Dear Uncle AL: Long time no hear! I was hoping you, and others, can

NoEinstein wrote:

A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second.

[snip crap]

That was quick. All velocity is relative. Idiot.

(3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?

[snip rest of crap]

"Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."

Do you have three grandfathers? One would not be surprised to learn
you have but one (natal, not surviving). That your family tree does
not branch is not compensated by your falling from the top of the
Stupid Tree and hitting every branch on the way down. Assuredly the
impact at the bottom reflects your taken path.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple

On Feb 26, 12:59 pm, tantal <6fre3hu8e...@fireman.net> wrote:

On Feb 26, 4:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?

How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?

sure you dont realize tha complexity of this question

show tha details in your work

For you, I offer special deal. $199.99. One day only. Nobody else gets
this good a deal.





http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...

-- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear xxein: Welcome to my post, newcomer! Your reply suggests that

xxein: The 'coasting' component can come from two different sources.
It can come from no initial velocity (gravity without inertial
velocity to preceed it), or from an inertial velocity that is pre-
presented into a gravitational situation.
In either case, a m vs.r factor determines g (acceleration) that is
added to the velocity. Simply put, an acceleration just adds to
velocity of any mass.

On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
understand the message.

If you believe that what you were "taught" in college is sacred, then
by all means proclaim such. But if you are objective enough to even
consider becoming a scientist, show some objectivity. I will walk you
by the hand. But you must first know how to walk. -- NoEinstein --

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...



On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?

How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...

-- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
graphs? -- NoEinstein --

On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
graphs?  -- NoEinstein --

On Feb 26, 11:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry PD.  You have no idea what objectivity in science is.  Your
notion of "science" is to pit your stubbornness against my truths.

But you loose, because you are a looser.  -- NoEinstein --

On Feb 26, 8:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component

Component of what? Velocity? Distance? Acceleration?

carried
over from the previous second.
(1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting?  
(2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object?  
(3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?

Are you talking about *force*, *energy*, *momentum*, or *velocity* of
impact? They are all *different* quantities, measured with different
units, and they are no more comparable than quarts and BTUs.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 27, 5:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
understand the message.

I'm not a graduate yet, but you have to understand the stuff you are
arguing about was taught to me in HIGH SCHOOL. Do you even know where
the formula d = 1/2 gt^2 + v_0 t + x_0 comes from?

On Feb 27, 10:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Feb 27, 5:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
understand the message.

I'm not a graduate yet, but you have to understand the stuff you are
arguing about was taught to me in HIGH SCHOOL. Do you even know where
the formula d = 1/2 gt^2 + v_0 t + x_0 comes from?

Not only taught, but experimentally tested and validated
by the student in high school.

I honestly think that NoEinstein doesn't understand that
there is supposed to be a connection between equations
and the real world.

- Randy

On Feb 27, 8:49 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
graphs? -- NoEinstein --

Guys, wouldn't it be great if when NoEinstein says he won't post
responses anymore, that he actually does what he says he's going to
do?

PD

On Feb 26, 1:44 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

Dear Igor2:  I have asked three simple questions which you can't
answer.  So, it is YOU who need remedial work. -- NoEinstein --

Dear Eric: It is obvious how much your ego gets boosted by being a

On Feb 27, 5:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
understand the message.

I'm not a graduate yet, but you have to understand the stuff you are
arguing about was taught to me in HIGH SCHOOL. Do you even know where
the formula d = 1/2 gt^2 + v_0 t + x_0 comes from?



If you believe that what you were "taught" in college is sacred, then
by all means proclaim such. But if you are objective enough to even
consider becoming a scientist, show some objectivity. I will walk you
by the hand. But you must first know how to walk. -- NoEinstein --

Not once yet have you actually tried discussing anything taught to me
in college - again, everything so far is based on what I learned in
high school. I'm yet to actually see you actually discuss relativity -
all I see is whining about Coriolis, which is a slam against /
classical mechanics/. SR is not classical mechanics.

If you wish to complain about my objectivity, try doing it from under
your real name instead of "NoEinstein" so your hypocracy isn't nearly
as obvious. Do you actually sign the spew you send to universities
with "NoEinstein"? If not, why are you doing it here? Are you such a
dysfunctional human being that you can't grasp that talking to a
scientist under that name pretty much ensures you'll be laughed at
whether or not your ideas are even considered?





http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...

On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?

How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...

-- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NoEinstein wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
graphs? -- NoEinstein --

Wouldn't it be great if you could do some simple experiments?

[...]

Uncle Al thinks he can police Sci.Physics;
he's delusional ( of course ) not as much as you are,
trying to police a vast network of Universities.