Do I understand this correctly?

On Jan 30, 2:57*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *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.

But Oriel doesn't deny the measurement! He admits that 23 hours, 56
minutes, and 4 seconds is the period of stellar circumpolar rotation!

He just doesn't think it's right for us to call it "rotation". The
natural day and night cycle that averages to 24 hours is the only
legitimate and proper Earthly rotation, as far as he is concerned.

Why this doesn't make sense, why it would turn astronomy into a
confused jumble in which no progress could be made - just the disaster
that he thinks Newton inflicted - is something he just can't seem to
understand. He doesn't want to listen, even when I attempt to explain
the issue as best I can.

John Savard

On Jan 29, 1:57*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/29/11 11:49 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Sam: *Merely repeating an equation error by mathematically
dissecting the terms making up the variables, does NOT make pounds of
force and acceleration be the same thing! *The only useful part of
Newton's Second Law of Motion is just the MOMENTUM portion. *Momentum
is apt in an "acceleration" equation, because the results of any
vaguely useful calculation must first convert the acceleration to the
instantaneous VELOCITY at the point in question. *That changes the
errant equation to: F = mv, which is the textbook equation for
MOMENTUM. *However, that equation, also isn't an equation, because
forces in pounds can't be equated to feet/second.

* *ILLUCID

Illucid? Would you care to elucidate? I'll bet you can't do that.
Also, Sam, please answer this question: "Is it ever possible to get
out four pounds of hamburger after grinding up only two pounds of
streak?" If you support Einstein, you have to say... "Yes". Ha, ha,
HA! — NoEinstein —

On Jan 29, 2:00*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.

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 —

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?

On Jan 29, 2:22*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
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?

Eric: This link explains a $40.00 dropped object experiment which can
be performed in any high school: Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...967db2b?hl=en#

*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.

Eric: A big cause of the sad state of physics is due to the errant
"Work-Energy Theorem." Too many mindless people see a "distance" and
suppose that work must have been done to cause that distance. In
actuality, a spaceship traveling 18,000 mph will keep going at that
speed until acted upon by some opposing force. Coriolis saw falling
objects covering greater and greater distances, and assumed, wrongly,
that the KE is increasing exponentially. No one before yours truly
has figured out that COASTING requires no associated FORCE. All of
the errant physics from Coriolis to Einstein is due to the lack of
understanding that KE dies NOT increase in proportion to the distance
traveled, but only to the total TIME that the object is falling. An
object falling for four seconds has four times more (non rest) KE than
an object falling for just one second. At no point is the calculation
of the distance of fall necessary!

So, you don't impress me with any distance derivatives of an errant
(non) equation, F = ma. My kinetic energy equation, KE = a/g (m) + v/
32.174b (m). Will provide all of the useful information needed for
most of mechanics. — NoEinstein —

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, 2:32*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
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.

Thanks! Most that I say is fascinating, unless the reader happens to
be shown to have EGG of his face!

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! You are
caught up in that now disproved "relativistic mass". 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.

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 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.

On Jan 29, 2:32*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
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?

Eric: I clicked "reply", again, because I "sent" before I had
completely answered. I don't use the metric system, because such
doesn't have pounds as the units for much of mechanics. The question
you haven't answered involves getting out more... meat than was put
in. Nature doesn't work that way. The Law of the Conservation of
Energy-and-or-mass never allows getting out more than was put in!
Coriolis put in the UNIFORM force of gravity, and gets out semi-
parabolically increasing KE. That violates the Laws of Nature!
Einstein's SR also gets out exponentially more Energy than is put in
(Just a uniform velocity increase). So, if you believe anything your
Jewish God, Einstein, said, then you most believe you can get out more
than has been put in. But if you believe that, then PROVE IT! Being
only half a clear thinker won't cut it, Eric. — NoEinstein —

On Jan 30, 9:13*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

[...]

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?

Eric: *This link explains a $40.00 dropped object experiment which can
be performed in any high school: *Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...

That be a good experiment to demonstrate the concept of thixotropic
solids, but that's about it. Try pulling the same trick with something
like, say, an air hockey table and pucks of known masses. Or a
ballistic pendulum style experiment. Or any number of high school /
freshman physics experiments that aren't are retarded as what you've
offered.

Besides, the question was whether you actually convinced anyone else
of your claims.

Plus your link actually pointed to your quite severe misunderstandings
of introductory physics. I'm sure you mentioned your idiotic
experiment somewhere in that thousand post thread but I can't be
****ed to look through it.



*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.

Eric: *A big cause of the sad state of physics is due to the errant
"Work-Energy Theorem." Too many mindless people see a "distance" and
suppose that work must have been done to cause that distance.

Oh boy.

Do you SEE any reference to energy in that equation? Do you even know
how that equation is derived?

*In
actuality, a spaceship traveling 18,000 mph will keep going at that
speed until acted upon by some opposing force.

Congratulations you ****ing idiot you managed to state Newton's first
law. Do you know how sad it is that I am actually impressed you
managed to get something right for once?

*Coriolis saw falling
objects covering greater and greater distances, and assumed, wrongly,
that the KE is increasing exponentially.

Apparently you don't know what the word "exponentially" means.

*No one before yours truly
has figured out that COASTING requires no associated FORCE. *

What the **** are you talking about?

All of
the errant physics from Coriolis to Einstein is due to the lack of
understanding that KE dies NOT increase in proportion to the distance
traveled,

Nobody ever said it did, idiot.

Hint: I know what "proportion" means. There's a relation between
distance traveled and kinetic energy, but it certainly isn't a
proportional relationship.


but only to the total TIME that the object is falling. *An
object falling for four seconds has four times more (non rest) KE than
an object falling for just one second. *At no point is the calculation
of the distance of fall necessary!

So, you don't impress me with any distance derivatives of an errant
(non) equation, F = ma. *My kinetic energy equation, KE = a/g (m) + v/
32.174b (m).

Thoughts:

1) Kinetic energy is proportional to the SQUARE of the velocity.
2) Learn to use symbols in your equations.
3) Learn the ****ing metric system.

*Will provide all of the useful information needed for
most of mechanics. *— NoEinstein —

For 'most of mechanics' you say? Let's take that at face value. And
test it.

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?

This is the type of thing I was able to answer. In high school.




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 30, 9:21*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

[...]

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.

Thanks! *Most that I say is fascinating, unless the reader happens to
be shown to have EGG of his face!

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".

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




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


This question stands.

[...]