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: claudiusdenk on 6 Aug 2007 13:04 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:v1pcb3p7a5uch08ivvovl2d8ff0cmd1oel(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:51:19 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> > wrote: > >>On Aug 5, 5:05 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:14 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>> ><snip> >>> >> You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one >>> >> asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own >>> >> question, why should I be bothered to care? >>> >>> >Likewise. >>> >>> I'm cool with that. You can't handle science. >>> >>> Jon >> >>You're right Jon, I came to the conclusion some time ago that claudius >>is a 'bot', never asks any real questions, keeps recycling the same >>terse one-liners that have virtually no connection to the subject >>under discussion. Certainly has no knowledge of science of any kind >>as far as I can see. > > I've tended to focus only on reading commentary by folks I already > know have at least a general capacity to interpret some science. Real scientists welcome opposition. <snip evasive rhetoric>
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 6 Aug 2007 13:58 On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:27:06 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Aug 6, 9:49 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:07:17 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> ><snip of more drivel> >> >Orbits of equal area have equal energy. >> >> Nope. >> >> >Orbits of less area have greater energy. >> ><snip of still more drivel> >> >> Nope. >> >Orbits of equal area have equal energy. Nope. >Orbits of less area have greater energy. Nope. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 6 Aug 2007 14:00 On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:04:34 GMT, <claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:v1pcb3p7a5uch08ivvovl2d8ff0cmd1oel(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:51:19 -0700, "Phil." <felton(a)princeton.edu> >> wrote: >> >>>On Aug 5, 5:05 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:14 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> ><snip> >>>> >> You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one >>>> >> asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own >>>> >> question, why should I be bothered to care? >>>> >>>> >Likewise. >>>> >>>> I'm cool with that. You can't handle science. >>>> >>>> Jon >>> >>>You're right Jon, I came to the conclusion some time ago that claudius >>>is a 'bot', never asks any real questions, keeps recycling the same >>>terse one-liners that have virtually no connection to the subject >>>under discussion. Certainly has no knowledge of science of any kind >>>as far as I can see. >> >> I've tended to focus only on reading commentary by folks I already >> know have at least a general capacity to interpret some science. > >Real scientists welcome opposition. They welcome IMFORMED dispute. There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between that and what you can offer. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 6 Aug 2007 14:02 On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:58:40 GMT, <claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >news:4secb3dsntf6kv1lhsnqbsqlq71u1gq177(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:14 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>><snip> >>>> You take it any way you please. Irrelevant to me. You were the one >>>> asking for an opinion. If you can't be bothered to ask your own >>>> question, why should I be bothered to care? >>> >>>Likewise. >> >> I'm cool with that. You can't handle science. > >It's your delusion. No, you are simply incapable of providing any informed discussion. Partly, because you are simply incompetent at math. Partly, for other of your deficits. Jon
From: kdthrge on 6 Aug 2007 17:45
On Aug 6, 12:58 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:27:06 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Aug 6, 9:49 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 04:07:17 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> ><snip of more drivel> > >> >Orbits of equal area have equal energy. > > >> Nope. > > >> >Orbits of less area have greater energy. > >> ><snip of still more drivel> > > >> Nope. > > >Orbits of equal area have equal energy. > > Nope. > > >Orbits of less area have greater energy. > > Nope. > So, do you think I just made these statements up myself?? If so, your presumption is as invalid as your many other presumptions. I was lucky enough to have been taught proper orbital mechanics. You would agree that the energy of a parabolic orbit is for most purposes equivelent to the gravitation. This is of course the point in energy difference that defines the point that the hyperbolic orbit no longer has escape velocity, and returns to form an ellipse. If the orbital body, at the peragee of it's ellipse, has exactly escape velocity, it will describe a parabolic orbit, in which it will lose velocity as it leaves but will have zero velocity at infinity due to the gravitational pull. So you can work backwards from this, keeping in mind that the higher the velocity, the lower the mean orbital radius must be of the orbits formed from these energies. A large near circular orbit at great radius must have very low orbital velocity to maintain it's near circular shape and area. Very close orbits, such as mercury, must have very high orbital velocity in the much higher force of gravitation. Mars has mean orbital radius, 1.52au. It's period is 1.88yrs. Therefore 1.52/1.88 = .80. The mean orbital velocity of mars is .80 that of the earth. (radius is directly proportional to circumference), KDeatherage |