Thread
:
Figuring loads / block & tackle theory
View Single Post
#
85
Harry K
Posts: n/a
Figuring loads / block & tackle theory
(Doug Miller) wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(Harry K) wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
(Harry K) wrote:
bunch more snippage
This part you have right but it has nothing to do with the pulley
problem.
Reread your high school physics text a few more times, until you
understand
that it is the _same_.
I do not understand you and Greg and now Steve. The test is a simple
one, anyone can do it and it will prove all three of you are wrong.
Why do you not do it. Yes, yes I know. 'I know what I know and don't
confuse me with facts'
I have done the test, Harry. It proves you wrong. Read my first post in this
thread: I began with the same preconceived notion that you did. The
difference is that when experimental results contradicted that preconceived
notion, I abandoned it, whereas you insist on clinging to it.
Ignorance - not knowing something
You began here...
Stupidity - refusing to learn when led to the source.
.. and are now here.
Do the test then get back to the thread. Also see below where I did
repeat the test using only one scale this time thus eliminating one
variation.
Harry, I really have to wonder if you have actually read ANY of the posts
that
you have responded to.
I HAVE ALREADY DONE THE TEST. IT PROVES YOU WRONG.
Shouting does not increase the believability of a lie. You didn't do
it, I have, 3 times now and every result matches what physics texts
say. Where are your diagrams and readings?
You're a proven liar, Harry.
I see you still refuse to address why you say my readings in the first
test are wrong. Oh I know why. Because it says that the strain on
the hook is 22 lbs when you just -know- it has to be 44. Your only
out is to claim error of instrument, reading or procedure.
Unfortunately it wasn't nor is it in the next two tests.
You're a proven liar, Harry. You haven't done the tests at all.
I haven't decided yet but I just may go to the local library and give
you a specific cite.
Translation: you're still trying to find a book that supports your lies.
By the way, You are the one who claimed I am
mistaken in your first or second post. By protocol it is -you- who
should be doing the research.
Go back and read the threads. I was the first to post actual test results in
this thread. You are making claims that contradict actual experimental results
and it is thus up to *you* to substantiate your claims.
Post a photo of your tests, Harry -- that's the only way anyone will ever
believe that you actually did it.
Okay, I will borrow a camera. Now someone will have to tell me
-where and how- to post the picture and it will include the scale
reading. It will have to be in two pictures as the scale reading will
have to be a close up. You, of course, will then claim that I am
taking the picture of the scale from a different set-up.
Harry K
Reply With Quote