Gravity quantified as acceleration
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
Next: Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jun 2010 19:11 On Jun 18, 3:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: All falling objects close to Earth have an acceleration of 'g'. For lower density falling bodies, there is a terminal velocity which is determined by the air resistance of the body. The maximum accelerations would probably be near to PRE Black Holes, or Black Holes just prior to going "lights out". Once the latter happens, 100% of the gravity shuts off and the object would simply crash into the very cold Black Hole at a fixed velocity. Or if the object was in a descending orbit, it would fly out on its tangent until the collective gravity of the galaxy stopped it. That is what is clearly shown to have happened from the Star Distribution Data for Andromeda. There is a zone next to the center that has no stars. That's because the massive star's gravity stopped when such became a Black Hole. NoEinstein > > On Jun 18, 8:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 17, 10:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 1:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Newton neglected to explain that it is > > > the INERTIC of the lighter object which limits the force. Even so, > > > you still have ZERO force to do work, since coasting expends zero > > > energy, and requires zero force to cause the coasting distance to > > > accrue. Case closed, Dunce! NE > > > Ah, so let's recap. > > Now you are certain that Newton is ALSO wrong. > > Aha. > > > PD > > The strength of gravity has a limit. It is both in freefall speed and > in weight of any given mass. There is a maximum weight for any given > amount of mass. There is below light speed freefall. > > Acceleration and its equivalent have a limit. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 18 Jun 2010 19:52 On Jun 1, 2:33 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 7:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 29, 9:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > If there is a speed limit of the universe of C there is a change of > > > speed limit below C. If you try to have a light speed acceleration > > > change you encounter weight. The purpose of weight is to limit > > > accelerations and decelerations. The purpose of weight is to limit > > > changes of speed in space for energy. Weight prevents changing at the > > > speed limit. All changes are below C. > > > > The force of gravity has a limit at its extreme. It is less than light > > > speed acceleration field of gravity. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Dear Burt: You should be on the Texas School Board. Those folks like > > to make up 'facts', like: "...all 'people' are created equal, and are > > endowed by their creator..." But I have to hand it to you, Burt: You > > certainly give "science" your best effort. NoEinstein > > Acceleration quantifies gravity's strength. It's simple. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gravity strength is an absolute rateless quantity. Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jun 2010 23:28 On Jun 18, 3:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Congratulations! You may be 10% right! NE > > On Jun 18, 8:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 17, 10:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 1:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Newton neglected to explain that it is > > > the INERTIC of the lighter object which limits the force. Even so, > > > you still have ZERO force to do work, since coasting expends zero > > > energy, and requires zero force to cause the coasting distance to > > > accrue. Case closed, Dunce! NE > > > Ah, so let's recap. > > Now you are certain that Newton is ALSO wrong. > > Aha. > > > PD > > The strength of gravity has a limit. It is both in freefall speed and > in weight of any given mass. There is a maximum weight for any given > amount of mass. There is below light speed freefall. > > Acceleration and its equivalent have a limit. > > Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 18 Jun 2010 23:29 On Jun 18, 8:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 18, 3:14 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Dear Burt: Congratulations! You may be 10% right! NE > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 8:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 10:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 17, 1:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Newton neglected to explain that it is > > > > the INERTIC of the lighter object which limits the force. Even so, > > > > you still have ZERO force to do work, since coasting expends zero > > > > energy, and requires zero force to cause the coasting distance to > > > > accrue. Case closed, Dunce! NE > > > > Ah, so let's recap. > > > Now you are certain that Newton is ALSO wrong. > > > Aha. > > > > PD > > > The strength of gravity has a limit. It is both in freefall speed and > > in weight of any given mass. There is a maximum weight for any given > > amount of mass. There is below light speed freefall. > > > Acceleration and its equivalent have a limit. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - And you may be using 10% of your brain. Mitch Raemsch
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jun 2010 23:36
On Jun 18, 6:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Correction: Make that: So the correct MOMENTUM equation is: F = v / 32.174(m). Note: The correct KE equation is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). Those two are quite similar, except KE includes the static weight of the object from the outset of the fall (or from the start of the acceleration). NE > > On Jun 18, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Newton was a more dedicated scientist > than most. But he put the word "Universal" in front of his Law of > Gravity. The latter fails to consider that gravity is determined by > photon emissions, and such are influenced by the TEMPERATURE of the > source. Newton also said that the acceleration of gravity 'g', is = > 32.174 feet per second square. That is mathematically WRONG! The > acceleration due to gravity is: 'g' = 32.174 feet per second EACH > second. The former is a parabolic increase in velocity; while the > latter is the correct LINEAR increase! Newton also erred in his > Second Law of Motion when he included 'm' in his equation ( F = ma). > The words for his theory say: "For every continuous force, there is > one, and only one, acceleration that such force can cause." His isn't > an "equation" at all, but a statement more correctly approximated by: > F = a. Forces in pounds, obviously aren't the same thing as feet / > second each second. The latter statement is like a vertically set > table of forces with the corresponding accelerations shown in the > adjacent column. If one knows either the force, or the acceleration, > the other can be determined from the table (interpolation accepted). > The forces caused by VELOCITY, i.e. MOMENTUM are more important to > know. Objects that are accelerating exert impact forces depending > upon the instantaneous velocity at the point in question. So the > correct KE equation is: KE = v / 32.174 (m). If an object is > accelerating at 2g, the force must be 2m. If the object is > accelerating at .5g, the force must be .5m. The equation F = ma > calculates nothing. The momentum equation calculates everything > relative to moving objects! NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 10:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 1:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Newton neglected to explain that it is > > > the INERTIC of the lighter object which limits the force. Even so, > > > you still have ZERO force to do work, since coasting expends zero > > > energy, and requires zero force to cause the coasting distance to > > > accrue. Case closed, Dunce! NE > > > Ah, so let's recap. > > Now you are certain that Newton is ALSO wrong. > > Aha. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |