FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
A question to Paul Draper (PD)
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [45 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:37 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Eric Gisse wrote:
Quote:

You don't hear people mourning traveler, do you? He was equally sure
all of physics is wrong...


Traveler's dead? When did that happen?

PD
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:00 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

You don't hear people mourning traveler, do you? He was equally sure
all of physics is wrong...


Traveler's dead? When did that happen?

Oops.

He doesn't seem to be posting is crap here anymore, which is what I
meant by mourning.

Quote:

PD
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Eric Gisse wrote:
Quote:
PD wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

You don't hear people mourning traveler, do you? He was equally sure
all of physics is wrong...


Traveler's dead? When did that happen?

Oops.

He doesn't seem to be posting is crap here anymore, which is what I
meant by mourning.


Ah, quite right. There are a number of old hobbyists who have stopped
ranting. You're right, like Seto and TomGee, they never took the steps
necessary to ensure that their ideas would persist beyond their posting
days.

RIP Don Shead, Monitek, hanson, Traveler, spaceman, Gerald O'Barr, etc.

Long live Henri Wilson, Androcles, Seto, TomGee, Porat, don findlay,
and all those other lovely, windmill-tilting fame-hounds who are
mounted backwards on their loyal steeds and wearing armored helmets and
no pants.

PD
Back to top
T Wake
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:24 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151013606.963088.112190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

PD wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

You don't hear people mourning traveler, do you? He was equally sure
all of physics is wrong...


Traveler's dead? When did that happen?

Oops.

He doesn't seem to be posting is crap here anymore, which is what I
meant by mourning.

Oh well. I got my hopes up for a moment there... :-)

Still, he has been kill filed for a while so I don't miss him! Smile
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:40 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Golden Boar wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:

Of that list, I wonder how many you have mastered. I'm betting you have
a firm grasp on four of them...


it takes a few seconds to write it
but it takes 60 years to do it !!!
in our case it took 100 years !!

It might take you 100 years, but most people could do it in a second.

and if you dont get it untill now
it has a revolutionary imppsct on the advance of science
because once peoeple understand that say relativistic mass'
or inertial; mass versus rest mass etc etc --- innonsensr physics
it is just nonsensr mathematics
and i already ayed tha tone of the big problems of modern physics
is that amthematicians with no physics touch took over physics


do
the bigger physicist you are !!
now what is killing you and others is :
how isit that a moron person like Porat could do so 'easily' a
breakthrough in physics
as by just moving the gama factor from one side to another side !!


The only breaktrough was in your skull and it seems to have given you
brain damage.

but you dont get thqt by that dead simple deed i broke a 'solid
paradigm'
that was rooling 100 years and was wrong !!
ie that the gama factor belongs ONLY to the mass entity

No, it does not, and no one said it does.
It is also used in length contraction and time dilation.

it is amazing that no one ever took the posibility that the gama does
not belong at all
to the mass !!

Who ever said that gamma belong to mass?

do you know why ??

Because they never thought that in the first place.

may be because it was initially accidentally ,written next to the mass
!!

It was not initially written next to mass at all. Do some research.
Here's a hint, it's called the Lorentz factor.

that is another insight that i was pumping a long time ago
and is mor eand more being recognized
now again

It has always been known you idiot!

gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

If v=c, then we get, gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - 1) = 1/sqrt(0) = 1/0

It has always been obvious that gamma does not apply to the photon.

--------------------------------
but always imbecils like you

listen carefully idiot )) -----

---atatched the gama factor to the mass in all cases in which mass ans
gama are found!!


and it was me for the first time that (listen carefully imbecil)
i was the first one to (listem carefully idiot)

that DETACHED THE GAMA FACROR FROM THE MASS!!!!!
IT IS NOT ONLY ALGEBRA IT IS BEW PHYSICS UNDERSTANDING
WITH FAR DOING IMPACT ON PHYSICS !!

IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO LEARN SOMETHING NEW ASK FOR HELP !!

( there is no one here or somwwhee else that suppots your nut theory
of non existance of mass)


got it croock imbecile ??!!!!
if you have subastantiated evidence that som,eone preceeded me
just brng them
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:51 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

You don't hear people mourning traveler, do you? He was equally sure
all of physics is wrong...


Traveler's dead? When did that happen?

PD
-----------------------

little crook and theaf PD
do you look for cover frm all those nazi shits here ???
are you a part of those gangsters ??
if yes nice to meet you !!! (:-)

just bring evidence tha tit was done 80 years ago !!

you can cheatr someone all his life

you can cheat everybody just once

but you cant cheat eevrybody forever !!

btw the funny thing is that wile Pd is using the E/gama or F/gama
idea
as i showed a quote
all the imbecil brown noses here keep quite as fish
and while i did it some years ago and now
it is stupid and wrong !! for all those Nazi shits
another proof that they are Nazi shits .

Y.P
-----------------------------------------
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:42 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Your latest "discovery" is algebra. Nobody gives a f***.

Now move on to something more interesting, like throwing yourself off a
cliff.
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:17 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Eric Gisse wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Your latest "discovery" is algebra. Nobody gives a f***.

Now move on to something more interesting, like throwing yourself off a
cliff.
---------------------------

- please note
Gisse dda1 dda2 Wake Pineas Varney and last but not least
Paul Draper:

here is a quote from Draper that is just above here in post No 13
-----------
13 From: Y.Porat - view profile
Date: Tues, Jun 20 2006 5:39 am
Email: "Y.Porat" <mapo...@012.net.il>
Groups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.particle
Rating: (1 user)
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Eric Gisse wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

---------------------------
Hi gisse it s a long time i didnt learn some physics from you .


Quote:
It has been a long time since you learned any physics from anyone, much
less me.
----
so that is why i whant to startl;earning from you


Quote:
i saw Paul Draper was explaining something about the
E/Gama idea
it was not too clear to me
may be you can explain something about it ??


Quote:
Like what?
it is the first time i saw from him that strange combination
of E and Gama at the same side of those formulas of energy
and i wonder why he was doing that strange combination
he refuses to explain it to me
so may be you can ??


Quote:
Mabey because you aren't making any sense. Be more specific.



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is a quote from PD:


quote:



Quote:
PD
I'm still unsure about mass.
Is it just inertia by a different name?
Is there a difference between inertia and mass?


Inertia is historically defined as the m in F=ma.
The problem is, this definition of m is observer-dependent. The same F,


applied to something that is stationary and something that is moving
close to 1, does not produce the same a. F/a is what has been
historically called "relativistic mass", which rises as the object's
speed. One can "fix" this by changing m to be F/(gamma*a), so that m is



now constant, but then it loses its meaning as inertia.



Quote:
Both photons and electrons have energy.


-------------------------
EOQ

it is from PD not from me !! end of quote from PD
--------------------------------------
while PD is doing the shift of Gama fromthe mass to the F side
it is not a supid algebra deed
he even finds after doing it ANOTHER MEANING OF THE MASS AS CONSTANT
!!!

every one accepts it as a cleaver deed and keeps silent as a fish!!

now
just the moment i Y.Porat is doing it now and a few years ago
all that band of hyena are on my tale claiming that i am an idiot
that did nothing with that just a stupid algebra deed

PD even went much further withthat and presented me now (and never
before)
as a cook in his stupid malicious list !
why just now ?
because i proved him as a crook and a thief ??!!

the is a saying:

just show me why are your friends
and i will tell you exactly WHOM YOU ARE !!
Got it PD ??
your ferends are

dda1 dda2 Gisse Wake Phineas puddle Varney etc etc !!

so who is a serious scientist;

Pd or me while both of us doing the same thing
with th elittle difference :
that i did it some years (may be 3 yearsi ddint check it ) before PD
and while i ask Pd where from you got that idea of detaching mass from
the gama factoer
he answers
IT WAS DONE 80 YEARS AGO !!
and while a ask him - where is your sunbstantiated documentation
neithrhim nor anyone of the above crooks
and it seems that non of the many silent readers of there threads
can bring evidence of detaching the ganmafactor from mass
was even done nore specifically 80 years ago!!
so
i leave the conclusions to the honest readers !!

you can cheat someone forever

you can cheat everybody jsut once

but you cant cheat everybody forever !!
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Back to top
Golden Boar
science forum Guru


Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 651

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:11 pm    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Your latest "discovery" is algebra. Nobody gives a f***.

Now move on to something more interesting, like throwing yourself off a
cliff.
---------------------------
- please note
Gisse dda1 dda2 Wake Pineas Varney and last but not least
Paul Draper:

here is a quote from Draper that is just above here in post No 13
-----------
13 From: Y.Porat - view profile
Date: Tues, Jun 20 2006 5:39 am
Email: "Y.Porat" <mapo...@012.net.il
Groups: sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics.particle
Rating: (1 user)
show options


Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

---------------------------
Hi gisse it s a long time i didnt learn some physics from you .


It has been a long time since you learned any physics from anyone, much
less me.
----
so that is why i whant to startl;earning from you


i saw Paul Draper was explaining something about the
E/Gama idea
it was not too clear to me
may be you can explain something about it ??


Like what?
it is the first time i saw from him that strange combination
of E and Gama at the same side of those formulas of energy
and i wonder why he was doing that strange combination
he refuses to explain it to me
so may be you can ??


Mabey because you aren't making any sense. Be more specific.



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is a quote from PD:


quote:



PD
I'm still unsure about mass.
Is it just inertia by a different name?
Is there a difference between inertia and mass?


Inertia is historically defined as the m in F=ma.
The problem is, this definition of m is observer-dependent. The same F,


applied to something that is stationary and something that is moving
close to 1, does not produce the same a. F/a is what has been
historically called "relativistic mass", which rises as the object's
speed. One can "fix" this by changing m to be F/(gamma*a), so that m is



now constant, but then it loses its meaning as inertia.



Both photons and electrons have energy.


-------------------------
EOQ

it is from PD not from me !! end of quote from PD
--------------------------------------
while PD is doing the shift of Gama fromthe mass to the F side
it is not a supid algebra deed
he even finds after doing it ANOTHER MEANING OF THE MASS AS CONSTANT
!!!

It is still just simple algebra, and PD does not claim that he has
invented something new.

Quote:

every one accepts it as a cleaver deed and keeps silent as a fish!!

Only you seem to accept it as a clever deed, everyone else accepts it
as simple algebra.

Quote:

now
just the moment i Y.Porat is doing it now and a few years ago
all that band of hyena are on my tale claiming that i am an idiot
that did nothing with that just a stupid algebra deed

That's because you are an idiot who does not understand algebra.
You do some simple algebra and think you have invented new physics.
PD did some simple algebra and left it at that.

Quote:

PD even went much further withthat and presented me now (and never
before)
as a cook in his stupid malicious list !
why just now ?
because i proved him as a crook and a thief ??!!

the is a saying:

just show me why are your friends
and i will tell you exactly WHOM YOU ARE !!
Got it PD ??
your ferends are

dda1 dda2 Gisse Wake Phineas puddle Varney etc etc !!

Change the tune, you bloody loon.

Quote:

so who is a serious scientist;

Definitely not you, you imbecile.

Quote:

Pd or me while both of us doing the same thing
with th elittle difference :

The difference is this:
PD knows it is just algebra, while you think you have invented new
physics.

Quote:
that i did it some years (may be 3 yearsi ddint check it ) before PD
and while i ask Pd where from you got that idea of detaching mass from
the gama factoer
he answers
IT WAS DONE 80 YEARS AGO !!

Hey moron, who first wrote down the equation, E = gamma.m.c^2.
Why don't you think they knew how to do algebra?

Quote:
and while a ask him - where is your sunbstantiated documentation
neithrhim nor anyone of the above crooks
and it seems that non of the many silent readers of there threads
can bring evidence of detaching the ganmafactor from mass
was even done nore specifically 80 years ago!!
so
i leave the conclusions to the honest readers !!

And the conclusion is that you are a senile, delusional old fool.

Quote:

you can cheat someone forever

you can cheat everybody jsut once

but you cant cheat everybody forever !!
Y.Porat
--------------------------

You can't even cheat sombody for a second.
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:58 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Eric Gisse wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Like the last post you made, I didn't really read this one. You didn't
discover anything by doing algebra. Give it a rest.

You aren't 12, algebra isn't supposed to mystify and impress you
anymore unless you never actually learned anything more than algebra.
----------------------------------

are you determined to prove again and again
that you are a sjameless crook??


why dont you answer my question that
while PD did exactly the same
(ie thetaching the gama from the mass and then realizing a new meaning
for mass
to be constant !!)
as shown in th e above quoutes
by done by PD -- it was ok for you and everyone

and while i did it 2.5 yeaers before it was stupid and useless
nonsense Algebra ???!!

do you think that all readers here are lazy to folow it and can be
cheated forever ??
end of question to Gisse
and i am waiting for a frank answer (naive me !!!! )
----------------------------------------
btw
at the beginning of my old thread ' The third Porast postualte'
in which i the first time in history detached the gama from mass )

the little Nazi crook and idiot (Feuerbacher - that invented the
Fertz)
claime that in the formula

E^2= mc^2)^2 + mv))^2

there is no gama factor!
(if there is no gama factor than there i s only rest mass there !!!and
my job is done again
in another way !!! (Smile
(btw AFAIK the above formula is not the orriginal one of Einstein
th eorriginal one is jsut E=mc^2 !!)

yet at the end of the thraed the Late Hymann admitted that
p=mv in hight velocities DOES INCLUDE THE GAM A factor
anyway the idea of detaching the Gama from the mass is already there
and fo r the first time in history !!
and later i repeated it many times

you see one might be a shamless crook but at the end of his life he
chnages his tactics
may be realizing that at tje long run it odes not pay to be a crook !!

ps i rather preffere that pD will answer and will not hide like a
coward
behind the backs of ...........
Y.Porat
-----------------
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:56 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Like the last post you made, I didn't really read this one. You didn't
discover anything by doing algebra. Give it a rest.

You aren't 12, algebra isn't supposed to mystify and impress you
anymore unless you never actually learned anything more than algebra.
----------------------------------
are you determined to prove again and again
that you are a sjameless crook??

Are you determined to prove again and again you don't understand the
theories you criticise, much less the language you criticise them with?
Don't bother answering - we both already know the answer.

Quote:


why dont you answer my question that
while PD did exactly the same
(ie thetaching the gama from the mass and then realizing a new meaning
for mass
to be constant !!)

Do you understand the concept of "equality" ?

If I divide F=ma by "a", have I completely removed acceleration or have
I simply put it somewhere else? Aw who am I kidding, you have no idea.

Quote:
as shown in th e above quoutes
by done by PD -- it was ok for you and everyone

and while i did it 2.5 yeaers before it was stupid and useless
nonsense Algebra ???!!

WOW! YOU DID ALGEBRA TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO!

BIG FUCKING DEAL!

ALERT THE PRESSES! CALL STOCKHOLM!

Did you know I have solved at least one differential equation without
reading the solution from a book?

Quote:

do you think that all readers here are lazy to folow it and can be
cheated forever ??
end of question to Gisse
and i am waiting for a frank answer (naive me !!!! )

You like the abuse, otherwise you wouldn't post to this newsgroup. When
were you were younger, did you cut yourself?

Quote:
----------------------------------------
btw
at the beginning of my old thread ' The third Porast postualte'
in which i the first time in history detached the gama from mass )

the little Nazi crook and idiot (Feuerbacher - that invented the
Fertz)
claime that in the formula

Hahaha are you still bitter about being proven wrong on a trivial topic
after these few years? When was that, 2003? You were slapped down HARD
by those who know electromagnetic theory. Good times...

Now all we have you ranting about are idiotic "proofs" of nonzero
photon mass and your inability to understand special relativity.
Frankly you were much more entertaining when you were ranting about the
fertz.

Quote:

E^2= mc^2)^2 + mv))^2

Wrong equation, idiot.

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

Answer the question I asked you at least 3 times now - what is p in
relativity? Hint: p != mv. I don't expect an answer thats even close to
being correct. You couldn't get the answer right if someone held a book
in front of you.

Quote:

there is no gama factor!

That claim makes sense - you have no idea what the equation is or what
the symbols mean, so how can you be expected to know what "p" means?

Quote:
(if there is no gama factor than there i s only rest mass there !!!and
my job is done again
in another way !!! (Smile

Congratulations - you have proven nothing. Someone has to be keeping
track...how many proofs have you created that are completely wrong? I'd
say you are up to about 10 now. That isn't to say I expect perfection,
but I do expect people to not broadcast proofs that are shown to be
wrong within 30 seconds of having someone read them.

Quote:
(btw AFAIK the above formula is not the orriginal one of Einstein
th eorriginal one is jsut E=mc^2 !!)

No it is not, retard.

Quote:

yet at the end of the thraed the Late Hymann admitted that
p=mv in hight velocities DOES INCLUDE THE GAM A factor
anyway the idea of detaching the Gama from the mass is already there
and fo r the first time in history !!
and later i repeated it many times

I guess it makes sense. Franz couldn't make you understand when he was
alive, I don't see why you would understand now that he is dead.

Go open a book that covers special relativity so you stop saying stupid
s**t about a theory you don't understand.

Come to think of it, since you are a retard I have to be more specific.
Open a book on special relativity that is mathematics-based and work
the exercises until you understand special relativity. Or die.

Whichever comes first.

Quote:

you see one might be a shamless crook but at the end of his life he
chnages his tactics
may be realizing that at tje long run it odes not pay to be a crook !!

Oh, but it does.

Quote:

ps i rather preffere that pD will answer and will not hide like a
coward
behind the backs of ...........
Y.Porat
-----------------

He is probably bored with your insanity. He is burning time harassing
tomgee now. Do you miss him? Do you need someone to tuck your crazy ass
into bed at night?
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:48 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Eric Gisse wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Like the last post you made, I didn't really read this one. You didn't
discover anything by doing algebra. Give it a rest.

You aren't 12, algebra isn't supposed to mystify and impress you
anymore unless you never actually learned anything more than algebra.
----------------------------------
are you determined to prove again and again
that you are a sjameless crook??

Are you determined to prove again and again you don't understand the
theories you criticise, much less the language you criticise them with?
Don't bother answering - we both already know the answer.

speak physics obfuscator dont hand wave
is hand waiving is th ephysics that you pretent to teach me ??
-------
Quote:



why dont you answer my question that
while PD did exactly the same
(ie thetaching the gama from the mass and then realizing a new meaning
for mass
to be constant !!)

Do you understand the concept of "equality" ?

If I divide F=ma by "a", have I completely removed acceleration or have
I simply put it somewhere else? Aw who am I kidding, you have no idea.

and you waht to teach me physics ??

you are cheating by telling only half of the truth!!!

you didnt mension the gama factor that was there
and it is the gama factor that is the manin issue!!!

he was writing

F/ gama a = mass
and addd IN THAT CASE m IS CONSTANT!!

sohow long do you think you can CHEAT !!

pD saied tha t in that case m is constant (he said not only me !!!
di d m become constant just becuase gama was removed to the F side
?????!!!!!
OR MAY BE JUST BECAUSE HE IS PD ??
and i am not PD ???
you get his expalnation whithout whisling .!!

and while i do exactly the same you say it is Algebra stupidity ??

just tell us
do you think that every body here are idiots ???
or may be you realy dont understand whats going on here ???
( strangely enough untill now both of us did our bestand an enoumous
efforths
not to slide to personal insults ..... (:-)may be because we realize
that too many people are wahching us ........)

Y.Porat
-------------------
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:20 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Like the last post you made, I didn't really read this one. You didn't
discover anything by doing algebra. Give it a rest.

You aren't 12, algebra isn't supposed to mystify and impress you
anymore unless you never actually learned anything more than algebra.
----------------------------------
are you determined to prove again and again
that you are a sjameless crook??

Are you determined to prove again and again you don't understand the
theories you criticise, much less the language you criticise them with?
Don't bother answering - we both already know the answer.

speak physics obfuscator dont hand wave
is hand waiving is th ephysics that you pretent to teach me ??

Who said I'm trying to teach you physics? Physics is a broad field, of
which my understanding is specialized and limited.

Quote:
-------



why dont you answer my question that
while PD did exactly the same
(ie thetaching the gama from the mass and then realizing a new meaning
for mass
to be constant !!)

Do you understand the concept of "equality" ?

If I divide F=ma by "a", have I completely removed acceleration or have
I simply put it somewhere else? Aw who am I kidding, you have no idea.

and you waht to teach me physics ??

Not really. My time would be better spent playing civilization 4. You
rather remind me of Montezuma, whose behavior is mind-numbingly
predictable and annoying.

Quote:

you are cheating by telling only half of the truth!!!

Which half would that be?

Quote:

you didnt mension the gama factor that was there
and it is the gama factor that is the manin issue!!!

GAMMA! IT IS SPELLED GAMMA! Argh.

Quote:

he was writing

F/ gama a = mass
and addd IN THAT CASE m IS CONSTANT!!

Yea...I knew this would come up.

You are apparently confused [surprise] by the concept of relativistic
mass. Rest mass is an invariant - it doesn't change no matter which
reference frame you are observing it in. How the mass behaves, on the
other hand, is up in the air.

Remember F = dp/dt? Aw who am I kidding, you don't even know what p is
in relativity. I'm sick and fucking tired of alluding to something you
clearly have no understanding of.

p = mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), or p = mv*gamma (notice it is GAMMA not gama).

What is dp/dt? Holy s**t! dp/dt = ma*gamma, which is what PD was
talking about. Since gamma is a constant, you do not involve it in the
derivative. acceleration is dv/dt.

Quote:

sohow long do you think you can CHEAT !!

pD saied tha t in that case m is constant (he said not only me !!!

m is always constant because it is rest mass. Why do I need to tell
this to you?

Quote:
di d m become constant just becuase gama was removed to the F side
?????!!!!!

m is always constant, retard.

Your understanding is flawed, as usual. Stop thinking about
relativistic mass - it does nothing but confuse people. Then again, you
are probably misunderstanding something much simpler. Wouldn't be the
first...second...third...fourth...yea fifth time.

Quote:
OR MAY BE JUST BECAUSE HE IS PD ??
and i am not PD ???
you get his expalnation whithout whisling .!!

Understanding, such a novel concept. I wish you would try it.

Quote:

and while i do exactly the same you say it is Algebra stupidity ??

I have no idea what you said. Get someone to teach you English.

Quote:

just tell us
do you think that every body here are idiots ???

No, but a lot of the folks here are idiots - yourself included.

Quote:
or may be you realy dont understand whats going on here ???

Your lack of understanding is not my lack of understanding.

Quote:
( strangely enough untill now both of us did our bestand an enoumous
efforths
not to slide to personal insults ..... (:-)may be because we realize
that too many people are wahching us ........)

Here is another personal insult - you are an idiot.

It took me five minutes to write this and the quality of the writing
surpases yours even when the planets are aligned and you aren't senile.
I don't care that English isn't your native language - you have been
writing the same mistakes over and over for years. Your trouble with
English is like your trouble with physics - even though you are doing
it wrong, you do not give a s**t.

Quote:

Y.Porat
-------------------
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:10 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Eric Gisse wrote:
Quote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Like the last post you made, I didn't really read this one. You didn't
discover anything by doing algebra. Give it a rest.

You aren't 12, algebra isn't supposed to mystify and impress you
anymore unless you never actually learned anything more than algebra.
----------------------------------
are you determined to prove again and again
that you are a sjameless crook??

Are you determined to prove again and again you don't understand the
theories you criticise, much less the language you criticise them with?
Don't bother answering - we both already know the answer.

speak physics obfuscator dont hand wave
is hand waiving is th ephysics that you pretent to teach me ??

Who said I'm trying to teach you physics? Physics is a broad field, of
which my understanding is specialized and limited.

-------



why dont you answer my question that
while PD did exactly the same
(ie thetaching the gama from the mass and then realizing a new meaning
for mass
to be constant !!)

and you waht to teach me physics ??

Not really. My time would be better spent playing civilization 4. You
rather remind me of Montezuma, whose behavior is mind-numbingly
predictable and annoying.
-------------------------

so just piss of that thread!!
or else speak physics !!
-------
Quote:


you are cheating by telling only half of the truth!!!

Which half would that be?


you didnt mension the gama factor that was there
and it is the gama factor that is the manin issue!!!

GAMMA! IT IS SPELLED GAMMA! Argh.
----------------
another way of cheating is to stick to trivialities !!

-------
Quote:

he was writing

F/ gama a = mass
and addd IN THAT CASE m IS CONSTANT!!

Yea...I knew this would come up.

You are apparently confused [surprise] by the concept of relativistic
mass. Rest mass is an invariant -
di d i ever said something else crook !!!

i laways claim tha there is listen carefully

THERE IS ONLY JUST ONE KIND OF MASS !!
GOT IT JUST ONE KIND OF MASS
no mattwr if you call it rest or insrtial or relativistic or Spartacus
JUST ONE KIND OF MASS

and if you agree withthat we have no dispute whatsoever!!!
9yet that is not a common knowlwdge !!!)
pelpel are boging the balles with different concepts
even Pd at this quote showas he is still confused by talking about
'inertial mass' which is anothe r confusion
but that is anothe point not our curent point that pD still dont know
to scratch what mass is ,....
--------------

it doesn't change no matter which
Quote:
reference frame you are observing it in. How the mass behaves, on the
other hand, is up in the air.

welcone to th enew understanding !!
----------
Quote:

Remember F = dp/dt? Aw who am I kidding, you don't even know what p is
in relativity. I'm sick and fucking tired of alluding to something you
clearly have no understanding of.

p = mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), or p = mv*gamma (notice it is GAMMA not gama).

What is dp/dt? Holy s**t! dp/dt = ma*gamma,

so wwhy do you do the stuid ALGEBRAIC CHANGE AND ATTACH GAMMA TO THE a
and not to to the mass as usually presented
if you changed the attachemnt and detached the gamma from the mass
YOU BECOME A GOOD PUPIL OF MINE !!
but an ungrateful student a nasty one that doea not reapect his
teacher
bte is theere anything in that world that you reapect !!!?????
-----

which is what PD was
Quote:
talking about. Since gamma is a constant,
gamma is not constant if you have there v got it idiot crook ??

v is cahnching while you add more energy
and that is exactly the point in which a rude moron still dont
understand !!!
----------

you do not involve it in the
Quote:
derivative. acceleration is dv/dt.
gamma is not a constant idiot

gamma is changing with th echange of v !!!
--------------
Quote:


sohow long do you think you can CHEAT !!

pD saied tha t in that case m is constant (he said not only me !!!

m is always constant because it is rest mass. Why do I need to tell
this to you?

di d m become constant just becuase gama was removed to the F side
?????!!!!!

m is always constant, retard.
yes crook it took you a long time to learn it from Y.Porat !!!

----------
Quote:

Your understanding is flawed, as usual. Stop thinking about
relativistic mass - it does nothing but confuse people.
see above idiot crook i never talkiked abou trelativistic mass

i was always calling it 'relativistic shmelativistic' mass
do you understand what i meant by 'shmelativistic ?? it is a word of
despise !!
------------


Then again, you
Quote:
are probably misunderstanding something much simpler. Wouldn't be the
first...second...third...fourth...yea fifth time.

OR MAY BE JUST BECAUSE HE IS PD ??
and i am not PD ???
you get his expalnation whithout whisling .!!

Understanding, such a novel concept. I wish you would try it.


and while i do exactly the same you say it is Algebra stupidity ??

I have no idea what you said. Get someone to teach you English.
----------------------
youdont haveanidea what i am talking and you have no idea about what

you are talking

youare not talking from reason you are taling for instincts of
incurable personal hatered
and jelousy !!!
because you innovated nothing in your whole shitty poor life except
parasitng on peoples
----------------------------
Quote:

just tell us
do you think that every body here are idiots ???

No, but a lot of the folks here are idiots - yourself included.
and it is not east to show that you are not just a idiot but dsiturbed

as well!!
----------
Quote:

or may be you realy dont understand whats going on here ???

Your lack of understanding is not my lack of understanding.

Here is another personal insult - you are an idiot.
seea bove

i am too lazy to repeat
actually everybody here knows who you are and who i am !!
-----------
Quote:

It took me five minutes to write this and the quality of the writing
surpases yours even when the planets are aligned and you aren't senile

it took me 6 minutes to show who you are
even though English is not my native language!!

in any caase
let PD speak for himself
he ddint nominated you as his lawyer and no one nominated a
disturbed imbecil parasite to be the though police here
because you are nothing but a parasite mump
that stas all day next to the computer and whining that his time is
scerse !! (Smile
i ddin t lok at the clock but it took me less than 10 minutes to show
your real face ...
thank you for not diverting the posts to other places which is unusual
fo r you !!!
----------------------

Y.Porat
-------------
..
>
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:18 am    Post subject: Re: A question to Paul Draper (PD) Reply with quote

Y.Porat wrote:
Quote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Y.Porat wrote:

[...]

Like the last post you made, I didn't really read this one. You didn't
discover anything by doing algebra. Give it a rest.

You aren't 12, algebra isn't supposed to mystify and impress you
anymore unless you never actually learned anything more than algebra.
----------------------------------
are you determined to prove again and again
that you are a sjameless crook??


why dont you answer my question that
while PD did exactly the same
(ie thetaching the gama from the mass and then realizing a new meaning
for mass
to be constant !!)
as shown in th e above quoutes
by done by PD -- it was ok for you and everyone

and while i did it 2.5 yeaers before it was stupid and useless
nonsense Algebra ???!!

the little Nazi crook and idiot (Feuerbacher - that invented the
Fertz)
claime that in the formula

E^2= mc^2)^2 + mv))^2

there is no gama factor!
(if there is no gama factor than there i s only rest mass there !!!and
my job is done again
in another way !!! (Smile
(btw AFAIK the above formula is not the orriginal one of Einstein
th eorriginal one is jsut E=mc^2 !!)

yet at the end of the thraed the Late Hymann admitted that
p=mv in hight velocities DOES INCLUDE THE GAM A factor
anyway the idea of detaching the Gama from the mass is already there
and fo r the first time in history !!
and later i repeated it many times

you see one might be a shamless crook but at the end of his life he
chnages his tactics
may be realizing that at tje long run it odes not pay to be a crook !!

ps i rather preffere that pD will answer and will not hide like a
coward
behind the backs of ...........
Y.Porat
-----------------

sorry i was so hasty tha ti have to make a little typo" TO THE ABOVE

gamma is not constant EVEN WHILE F IS CONSTANT

that is too much for Gisse to know !!

Y.P
------------------------
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [45 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:34 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Question about Life. socratus Probability 0 Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:01 pm
No new posts Probability Question dumont Probability 0 Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:38 pm
No new posts Question about exponention WingDragon@gmail.com Math 2 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:13 am
No new posts question on solartron 1260 carrie_yao@hotmail.com Electrochem 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:11 am
No new posts A Combinatorics/Graph Theory Question mathlover Undergraduate 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:30 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0794s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0311s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]