The Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory

[ltseung888]

I understand and agree with the statements 1-5. 6 puzzles me slightly, wouldn't the pendulum act as a lever when T = mG? Does a lever not require vector arithmetic?

All 6 have been evaluated and agreed to by one of my university student friends, so I am willing to move forward to slide 12.

(6)   Both Work and Energy are scalar quantities.  This means they have magnitude only.  The final Work/Energy can be compared and/or added by simple arithmetic and not vector arithmetic. 

This is a common problem with many beginning students. 
Work = Force x Displacement

Both Force and Displacement are vector quanitities.  However their product is a scalar quantity.  There is no need to consider the directional aspects after we have calculated Work.  Energy is the same.

I just do not know how to explain this "obvious physics concept" to layman.  It may be one of my weaknesses.  I am great in front of top professors and at seminars in Universities. I am hopeless in front of non-technical audience - e.g. some Officials.

Both China and Hong Kong Officials now know how to deal with me - just send technical people to talk to me.  They then rely on the report of these experts.  Koen failed to learn anything from me.  He is not an exception. 

May be your University Student friends can help Koen.

[Koen1]

Maybe the reference is to another page...but on this page the email from XXX is first answered by Mr. Tsung - and not top gun.

Or am I missing something ?

Well not that it's so terribly important, but if you compare the style of writing
and the expressions used, (and perhaps it helps if one has followed
Tseungs posts for quite a while so one can easily recognise his style of writing and
expressions) then it is pretty clear that "Top Gun"s reply is exactly and typically
in the form and style of Tseungs posts.
Now, what wat that American expression again?
"if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck"?
Well, if it looks like Tseung, acts like Tseung, and sounds like Tseung,
I think it is Tseung.

[Koen1]

Koen failed to learn anything from me.  He is not an exception. 

That is not a failure on my part, it you who fail to explain what you think your point is.
You keep coming up with childish drawings of classical physics situations,
taking things either way too slow and insisting that people confirm they understand
pre-school physics, or just skipping over things entirely and postulating
phenomena with no proof.

Take the entire bottle on a string thing for example.
You insist this will produce anitgravity in some way, but the only thing you have
"explained" is that in your opinion "non rigid body rotation" can be used for
a non-regauged linear accelleration. You have not substantiated this properly,
nor have you in any way made it more plausible that any thrust can be derived
from this principle. You choose to ignore that a fixed stator is needed to induce
rotation, and that this stator will not be lifted by the obviously less massive rotor...
Your use of pictures showing a guy doing the hammer-toss, not long after you had
expressed your complete unfamiliarity with the hammer-toss when I mentioned
it, it quite amazing.
Apparently, while you claim I have not "learnt" anything, I have apparently been
able to "teach" you already.

Lol if the "student" can teach the "teacher", then maybe the "teacher" needs to go
back to school?

Oh, and by the way, profiling yourself as an expert in physics only works if you
show your expertise in physics.
You only show your ignorance time and time again, as Tinu pointed out very
clearly in the post where he shows your formulae to be fundamentally flawed.
A post which, as everyone can see, you choose to ignore.
Of course we know you ignore posts that validly point out errors in your reasoning,
but I still think it is impolite not to answer posts like Tinus properly,
and I think it is clear to everyone you are deliberately avoiding answering such posts.
Which is a sign of weakness.
Come on Tseung, save face and reply to Tinus post properly, instead of
making me look bad with dumb statements.

[ltseung888]

Come on Tseung, save face and reply to Tinus post properly.

The Tinu post will be answered after Slide 12.  Any post before that will be confusing.

Physics demands mastering one piece of information after another.  The sequence cannot be "jumped".

[Koen1]

The Tinu post will be answered after Slide 12.  Any post before that will be confusing.

Well fine with me, but it seems in direct contradiction to your previous statements
in which you demanded we discuss "slide 10" in detail before we proceed to 11...
Now all of a sudden you want to skip on to slide 12 before answering valid questions
about slide 10?
That's the other way around...
Now I don't really mind very much, but then you shouldn't have been so insistant that
we first discuss the earlier slides untill everyone is satisfied, if it turns out you do not
comply with that yourself...
what was that called again? Oh right: contradiction.

Physics demands mastering one piece of information after another.  The sequence cannot be "jumped".

?
So that explains why you want to "jump" to slide 12 before discussing the earlier matter?
lol
contradiction...
or perhaps "pseudologica fantastica" would be a better term for your affliction...