SRT demands energy in amounts not available.
NoEinstein
is: KE = ½ mv^2, written by Coriolis in 1830. For a unit mass, the
only variable in such equation is the falling object’s velocity, which
is normally expressed as some multiple of the ‘g’ velocity of 32.174
ft./second. The latter would be a velocity of unit 1. A velocity of
unit 2 would be 64.348 ft./second, and etc.
The KE that is being gained by every falling object, according to the
above equation, will plot as a semi-parabola. That is one in which
the KE accrues at half of the rate that the distance of fall is
accruing with respect to time. The latter distance of fall will plot
as a true parabola—with time on the x-x axis, and distance of fall on
the y-y axis. The units for distance correspond to the distance of
fall of any object in one second, or 16.087 feet. The latter would be
a distance unit of 1. A distance unit of 2 would be 32.174 feet, and
etc. Such parabola is identical to the profile of falling water that
was emitted horizontally. But in order to see the parabolic curve,
that stream of water must be emitted over the edge of a high building
or other high place. And of course the wind must not be blowing.
The basic premise of the Law of the Conservation of Energy is that
energy being ADDED one place must be SUBTRACTED from the source. If a
falling object truly manifests a semi-parabolic profile of energy
accrual, then there must be a semi-parabolic subtraction of energy
from the source. What is the source for falling objects’ increasing
KE? It is the uniform force of gravity.
Essentially, a one pound mass is being acted upon by a one pound
downward force for all near Earth distances of fall. Coriolis’s
equation predicts that the KE at the end of second number one will
be: .5; at the end of second two: 2; 4.5 at the end of second 3; and 8
at the end of second 4. From zero seconds to one second, the KE
increased .5; from second one to second two, the KE increased 1.5;
from second two to second three KE increased 2.5; and from second
three to second four, the KE increased 3.5.
It is easy to see that the energy needs of falling objects must be
increasing at a greater rate in any give second than in the previous
second. But the ONLY available energy for a one pound unit mass is a
uniform downward force of one pound. So, in order for Coriolis’s
equation to be true, the force would have to be increasing semi-
parabolically, too. Can anyone tell me where such an increasing
downward force comes from?
Most will acknowledge that gravity has “some” mechanism. People who
support Einstein say that the mechanism is simply the “warping” of
space-time. But won’t any two objects of equal mass and distance
above the Earth have identical “warping” of space-time? The latter
poses a huge problem for relativity, because of the following: Suppose
that two one pound masses, one traveling twice as fast as the other,
happen to pass a ledge, or other point of reference. The energy
demands of the faster falling object will always be GREATER, than for
the slower object. If space-time, or anything else for that matter,
is imparting the needed energy, it would be a requirement that gravity
have an ability to SENSE what the velocity of all falling objects is.
No one on this Earth can explain to me how gravity can sense the
infinite velocities of an infinite number of falling objects so as to
impart the exact amount of KE required to validate Coriolis’s
equation.
The above isn’t a conundrum to be accepted easily. Actually, it is a
verbal PROOF that Coriolis’s equation violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy. My correct equation for the KE of falling
objects is: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m). The latter has a LINEAR rate
of increase in KE which means: Gravity only needs to apply UNIFORM
downward forces equal to objects’ static weights. So, gravity need
not be “a God” at sensing the speeds of an infinite number of falling
objects, and applying the forces, aptly. In reality, the rate of
application of the forces is identical, regardless of the objects’
speeds.
My many varied and conclusive disproofs of Coriolis, also, disprove
Einstein’s E = mc^2, because ‘c’ is a velocity. Einstein has claimed
that getting to velocity ‘c’ is impossible. Since the progression of
velocities in TRYING to reach ‘c’ would be PARABOLIC, according to
Einstein’s equation, such would violate the Law of the Conservation of
Energy just like Coriolis’s did.
In a very easy way, velocity can be increased to ‘c’, additively, or
linearly with just a steady UNIFORM force or thrust being applied.
And the latter could never cause an infinite ‘E’ value.
By my reasoning and my experiments, which can be as simple as dropping
two balls, Einstein’s mishmash of supposed science is disproved for
all time!
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2/5832779454545bce?hl=en#5832779454545bce
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Eric Gisse
> The presently accepted equation for falling objects’ kinetic energies
> is: KE = ½ mv^2, written by Coriolis in 1830. For a unit mass, the
> only variable in such equation is the falling object’s velocity, which
> is normally expressed as some multiple of the ‘g’ velocity of 32.174
> ft./second. The latter would be a velocity of unit 1. A velocity of
> unit 2 would be 64.348 ft./second, and etc.
The quantity "g" is acceleration, not velocity. Please learn the
difference - and the metric system.
Congratulations at your attempt to turn failure at introductory
physics into a virtue.
[...]
Sam Wormley
> My correct equation for the KE of falling
> objects is: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m).
Never took any physics? Never cracked a physics book?
KE (Kinetic Energy) is expressed in m^2·kg·s^-2
(Joules or Newton-Meters)
Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile_motion
Short Tutorial, John
>
> Newtons Second Law
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsSecondLaw.html
> "A force F acting on a body gives it an acceleration a which is
> in the direction of the force and has magnitude inversely
> proportional to the mass m of the body: F = ma"
> F = ma is a differential equation and therein lies its power.
> Some examples of application:
> Case 1. The force is constant:
> Assuming that the mass remains constant, we have constant
> acceleration: F/m = dv/dt = a = constant
> direct integration (with respect to t) gives formulas such as:
> v - v_o = at
> v = at + v_o
> A second integration results in:
> x - xo = 1/2 at^2 + v_ot
> x = 1/2 at^2 + v_ot + x_o
> eliminating t, we get
> 2a(x-x_o) = v^2 - v_o^2
> Case 2. The force is a function of position only:
> F(x) = m d^2x/dt^2
> In a great many instances the force that an object experiences
> depends only on the object's position with respect to other bodies,
> for example, electrostatic and gravitational forces.
> The equation can be rewritten as:
> F(x) = mv dv/dx = m/2 d(v^2)/dx = dT/dx where the quantity T = 1/2 mv^2
> which is called the kinetic energy of the particle.
> The integral [ F(x)dx ] + constant = T
> oh it gets good from here.... the upshot for a freely falling body
> under the influence of gravity is:
> v = dx/dt = ± sqrt (v_o^2 - 2gx), where g is the acceleration due to
> gravity. Gosh I didn't even cover the equations for the force of a
> spring!
> Case 3. The force as a function of velocity only:
> F(v) = m dv/dt
> It often happens that the force on a object depends only on the
> velocity of the object. This is, for example, true of viscous
> resistance exerted on a particle moving through a fluid.
> A single integration t = integral [ m dv/F(v)] = t(v) results in:
> v = v(t), and a second integration gives:
> x = integral [ v(t) dt] = x(t)
> You see, John, if you know a bit of calculus and the circumstances of some
> rectilinear motion problem, you can figure out a hell of a lot of physics
> just from the relationship between "Force and motion" that Isaac Newton
> figured out:
> F = m d^2x/dt^2 = ma
>
>
>
NoEinstein
Dear Eric, Dunce 3: The CONVENTION for expressing acceleration is to
state the VELOCITY at the end of the first second of travel. In
"comparing" accelerations, one is actually comparing the end-of-1st-
second VELOCITIES. My v/32.174 (m) works for either accelerating
objects, or for objects traveling at just one fixed velocity, as in
coasting. The reason that works both ways is because all
accelerations must be converted to the INSTANTANEOUS velocities in
order to compute the KE effects at any point in time. I've explained
this same thing to you at least three times, but you are a... slow
learner. — NE —
NoEinstein
Sam: That's not even an equation! It gives no useful information
except to say, as the word version says, correctly: "For every
uniformly applied continuous force there is one and only one
corresponding acceleration." Unfortunately, F = ma doesn't allow
calculating either the force, nor the corresponding acceleration. But
my CORRECT equation for Newton's botched one, F = v/32.174 (m) does.
Read my explanation to Eric Gisse, above, explaining why comparing 1st
second velocities is identical to comparing 1st second accelerations.
What you get is a 'proportionality factor' (v/v or a/a) times the
mass. My equation will allow filling-in a table of the forces and
their correlating accelerations—something that F = ma does NOT do!
I'm sorry if my New Science isn't complicated enough for you. Your
mentality causes you to think you are bright if you can work Rubic's
Cube in 100 twists of the wrist. But a guy like me manages to do it,
simpler, and in only 25 twists of the wrists. Are you... smarter
because your way is more complicated? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
> KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85...
>
> Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Folks: The present post marks the second time in a week that I’ve
posted this same essay. Someone, perhaps at Google, changed the
subject of MY last post to non-scientific discussions of spinning
balls and gyroscopes. This essay is very important, because it
clearly explains, in a layman’s terms, one of the several ways I’ve
disproved Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Once more people
realize that fact, there will be little need to discuss ’the gravity
effects of spinning balls’, when yours truly understands the
mechanisms of gravity better than any other person who has ever lived.
I’ve repeatedly called myself the “King of the Science Hill.” That
wasn’t because I am more pompous than my detractors. It came to be
because I objectively looked at the observations being reported of the
Universe, then waited decades before making my own unbiased
explanations for what is being seen. Most less-objective scientists
try to shoehorn some pet explanation for an observation or
experiment. But I held back explaining any tiny part of the Universe
until I had considered the effects that explanation would surely have
on the explanations for all the other things which must be explained.
It was that patient waiting that allowed me to be so absolutely sure
my New Science has the mechanisms of creation, and life in the
Universe, correct.
Lest anyone wrongly assume that I am only a devotee of the
invalidation of Coriolis’s 1830 KE equation, KE = ½ mv^2, let me
summarize, briefly, some of my major contributions to science:
I am the person who: Discovered that the M-M experiment lacks a
CONTROL light course—which negates "Lorentz transformations" of
anything. I made that disproof after just ONE hour of analysis in my
local public library. Within three weeks I had verified that
disproof, algebraically. Then, I designed, constructed, and
successfully tested my X, Y & Z interferometer. Such shows thousands
of fringe shifts in 360 degrees of instrument rotation. Einstein once
said that if any Earth-mounted device ever detects Earth’s velocity,
that SR will have been disproved. As already explained, I
invalidated the 1830 Kinetic Energy equation of Coriolis, KE =
1/2mv^2, by showing that such violates the Law of the Conservation of
Energy-Mass, and by designing and successfully testing a sonographic,
two-mass, KE test, as well as a $40.00, two-mass dropped ball test—
both of which prove that the Coriolis equation is wrong. I determined
that the CORRECT formula for kinetic energy is my own: KE = a/g (m) +
v / 32.174 (m). I determined that SR violates the fundamental Law of
the Conservation of Energy-Mass. And I determined that the CORRECT
way to write the acceleration due to gravity is: g = 32.174 ft./sec.
EACH second. I determined, almost intuitively, that the mechanism of
gravity is flowing ether, replenished by photon or charged particle
exchange.
I determined that there is no such thing as a... space-time continuum;
I determined that the smallest energy units of the ether, the IOTAs,
are polar, and that that polarity accounts for electromagnetism; I
determined that LIGHT is composed of clumps of IOTAs emitted outward
by the apt valence shells of atoms, the spacing of which, alone,
determines the COLOR of the light; I discovered that light doesn't
reflect, it re emits; I explained how clumps of IOTAs (photons) can
bend near the edges of slits to hit a target out-of-the-line-of-sight;
I determined that the gravity of super-massive STARS shuts off when
those stars go... Black; I determined that the ether is largely
discontinuous in the Swiss Cheese voids between the galaxies, making
trans-universe gravity action impossible; I determined that there was
no such thing as the… Big Bang; I correctly explained the increasing
red shift, with increasing distance, as: the AGING (wedging apart) of
the photons; I determined that the Universe is finite, and bounded by
an electromagnetic meniscus that holds in the ether; I determined that
the Universe keeps recycling the matter and energy, and will never
die; AND I have proved that Albert Einstein, the MORON, had it wrong
when he said that 'c' is the maximum velocity. He also had it wrong
when he suggested that warped space-time is the… “mechanism” of
gravity. Actually, varying ether flow and density is the mechanism of
gravity, with the ether being replenished by ’hobo ether’ sent back
into space between the photons being exchanged between the attracting
bodies. My easy-to-replicate algebraic analysis of the M-M experiment
proves that light—and human travel—has no upper speed limit!
Additionally, I’ve figured out that Newton's Law of Universal (sic)
Gravitation, isn't universal at all. His huge error? He never
realized that gravity is proportional to the amount of ether that can
flow 'down' per unit of the object's mass; and the downward ether flow
will be greater for very HOT bodies that emit more light. So, bright
stars will have much more gravity than, say, cold planets. The
consequences of his error: There is an approximate 10 fold over-
estimate of the mass of the universe (and galaxies), and an
approximate ten fold UNDER-ESTIMATE of the gravity of star systems.
Those two, combined, will account for ALL of the supposed "missing
mass"... that has wasted close to a trillion dollars trying to...
find. Unfortunately, the primary 'mission' of science is to find
nonsense justifications for spending research money that's provided by
the naive taxpayers and 'foundations'. If supposed scientists only
had the ability to REASON, there would be a lot fewer absurd
experiments being financed and run! Serious thinkers are invited to
select any point of my New Science, paraphrase a counterargument, and
see if logic is on your side. Good luck to those whose minds are
still open to science truths! — NoEinstein —
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 8, 7:23 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 4:20 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > The presently accepted equation for falling objects’ kinetic energies
> > > is: KE = ½ mv^2, written by Coriolis in 1830. For a unit mass, the
> > > only variable in such equation is the falling object’s velocity, which
> > > is normally expressed as some multiple of the ‘g’ velocity of 32.174
> > > ft./second. The latter would be a velocity of unit 1. A velocity of
> > > unit 2 would be 64.348 ft./second, and etc.
>
> > The quantity "g" is acceleration, not velocity. Please learn the
> > difference - and the metric system.
>
> > Congratulations at your attempt to turn failure at introductory
> > physics into a virtue.
>
> > [...]
>
So much for the theory of not responding to me. That didn't even last
an afternoon.
> Dear Eric, Dunce 3: The CONVENTION for expressing acceleration is to
> state the VELOCITY at the end of the first second of travel.
Acceleration is dv/dt, John. What you say makes no sense.
To determine acceleration, one must compare velocities at TWO
different periods of time.
>In
> "comparing" accelerations, one is actually comparing the end-of-1st-
> second VELOCITIES. My v/32.174 (m) works for either accelerating
> objects, or for objects traveling at just one fixed velocity, as in
> coasting.
What is that expression even supposed to mean? You have "v" which
presumably has units of [L/T], "32" which has no units, and "(m)"
which I guess is [M]. So you have [L/TM] which makes absolutely no
sense whatsoever.
> The reason that works both ways is because all
> accelerations must be converted to the INSTANTANEOUS velocities in
> order to compute the KE effects at any point in time. I've explained
> this same thing to you at least three times, but you are a... slow
> learner. — NE —
I have a difficult time understanding what you are saying because I
have an actual education in physics, and your inconsistent,
contraditory, confusing, and muddled explanations and expressions just
make no goddamn sense to me.
I suspect they make no sense to you, either. Want to take a crack at
solving a simple mechanics problem, or do you continue to think you
are above proving yourself?
PD
> On Feb 8, 7:23 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 4:20 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > The presently accepted equation for falling objects’ kinetic energies
> > > is: KE = ½ mv^2, written by Coriolis in 1830. For a unit mass, the
> > > only variable in such equation is the falling object’s velocity, which
> > > is normally expressed as some multiple of the ‘g’ velocity of 32.174
> > > ft./second. The latter would be a velocity of unit 1. A velocity of
> > > unit 2 would be 64.348 ft./second, and etc.
>
> > The quantity "g" is acceleration, not velocity. Please learn the
> > difference - and the metric system.
>
> > Congratulations at your attempt to turn failure at introductory
> > physics into a virtue.
>
> > [...]
>
> Dear Eric, Dunce 3: The CONVENTION for expressing acceleration is to
> state the VELOCITY at the end of the first second of travel.
Flat wrong. Just flat, flat wrong.
Eric Gisse
[snip stupidity]
> Folks: The present post marks the second time in a week that I’ve
> posted this same essay. Someone, perhaps at Google,
1) That was you, stupid.
2) Who are you talking to? There are no "folks".
[snip rest of stupidity]
Sam Wormley
> infinite velocities of an infinite number of falling objects so as to
> equation.
No infinite velocities and no infinite number of falling objects,
bubba. Perhaps you don't know what "infinite" means.
Benj
> I have a difficult time understanding what you are saying because I
> have an actual education in physics, and your inconsistent,
> contraditory, confusing, and muddled explanations and expressions just
> make no goddamn sense to me.
> I suspect they make no sense to you, either. Want to take a crack at
> solving a simple mechanics problem, or do you continue to think you
> are above proving yourself?
Gisse, I'm confused. Just WHO is to get the "smarter than Einstein"
trophy? You or "NoEinstein"?
I really can't decide.
Benj
> On 2/8/11 6:20 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > No one on this Earth can explain to me how gravity can sense the
> > infinite velocities of an infinite number of falling objects so as to
> > equation.
>
> No infinite velocities and no infinite number of falling objects,
> bubba. Perhaps you don't know what "infinite" means.
Whoa! Good job Sam. Could it be that you actually have some
understanding of physics and only "play a moron" on the Internet for
political purposes?
NoEinstein
side, I have no reason not to reply to you. However, you take obvious
joy in trying your best not to understand even the most simply-
explained things. All comparisons of accelerations tacitly imply a
time that is apt for each datum. Like you say, change in velocity per
unit of time IS what acceleration is. However, all simple
accelerations have only uniform, linear, or constant changes in
velocity. The "time interval" determines whether the stated velocity
is, say, feet/sec. or miles per hour. Once that basis of measurement
is understood, there is no need to state the "clock time" for taking
the two measurements.
An acceleration of one 'g' will be one 'g' whether the measurement was
taken today or last year. In simple comparisons, the RELATIVE size of
the accelerations can be expressed as a simple FRACTION or
proportionality factor. I use the latter whenever possible, because
there are no 'units' that make the equations look like they were
written my a pedant egghead. I know that's redundant, but like it!.
Eric, instead of trying to misconstrue the meaning of this or that
minute part of what I write, why don't you allow this genius writer
some latitude of expression. The more difficult it is for you to
understand, the dumber you look, not me. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of being replied to. — NE —
NoEinstein
Eric: For a day or so I was polite and humored those replying off-
subject on my previous New Post. There is no computer program that
can decide the 'subject line.' Some airhead at Google changed the
subject, not me. It may be hard for you to understand (That's usually
the case.) that I write in order to reach the many readers, more than
I write to reply to some individual. You like to make fun of my
style. In the four years you've followed my posts, you should have
accepted my "style" already. If you can't think of anything
constructive (beneficial) to say about my replies, why don't you just
skip over a few. Isn't your time too valuable to reply to someone you
usually think is wrong? Ha, ha, HA! — NE —
PD
> On Feb 8, 10:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of being replied to. — NE —
And yet you give me replies, whether you think I deserve it or not.
While this doesn't necessarily reflect on what I deserve or don't
deserve, it surely does say something about you being wholly incapable
of doing what you say you will do.
You're ill, John, deeply deeply ill. Only you can do something about
it.
NoEinstein
>
> > No one on this Earth can explain to me how gravity can sense the
> > infinite velocities of an infinite number of falling objects so as to
> > equation.
>
> No infinite velocities and no infinite number of falling objects,
> bubba. Perhaps you don't know what "infinite" means.
Dear Sam: Give me some slack! I write colloquially. My saying that
the number of hailstones—each falling with unique masses and velocities
—is an infinite number of falling objects for Newton's (errant) Law of
Universal Gravitation to keep up with, doesn't mean that the number of
hailstones exceeds all things in the Universe! Most people,
considering the number of grains of sand in the oceans, would use the
term infinite (too high to be counted). You "play at" being a
scientist. Rather, you show yourself to be just a sad, intellectual
want-a-bee. — NE —
NoEinstein
Bravo! — NE —
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 8, 10:32 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 5:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > [snip stupidity]
>
> > > Folks: The present post marks the second time in a week that I’ve
> > > posted this same essay. Someone, perhaps at Google,
>
> > 1) That was you, stupid.
> > 2) Who are you talking to? There are no "folks".
>
> > [snip rest of stupidity]
>
> Eric: For a day or so I was polite and humored those replying off-
> subject on my previous New Post. There is no computer program that
> can decide the 'subject line.' Some airhead at Google changed the
> subject, not me.
You have way too much self worth.
[snip rest]
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Eric, instead of trying to misconstrue the meaning of this or that
> minute part of what I write, why don't you allow this genius writer
> some latitude of expression. The more difficult it is for you to
> understand, the dumber you look, not me. — NoEinstein —
That you can't use your expressions to solve even a simple mechanics
problem shows that I am misconstruing nothing.
[snip rest that you were unable to reply to]
NoEinstein
Double bravo, Benj! I live for the few lucid moments of the likes of
Sam and Eric. Your 'lucid moment' has just made my day! —
NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
Physics doesn't use colloquial language! You should learn
some mathematics!
Tom Potter
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48f7c80f-28ae-4aee...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>I have a difficult time understanding what you are saying because I
>have an actual education in physics, and your inconsistent,
>contraditory, confusing, and muddled explanations and expressions just
>make no goddamn sense to me.
>
>I suspect they make no sense to you, either. Want to take a crack at
>solving a simple mechanics problem, or do you continue to think you
>are above proving yourself?
My pal "Eric Gisse" raises a good point
when he calls attention to the fact
that the main claim to fame
of the Relativity Charlatans on the public dole
is that they can model the Doppler and Galileo Effects
on orbiting oscillators using only 13 Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks,
and that although they are equipped with powerful, modern computers
and cook book algorithms, NO Relativity Cultist
can compute the ocean tides like Newton did for the English Navy
centuries ago, using his primitive model and hand calculations.
Want to take a crack at
solving a simple ocean tide problem,
( Without using Newton's or Maxwell's models.)
or do you continue to think you
are above proving yourself Erich?
--
Tom Potter
-----------------
http://www.prioritize.biz/
http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtml
http://xrl.in/63g4
http://www.tompotter.us
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
Eric Gisse
[...]
alt.comp.google removed from followups, you whinging tool.
> My pal "Eric Gisse" raises a good point
We aren't pals. You are like that douchebag that compulsively calls
everyone 'buddy'. It alone is about as infuriating as your anti-
semitism and other idiocies.
> when he calls attention to the fact
> that the main claim to fame
> of the Relativity Charlatans on the public dole
That I said nothing even remotely of the sort apparently doesn't
matter.
> is that they can model the Doppler and Galileo Effects
> on orbiting oscillators using only 13 Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks,
Holy fucking shit you are still babbling about the "13 hacks".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/006fc8404f610209?dmode=source
Four goddamn years later and you still haven't managed to verbalize
what the hacks are. You are so full of shit that I wouldn't suggest
handling anything sharp.
>
> and that although they are equipped with powerful, modern computers
> and cook book algorithms, NO Relativity Cultist
> can compute the ocean tides like Newton did for the English Navy
> centuries ago, using his primitive model and hand calculations.
Tides? The fucking TIDES?
You are making an argument against relativity by using the notion that
nobody uses GR to compute the TIDES?! That's about the stupidest
goddamn thing I have ever heard here, and we both know there's stiff
goddamn competition for the "stupidest fucking thing I have ever
heard" award.
>
> Want to take a crack at
> solving a simple ocean tide problem,
> ( Without using Newton's or Maxwell's models.)
> or do you continue to think you
> are above proving yourself Erich?
>
> --
> Tom Potter
> -----------------http://www.prioritize.biz/http://voices.yuku.com/forums/66http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com/siteindex.zhtmlhttp://xrl.in/63g4http://www.tompotter.ushttp://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
I have a more relevant exercise for you. Two, actually.
Use any model you choose to correctly model the decay of the binary
pulsar system of your choice.
NoEinstein
>
Pd, the Dunce, is undeserving of being replied to. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: "Self-worth" is exactly what little guys with inferiority
complexes, like yours, wish that they had. Unfortunately, trying
vainly to get self-worth by denigrating others, is a failed ploy from
the get-go. Get another hobby! — NE —
NoEinstein
Eric: Peons don't go to the Lord-of-the-Manor and demand anything.
I've given everyone the equation(s). Solve your own problems, if you
can. Show your results, and I will verify if you have solved the
problems correctly. If you would like to see how I solve falling
object problems, read the following link. — NoEinstein —
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
NoEinstein
>
Sam: If you knew any mathematics you would know that KE = 1/2mc^2;
and E = mc^2/beta violate the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass.
Eric Gisse (correctly) answered "no" to this question: "Is it ever
possible to get out four pounds of hamburger after grinding-up only
two pounds of steak?" Once you can swallow your misspent pride to
answer that crucial question, none of the status quo science garbage
you taught will be valid. Remember, Sam: "Truths are the POISON of
liars." — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
> On Feb 10, 12:56 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> alt.comp.google removed from followups, you whinging tool.
>
> > My pal "Eric Gisse" raises a good point
>
> We aren't pals. You are like that douchebag that compulsively calls
> everyone 'buddy'. It alone is about as infuriating as your anti-
> semitism and other idiocies.
>
> > when he calls attention to the fact
> > that the main claim to fame
> > of the Relativity Charlatans on the public dole
>
> That I said nothing even remotely of the sort apparently doesn't
> matter.
>
> > is that they can model the Doppler and Galileo Effects
> > on orbiting oscillators using only 13 Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks,
>
> Holy fucking shit you are still babbling about the "13 hacks".
>
>
> Four goddamn years later and you still haven't managed to verbalize
> what the hacks are. You are so full of shit that I wouldn't suggest
> handling anything sharp.
>
>
>
> > and that although they are equipped with powerful, modern computers
> > and cook book algorithms, NO Relativity Cultist
> > can compute the ocean tides like Newton did for the English Navy
> > centuries ago, using his primitive model and hand calculations.
>
> Tides? The fucking TIDES?
>
> You are making an argument against relativity by using the notion that
> nobody uses GR to compute the TIDES?! That's about the stupidest
> goddamn thing I have ever heard here, and we both know there's stiff
> goddamn competition for the "stupidest fucking thing I have ever
> heard" award.
>
>
>
> > Want to take a crack at
> > solving a simple ocean tide problem,
> > ( Without using Newton's or Maxwell's models.)
> > or do you continue to think you
> > are above proving yourself Erich?
>
> > --
> > Tom Potter
>
> I have a more relevant exercise for you. Two, actually.
>
> Use any model you choose to correctly model the decay of the binary
> pulsar system of your choice.
Eric, the more you curse, the more you show you are... "losing it".
Tom has his niches of interest. However it happened, his realization
concerning how the (organized) Jews are harming the World is right
on. Obama would have the USA go to war to protect Israel—a nation
that kicked innocent Muslim families off their land just so their
"religion" can have an associated Nation. Remember this: "Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you." is the only real religion
the world needs. By that standard, the Jews have some retributions to
make for their crimes. The survival of the human race could well
depend on it. — NoEinstein —
Sam Wormley
> On Feb 9, 4:27 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
> Sam: If you knew any mathematics you would know that KE = 1/2mc^2
Wrong again, John. Best do some self education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 9, 12:11 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric: "Self-worth" is exactly what little guys with inferiority
> complexes, like yours, wish that they had. Unfortunately, trying
> vainly to get self-worth by denigrating others, is a failed ploy from
> the get-go. Get another hobby! — NE —
Holy shit someone at google changed the subject name again!
[...]
Eric Gisse
On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you think your anti-semitism
influences your opinions about physics?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
As to the title of this thread; Eric?
The energy of the fuel becomes the kinetic energy that is in the
rocket's mass.
Mitch Raemsch
Eric Gisse
Dude, you can't even do a high school physics experiment that tests
the equations you claim are incorrect.
Eric Gisse
[snip noise]
Nobody cares. Go back to your homeless shelter.
BURT
Kinetic energy comes from fuel energy. But it is always in moving mass
quantity. It becomes that.
Mitch Raemsch
Eric Gisse
Are you mentally ill?
Tom Potter
>
>Use any model you choose to correctly model the decay of the binary
>pulsar system of your choice.
I am saddened to see that my Alaskan, high school grad pal
Erich Gisse thinks that he is "above proving"
that he can use Relativity to compute tides
without using Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks.
In fact, I dare say that Gisse can't use Relativity to compute tides
with or without Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks.
For details on this,
visit the following web site.
http://www.prioritize.biz/
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: Your "hacking ability" just won't hack-it as science. Keep
being that immature, and I will be more permanent in not replying to
you, like for PD. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: "Opinions about science" and science understanding aren't
the same thing—if that is what you are getting at. I blame Jews—about
7 on a scale of one to ten—for the sad state of affairs in science
(and in education, and in the media). Jews are THE most racist group
in the entire World! Their motive is to get as much undeserved
advantage, political and economic, as possible. They do so by
cronyism, nepotism and influence peddling. If there are ten possible
books about science, and only one of those is written by a Jew, his or
her book will be the one that gets published and promoted. Most run-
of-the-mill Jews probably don't consciously realize these things.
It's just the corrupt CULTURE of Jews to favor those of the same
religion. That's what racism is all about: Getting undeserved
(unfair) advantages for those of like minority.
Muslims are a huge problem that's more bull-in-a-China-shop than
Jews. Generally, Jews are smarter than 'average' Muslims. But real
intellect parallels having good moral judgment. Jews holier-than-thou
attitude makes them reluctant to admit that any of them, individually
or collectively, has ever done anything wrong. It is that FALSE
perfection—which you, Eric, also personify—that so threatens world
peace. My solution to the Muslim problem is to show them how to make
capitalism work for them. Once that happens, they won't have reason
to attack "symbolic" World Trade Centers. Muslims are crying to be
helped. Are Jews willing to do their part? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
That's correct, Burt! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: "Air Hockey" is more on your mentality level. I'll mail
you the materials for my $40.00 dropped ball KE test, if you'll send
me your address. But you probably aren't smart enough to drop-the-
ball! Ha, ha, HA! Remember, Eric, you answered "no" to this
question: "Is it ever possible to get out four pounds of hamburger
disproves KE = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2/beta. So, why are you attacking
my time-management on doing empty math problems? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Shame on you, Eric! Burt is so prolific, he sometimes says profound
truths. You, on the other hand, tend to avoid those like the plague.
— NE —
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: The accrued, additive force that is KE comes from the fuel
for the rocket. Do you disagree with that? If so, then it is you who
are mentally deficient (not necessarily mentally ill). — NE —
Sam Wormley
> In fact, I dare say that Gisse can't use Relativity to compute tides
> with or without Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks.
Potter blusters, froths and sometimes cries
Cannot compute tide's lows or highs
The only recognition Potter will get
is registration at crank dot net
Relativity he knows not when it applies
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 11, 12:24 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric: "Air Hockey" is more on your mentality level. I'll mail
> you the materials for my $40.00 dropped ball KE test, if you'll send
> me your address.
Why, so I can re-create a shitty experiment?
One simple and trivial test of E = 1/2 mv^2 is the collision of pool
balls, and the direction & speed they go. The kinematics is trivial
for anyone with a marginal education, and I've done the experiment.
That was freshman year in college.
Another simple and trivial test is dropping a ball down a ramp of
known height and measuring its' speed at the bottom. That was high
school physics.
God forbid you do an experiment that's actually conclusive. Then your
ego would implode after the realization that you blew 4 years ranting
about stupid shit.
>But you probably aren't smart enough to drop-the-
> ball! Ha, ha, HA! Remember, Eric, you answered "no" to this
> question: "Is it ever possible to get out four pounds of hamburger
> after grinding up only two pounds of steak?" The correct "no" answer
> disproves KE = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2/beta. So, why are you attacking
> my time-management on doing empty math problems? — NoEinstein —
>
Because it amuses me to watch you fumble pointlessly.
Relativity, quite frankly, will forever be beyond you. You can't even
handle highschool physics.
[...]
Eric Gisse
Kinetic energy is not a force, stupid. Try again.
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 10, 8:10 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric: "Opinions about science" and science understanding aren't
> the same thing—if that is what you are getting at.
You established that quite nicely.
> I blame Jews [...]
Of course you do. Prick.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> >> is that they can model the Doppler and Galileo Effects
> >> on orbiting oscillators using only 13 Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks,
>
> >Holy fucking shit you are still babbling about the "13 hacks".
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/006fc8404f610209?dmode...
>
> >Four goddamn years later and you still haven't managed to verbalize
> >what the hacks are. You are so full of shit that I wouldn't suggest
> >handling anything sharp.
Still can't articulate the 'hacks', eh? No surprise. Like I said -
full of shit.
[snip more stupidity about the tides]
Eric Gisse
Oh you'll keep replying to me and PD.
You are like Sarah Palin - you claim to hate the attention, but all
you have to do to make it stop is shut the fuck up.
If you want me and PD to stop replying to you, try shutting the fuck
up for once. Make a blog so you can post all you want without any
unwanted criticism. Problem is nobody would read it because nobody
gives a shit about your ideas which is why you post to a public
newsgroup.
Sam Wormley
> additive force that is KE
Surely you are not as stooopid as you post, John.
Or are you?
Tom Potter
It appears that my pal Erich Gisse
is saying that he can use Relativity DIRECTLY
without the use of the 13 Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks
to compute real world systems and effects.
I will be looking forward to seeing my pal
demonstrate this by computing a few tides,
as Newton did centuries ago
using hand calculations and his primitive model.
Anyone can "Talk a good game."
but it takes people like Newton, Maxwell,
Faraday and Edison to "Win the game."
It is sad that rather than demonstrate their
possession of powerful, esoteric knowledge,
that cult members, astrologers, fortune tellers,
members of the Relativity Cult, economists, etc.
tend to attack critics.
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rK6dnUgOYuGD_MjQ...@mchsi.com...
I am pleased to see that my pal Sam Wormley admit
that unlike Newton's model
that is used millions of time every day
to model, engineer and maintain mechanical systems,
and Maxwell's model that is used millions of time every day
to model, engineer and maintain electric and magnetic systems,
and the Francis/Watson DNA model that is used millions of time every day
to model, engineer and maintain living systems,
that Relativity seems to be a Tower of Babel
that uses rubber clocks and rulers
and wastes time, money and minds.
and has few, if any, cost effective uses.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a51a2300-b935-43bd...@s29g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Feb 11, 3:07 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >> >> is that they can model the Doppler and Galileo Effects
> >> >> on orbiting oscillators using only 13 Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks,
>
> >> >Holy fucking shit you are still babbling about the "13 hacks".
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/006fc8404f610209?dmode...
>
> >> >Four goddamn years later and you still haven't managed to verbalize
> >> >what the hacks are. You are so full of shit that I wouldn't suggest
> >> >handling anything sharp.
>
> >Still can't articulate the 'hacks', eh? No surprise. Like I said -
> >full of shit.
> >[snip more stupidity about the tides]
>
> It appears that my pal Erich Gisse
You apparently have a learning disability, since not only are we *not*
pals that is *not* my name.
> is saying that he can use Relativity DIRECTLY
> without the use of the 13 Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks
Since I have no idea what you think these 'hacks' are even though
you've been referring to them for at least four years now, that's an
odd thing for me to say.
Upon re-reading my two lines of texts, I see that I did not say what
you claim I said.
> to compute real world systems and effects.
>
> I will be looking forward to seeing my pal
> demonstrate this by computing a few tides,
> as Newton did centuries ago
> using hand calculations and his primitive model.
Since GR reduces to Newton exactly at the level of precision the tides
require, there's no point. Not that you either understand or accept
this, but that's not my problem.
[snip rest of whining, and removed irrelevant newsgroups for followups]
RickMerrill
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rK6dnUgOYuGD_MjQ...@mchsi.com...
>> On 2/11/11 5:07 AM, Tom Potter wrote:
>>> In fact, I dare say that Gisse can't use Relativity to compute tides
>>> with or without Newtonian and Maxwellian hacks.
>>
>>
>> Potter blusters, froths and sometimes cries
>> Cannot compute tide's lows or highs
>> The only recognition Potter will get
>> is registration at crank dot net
>> Relativity he knows not when it applies
>
> I am pleased to see that my pal Sam Wormley admit
> that unlike Newton's model
> that is used millions of time every day
> to model, engineer and maintain mechanical systems,
>
> and Maxwell's model that is used millions of time every day
> to model, engineer and maintain electric and magnetic systems,
>
> and the Francis/Watson DNA model that is used millions of time every day
> to model, engineer and maintain living systems,
>
Actually it IS used millions of time every day.
We don't know what planet you're from ...
hanson
Tom Potter wrote:
Tom Potter wrote:
>
Tom Potter wrote:
tides with or without Newtonian & Maxwellian hacks.
>>>
Einstein Dingleberry Sam Wormley wrote:
<snip crap>
>>
Tom Potter wrote:
I am pleased to see that my pal Sam Wormley
admit that unlike Newton's model that is used
millions of time every day to model, engineer
to model, engineer and maintain electric and
magnetic systems, and the Francis/Watson DNA
model that is used millions of time every day
to model, engineer and maintain living systems,
that Relativity seems to be a Tower of Babel...
>
Actually it IS used millions of time every day.
We don't know what planet you're from ...
>
... ahahaha... What is this "We"-shit, Merill? you
mean Millions of Einstein Dingleberries?... who
don't know which planet they are from, like yourself
here, demonstrating on the tower of Babel, their
<http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity> with you
front center here?... and Sam Wormely and Eric
Gisse to your left and right with you, while millions
of rational folks do LOL and ROTFLALTAO over
your <http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>
Thank for the laughs, Merill... ahahahahanson
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
BURT
> "RickMerrill" <rick0.merr...@gmail.spamless> wrote:
>
> Tom Potter wrote:
Kiteic energy is how motion is in mass taking it above its fundamental
energy.
Mitch Raemsch
NoEinstein
>
Dear Immature Eric Gisse, Dunce 3: I don't have the time, the money,
nor the inclination to replicate my already well-proved KE experiment
by any other means than the two straight-forward dropped object tests
that I've explained, repeatedly. When you "confirmed" that ‘Nature
doesn't allow getting out four pounds of hamburger after grinding up
only two pounds of steak,’ you also assented that KE = 1/2mv^2 and E =
mc^2/beta are both wrong. So, no more... "confirmation experiments”
are required! My KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m) is well-proven to be
exactly correct. No more experiments, high school or otherwise, are
required. — NE —
NoEinstein
Dear Eric, Physics Flunk-Out: KE is the increased force-delivery-
potential of any accelerating object. The units of all forces is
POUNDS, the same as Earth weight. You cling, desperately, to your
failing hope that the complexity you crave in science will be
confirmed. I'm sweeping you and the corrupt Jewish textbook
publishers out with your stinking bath-water! — NE —
NoEinstein
Sorry if I keep "pricking" your trial balloons, Eric. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Eric, Dunce 3, is angry about being a loser. Someone spare him a
dime. — NE —
NoEinstein
Eric, Dunce 3: All you have to do to... "make me stop" is to stop
wasting everyone's time by continually seeking out my posts. — NE —
hanson
Kiteic energy is how motion is in mass taking it
above its fundamental energy.
>
Exactly, Mitch. Although it is not clear whether
it is that "Kikeic" or that "Kiteic energy" of yours,
it has given the final und incontrovertible, solid
<http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity>.
Kudos!. YOU have moved center stage now.
Tell this to Cavedon, the mental patient case
mpc755. He has a proud follower now, in you
being mpc756... TFTL.... ahahahahahanson
rasterspace
who obviously speaks pidgen English, and
probably cannot read & write his mothertongue,
as with so many others who crank-away
at _Einstein's Mistakes_ ??
BURT
SRT is about matter in motion. Motion is more energy for mass.
Fuel generates motion. Motion energy then is in mass that moves.
So at least part of the fuel energy new in time becomes
part of the accelerated ships mass by Gamma math for its speed.
Mitch Raemsch
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 11, 11:34 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Immature Eric Gisse, Dunce 3: I don't have the time,
Evidently you do, judging from how frequently you post.
>the money, nor the inclination to replicate my already well-proved KE experiment
Repetition of a crap experiment just reduces the uncertainty of the
result being crap.
> by any other means than the two straight-forward dropped object tests
> that I've explained, repeatedly. When you "confirmed" that ‘Nature
> doesn't allow getting out four pounds of hamburger after grinding up
> only two pounds of steak,’ you also assented that KE = 1/2mv^2 and E =
> mc^2/beta are both wrong.
You have no idea where those equations come from, much less how to use
them. Yet you quote them as if you knew what you were talking about. I
find that baffling.
> So, no more... "confirmation experiments” are required!
Not that you ever did even one that was worthy of the name. Dropping
small objects into clay....yeah that's good technique, dumbass.
> My KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m) is well-proven to be
> exactly correct.
Unless you use metric. Or do actual experiments that aren't riddled
with fundamental errors in tradecraft.
That you can't answer even the most trivial mechanics problem tells me
all I need to know about how 'correct' your equations are.
> No more experiments, high school or otherwise, are
> required. — NE —
Which is why you are not a scientist, but rather an armchair
quarterback who yells at the television screen.
The only difference here is the television screen sometimes notices
and laughs at you.
[...]
Tom Potter
Considering that my pal ERIC Greasy asserts that
"GR reduces to Newton exactly at the level of precision the tides require"
and considering that Newton used his primitive model and hand calculated
the size and shape of the Earth and the tides in many places,
I trust that my pal will first show how
"GR reduces to Newton exactly"
and then compute a few tides
using the "exactly".
Considering that my pal Greasy
has access to powerful modern computers
and cook book algorithms,
this should be a piece of cake for him.
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 11, 11:35 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 7:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 1:10 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 10, 9:51 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 10, 9:25 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 10, 5:51 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > [snip noise]
>
> > > > > > Nobody cares. Go back to your homeless shelter.
>
> > > > > Kinetic energy comes from fuel energy. But it is always in moving mass
> > > > > quantity. It becomes that.
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > Are you mentally ill?
>
> > > Dear Eric: The accrued, additive force that is KE comes from the fuel
> > > for the rocket. Do you disagree with that? If so, then it is you who
> > > are mentally deficient (not necessarily mentally ill). — NE —
>
> > Kinetic energy is not a force, stupid. Try again.
>
> Dear Eric, Physics Flunk-Out: KE is the increased force-delivery-
> potential of any accelerating object.
I admire your wrongness density.
> The units of all forces is
> POUNDS, the same as Earth weight. You cling, desperately, to your
> failing hope that the complexity you crave in science will be
> confirmed. I'm sweeping you and the corrupt Jewish textbook
> publishers out with your stinking bath-water! — NE —
I see you don't have the time to respond to legitimate inquiries, even
though you clearly have all the time in the world to whine about the
jews.
Eric Gisse
Or you could stop posting in a public forum to seek attention from
those you ostensibly claim are unworthy. You value the attention I
give you.
The proof is in your complete inability to stop responding to me.
Don't respond. I dare you. I bet you can't.
Dance, puppet!
NoEinstein
What "guy" is that? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Burt: The mass of the rocket ship never increases with added
velocity, only the destructive effect of a collision due to the
increased KE. I've disproved space-time, remember? — NE —
NoEinstein
Eric, Your "joy" in metric is there are different (supposed)
definitions of mass, matter, force, KE, inertia. The more
definitions, the more you might could escape simple truths. Do this,
Eric, please explain or link to one of those air hockey or swinging
ball experiments that you say confirms KE = 1/2mc^2 (sic). There is
no valid experiment that will allow getting out more "hamburger" than
the "steak" that was ground up. I promise to be objective, if you
will define the experiment. — NE —
NoEinstein
Conducting extraneous KE experiment that I don't have makes no sense.
Explain or link to an experiment, and I will clarify why the science
of it is right or wrong. Can you do that? — NE —
NoEinstein
"Elvis has left the building."
Eric Gisse
You can't help yourself!
> Eric, Your "joy" in metric is there are different (supposed)
> definitions of mass, matter, force, KE, inertia.
Actually the joy in metric is that everything is a power of ten. Did
you not learn this....ever?
> The more
> definitions, the more you might could escape simple truths. Do this,
> Eric, please explain or link to one of those air hockey or swinging
> ball experiments that you say confirms KE = 1/2mc^2 (sic).
Look, I already know you are stupid. No need to hammer the point in by
saying stupid things like 'KE = 1/2 mc^2'.
> There is
> no valid experiment that will allow getting out more "hamburger" than
> the "steak" that was ground up. I promise to be objective, if you
> will define the experiment. — NE —
The only thing you'll promise to do is repeat your stupid little
catchphrase of the moment, and then spout stupidities about how you
never learned Newton and are too fucking dense to pick up a book and
learn.
Of course you won't phrase it that way, but that's how it reads.
Eric Gisse
Do you SERIOUSLY need me to explain to you the concept of bouncing two
objects of known speed off one another on a mostly frictionless
surface?
Why do you take yourself so seriously when you can't even manage to
figure out how that would work?
Eric Gisse
DANCE, PUPPET!
NoEinstein
>
Eric: It is you who have harped over and over about my results being
in conflict with experiments that are run in high school physics
labs. When I took HS physics there was no budget for an experiment
lab. Things were chalked on the board and talked about. That was
it. Do you expect me to go back to HS and take physics in hopes of
seeing some God-damned KE experiment(s)? Please explain, in detail,
what one of your typical experiments entailed. If you are unwilling
to do that, then shut-the-fuck-up about me being wrong about KE. I'm
calling your bluff, Eric. So far you are failing in your attacks. —
NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: Air Hockey wasn't part of my recreation nor education.
Define (or link to) a typical experiment, and explain how the
experiment results were measured and assessed. If you don't still
have your HS physics text, get a similar experiment from your college
physics book and paraphrase it. I sense that you know I can explain-
the-hell around any KE experiment ever run. Cry UNCLE, Eric, or
provide the requested experiment details. That should only take a
paragraph or so. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Puppets will dance only if the puppeteer knows which strings to pull,
and when. So far, Eric, you aren't qualified to rub-you-stomach and
pat-your-head at the same time. — NE —
PD
> On Feb 14, 9:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eric: It is you who have harped over and over about my results being
> in conflict with experiments that are run in high school physics
> labs. When I took HS physics there was no budget for an experiment
> lab. Things were chalked on the board and talked about. That was
> it. Do you expect me to go back to HS and take physics in hopes of
> seeing some God-damned KE experiment(s)? Please explain, in detail,
> what one of your typical experiments entailed. If you are unwilling
> to do that, then shut-the-fuck-up about me being wrong about KE. I'm
> calling your bluff, Eric. So far you are failing in your attacks. —
> NE —
>
"I was taught poorly. It is therefore their fault that I don't know
what I'm talking about. You cannot expect me to correct that for
myself. The burden is on you to do that for me. Otherwise, I am right
and you are wrong."
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 14, 9:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eric: It is you who have harped over and over about my results being
> in conflict with experiments that are run in high school physics
> labs. When I took HS physics there was no budget for an experiment
> lab. Things were chalked on the board and talked about. That was
> it. Do you expect me to go back to HS and take physics in hopes of
> seeing some God-damned KE experiment(s)?
In effect, yes I do because you clearly didn't learn anything the
first time around. If you went to college you'd be put first into a
remedial algebra course, then eventually introductory physics where
these topics would be gently introduced to you.
> Please explain, in detail,
> what one of your typical experiments entailed. If you are unwilling
> to do that, then shut-the-fuck-up about me being wrong about KE. I'm
> calling your bluff, Eric. So far you are failing in your attacks. —
> NE —
http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/energy-skate-park
http://www.physics.neu.edu/phy_lab/ABSTRACT.pdf
You know why I keep referring to highschool? Because that's the level
at which your experiments operate at, and that's the level at which I
can borrow from to show you are wrong. You won't appreciate or even
understand anything beyond that.
Yes such things are incredibly patronizing but that's what you get for
behaving the way you do.
[...]
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 14, 9:04 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric: Air Hockey wasn't part of my recreation nor education.
> Define (or link to) a typical experiment, and explain how the
> experiment results were measured and assessed. If you don't still
> have your HS physics text, get a similar experiment from your college
> physics book and paraphrase it. I sense that you know I can explain-
> the-hell around any KE experiment ever run. Cry UNCLE, Eric, or
> provide the requested experiment details. That should only take a
> paragraph or so. — NE —
http://www.physics.neu.edu/phy_lab/ABSTRACT.pdf
This covers a one semester course in introductory physics. I would
have read from the resources I used but I sold them a long time ago. I
didn't keep any of my introductory books because there's nothing left
for me to learn. Only the actually useful ones persist on my
bookshelf.
Eric Gisse
DANCE, PUPPET!
NoEinstein
yours, is really a poor subject of discussion about science.
Strangely, you've tried the "blog" communication mode with your fellow
status quo brown-nosers, but you keep coming back wherever I post to
seek that unattainable ego-boost you crave. You are and have been a
loser from the get-go, Eric. I'd say you are no more than 25%
objective. Your answering "no" to this question: "Is it ever possible
to get out four pounds of hamburger after grinding up only two pounds
of steak?" was the correct answer that shoots down your Moron idol,
Albert Einstein. And it shoots down your ever obtaining the "Eric is
smart" acclaim that caused you to major in, then, flunk out of
physics. I will humor you only so long as you back up your claims
with viable science. My "assignment" for you is to define and
quantify any air hockey experiment which you suppose confirms KE = 1/2
mv^2. After all, that is what this post is about. — NE —
NoEinstein
> On 2/11/11 9:56 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > additive force that is KE
>
> Or are you?
Elucidate, Sam. Any fool can make claims about "the messenger". If
you can back-up your jealous claims, please do so. Your science
status continues to be nil to none. — NE —
NoEinstein
Folks: I've offered to send Eric Gisse the materials to do the
conclusive dropped object KE experiment carefully described in the
essay with the ***. He conveniently calls my experiment "crappy",
while refusing to explain or link to any KE experiment that is simpler
or more valid. Sounds like Eric is caught between a rock and a hard
place, doesn't it. — NE —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
*** KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. ***
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082ccdb7b1bf67/0eb5a96f57493f20?lnk=raot
Busting MythBusters.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/2e95660ecf69048d/ae6c137610ee3437?hl=en#ae6c137610ee3437
Gravity Effects Across Etherless Regions of Space.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7f59b900f24e881/38262930c6655db1?hl=en#38262930c6655db1
Where is the matter Einstein says velocity creates?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/85646434c6d7cd3b/fa38761134ee8408?hl=en#fa38761134ee8408
Dropping Coriolis like a feather.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/182d6fbe7e70b75f/21c92e2427fd7e98?hl=en#21c92e2427fd7e98
Busting MythBusters… again.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b9e0c340772c003f?hl=en
SRT Demands Energy in Amounts that Aren’t Available.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b1e62f3e355fb626?hl=en#
NoEinstein
I just tell it like it is, Eric. I've called-your-bluff regarding you
supposed definitive air hockey KE experiment. Elucidate on that
experiment that you worship, or shut the fuck up. — NE —
NoEinstein
Describe your air hockey experiment, Dunce 3. I bet you can't. Ha,
ha, HA! — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Eric: Your standard of correctness is agreement with whatever the 75%
errant Jewish textbooks say. My standard of correctness is rationally
figuring out how the Universe functions without consulting any errant
texts. So far, no morons like you and Einstein have shown me to be
wrong. That said, I invite all who think they can do so to give it
their best shot. And remember, ‘shooting the messenger’ is not
offering any substantive science. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
Eric: I don't need for you to do anything. However, unless you can
explain an actual air hockey experiment, its mode of measurement, and
the results, you will need to shore-up your non-existent credibility
in science. — NE —
NoEinstein
Folks: PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. — NE —
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: Nice try. I don't need a year’s worth of make-science-
interesting suggestions for HS science teachers. I simply need for
you to select one AIR HOCKEY experiment which you can show disproves
my disproof of KE = 1/2 mv^2. Whatever you do or don't do, you are
going to lose. So, why not get it over with? Are you a... man, or a
mouse? — NE —
>
> On Feb 14, 9:16 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 9:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric: It is you who have harped over and over about my results being
> > in conflict with experiments that are run in high school physics
> > labs. When I took HS physics there was no budget for an experiment
> > lab. Things were chalked on the board and talked about. That was
> > it. Do you expect me to go back to HS and take physics in hopes of
> > seeing some God-damned KE experiment(s)?
>
> In effect, yes I do because you clearly didn't learn anything the
> first time around. If you went to college you'd be put first into a
> remedial algebra course, then eventually introductory physics where
> these topics would be gently introduced to you.
>
> > Please explain, in detail,
> > what one of your typical experiments entailed. If you are unwilling
> > to do that, then shut-the-fuck-up about me being wrong about KE. I'm
> > calling your bluff, Eric. So far you are failing in your attacks. —
> > NE —
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: Nice try. I don't need a year’s worth of make-science-
interesting suggestions for HS science teachers. I simply need for
you to select one AIR HOCKEY experiment which you can show disproves
my disproof of KE = 1/2 mv^2. Whatever you do or don't do, you are
going to lose. So, why not get it over with? Are you a... man, or a
mouse? — NE —
>
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 14, 7:58 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric: Nice try. I don't need a year’s worth of make-science-
> interesting suggestions for HS science teachers.
Considering you think you've "disproved" all of physics by dropping
stuff into clay, I think that is exactly the level of education that
you need.
>I simply need for
> you to select one AIR HOCKEY experiment which you can show disproves
> my disproof of KE = 1/2 mv^2.
Actually the phrase "thixotropic solid" covers your experiment quite
nicely. Not that you yet know what that means, of course.
As for an actual experiment, I do believe if you had the reading
skills of a 5th grader you would be able to pick out the words 'air
hockey'.
> Whatever you do or don't do, you are
> going to lose. So, why not get it over with? Are you a... man, or a
> mouse? — NE —
>
[...]
Eric Gisse
Have you ever noticed how only 1-3 people ever respond to you?
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 11, 11:44 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric: Your being a Jew
http://www.whattofix.com/images/FruitLoops.jpg
[snip rest of baffling stupidity]
jbriggs444
> On Feb 14, 9:02 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eric: Your standard of correctness is agreement with whatever the 75%
> errant Jewish textbooks say. My standard of correctness is rationally
> figuring out how the Universe functions without consulting any errant
> texts. So far, no morons like you and Einstein have shown me to be
> wrong. That said, I invite all who think they can do so to give it
> their best shot. And remember, ‘shooting the messenger’ is not
> offering any substantive science. — NoEinstein —
If rationality were truly your guide, you might note the absence of
perpetual motion machines and start from a principle of conservation
of energy.
This principle implies that the energy released by a falling mass
must be identically equal to the energy consumed by lifting that
mass back up. You might be able to work yourself around to
the idea that energy is directly proportional to height. Or even
that it is also proportional to the acceleration of gravity and to the
mass of the object.
E = m * a * h
Observations of falling objects might lead you to equations
for their motion.
h = 1/2 a * t^2 and v = a * t.
If you were not bound by your preconceptions, you might even
combine those equations to get
E = 1/2 m * a * (a t^2)
= 1/2 m * v^2
But no, that's asking for a lot of rationality. Far easier to
toss off a casual insult or to change the subject.
Far easier to avoid any textbooks that might confirm such
a conclusion.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
How does the puck float on air? It floats like a kite with wind air
flowing pushing up from underneath.
How fast is the air flowing underneath and how high above is the puck
over the table?
What are the dimensions of the air flowing underneath? Does
temperature make a difference?
Does the air flowing across the table surface have higher density? Is
it necessary?
Does the flowing air come out the opposite puck holes?
Mich Raemsch
NoEinstein
Folks: As usual, Eric Gisse is pussy-footing. The likely weaknesses
of any air-hockey experiments include the manner and accuracy of
measuring the velocities; and the unsuitability of using "distance of
slide" as an indication of the accrued KE. Eric just won't talk
science, will he. — NE —