spork33 wrote:Diadem wrote:Oh and, no, I didn't solve the problem,that's too much honour. The guy that wrote the explanation ThinAirDesigns linked to did. Though he didn't look at energy/momentum balance. That part of the puzzle I did solve.
Actually, Tad wasn't the first to solve this. I posed this as a brainteaser three years ago on another forum. I posted solutions back then that included energy and momentum solutions (as well as a number of other proofs).
Apologies, I never meant to claim that either that link or my addition were the first ever. Just the first in this thread.
But you might expect folks to take it poorly when you attack our results, conclusions, integrity, and even intelligence
Interesting that you'd consider an attack on intelligence worse than an attack on integrity
But hmm, I certainly attacked results and conclusions. But I don't think I attacked anybody's integrity or intelligence. At least I never intended to do that.I was - and still am - highly annoyed by gmalivuk's discussion techniques, and i did express that. But that's not the same thing.
and then pronounce the problem "SOLVED" when you find your own error.
Isn't a problem solved then, once you've found and corrected the errors? Most of theoretical physics consists of finding and correcting errors. A lot of experimental physics as well.
Anyway if my earlier posts were so obviously in error, then why didn't anyone correct them? Why didn't anyone write a corrected version showing momentum conservation is not violated? Maybe it is a bit cheap to claim you've solved a problem when all you've done is correct your own error. But it's even cheaper to make fun of an incorrect argumentation when you haven't even attempted any proof yourself. (not pointing at you here, spork33, your posts have been quite useful).