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: Jonathan Kirwan on 6 Aug 2007 18:04 On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:45:26 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: >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?? ><snip> Actually, I just think you lack the skills to figure anything out for yourself on this subject, including what you might hear from someone else. You are quite simply blind. Oh, well. Jon
From: Androcles on 6 Aug 2007 18:37 "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message news:bk6fb35pipbcaa7qu1bu7q7stops1cmqub(a)4ax.com... : On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:45:26 -0700, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: : : >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?? : ><snip> : : Actually, I just think Can you prove that?
From: kdthrge on 6 Aug 2007 23:58 On Aug 6, 5:04 pm, Jonathan Kirwan > > Actually, I just think you lack the skills to figure anything out for > yourself on this subject, including what you might hear from someone > else. You are quite simply blind. > > Oh, well. > > Jon- Don't go away mad. Just go away.
From: kdthrge on 7 Aug 2007 00:05 On Aug 6, 5:37 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...(a)hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message > > news:bk6fb35pipbcaa7qu1bu7q7stops1cmqub(a)4ax.com... > : On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:45:26 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > : > : >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?? > : ><snip> > : > : Actually, I just think > > Can you prove that? Can you prove the idea that adding energy to a near circular orbit, will take it out to a greater area orbit. This is a false idea, which has been worked with false mathematics by the academic theoreticians to be reality, which it is not. There is no radial or circular momentum. Especially not in orbits. It is for yourself to analyze the mechanics and determine the truth for yourself. if you consider adding energy as forward velocity at the perigee of the orbit. If the orbit were intitially nearly circular, this added energy causes eccentricity and an ellipse of less area. This is easy to see, since the ellipse returns within the radius of the intial circle.. It is difficult for an ellipse to have the area of a circle. If enough energy is added, beyond escape velocity it becomes hyperbolic. As greater energy is added, the eccentricity is increased. The point of the parabolic orbit is that it describes a 'parabolic plane'. The orbital body without escape velocity and added energy will cross this 'plane' to form an ellipse. Greater energy causes a greater distance at which the object travels away, before it crosses this plane. The circular orbit crosses this plane rapidly. It loses little velocity. The sooner the object crosses this plane, less of it's velocity it loses. The hyperbolic curve, which must exist for there to be escape velocity, becomes more and more directly away from the gravitation, which increases the rate that the gravity reduces velocity. In increasing the velocity of the orbital body, the eccentricity is increased and the area of the orbit diminishes. The farther the object travels before crossing the plane, the more of it's intitial velocity it retains which means less eccentricity. A object does not lose all of it's velocity in these steep ellipses. The strong ellipses have no where near the area of the intitial circle before escape velocity is reached. The velocity which is retained becomes lateral velocity, meaning more area to the orbit. Although the energy that was added at the perigee is not changed and determines the mean orbital velocity. In actuallity, it takes a considerable number of irregular orbits for the object to attain a somewhat stable orbit after having energy added in this way. This is the proper analyses that I was taught. It makes sense, and can be validated by anyone with proper mathematical skills. KDeatherage
From: Eric Gisse on 7 Aug 2007 00:05
On Aug 6, 7:58 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Aug 6, 5:04 pm, Jonathan Kirwan > > > > > Actually, I just think you lack the skills to figure anything out for > > yourself on this subject, including what you might hear from someone > > else. You are quite simply blind. > > > Oh, well. > > > Jon- > > Don't go away mad. > Just go away. Stop whining, deathrage. |