Hauling, Rod-loading.

On Nov 10, 4:59*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
rw wrote innews:Xe2dneejLpzD14XUnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@earthlink. com:

wrote:

This theory, and the related equations, are my original work, if you
use it, please credit where you got it from.

I suggest that you submit it for publication -- to The Journal of
Irreproducible Results.

http://www.jir.com/

Some of this has actually been done right!!

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990AmJPh..58..234R

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Which being the case, you will doubtless have no trouble at all
refuting it scientifically eh?

Bull****ter.

wrote in news:29b4afb1-d366-4ff8-9f76-
:

Which being the case, you will doubtless have no trouble at all
refuting it scientifically eh?



No real need. I can't even follow your plain text equations because of
formatting issues, but I don't see any derivatives in time or space, so I
know whatever point approximations you're making are probably overly
simplistic.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:29b4afb1-d366-4ff8-9f76-
:


Which being the case, you will doubtless have no trouble at all
refuting it scientifically eh?




No real need. I can't even follow your plain text equations because of
formatting issues, but I don't see any derivatives in time or space, so I
know whatever point approximations you're making are probably overly
simplistic.



It's not even wrong.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Nov 10, 5:19*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:29b4afb1-d366-4ff8-9f76-
:

Which being the case, you will doubtless have no trouble at all
refuting it scientifically eh?

No real need. *I can't even follow your plain text equations because of
formatting issues, but I don't see any derivatives in time or space, so I
know whatever point approximations you're making are probably overly
simplistic.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

If you are unable to follow it, then how do you know it is wrong?

You are just bull****ting again. If you don´t know what kgm/s² means,
then you are too dumb to follow the equations anyway. The unit
contains the space time derivatives. In longhand;

kilogrammes per meter divided by seconds squared. ( Aka, "Newtons")

Obviously you are even too dumb to tie a line to a fencepost.

Makes no difference to me what you dumbos write, but for anybody
interested, and capable of understanding it, it may be useful.

Also, the more you dumb assholes react without actually knowing or
saying anything at all germane, purely for "personal" reasons,
independent of the facts at issue, the more sensible people assume
that it is worth looking at.

wrote in news:65cf33ec-6809-4ac5-b526-
:


Obviously you are even too dumb to tie a line to a fencepost.


You're right. I'll immediately stop teaching graduate engineering.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Nov 10, 5:33*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:65cf33ec-6809-4ac5-b526-
:



Obviously you are even too dumb to tie a line to a fencepost.

You're right. *I'll immediately stop teaching graduate engineering.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Probably a good idea, teachers should have open minds, and actually
look at theories and equations before they simply trash them out of
hand.

You still have not said a single sensible word about the theory, or
the equations. The only possible conclusions are, that you either don
´t want to do so because you are stupid and biased, or you are just
too stupid to so so at all.

I feel sorry for your students.

wrote in news:af6faa37-7c18-480a-ba93-
:

Probably a good idea, teachers should have open minds, and actually
look at theories and equations before they simply trash them out of
hand.

You still have not said a single sensible word about the theory, or
the equations. The only possible conclusions are, that you either don
ït want to do so because you are stupid and biased, or you are just
too stupid to so so at all.

I feel sorry for your students.


I haven't looked through your equations, because I don't know why I
should. If a student handed me a manifesto like that, I'd hand it back
and ask him or her to do a better job.

Step one would be to tell your reader WHY you are doing this exercise.
What do you expect to show us? A model that you are asking a question is
a valuable tool, but a model in a vacuum is masturbation.

I gave up even trying to figure this out when I saw acceleration in units
of "ms^2" instead of ms^(-2)



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Nov 10, 5:50*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:af6faa37-7c18-480a-ba93-
:

Probably a good idea, teachers should have open minds, and actually
look at theories and equations before they simply trash them out of
hand.

You still have not said a single sensible word about the theory, or
the equations. *The only possible conclusions are, that you either don
ït want to do so because you are stupid and biased, or you are just
too stupid to so so at all.

I feel sorry for your students.

I haven't looked through your equations, because I don't know why I
should. *If a student handed me a manifesto like that, I'd hand it back
and ask him or her to do a better job.

Step one would be to tell your reader WHY you are doing this exercise. *
What do you expect to show us? *A model that you are asking a question is
a valuable tool, but a model in a vacuum is masturbation.

I gave up even trying to figure this out when I saw acceleration in units
of "ms^2" instead of ms^(-2)

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

That is the standard European unit notation for Newtons. That should
be quite obvious, and as you correctly translated the unit you
mentioned to the standard American notation ms^(-2), ( which is also
merely a variation of standard mathematical notation, you can´t be
completely stupid.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(Einheit) ( Doubtless you can find
it in English as well).

It makes no difference to me whether you look at it or not, or whether
you try to trash it without looking at it, doing so merely
demonstrates your stupidity, inertia, and bias. Those are not very
good traits for somebody who purportedly teaches graduate engineering.

The reason for the exercise is to discover the optimum casting stroke
and demonstrate it mathematically for any given parameters. There are
other reasons as well, testing various combinations of rod and line,
and building a graphic simulation of the process.

This is already in hand.

Nobody is forcing you to look at or believe anything at all. If you
merely wish to demonstrate how stupid you are, by trashing something
without either looking at it, or understanding it, that is just fine
with me.

You STILL have not written a single sensible word in regard to either
the theory, or the equations. Just more silly bull****.