Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend

1) Why use any of the formulas since they were derived by people he thinks are incompetent at math?

In a previous thread on this topic we avoided the use of momentum at all. That was because the law of conservation of momentum immediately disproves the whole idea, so that law is useless for showing that it works. It seems to be more acceptable now, but Paul's clearly avoiding it anyway. It think that's fine, and quite a challenge to cut out something you normally depend on and have to fend for yourself. But the problem became too complex to solve in a way we can both understand, which seems to be what's happening again.

Quote:

2) You guys are wasting time talking about your examples when there is a much more fundamental disagreement. That's

Yes, but it's boring to go back to step 1. Sometimes when we do I think we've got agreement, then it runs far off into total-disagreement-land too quickly to catch.

Quote:

3a) HOWEVER, when I had *my* issues, I didn't say that everyone else was wrong. Instead I pored over the book, worked problems, consulted other books, interrogated the teachers. I asked, "Why DO they think about it that way?"

Yea, you have to work it out yourself to be satisfied. Other people can give you ideas, but you won't blindly accept what they say when you already feel something's inconsistent. I try not to just tell facts to Paul because I know he won't blindly accept things either. The trouble is Paul's in an argument, he can't lose face by changing his mind and agreeing with me. So why would he put effort into trying to achieve that?