On Nov 8, 3:16 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> j9bmka$pd...@speranza.aioe.org
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/8/2011 10:24 AM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Sam: Since you are devoted only to status quo physics, I
> > > > should explain: Momentum, or force in pounds of 'hitting
> > > > power', is identical to E, energy, which is measured in pounds.
> > > > Even for explosions, it's the total force expelling the known
> > > > mass. The recognized equation for momentum is F = mv. Since two
> > > > of the variables in your supposed Photon Energy equation, E = hv (sic!),
> > > > are identical to the momentum equation, then the
> > > > third variable must be... "mass". So, that laughable 'h' of
> > > > yours would be pounds or fractions thereof. As even an airhead
> > > > like you should know, photons have zero mass. If you have some
> > > > (excuse) definition of your 'h' factor, why not say so? —
> > > > NoEinstein —
>
> > > Wow.
> > >  https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ShouldExplain.html
>
> > Yeah, wow. I'm surprised you just didn't highlight the whole
> > paragraph pink. There's not one sentence in the whole thing that is
> > factually correct.
>
> I know, I was in dubio, but I decided to just partially pink ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm

Dear Dirk, the Dork:  If you suppose that even one sentence that I've
written regarding my New Science is wrong, do this: Make your own
explanation WHY you think I'm wrong.  But you can't do that, can you.
Referring to anything status quo is NOT a proof that any portion of my
New Science is wrong.  It is only a proof that you don't understand
that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD demands that ALL of science must be
constantly scrutinized for errors.  Getting errant information
published in those God Damned Jewish textbooks is proof ONLY of the
stupidity of anyone taking such a course to start with.  You have made
ZERO contribution to science, and you—like PD—never will.  —
NoEinstein —