(Doug Miller) wrote in message gy.com...
In article , (Harry K) wrote:

snip a batch of bs that still comes down to simple -I don't believe
it, you are lying, you didn't do the tests etc-.

With all your prattling about physics books, I would have thought that you had
one already. Convenient for you that you don't.

One cite, Harry, just one cite, of a published work that supports your claims.
Where is it?

Let's see, I have posted at least 4 different tests, all agree with my
assertion (and physics) and you have done what? Claimed to have done
1 test and then lied about the result if you even did it.

Post a picture of your test and result. Post some research, Post
anything at all except 'I don't believe it'.

How about actually discuss one or more of my readings. Something more
than
that's wrong. Show how it is wrong. Just stating that it doesn't
agree with your preconceived idea isn't enough.

Sorry for you. Here is the only one I found that comes close. It is
some better than Tom's. Note that I have done the research, you
haven't.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/pulley.htm

Best I could find on the net. Do you see the force vector arrows in
the diagram? They show 100 lbs down force on the right, 100 lbs up
force on the right and another 100 lbs down force on the left. Notice
the two 100 lbs down? Yep, that would mean 200 lbs on the hook.

But wait a minute. There is one 100 lbs -up- force. That cancels one
of the downs leaving

100 lbs remaining acting on the weight and the hook. Just as I said
and just as my tests show.

Of course I now expect you to reply 'that's wrong'

Harry K