Proof that Einstein is a LYING IDIOT 15 years AFTER his firstrelativity paper.

it's not as hard to read as I thought, but
there is still some vagueness in your set-up. anyway,
I'm certain that the "nonlinearity" is even greater
than you suspect, with regard to the properties
of the clay, itself. for instance,
you might even get a noticably differnt result, if
you dropped teh lighter ball, first, since
it seems that you dropped them into teh same pot.

but, yers, Coriolis' "semiparabolic [?]" form
of Liebniz's *vis viva*, as well as the original
without the coefficient of 1/2, would
expect teh same KE. teh questio is,
will the clay cooperate, or could you use something
that is more "modern" to measure it?

what else is used in these labs to measure theses things?
got an Edmund Scientific catalog?

anyway, teh thing is that Liebniz was not wrong;
it is indicated that he only said taht
the KE is "directly propotional" to the second-power
of the velocity, not giving the coefficient
of proportionality; my guess is that Coriolis,
simply did a little bit of integral calculus,
to get it.

there's a squiggly that they use on the wookeypoopey page
for "kinetic energy," that means that,
instead of an equals sign; it's like an infinity sign,
with one of the loops cut in half, like
oc instead of oo. I mean,
it's pretty bad, when I have to use a thing
like wookypoopeyea!

so, all that you've got to prove,
is that your teeny-tiny analysis of clay behavior is true, or
use another means of measuring those balls. I mean,
thoughts on the static & dynamic coefficients
of friction are important, two -- "necessary, but
not sufficient to prove your case," and
it is htose two words that define the whole idea
of proof, as given us by Liebniz, himself.

so, do yourself a little favor, and
*assume* that clay is not really adequately descrbed
merely by coeffients of friction ... like,
how about elasticity?

On Apr 25, 10:13*pm, tensegriboy wrote:
it's not as hard to read as I thought, but
there is still some vagueness in your set-up. *anyway,
I'm certain that the "nonlinearity" is even greater
than you suspect, with regard to the properties
of the clay, itself. *for instance,
you might even get a noticably differnt result, if
you dropped teh lighter ball, first, since
it seems that you dropped them into teh same pot.

but, yers, Coriolis' "semiparabolic [?]" form
of Liebniz's *vis viva*, as well as the original
without the coefficient of 1/2, would
expect teh same KE. *teh questio is,
will the clay cooperate, or could you use something
that is more "modern" to measure it?

what else is used in these labs to measure theses things?
got an Edmund Scientific catalog?

Dear tgb: I dropped both balls into the same pot so no doubters could
claim that the clay wasn't mixed the same. My KE results with a small
dropped clevis pin, falling head-to-head with a larger, spring-mounted
clevis pin, prove that my KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m) exactly
predicts the height of drop to cause the KE of the smaller pin to
match the inertia (static weight) of the larger pin. When that
condition is met, the two pins compress together long enough so that
the ringing sound of the smaller pin turns into a recordable...
CLUNK. Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 UNDERESTIMATES the initial KE in the
first part of a fall, because no one before me has realized that an
object's static weight is an instantaneous KE that’s there before the
object has fallen .001"! Everything I say is conclusive. Discussing
things with you is largely a waste of my time. — NoEinstein —

On Apr 25, 11:08*pm, tensegriboy wrote:

tgb: Nothing mathematical, like calculus, is needed to "define" KE.
To say that the KE is the "summation" of the KE in each second, isn't
a summation requiring calculus, but only the ADDITION of the accrued
KE from the start of the fall to the point in question. The value of
the KE of a falling near Earth object can be determined by figuring
out or measuring the TIME of the object's fall, and multiplying that
time by the object's static weight. As I’ve explained so often
before, the final KE also includes the object’s static weight. If the
object, for whatever reason, is traveling at a uniform velocity, the
MOMENTUM equation is F (in pounds) = v / 32.174 (m). At no time is
calculus, nor any contrivance of a God-damned mathematician required
to determine the answer! — NoEinstein —

anyway, teh thing is that Liebniz was not wrong;
it is indicated that he only said taht
the KE is "directly propotional" to the second-power
of the velocity, not giving the coefficient
of proportionality; my guess is that Coriolis,
simply did a little bit of integral calculus,
to get it.

there's a squiggly that they use on the wookeypoopey page
for "kinetic energy," that means that,
instead of an equals sign; it's like an infinity sign,
with one of the loops cut in half, like
oc instead of oo. *I mean,
it's pretty bad, when I have to use a thing
like wookypoopeyea!

so, all that you've got to prove,
is that your teeny-tiny analysis of clay behavior is true, or
use another means of measuring those balls. *I mean,
thoughts on the static & dynamic coefficients
of friction are important, two -- "necessary, but
not sufficient to prove your case," and
it is htose two words that define the whole idea
of proof, as given us by Liebniz, himself.

so, do yourself a little favor, and
*assume* that clay is not really adequately descrbed
merely by coeffients of friction ... like,
how about elasticity?

On 26.04.2011 22:21, NoEinstein wrote:
no one before me has realized that an
object's static weight is an instantaneous KE that’s there before the
object has fallen .001"!

You are probably right about that! :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

that's what integration is, summation, but
I am not interested in the calculus;
it's your hare-brained arithemetic that is so funny.

to say that it is determined
by coefficients of friction is rather bizzzaaar, and
taht is certainly easy to prove ... but
I'll let you look it "up," firstly, because
you might have a better idea of waht subject
that needs to be addressed, aside from friction ...
unless you can find or create a theory that
gives all of the other problems of deformation,
"in terms of" friction ... sounds like some thing
that Newton would fail to do, again.

anyway, Liebniz also gave us the standard notation
for integration; the British were a hundred years
behind the application of calculus thereby,
compared to teh Continetnt, because
of the phoney Newton-Liebniz controversy;
it's really their secular state church!

On Apr 26, 4:59*pm, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
On 26.04.2011 22:21, NoEinstein wrote:

no one before me has realized that an
object's static weight is an instantaneous KE that’s there before the
object has fallen .001"!

You are probably right about that! :-)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dear Paul B. Andersen. My middle name is Anderson, so we both have
Nordic connections. A family named Anderson adopted Daniel Boone's
Shawnee Indian daughter, Kaziah. She was my great, great grandmother;
making me, my sister, and my Armistead 1st cousins 1/32 Daniel Boone—
his closest living relatives. You are both wise and brave to agree
with my New Science. Whether you or I disproved KE = 1/2mv^2, the
results show that such equation doesn't correctly "predict" anything,
and by so determining, Einstein's E = mc^2 is disproved as well,
because such was "derived" from the Coriolis equation. And, of
course, both of those equations violate the Law of the conservation of
Energy-Mass. Thanks for your intelligent and sensible reply! —
NoEinstein —

On Apr 26, 9:37*pm, tensegriboy wrote:
that's what integration is, summation, but
I am not interested in the calculus;
it's your hare-brained arithemetic that is so funny.

to say that it is determined
by coefficients of friction is rather bizzzaaar, and
taht is certainly easy to prove ... but
I'll let you look it "up," firstly, because
you might have a better idea of waht subject
that needs to be addressed, aside from friction ...
unless you can find or create a theory that
gives all of the other problems of deformation,
"in terms of" friction ... sounds like some thing
that Newton would fail to do, again.

Dear tgb: Nothing about my falling ball KE experiment relates to
coefficients of friction. Since both equal-size but different weight
balls impact the same bed of clay with (supposedly) the same KE, both
should embed the same amount. But using Coriolis's formula to
calculate the heights of drop to (supposedly) have = KEs, the
embedment depths are nowhere close to equal. That simple test
invalidates Coriolis and Einstein in one fell swoop! — NE —

On Apr 27, 8:54*pm, tensegriboy wrote:
anyway, Liebniz also gave us the standard notation
for integration; the British were a hundred years
behind the application of calculus thereby,
compared to teh Continetnt, because
of the phoney Newton-Liebniz controversy;
it's really their secular state church!

Dear tgb: You are either a paradox, or your "English" has a conflict
of terms. There is no such thing as a "secular" state church, unless
you consider atheism to be a religion. — NE —