OK. You caught me again! Damn! Yep, I'm the fraudulent plumber who can't
read from yesterday. I spent a long time fabricating that email address.
It gives my ego a huge boost. Just to prove that the address is
fraudulent - go to the MIT web site (http://web.mit.edu) and do a "people"
search on my name.

I simply gave you a simple experiment to do - and you attack me
personally. (Do it yourself, and draw your own conclusions - takes about 5
minutes)

That's not how we do business in science and engineering. We calmly look
at a situation, make hypotheses and conjectures and then think of a set of
experiments to disprove or prove our ideas. We invite others to disprove
our theories, and rejoice when they do, because we learn something.

That's the end of this discussion. No more!

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
derek, your fricken fraud. I just now noticed your fiticious email
address of
mit.edu. NObody from MIT would write what you wrote.

geesh, dude. get a life.

From: "Derek Rowell"

You caught me again! Damn! Yep, I'm the fraudulent plumber

I simply gave you a simple experiment to do

your silly "experiement" didn't hardly match up with Feynman's. who are we to
believe?

I simply gave you a simple experiment to do - and you attack me
personally.

because you are a lying sob, a cyber clown.

That's not how we do business in science and engineering. We calmly look
at a situation, make hypotheses and conjectures and then think of a set of
experiments to disprove or prove our ideas.

We, eh? *you* AND Feynman?

you are a fraud, dude.

and rejoice when they do, because we learn something.


*if* that were true, you would have "learned something" several decades ago.
This is not new stuff, though it is obviously foreign to you, oh great janitor
at MIT.

Derek, or perhaps as a courtesy I should say Professor Rowell,
why would you think a physics graduate (as described)
with a reading knowledge of some Feynman stuff
be impressed by the opinions of an MIT prof of Mech Engineering?

Don't be discouraged. People try to avoid the crack pots as far as
possible, and still get lots of value here.

Brian W

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:35:03 GMT, "Derek Rowell"
wrote:

OK. You caught me again! Damn! Yep, I'm the fraudulent plumber who can't
read from yesterday. I spent a long time fabricating that email address.
It gives my ego a huge boost. Just to prove that the address is
fraudulent - go to the MIT web site (http://web.mit.edu) and do a "people"
search on my name.

I simply gave you a simple experiment to do - and you attack me
personally. (Do it yourself, and draw your own conclusions - takes about 5
minutes)

That's not how we do business in science and engineering. We calmly look
at a situation, make hypotheses and conjectures and then think of a set of
experiments to disprove or prove our ideas. We invite others to disprove
our theories, and rejoice when they do, because we learn something.

That's the end of this discussion. No more!

brian, Feyman thought it easy. why do you suppose a cyber clown with a fake
MIT address would find it so difficult.

brian, this is EASY stuff. Not intuitive for many people, perhaps, but still
EASY for those who think it through for a couple minutes.

however for sure, brian and derek, should EITHER of you wish to back up a
ruddered boat using the engine to steer, please feel free to do so, as long as
you are not near my boat. Bang into boats and docks and pilings and blame the
current for all we care. Just don't hit don't do it near my boat. I'll
ridicule you in front of the bimbo you have onboard.

idiots. you believe you knew the entire universe of knowledge by the time you
finally got out of junior high school. Haven't learned a thing since.

Derek, or perhaps as a courtesy I should say Professor Rowell,
why would you think a physics graduate (as described)
with a reading knowledge of some Feynman stuff
be impressed by the opinions of an MIT prof of Mech Engineering?

Don't be discouraged. People try to avoid the crack pots as far as
possible, and still get lots of value here.

Brian W

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:35:03 GMT, "Derek Rowell"
wrote:

OK. You caught me again! Damn! Yep, I'm the fraudulent plumber who can't
read from yesterday. I spent a long time fabricating that email address.
It gives my ego a huge boost. Just to prove that the address is
fraudulent - go to the MIT web site (http://web.mit.edu) and do a "people"
search on my name.

I simply gave you a simple experiment to do - and you attack me
personally. (Do it yourself, and draw your own conclusions - takes about 5
minutes)

That's not how we do business in science and engineering. We calmly look
at a situation, make hypotheses and conjectures and then think of a set of
experiments to disprove or prove our ideas. We invite others to disprove
our theories, and rejoice when they do, because we learn something.

That's the end of this discussion. No more!

derek, since when do ME's deal with "fluid flow"?

you fraud. MIT is going to find out a janitor is posting using the MIT info
structure. Be prepared to pay the required taxes on using educational
resources for personal gain.

Derek, or perhaps as a courtesy I should say Professor Rowell,
why would you think a physics graduate (as described)
with a reading knowledge of some Feynman stuff
be impressed by the opinions of an MIT prof of Mech Engineering?

Don't be discouraged. People try to avoid the crack pots as far as
possible, and still get lots of value here.

Brian W

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:35:03 GMT, "Derek Rowell"
wrote:

OK. You caught me again! Damn! Yep, I'm the fraudulent plumber who can't
read from yesterday. I spent a long time fabricating that email address.
It gives my ego a huge boost. Just to prove that the address is
fraudulent - go to the MIT web site (http://web.mit.edu) and do a "people"
search on my name.

I simply gave you a simple experiment to do - and you attack me
personally. (Do it yourself, and draw your own conclusions - takes about 5
minutes)

That's not how we do business in science and engineering. We calmly look
at a situation, make hypotheses and conjectures and then think of a set of
experiments to disprove or prove our ideas. We invite others to disprove
our theories, and rejoice when they do, because we learn something.

That's the end of this discussion. No more!

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 00:35:03 GMT, "Derek Rowell"
wrote:

.....
That's not how we do business in science and engineering. We calmly look
at a situation, make hypotheses and conjectures and then think of a set of
experiments to disprove or prove our ideas. We invite others to disprove
our theories, and rejoice when they do, because we learn something.


From: "Derek Rowell"




Derek,
In hopes you didn't give up on this list altogether, here's a little
puzzle you might enjoy. There is a demonstration of the Feynman
sprinkler puzzle somewhere at MIT.

What simple modification could you easily introduce to the nozzle in
order to demonstrate a force due to suction as well as that due to
pressure? Perhaps I could hint that it would augment the force? :-)

Brian W