| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ken Smith" |
| Date: |
29 May 2006 07:01:44 AM |
| Object: |
Re:Tyre-Iron Ted Kaldis' Weird Christian Science |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
[Really, Ted! While I can understand your ignorance of the law and
your inability to interact socially with women, your ignorance of the
most basic principles of physics is SHOCKING!!! A competent engineer
*has* to know the rudiments of physics, and your total lack of working
knowledge in this discipline is truly beyond the pale.
Those who have forgotten basic junior high school physics can get a
refresher: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/momentum/U4L2a.html.]
Ken Smith wrote:
Dane wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Dane wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Dane wrote:
[snip to focus on the Hayes reoprt]
And after that exchange, you never have specified as to the nature of
the error in Hayes report.
Hayes' report is a joke. In it, he asserts that after a baseball pitcher
throws a pitch, he falls BACKWARDS off the mound.
Oh really?
Yes, really.
Not really. There are factors at work that any honest and reasonably
competent person would recognize, which you have failed to account for.
Dr. Hayes is the expert, and you are an American Idiot.
You wouldn't mind showing us that silly report then, I'm sure.
What for? You have no involvement here. Why should you care? It's none of
your business.
That's never stopped YOU from insinuating yourself into matters which
are none of YOUR business, Ted -- especially, when you know absolutely
nothing about what you are talking about.
Nevertheless, I'll point you to this: since you [most likely] already have a
copy of the Grand Jury Testimony, please refer to the testimony on page 260.
Hayes is testifying:
2 Q IF LAUREN WERE LAUNCHED AT A VELOCITY OF
3 APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET PER SECOND BY CAMERON BROWN, WOULD
4 THAT HAVE RESULTED IN CAMERON BROWN GOING OVER THE CLIFF
5 ALSO?
6 A THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, ACTUALLY. AND
7 PERHAPS I CAN DEMONSTRATE AGAIN, IF I MIGHT.
8 SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF NEWTON'S LAW
9 AND THE PHRASE "FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A REACTION."
10 IN ANSWER TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, WHEN
11 YOU THROW SOMETHING, YOU GENERALLY ARE PUSHED BACKWARDS
12 FROM THAT THROW. AND SO THE STORIES THAT HE TOLD ABOUT
13 HER LAUNCHING A ROCK, THROWING A ROCK, THAT'S NOT THE WAY
14 WE THROW THINGS. WE THROW THINGS AND GENERALLY WE COME
15 BACKWARDS, UNLESS WE ARE RUNNING FORWARD. SO UNLESS HE
16 WERE RUNNING TOWARDS THE CLIFF FACE WHEN HE LAUNCHED HER,
17 WHICH WOULD GIVE HIM SOME MOMENTUM TOWARDS THE CLIFF
18 FACE, I WOULD EXPECT, IF HE LAUNCHES HER FROM A STANDING
19 POSITION, THAT HE WOULD BE PUSHED BACKWARDS, AS OPPOSED
20 TO GOING OVER THE CLIFF.
This is utterly LUDICROUS! This is NOT how we throw things. When we throw
something, we make sure that we are on solid footing, and then we put our
BODY into the throw.
And here, I thought you didn't believe in biomechanics!
Since when have *you* thrown a medicine ball? Lifted weights? If
you had ever spent more than ten minutes in the gym in your life, you'd
know that what Hayes is saying is absolutely true; Newton's laws are
laws for a reason. While there are reasons why you might want to move
forward in some instances (e.g., throwing a baseball, to enhance the
whip effect to increase its velocity), if you were standing on the edge
of a cliff when you did the deed, there is one thing you would most
certainly try not to do, and that is to move your body forward.
You can even try this at home: While standing on roller skates, try
to throw a large medicine ball. You will move backward. Newton's laws
are inviolate.
When throwing a baseball, Newton's Third Law has an almost negligible
effect -- it weighs less than a pound. When throwing a 20 kg girl off a
cliff, the effects upon a 70 kg man would be much more noticeable, and I
am sure Dr. Hayes could demonstrate this fact easily.
And whatever opposite reaction there is (according to
Newton's Law) is absorbed by the earth (the mass of which is FAR greater than
anything that we are capable of throwing.
Gawd! Where did you learn physics, Billy Bob's Skewl of Preechin'
and Truk Drivin'? The key interaction is between the thrower and the
thrown -- friction will keep the thrower's body from going backward
(compare it to the example of the roller skates), but it would NOT cause
the body of the thrower to move forward ... under any circumstances.
If this is a case of Hayes "blinding them with science", it is the TRUTH that
he is blinding them from. And that "truth" is that Cameron Brown COULD _NOT_
HAVE "thrown" his daughter off the cliff -- otherwise he would almost
certainly have gone over himself.
Jesus, but that has to be the most incredibly stupid misapplication
of Newton's Laws I have EVER heard, Ted! If you have weights, a gym,
and a children's playground handy, you can do the test for yourself.
Of course, he won't.
Because THERE IS NO NEED TO. It's NONE OF YOUR F***IN' BUSINESS. You have
enough problems of your own, Ken. I suggest you attend to them, rather than
try to rattle my cage.
That has never stopped you from insinuating yourself into MY affairs,
Ted. "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. That is
the Torah; all else is interpretation." If *you* had only had the sense
to shut the ***** up, no one here would even know about CA-MORON.
Ted is all hat, no cattle. Always has been.
We'll see who has the cattle, and who has only the hat.
The biomechanics of pitching are not germane, for reasons those who
understand pitching or biomechanics know. It's essentially a whipping
motion.
It isn't the biomechanics of pitching that he is talking about, but rather
the PHYSICS. His assertion is that, as you throw an object, you fall
backwards as a result. When was the last time that that happened to you?
Try throwing a medicine ball while on roller skates. Newton's Third
Law correctly predicts the outcome 100% of the time. Prove otherwise,
and you'll be in line for the next Nobel Prize in physics.
That argument just kind of died away in favor of the unspecified H-Bomb.
As confidential as the Manhatton Project.
It's a pretty BIG deal, that H-bomb.
I comprehend it all quite well now.
Well, it should be detonating sometime soon, I'm sure.
Perhaps.
If it was actually worth anything, it would have been detonated more than a
year ago. Or did Geragos keep his client in the slammer for an extra year,
just so he could FINALLY win a high-profile case in court?
Ken knows squat.
Whereas Ted has proven that he don't even know physics.
I'm not so sure.
As sure as you was that this turkey would never go to trial?
Ted has been 100% wrong about everything in this trial to date; why should
anything change now?
There hasn't been a trial yet, so you can't say that I was wrong about that.
On Tuesday morning, jury selection will begin; it is the formal start
of the trial, by your own admission. You proclaimed that the case would
never go to trial, and the trial is now inevitable.
.
|
|
| User: "Theodore A. Kaldis" |
|
| Title: Re: Ken Smith's Weird [Non] Science |
29 May 2006 01:18:14 PM |
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Nevertheless, I'll point you to this: since you [most likely] already have
a copy of the Grand Jury Testimony, please refer to the testimony on page
260. Hayes is testifying:
2 Q IF LAUREN WERE LAUNCHED AT A VELOCITY OF
3 APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET PER SECOND BY CAMERON BROWN, WOULD
4 THAT HAVE RESULTED IN CAMERON BROWN GOING OVER THE CLIFF
5 ALSO?
6 A THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, ACTUALLY. AND
7 PERHAPS I CAN DEMONSTRATE AGAIN, IF I MIGHT.
8 SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF NEWTON'S LAW
9 AND THE PHRASE "FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A REACTION."
10 IN ANSWER TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, WHEN
11 YOU THROW SOMETHING, YOU GENERALLY ARE PUSHED BACKWARDS
12 FROM THAT THROW. AND SO THE STORIES THAT HE TOLD ABOUT
13 HER LAUNCHING A ROCK, THROWING A ROCK, THAT'S NOT THE WAY
14 WE THROW THINGS. WE THROW THINGS AND GENERALLY WE COME
15 BACKWARDS, UNLESS WE ARE RUNNING FORWARD. SO UNLESS HE
16 WERE RUNNING TOWARDS THE CLIFF FACE WHEN HE LAUNCHED HER,
17 WHICH WOULD GIVE HIM SOME MOMENTUM TOWARDS THE CLIFF
18 FACE, I WOULD EXPECT, IF HE LAUNCHES HER FROM A STANDING
19 POSITION, THAT HE WOULD BE PUSHED BACKWARDS, AS OPPOSED
20 TO GOING OVER THE CLIFF.
This is utterly LUDICROUS! This is NOT how we throw things. When we
throw something, we make sure that we are on solid footing, and then we
put our BODY into the throw.
And here, I thought you didn't believe in biomechanics!
I believe it's overrated, I'll tell you that. Anyway, biomechanics isn't
involved here.
Since when have *you* thrown a medicine ball?
It's been awhile.
Lifted weights?
Not quite as long a while.
If you had ever spent more than ten minutes in the gym in your life, you'd
know that what Hayes is saying is absolutely true;
Hayes is talking out his arse.
Newton's laws are laws for a reason.
I have no quarrel with Newton.
While there are reasons why you might want to move forward in some
instances (e.g., throwing a baseball, to enhance the whip effect to
increase its velocity), if you were standing on the edge of a cliff when
you did the deed, there is one thing you would most certainly try not to
do, and that is to move your body forward.
Ken, this is BULLSH*T, pure and simple. Yes, if you stand still and throw
something like a medicine ball without taking a throwing stance, you will
fall on your ARSE. And the ball won't go very far. In order to EFFECTIVELY
throw it, you HAVE to put your body into it.
You can even try this at home: While standing on roller skates, try to
throw a large medicine ball. You will move backward. Newton's laws are
inviolate.
Yeah, so what? Since when does this ever happen in real life? (As if loving
parents routinely throw their children off cliffs.)
When throwing a baseball, Newton's Third Law has an almost negligible
effect -- it weighs less than a pound. When throwing a 20 kg girl off a
cliff, the effects upon a 70 kg man would be much more noticeable,
Except that no 70 kg man (or whatever Cam's weight is) did such a thing.
and I am sure Dr. Hayes could demonstrate this fact easily.
If he could demonstrate it so easily, then why didn't he conduct tests out
there on the cliff? I suspect THOSE are the kinds of questions that Dr.
Hayes is going to be facing, and NOT about the technical aspects of the
experiments that he supposedly performed. He will be belittled about
asserting that he can reliably deduce what happened on a cliff in Palos
Verdes while sitting in his office (or laboratory, or whatever) 900 miles
away. And he will look like an idiot.
And whatever opposite reaction there is (according to Newton's Law) is
absorbed by the earth (the mass of which is FAR greater than anything that
we are capable of throwing.
Gawd! Where did you learn physics, [...]
At a reputable and respected university. Apparently unlike you.
The key interaction is between the thrower and the thrown -- friction will
keep the thrower's body from going backward (compare it to the example of
the roller skates), but it would NOT cause the body of the thrower to move
forward ... under any circumstances.
Ken, it is the THROWER that would cause his body to go forward. In order to
impart the maximum amount of momentum possible to the object being thrown.
To to throw an object of that much weight, it is absolutely NECESSARY to do
so, otherwise the object doesn't get thrown very far.
If this is a case of Hayes "blinding them with science", it is the TRUTH
that he is blinding them from. And that "truth" is that Cameron Brown
COULD _NOT_ HAVE "thrown" his daughter off the cliff -- otherwise he would
almost certainly have gone over himself.
Jesus, but that has to be the most incredibly stupid misapplication of
Newton's Laws I have EVER heard, Ted!
Newton't Law isn't even involved, Ken.
If you have weights, a gym, and a children's playground handy, you can do
the test for yourself.
What for? The entire assertion is ludicrous on its face.
[...]
Ted is all hat, no cattle. Always has been.
We'll see who has the cattle, and who has only the hat.
The biomechanics of pitching are not germane, for reasons those who
understand pitching or biomechanics know. It's essentially a whipping
motion.
It isn't the biomechanics of pitching that he is talking about, but rather
the PHYSICS. His assertion is that, as you throw an object, you fall
backwards as a result. When was the last time that that happened to you?
Try throwing a medicine ball while on roller skates. [...]
Cameron wasn't on roller skates.
[...]
I'm not so sure.
As sure as you was that this turkey would never go to trial?
Ted has been 100% wrong about everything in this trial to date; why
should anything change now?
There hasn't been a trial yet, so you can't say that I was wrong about
that.
On Tuesday morning, jury selection will begin;
Will it? That's not 100% assured.
it is the formal start of the trial, by your own admission.
It may happen. Or it may not.
You proclaimed that the case would never go to trial, and the trial is now
inevitable.
I never "proclaimed" that it would never go to trial, I merely expressed
doubts about it. Can't you EVER be honest about anything?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dane" |
|
| Title: Re: Ken Smith's Weird [Non] Science |
29 May 2006 01:47:48 PM |
|
|
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:447B3AF1.4D186C67@worldnet.att.net...
Ken Smith wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Nevertheless, I'll point you to this: since you [most likely] already
have
a copy of the Grand Jury Testimony, please refer to the testimony on
page
260. Hayes is testifying:
2 Q IF LAUREN WERE LAUNCHED AT A VELOCITY OF
3 APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET PER SECOND BY CAMERON BROWN, WOULD
4 THAT HAVE RESULTED IN CAMERON BROWN GOING OVER THE CLIFF
5 ALSO?
6 A THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, ACTUALLY. AND
7 PERHAPS I CAN DEMONSTRATE AGAIN, IF I MIGHT.
8 SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF NEWTON'S LAW
9 AND THE PHRASE "FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS A REACTION."
10 IN ANSWER TO THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION, WHEN
11 YOU THROW SOMETHING, YOU GENERALLY ARE PUSHED BACKWARDS
12 FROM THAT THROW. AND SO THE STORIES THAT HE TOLD ABOUT
13 HER LAUNCHING A ROCK, THROWING A ROCK, THAT'S NOT THE WAY
14 WE THROW THINGS. WE THROW THINGS AND GENERALLY WE COME
15 BACKWARDS, UNLESS WE ARE RUNNING FORWARD. SO UNLESS HE
16 WERE RUNNING TOWARDS THE CLIFF FACE WHEN HE LAUNCHED HER,
17 WHICH WOULD GIVE HIM SOME MOMENTUM TOWARDS THE CLIFF
18 FACE, I WOULD EXPECT, IF HE LAUNCHES HER FROM A STANDING
19 POSITION, THAT HE WOULD BE PUSHED BACKWARDS, AS OPPOSED
20 TO GOING OVER THE CLIFF.
This is utterly LUDICROUS! This is NOT how we throw things. When we
throw something, we make sure that we are on solid footing, and then we
put our BODY into the throw.
And here, I thought you didn't believe in biomechanics!
I believe it's overrated, I'll tell you that. Anyway, biomechanics isn't
involved here.
Since when have *you* thrown a medicine ball?
It's been awhile.
Lifted weights?
Not quite as long a while.
If you had ever spent more than ten minutes in the gym in your life,
you'd
know that what Hayes is saying is absolutely true;
Hayes is talking out his arse.
Newton's laws are laws for a reason.
I have no quarrel with Newton.
Unless he was a witness for the prosecution in which case he would
necessarily be a quack.
While there are reasons why you might want to move forward in some
instances (e.g., throwing a baseball, to enhance the whip effect to
increase its velocity), if you were standing on the edge of a cliff when
you did the deed, there is one thing you would most certainly try not to
do, and that is to move your body forward.
Ken, this is BULLSH*T, pure and simple. Yes, if you stand still and throw
something like a medicine ball without taking a throwing stance, you will
fall on your ARSE. And the ball won't go very far. In order to
EFFECTIVELY
throw it, you HAVE to put your body into it.
You can even try this at home: While standing on roller skates, try to
throw a large medicine ball. You will move backward. Newton's laws are
inviolate.
Yeah, so what? Since when does this ever happen in real life? (As if
loving
parents routinely throw their children off cliffs.)
Luckily, "loving" parents like CaMoron are rare.
When throwing a baseball, Newton's Third Law has an almost negligible
effect -- it weighs less than a pound. When throwing a 20 kg girl off a
cliff, the effects upon a 70 kg man would be much more noticeable,
Except that no 70 kg man (or whatever Cam's weight is) did such a thing.
and I am sure Dr. Hayes could demonstrate this fact easily.
If he could demonstrate it so easily, then why didn't he conduct tests out
there on the cliff? I suspect THOSE are the kinds of questions that Dr.
Hayes is going to be facing, and NOT about the technical aspects of the
experiments that he supposedly performed.
Why did he need to when the Ca rules of evidence didn't require it? To
inflate his fee?
He will be belittled about
asserting that he can reliably deduce what happened on a cliff in Palos
Verdes while sitting in his office (or laboratory, or whatever) 900 miles
away. And he will look like an idiot.
We'll see who will look like an idiot, that's plain enough. My prediction is
that the current displayer of idiocy will be the future appearance of
idiocy.
And whatever opposite reaction there is (according to Newton's Law) is
absorbed by the earth (the mass of which is FAR greater than anything
that
we are capable of throwing.
Gawd! Where did you learn physics, [...]
At a reputable and respected university. Apparently unlike you.
The key interaction is between the thrower and the thrown -- friction
will
keep the thrower's body from going backward (compare it to the example
of
the roller skates), but it would NOT cause the body of the thrower to
move
forward ... under any circumstances.
Ken, it is the THROWER that would cause his body to go forward. In order
to
impart the maximum amount of momentum possible to the object being thrown.
To to throw an object of that much weight, it is absolutely NECESSARY to
do
so, otherwise the object doesn't get thrown very far.
If this is a case of Hayes "blinding them with science", it is the
TRUTH
that he is blinding them from. And that "truth" is that Cameron Brown
COULD _NOT_ HAVE "thrown" his daughter off the cliff -- otherwise he
would
almost certainly have gone over himself.
Jesus, but that has to be the most incredibly stupid misapplication of
Newton's Laws I have EVER heard, Ted!
Newton't Law isn't even involved, Ken.
It's primarily the Homicide Law involved.
If you have weights, a gym, and a children's playground handy, you can
do
the test for yourself.
What for? The entire assertion is ludicrous on its face.
[...]
Ted is all hat, no cattle. Always has been.
We'll see who has the cattle, and who has only the hat.
The biomechanics of pitching are not germane, for reasons those who
understand pitching or biomechanics know. It's essentially a whipping
motion.
It isn't the biomechanics of pitching that he is talking about, but
rather
the PHYSICS. His assertion is that, as you throw an object, you fall
backwards as a result. When was the last time that that happened to
you?
Try throwing a medicine ball while on roller skates. [...]
Cameron wasn't on roller skates.
[...]
I'm not so sure.
As sure as you was that this turkey would never go to trial?
Ted has been 100% wrong about everything in this trial to date; why
should anything change now?
There hasn't been a trial yet, so you can't say that I was wrong about
that.
On Tuesday morning, jury selection will begin;
Will it? That's not 100% assured.
Are you making odds?
it is the formal start of the trial, by your own admission.
It may happen. Or it may not.
You proclaimed that the case would never go to trial, and the trial is
now
inevitable.
I never "proclaimed" that it would never go to trial, I merely expressed
doubts about it. Can't you EVER be honest about anything?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kent Wills" |
|
| Title: Re: Ken Smith's Weird [Non] Science |
29 May 2006 04:35:05 PM |
|
|
In Accordance With The Prophecy, On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:18:14 GMT,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
And here, I thought you didn't believe in biomechanics!
I believe it's overrated, I'll tell you that. Anyway, biomechanics isn't
involved here.
Biomechanics is heavily involved. It's used a great deal in
Hayes' report.
Since when have *you* thrown a medicine ball?
It's been awhile.
Lifted weights?
Not quite as long a while.
12 oz beer cans do not count.
If you had ever spent more than ten minutes in the gym in your life, you'd
know that what Hayes is saying is absolutely true;
Hayes is talking out his arse.
No he's not. And if you did as well in physics as you claim,
you would know this.
Newton's laws are laws for a reason.
I have no quarrel with Newton.
Only when someone uses them to prove how Lauren could have
received the injuries detailed in the autopsy report.
While there are reasons why you might want to move forward in some
instances (e.g., throwing a baseball, to enhance the whip effect to
increase its velocity), if you were standing on the edge of a cliff when
you did the deed, there is one thing you would most certainly try not to
do, and that is to move your body forward.
Ken, this is BULLSH*T, pure and simple. Yes, if you stand still and throw
something like a medicine ball without taking a throwing stance, you will
fall on your ARSE. And the ball won't go very far. In order to EFFECTIVELY
throw it, you HAVE to put your body into it.
Yes... and?
You can even try this at home: While standing on roller skates, try to
throw a large medicine ball. You will move backward. Newton's laws are
inviolate.
Yeah, so what? Since when does this ever happen in real life? (As if loving
parents routinely throw their children off cliffs.)
Loving parents don't. All evidence I've seen shows that
Cameron did.
When throwing a baseball, Newton's Third Law has an almost negligible
effect -- it weighs less than a pound. When throwing a 20 kg girl off a
cliff, the effects upon a 70 kg man would be much more noticeable,
Except that no 70 kg man (or whatever Cam's weight is) did such a thing.
The evidence available to us disagrees with your theory.
and I am sure Dr. Hayes could demonstrate this fact easily.
If he could demonstrate it so easily, then why didn't he conduct tests out
there on the cliff?
While it's not required, I think it would have been better if
he had.
I suspect THOSE are the kinds of questions that Dr.
Hayes is going to be facing, and NOT about the technical aspects of the
experiments that he supposedly performed. He will be belittled about
asserting that he can reliably deduce what happened on a cliff in Palos
Verdes while sitting in his office (or laboratory, or whatever) 900 miles
away. And he will look like an idiot.
No he won't. Computer models are used routinely for such
experiments. Yes, I would have preferred that he did his experiments
at the site, but it wasn't and isn't necessary. And the jury will be
informed that it wasn't necessary.
And whatever opposite reaction there is (according to Newton's Law) is
absorbed by the earth (the mass of which is FAR greater than anything that
we are capable of throwing.
Gawd! Where did you learn physics, [...]
At a reputable and respected university. Apparently unlike you.
Nova University, by chance?
For those unaware, which will be most, Nova is a trailer
located in Florida. It's a degree mill. I toyed with the idea of
getting a Ph.D. from them just so I could say I had one.
The idea never got beyond the thought stage.
The key interaction is between the thrower and the thrown -- friction will
keep the thrower's body from going backward (compare it to the example of
the roller skates), but it would NOT cause the body of the thrower to move
forward ... under any circumstances.
Ken, it is the THROWER that would cause his body to go forward. In order to
impart the maximum amount of momentum possible to the object being thrown.
To to throw an object of that much weight, it is absolutely NECESSARY to do
so, otherwise the object doesn't get thrown very far.
How far did Cameron need to throw Lauren?
If this is a case of Hayes "blinding them with science", it is the TRUTH
that he is blinding them from. And that "truth" is that Cameron Brown
COULD _NOT_ HAVE "thrown" his daughter off the cliff -- otherwise he would
almost certainly have gone over himself.
Jesus, but that has to be the most incredibly stupid misapplication of
Newton's Laws I have EVER heard, Ted!
Newton't Law isn't even involved, Ken.
Yes, it is. That you can't see this proves you don't know
squat about physics. Heck, I'm no expert, and I can see it.
If you have weights, a gym, and a children's playground handy, you can do
the test for yourself.
What for? The entire assertion is ludicrous on its face.
Anything that resembles exercise is to be avoided in Ted's
world.
[...]
Somehow the following portion was accidentally snipped from
your reply. You can address it now:
___________________
Of course, he won't.
Because THERE IS NO NEED TO. It's NONE OF YOUR F***IN' BUSINESS. You have
enough problems of your own, Ken. I suggest you attend to them, rather than
try to rattle my cage.
That has never stopped you from insinuating yourself into MY
affairs, Ted. "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your
fellowman. That is the Torah; all else is interpretation." If *you*
had only had the sense to shut the ***** up, no one here would even
know about CA-MORON.
____________________
Ted is all hat, no cattle. Always has been.
We'll see who has the cattle, and who has only the hat.
The biomechanics of pitching are not germane, for reasons those who
understand pitching or biomechanics know. It's essentially a whipping
motion.
It isn't the biomechanics of pitching that he is talking about, but rather
the PHYSICS. His assertion is that, as you throw an object, you fall
backwards as a result. When was the last time that that happened to you?
Try throwing a medicine ball while on roller skates. Newton's Third
Law correctly predicts the outcome 100% of the time. Prove otherwise,
and you'll be in line for the next Nobel Prize in physics.
Cameron wasn't on roller skates.
Nor has anyone claimed he was.
Oh, I restored the part your newsreader accidentally snipped.
Feel free to address it now.
____________________
That argument just kind of died away in favor of the unspecified H-Bomb.
As confidential as the Manhatton Project.
It's a pretty BIG deal, that H-bomb.
I comprehend it all quite well now.
Well, it should be detonating sometime soon, I'm sure.
Perhaps.
If it was actually worth anything, it would have been detonated more than a
year ago. Or did Geragos keep his client in the slammer for an extra year,
just so he could FINALLY win a high-profile case in court?
Ken knows squat.
Whereas Ted has proven that he don't even know physics.
____________________
I'm not so sure.
As sure as you was that this turkey would never go to trial?
Ted has been 100% wrong about everything in this trial to date; why
should anything change now?
There hasn't been a trial yet, so you can't say that I was wrong about
that.
On Tuesday morning, jury selection will begin;
Will it? That's not 100% assured.
If Hum was going to drop the charges, he would have done so
long ago. As soon as the conservancy funding was secured would have
been a good time, if your conservancy conspiracy theory was accurate.
it is the formal start of the trial, by your own admission.
It may happen. Or it may not.
It will.
You proclaimed that the case would never go to trial, and the trial is now
inevitable.
I never "proclaimed" that it would never go to trial, I merely expressed
doubts about it. Can't you EVER be honest about anything?
Technically Ted's right. He never came right out and said it
wouldn't happen. He came very close many times, but he left himself
some wiggle room.
--
(º·.¸(¨*·.¸ ¸.·*¨)¸.·º)
«.·°KENT°·.»
(¸.·º(¸.·¨* *¨·.¸)º·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Ted Kaldis' shocking ignorance of simple physics |
30 May 2006 09:14:28 AM |
|
|
Kent Wills wrote:
In Accordance With The Prophecy, On Mon, 29 May 2006 18:18:14 GMT,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
And here, I thought you didn't believe in biomechanics!
I believe it's overrated, I'll tell you that. Anyway, biomechanics isn't
involved here.
Biomechanics is heavily involved. It's used a great deal in
Hayes' report.
Since when have *you* thrown a medicine ball?
It's been awhile.
Lifted weights?
Not quite as long a while.
12 oz beer cans do not count.
More like Fosters' oil cans (25 oz.), Mate! :)
If you had ever spent more than ten minutes in the gym in your life, you'd
know that what Hayes is saying is absolutely true;
Hayes is talking out his arse.
No he's not. And if you did as well in physics as you claim,
you would know this.
Ted makes lots of claims. I can't remember that last one which was
demonstrably true. :)
Newton's laws are laws for a reason.
I have no quarrel with Newton.
Only when someone uses them to prove how Lauren could have
received the injuries detailed in the autopsy report.
At which point, Al'lah revises the laws of physics. :)
While there are reasons why you might want to move forward in some
instances (e.g., throwing a baseball, to enhance the whip effect to
increase its velocity), if you were standing on the edge of a cliff when
you did the deed, there is one thing you would most certainly try not to
do, and that is to move your body forward.
Ken, this is BULLSH*T, pure and simple. Yes, if you stand still and throw
something like a medicine ball without taking a throwing stance, you will
fall on your ARSE. And the ball won't go very far. In order to EFFECTIVELY
throw it, you HAVE to put your body into it.
Yes... and?
Our Ted is so profoundly ineffective that he can't even seem to grasp
the concept that there are varying degrees of effectiveness.
You can even try this at home: While standing on roller skates, try to
throw a large medicine ball. You will move backward. Newton's laws are
inviolate.
Yeah, so what? Since when does this ever happen in real life? (As if loving
parents routinely throw their children off cliffs.)
Loving parents don't. All evidence I've seen shows that
Cameron did.
At least, there is indisputably enough evidence to conclude that
there was probable cause to believe he did ... which is what makes the
rest of this discussion moot.
When throwing a baseball, Newton's Third Law has an almost negligible
effect -- it weighs less than a pound. When throwing a 20 kg girl off a
cliff, the effects upon a 70 kg man would be much more noticeable,
Except that no 70 kg man (or whatever Cam's weight is) did such a thing.
The evidence available to us disagrees with your theory.
and I am sure Dr. Hayes could demonstrate this fact easily.
If he could demonstrate it so easily, then why didn't he conduct tests out
there on the cliff?
While it's not required, I think it would have been better if
he had.
It would have eliminated one facetious angle of attack.
I suspect THOSE are the kinds of questions that Dr.
Hayes is going to be facing, and NOT about the technical aspects of the
experiments that he supposedly performed. He will be belittled about
asserting that he can reliably deduce what happened on a cliff in Palos
Verdes while sitting in his office (or laboratory, or whatever) 900 miles
away. And he will look like an idiot.
No he won't. Computer models are used routinely for such
experiments. Yes, I would have preferred that he did his experiments
at the site, but it wasn't and isn't necessary. And the jury will be
informed that it wasn't necessary.
Hayes would have been able to run a thousand simulations based on the
topography then in place, and based on those simulations, come up with a
probability estimate.
And whatever opposite reaction there is (according to Newton's Law) is
absorbed by the earth (the mass of which is FAR greater than anything that
we are capable of throwing.
Gawd! Where did you learn physics, [...]
At a reputable and respected university. Apparently unlike you.
Nova University, by chance?
For those unaware, which will be most, Nova is a trailer
located in Florida. It's a degree mill. I toyed with the idea of
getting a Ph.D. from them just so I could say I had one.
The idea never got beyond the thought stage.
The key interaction is between the thrower and the thrown -- friction will
keep the thrower's body from going backward (compare it to the example of
the roller skates), but it would NOT cause the body of the thrower to move
forward ... under any circumstances.
Ken, it is the THROWER that would cause his body to go forward. In order to
impart the maximum amount of momentum possible to the object being thrown.
To to throw an object of that much weight, it is absolutely NECESSARY to do
so, otherwise the object doesn't get thrown very far.
How far did Cameron need to throw Lauren?
Not very. Five feet should have been more than enough, and that was
well within Surferdude Cam's physical capacity. Hayes should have the
numbers.
If this is a case of Hayes "blinding them with science", it is the TRUTH
that he is blinding them from. And that "truth" is that Cameron Brown
COULD _NOT_ HAVE "thrown" his daughter off the cliff -- otherwise he would
almost certainly have gone over himself.
Jesus, but that has to be the most incredibly stupid misapplication of
Newton's Laws I have EVER heard, Ted!
Newton't Law isn't even involved, Ken.
Yes, it is. That you can't see this proves you don't know
squat about physics. Heck, I'm no expert, and I can see it.
If you have weights, a gym, and a children's playground handy, you can do
the test for yourself.
What for? The entire assertion is ludicrous on its face.
Anything that resembles exercise is to be avoided in Ted's
world.
LOL! Ted makes escargot look active. :)
[...]
Somehow the following portion was accidentally snipped from
your reply. You can address it now:
___________________
Of course, he won't.
Because THERE IS NO NEED TO. It's NONE OF YOUR F***IN' BUSINESS. You have
enough problems of your own, Ken. I suggest you attend to them, rather than
try to rattle my cage.
That has never stopped you from insinuating yourself into MY
affairs, Ted. "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your
fellowman. That is the Torah; all else is interpretation." If *you*
had only had the sense to shut the ***** up, no one here would even
know about CA-MORON.
____________________
Crickets chipring wildly.
Ted is all hat, no cattle. Always has been.
We'll see who has the cattle, and who has only the hat.
The biomechanics of pitching are not germane, for reasons those who
understand pitching or biomechanics know. It's essentially a whipping
motion.
It isn't the biomechanics of pitching that he is talking about, but rather
the PHYSICS. His assertion is that, as you throw an object, you fall
backwards as a result. When was the last time that that happened to you?
Try throwing a medicine ball while on roller skates. Newton's Third
Law correctly predicts the outcome 100% of the time. Prove otherwise,
and you'll be in line for the next Nobel Prize in physics.
Cameron wasn't on roller skates.
Nor has anyone claimed he was.
Oh, I restored the part your newsreader accidentally snipped.
Feel free to address it now.
____________________
That argument just kind of died away in favor of the unspecified H-Bomb.
As confidential as the Manhatton Project.
It's a pretty BIG deal, that H-bomb.
I comprehend it all quite well now.
Well, it should be detonating sometime soon, I'm sure.
Perhaps.
If it was actually worth anything, it would have been detonated more than a
year ago. Or did Geragos keep his client in the slammer for an extra year,
just so he could FINALLY win a high-profile case in court?
Ken knows squat.
Whereas Ted has proven that he don't even know physics.
____________________
I'm not so sure.
As sure as you was that this turkey would never go to trial?
Ted has been 100% wrong about everything in this trial to date; why
should anything change now?
There hasn't been a trial yet, so you can't say that I was wrong about
that.
On Tuesday morning, jury selection will begin;
Will it? That's not 100% assured.
If Hum was going to drop the charges, he would have done so
long ago. As soon as the conservancy funding was secured would have
been a good time, if your conservancy conspiracy theory was accurate.
it is the formal start of the trial, by your own admission.
It may happen. Or it may not.
It will.
We'll know in about six or seven hours.
You proclaimed that the case would never go to trial, and the trial is now
inevitable.
I never "proclaimed" that it would never go to trial, I merely expressed
doubts about it. Can't you EVER be honest about anything?
Technically Ted's right. He never came right out and said it
wouldn't happen. He came very close many times, but he left himself
some wiggle room.
Ted has a tendency to be overly parsimonious, attempting repeatedly
to create some impression that he is conveying one thought, while not
going over that line. It's tough to even converse with a person who is
so pathologically disingenuous.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
