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: Eric Gisse on 28 Jul 2007 23:01 On Jul 28, 6:22 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: [...] > > Momentum is always in a straight line as Newton said. Even GR does not > abdicate this principle, indeed Einstein begins with it. GR is only > noticeable with precession of perihilion of mercury and such. > Otherwise, Newtonian physics works perfectly well. Don't forget frame dragging [Gravity Probe B], geodetic effect [Gravity Probe B], time dilation [GPS, Hafele-Keating], gravitational lensing {weak,strong} [Eddington], Shapiro effect [Erwin Shaprio re: Venus' position], gravitational radiation [Hulse & Taylor re: PSR 1913+16], equivalence principle {weak,strong} [Nortdveldt effect via lunar ranging], black holes, gravitationally hyperbound neutron stars, superluminal projection effects [quasar jets], etc. Other than that, yea Newtonian physics works great. > > KDeatherage
From: Eric Gisse on 28 Jul 2007 23:01 On Jul 28, 6:22 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: [...] > > Momentum is always in a straight line as Newton said. Even GR does not > abdicate this principle, indeed Einstein begins with it. GR is only > noticeable with precession of perihilion of mercury and such. > Otherwise, Newtonian physics works perfectly well. Don't forget frame dragging [Gravity Probe B], geodetic effect [Gravity Probe B], time dilation [GPS, Hafele-Keating], gravitational lensing {weak,strong} [Eddington], Shapiro effect [Erwin Shaprio re: Venus' position], gravitational radiation [Hulse & Taylor re: PSR 1913+16], equivalence principle {weak,strong} [Nortdveldt effect via lunar ranging], black holes, gravitationally hyperbound neutron stars, superluminal projection effects [quasar jets], etc. Other than that, yea Newtonian physics works great. > > KDeatherage
From: kdthrge on 29 Jul 2007 12:04 On Jul 28, 10:01 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 6:22 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > [...] > > > > > Momentum is always in a straight line as Newton said. Even GR does not > > abdicate this principle, indeed Einstein begins with it. GR is only > > noticeable with precession of perihilion of mercury and such. > > Otherwise, Newtonian physics works perfectly well. > > Don't forget frame dragging [Gravity Probe B], geodetic effect > [Gravity Probe B], time dilation [GPS, Hafele-Keating], gravitational > lensing {weak,strong} [Eddington], Shapiro effect [Erwin Shaprio re: > Venus' position], gravitational radiation [Hulse & Taylor re: PSR > 1913+16], equivalence principle {weak,strong} [Nortdveldt effect via > lunar ranging], black holes, gravitationally hyperbound neutron stars, > superluminal projection effects [quasar jets], etc. > > Other than that, yea Newtonian physics works great. > Man you must be a really smart guy copying and pasting all that stuff. In any ordinary orbital mechanics within our solar system and with any man made objects, Newtonian orbital mechanics work abslutely perfectly. This means there is no abrigement of the basic principles form Newton, such as that any body in motion retains this motion in a straight line until some force causes it otherwise. Although you cannot understand this because you are both mechanically inept and mathematically inept. You do pretty well with the copy and paste and expostulating your irritation though, Irritated Eric. KD
From: kdthrge on 29 Jul 2007 12:22 On Jul 28, 9:55 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 10:19 am, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > [snip chest thumping] > > > You are a stupid little twit, eric. The one thing I was taught proper > > in school was orbital mechanics. You need to stay in your twitville > > world. L = r x p is the angular momentum of a flywheel and has nothing > > to do with orbital mechanics, dweeb. That there are other dweebs like > > you in the theoretical sciences is probably why only half of the > > missions to Mars have been successful. > > Really? Nothing at all? > > An easily derived [as in, I could make you understand it] result is > that angular momentum is a conserved quantity in all central forces.>From that, torque [dL/dt] is zero - which means bodies orbit in a > > plane and do not move from that plane. > > Furthermore, angular momentum is important because it enters directly > into the orbital equations of motion. The quantity mr^2d\theta/dt is a > constant, which is called angular momentum. > You are an idiot. Mechanically inept chumps like you like to hide in theoretical physics. You should really be in literature or classical verse. Momentum is always in a straight line. Angular momentum for a flywheel only occurs because of the constant translation of the linear momentum by the fixed solid of the body. The centripetal force is due to the momentum in a straight line as evidenced by release of an object from the flywheel. The object, once released, travels in exactly a straight line. It is this fact also that causes the rotation of drains and such. The object is pulled towards the center of the earth, but since the surface is moving by the rotation, the direction to the center of the earth is changing. But the obect has been pulled towards the point that the center of the earth was and maintains this and these vectors in the components of it's present vector. Orbital angular momentum is analagous to the momentum of a ball thrown in gravity. The ball has the intial vector of it's momentum. This vector remains if it is not contradictory to the gravitational force and the intitial vector and the contiually appied vectors of the force are simply added. If the initial vector is contrary to the direction of the force, the force works against this vector according to the cosine of theta. The continually added vectors of the force are applied, so the path of the ball can be computed. This path is curved. At any specific moment, the ball has a momentum in a single direction. But in the course of time, due to the constantly applied force, will travel in an arc. The straight line of it's single vector of momentum at any time, and a point on it's path which will be curved due to the applied force, has an angle. Thus the term 'angular momentum'. A object at a specific moment always has only one vector of momentum, since any combinations of vectors combine into a single vector. Therefore it can be determined, as was determined by Newton, that a circular orbit is not possible as is defined in Keplers first law. For an object to be at constant radius it must be at constant velocity. At 90 degs to the source of gravity, cosine is 0, therefore there would be no effect against the vector of the velocity by the gravitational force. But the gravitational force is always acting upon the body pulling it to the side, and if so adds to the kinetic energy of the body by imposing these vectors. Since average velocity for a uniform acceleration is always 1/2 of final velocity, it can be seen that at the proper distance from the gravitational force in which the force of the gravity and the momentum of the object traveling at 90 degs to the gravity is such that it will be at a point of equal radius to the surface, the force of gravity will add vectors to the velocity. If in one second it has the correct momentum to maintain it's constant radius, in the second second it will not. Very basic physics. KDeatherage
From: Bill Ward on 29 Jul 2007 13:08
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:22:12 -0700, kdthrge wrote: > On Jul 28, 9:55 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jul 28, 10:19 am, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: [snip chest thumping] >> >> > You are a stupid little twit, eric. The one thing I was taught proper >> > in school was orbital mechanics. You need to stay in your twitville >> > world. L = r x p is the angular momentum of a flywheel and has nothing >> > to do with orbital mechanics, dweeb. That there are other dweebs like >> > you in the theoretical sciences is probably why only half of the >> > missions to Mars have been successful. >> >> Really? Nothing at all? >> >> An easily derived [as in, I could make you understand it] result is that >> angular momentum is a conserved quantity in all central forces.>From >> that, torque [dL/dt] is zero - which means bodies orbit in a >> >> plane and do not move from that plane. >> >> Furthermore, angular momentum is important because it enters directly >> into the orbital equations of motion. The quantity mr^2d\theta/dt is a >> constant, which is called angular momentum. >> > You are an idiot. Mechanically inept chumps like you like to hide in > theoretical physics. You should really be in literature or classical > verse. > > Momentum is always in a straight line. Angular momentum for a flywheel > only occurs because of the constant translation of the linear momentum by > the fixed solid of the body. The centripetal force is due to the momentum > in a straight line as evidenced by release of an object from the flywheel. > The object, once released, travels in exactly a straight line. > > It is this fact also that causes the rotation of drains and such. The > object is pulled towards the center of the earth, but since the surface is > moving by the rotation, the direction to the center of the earth is > changing. But the obect has been pulled towards the point that the center > of the earth was and maintains this and these vectors in the components of > it's present vector. > > Orbital angular momentum is analagous to the momentum of a ball thrown in > gravity. The ball has the intial vector of it's momentum. This vector > remains if it is not contradictory to the gravitational force and the > intitial vector and the contiually appied vectors of the force are simply > added. > > If the initial vector is contrary to the direction of the force, the force > works against this vector according to the cosine of theta. > > The continually added vectors of the force are applied, so the path of the > ball can be computed. This path is curved. At any specific moment, the > ball has a momentum in a single direction. But in the course of time, due > to the constantly applied force, will travel in an arc. The straight line > of it's single vector of momentum at any time, and a point on it's path > which will be curved due to the applied force, has an angle. Thus the term > 'angular momentum'. A object at a specific moment always has only one > vector of momentum, since any combinations of vectors combine into a > single vector. > > Therefore it can be determined, as was determined by Newton, that a > circular orbit is not possible as is defined in Keplers first law. For an > object to be at constant radius it must be at constant velocity. At 90 > degs to the source of gravity, cosine is 0, therefore there would be no > effect against the vector of the velocity by the gravitational force. But > the gravitational force is always acting upon the body pulling it to the > side, and if so adds to the kinetic energy of the body by imposing these > vectors. KD, in a circular orbit, only the direction of the velocity and momentum vectors are changing, not the magnitude. There is no change in KE. > Since average velocity for a uniform acceleration is always 1/2 of final > velocity, it can be seen that at the proper distance from the > gravitational force in which the force of the gravity and the momentum > of the object traveling at 90 degs to the gravity is such that it will > be at a point of equal radius to the surface, the force of gravity will > add vectors to the velocity. > > If in one second it has the correct momentum to maintain it's constant > radius, in the second second it will not. Very basic physics. > > KDeatherage |