🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <abian.722142285@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>In <1eefkuINNa0f@agate.berkeley.edu> dvs@soda.berkeley.edu 
>>Dear Mr. Abian:  Please quantify ANYTHING with your theory.  Please do not
>>use any of the "noises" of famous bravo-sierra purveyors such as Newton,
>>Einstein, Hamilton, et al.  Among the problems you may wish to address:
>
> My reply is:
>
>    I cannot quantify  anything with my Theory because I do not know
>
>            what  A  is in my    E = M(0) exp(-At)

Then leave your answer in terms of A, and experiment will find A.

>and accordingly revise all their outmoded 19-th century  conservation
>principle-based quantifications.  Then you will tell me how to quantify 
>the items raised in your questions. 
>    I supply the radically new and revolutionizing ideas - let the
>others quantify.  I have said several times:

Not the way to win a Nobel Prize.  First of all, your radically new ideas
need be based on something real - i.e. strange results of an experiment,
consequences of existing theory, OR, it must make testable QUANTIFIED
predictions that are different from existing theory, which are born up by
later experiment,  or at least conceivable experiments.  So, which is it?

>     REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE  and if needed QUANTIFY !  (I seldom need
>quantification !).

Is the following an acceptable proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra?

(NCC-1701D)     Given Lemma (A1), the FTA is proven!! QED.

This is exactly the sort of thing you are saying.  If, as you say, you
seldom need quantification, then you are not a physicist in the least.  In
this case, Dr. Abian, it is needed.  Please do it now, or ask someone better
at whatever it is that makes you vague and nebulous to help you.  Simply
stating proofs like my above (NCC-1701D) is useless.  Remember, just as
there are rules that apply in mathematics, there are rules in physics.  The
prime directive of physics is GET THE CORRECT ANSWER.  However, equally
important, SHOW YOUR WORK SO THAT OTHERS MAY FOLLOW. (see below)

>
> However, based om my very vague intuitive feelings,  my vague and nebulous 
>approximating answers to your question:
>
>>   Compute the trajectory of a particle of mass m in a uniform gravitational
>>field (or the Abian equivalent) equal to earth's at sea level given an
>>initial velocity, neglecting air resistance.  Simplifying, How high will a 1
>>kg ball go if I throw it straight up at a velocity of 20 m/s?  Where will it
>>land if I throw it (with the same velocity of 20 m/s) at a 45 degree angle 
>to the vertical?
>
>would be:
>           (a)   around  20.41 meters high  
> 
>           (b)   twice as in (a), i.e., around  40.82  meters  away.

Wow.  I am not impressed in the least.  Your "vague and nebulous" answers are
correct.  They agree with Newtonian mechanics to 1 cm.  But, you probably
knew that, as that is most assuredly what you used to calculate them.  If I
were to grade this as an exam, you would get 0 points for not showing any
work.  I haven't answered anything in this manner since my 3rd grade teacher
admonished me for doing it all in my head.  Please, Dr. Abian, Show your
work.

>I may be quite off since I do not have a COSMIC ENERGYMETER.

No, you are correct, however, this statement might give you minus points for
being a smart-ass.  Part of thinking up new ideas is thinking up
theoretically possible ways to test them.  Please design a COSMIC
ENERGYMETER, it need not be practical to build, just theoretically
possible.  Please design a way to use it, subject to the same constraints.

>   REASON, EXPLAIN, CREATE  and if needed QUANTIFY !

But you create only tautologies, untestable statements, and falsehoods, and
you reason and explain in circles.  You have yet to quantify anything, and I
assure you, if you wish to earn a Nobel Prize, or see your theory come to
anything, it is needed.


Regards, 
Doug Simpkinson
douglips@ocf.berkeley.edu
dvs@soda.berkeley.edu