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 29 Jul 2007 17:12 On Jul 29, 8:04 am, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. [...] I created that list from memory.
From: Harold Burton on 29 Jul 2007 17:26 In article <1185657843.514519.107280(a)d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, kdthrge(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Jul 28, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:19:39 -0700, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >On Jul 28, 2:34 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 27, 7:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> [...] > > > > >> Watching this guy mewl about global warming is especially amusing > > >> since he cannot even understand basic orbital mechanics. > > > > >I forgot more orbital mechanics than you will ever know eric, > > > > >Heres one for you[...] > > > > Since you seem interested in this, show quantitatively what happens to > > Kepler's 2nd law, in situations with an arbitrary, and continually > > varying, radial acceleration that may vary on 1/r, 1/r^3, or any other > > centrally directed, arbitrary force or repulsion law or artifically > > induced acceleration always along the radial line in either direction. > > I'll link you to my web page on the subject, if that helps. Or we > > could get into discussing not-necessarily conservative, holonomic > > dynamical systems developed through Hamiltonian equations of motion > > and momentum conjugates. > > > > Orbits are always an ellipse. As such, the application of the > gravitational force is always affecting velocity either to increase or > decrease the velocity. Even this is why the circular orbit is > impossible... Not at all.
From: kdthrge on 29 Jul 2007 20:12 On Jul 29, 12:08 pm, Bill Ward > > 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. > You cannot change the direction of the momentum without the application of force. This causes change in kinetic energy, either to increase or decrease. Circular orbits do not occur for the clear mechanical reasons I have described. This is basically a rendition of the same conclusion reached by Newton. Academic theoreticians may imagine to superseed Newton and Kepler, but Keplers first law is valid which states that all orbits are ellipses. In order for the orbital body to be at the point which is at the same orbital radius in one second, it must have over this distance the average velocity which will bring it to this point. In order to have this average velocity, which is the addition of the gravitational vectors to the intitial velocity, it will have added final velocity which is 2 times greater than this average velocity which is added from the gravitation. Therefore it will not have the same velocity and it will not be able to maintain the exact 90deg angle of it's momentum to the gravitational force. There is no situation in a gravitational field in which the gravity does not change the kinetic energy. The velocity is either increased or decreased at any point. KDeatherage
From: kdthrge on 29 Jul 2007 20:40 On Jul 29, 5:03 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > And this is why bodies orbit in a plane, and why angular momentum is a > conserved quantity. > Irritated eric, thinks hes at home and is the center of attention of his mommie. Does anyone care about your petulant little narcissistic life??? Do you expect us to believe at any time that you even can expose the truth?? Do you think you have submitted enough indirect evidence that you are not a pure idiot?? Bodies orbit in a plane because of Newtons law of motion in which all objects travel in a straight line. Angular momentum may be conserved, but the angular momentum of two different orbits has no relevance to this statement. All the complexity you portray is not needed. I guarantee that I have seen proper orbital mechanics done by a proper astrophysist, so you certainly are not fooling me with this balderdash. You only learned this in your mental masturbation school of theoretical physics. Maybe your mommie or yourself is impressed. In the meantime it is all meant to support your stupid ideas from the Neils Bohr theory of orbital motion, that orbits are akin to the rotation of a flywheel. A greater radius flywheel rotates slower with the same kinetic energy as one with shorter radius. This is not analogous to orbital mechanics, as mean orbital velocity diminishes as a^3/p^2 for different radius orbits. This is due mainly to the diminshment of the gravitational force as an inverse square. Orbits with lower orbital radius, have higher mean orbital velocity. These orbits with less area, are in regions that have higher gravitational force and must have higher velocity to have equilibrium. Too low orbital velocity causes an object to remain in a quadrant of the gravitational field for too long, and to gain far too much velocity. This velocity slings it to greater orbital radius. Always of greatest importance is the angle and angles of the momentum to the gravitational force. Too great of velocity for mean orbital radius, causes the object to acheive an angle that is too great to the source of gravity. This also causes it to remain in a quadrant for too long. But the angles at which it is affected by the gravity are different and it achieves an orbit with less area. Orbits of equal area have equal energy. This is where one begins with proper orbital mechanics. KDeatherage
From: Bill Ward on 29 Jul 2007 21:06
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:12:29 -0700, kdthrge wrote: > On Jul 29, 12:08 pm, Bill Ward >> >> 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. >> >> > You cannot change the direction of the momentum without the application of > force. This causes change in kinetic energy, either to increase or > decrease. > > Circular orbits do not occur for the clear mechanical reasons I have > described. This is basically a rendition of the same conclusion reached by > Newton. > > Academic theoreticians may imagine to superseed Newton and Kepler, but > Keplers first law is valid which states that all orbits are ellipses. > > In order for the orbital body to be at the point which is at the same > orbital radius in one second, it must have over this distance the average > velocity which will bring it to this point. In order to have this average > velocity, which is the addition of the gravitational vectors to the > intitial velocity, it will have added final velocity which is 2 times > greater than this average velocity which is added from the gravitation. > > Therefore it will not have the same velocity and it will not be able to > maintain the exact 90deg angle of it's momentum to the gravitational > force. I think one of Zeno's paradoxes is throwing you off. The vectors are tangent to the circle, which involves calculating with infinitesimal quantities approaching zero as a limit, not discrete steps. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Does_motion_involve_a_sequence_of_points.3F > > There is no situation in a gravitational field in which the gravity does > not change the kinetic energy. The velocity is either increased or > decreased at any point. Consider a thought experiment by changing scale down to smaller masses, where gravity is negligible, and substituting a fixed length massless tether. In free fall, wouldn't it be possible to "orbit" a small (1kg) mass around a much larger (1000kg) mass in a circular motion, constrained by the tether? Assuming no friction, how could the KE change around the orbit? What's the difference between force applied by a physical tether in this case and gravity at a constant distance in the celestial case? |