Do I understand this correctly?

On Jan 31, 12:05*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/30/11 10:56 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 29, 2:00 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 1/29/11 11:27 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

I've proved that his supposed equation, F = ma, isn't even an equation!

* * The only thing you have demonstrated, John, is that you are
* * untutored in both physics and mathematics.

Dear Sam: *The dumb need to be taught by others. *The SMART can teach
themselves without school! *I've redefined the Universe without taking
the nonsense found in any text as gospel. *I'll bet you are still
thumbing through texts to have points for your arguments. *Learn to
THINK, Sam, and your text-thumbing days are over! * NE

* *Can you solve physics problems (classical mechanics), John?

* *Can you start with the differential equation F = dp/dt and assuming
* *constant force derive the equations for a flown ball?

Sam: Are apples and oranges equal? A force, in pounds, certainly
isn't the same thing as "pound-feet/second^2", now is it. So, F = ma
isn't even an equation! My own kinetic energy equation provides most
of the data needed relating to moving bodies. It is: KE = a/g (m) +
v/32.174 (m). Notice that the UNITS on both sides are pounds =
pounds. And that is like all equations must be! — NE —

On Jan 31, 12:30*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/30/11 11:21 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Thanks! *Most that I say is fascinating, unless the reader happens to
be....

* *...knowledgeable in physics and realizes that you are a doofus less
* *educated than Potter.

A put-down by a science nobody like you, Sam, only shows how jealous
you are. Oh, if only you had learned to think clearly as a kid. — NE
—

On Jan 31, 11:39*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:11*pm, NoEinstein wrote:









On Jan 31, 1:01*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

I'll agree that you think what you say is fascinating.
That is because "forces" (in pounds) can NEVER be equated to
accelerations (in feet/second^2, [sic!])!!
So John, did you _really_ just make that mistake?
Force has units of [mass] * [length] / [time^2]. Just like F = ma
says.
No, Eric. *Forces do not require an acceleration to BE!
Do you know what acceleration is, John? It is a change in velocity.
If an object sitting still is pushed, and it starts to move, did it accelerate?
You are caught up in that now disproved "relativistic mass".

There is no acceleration worthy of writing an equation about.
A Structural beam deflecting as little as 6" can fail, Eric.
Is the motion during that 6" deflection worth anyone's time to
quantify?

That isn't really relevant to the discussion, now is it?



I would say no, because relativity has absolutely nothing to do with
what you are arguing about.

Of course not! *I've disproved your hero, Einstein; remember?!

You are stuck on Newtonian mechanics. You know, the simple stuff you
don't grasp.

You are like a person who fails physics 101 but thinks he can grasp
graduate physics courses. Unskilled and unaware of it, etc.











Your difficulties lie squarely in the realm of "**** you are taught in high
school and physics 101".
If you took statics in engineering, like I did, you would understand that
structures stand or fall, without any movement that could be quantified
as an acceleration.
Duh. That's because in statics, the sum of all the forces is equal to
zero so there is NO movement.

Tell that to the beams that deflect under the applied loads!

Now, is the pound a unit of mass or a unit of force in imperial
units?
This question stands.

How about THIS question: *"Is it ever possible to get-out four pounds
of Hamburger
after grinding-up only two pounds of Steak?" * You keep avoiding that
simple
but crucial question regarding your intellect, Eric. *Why is that? *—
NoEinstein —

I already said "no", idiot. Not that the question serves any purpose
other than showing all of us the level on which you operate.

My disproving Einstein at a simple level, apparently, is way over your
head. When things are simple, Eric, you can't escape into some
mindless complexity. So, stop running away from the SIMPLE truths! —
NoEinstein —

On Feb 2, 9:21*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:27*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:40*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

What "simple problem" can't you work, Eric? *Ha, ha, HA! *— NE —

This is a 5 minute exercise for someone who knows the material.

You have asserted that you 'OWN Mechanics', so I wish to put that
rather bold claim to the test by seeing if you can solve a fairly
simple exercise. If you think that is too simple, I assure you I can
find a straightforward problem that is sufficiently complex.

Did you honestly expect me to say "oh, ok" when you make the absurd
claim that you now 'own mechanics'?

The problem is as stated. Do you need more information? I'd offer the
relevant equations, but since you reject them I didn't see the need.









On Jan 31, 4:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...]

Folks: *Eric has his physics WRONG, as usual. *I now OWN Mechanics—
that had about 80% of it wrong. *Simple and correct trumps complicated
and WRONG every time! — *NE —

Great. Let's see you work through a simple problem then.

I throw a superball off a cliff with a horizontal velocity of 10m/s.
The cliff is 100m tall.

1) How far away from the cliff does the superball land?
2) What is the superball's speed when it hits the ground?
3) How long does it take for the superball to hit the ground?

Dear Eric: I happen to be a very busy person. I don't owe you, Dunce
3, proof of my superior IQ. People know that already. — NE —

On Feb 2, 9:44*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:25*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:39*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

Alright, Eric. *"No", is the correct answer! *The consequence of your
answer is your affirmation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy-
Mass. *By doing so, you are assenting to my simple disproofs of your
idol, Albert Einstein, as well my disproofs of Coriolis, whom you have
adamantly defended.

I don't really care all that much about Coriolis. History is one of my
strong suits, but there are limits to how much I'll give a **** about
what is quite frankly something rather mundane.

You've disproved nothing. You can't even work out a simple mechanics
problem. Sure you haven't responded to my n+1'th request to do a
simple mechanics problem but your response will be the same as befo
"I can't". You might not say it that way, but that's what it'll come
down to. All that talk and you can't even handle something given to
high school students.

*You know what your problem is Eric?

Too much spoo, not enough fleem.

*You majored
in "complicated" physics so that others would think you are smart,
like MORON Einstein.

You should treat your betters with more respect.

*Then, along comes me, NoEinstein, who shows that
much of physics is really so simple that few need to go to college to
major in the subject.

Really? What an interesting attitude.

I have very little artistic aptitude. But I can draw a straight line.
Which is approximately the same level of technical aptitude which you
have displayed for physics. Am I an architect?

Let me share a secret with you. It isn't really a secret, so much as
information that takes intellectual currency that lots of folks don't
possess. Physics, when you get down to it, is astonishing simple to a
fairly large degree. Now don't get me wrong - its' still HARD, but
understanding the majority of what passes for modern physics only
requires the understanding of roughly a dozen principle equations and
their requisite mathematics.

Newton really boils down to knowing Newton's laws. The Lagrangian/
Hamiltonian methods make it dead ****ing easy. One equation.
Maxwell consists of Maxwell's equations. The material can get
arbitrarily complex, but the core knowledge is just that. Four
equations, or two in covariant form.
Thermodynamics doesn't distill so neatly, unfortunately. Roughly a
dozen equations.
Special relativity comes down to SO(3,1) aka the Lorentz group. One
equation.
GR distills down to the Einstein field equations. Complex right out of
the gate, but not intractable. One equation.
Nonrelativistic QM comes down to H\psi = E\psi, and the tricks you
learned from handling Newton. One equation.

All physics up until about 1930 can be stuffed onto a 3x5" index card
with room to spare.

*Your EGO depends on complexity. *I recommend
that you find yourself another hobby.

Maybe I could give myself a pseudonym, like "NoFrankLloydWright" and
**** all over architecture forums because I don't know what the **** a
flying buttress is and how all architects have been "held back" and
other such nonsense.

Then I could say that architecture is simple and that you don't
actually need to do silly things like "go to school" or "get
certified". But that'd be retarded, right?

*I don't 'hate' you, Eric,
because I understand you so well. *— NoEinstein —

[...]

Nice that you got that off your chest, Eric. Remember, you still
answered "No" to my hamburger question. That means you can strike
Albert Einstein's lame equations off of as many 3" x 5" cards as you
like. Have a great day! — NE —

On Feb 2, 9:49*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:36*am, NoEinstein wrote:
[...]

Sam: *I am the man who has correctly defined the mechanism of
gravity. *So, I won't let you dictate which problems I choose to solve
in science. *Nice try, anyway. *— NE —

Excellent! When can we expect to see your derivation of Mercury's
perihelion advance?

Dear Eric: My New Science gives the correct REASONS for the observed
Mercury orbit variations. Einstein spent a decade of his life writing
empirical equations to define that orbit. Since those equations fit
many non circular orbit effects (like GPS), his GR is an acceptable
mathematical predictor. However, the mechanism of gravity has nothing
to do with... space-time variance near massive objects. It is solely
the result of the varying ether pressure and velocity near massive
objects. Both of those happen to obey the inverse square law, and
cause a "correction" (to Newtonian mechanics) close to the Lorentz
transformation. But I can assure you that objects don't become more
massive the faster they travel! Only the EFFECTIVE hitting power (in
pound), that is the momentum, becomes greater. And that happens
without adding a single atom of mass! — NE —

On Feb 2, 10:38*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/2/11 6:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:32 pm, Sam *wrote:

* * Obviously, John, you never had calculus and cannot work with
* * F = dp/dt to derive equations for projectiles in a constant
* * gravitational field.

Sam: *I am the man who has correctly defined the mechanism of
gravity. *So, I won't let you dictate which problems I choose to solve
in science. *Nice try, anyway. * NE

* *Betcha don't have the capability to determine the time dilation
* *of a satellite clock in an orbit approaching zero eccentricity at
* *an elevation 207 km above MSL. Certainly gravitation is a big
* *factor.

Sam, I don't have the TIME to do any problems you propose. Unlike
you, I have dozens of irons in the fire! — NE —

On 2/3/11 5:34 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:38 am, Sam wrote:
On 2/2/11 6:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:32 pm, Sam wrote:

Obviously, John, you never had calculus and cannot work with
F = dp/dt to derive equations for projectiles in a constant
gravitational field.

Sam: I am the man who has correctly defined the mechanism of
gravity. So, I won't let you dictate which problems I choose to solve
in science. Nice try, anyway. NE

Betcha don't have the capability to determine the time dilation
of a satellite clock in an orbit approaching zero eccentricity at
an elevation 207 km above MSL. Certainly gravitation is a big
factor.

Sam, I don't have the TIME to do any problems you propose. Unlike
you, I have dozens of irons in the fire! — NE —

None of your "irons" can do physics or calculate time dilation.
Your posting record confirms you just an insignificant blow hard.

On 2/3/11 5:06 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:05 am, Sam wrote:
On 1/30/11 10:56 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 29, 2:00 pm, Sam wrote:
On 1/29/11 11:27 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

I've proved that his supposed equation, F = ma, isn't even an equation!

The only thing you have demonstrated, John, is that you are
untutored in both physics and mathematics.

Dear Sam: The dumb need to be taught by others. The SMART can teach
themselves without school! I've redefined the Universe without taking
the nonsense found in any text as gospel. I'll bet you are still
thumbing through texts to have points for your arguments. Learn to
THINK, Sam, and your text-thumbing days are over! NE

Can you solve physics problems (classical mechanics), John?

Can you start with the differential equation F = dp/dt and assuming
constant force derive the equations for a flown ball?

Sam: Are apples and oranges equal? A force, in pounds, certainly
isn't the same thing as "pound-feet/second^2", now is it. So, F = ma
isn't even an equation! My own kinetic energy equation provides most
of the data needed relating to moving bodies. It is: KE = a/g (m) +
v/32.174 (m). Notice that the UNITS on both sides are pounds =
pounds. And that is like all equations must be! — NE —

Insignificant blather.

On Feb 3, 3:16*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Feb 2, 9:21*am, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Feb 2, 4:27*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 31, 11:40*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

What "simple problem" can't you work, Eric? *Ha, ha, HA! *— NE —

This is a 5 minute exercise for someone who knows the material.

You have asserted that you 'OWN Mechanics', so I wish to put that
rather bold claim to the test by seeing if you can solve a fairly
simple exercise. If you think that is too simple, I assure you I can
find a straightforward problem that is sufficiently complex.

Did you honestly expect me to say "oh, ok" when you make the absurd
claim that you now 'own mechanics'?

The problem is as stated. Do you need more information? I'd offer the
relevant equations, but since you reject them I didn't see the need.

On Jan 31, 4:14*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[...]

Folks: *Eric has his physics WRONG, as usual. *I now OWN Mechanics—
that had about 80% of it wrong. *Simple and correct trumps complicated
and WRONG every time! — *NE —

Great. Let's see you work through a simple problem then.

I throw a superball off a cliff with a horizontal velocity of 10m/s.
The cliff is 100m tall.

1) How far away from the cliff does the superball land?
2) What is the superball's speed when it hits the ground?
3) How long does it take for the superball to hit the ground?

Dear Eric: *I happen to be a very busy person. *I don't owe you, Dunce
3, proof of my superior IQ. *People know that already. *— NE —

That's ok John. I know you are very busy doing things like ranting
about the jews, and posting long irrelevant screeds. But actually
doing a little work to establish that you actually know what you are
talking about? "Too busy".

Its' ok if you can't do it. Lots of folks here can't either - like
Henry Wilson, Androcles, Porat, etc.