presumably you wre making a joke, about a sitcom in which Hawking "appears to correct Leonard," the only one I can think of, being Leonard Susskind. or, you didn't realize that it *was* a joke. anyway, since black holes are an emandation of Einsteinmania, I don't see what difference it makes, what you think they are, if you can't make a single testable theorem about such things.
> > Hawking corrected Leonard's error yesterday
there wasn't enough time, which was I why I handed-off to you, yourself and Neinstein999; pull yourself together, and make some kind of "engineeringly quantified" effort toward physics -- anything, at all, since you won't attack the two simple problems that I gave.
> Was 15 minutes enough time?
now, below, you seem to admit that KE isn't linear, in contradiction to your "off of the cuff formula;" as for the rest, that'd be what one finds, if one goes beyond the Physics One with Lab, or even in that class, as far as "internal symmetries," go.
> What directions things move in AFTER a collision, > relate as much to the internal asymmetries > of the materials as to the non linearity > of the kinetic energy.
you are either a liar, since you really don't seem to know, what any of my so-called idols have discovered, and even the awful Newton, the proverbial Second Church of England, Secular, with his fake theory of light.
momentum is never used in physics as force, or vise-versa; that is your personal problem of notation, ungrounded in any mathematical ability to prove it, or "analyze it dimensionally." I do not claim to be able to do that, without further study, but neither should you. but, anyway, it seems taht the proper forum to test your hyotheses is back at Clemson, since you are not getting anywhere with me, the only one who is foolish enough to bother with you. (note taht the OP of this item, Koobee-doo, doesn't disagree with E=mcc, nor with that which it is a generalization of, Liebniz's KE := mvv, taking ":=" to mean "is proportional to," thus including the factor of 1/2, however derived.)
> I have DISPROVED Newton's F = ma. > Momentum (or the increase in hitting FORCE due > to an object's velocity) is F = mv. If one sets both > of those into an equation it says: ma = mv (sic!!!!!). > I did reasoning that simple while taking physics at Clemson,
*you* are the one, claiming "faster than light" stuff, which is the same as "travel in time," or would be, if it were not possible. you haven't given any indication, at all, that you can solve any "engineering problem," with your *soi dissant* attitude toward *mathematica*.
that is what we call, a contradiction in terms; you are no engineer. I have no idea, how you got your architect's license, whether through some correspondence course, but this has nothing to do with engineering, til you need to hire one ... something you could do, to bare your little theories to teh hard light of ... an engineer.
anyway, relativity & stringtheory do not imply anything about parallel universes, which is just an abuse of the word, Universe, anyway. relativity has no actual paradoxes. (but, It does have all sorts of useless crap from Einstein, like "spacetime" and "photons.")
so, stop being such a silly ingrate, or sign the heck off.
> jobs demand that they be "down-to-Earth" people. The status quo "physicists" on the other hand, live in their concocted worlds of relativity, string theory and parallel universes. Watch any screwed- up NOVA show about astrophysics and you will see airheads from academia purporting to explain worm holes and time travel.