In article <eo#xIfE4#GA.52 at cpmsnbbsa05>, Ken Collins
<KPaulC at email.msn.com> writes
> On the bottom of the bob?
That really is amusing. When you hadn't had a chance to look it up in a
standard reference, or to carry out the experiment for yourself, and you
only had your famous wtb2t to fall back on, that - so you assured
everybody who would listen, over a period of several weeks - told you in
unmistakable terms that the extra mass would mean it was more difficult
to push the pendulum along, which meant that the pendulum would slow
down, whether the new weight was above the c of g of the bob, or below
You accused me of lying then (just as you accuse me of lying now when I
recount how you phoned Tom's employers to get him sacked, because he
kept moving your nonsense from 'Physics' to 'Speculative Science') when
I told you that the clock pendulum in 'Big Ben' was regulated by penny
coins being placed either at the top of, or at the bottom of, its
weight, depending on whether the clock was running fast or slow.
>now, what about the FLT Proof?
You never had any FLT proof, Ken.
Arm waving doesn't count as mathematical proof.
What your proof said was:
"I realised as I was taking a shower this morning that if x^n + y^n =
z^n is true for some x, y and z, and n = 2, then it can't possibly also
be true for any n > 2, since the left hand side will always be a little
less than, or a little more than, the right hand side. QED"
I just hope I never have to rely on any computer software which you have
had a hand in writing.
Alan M Dunsmuir