Quote from: poynt99 on May 13, 2012, 09:44:18 AM
Rosemary,

Wiki is in agreement with the highly-esteemed "Hyperphysics" website as to what the "W" represents in that equation:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pow.html

You don't seriously think that Ainslie will be able to understand something that has TRIG FUNCTIONS in it do you?

COS? I don't have any cousins. What's that funny circle thing? Why can't you use standard terminology or at least define your terms? That post has nothing to do with SCIENCE. I'm just an old blind woman, don't bully me. Golly.


(Isn't it interesting? A lot of those references that show Ainslie is wrong, also just toss around the use of the word "PER" as if people actually mean DIVISION  by it. Of course... Ainslie has told us that "PER never means divide". So therefore all those websites and references and graphics are wrong. All of them, because "PER NEVER MEANS DIVIDE".)

That's an excellent little video you linked, .99. Very clear and concise, a good speaker, and I like the production values.

I see that there are lots of other videos on the same topics, and all of them I've looked at are in broad agreement.... with NOT_Ainslie.
(NOT_Ainslie is of course the logical inverse of an Ainslie). Many of them involve complicated math like multiplication and.... horrors... division. Some, like that graphic you posted above, even have trig in them, whatever that is.
One of the better ones is made by a group of children. They must be early teens at most. And they get it right, right down the line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9R8UEXKYqA&feature=related

I wonder what Jessica would say to Ainslie.

At this point, I'd suggest that the onus is on Rosemary to find a reference that supports her contention that W when used in that specific equation represents Watts (power) and not Work (energy)


I would think that a link to a credible website, an image of a page of a textbook with the ISBN, or an Amazon preview, or a public domain PDF would do it.

Quote from: mrsean2k on May 13, 2012, 11:23:39 AM
At this point, I'd suggest that the onus is on Rosemary to find a reference that supports her contention that W when used in that specific equation represents Watts (power) and not Work (energy)


I would think that a link to a credible website, an image of a page of a textbook with the ISBN, or an Amazon preview, or a public domain PDF would do it.

She's been challenged like this many many times before and has NEVER managed to do it. And of course she won't do it now, because she cannot. She can't even come up with somebody who is willing to make an anonymous forum post on the internet who will support her contentions. She can and does link to things that she re-interprets, like the Wiki equation, but they also refute her, whether she believes it or not.
Even her pet troll Wontbesober can't defend her arguments any more, because even if he doesn't have opposable thumbs, he's still smarter than your average rock.

From the posting on Rosemary's blog at

http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/265-sample-of-typical-posting-at.html


Here's a small fragment of her summary of complaints directed at this post:

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg316571/#msg316571

these read, in part, that TK:

  . Asks her to believe that PER signifies ‘division’
  . When it actually represents a base unit of measurement
  . That can be used in any mathematical context required
  . Including addition, subtraction and multiplication


old news to most following I'm sure, but this I've only just twigged that not only does this render the descriptions and calculations of her own tests ambiguous at best, it would also fatally compromise her previous interpretation of almost any other calculation involving a ratio in one way or another.

Now increasingly convinced she may be a decent Turing test entry.