alt.certification.a-plus - Hey everyone READ THIS!!!

Author

Hey everyone READ THIS!!!

BedwettingClown

2002-07-21, 4:25 pm

Hey look everyone.....the W-w-water Boy is back! A.K.A. -
TinklingJester
And he's w-w-wiser than ever. Amusing isn't he?

T.J - You'll NEVER compare to "The Spammer", so just give it up! He's
way ahead of you in insults and he's obviously more intelligent too.
You're wasting our time by posting your dimwitted, worthless comments.

OBTW - I haven't seen your answer to the following question you were
asked.
--
OK...what's the next level of the following?

e=mc^2

What does the following equation refer to? Under what circumstances is
it completely accurate? Why is it not accurate in other circumstances,
and give examples? Who offered an early proof of this, and suffered
dire consequences?

s=at^2/2
--
You're still researching the answer on the internet aren't you? DF!

As I've said before....I have NOT seen one intelligent post from you
yet!!

BC

Frédéric

2002-07-21, 5:25 pm

From your point of view we are all stupid.
Is that an intelligent thing to ask dogs to fly?
I you were intelligent you wouldn't ask us such a question.

By the way here is the answer
" Galileo correctly shows that the strength is proportional to the cube of
the depth dimension and make many other perceptive points. In particular, he
points out how giants are impossible because their mass would increase as
the cube of their size, while the strength of their bones and sinews would
increase as the square of their size, so that they could no support
themselves for sizes much larger than human. The parts of the Discorsi
dealing with motion are the peak of Galileo's achievement. He correctly was
that in accelerated motion, such as free fall, or a ball rolling down a
plane, the correct law was velocity proportional to time (v = at), not
velocity proportional to distance. Also he correctly deduced s = at2/2 and
showed that the path of a projectile was a parabola. What was lacking in his
dynamics was the concept of force, leading on to Newton's great law:
Force = mass x acceleration."

http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/units/...yortext/c3.html
--
Frédéric
A+, CIW, i-Net+

******************************
******************************
***********
Visit my website "Fred's Fast Cram"
http://24.202.66.70:21
******************************
******************************
***********
"BedwettingClown" <bedwetting_clown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ab403548.0207211408.4a82f875@posting.google.com...
> Hey look everyone.....the W-w-water Boy is back! A.K.A. -
> TinklingJester
> And he's w-w-wiser than ever. Amusing isn't he?
>
> T.J - You'll NEVER compare to "The Spammer", so just give it up! He's
> way ahead of you in insults and he's obviously more intelligent too.
> You're wasting our time by posting your dimwitted, worthless comments.
>
> OBTW - I haven't seen your answer to the following question you were
> asked.
> --
> OK...what's the next level of the following?
>
> e=mc^2
>
> What does the following equation refer to? Under what circumstances is
> it completely accurate? Why is it not accurate in other circumstances,
> and give examples? Who offered an early proof of this, and suffered
> dire consequences?
>
> s=at^2/2
> --
> You're still researching the answer on the internet aren't you? DF!
>
> As I've said before....I have NOT seen one intelligent post from you
> yet!!
>
> BC

Tom MacIntyre

2002-07-21, 5:25 pm

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:45:52 -0400, "Frédéric"
<frederic_quebec2002@yahoo.com> wrote:

>From your point of view we are all stupid.
>Is that an intelligent thing to ask dogs to fly?
>I you were intelligent you wouldn't ask us such a question.
>
>By the way here is the answer
>" Galileo correctly shows that the strength is proportional to the cube of
>the depth dimension and make many other perceptive points. In particular, he
>points out how giants are impossible because their mass would increase as
>the cube of their size, while the strength of their bones and sinews would
>increase as the square of their size, so that they could no support
>themselves for sizes much larger than human. The parts of the Discorsi
>dealing with motion are the peak of Galileo's achievement. He correctly was
>that in accelerated motion, such as free fall, or a ball rolling down a
>plane, the correct law was velocity proportional to time (v = at), not
>velocity proportional to distance. Also he correctly deduced s = at2/2 and
>showed that the path of a projectile was a parabola. What was lacking in his
>dynamics was the concept of force, leading on to Newton's great law:
>Force = mass x acceleration."
>
>http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/units/...yortext/c3.html
>--
>Frédéric
>A+, CIW, i-Net+
>

Part of what I asked TJ anyway... :-)

Tom

>
> ******************************
******************************
***********
>Visit my website "Fred's Fast Cram"
>http://24.202.66.70:21
> ******************************
******************************
***********
>"BedwettingClown" <bedwetting_clown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ab403548.0207211408.4a82f875@posting.google.com...
>> Hey look everyone.....the W-w-water Boy is back! A.K.A. -
>> TinklingJester
>> And he's w-w-wiser than ever. Amusing isn't he?
>>
>> T.J - You'll NEVER compare to "The Spammer", so just give it up! He's
>> way ahead of you in insults and he's obviously more intelligent too.
>> You're wasting our time by posting your dimwitted, worthless comments.
>>
>> OBTW - I haven't seen your answer to the following question you were
>> asked.
>> --
>> OK...what's the next level of the following?
>>
>> e=mc^2
>>
>> What does the following equation refer to? Under what circumstances is
>> it completely accurate? Why is it not accurate in other circumstances,
>> and give examples? Who offered an early proof of this, and suffered
>> dire consequences?
>>
>> s=at^2/2
>> --
>> You're still researching the answer on the internet aren't you? DF!
>>
>> As I've said before....I have NOT seen one intelligent post from you
>> yet!!
>>
>> BC
>
>

LAN Man

2002-07-21, 8:25 pm

Frédéric,

It doesn't look like that question was for us. I found further down where
that question was asked of TinklingJester when he stated:

"I have a degree in Astrophysics from the University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
I had a minor in systems engineering".

Whether that's true or not is hard to say. Usually people with that level
of knowledge are a little more modest.

On the brighter side, it looks like you've replied with the answer before
TinklingJester did. That's quite impressive! It's rather ironic that this
topic came up when it did. I just read an article by Dr. Michio Kaku that
spoke of this same subject. Here's his web site: http://www.mkaku.org/.
Definitely some good reading there if you're into physics!

LAN Man

"The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of
strength, not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of will."
~ Vincent Thomas "Vince" Lombardi

"Frédéric" <frederic_quebec2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GPG_8.4892$364.230747@weber.videotron.net...
> From your point of view we are all stupid.
> Is that an intelligent thing to ask dogs to fly?
> I you were intelligent you wouldn't ask us such a question.
>
> By the way here is the answer
> " Galileo correctly shows that the strength is proportional to the cube of
> the depth dimension and make many other perceptive points. In particular,
he
> points out how giants are impossible because their mass would increase as
> the cube of their size, while the strength of their bones and sinews would
> increase as the square of their size, so that they could no support
> themselves for sizes much larger than human. The parts of the Discorsi
> dealing with motion are the peak of Galileo's achievement. He correctly
was
> that in accelerated motion, such as free fall, or a ball rolling down a
> plane, the correct law was velocity proportional to time (v = at), not
> velocity proportional to distance. Also he correctly deduced s = at2/2 and
> showed that the path of a projectile was a parabola. What was lacking in
his
> dynamics was the concept of force, leading on to Newton's great law:
> Force = mass x acceleration."
>
> http://www.physics.mq.edu.au/units/...yortext/c3.html
> --
> Frédéric
> A+, CIW, i-Net+
>
>
> ******************************
******************************
***********
> Visit my website "Fred's Fast Cram"
> http://24.202.66.70:21
> ******************************
******************************
***********
> "BedwettingClown" <bedwetting_clown@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ab403548.0207211408.4a82f875@posting.google.com...
> > Hey look everyone.....the W-w-water Boy is back! A.K.A. -
> > TinklingJester
> > And he's w-w-wiser than ever. Amusing isn't he?
> >
> > T.J - You'll NEVER compare to "The Spammer", so just give it up! He's
> > way ahead of you in insults and he's obviously more intelligent too.
> > You're wasting our time by posting your dimwitted, worthless comments.
> >
> > OBTW - I haven't seen your answer to the following question you were
> > asked.
> > --
> > OK...what's the next level of the following?
> >
> > e=mc^2
> >
> > What does the following equation refer to? Under what circumstances is
> > it completely accurate? Why is it not accurate in other circumstances,
> > and give examples? Who offered an early proof of this, and suffered
> > dire consequences?
> >
> > s=at^2/2
> > --
> > You're still researching the answer on the internet aren't you? DF!
> >
> > As I've said before....I have NOT seen one intelligent post from you
> > yet!!
> >
> > BC
>
>

Sponsored Links