us, because we don't
present things from your biased viewpoints. Any readers of this
should realize that Randy Poe is a pedant and a showoff, with very few
things of substance to show. -- NoEinstein --
>
> > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:9ed5df4d-67e5-4de9...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > | On Mar 6, 3:38 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > | > On Mar 6, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> > | > > Because, fuckhead, rocks do not fall up to hit your dense skull.
> > | > > That means potential and kinetic energy is relative, directional and
> > | > > therefore a vector.
> > | > > HAHAHA! Shithead!
> > | >
> > | > Tell him like it is, Androcles! -- NoEinstein --
> > |
> > | Alas, direction of fall has nothing to do with direction
> > | of energy
> > Tell that to the cop pointing a gun at you.
> And what energy do you think is represented
> by that, and which direction do you think the energy
> "vector" is pointing?
> > The area of the face of a coin is pi.r^2
> The surface area is a bit more than that, since
> coins have stamped images on them.
> > Every coin has two faces.
> > Which has the greater area, Professor Poe the fuckhead, the
> > obverse or the reverse?
> Depends on the complexity of the design.
> I'm looking at a US 5-cent piece (a "nickel") and I'd
> bet on the reverse (a detailed image of a monument
> and more words than the obverse) over the obverse
> (a raised image of Thomas Jefferson).
> - Randy
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> > Dear Ghost: Your long list of "requests" sounds more like suggestions
> > for doctorial theses than items that anyone would waste their time
> > trying to explain to you. You seem to be a "data" junkie. Once you
> > get your information, what positive use would you make of the
> > information? Instead of trying to get people to go on your wild goose
> > chases, discuss the simple issues at hand, without trying to inform
> > others how little you know, but wish you knew. -- NoEinstein --
> >> <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics>
> >> wrote
> >> on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:20:58 GMT
> >> <KRUzj.249973$3m6.217...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
> >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:94g5a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> >>> | In sci.physics, PD
> >>> | <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>
> >>> | wrote
> >>> | on Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:35:55 -0800 (PST)
> >>> | <00968030-3bfa-4cdb-8be2-3e9937551...@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
> >>> | > On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> >>> | >> | On Mar 6, 12:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> | >> | > Einstein's special relativity equation implies that the vector E
> >>> | >> |
> >>> | >> | It's a scalar.
> >>> | >>
> >>> | >> Idiot!
> >>> | >
> >>> | > Why would you laugh at energy being a scalar? Idiot!
> >>> | >
> >>> | > PD
> >>> |
> >>> | Since E = Fd in most scalar formulations, but F and d are
> >>> | both vectors in most 3-D problems, one has to ask what
> >>> | the operator is.
> >>> |
> >>> | won't move the item in the indicated direction; therefore
> >>> | E = F dot d would work but makes E a scalar.
> >>> |
> >>> "How to transform force to energy and make it a scalar" by GITM!
> >> Well, that is the question. Which direction does E point
> >> in the following problems?
>
> >> [1] A car moves at 30 m/s along a road. The drag force
> >> F points backwards. Which way does the
> >> power vector [*] point?
>
> >> [2] A rock falls on an airless planet such as the moon.
> >> Describe which way the energy vector points as the rock
> >> falls, hits the ground, and bounces. Include crater
> >> formation if necessary.
>
> >> [3] A rock falls through a planet's atmosphere. Assuming
> >> the rock makes it to the ground and bounces as in [2],
> >> what does the energy vector for the rock, the ground, and
> >> the air look like?
>
> >> [4] A planet orbits the sun. Which way does the energy
> >> vector point, if there is a vector at all (since the planet
> >> is not consuming or producing energy)?
>
> >> [5] A person pushes a box along the ground, exerting a
> >> constant force F on the box. The ground is resisting
> >> because of friction. Which way does the energy vector point?
>
> >> [6] An electrical current flows through a coil. Because of
> >> resistance, the coil produces heat, enough to boil a pan
> >> of water. Describe the energy vector(s) in the coil, the pan,
> >> and the water.
>
> >> [7] A star explodes. Describe the energy vector field [+] during
> >> the explosion, assuming no spin and a circular shell expulsion.
>
> >> [8] A sink full of water is draining, expending energy as
> >> it forms a vortex. Describe the energy vector field in
> >> this vortex.
>
> >> [9] An airplane flies through the air. Describe the energy
> >> vector fields of the airplane and the air.
>
> >> [10] A helicopter flies through the air. Describe the energy
> >> vector fields of the blades of the helicopter, the air,
> >> and the helicopter body.
>
> >> [*] power = energy divided by time; therefore, it's a vector
> >> if energy is a vector. Assuming a flat road, constant
> >> temperature, and constant velocity, the power is constant.
>
> >> [+] roughly put, a vector field is simply a function mapping
> >> points to vectors. The usual representation in a
> >> diagram, for lack of a better method, is lots of little
> >> vectors attached at various points in 2- or 3-space.
>
> >> --
> >> #191, ewi...@earthlink.net
> >> "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
> >> elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
>
> >> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: 'GITM' proposed 'ten subjects for theses'. "None"--a persona
non grata--interprets my appropriate rebuttal as: a failure to answer
questions. But is "None", or any other fool who's out there, willing
to write a thesis just because Ghost can write a list? We should all
laugh None's ass out of the groups! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> On Mar 6, 2:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 10:17 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > On Mar 5, 11:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > | Just as a general note, let me add that I fully support NoEinstein's
> > > | claim to the copyright of complete and utter gibberish.
>
> > > | PD
>
> > > even if they did copy it. How are Seto's book sales coming along?
> > > Is he rich yet?
>
> > Guys: "The proof is in the pudding!" 'Making money' isn't the main
> > issue. Getting credit for my own explanations is! -- NoEinstein --
>
> Well, you've certainly got the credit you've given yourself. Of
> course, getting credit from others will depend on others finding value
> in what you offer. So far, I don't see any more value in this than I
> would in a usedkittylitterbox full ofwatermelonrinds.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD's shotgun is filled with kitty litter and watermelon
rinds. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
Dear Randy: If you aren't capable of being objective, then anything
you say is too biased to be taken seriously. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Randy: The value of "Diamonds" isn't determined by the socio-
economic status of the finder. You seem to be judging the
conversations of others while riding by in an airconditioned auto with
the CD playing. You might be amazed at the bits of wisdom that can
come from those who proclaim their views on the street. Your sense of
values keeps letting your ego get in the way. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: Once again, I must inform you that "None" is a persona non
grata. His "brain" doesn't even qualify as a random word generator.
-- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in messagenews:e4haa5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | In sci.physics, Androcles
> | wrote
> | on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:23:40 GMT
> | >
> | > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message
> | >news:upa8a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> | > | In sci.physics, Androcles
> | > | wrote
> | > | on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:12:12 GMT
... AND according to NoEinstein!
Eric Gisse
You talk about objectivity a lot for someone with a name like that.
PD
Haven't shown that yet. How about I pay money once it happens.
OG
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:Px7Aj.101042$jH4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...> news:ahv6a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> [snip by A for brevity]
>
Surely snipped by A for cowardice
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: You talk about my "name" a lot for someone unable to
discuss my science, objectively. How do we know that... Eric Gisse
isn't a pseudonym? Don't spread yourself so thin, and reply on
focused issues of physics. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
Folks: No one needs to buy tickets for my good news: 'The Dark Ages of
Einstein' has ended! PD can keep his money to buy shotgun shells that
shoot kitty litter and watermelon rinds. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
Androcles: We need more brevity, AND less cowardice! If there were
more "brave", objective thinkers out there, all they would need to say
is: "Wow! Einstein WAS a moron, wasn't he! -- NoEinstein --
The Ghost In The Machine
<noein...@bellsouth.net>
wrote
on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 18:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
<798107ba-0e71-4b84...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
So what, precisely, did you want us to think, then? I see no major
discrepancies in SR, though one difficulty is cogently explaining
why light wavelength uses the factor
lambda/lambda0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c)
whereas rod length (where the rod is moving along its axis) is:
length/length0 = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
(The short answer is because the wavelength endpoints are lambda/c apart.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
Androcles
| In sci.physics, NoEinstein
| <noein...@bellsouth.net>
| wrote
| on Sun, 9 Mar 2008 18:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
| <798107ba-0e71-4b84...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
| > On Mar 9, 2:14 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
| >> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
| >>
| >> news:Px7Aj.101042$jH4....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >>
| >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
| >> > message
| >> >news:ahv6a5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| >> > [snip by A for brevity]
| >>
| >> Surely snipped by A for cowardice
| >
| > Androcles: We need more brevity, AND less cowardice! If there were
| > more "brave", objective thinkers out there, all they would need to say
| > is: "Wow! Einstein WAS a moron, wasn't he! -- NoEinstein --
|
| So what, precisely, did you want us to think, then? I see no major
| discrepancies in SR,
That's because you are blind, prejudiced and fuckin' stupid.
Try to follow the math and you'll sound off on contortions in space
and time gobbledegook.
Since when was 1/2(16+4) = 16, the other half = 4, you shithead?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
PD
> On Mar 8, 11:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: No one needs to buy tickets for my good news: 'The Dark Ages of
> Einstein' has ended!
OK, so let's see. First you say that eventually you'll get royalties
for your Einstein disproofs, even though you decline to publish them.
Then you'll say that you'll get credit for your Einstein disproofs,
even though you decline to publish them. Then you tell "folks" that
they can buy tickets now to see your Einstein disproofs. Then you say
that no one needs to buy tickets.
Have you figured out exactly what your desired outcome is? And what
you're willing to do to make that happen?
Randy Poe
> On Mar 6, 10:16 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 6:09 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > I gotta give you credit for finding a new thing for Androcles to
> > totally misunderstand in a hilariously pathetic way.
>
> Dear Eric: Few people "totally misunderstand".
Then you have something to aspire to. If you haven't
achieved the ideal, you have come awfully close.
- Randy