Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED

[LarryC]

MarkE has been lying about my spreadsheet since the beginning.


He never showed any proof, just said you can't do that, it was wrong, broke, broken and other lies and of course he had the other sock puppets repeating his lie to brainwash the normal people.


I knew that the two Input formulas were equivalent overall as they always gave the same answer. It is easy to understand why, when you compare the two as follows:


                                               PSI Average                           Volume
PSI Average *  Volume = (.5 * pWater * water height) * (water height * area)
             Integral F*ds = (.5 * pWater *         water height^2             * area)


Found another proof at Wolfram Alpha. The math proof spreadsheet attached shows an alternate form from Wolfram Alpha using my P Avg. * Volume as input. The alternate form result shown by Wolfram Alpha is the same as E Input. Compare D9 to D16.


I previously asked him for proof, no response, and it is obvious why the master and the sock puppets did not ask for proof, but why did you others that support his lie by restating it, not ask for proof?


This isn't the first time he lied about my Input formula. On the three column example, he showed his proof, but used the wrong constant as a deception, to make my results appear incorrect.


The PSI and Volume results are in my original spreadsheet, because they are required by Hydraulic Engineers. So I just use these established values with P Avg. * Volume.


When someone displays math skill, it could just mean they use math software. But, a warning flag should go off when they state that their single math method is the only way to get the correct results.


If anybody would like to see the results, enter '(0.5 (P S+P F)) (F-S) A' at the Wolfram Alpha website. After press the More button to the right of Alternate forms and see more forms, all give the same results.

[mrwayne]

One more time, with emphasis:

YOU, honest Wayne Travis, are the one making claims. NOT ME.

Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence FOR those claims.

Wait - I love to discuss the ZED..........
The only thing I expect you to do is to act with a "little" professionalism --
It is your unscientific assumptions and slander that I expect you to provide proof....

Thank you.

[powercat]

Wayne your device has been shown mathematically not to work, if you missed it go back and look at all the threads again the information is their right in front of you, I suggest you now shut your mouth and come back in the future when you have something more than your bullshit mathematics and your empty promises.  I don't care if it's in October 2015, just get lost now,,,,,come back when you have more than your repetitive BS

[celsus]

The only thing I expect you to do is to act with a "little" professionalism --

Professionalism in the Travis sense means:

"I have something, but I won't show it."

[TinselKoala]

Wait - I love to discuss the ZED..........
The only thing I expect you to do is to act with a "little" professionalism --
It is your unscientific assumptions and slander that I expect you to proved proof....

Thank you.

Can somebody translate that into English?

Honest Wayne Travis, you will find that it is very common, yea verily it is universal, for real scientists to ask for evidence, to provide evidence when asked, and to support their contentions with repeatable, fully documented experiments and reports that are vetted by peers and edited for precision and accuracy. And that is all I have ever asked of you.

Please give me an example of "my unscientific assumptions" and "slander", you ignorant buffoon.