Jos Boersema: "Even Newton was an idiot!"

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 10:27:16 AM11/5/02

to

Taking the liberty to open a separate thread for Boersema's
very latest and probably greatest.

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dc7ccdb$0$46608$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
> >josX a écrit:
> >> YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >>>josX a écrit:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Feel free to believe that a rocket shot straight up in a force-field
> >>>>can remain airborn forever, even though the force never goes to zero
> >>>>so it can't escape the field. You can even call it physics, i'm sure
> >>>>creationists also call their theory science. Pretty strange idea's the
> >>>>relativists have... imho.
> >>>
> >>>well... this is a direct consequence of F=m*a.
> >>
> >> A rocket, shot straight up, no angular momentum, no stars or objects in
> >> the entire universe, only present forcefield is F=G*m1*M2/R^2.
> >
> >It sounds similar to say :
> >«The sum Sum(n=1 to infinity)1/n^2 is infinity since the term 1/n^2 is
> >always nonzero positive»
> >
> >That is false as well.
> >
> >> Your words prove my case that scientists use math to fool people, because
> >> that rocket will come down, sooner or later.
> >
> >Ok, you pretend to be a F=m*a specialist as a soccer player, so from
> >F=m1*a and F=G*m1*M2/R^2, do the maths to obtain the equations of
> >movement. Are you unable to *use* the physic you are supposed to
> >defend even in such a simple application ?
>
> You know why i don't like this subject ?
> It exposes lies that are so deep that people will shy away, this is i
> think even taught at the high school level, so that broadens the base
> of it considderably.

[snipped remainder of essay - available on the fumble - MUST read]

It exposes Jos Boersema as a total definitive immortal piece of dumb
and dishonest imbecile, bragging about Newton's laws and getting into
a panic when a trivial combination of two of those laws produce
something he cannot possibly accept: escape velocity.

Title: "Escape Velocity? Even NEWTON was wrong!"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#EscapeVelocity

Where are you with your soccer playing now?

Dirk Vdm

josX

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 11:16:21 AM11/5/02

to

Newton was not wrong, but you are if you think his laws result in
a rocket never returning if shot straight up in a gravity field
F=G*m1*m2/R^2 at anything less then infinite speed without any
objects in the sky to catch the rocket.

You are desperately fumbling what i said to make it appear wrong.

Dammit, people buy into a rocket staying up forever in F=G*m1*m2/R^2
(a forcefield that never reaches zero) without orbits or other objects.
We certainly are still in the middle ages, and i've read we are even
worse in certain area's on our basic society structure, our money system
for instance (PLEASE read something from the link i posted below.)

Let me shortly digress with a little math:
102 people are sitting on an island.
Some go fishing, some go farming, some go build housing.
They create a little democracy and someone is elected leader with a
staff of 3 to do public works.
2 set up two banks.

Everybody makes a loan of $100 from the banks, at an interest-rate
of 10%, to be payed in full after one year. The government also has
to make a loan when it needs more money then taxes are coming in.

Do you see the problem?
You might not even believe it, but this is how it works. After the Amerikan
revolution, the power to create money was given to private bankers. Its
very smart they called this bank "federal bank", because if it was called
"Goldsmith&Co", too many people might have found out something here. This
system seems to be basically what we have here as well, governments lending
against private individuals, and those individuals who are big players are
ofcourse private banks who have a lot of money to speculate with against
future taxes to be funneled towards them when the government-bonds expire,
and only banks are granted to pay for these things with money they just
create from nowhere. Do you notice the odd thing? Government could just
as well simply produce their own monies from the press, they don't need to
take loans from private individuals who can create money from the press
(loans).
This wasn't physics, but it sure is important imho, more so then the
debunking of the relativity hoax.
--
-> "Debt Money, ancient meme" http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 11:39:46 AM11/5/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dc7eed3$0$46608$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

Every second you make it worse.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q="escape+velocity"+newton+laws

v = sqrt( 2*G*M/R ) with no other masses in the entire Universe.

> Let me shortly digress with a little math:

Forget it. You've had too much exposure to Spaceman.
Vicious but stupid. Rather harmless.

Dirk Vdm

Randy Poe

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 11:49:54 AM11/5/02

to

josX wrote:
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>It exposes Jos Boersema as a total definitive immortal piece of dumb
>>and dishonest imbecile, bragging about Newton's laws and getting into
>>a panic when a trivial combination of two of those laws produce
>>something he cannot possibly accept: escape velocity.
>>
>>Title: "Escape Velocity? Even NEWTON was wrong!"
>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#EscapeVelocity
>>
>>Where are you with your soccer playing now?
>
>
> Newton was not wrong, but you are if you think his laws result in
> a rocket never returning if shot straight up in a gravity field
> F=G*m1*m2/R^2 at anything less then infinite speed without any
> objects in the sky to catch the rocket.

A rocket is fired straight up from the surface of the earth
at 1000 km/sec. Tell me how far it gets before it turns
around. A rough estimate will do.

I claim it will never turn around. You claim it will.

I claim that the above equation proves DIRECTLY that it
will never turn around.

You claim that the above equation is consistent with
turning around at any finite speed. Prove it. Don't just
say it, prove it. Give me something, a time or a distance,
to indicate when or where it will turn around.

Part of your error here is the belief that anything which
is always decreasing must eventually go negative. Which is
simply wrong.

[Snip foray into jos-o-nomics].

Escape velocity is a big lie? PROVE IT.

Here's a related problem, though I know you won't get why
it's related:
Suppose I am in a rocket, and I take a journey
with the following rules. I will travel each 1000
km at exactly 1/2 of the speed as the previous 1000
km. I start out going 1000 km/sec.

So every step of this journey, I am decreasing in velocity.

Tell me how far I get before my velocity goes negative and
I am heading back again.

- Randy

Daryl McCullough

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 12:09:55 PM11/5/02

to

jo...@mraha.kitenet.net says...

>Newton was not wrong, but you are if you think his laws result in
>a rocket never returning if shot straight up in a gravity field
>F=G*m1*m2/R^2 at anything less then infinite speed without any
>objects in the sky to catch the rocket.

Josh, once upon a time, you said something like this: When you
first started studying relativity, you couldn't understand it,
and you blamed yourself---you thought maybe the problem was in
your abilities.

Well, you were right back then. Your abilities are the problem.

Newton's physics definitely predicts that a rocket launched with
a certain velocity (called the "escape velocity") will never return
to Earth. So obviously, you don't understand Newtonian physics, either.
I suggest that you actually learn Newtonian physics before you start
tackling relativity.

The prediction of Newtonian physics is that the escape
velocity for a rocket launched from the surface of the
Earth is given by

v = square-root(2GM/R)

where R = the radius of the Earth, and G = Newton's constant.
Using g = GM/R^2, we can rewrite this as

v = square-root(2gR)

Using g = 9.8 meters/second^2, and R = 6,371,000 meters,
we get:

v = 11.175 kilometers/second

or about 7 miles per second.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 12:56:00 PM11/5/02

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>

wrote in message news:orRx9.5376$Nd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...

That was a truly worthwhile essay. I am glad you decided to preserve it
for posterity. Who knows, even JosX might have a good laugh at it once
he has learnt some physics and some simple calculus.

Franz Heymann

Old Man

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 7:16:51 PM11/5/02

to

josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message

news:3dc7eed3$0$46608$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

JosX has reinvented a society wherein, people wander around,
pockets stuffed with money, and there is nothing to buy. Sound
familiar, as in former Soviet block countries? No banks there,
just one huge totalitarian government. For the people?
[Old Man]

YBM

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 7:24:14 PM11/5/02

to

Dirk Van de moortel a écrit:

> Taking the liberty to open a separate thread for Boersema's
> very latest and probably greatest.

He had been arguing about this question on sci.astro some
monthes ago, people there tried to explain him by almost
all possible ways (search on google:groups). He is obviously
beyond all kind of rationality.

YBM

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 7:44:47 PM11/5/02

to

There is a beautifull crackpot on fr.sci.physique as well.
Here a piece of his alternative SR :

Et=vt/c (obviously not null except in one point)
Tr and To are time interval as mesured in both frames.

from : (simultaneouly true of course, why being worried ?)
Tr=To - Et
Tr=To + Et

he obtains :

Tr^2=To^2-Et^2

He ends up giving non-linear "transformation" by
another mysterious mean and mix everthing in what
he calls "Hachelian Relativity" (Hachel is his
name)

Aardvark

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 4:14:32 AM11/6/02

to

jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<3dc7eed3$0$46608$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...

Trivial, 3-lines-of-simple-algebra consequence of f=mx-double-dot.

> You are desperately fumbling what i said to make it appear wrong.

Well, what you said was in direct contradiction to what Newton says.
So either (a) cretinX genius, Newton cretin, or (b) Newton genius,
cretinX cretin.

You decide!

josX

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 4:46:30 AM11/6/02

to

[ot]

No, there are banks (and thus fraud), its just that the money creation
process is not in private hands, but in public hands. It is a very
slight change behind the scenes in our current system. If we threw
the system around, 98% of the people would not know what exactly
was different. There are even taxes in this system, taxes to keep
the value of money the same for all time, which means no erosion of
money and thus means that you can keep your money in cash if you like
for extended periods, or use alternative storage then banks that is
cheaper (cash deposits). Nothing will change in the real world, only
an administrative change and that's it. The government will slowly be
able to pay off its debts with printed money, and slowly restrict the
banks more and more from issuing more money then they actually have
(banks must only loan out money they actually have, and not create it
from nothing). Ofcourse the government should never LEND money from
private individuals that it needs for the common good, that really is
a testament to the detrimental state of government these days. Even
the greeks did this better.

Perhaps you could not figure the problem i gave above ?
102 people
2 banks
Everybody takes a loan of $100, to be paid at 10% interest after 1 year.
You don't notice a problem ?

Do you notice who is getting potentially VERY VERY rich here ?
Remember, the banks may ask for a collateral when giving the loan.

Now you may understand why the USA government has $26 trillion dollars
debt. Do you know what that means? It means i think that the USA government
is bankrupt and should liquidate the entire country to be sold to others
as collateral by the banks. The USA is owned privately, including government.
Technically that point only happens when interest can't be payed anymore,
but ofcourse the banks won't let this happen, because with this sword over
the governments, they have a LOT of power.

Any sovereign country has the immediate power to end all debt of the nation,
simply by saying "we declare ourselves not in debt", then if certain banks
are hurt by this, do a one time change of their books (which is really
what money is all about: accounting (and accounting tricks)) so they are
ok again. And then print their own money. It may be a great idea to give
every individual a line of credit of say $10,000 at the age of 18 as a
measure to pump money into the economy, this money will then circulate along
with the government printed money. Taking a loan can then get into the
right moral corner: stupid behaviour, things that tie you to the lender.
Something you can do, but really shouldn't. Now *at large* we have no choice.
Somebody must take a loan, or else there would be no money left in the
system for use (the banks just sit there on the island with the offer of
giving loans, but nobody has money).

If you can't make the system work in theory on an island with 102 people,
you can certainly not make it work in a real life eonomy of billions.

Think about this crucial factor: once we have decided (on the island) what
will represent 1 "money item", HOW are you going to spread this money item
for use among the people, it is unfair to just give it to one private
individual to spend into the system, isn't it ?

Money is a public service, it should be in public hands from beginning to end.
The alternative is to have money in the hands of private individuals, which
simply equates to tiranny over the longer term.

And the solution is a fairly simple administrative change ! It is already
in the USA constitution too.
Thomas Jefferson was killed after a few weeks though, when he took the power
to print money into the hands of the public (democratic government) to pay
for certain things that the banks would only lend to him at 30% interest.
It is obvious that this is the ultimate power-point behind the scenes: the
point where the money is /created/ and dessimated into the society at large.
This point is in practice not in the hands of the public.

If you ever wondered if there is behind the scenes control of things, now
you know, and why this is a fundamental result of our system. Ultimate power
is not with the government in our present system, for *fundamental* reasons.

We have a broken system, the results are economic instability and HUGE power
in very very wrong hands. The power to destroy a country's economy, look at
Argentina to know what power this is, and we are not even talking about
paying politicians to get certain armies mobilized to do certain things,
or the control you get from owning major media outlets. If you got the money,
you can buy it. If you control the money-creation-point ...

Hence: our global instability and our fairly useless mainstream media,
who will for instance never report that relativity is disproven,
even though i have done it, others before me and others will do so in
the future. The debate is just never started, a debate if honestly
done which we will win very easily. I guess it threatens stability,
and it might raise fundamental questions about the believability of
"it all" (government, science, the system).
--
jos

David Evens

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 4:56:38 AM11/6/02

to

Actually, he probably got that from his friends at the Church Of The
Creator. (For those of you who don't know what it is, be careful.
Certain countries might throw ytou into prison for viewing their web
site.)

David Evens

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 4:58:05 AM11/6/02

to

On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:16:51 -0600, "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net>

Don't forget, nothing to buy, either. Standing on line a way of life,
with crops rotting in the fields...No wonder China and North Korea are
so famine prone.

Graham Rounce

unread,

Nov 5, 2002, 2:48:16 PM11/5/02

to

"Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message
news:aq8u1...@drn.newsguy.com...
> jo...@mraha.kitenet.net says...

> v = 11.175 kilometers/second
> or about 7 miles per second.

7 MILE A SECOND?! That's obvoiusly RIDICULOS! NOTHING can go at that
spped! Not even light, despite what the CONSPIRACY tells you! it's spped
is actually NEGATIVE, as anyone whos seen the lightening BEFORE the thunder
knows

Marko Nieuwenhuizen

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 9:47:23 AM11/6/02

to

jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in
news:3dc8e4f4$0$46608$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:

> 102 people
> 2 banks
> Everybody takes a loan of $100, to be paid at 10% interest after 1
> year. You don't notice a problem ?
>
> Do you notice who is getting potentially VERY VERY rich here ?

What's the problem with getting rich?

Arfur Dogfrey

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 1:12:30 PM11/6/02

to

jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<3dc7eed3$0$46608$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...

No, the middle ages were ruled by Aristotelian physics in which the
rocket would return to it's "natural" sphere. It was Newtonian
physics that predicted an escape velocity such that the rocket (shot
straight up) would never return.

I see your knowledge of economics rivals your knowledge of physics.

Arf!
Arfur

josX

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 2:04:16 PM11/6/02

to

Aristotle was quite right, heavier objects fall faster... ON THE EARTH
IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Meanwhile, Newton was rigth too, all objects fall
at the same speed IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE.

Only one person who's all around wrong here, not Aristotle, not Newton,
but a certain Albert, not Albert M. though, he too was quite right in fact.

Thanks!!
--
jos

m4r...@xs4a11.nl

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 2:22:52 PM11/6/02

to

In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> Aristotle was quite right, heavier objects fall faster... ON THE EARTH
> IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Meanwhile, Newton was rigth too, all objects fall
> at the same speed IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE.
>
> Only one person who's all around wrong here, not Aristotle, not Newton,
> but a certain Albert, not Albert M. though, he too was quite right in fact.

And how about that escape velocity that FOLLOWS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAWS?

--
Jos "josX" Boersema, crackpot, cook, psychotic, leech:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 2:32:48 PM11/6/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dc967ad$0$46599$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> dogs...@dog.com (Arfur Dogfrey) wrote:
> >jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<3dc7eed3$0$46608$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...

[snip]

> >No, the middle ages were ruled by Aristotelian physics in which the
> >rocket would return to it's "natural" sphere. It was Newtonian
> >physics that predicted an escape velocity such that the rocket (shot
> >straight up) would never return.
>
> Aristotle was quite right, heavier objects fall faster... ON THE EARTH
> IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

Ha, Aristotle was right for an EARTH WITH AN ATMOSPHERE.
So a full bottle of water falls faster than an empty one?
ON THE EARTH IN THE ATMOSPHERE?
Are you sure Boersema?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Aristotle

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 2:42:03 PM11/6/02

to

"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:3DC8612E...@nooos.fr...

I'll drop a note in sci.astro :-)
Thanks.

Dirk Vdm

Mel Lep

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 3:56:26 PM11/6/02

to

"Graham Rounce" <gra...@rounce.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> "Daryl McCullough" <da...@cogentex.com> wrote in message
> news:aq8u1...@drn.newsguy.com...
> > jo...@mraha.kitenet.net says...
> > v = 11.175 kilometers/second
> > or about 7 miles per second.
>
> 7 MILE A SECOND?! That's obvoiusly RIDICULOS! NOTHING can go at that
> spped! Not even light, despite what the CONSPIRACY tells you!

Really? Spaceship Tellus travels around sun with an average speed of
29.79 km/s or 18.5 mi/s.

> ... it's spped is actually NEGATIVE, as anyone whos seen the lightening
> BEFORE the thunder knows

Innovative idea. Be sure to copyright it before someone steals it.

M.L.

josX

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 4:14:11 PM11/6/02

to

m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:
>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> Aristotle was quite right, heavier objects fall faster... ON THE EARTH
>> IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Meanwhile, Newton was rigth too, all objects fall
>> at the same speed IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE.
>>
>> Only one person who's all around wrong here, not Aristotle, not Newton,
>> but a certain Albert, not Albert M. though, he too was quite right in fact.
>
>And how about that escape velocity that FOLLOWS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAWS?

It doesn't. If there is a force forever on the rocket, it will come down
sooner or later. Your math manipulations are off. The key is that the
force doesn't drop off by looking at the rocket and saying "ok, now we
must drop off this amount so as to not reduce the rocket's velocity to
0". It doesn't work that way, the force on the rocket is not defined such
that it's speed will never reach zero.
--
jos

josX

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 4:14:21 PM11/6/02

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes.
The heavier bottle will continue to accelerate for longer, achieving a
higher speed.

Throw down a pillow from the empire state building, also throw down a
bag with concrete mix. Same dimensions, different weight's.
--
jos

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 5:00:58 PM11/6/02

to

This is the problem i see:

If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance beyond
1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING as
moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out. 1+.5+.25 etc.

BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero NEVER,
then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
>0 * infinity = infinity.

There is no magical calculator on the rocket that changes *speed*, we are
not actually talking directly about speed. If the force is never zero,
but time is infinite, then i see no other alternative then that this
produces an infinite negative acceleration.

If science wasn't so filled with nonsense i would have had more reserves
about this, but as it stands i see no reason to take science's word any
more serious then whatever.

Also think about this: if you let an object fall to earth from a certain
height (looking at it from the other side), it will crash at a certain
speed, right? Now increase the hight with 1 km. The object will crash
with a higher speed, right? Is there a limit to being able to go higher?
No. So, is there a limit to the speed with which the rocket can hit
the surface? You tell me!
--
jos

josX

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 5:04:04 PM11/6/02

to

This is the problem i see:

If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance beyond
1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING as
moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out. 1+.5+.25 etc.

BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero NEVER,
then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
>0 * infinity = infinity.

There is no magical calculator on the rocket that changes *speed*, we are
not actually talking directly about speed. If the force is never zero,
but time is infinite, then i see no other alternative then that this
produces an infinite negative acceleration.

If science wasn't so filled with nonsense i would have had more reserves
about this, but as it stands i see no reason to take science's word any
more serious then whatever.

--
jos

Randy Poe

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 4:37:57 PM11/6/02

to

josX wrote:
> m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Aristotle was quite right, heavier objects fall faster... ON THE EARTH
>>>IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Meanwhile, Newton was rigth too, all objects fall
>>>at the same speed IF THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE.
>>>
>>>Only one person who's all around wrong here, not Aristotle, not Newton,
>>>but a certain Albert, not Albert M. though, he too was quite right in fact.
>>
>>And how about that escape velocity that FOLLOWS DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAWS?
>
>
> It doesn't. If there is a force forever on the rocket, it will come down
> sooner or later.

What do you base this statement on? There is no such
rule in the universe that things that always decrease must
eventually reach zero. So where are you pulling this from?

> Your math manipulations are off.

They are Newton's.

> The key is that the
> force doesn't drop off by looking at the rocket and saying "ok, now we
> must drop off this amount so as to not reduce the rocket's velocity to
> 0".

Nobody is doing that.

> It doesn't work that way,

That's right, the derivation doesn't work that way. We don't
put the requirement on and then say that's what the force
must do. We say "here's a description of how fast the
force falls off with distance" and then we notice as
a direct consequence of that, that you can move fast
enough to be moving outward forever.

> the force on the rocket is not defined such
> that it's speed will never reach zero.

No, it's not defined that way. That property is DERIVED
from the definition of the force.

You have tried to obscure the issue by letting a buggy
computer program calculate the time-evolution of a rocket.
Are you or aren't you willing to see calculations of
F = G*m1*m2/r^2 and F = m*a by hand?

If you're willing, I'll make it dead simple and you
can verify every one of my calculations yourself,
or even tell me where you think I'm in error as
we did with your program. (The error it makes
is that it assumes force is constant over huge
intervals of time, so it is no longer consistent
with Newton's laws).

- Randy

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 5:27:13 PM11/6/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dc98623$0$46600

>
> It doesn't. If there is a force forever on the rocket, it will come
down
> sooner or later.

JosX knows sweet fanny adams. He does not even understand that the
escape velocity from the surface of the earth is extremely simple to
calculate. He thinks there is no such thing as an escape velocity.
That disqualifies him from saying anything whatsoever concerning
physics.

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 5:27:12 PM11/6/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message

news:3dc967ad$0$46599$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

[...]

>
> Only one person who's all around wrong here,

Namely JosX, who cannot calculate even something as simple as an escape
velocity.

Franz Heymann

m4r...@xs4a11.nl

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 5:30:30 PM11/6/02

to

In nl.wetenschap josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> This is the problem i see:
>
> If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance beyond
> 1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING as
> moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out. 1+.5+.25 etc.
>
> BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero NEVER,
> then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
> >0 * infinity = infinity.

No, this is EXACTLY the same thing you described one paragraph earlier.
1+.5+.25+.125 (etc) is also an infinite sum of values that are all
greater than zero. Yet you seem to understand that this sum will not
go towards infinity, but instead goes towards 2. So what we have there
is ">0 * infinity = 2". Why do you recognize this simple fact in one
paragraph, and then deny it in the next?

> There is no magical calculator on the rocket that changes *speed*, we are
> not actually talking directly about speed. If the force is never zero,
> but time is infinite, then i see no other alternative then that this
> produces an infinite negative acceleration.

Why? According to your God Newton, F=m*a, or a=F/m, meaning the CHANGE
in speed is equal to F/m. Since F decreases as you get further
away from earth, so will the CHANGE IN SPEED decrease as you get
further away from earth. In other words: the speed will continually
decrease, but the amount by which it decreases goes down all the time.

Consider this: 2.0 - 0.5 - 0.25 - 0.125 - (etc). We start out with
a value of 2. We subtract an infinite number of greater-than-zero values,
each one a little smaller than the one before. According to your logic,
we should end up with minus infinity (since we keep subtracting numbers),
yet it is clear that the result will never even go below 1.

--
Jos "josX" Boersema, crackpot, cook, psychotic, leech:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/josboersema.html (updated!)

RP Henry

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 5:55:57 PM11/6/02

to

josX wrote:

> Also think about this: if you let an object fall to earth from a certain
> height (looking at it from the other side), it will crash at a certain
> speed, right? Now increase the hight with 1 km. The object will crash
> with a higher speed, right? Is there a limit to being able to go higher?
> No. So, is there a limit to the speed with which the rocket can hit
> the surface? You tell me!

Yes.

Graham Rounce

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 6:16:50 PM11/6/02

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote

in message news:TPfy9.7957$Nd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...

> What on "the" earth makes you think it is a match? ;-P

Well my sun, y'shouldn't start what y'can't finish. That Mel Lep's a
liability to your side, if y'ask me. Ain't got no sensa'umour

PNU rules

Marko Nieuwenhuizen

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 6:30:50 PM11/6/02

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>

wrote in news:A7ey9.7729$Nd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be:

I'm sorry Dirk, but a heavy bottle does fall faster:

F_res = F_g - F_drag

F_res = m*g - F_drag

a = F_res/m = g - F_drag/m

which means that the accelleration of the full bottle (higher mass) must be
higher than that of the empty one

The difference is, of course, negligible:

F_drag works out to (IIRC) .5 * C_drag * A * rho * v^2

with

rho = density of air (1 kg/m^3)
C_drag = drag coefficient, let's say 0.3
A = frontal surface, say 75 cm^2 = 7.5*10^-4 m^2
v = velocity, let's take 1 m/s to get an idea of the order of magnitude:

F_drag = appr. 1*10^-4 N

and suppose m_bottle = 1 kg, then F_drag/m is about 100000 times smaller
than g.

Still, this doesn't change anything to the fact that Newton's laws of
gravitation result in the existence of an escape velocity.

Marko

josX

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 6:36:04 PM11/6/02

to

m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:
>In nl.wetenschap josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> This is the problem i see:
>>
>> If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance beyond
>> 1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING as
>> moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out. 1+.5+.25 etc.
>>
>> BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero NEVER,
>> then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
>> >0 * infinity = infinity.
>
>No, this is EXACTLY the same thing you described one paragraph earlier.
>1+.5+.25+.125 (etc) is also an infinite sum of values that are all
>greater than zero. Yet you seem to understand that this sum will not
>go towards infinity, but instead goes towards 2. So what we have there
>is ">0 * infinity = 2". Why do you recognize this simple fact in one
>paragraph, and then deny it in the next?

Because force is m/sec^2, even a force that drops off at 1+.5+.25...
will result in an infinite acceleration, given infinite time. I don't
really seem to get it: no matter how small you make the acceleration,
if you give it infinite time, how can it not produce an infinite
change is speed ? Forever the object will be accelerated, that is the
essense of it, so it will go fast*er* forever. I don't get how this
can not produce an infinite speed eventually.

>> There is no magical calculator on the rocket that changes *speed*, we are
>> not actually talking directly about speed. If the force is never zero,
>> but time is infinite, then i see no other alternative then that this
>> produces an infinite negative acceleration.
>
>Why? According to your God Newton, F=m*a, or a=F/m, meaning the CHANGE
>in speed is equal to F/m. Since F decreases as you get further
>away from earth, so will the CHANGE IN SPEED decrease as you get
>further away from earth. In other words: the speed will continually
>decrease, but the amount by which it decreases goes down all the time.
>
>Consider this: 2.0 - 0.5 - 0.25 - 0.125 - (etc). We start out with
>a value of 2. We subtract an infinite number of greater-than-zero values,
>each one a little smaller than the one before. According to your logic,
>we should end up with minus infinity (since we keep subtracting numbers),
>yet it is clear that the result will never even go below 1.

What is the *fundamental* change between throwing a ball up at 1m/sec
and at 2m/sec. None right? Good.
What fundamental has changed when you throw it up with 3m/sec. None?
Agreed. We only change some parameters, nothing special.
Meanwhile, the speed is continuesly decreasing with a smaller amount,
how come it does return at all!
That is the way gravity works, the force keeps pushing the object down
forever, eventually it will have to turn around, because the force
never stops. I know .5+.25+.125 will not go infinite, but where does
it say this is how gravity works: F=G*m1*m2/R^2 ? Skewy analogies aren't
very usefull here. Suppose the object is very far away, then in the
next timeframe, it will get less and less of a percentage away from
it's total distance already achieved, so R^2 will change less and less
percentage wise per timeframe. Yet the speed reduces all the time, while
the force remains equal more and more. I conclude from that that .5+.25...
is not the topic, but that the object must return.
--
jos

josX

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 7:04:36 PM11/6/02

to

jos wrote:

>m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:
>>In nl.wetenschap josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> This is the problem i see:
>>>
>>> If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance beyond
>>> 1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING as
>>> moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out. 1+.5+.25 etc.
>>>
>>> BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero NEVER,
>>> then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
>>> >0 * infinity = infinity.
>>
>>No, this is EXACTLY the same thing you described one paragraph earlier.
>>1+.5+.25+.125 (etc) is also an infinite sum of values that are all
>>greater than zero. Yet you seem to understand that this sum will not
>>go towards infinity, but instead goes towards 2. So what we have there
>>is ">0 * infinity = 2". Why do you recognize this simple fact in one
>>paragraph, and then deny it in the next?
>

>Because force is m/sec^2, even a force that drops off at 1+.5+.25...
>will result in an infinite acceleration, given infinite time. I don't
>really seem to get it: no matter how small you make the acceleration,
>if you give it infinite time, how can it not produce an infinite
>change is speed ? Forever the object will be accelerated, that is the
>essense of it, so it will go fast*er* forever. I don't get how this
>can not produce an infinite speed eventually.
>

>>> There is no magical calculator on the rocket that changes *speed*, we are
>>> not actually talking directly about speed. If the force is never zero,
>>> but time is infinite, then i see no other alternative then that this
>>> produces an infinite negative acceleration.
>>
>>Why? According to your God Newton, F=m*a, or a=F/m, meaning the CHANGE
>>in speed is equal to F/m. Since F decreases as you get further
>>away from earth, so will the CHANGE IN SPEED decrease as you get
>>further away from earth. In other words: the speed will continually
>>decrease, but the amount by which it decreases goes down all the time.
>>
>>Consider this: 2.0 - 0.5 - 0.25 - 0.125 - (etc). We start out with
>>a value of 2. We subtract an infinite number of greater-than-zero values,
>>each one a little smaller than the one before. According to your logic,
>>we should end up with minus infinity (since we keep subtracting numbers),
>>yet it is clear that the result will never even go below 1.
>

>What is the *fundamental* change between throwing a ball up at 1m/sec
>and at 2m/sec. None right? Good.
>What fundamental has changed when you throw it up with 3m/sec. None?
>Agreed. We only change some parameters, nothing special.
>Meanwhile, the speed is continuesly decreasing with a smaller amount,
>how come it does return at all!
>That is the way gravity works, the force keeps pushing the object down
>forever, eventually it will have to turn around, because the force
>never stops. I know .5+.25+.125 will not go infinite, but where does
>it say this is how gravity works: F=G*m1*m2/R^2 ? Skewy analogies aren't
>very usefull here. Suppose the object is very far away, then in the
>next timeframe, it will get less and less of a percentage away from
>it's total distance already achieved, so R^2 will change less and less
>percentage wise per timeframe. Yet the speed reduces all the time, while
>the force remains equal more and more. I conclude from that that .5+.25...
>is not the topic, but that the object must return.

I always found this to be an amuzing problem with escape velocity:
when you shoot it out at escape-velocity, it "won't return ever",
which means litterally: it will keep moving at some positive speed
forever accross all universe, galaxies and whatever have you, going
going going going going, never stop, go go go etc etc. Never stopping.
Now, you launch it at a MINUTE fraction below escape velocity. This
means it will stop at some place. Now increase speed towards escape
velocity. It will go farther and farther, farther and farther. But
there is always some definite point where it returns, and falls back.
OTOH, we have full escape velocity, where it "continues forever".
If we approach this velocity from above, the eventual speed of the
rocket will be less and less and less and less. Eventually, this speed
becomes an imperceptably slow crawl over mega-ages if you are going to
go close enough to escape velocity from above. Essentially, the objects
has stopped in mid-air. Wow, some feat.

Meanwhile, the force up there changes practically nothing anymore because
the speed of the object is so damn low, it hardly gains any more distance
from earth, and even if it does some, although imperceptably small, the
force is only dropping down per extra distance very very little.

I just can't swallow this escape velocity thing.
- where is the fundamental change in the formula, its all just parameters
- what happens around "escape velocity" makes no sense to me
--
jos

YBM

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 7:15:51 PM11/6/02

to

josX a écrit:

> What is the *fundamental* change between throwing a ball up at 1m/sec
> and at 2m/sec. None right? Good.
> What fundamental has changed when you throw it up with 3m/sec. None?
> Agreed. We only change some parameters, nothing special.
> Meanwhile, the speed is continuesly decreasing with a smaller amount,
> how come it does return at all!

What is the fundamental change between heating some water to 1°C and to
2°C ? and to 3°C ? and to 99°C ? Why does it began to boil at 100°C ?

> That is the way gravity works, the force keeps pushing the object down
> forever, eventually it will have to turn around, because the force
> never stops. I know .5+.25+.125 will not go infinite, but where does
> it say this is how gravity works: F=G*m1*m2/R^2 ? Skewy analogies aren't
> very usefull here. Suppose the object is very far away, then in the
> next timeframe, it will get less and less of a percentage away from
> it's total distance already achieved, so R^2 will change less and less
> percentage wise per timeframe.

R^2 is changing less, ok, but R^2 stay significantly bigger than it was
at the beginning ! There is less speed, but there even lesser
acceleration ! Acceleration is decreasing fast enough to not be able
to win on a velocity which is decreasing less fast.

You are perhaps thinking about gravity like it was a elastic string,
the force such a string apply on a object is (roughly) proportionnal
with its length, but for gravity it's the more than the opposite
case : it's about proportionnal not only to the inverse of the length,
but to the *square of this length* !

You seem to assume that the escape velocity is
independant of the altitude where the object is thrown. Of course
not, it's obvious, as gravity decrease, that it's decreasing as
well. BTW, an object thrown faster than the escape velocity at ocean
level, will remain, at every moment, moving at a greater than the
escape velocity at its altitude. Get it ? No ? Well, did you ever
study differential calculus ? It's all about giving these kind of
half-qualitatives reflexion quantitatives methods.

> Yet the speed reduces all the time, while
> the force remains equal more and more. I conclude from that that .5+.25...
> is not the topic, but that the object must return.

It is exactly the topic, because a well designed computer simulation of
this process is basically the calculus of successives sums of a
convergent infinite sum (it's a integration on a finite domain of
a convergent integral).

YBM

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 7:32:06 PM11/6/02

to

josX a écrit:

> I always found this to be an amuzing problem with escape velocity:
> when you shoot it out at escape-velocity, it "won't return ever",
> which means litterally: it will keep moving at some positive speed
> forever accross all universe, galaxies and whatever have you, going
> going going going going, never stop, go go go etc etc. Never stopping.
> Now, you launch it at a MINUTE fraction below escape velocity. This
> means it will stop at some place. Now increase speed towards escape
> velocity. It will go farther and farther, farther and farther. But
> there is always some definite point where it returns, and falls back.
> OTOH, we have full escape velocity, where it "continues forever".
> If we approach this velocity from above, the eventual speed of the
> rocket will be less and less and less and less. Eventually, this speed
> becomes an imperceptably slow crawl over mega-ages if you are going to
> go close enough to escape velocity from above. Essentially, the objects
> has stopped in mid-air. Wow, some feat.
>
> Meanwhile, the force up there changes practically nothing anymore because
> the speed of the object is so damn low, it hardly gains any more distance
> from earth, and even if it does some, although imperceptably small, the
> force is only dropping down per extra distance very very little.

Well. So ?

> I just can't swallow this escape velocity thing.
> - where is the fundamental change in the formula, its all just parameters

Couldn't you think about phenomenons, where quantitative change of
a parameter produces a qualitative change of the situation ? Can we
suppose you did some elementary math ? Have a look of the solutions
of x^2+2x+k=0 when k grows from 0. (Hint, there is someting special
around 1)

> - what happens around "escape velocity" makes no sense to me

Try, study Newtonian physics, study the related math. Write a correct
simulation of the process, with curves. Take all the years you need,
then come back to relativity.

m4r...@xs4a11.nl

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 8:02:06 PM11/6/02

to

(long reply, bear with me)

In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:

> m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:
>>In nl.wetenschap josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>> This is the problem i see:
>>>
>>> If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance beyond
>>> 1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING as
>>> moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out. 1+.5+.25 etc.
>>>
>>> BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero NEVER,
>>> then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
>>> >0 * infinity = infinity.
>>
>>No, this is EXACTLY the same thing you described one paragraph earlier.
>>1+.5+.25+.125 (etc) is also an infinite sum of values that are all
>>greater than zero. Yet you seem to understand that this sum will not
>>go towards infinity, but instead goes towards 2. So what we have there
>>is ">0 * infinity = 2". Why do you recognize this simple fact in one
>>paragraph, and then deny it in the next?
>
> Because force is m/sec^2, even a force that drops off at 1+.5+.25...
> will result in an infinite acceleration, given infinite time. I don't
> really seem to get it: no matter how small you make the acceleration,
> if you give it infinite time, how can it not produce an infinite
> change is speed ? Forever the object will be accelerated, that is the
> essense of it, so it will go fast*er* forever. I don't get how this
> can not produce an infinite speed eventually.

Acceleration is nothing more than change-in-speed. If the initial
speed is 1 m/s, and the acceleration is -.5 m/s^2, then after 1 second,
the speed will be 0.5 m/s. If the acceleration then goes to -.25 m/s^2,
the resulting speed will be .25 m/s after another second. If the
acceleration then decreases again to -.125 m/s^2, the resulting speed
will be .125 m/s after another second, etcetera. The speed will continue
decreasing, but it will NEVER REACH ZERO, because the acceleration drops
even faster.
Now, consider what would happen if the acceleration didn't drop that fast.
For example, the initial speed is 1 again, and the acceleration starts
out at -0.5 m/s^2 again, but only drops by 20% every iteration, instead
of 50%. Now, after 1 second, the resulting speed will be 0.5 m/s again
(same initial acceleration), but for the next iteration, acceleration
will be 80% of -0.5, or -0.4 m/s^2. So after another second, the speed
is 0.1 m/s. Now acceleration becomes 80% of -0.4, which is -0.32 m/s^2.
Now, the speed after another second will be -0.22 m/s, in other words:
the object changed directions!

So what you see above is that if acceleration drops fast enough, the
object will never reach a speed of zero, and thus never turn around.
Since acceleration is directly proportional to force, we can also
say that the force on the object needs to drop "fast enough" in order
for the object never to turn around. And since in our escape velocity
problem it is the force of gravity that is at work, and the force of
gravity is directly related to the distance from earth, we can say that
the distance between object and earth needs to increase fast enough in
order for the object never to return. Distance-per-time of course
equals speed.

So there we have it:
1 - if the speed of the object is "big enough", then:
2 - the distance to earth increases "fast enough", and therefore:
3 - the force of gravity decreases "fast enough", and thus:
4 - the acceleration decreases in magnitude "fast enough", and thus:
5 - the resulting speed will never become zero, and thus:
6 - the object will not return.
In other words: for some initial speed, force (and therefore acceleration)
will decrease fast enough that the resulting speed never reaches 0.
We call this initial speed 'escape velocity'.

> What is the *fundamental* change between throwing a ball up at 1m/sec
> and at 2m/sec. None right? Good.
> What fundamental has changed when you throw it up with 3m/sec. None?
> Agreed. We only change some parameters, nothing special.

The faster ball will reach higher, to a point where gravity is lower.
The faster the ball goes, the faster it moves through the gravitational
field, the faster the force drops, the faster the acceleration decreases.
Above some limit, acceleration drops fast enough that speed never reaches
zero. We call this limit 'escape velocity'.

Russell Blackadar

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 8:17:53 PM11/6/02

to

Marko Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in news:A7ey9.7729$Nd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be:
>
> >
> > "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
> > news:3dc967ad$0$46599$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >> dogs...@dog.com (Arfur Dogfrey) wrote:
> >> >jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message
> >> >news:<3dc7eed3$0$46608$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> >No, the middle ages were ruled by Aristotelian physics in which the
> >> >rocket would return to it's "natural" sphere. It was Newtonian
> >> >physics that predicted an escape velocity such that the rocket (shot
> >> >straight up) would never return.
> >>
> >> Aristotle was quite right, heavier objects fall faster... ON THE
> >> EARTH IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
> >
> > Ha, Aristotle was right for an EARTH WITH AN ATMOSPHERE.
> > So a full bottle of water falls faster than an empty one?
> > ON THE EARTH IN THE ATMOSPHERE?
> > Are you sure Boersema?
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> > #Aristotle
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> >
>
> I'm sorry Dirk, but a heavy bottle does fall faster:

Yes.

Dirk, your intuition has failed you. I'm sorry to say that
Jos is right and you're wrong, on this one point.

>
> F_res = F_g - F_drag
>
> F_res = m*g - F_drag
>
> a = F_res/m = g - F_drag/m
>
> which means that the accelleration of the full bottle (higher mass) must be
> higher than that of the empty one
>
> The difference is, of course, negligible:

Not really. At best one should say, it depends.

>
> F_drag works out to (IIRC) .5 * C_drag * A * rho * v^2
>
> with
>
> rho = density of air (1 kg/m^3)
> C_drag = drag coefficient, let's say 0.3
> A = frontal surface, say 75 cm^2 = 7.5*10^-4 m^2
> v = velocity, let's take 1 m/s to get an idea of the order of magnitude:

But that's a very low velocity. Drop the bottles off a tower
and the velocities will soon be much higher.

>
> F_drag = appr. 1*10^-4 N
>
> and suppose m_bottle = 1 kg, then F_drag/m is about 100000 times smaller
> than g.

That mass is for a *full* bottle. An empty bottle (assuming
plastic) would be less than a tenth of that. My point being
that terminal velocity (where g = F_drag/m) would be at least
sqrt(10) greater for the full bottle as for the empty one. Not
a negligible difference at all.

Look at it this way, Dirk:

If you are going to jump out of an airplane with a parachute,
make sure it is made of some lightweight material, not out of
lead.

>
> Still, this doesn't change anything to the fact that Newton's laws of
> gravitation result in the existence of an escape velocity.

Agreed!

YBM

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 8:21:10 PM11/6/02

to

YBM a écrit:

> Try, study Newtonian physics, study the related math. Write a correct
> simulation of the process, with curves. Take all the years you need,
> then come back to relativity.

Jos is especially dumb (or perverse), since someone wrote down a
(beautiful) demonstration of the existence of escape velocity on
sci.astro especially for *him* on May 2001, escaping the use
of "obfuscated" integral calculus :

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9f1fr4%247uu%241%40zot.isi.edu&rnum=1

(have a look at the complete thread to see the remarks about
a mysterious "Jos")

If he prefers the real, precise, math, I found out this for him :

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~jmahaffy/courses/f00/math122/lectures/integration_by_sub/intbysub.html

He has everything in his hands to realize, even *draw* what happens
around the escape velocity, even generate an *animation* of what
happens when the Vo parameter reaches this value.

Aren't all this "conspirationists" especially kind ?

m4r...@xs4a11.nl

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 8:42:31 PM11/6/02

to

In nl.wetenschap YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
> Jos is especially dumb (or perverse), since someone wrote down a
> (beautiful) demonstration of the existence of escape velocity on
> sci.astro especially for *him* on May 2001, escaping the use
> of "obfuscated" integral calculus :
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9f1fr4%247uu%241%40zot.isi.edu&rnum=1

That is indeed a very beautiful and easily understood explanation and proof.
How anybody can still deny the existence of escape velocity after that is
beyond me. Then again, we are dealing with a certified bonafide lunatic
here: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aart90%24sdl%241%40news1.xs4all.nl

YBM

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 9:19:47 PM11/6/02

to

m4r...@xs4a11.nl a écrit:

> In nl.wetenschap YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote:
>
>>Jos is especially dumb (or perverse), since someone wrote down a
>>(beautiful) demonstration of the existence of escape velocity on
>>sci.astro especially for *him* on May 2001, escaping the use
>>of "obfuscated" integral calculus :
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=fr&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=9f1fr4%247uu%241%40zot.isi.edu&rnum=1
>
>
> That is indeed a very beautiful and easily understood explanation and proof.
> How anybody can still deny the existence of escape velocity after that is
> beyond me. Then again, we are dealing with a certified bonafide lunatic
> here: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=aart90%24sdl%241%40news1.xs4all.nl

I have read this proof again, and find it properly marvelous. It could
be shown in schools at so young pupils that I wonder why basics in
newtonian physics are not taught far sooner (that would prevent
josx-like to appear)

To come back to our patient here, I use a very simple Linux free
software (josx can get it by a simple "apt-get install gtkgraph",
since he is a Debian user) showing how the altitude reached by a
verticaly thrown ball (the square of it in fact) evolves in
function of its initial velocity :

http://zgub.homelinux.org/josx/maxalt.png

(I took g=R=1, so e.v.=sqrt(2))

YBM

unread,

Nov 6, 2002, 9:24:00 PM11/6/02

to

RP Henry a écrit:

You have made some fun of josx by giving the value of this limit ;-)

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 3:23:24 AM11/7/02

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 5:41:58 AM11/7/02

to

jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in
news:3dca296f$0$46598$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:

> Ok, yesterday i was thinking i might have been off on this one. I
> think i am off. There can be a qualitative change in principle if the
> force makes it decrease speed a little over half, to only a half of
> its speed.
>
> You guys win.
>
> You argued the math, i have to give it up for that.

It's a good thing you know you were wrong. It's even better you dare to
admit it. Still better would be if you tried to understand (study) the math
in question, for it isn't very hard.

Marko

Marko Nieuwenhuizen

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 5:49:15 AM11/7/02

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>

wrote in news:0qpy9.8383$Nd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be:

> I know, I know...
> I was too fast and too enthusiastic about having 3 juicy
> Boersema fumbles in a row. And I was too tired.
> I should have known better because I have been explaining
> something similar to my son last year.
>
> Humbly standing corrected,
> sorry Jos, thanks Marco, thanks Russell
> I will make a correction to the fumble page this evening.
>
> Dirk Vdm
>
>
>
>

Will you replace it with your own? :-)

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 6:41:42 AM11/7/02

to

"Marko Nieuwenhuizen" <no.t...@spam.com> wrote in message news:aqdgfb$dfh$3...@news.tue.nl...

I had decided to do just that, but having seen another recent
rather spectacular development, I think I will simply remove
the last 3 entries. If I would have had a long fight with you
about my being wrong/right, then in the end I surely would
have added myself. No problem. In fact it would be rather
neat to list myself :-)

Dirk Vdm

Mel Lep

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 7:10:18 AM11/7/02

to

"Graham Rounce" <gra...@rounce.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<aqc1aj$ks4$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> "Mel Lep" <mel...@yahoo.se> wrote in message
> news:15b86f54.0211...@posting.google.com...
> > Really? Spaceship Tellus travels around sun with an average speed of
>
> That's THE sun, if you don't mind! Haven't you noticed the match being
> played in the other thread? It's Dirk van de moortel vs Proper Nomenclature
> United!

OK,
"My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun"

M.L.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 8:03:38 AM11/7/02

to

"Mel Lep" <mel...@yahoo.se> wrote in message news:15b86f54.02110...@posting.google.com...

Which one is closer to the Earth? the Venus or the Mars?

Dirk Vdm

josX

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 8:08:58 AM11/7/02

to

Marco, can you please stop with this and/or remove your hate-site against
me? What have i ever done to you, you insult me, i have insulted you, so
we are even. I got away from the zetacrowd because i didn't trust them
anymore, i agree with escape velocity, i even helped debunk zetatalk on
sci.astro, haven't seen nancy there since.

I just don't as of yet agree with relativity, is that a crime that needs
to be punished with a hate site and constantly posting links to old posts
that have no relation to the topic, that i made a long time ago ? I've
made thousand of posts, there's 5,040 posts archived on google. Sure
you will find some nonsense between those, but isn't it a bit dishonest
to only point to the worst all the time ?

And you can call yourself mArco again, there is nobody in my killfile, btw.

Dirk, you should put your own fumble on your page, its not up to
standards for an immortal fumble ? If i had said it, wouldn't you have
added it with a big smirk on your face ? Common Dirk, you can do it :).
--
jos

Robert Kolker

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 10:24:23 AM11/7/02

to

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> Humbly standing corrected,
> sorry Jos, thanks Marco, thanks Russell
> I will make a correction to the fumble page this evening.

Don't eat humble pie just yet. Aristotle's principle implies the time of
the fall is inversely proportional to the weight of the object falling
and is also inversely proportional to the resistence of the medium. This
is one of the reasons Aristotle rejected the notion of a vacuum, since
it would imply an object would fall infinitely fast in a vacuum.

While it is true that air resistance would measurable affect the falling
of an empty bottle, if the bottle were dense enough empty, its falling
time would not be inversely proportional to its weight. An empty bottle
would a tad slower than a full one, but that is all.

Aristotelean physics ---- physics for children and retards.

Bob Kolker

Gregory L. Hansen

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 10:49:11 AM11/7/02

to

jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<3dc99118$0$46612$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...

> This is the problem i see:
>
> If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance beyond
> 1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING as
> moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out. 1+.5+.25 etc.
>
> BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero NEVER,
> then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
> >0 * infinity = infinity.
>

> There is no magical calculator on the rocket that changes *speed*, we are
> not actually talking directly about speed. If the force is never zero,
> but time is infinite, then i see no other alternative then that this
> produces an infinite negative acceleration.

This is why physics is quantitative--so we won't have to get bogged
down in touchy-feely arguments like this. The argument you've given
above is called "hand waving", and it's basically meaningless.

We have that F=ma. We have, from measurement, that gravitational
force is

F = GMm/r^2

Now either there's such a thing as escape velocity, or this
measurement of gravitational force is wrong. But if gravitational
force follows this relation, escape velocity is, well, inescapable, a
straight-forward deduction.

Randy Poe

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 10:38:00 AM11/7/02

to

josX wrote:
> m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:

>>You once gain demonstrate ignorance of the simple concept of integration.

>
>
> This is the problem i see:
>
> If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance beyond
> 1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING as
> moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out. 1+.5+.25 etc.
>
> BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero NEVER,
> then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
>
>>0 * infinity = infinity.

So let me get this straight. If we are just talking about
numbers, you accept that 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... doesn't become
infinite.

But if those numbers have the units of force or acceleration,
then you think 1 N + 1/2 N + 1/4 N + ... is infinite.

(a) What does that have to do with 0*infinity?
(b) 0 * infinity, if it has any meaning at all, is not infinite.
In many cases it's finite.

For instance, what's the limit of (x^2)*(1/x) as x->0?

- Randy

Randy Poe

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 10:48:25 AM11/7/02

to

josX wrote:
> m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:

> What is the *fundamental* change between throwing a ball up at 1m/sec
> and at 2m/sec. None right? Good.
> What fundamental has changed when you throw it up with 3m/sec. None?
> Agreed. We only change some parameters, nothing special.

Right. Force decreases as distance increases. Newton's
formula describes the exact relationship.

The 3 m/sec ball goes a little farther than the
2 m/sec ball, and the force pulling it back is a little
weaker at the farthest point.

Both of these balls not only fall back toward earth,
but hit the ground.

Newton recognized that when you get enough velocity,
the ball will go into orbit rather than reaching
the ground. So it's just a "change of parameters"
but the end situation is entirely different. Hitting
the ground; not hitting the ground. Just by a
"change of parameters".

Newton also recognized that as you further increase
speed, you get more and more energetic closed orbits,
and at a critical velocity, you get an "open orbit".
That is, it goes to infinity.

> Meanwhile, the speed is continuesly decreasing with a smaller amount,
> how come it does return at all!

Because the initial velocity is low and the rate of
decrease is high. A 1 m/sec decrease in velocity
makes a big difference to a ball going 3 m/sec. It
makes very little difference to a ball going 100000 m/sec.

> That is the way gravity works, the force keeps pushing the object down
> forever,

That's correct.

> eventually it will have to turn around, because the force
> never stops.

That's incorrect. There's no such requirement.

> I know .5+.25+.125 will not go infinite,

Good. So why do you think it goes infinite if these numbers
represent force but not if they represent pieces of pie?

> but where does
> it say this is how gravity works: F=G*m1*m2/R^2 ?

That's the process called integration. Over each
fraction of a second you get a number. These numbers
decrease in time. The formula tells you EXACTLY what
the numbers are, and how fast they decrease. It turns
out for certain situations that the sum of that infinite
set of decreasing numbers (the changes in velocity)
as given by F = G*m1*m2/R^2 is less than the initial
velocity.

> Skewy analogies aren't very usefull here.

But you don't trust arithmetic. If you really wanted
the answer for how F = G*m1*m2/R^2 leads to an infinite
sum that converges to a finite value, then you'd have to
be willing to believe the integration. Or the arithmetic
worked out by hand. But you don't. So I conclude you
don't want the answer to this question that you are
asking.

It isn't by "screwy analogy". It's by mathematics. It's
by exact calculation of what the infinite sequence of
numbers is, how fast they decrease, and what they add
up to. That process is called "integration", and Newton
was a major contributor to its invention.

- Randy

James Hunter

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 11:12:58 AM11/7/02

to

"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:8ce5c97e.02110...@posting.google.com...

> jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message
news:<3dc99118$0$46612$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...
>
> > This is the problem i see:
> > >

> This is why physics is quantitative--so we won't have to get bogged
> down in touchy-feely arguments like this. The argument you've given
> above is called "hand waving", and it's basically meaningless.
>
> We have that F=ma. We have, from measurement, that gravitational
> force is
>
> F = GMm/r^2
>
> Now either there's such a thing as escape velocity, or this
> measurement of gravitational force is wrong. But if gravitational
> force follows this relation, escape velocity is, well, inescapable, a
> straight-forward deduction.

But it doesn't follow that relationship if there are black holes,
a straight-forward assumption. It also doesn't follow that
relationalship if black holes quantumly evaporate either,
since both would imply that scientists actually know
what anti-matter is, which they don't.

Randy Poe

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 10:58:39 AM11/7/02

to

josX wrote:
> Meanwhile, the force up there changes practically nothing anymore because
> the speed of the object is so damn low, it hardly gains any more distance
> from earth, and even if it does some, although imperceptably small,

Your intuition was OK up to this point.

Just because the velocity is extremely low doesn't mean it
can't get far.

At some point the theory predicts that the object will be
moving at a ridiculously slow pace, like 0.01 mm/year.
But there is also only a tiny force on it, that might
reduce this by only a small percentage over each year.
Project that situation forward by a 10^15 years, and
the object has still managed to cover interstellar
distances, at speeds below 0.01 mm/year.

When we are talking about limits as things go to
infinity, these situations are part of what we are
adding up. "Infinity" is big. The mathematics is
extending the distances and times out beyond the limits
of the known universe.

The formula d = v0*t - 0.5*a*t^2 still works if
v0 = 10^-9 m/sec and a = 10^-30 m/sec^2, and d will
be very large before v = v0 - at reaches 0.

But in modeling gravity, you have to re-evaluate
a well before that point, and when you do, you
will find that the discrepancy between the size of
v and the size of a gets larger and larger as time
progresses.

- Randy

Uncle Al

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 11:33:27 AM11/7/02

to

josX wrote:
[snip]

> You guys win.
>
> You argued the math, i have to give it up for that.

All your vast volume of loathsome ignorant spew is equally falacious.
You know nothing, and boast about it incessantly and pestilentially.

Real science - even heterodox science - has scholarly literature
citations,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Do something naughty to physics.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.pdf
The short form.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 11:37:58 AM11/7/02

to

"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:3DCA85A8...@attbi.com...

That is what I *should* have said, specially since I have
more or less explained it to my son last year. We even had
a look at the differential equation together :-(
I just went too fast, so thanks for the support but I'll gladly
eat that pie :-)

Dirk Vdm

Robert Kolker

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 11:59:05 AM11/7/02

to

James Hunter wrote:
> But it doesn't follow that relationship if there are black holes,
> a straight-forward assumption. It also doesn't follow that
> relationalship if black holes quantumly evaporate either,
> since both would imply that scientists actually know
> what anti-matter is, which they don't.

Anti- matter is produced as a matter of course. Ever have a PET scan.
Try it, it just might show how empty your head is.

Bob Kolker

Robert Kolker

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 12:00:59 PM11/7/02

to

Randy Poe wrote:
> For instance, what's the limit of (x^2)*(1/x) as x->0?

Do you think he knows what a limit is?

Bob Kolker

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 12:16:55 PM11/7/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dca65ea$0$46604$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

[snip]

> Dirk, you should put your own fumble on your page, its not up to
> standards for an immortal fumble ? If i had said it, wouldn't you have
> added it with a big smirk on your face ? Common Dirk, you can do it :).

Fumbles that are retracted, dissapear. I have edited your
3 entries. Within a few weeks I will remove them altogether.
Since I immediately retracted my silly sloppy slimy mistake,
it does not count as a fumble and I will not create an entry
for it, although I had decided to do so this morning. By (my)
definition, to qualify, fumbling takes hardheaded perseverance.

I already told you about the lesson I learned.
I hope you have learned something too, both physics related
and attitude related.

Dirk Vdm

Robert Kolker

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 12:19:00 PM11/7/02

to

josX wrote:
>
> Marco, can you please stop with this and/or remove your hate-site against
> me? What have i ever done to you

Your endless spew and willful ignorance is an insult to humankind.

To be ignorant is not wrong, for we are all born ignorant. To -remain-
ignorant after you have been instructed is just plain perverse and stupid.

It is really too bad that the bill for storing your crap has not been
sent to you for prompt remittance.

Bob Kolker

josX

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 12:31:09 PM11/7/02

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dca65ea$0$46604$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
>[snip]
>
>> Dirk, you should put your own fumble on your page, its not up to
>> standards for an immortal fumble ? If i had said it, wouldn't you have
>> added it with a big smirk on your face ? Common Dirk, you can do it :).
>
>Fumbles that are retracted, dissapear. I have edited your
>3 entries. Within a few weeks I will remove them altogether.
>Since I immediately retracted my silly sloppy slimy mistake,
>it does not count as a fumble and I will not create an entry
>for it, although I had decided to do so this morning. By (my)
>definition, to qualify, fumbling takes hardheaded perseverance.

Jos Boersema (josX): Not 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) but 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
(3+4-Oct-2002)

I *immediately* retracted this, as a matter of record within 11 minutes.
Yet it is on your fumbles page ?
>-> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=anjq11%24dsn%242%40news1.xs4all.nl

I rest my case against :).
(BTW, i don't mind your fumbles page really, i think it is rather funny
in fact. It's that hate site of Marco i don't like.)

>I already told you about the lesson I learned.
>I hope you have learned something too, both physics related
>and attitude related.

--
jos

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 12:54:06 PM11/7/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dcaa35c$0$46605$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dca65ea$0$46604$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> Dirk, you should put your own fumble on your page, its not up to
> >> standards for an immortal fumble ? If i had said it, wouldn't you have
> >> added it with a big smirk on your face ? Common Dirk, you can do it :).
> >
> >Fumbles that are retracted, dissapear. I have edited your
> >3 entries. Within a few weeks I will remove them altogether.
> >Since I immediately retracted my silly sloppy slimy mistake,
> >it does not count as a fumble and I will not create an entry
> >for it, although I had decided to do so this morning. By (my)
> >definition, to qualify, fumbling takes hardheaded perseverance.
>
> Jos Boersema (josX): Not 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) but 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
> (3+4-Oct-2002)
>
> I *immediately* retracted this, as a matter of record within 11 minutes.

I remember that one: you retracted it after it had been on
nl.wetenschap for more than 24 hours with a remark by
Marko. You ignored it and posted the same mistake on
sci.physics.relativity. So I kept it.

> Yet it is on your fumbles page ?
> >-> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=anjq11%24dsn%242%40news1.xs4all.nl
>
> I rest my case against :).

I have removed it just now. Next case ;-)

> (BTW, i don't mind your fumbles page really, i think it is rather funny
> in fact. It's that hate site of Marco i don't like.)

Maybe you can make some kind of deal with Marco. If I were
you, I would think real hard and make a courageous proposition.

>
> >I already told you about the lesson I learned.
> >I hope you have learned something too, both physics related
> >and attitude related.
> --
> jos

Dirk Vdm

josX

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 1:42:43 PM11/7/02

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dcaa35c$0$46605$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dca65ea$0$46604$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>> Dirk, you should put your own fumble on your page, its not up to
>>>> standards for an immortal fumble ? If i had said it, wouldn't you have
>>>> added it with a big smirk on your face ? Common Dirk, you can do it :).
>>>
>>>Fumbles that are retracted, dissapear. I have edited your
>>>3 entries. Within a few weeks I will remove them altogether.
>>>Since I immediately retracted my silly sloppy slimy mistake,
>>>it does not count as a fumble and I will not create an entry
>>>for it, although I had decided to do so this morning. By (my)
>>>definition, to qualify, fumbling takes hardheaded perseverance.
>>
>> Jos Boersema (josX): Not 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2) but 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
>> (3+4-Oct-2002)
>>
>>I *immediately* retracted this, as a matter of record within 11 minutes.
>
>I remember that one: you retracted it after it had been on
>nl.wetenschap for more than 24 hours with a remark by
>Marko. You ignored it and posted the same mistake on
>sci.physics.relativity. So I kept it.

I remember it too. I didn't ignore it, i checked nl.wetenschap later
(i don't read them from the same server because news.xs4all.nl
is/used-to-be so slow.

>> Yet it is on your fumbles page ?
>> >-> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=anjq11%24dsn%242%40news1.xs4all.nl
>>
>> I rest my case against :).
>
>I have removed it just now. Next case ;-)

:)

>> (BTW, i don't mind your fumbles page really, i think it is rather funny
>> in fact. It's that hate site of Marco i don't like.)
>
>Maybe you can make some kind of deal with Marco. If I were
>you, I would think real hard and make a courageous proposition.

Let him blackmail me?

m4r...@xs4a11.nl

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 1:48:19 PM11/7/02

to

In nl.wetenschap josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:

> Marco, can you please stop with this and/or remove your hate-site against
> me? What have i ever done to you, you insult me, i have insulted you, so
> we are even. I got away from the zetacrowd because i didn't trust them
> anymore, i agree with escape velocity, i even helped debunk zetatalk on
> sci.astro, haven't seen nancy there since.
>
> I just don't as of yet agree with relativity, is that a crime that needs
> to be punished with a hate site and constantly posting links to old posts
> that have no relation to the topic, that i made a long time ago ? I've
> made thousand of posts, there's 5,040 posts archived on google. Sure
> you will find some nonsense between those, but isn't it a bit dishonest
> to only point to the worst all the time ?

The posts linked to are all fairly recent. They serve to illustrate
your delusions. Not agreeing with relativity is not a crime, however
combined with your blatant ignorance of relativity and your downright
lying about it, it is enough for me to keep the page up and tell
people about you.

> And you can call yourself mArco again, there is nobody in my killfile, btw.

That is purely an anti-spam measure. It was getting out of hand.

josX

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 2:09:41 PM11/7/02

to

m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:
>In nl.wetenschap josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> Marco, can you please stop with this and/or remove your hate-site against
>> me? What have i ever done to you, you insult me, i have insulted you, so
>> we are even. I got away from the zetacrowd because i didn't trust them
>> anymore, i agree with escape velocity, i even helped debunk zetatalk on
>> sci.astro, haven't seen nancy there since.
>>
>> I just don't as of yet agree with relativity, is that a crime that needs
>> to be punished with a hate site and constantly posting links to old posts
>> that have no relation to the topic, that i made a long time ago ? I've
>> made thousand of posts, there's 5,040 posts archived on google. Sure
>> you will find some nonsense between those, but isn't it a bit dishonest
>> to only point to the worst all the time ?
>
>The posts linked to are all fairly recent. They serve to illustrate
>your delusions. Not agreeing with relativity is not a crime, however
>combined with your blatant ignorance of relativity and your downright
>lying about it, it is enough for me to keep the page up and tell
>people about you.

Pretty think excuse Marco, but suit yourself. It will get reflected upon
you too that you uphold hate-sites against certain people who say things
you don't like which you evidently can't argue against in any other way.
Who needs a hate site who can win on merrit ? I don't, for instance.

>> And you can call yourself mArco again, there is nobody in my killfile, btw.
>
>That is purely an anti-spam measure. It was getting out of hand.

--
jos

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 2:22:40 PM11/7/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dcab421$0$46604$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dcaa35c$0$46605$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

[snip]

> >> (BTW, i don't mind your fumbles page really, i think it is rather funny
> >> in fact. It's that hate site of Marco i don't like.)
> >
> >Maybe you can make some kind of deal with Marco. If I were
> >you, I would think real hard and make a courageous proposition.
>
> Let him blackmail me?

I anticipated that remark.

Fwiw, a little background: I have twice read Brian Greene's
"The elegant Universe" about superstrings and M-theory.
Having perfectly able to follow and appreciate the i.m.o.
brilliant first introductory halve of the book, I had enormous
difficulties understanding the second halve. Some parts of it
sounded like utter gibberish.

My reaction was like, aw, this guy must be smart, this is way
out of my league. O.t.o.h. maybe it is a popularization, and it
can only really be understood and appreciated by someone
with a minimum -rather high level- theoretical background.

I could have reacted by going to some newsgroup and making
a lot of noise, shouting all over the place that all this modern
string stuff is totally absurd and definitely utterly wrong, in the
process most probably thoroughly annoying the people who
*do* have the right background to be able to digest the stuff.
They would wipe the floor with me, and i.m.o. quite rightfully so.

So I decided to draw a line, somewhere halfway the book.
This line marks the place where I have to stop trying to catch
up. At least for now (and probably for ever).
If I ever *do* find the time to teach myself whatever it takes
to be able to catch up and to cross the line, I might at a certian
point go to some newsgroup and ask some questions with the
intention to learn something. If I get nothing but incomprehensible
answers, then I'll probably stay away and change my mind
about crossing the line after all.

Ah well... these are just some thoughts... perhaps you are not
interested. I enjoyed writing them down anyway.
If you like you can think about it.

Dirk Vdm

m4r...@xs4a11.nl

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 2:27:47 PM11/7/02

to

In nl.wetenschap josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> Pretty think excuse Marco, but suit yourself. It will get reflected upon
> you too that you uphold hate-sites against certain people who say things
> you don't like which you evidently can't argue against in any other way.

There are many people that say things I don't like. The "morons of the
web" section of my website is not about that. It's about people who
are stupid without even knowing it, and demonstrate that clearly on
the internet in some obnoxious form.
I have argued against you and your bogus contradictions. Many other
people have too. You ignore them. You call their arguments
"fuzzbabble". You are unwilling and/or unable to learn (personally, I'm
convinced that you conceded the escape velocity debate just to get out
of it, not because you're actually convinced). With someone like you, it
is much easier to expose you once and for all, and then just point
people to that, instead of having to pick apart your "contradictions"
anew every single time. Not everybody is sitting at home all day with
nothing better to do than to post to usenet, you know. While you have
plenty of time to post misinformation and mislead people that come to
these newsgroups for information, others have little time to spend on
exposing you for the fraud that you are. It is important though to
explain to people that what you say about relativity is patently false.
For what its worth, I have added your comments about escape velocity and
the zeta-crowd to my "hate site". See? I'm not all bad.

Ahmed Ouahi, Architect

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 2:27:20 PM11/7/02

to

........ ...As the hate motivation is only the fear, definitely
auto-destruction is around the corner, as a matter a
fact!!!!!!!!!!!!......... ...

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:12:19 PM11/7/02

to

"Marko Nieuwenhuizen" <no.t...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:aqdgfb$dfh$3...@news.tue.nl...

> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>

> wrote in news:0qpy9.8383$Nd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be:
>
>
> > I know, I know...
> > I was too fast and too enthusiastic about having 3 juicy
> > Boersema fumbles in a row. And I was too tired.
> > I should have known better because I have been explaining
> > something similar to my son last year.

> >
> > Humbly standing corrected,
> > sorry Jos, thanks Marco, thanks Russell
> > I will make a correction to the fumble page this evening.
> >

> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Will you replace it with your own? :-)

That would make a mockery of the records. A genuine mistake,
straightforwardly acknowledged in the very next post is not a fumble in
the present context

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:12:12 PM11/7/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message

news:3dca296f$0$46598$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:
> >(long reply, bear with me)

> >In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
> >> m4r...@xs4a11.nl wrote:
> >>>In nl.wetenschap josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:

> >>>> This is the problem i see:
> >>>>

> >>>> If you go to the rigth forever, you may never reach any distance
beyond
> >>>> 1 meter, IF you also change the *amount you move* (the same THING
as
> >>>> moving to the right, not some derivative) so this works out.
1+.5+.25 etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> BUT if you are talking about *force*, and this force reaches zero
NEVER,
> >>>> then i am seeing an infinite amount of acceleration, because
> >>>> >0 * infinity = infinity.
> >>>

> >>>No, this is EXACTLY the same thing you described one paragraph
earlier.
> >>>1+.5+.25+.125 (etc) is also an infinite sum of values that are all
> >>>greater than zero. Yet you seem to understand that this sum will
not
> >>>go towards infinity, but instead goes towards 2. So what we have
there
> >>>is ">0 * infinity = 2". Why do you recognize this simple fact in
one
> >>>paragraph, and then deny it in the next?
> >>
> >> Because force is m/sec^2, even a force that drops off at
1+.5+.25...
> >> will result in an infinite acceleration, given infinite time. I
don't
> >> really seem to get it: no matter how small you make the
acceleration,
> >> if you give it infinite time, how can it not produce an infinite
> >> change is speed ? Forever the object will be accelerated, that is
the
> >> essense of it, so it will go fast*er* forever. I don't get how this
> >> can not produce an infinite speed eventually.
> >
> >Acceleration is nothing more than change-in-speed. If the initial
> >speed is 1 m/s, and the acceleration is -.5 m/s^2, then after 1
second,
> >the speed will be 0.5 m/s. If the acceleration then goes to -.25
m/s^2,
> >the resulting speed will be .25 m/s after another second. If the
> >acceleration then decreases again to -.125 m/s^2, the resulting
speed
> >will be .125 m/s after another second, etcetera. The speed will
continue
> >decreasing, but it will NEVER REACH ZERO, because the acceleration
drops
> >even faster.
> >Now, consider what would happen if the acceleration didn't drop that
fast.
> >For example, the initial speed is 1 again, and the acceleration
starts
> >out at -0.5 m/s^2 again, but only drops by 20% every iteration,
instead
> >of 50%. Now, after 1 second, the resulting speed will be 0.5 m/s
again
> >(same initial acceleration), but for the next iteration, acceleration
> >will be 80% of -0.5, or -0.4 m/s^2. So after another second, the
speed
> >is 0.1 m/s. Now acceleration becomes 80% of -0.4, which is -0.32
m/s^2.
> >Now, the speed after another second will be -0.22 m/s, in other
words:
> >the object changed directions!
> >
> >So what you see above is that if acceleration drops fast enough, the
> >object will never reach a speed of zero, and thus never turn around.
> >Since acceleration is directly proportional to force, we can also
> >say that the force on the object needs to drop "fast enough" in order
> >for the object never to turn around. And since in our escape velocity
> >problem it is the force of gravity that is at work, and the force of
> >gravity is directly related to the distance from earth, we can say
that
> >the distance between object and earth needs to increase fast enough
in
> >order for the object never to return. Distance-per-time of course
> >equals speed.
> >
> >So there we have it:
> >1 - if the speed of the object is "big enough", then:
> >2 - the distance to earth increases "fast enough", and therefore:
> >3 - the force of gravity decreases "fast enough", and thus:
> >4 - the acceleration decreases in magnitude "fast enough", and thus:
> >5 - the resulting speed will never become zero, and thus:
> >6 - the object will not return.
> >In other words: for some initial speed, force (and therefore
acceleration)
> >will decrease fast enough that the resulting speed never reaches 0.
> >We call this initial speed 'escape velocity'.

> >
> >> What is the *fundamental* change between throwing a ball up at
1m/sec
> >> and at 2m/sec. None right? Good.
> >> What fundamental has changed when you throw it up with 3m/sec.
None?
> >> Agreed. We only change some parameters, nothing special.
> >

> >The faster ball will reach higher, to a point where gravity is lower.
> >The faster the ball goes, the faster it moves through the
gravitational
> >field, the faster the force drops, the faster the acceleration
decreases.
> >Above some limit, acceleration drops fast enough that speed never
reaches
> >zero. We call this limit 'escape velocity'.
>
> Ok, yesterday i was thinking i might have been off on this one. I
> think i am off. There can be a qualitative change in principle if the
> force makes it decrease speed a little over half, to only a half of
> its speed.
>
> You guys win.

Yes. And they have won with every single pseudo-argument which JosX in
his inifinite stupidity has ever put up.
Judging by the amount of sheer balderdash which he uttered in this
thread, he should have stayed on at University for more than a week or
two before copping out.

> You argued the math, i have to give it up for that.

Will you also give up the nonsense you have been peddling about SR? If
you could have made such a hash of such a simple thing as escape
velocity, how on earth do you think you are in a position to pontificate
on SR?

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:12:14 PM11/7/02

to

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>

wrote in message news:Spry9.13$9M4....@news.cpqcorp.net...

>
> "josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:3dca296f$0$46598$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>

> [snip]

>
> > Ok, yesterday i was thinking i might have been off on this one. I
> > think i am off. There can be a qualitative change in principle if
the
> > force makes it decrease speed a little over half, to only a half of
> > its speed.
> >
> > You guys win.
> >

> > You argued the math, i have to give it up for that.
>

> Good. You just climbed one step on the ladder.
> I have to admit, this comes as a surprise.
>
> I will gladly make a few corrections on the fumble page this evening.
> The lesson that I just learned: tiredness and enthusiasm make a
> very dangerous combination.
>
> Meanwhile, just for fun and fwiw, here's my private version
> of the derivation, using no more than Newton's laws and some
> basic algebra and calculus, not even talking about energy.
>
> This is where we go:
>
> v = sqrt( v0^2 - 2*G*M*( 1/r0 - 1/r ) )
> limit for r --> infinity
> v_limit = sqrt( v0^2 - 2*G*M*/r0 )
>
> Here's the fun:
>
> Newton law:
> |F| = m*a
> Newton law:
> |F| = G*m*M/r^2
>
> definitions:
> r-axis pointing away from mass M
> v = dr/dt
> a = dv/dt = d/dt[dr/dt] = d^2r/dt^2
>
> combine laws (use minus sign for attraction along r-axis)
> d^2r/dt^2 = -G*M/r^2
> use definition derivative
> d/dt[dr/dt] = -G*M/r^2
> use property derivative
> d/dt[1/(dt/dr)] = -G*M/r^2
> use chain rule
> d/dr[1/(dt/dr)] * dr/dt = -G*M/r^2
> use chain rule
> (-1/(dt/dr)^2) * d^2t/dr^2 * dr/dt = -G*M/r^2
> simplify and rearrange
> (dt/dr)^(-3) * d^2t/dr^2 = G*M*r^(-2)
> use definition derivative
> (dt/dr)^(-3) * d/dr[dt/dr] = G*M*r^(-2)
> use property differentials
> (dt/dr)^(-3) * d[dt/dr] = G*M*r^(-2)*dr
> integrate
> left between dt/dr(r0) = 1/v0 and dt/dr
> right between r0 and r
> -1/2 * [ (dt/dr)^(-2) - (1/v0)^(-2) ] = -G*M*(1/r - 1/r0)
> simplify and rearrange
> (dt/dr)^(-2) = (1/v0)^(-2) - 2*G*M*( 1/r0 - 1/r )
> some more
> (dr/dt)^2 = v0^2 - 2*G*M*( 1/r0 - 1/r )
> use property derivative and definition v = dr/dt = 1/(dt/dr)
> v^2 = v0^2 - 2*G*M*( 1/r0 - 1/r )
> take square root
> v = sqrt( v0^2 - 2*G*M*( 1/r0 - 1/r ) )
>
> Remark:
> Functions r(t) and v(t) still unknown, but that's
> "another pair of sleeves" ;-)
>
> Interesting:
> limit for r --> infinity
> v_limit = sqrt( v0^2 - 2*G*M*/r0 )
> two cases:
> v0 = sqrt( 2*G*M/r0 ) <===> v_limit = 0
> v0 > sqrt( 2*G*M/r0 ) <===> v_limit > 0
>
> Interesting:
> v^2 = v0^2 - 2*G*M*( 1/r0 - 1/r )
> rearrange:
> 1/2 v^2 - 1/2 v0^2 = G*M/r - G*M/r0
> rearrange:
> 1/2 v^2 - G*M/r = 1/2 v0^2 - G*M/r0
> multiply with mass m
> 1/2 m*v^2 - G*m*M/r = 1/2 m*v0^2 - G*m*M/r0
> interpret:
> Kinetic Energy + Potential Energy is constant :-))
>
And what makes Dirk think that JosX will understand any of that, having
copped out from University after a few weeks?

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:12:15 PM11/7/02

to

"Marko Nieuwenhuizen" <no.t...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:aqdg1m$dfh$2...@news.tue.nl...
> jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in
> news:3dca296f$0$46598$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl:

>
>
> > Ok, yesterday i was thinking i might have been off on this one. I
> > think i am off. There can be a qualitative change in principle if
the
> > force makes it decrease speed a little over half, to only a half of
> > its speed.
> >
> > You guys win.
> >
> > You argued the math, i have to give it up for that.
>
>

> It's a good thing you know you were wrong. It's even better you dare
to
> admit it. Still better would be if you tried to understand (study) the
math
> in question, for it isn't very hard.
>
Frankly, there is not a cat in hell's chance that JosX will ever
understand any physics whatsoever.

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:12:16 PM11/7/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message

news:3dc9ae12$0$46606$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> >>> There is no magical calculator on the rocket that changes *speed*,
we are
> >>> not actually talking directly about speed. If the force is never
zero,
> >>> but time is infinite, then i see no other alternative then that
this
> >>> produces an infinite negative acceleration.
> >>
> >>Why? According to your God Newton, F=m*a, or a=F/m, meaning the
CHANGE
> >>in speed is equal to F/m. Since F decreases as you get further
> >>away from earth, so will the CHANGE IN SPEED decrease as you get
> >>further away from earth. In other words: the speed will continually
> >>decrease, but the amount by which it decreases goes down all the
time.
> >>
> >>Consider this: 2.0 - 0.5 - 0.25 - 0.125 - (etc). We start out with
> >>a value of 2. We subtract an infinite number of greater-than-zero
values,
> >>each one a little smaller than the one before. According to your
logic,
> >>we should end up with minus infinity (since we keep subtracting
numbers),
> >>yet it is clear that the result will never even go below 1.

> >
> >What is the *fundamental* change between throwing a ball up at 1m/sec
> >and at 2m/sec. None right? Good.
> >What fundamental has changed when you throw it up with 3m/sec. None?
> >Agreed. We only change some parameters, nothing special.

> >Meanwhile, the speed is continuesly decreasing with a smaller amount,
> >how come it does return at all!

> >That is the way gravity works, the force keeps pushing the object
down

> >forever, eventually it will have to turn around, because the force
> >never stops. I know .5+.25+.125 will not go infinite, but where does
> >it say this is how gravity works: F=G*m1*m2/R^2 ? Skewy analogies
aren't
> >very usefull here. Suppose the object is very far away, then in the
> >next timeframe, it will get less and less of a percentage away from
> >it's total distance already achieved, so R^2 will change less and
less
> >percentage wise per timeframe. Yet the speed reduces all the time,
while
> >the force remains equal more and more. I conclude from that that
.5+.25...
> >is not the topic, but that the object must return.
>
> I always found this to be an amuzing problem with escape velocity:
> when you shoot it out at escape-velocity, it "won't return ever",
> which means litterally: it will keep moving at some positive speed
> forever accross all universe, galaxies and whatever have you, going
> going going going going, never stop, go go go etc etc. Never stopping.

You are an idiot. Why don't you spend your time learning some physics
instead of wasting your life posting crap on the net?

> Now, you launch it at a MINUTE fraction below escape velocity. This
> means it will stop at some place. Now increase speed towards escape
> velocity. It will go farther and farther, farther and farther. But
> there is always some definite point where it returns, and falls back.

No, there need not be if the inverse square law prevails. Do lern to
perform a simple integral, and don't waste your time posting til you are
able to do so.

Your intuitive "thoughts" on this topic are as badly off the mark as
your "thoughts" on SR.

> OTOH, we have full escape velocity, where it "continues forever".
> If we approach this velocity from above, the eventual speed of the
> rocket will be less and less and less and less. Eventually, this speed
> becomes an imperceptably slow crawl over mega-ages if you are going to
> go close enough to escape velocity from above. Essentially, the
objects
> has stopped in mid-air. Wow, some feat.

Balls. If you start it with a speed equal to or higher than the escape
velocity it will continue to move away for ever with a positive non-zero
speed.

You are a flea brained impostor in this ng.

>
> Meanwhile, the force up there changes practically nothing anymore
because
> the speed of the object is so damn low, it hardly gains any more
distance
> from earth, and even if it does some, although imperceptably small,

the
> force is only dropping down per extra distance very very little.
>
> I just can't swallow this escape velocity thing.
> - where is the fundamental change in the formula, its all just
parameters
> - what happens around "escape velocity" makes no sense to me

That is only a measure of your minimal intellectual powers. The same
remnark holds good for your continual posting of rubbish about SR.
Be a good lad and go and learn some physics and mathemetics instead of
posting here.
With your level of intellect, that should keep you out of our hair for a
decade at least.
> --
Franz Heymann

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:12:17 PM11/7/02

to

"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:3DC9CDC3...@nooos.fr...

[...]

> I have read this proof again, and find it properly marvelous. It could
> be shown in schools at so young pupils that I wonder why basics in
> newtonian physics are not taught far sooner (that would prevent
> josx-like to appear)

Would you like to bet on that?

Franz Heymann
>

Franz Heymann

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:12:18 PM11/7/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message

news:3dca65ea$0$46604$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

[..]

>
> Marco, can you please stop with this and/or remove your hate-site
against
> me? What have i ever done to you, you insult me, i have insulted you,
so
> we are even. I got away from the zetacrowd because i didn't trust them
> anymore, i agree with escape velocity, i even helped debunk zetatalk
on
> sci.astro, haven't seen nancy there since.

Why don't you stop posting to sci.physics instead? Some of the home
truths about your intellect would then no longer be posted in return.

>
> I just don't as of yet agree with relativity, is that a crime that
needs
> to be punished

No. Imbecility is not a crime, but it behooves an imbecile to refrain
from discussing escape velocity and SR.

>I've
> made thousand of posts, there's 5,040 posts archived on google.

Yes. 5,040 posts full of pure horsedung.
And even after 5,040 posts, you have learnt sweet fanny adams.

[...]

Franz Heymann

Russell Blackadar

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:15:09 PM11/7/02

to

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>

> "Russell Blackadar" <rus...@mdli.com> wrote in message news:3DC9BF41...@mdli.com...

[snip]

> > If you are going to jump out of an airplane with a parachute,
> > make sure it is made of some lightweight material, not out of
> > lead.

And, I might add, a golden parachute would be even worse! At least
if it's a literal parachute. ;-)

>
> I know, I know...

But Robert Kolker does make a good point in his other response to
you. When I said JosX was "right... on that one point" I of course
did not mean he was right in claiming experimental support for
Aristotle's theory per se.

puppe...@hotmail.com

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:17:14 PM11/7/02

to

Well, let's pull the puppy out of the kill basket for a bit and
see what he has to say. He admitted one huge hole in his knowledge
base, maybe we can get him to admit another.

jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote in message news:<3dca65ea$0$46604$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>...
[snip]

> I just don't as of yet agree with relativity, is that a crime that needs

> to be punished with a hate site and constantly posting links to old posts
> that have no relation to the topic, that i made a long time ago ? I've
> made thousand of posts, there's 5,040 posts archived on google. Sure
> you will find some nonsense between those, but isn't it a bit dishonest
> to only point to the worst all the time ?

Tell you what there josh. Quit your off-topic deluge, apologize for
your racist comments, and make a commitement to meet me in the group
sci.physics.relativity. I'll lead you by the hand through special
relativity. But you have to do the homework. Get through that lot
and I'm pretty sure Marco would take down his page.

This offer has been made to you before and the nicest thing you did
was ignore it. Has your attitude adjusted recently? Or is this
going to garner simply another shower of spit? Because if spit
is all I get, then you deserve to have nasty web pages up about
you.
Socks

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Nov 7, 2002, 4:52:01 PM11/7/02

to

"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message news:3dcaca3c$0$46614$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> >Ah well... these are just some thoughts... perhaps you are not
> >interested. I enjoyed writing them down anyway.
> >If you like you can think about it.
>
> I think what you do is what most do, just give it up at a certain point
> and regard it as "too difficult for me",

But it is true. With the pure cold knowledge that I have now,
I cannot possily comprehend the second halve of the book.
It is too difficult for me. The first part is an easy read and so
are most popular science books because I have a solid
background in mathematics and a fairly good one in
mathematical physics, including special relativity, general
relativity and quantum mechanics, although GR and QM are
a bit rusty. So I am perfectly aware of the fact that at the
very least I have to refresh both of them before I can even
*think* about *wanting* to *try* to cross (!) the line. That
is how it is and there is nothing I can do about it. It is a matter
of knowing ones limits.
Furthermore, I know perfectly well that at a certain point it
*really* will become "too difficult for me" and that will be the
end of it, because not accepting that as a fact would be
cheating on myself.
Finally and most important, everything (like paradoxes or
contradictions) that I would be able to deduce, based on the
very parts that are too difficult for me to begin with, would
be totally and utterly unreliable.
Anyway, that is how I function.

> which was exactly what i first
> did too. But some things just seem incomprehensible difficult because
> they are in fact contradictory,

Like I just explained, I would say: difficult because they
*seem* contradictory. But that impression is based on
unreliable insights, or worse, on the lack of insights tout
court. Not to be trusted, specially not by ourselves.
I think that is the reason why some people get so much abuse:
they clearly do not know and sometimes even refuse to know
how the world defines and thinks about the subject. That is the
first thing we need to know in order to establish communication.

> but the problem is, you have to *proof*
> this on your own, because there won't be anybody helping you, in fact,
> everybody will be against you every step of the way, and that includes
> off-usenet real life.
> Once you can prove it though, things start getting interesting :).

From our own point of view perhaps, if we are convinced that our
proof is okay. But the problem is: we cannot be sure of that,
specially if we haven't got the proper background. We cannot
produce a proper proof because we do not even know what
we don't understand to begin with.

>
> FYI, my first posts on relativity were in the form of "please inform me
> of my mistake", and i honestly meant that, i was very unsure about what
> i thought was a problem. Then however i found out because of the reactions
> i got (mostly Franz Heyman), that in fact they were lying and cheating,
> and excersizing arrogance to get rid of my questions as soon as possible.

You have seen Dolfy's question yesterday.
Have a good look at the replies he got. Take your time.
Do you think he got lies and cheats as replies?
Do you think that I was lying or cheating?
Did you have the impression that we wanted to get rid of his questions
as soon as possible?

> At least that was my immideate impression, and i have this impression to
> this day, including this one.

When we have a problem and we go to some expert with
our problem, we either get a satisfactory answer or we don't.
If we do, okay. If we don't, we can either try again with a
different question, or we can go away and find another
expert, or maybe another question, or maybe even another
hobby. However, whatever we do, *if* we really want a
satisfactory answer from *that* specific expert, then we
will have to remain polite. We are "here below" and the
expert is "up there": there is no symmetry in the relationship.
That is how it is and there is nothing we can do about it.

Think and consider...

Dirk Vdm

unread,

Nov 8, 2002, 1:38:29 AM11/8/02

to

On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Robert Kolker wrote:
>
> Anti- matter is produced as a matter of course.
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Would that be appetizer, entree, or dessert?

>
> Ever have a PET scan.
>

I tried, but I could not fit my whole dog on my Epson scanner.

Sorry, just in a silly mood.

--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com

Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.

Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,

Nov 8, 2002, 12:53:04 AM11/8/02

to

In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
>On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Robert Kolker wrote:
>>
>> Anti- matter is produced as a matter of course.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Would that be appetizer, entree, or dessert?
>

That'll be the burp to end all burps.

>
>Sorry, just in a silly mood.
>

Same here.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Stephen Speicher

unread,

Nov 8, 2002, 2:20:45 AM11/8/02

to

On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Robert Kolker wrote:
> >>
> >> Anti- matter is produced as a matter of course.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >Would that be appetizer, entree, or dessert?
> >
> That'll be the burp to end all burps.
> >
> >Sorry, just in a silly mood.
> >
> Same here.
>

But not quite as silly as me.

You left in the physics content but cut out my dog.

It _really_ is difficult fitting an 80lb Golden Retriever onto an
Epson scanner!

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,

Nov 8, 2002, 2:05:47 AM11/8/02

to

In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:

>On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>

>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
>> >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Robert Kolker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Anti- matter is produced as a matter of course.
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >
>> >Would that be appetizer, entree, or dessert?
>> >
>> That'll be the burp to end all burps.
>> >
>> >Sorry, just in a silly mood.
>> >
>> Same here.
>>
>

>But not quite as silly as me.
>
>You left in the physics content but cut out my dog.
>

Well, true. Sorry about it.

>It _really_ is difficult fitting an 80lb Golden Retriever onto an
>Epson scanner!

You've to get a smaller pet or a bigger scanner.

Stephen Speicher

unread,

Nov 8, 2002, 3:35:44 AM11/8/02

to

On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >> >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Robert Kolker wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Anti- matter is produced as a matter of course.
> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >
> >> >Would that be appetizer, entree, or dessert?
> >> >
> >> That'll be the burp to end all burps.
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, just in a silly mood.
> >> >
> >> Same here.
> >>
> >
> >But not quite as silly as me.
> >
> >You left in the physics content but cut out my dog.
> >
> Well, true. Sorry about it.
>

Oh, I didn't mind, but my dog let out a big yelp!

> >It _really_ is difficult fitting an 80lb Golden Retriever onto an
> >Epson scanner!
>
> You've to get a smaller pet or a bigger scanner.
>

I tried a flea, but that didn't work. It kept falling between the
scan lines. Besides, I could never get the darn thing to fetch.

me...@cars3.uchicago.edu

unread,

Nov 8, 2002, 2:48:59 AM11/8/02

to

In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
>On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
>> >On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
>> >> >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Robert Kolker wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anti- matter is produced as a matter of course.
>> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >> >
>> >> >Would that be appetizer, entree, or dessert?
>> >> >
>> >> That'll be the burp to end all burps.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorry, just in a silly mood.
>> >> >
>> >> Same here.
>> >>
>> >
>> >But not quite as silly as me.
>> >
>> >You left in the physics content but cut out my dog.
>> >
>> Well, true. Sorry about it.
>>
>

>Oh, I didn't mind, but my dog let out a big yelp!
>

>> >It _really_ is difficult fitting an 80lb Golden Retriever onto an
>> >Epson scanner!
>>
>> You've to get a smaller pet or a bigger scanner.
>>
>

>I tried a flea, but that didn't work. It kept falling between the
>scan lines.

I'm not surprised. A butterfly should work, though, but I'm not sure
it'll be reusable.

> Besides, I could never get the darn thing to fetch.

You sure ask for a lot, from you pets. If you want your flea to
fetch, you've first to transform it (conformally, if possible) to the
imaginary axis. Imaginary fleas can do anything, it is only the real
ones that have limitations.

Stephen Speicher

unread,

Nov 8, 2002, 4:14:52 AM11/8/02

to

On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >> >On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.02110...@localhost.localdomain>, Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> writes:
> >> >> >On Thu, 7 Nov 2002, Robert Kolker wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Anti- matter is produced as a matter of course.
> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Would that be appetizer, entree, or dessert?
> >> >> >
> >> >> That'll be the burp to end all burps.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sorry, just in a silly mood.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Same here.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >But not quite as silly as me.
> >> >
> >> >You left in the physics content but cut out my dog.
> >> >
> >> Well, true. Sorry about it.
> >>
> >
> >Oh, I didn't mind, but my dog let out a big yelp!
> >
> >> >It _really_ is difficult fitting an 80lb Golden Retriever onto an
> >> >Epson scanner!
> >>
> >> You've to get a smaller pet or a bigger scanner.
> >>
> >
> >I tried a flea, but that didn't work. It kept falling between the
> >scan lines.
>
> I'm not surprised. A butterfly should work, though, but I'm not sure
> it'll be reusable.
>

The butterfly was great, but everytime it flapped its wings, it
rained in the bedroom.

> > Besides, I could never get the darn thing to fetch.
>
> You sure ask for a lot, from you pets. If you want your flea to
> fetch, you've first to transform it (conformally, if possible) to the
> imaginary axis. Imaginary fleas can do anything, it is only the real
> ones that have limitations.
>

I've already tried the transform route.

First I used a Mellin transform, but my wife ate it for dessert.

The I tried a Hankel transform, but someone blew it to pieces.

The Kontorovich-Lebedev transform kept getting drunk on all that vodka.

I finally gave up and just put the flea in LaPlace.