In article , (Harry K) wrote:
(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

Try alt.test.binaries

How to post the picture depends on what software you're using to read and
post. You're on your own there, since I don't know what you have.

and it will include the scale
reading.

It had better!

It will have to be in two pictures as the scale reading will
have to be a close up.

Make sure that the position of the pointer on the scale is visible, even if
the markings are not, in the photo that shows the whole setup.

You, of course, will then claim that I am
taking the picture of the scale from a different set-up.

I'll reserve judgement on that until I see the photo.

I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it.