I think you missed the points, on his nomination. You have to understand physics. Here is a start, you can learn a lot from this web site.I love watching you guys twisting yourselves in logical knots trying to justify the indefensible just because old Billy Rae decides to contradict you. Let's do facts shall we....
Fact 1. Post #282, where EugenAxeman is called out by Dave Rogers on the basis of Galileo's experiment that demonstrated that a more massive body falling under gravity does not accelerate faster.
Fact 2. EugeneAxman is arguing on the fact that a greater mass would have more destructive power to fall faster through the remaining structure he is NOT invoking Galileo!
Fact 3. I propose that Dave Rogers invoking of the Galileo experiment is in itself Stundie worthy.
It's all very well being technical but if the red mist descends and clouds your clarity of thought every time someone contradicts you then you will suck at applying your knowledge logically.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/momentum/U4L1a.html
This is a good start. An engineer would have grasped the Stundie nomination and not missed the finer points of gravity, mass, and the relationship to reality. There are some engineers here who could explain the nomination better.
Your first post is a good stundie, but this one shows the need for an update on mass and gravity. The original may have been too technical for some. Try again.
Dave's Stundie nomination is right on for two reasons. Find an engineer and he can explain it to you, or even a kid in physics class could. I do not understand why you attack Dave's nomination. Why?
Your posts are becoming Stundie material. This one is a good one, you have left yourself open to possible stundie nomination fodder.
Last edited:


