hanson
Posts:
1,484
Registered:
12/13/04
|
|
Re: NoEinstein fails to use google
Posted:
Jun 11, 2011 9:56 PM
|
|
> ... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
>
"NoEinstein" <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:
-- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> -- "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> --- "Timo Nieminen" <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> ---- John Armistead aka NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Yesterday, Timo wrote:
> > <snip>
> > Conclusion: (a) your KE formula is wrong, or (b)
> > what you say about impacts is wrong, John.
> > <snip>
>
> > Today, Timo wrote:
> > Your KE formula is experimentally falsified, John.
>
> > hanson wrote:
> > .... ahahahaha... This is rich!... AHAHAHAHA...
> > So, Timo you actually believe that by you changing
> > "wrong" to "falsified" persuaded No-Einstein-John?
> > LOL & ROTFLMAO... ahahaha...
> > Timo, you must have missed my yesterdays post.
> > Here it is for your benefit:
>
> > Yesterday, hanson wrote:
> > Timo, your professorial pedagogic talents and
> > sensitivities are severely lacking.
>
> > Both (a) and (b) is right in the world of John
> > Armistead's New Age Science... which he
> > proselytizes with the same right & justification
> > as did Albert, the "Yes-Einstein", who said:
>
> > |||AE||| "the velocity of light in our theory
> > |||AE||| plays the part, physically, of an
> > |||AE||| infinitely great velocity."
> > |||AE||| No massive object can go faster then light.
>
> > So, Timo, all orthodoxy aside, try to accept the
> > fact that Physics is an anthropic & social enterprise.
> > If it makes John Armistead happy to trumpet his own
> > Weltbild, then congratulates him... for a very, very
> > pragmatic reason... The John Armisteads are the
> > folks whose taxes pay for the salaries of physicists.
>
> > If you can't accept that, Timo, then go technical and
> > explain why |||AE|||'s == Jewish shit don't stink ==
>
> > Thanks for the laughs, guys, ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
> John Armistead wrote:
> Hanson: Thanks for the repeat! It's fun to hear that new
> and 'possibly' profound theories have the same rights
> to be heard as old and 'possibly' stupid theories. Where
> one sides determines their clear thinking or fouled thinking.
> ? NoEinstein ?
>
> hanson wrote:
> ... ahahaha... Yea, yeah, keep'em on the straight and
> narrow, dude. I am surprised that NOT one of them
> was honest enough to say to you:
>
> "John, I have NOT tried to duplicate your experiment
> that lead you to your formula. It is quite possible that
> under YOUR experimental set up your equation holds
> true. OTOH, once you eliminate all other influences
> then the classical formula will emerge. That may be
> hard or impossible to accomplish in your environment.
> But, as long as your formula works sufficiently accurate
> for YOUR conditions, who cares what other theories
> do say & predict. Good luck, John".
>
> John, empirical formulae like yours do occur and
> are used all the time & very successfully in all types
> of industrial and military applications. And they are
> highly valued and guarded as precious intellectual
> proprietary property.
>
> Good luck to you from me too, John. Carry on and
> thanks for the laughs... ahahahahaha... ahahanson
>
--
>
John Armistead wrote:
Hanson: I appreciate your emerging clear thinking! However, I
disagree with you that anything about KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m) is
empirical. To be empirical, one has reems of data and writes an
equation to connect all the dots. I had NO data, but because I knew
that the Law of the Conservation of Energy-Mass rules, I was able to
plot the curve for the distances of fall of objects and determine that
such curve is a parabola. From that I could plot the straight-line
"curve" for the increase in KE with respect to time. Without having
any "data", I easily concluded that all at rest objects have an
initial "KE" equal to their static weight. Knowing those facts, I was
able to write my logic and experimentally proven KE = a/g (m) + v /
32.174 (m). My contributions to REAL science exceed the combined
contributions of every single physicist who ever lived! ? NoEinstein ?
>
hansoon wrote:
AHAHAHA... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahaha...
... John, your final 2 lines above show that you have
a very healthy self-esteem (on steroids) and a heavy
amount of self-worth, which are the causes, like you
said earlier, that "It is lonely at the top" where you
have placed yourself. Take care and carry on John,
and thanks for the laughs, again... ahahahanson
|
|
