Do I understand this correctly?

On Jan 29, 9:57*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jan 28, 3:39*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jan 28, 11:18*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 27, 9:53*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

CORRECTION: *Newton's 2nd Law of Motion has a useless equation
(produces no useful data) that is F = ma... NOT F = ma^2! *I've
written Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 so many times that my fingers didn't
type what my mind knows.

Which, all things being equal, is not all that much.

*Note: The WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law
is correct: "For every constantly applied force on an object, there
will be a corresponding acceleration in the same direction as the
force." *The reason my correct equation F = v/32.174 (m) uses VELOCITY
(instead of "acceleration") is because the convention for expressing
acceleration is to state the VELOCITY at the end of the first second.
That makes the FORCE proportional to relative first second VELOCITY,
which is analogous to the constant acceleration. *Sorry for any
confusion this may have caused. *— NoEinstein —

You have not managed actually disprove F=ma, or anything related to
Newtonian mechanics. Your errors wouldn't survive scrutiny in a high
school physics lab.

BTW, learn to use symbols.

[jackass still top posts]

Dear Eric, Dunce 3: ***Is POUNDS the same thing as feet per second
'square'?***

Well, yes. Those are the units of the pound. Did you miss that part in
high school?

Dear Dunce 3: *The standard for scientific correctness isn't what the
God damned Jewish publishers allow in their texts (high school texts,
included)!

I'm sure it is just a remarkable coincidence that a guy who rants
against Einstein just pinched off a rant about 'the jews'.

Regardless, let me see if I am reading you correctly. You seem to
think the definition of the pound is a jewish conspiracy?

*I can assure you that my CREDENTIALS are being made
evident to the readers every day.

I'll stipulate the truth of that.

But let's expand on that further, John. In the ~4 years you've been
ranting to USENET, have you actually managed to convince anyone that
you are correct and that everyone else is wrong at a level that is
testable in highschool physics labs which can be purchased with beer
money?

*So far, your credentials relate
only to your groundless put-downs of those of whom you are jealous,
not to anything relating to real science. — NoEinstein —

I've discussed real science plenty over the years. A google search is
sufficient verification of that.

Plus I do believe I just mentioned that d = 1/2 at^2 + vt is a useful
consequence of F = ma and you chose to ignore that and instead rant
about jewish book publishers.

Do you have a response to that, or would you prefer to focus your
ample free time on ranting about **** nobody cares about?

[...]

On Jan 29, 9:27*am, NoEinstein wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:53*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:19*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

CORRECTION: *Newton's 2nd Law of Motion has a useless equation
(produces no useful data) that is F = ma... NOT F = ma^2! *I've
written Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 so many times that my fingers didn't
type what my mind knows.

Which, all things being equal, is not all that much.

*Note: The WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law
is correct: "For every constantly applied force on an object, there
will be a corresponding acceleration in the same direction as the
force." *The reason my correct equation F = v/32.174 (m) uses VELOCITY
(instead of "acceleration") is because the convention for expressing
acceleration is to state the VELOCITY at the end of the first second.
That makes the FORCE proportional to relative first second VELOCITY,
which is analogous to the constant acceleration. *Sorry for any
confusion this may have caused. *— NoEinstein —

You have not managed actually disprove F=ma, or anything related to
Newtonian mechanics. Your errors wouldn't survive scrutiny in a high
school physics lab.

BTW, learn to use symbols.

[jackass still top posts]

Dear Eric, the SHRIMP, Jewish, science flunk-out:

Zero for three, John.

I haven't claimed to
have disproved the WORD version of Newton's 2nd Law of Motion. *I've
proved that his supposed equation, F = ma, isn't even an equation!

I'll give you credit - that is a fascinating assertion.

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.

Now, is the pound a unit of mass or a unit of force in imperial
units?

Were you not taught the metric system, or are you just so old that you
don't give a ****? There's a reason the entire world minus the US has
dropped imperial. I'm sure its' coincidence that it is next to
impossible to find a system of units in use by a scientific paper that
isn't a variation of metric.

*You are from a class of
psychos having the notion that you can increase your miniscule stature
by trying to belittle others WITH statue in science.

Who would that be, John? You are a psedononymous airmchair physicist
who thinks he has 'disproved' F = ma. So you can not possibly expect
me to believe that you have 'statue' [sic] in science.

*Show the readers
your status, Eric, by correctly answering this question: "Is it ever
possible to get out 4 lbs. of hamburger after grinding up only 2 lbs.
of steak?” *After you answer, or decline to answer, that question, no
elementary school student will be holding YOU in high intellectual
esteem. *— NoEinstein —

That kind of question certainly does tell everyone the level at which
you operate, doesn't it?

On Jan 29, 11:00*am, Sam Wormley 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.

I walk into the student area in the physics department, and a battle
is raging. A fellow that won't be named had an annoying habit of being
an annoying ****wit is leading the charge. I ask 'what the **** are
you arguing about?' and apparently the entire argument centered about
the meaning of 'r' as written on a chalkboard.

The confusion was over 1/r^2 in an integral. Keep in mind we were all
going through second semester mechanics, which ought to weed **** like
that out.

He asked 'what does r^2 mean?' with a straight face, because he
thought that 'r^2' could have been a vector. Or a tensor. Anything but
a scalar. I say something along the lines of 'it is obvious from
context', and having to expand further I say 'scalar'.

Eventually I get sick and goddamn tired of the argument and a prof
whose office was 10 feet away got pulled in, as he frequently did. And
ended up spending an hour on the subject, or there-abouts.

People like John remind me rather vividly of that fellow. If only for
the same stupid ****ing attitude, and the reaction it provokes out of
me.

On 1/29/11 1:40 PM, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:00 am, 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.

I walk into the student area in the physics department, and a battle
is raging. A fellow that won't be named had an annoying habit of being
an annoying ****wit is leading the charge. I ask 'what the **** are
you arguing about?' and apparently the entire argument centered about
the meaning of 'r' as written on a chalkboard.

The confusion was over 1/r^2 in an integral. Keep in mind we were all
going through second semester mechanics, which ought to weed **** like
that out.

He asked 'what does r^2 mean?' with a straight face, because he
thought that 'r^2' could have been a vector. Or a tensor. Anything but
a scalar. I say something along the lines of 'it is obvious from
context', and having to expand further I say 'scalar'.

Eventually I get sick and goddamn tired of the argument and a prof
whose office was 10 feet away got pulled in, as he frequently did. And
ended up spending an hour on the subject, or there-abouts.

People like John remind me rather vividly of that fellow. If only for
the same stupid ****ing attitude, and the reaction it provokes out of
me.

smiling There are people like that!

On Jan 29, 7:00*pm, Sam Wormley 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.

It took quite a long time to disentangle Newton's strain of empiricism
from the astronomical insights which make up planetary dynamics yet I
discovered early on that empiricists just don't want to know,even
when some prescient physicists attempted to introduce the geometric
language of astronomy into the arena for discussion -

" I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That
was done by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after
him. Of course, the Principia are not written in the language of
algebra, but of geometry." Petr Beckmann

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...776a56b861cd02

Newton's catastrophe is written in the language of geometry and most
of it is found in a single page -

http://gravitee.tripod.com/phaenomena.htm

There is that much to discuss from a physicist's perspective that I
hardly know where to begin and while the issue of using experimental
analogies is not in doubt,if that community wishes to continue and be
productive in astronomical affairs it must become familiar with the
actual geometric arguments which produced planetary dynamics instead
of following what is effectively a series of loose tales strung
together and especially mentioning the motion of satellites around
planets in the same breath as the motions of planets around the Sun.

Behind the apparent civility of the Usenet back in 1992,the conceptual
cracks were turning into canyons so despite the apparent descent of
civility and participation on the forums,we are in better shape now as
the whole thing has returned into a molten state with everything on
the table.I have the insights of the astronomers on my side,not the
phony magnification guys who play along with physicists, but genuine
astronomical insights that were lost to Newton's strain of empiricism
so while you discuss things within the confines of your
indoctrination,a more substantial work is happening on a much wider
stage.

On Jan 29, 11:12*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/29/11 1:40 PM, Eric Gisse wrote:









On Jan 29, 11:00 am, 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.

I walk into the student area in the physics department, and a battle
is raging. A fellow that won't be named had an annoying habit of being
an annoying ****wit is leading the charge. I ask 'what the **** are
you arguing about?' and apparently the entire argument centered about
the meaning of 'r' as written on a chalkboard.

The confusion was over 1/r^2 in an integral. Keep in mind we were all
going through second semester mechanics, which ought to weed **** like
that out.

He asked 'what does r^2 mean?' with a straight face, because he
thought that 'r^2' could have been a vector. Or a tensor. Anything but
a scalar. I say something along the lines of 'it is obvious from
context', and having to expand further I say 'scalar'.

Eventually I get sick and goddamn tired of the argument and a prof
whose office was 10 feet away got pulled in, as he frequently did. And
ended up spending an hour on the subject, or there-abouts.

People like John remind me rather vividly of that fellow. If only for
the same stupid ****ing attitude, and the reaction it provokes out of
me.

* *smiling There are people like that!

That thread was fascinating when I read through it -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...3995f62d7b4d26

The actual story which leads us to where we are now is truly an
intellectual adventure,it doesn't set limitations but gets rid of the
shortcuts which overreached into astronomical methods and insights.

If you excuse me Sam,I am not an empiricist but can look at how these
things are arranged to suit Newton's strain of empiricism
so,unfortunately,it almost means having a one way discussion in the
absence of any interested individual using terms that are both
familiar to them but out of astronomical context.People don't have to
read it or even make sense of it but I can see clearly where Newton
was going even though empiricists once openly admitted that they
couldn't work out how he arrived at his conclusions.

The foundation of Newton's approach to planetary dynamics is relying
on the fixed stars which is scalar in nature as it represents a
celestial sphere and stellar circumpolar motion,because he uses or
rather misuses the equatorial coordinate system in mapping the motions
of celestial objects using this framework,these motions appear to come
under vector analysis but as everything is moving in stellar
circumpolar motion,this geometry infects vector analysis which is
closer to the original astronomical methods and insights which used
the motion of celestial objects such as the planets against the
stellar background.I wish I could just say that dumping everything
into stellar circumpolar motion or right ascension is the core
problem,for that is exactly what happened,but the problem is more with
human nature and the lack of accountability among empiricists as why
bother changing when there is nobody around to object in a meaningful
way.

The idea is that the AU derived through 'sidereal time' reasoning
offers a baseline for gauging variations in individual planetary
orbits,Newton doesn't bother with such things as the main arguments
for resolving retrogrades through orbital comparisons but acts like
observations of the Earth are geocentric which are to be transformed
by observations from the Sun as be heliocentric,he even goes so far as
to equate the motions of the satellites around planets with planetary
orbital dynamics -

'PHÆNOMENON V.'

"Then the primary planets, by radii drawn to the earth, describe areas
no wise proportional to the times; but that the areas which they
describe by radii drawn to the sun are proportional to the times of
description.

For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct.. "

http://gravitee.tripod.com/phaenomena.htm

Even in principle,it is better to sort through the problems and
resolutions than stumble on pretending that experimental analogies
apply willy nilly to all observations.The core issues are right there
in that webpage and not in prefacing everything with 'empirical' which
is common among those who wish to continue with Newton's toxic strain
of empiricism,even Albert ended up doing that -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=oiED...ge&q&f= false

On 1/30/11 1:59 AM, oriel36 wrote:
"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That
was done by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after
him. Of course, the Principia are not written in the language of
algebra, but of geometry." Petr Beckmann

Euler is the guy your after. Newton postulated the relationship
F = dp/dt. It was only later that Euler rephrased it as F = ma.

Following Isaac Newton, who began his Principia with a definition
of mass, and whose second law of motion, in Euler's formulation
F = ma, defines the force F as the product of the mass m and the
acceleration a (acceleration being, of course, a kinematical
concept), the concept of mass, or more exactly the concept of
inertial mass, is usually chosen.

http://www.real-world-physics-proble...equations.html

On 1/30/11 1:59 AM, oriel36 wrote:


"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That
was done by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after
him. Of course, the Principia are not written in the language of
algebra, but of geometry." Petr Beckmann



Euler is the guy you're after. Newton postulated the relationship
F = dp/dt. It was only later that Euler rephrased it as F = ma.

Following Isaac Newton, who began his Principia with a definition
of mass, and whose second law of motion, in Euler's formulation
F = ma, defines the force F as the product of the mass m and the
acceleration a (acceleration being, of course, a kinematical
concept), the concept of mass, or more exactly the concept of
inertial mass, is usually chosen.

http://www.real-world-physics-proble...equations.html

On Jan 30, 1:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/30/11 1:59 AM, oriel36 wrote:



"I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
d(mv)/dt and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That
was done by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after
him. Of course, the Principia are not written in the language of
algebra, but of geometry." *Petr Beckmann

* *Euler is the guy you're after. Newton postulated the relationship
* *F = dp/dt. It was only later that Euler rephrased it as F = ma..


When you believe in 366 1/4 rotations of the Earth in an orbital
cycle,you may say just about anything as it comes up against the known
fact and experience that one 24 hour rotation corresponds to a day/
night cycle.The reason you are coming up with something as
mindnumbingly bad as a complete disassociation between rotational
cycles and one orbital cycle is due to the misuse of the equatorial
coordinate system by dumping daily and orbital motions into right
ascension. and that was the framework Isaac used to make it appear
that there is such a thing as geocentric observations rendered into
heliocentric modeling or absolute/relative space and motion as he
called it.

Your own system is being explained to you and one they once readily
admitted they could not understand it -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results." Rouse Ball 1908

You can drop all the names you like since Newton's toxic strain of
empiricism emerged but it still comes down to the fact that you cannot
accept the proportion between 1461 rotations of the Earth to 4 orbital
cycles or in its raw form of 365 1/4 rotations for 1 orbital
circuit.Because daily and orbital motions can be separated the 1461
day/night cycles and 1461 X 24 hour rotations can be formatted into
full rotations in blocks of 365 and 366 rotations allowing a 6 hour
orbital drift omitted in non-leap years to be picked up by the 24 hour
rotation and day/night cycle but as you imagine 366 1/4 rotations in
an orbital cycle,you can't even comprehend any orbital characteristics
which arise from 365 1/4 rotations per circuit.

I have done everything to avoid condescension yet it comes back to
accountability,the opportunity to bluff is fully subscribed to in the
absence of actually knowing what Newton did to achieve the ends that
you now follow.It is the lack of anger in coming to terms that
Newton's agenda literally can't associate one rotation of the Earth
with one day/night cycle and that is certainly an intellectual point
beyond which it is not possible to go,the very fact that the empirical
agenda before Newton was productive to a point and did not distort
astronomical insights would normally give readers here hope that a
resolution can be found but if it is there,I haven't seen it yet,not
even a hint of it.












* *Following Isaac Newton, who began his Principia with a definition
* *of mass, and whose second law of motion, in Euler's formulation
* *F = ma, defines the force F as the product of the mass m and the
* *acceleration a (acceleration being, of course, a kinematical
* *concept), the concept of mass, or more exactly the concept of
* *inertial mass, is usually chosen.

* *http://www.real-world-physics-proble...equations.html

Sounds wonderful until I ask you does one 24 hour rotation correspond
to a day/night cycle and you give the incorrect answer

On 1/30/11 11:07 AM, oriel36 wrote:

When you believe in 366 1/4 rotations of the Earth in an orbital
cycle,you may say just about anything as it comes up against the known
fact and experience that one 24 hour rotation corresponds to a day/
night cycle.

Gerald, 366.242199 rotations of the earth every astronomical year
is not a matter of "belief" but an observable fact! Anybody can make
the measurement.