AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: kdthrge on 5 Aug 2007 11:26 On Aug 5, 10:05 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 04:19:44 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > ><snip> > >What other energy are you talking about??? > > I developed the energy equation from basic principles. You need only > read it. Of course, you can't. > > In any case, it's also easy to see the final result -- that the energy > of an orbit is determined by (or determines) the major axis. That > conclusion is inescapable. > > Of course, I already know you can't follow the math. Oh, well. > hahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHAHAH You already know that I can't follow the math that you do for a non- existent quantity. HAHAHAHAH The energy of the orbit can be defined by what happens when energy is added or subtracted from the orbit. But since you believe in 'negative' energy, I already know you can't understand valid mechanics or physics. HAHAHAHAhahahahahahHHAHAHAHAHA You seem to have a problem understanding that when force is applied against momentum, that energy is not added and stored. This force negates the momentum, the kinetic energy is converted to heat since energy is never lost or gained. A satellite in orbit in which retrorockets reduce it's velocity, has kinetic energy which is converted to heat and lost. A falling object falls into a greater force of gravity. So in actuallity, the potential energy from r is much greater than you calculate. No vialble computation for the effect of reducing velocity of a near circular orbit. In the meantime, the potential energy is not a quantity. Greater orbital radius requires a negation of the angular momentum, meaning the combined effect of the velocity and the force of gravity. This energy is not stored, but is lost as energy is when motion is contradicted. Maybe you can wring that out of your derivitive of radial momentum, which you think will cause a slow and comfortable descent once orbital velocity has been decreased. HAHAHahahahahahahah You have no valuable prediciton whatsoever in your mental masturbation mechanics. Go ahead and make rhetorical statements of your validity, twit. Everything you said about me only applies to yourself and your life of mental masturbation theoretics. HAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHA But that never bothered you before, enjoy yourself on your mission to the stars, far beyond the REALITY that we live in. HAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHhahahah. KDeatherage
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 11:32 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 04:19:44 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: ><snip> >Energy is a quantity and can never be negative. ><snip> Did you happen to notice that the result I developed from clean, clear mathematics out of basic physical principles (F=GMm/r^2 and F=ma) just happens to also match with the statement found at the site that Eric pointed you to? http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/orbits/kepler.html It's important that those who actually *can* understand mathematics are able to make the same deductions from theory as each other. I gave you the advantage over that web site, though, in providing a line of development to reach that inevitable conclusion without needing to choose a convenient orbit as a special case. The frame of reference, by the way, is not an accident. It flows out of the basic relationship between potential and kinetic energy in falling bodies using the center of the larger mass as the reference. That's the usual approach. There is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference, that your comment seems to imply. And there is also no frame of reference that arranges things so that the constant of total energy cannot ever be negative, as you need to also account for hyperbolic trajectories. So even changing the sign won't help you, nor will adding some arbitrary, finite constant. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 11:34 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:26:21 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >You already know that I can't follow the math [...] Yup, I already know you can't follow ANY calculus, at all. Nothing to do with physics, here. Just math. You probably are incompetent at algebra, too. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 5 Aug 2007 11:41 On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 08:26:21 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >><snip> >hahahahahHAHAHAHhahahahHAHAHAHAHAH What a cornball you are. Jon
From: claudiusdenk on 5 Aug 2007 13:38
On Aug 4, 10:54 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 17:46:09 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message > >news:kob9b3lkm3qf2uvaie1jvnv4sntg5a58tp(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:25:53 GMT, <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message > >>>news:ro27b352vi09k66ge2mu0lap07kq6j4hjg(a)4ax.com... > > >>>> My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 years > >>>> lag (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't > >>>> determinative. > > >>>Oh, so you admit you have no evidence of a 900 year lag. Right? (Answer > >>>the question you evasive twit. > > >> I never evaded this question. It was never asked of me, until now. > > >> The "900 year lag" figure is what Kent wrote. Why in the world should > >> I care to have any evidence on hand about what Kent claims as fact, in > >> here? He can't even understand his own writing about science. It > >> would be pointless to bother with such sillyness. > > >> So what are you asking, really? > > >I'm asking you to answer the question. > > And you call me evasive? ;) > > I can't answer for Kent. What question, again? Read upthread. |