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 10:22 On Jun 17, 11:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Corection: Make that... INERTIA NE > > 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 > > > On Jun 16, 3:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jun 5, 8:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite DUNCE: Newton's 3rd Law says: "For every > > > action (force) there must be an equal and opposite reaction (force). > > > That's correct. And if you read the high school physics book extract I > > provided to you, what this means is that for every force that A exerts > > on B, there is an equal and opposite force that B exerts on A. This > > does not mean that for every force that exerted by A on B, there is > > another equal and opposite force exerted on B. The latter is the > > common student misconception, which you still have. > > > > In order for a one pound object traveling 32.174 feet per second to > > > impart a one pound FORCE, there must be a one pound resistance. That > > > could be a one pound mass just sitting there in the path. Its INERTIA > > > would impart the necessary resistance. But if only a 1/2 gram house > > > fly is in the way of the one pound moving mass, the resistance would > > > be only the INERTIA of the fly, or 1/2 gram. Since the latter is the > > > maximum resistance, and since the "action" (force) must be equal to > > > the resistance, then the maximum force which can be delivered is just > > > 1/2 gram. It wouldn't matter if a 100 pound mass was moving, the > > > resistance would still be only 1/2 gram, or about the weight of a > > > small aspirin. 100% of the energy of a falling object is used up > > > making just the straight line portion of the parabolic distance vs. > > > time plot. The rest of the distance of fall is determined by just the > > > COASTING carry-over from previous seconds. Since coasting requires > > > zero force in order to keep accruing, there is no unallocated force > > > remaining that could be acting through a distance to cause work. And > > > ever if there were a one pound POTENTIAL force, there would always be > > > zero resistance. Thats why there can be no WORK beyond the momentum, > > > straight-line portion of the free-drop curve. You loose, PDwhich is > > > appropriate for the perennial looser on sci.physics. NoEinstein > > > What's a "looser"? > > > > > On Jun 4, 11:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 4, 3:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the DUNCE: You, Pal, are at the bottom of the hill that I'm > > > > > the King of; remember? Please explain why a one pound object > > > > > traveling 32.174 feet per second, and "striking" a .5 gram house fly > > > > > almost never kills the fly. The actual reason: Force never exceeds > > > > > the resistance; that's why. Newton's third law says so; and you are a > > > > > worthless dunce! NoEinstein > > > > > Newton's third law says nothing of the kind. > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 1:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 10:30 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD: Google hasn't been showing all of the threads about "gravity, > > > > > > > 'pull' vs. PUSH". > > > > > > > Sure it has. You just don't know how to use the newsreader. > > > > > > > > That's probably because those threads became too > > > > > > > long for their memory > > > > > > > You've got to be kidding. > > > > > > > > On June 2, on sci.math, I replied to you with a > > > > > > > step-by-step explanation about the differences between dynamic > > > > > > > equilibrium and static equilibrium. I hope you will read such, > > > > > > > objectively. > > > > > > > I saw it. You mangled the physics there pretty badly too. > > > > > > > > I wasn't trying to be... mean, just clear. I spent over > > > > > > > an hour writing that reply, so I want you to see it. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 9:22 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 7:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: The police are the Gestapos of (usually) corrupt > > > > > > > > > governments. They haven't got the foggiest notion what upholding the > > > > > > > > > constitution means. If they did, they would arrest all of the > > > > > > > > > SOCIALISTS, like those Hispanics who keep demonstrating against the > > > > > > > > > Arizona Law. > > > > > > > > > So you believe that quashing demonstrations is supported by the > > > > > > > > Constitution? > > > > > > > > > > And they would arrest Barack Obama for working > > > > > > > > > tirelessly to destroy our Representative Republic and the economic and > > > > > > > > > social viability of the USA. > > > > > > > > > And you believe that this is also supported by the Constitution? > > > > > > > > > > I invite others to read my essays at > > > > > > > > > Political Forum under: "Start the revolution! Government is out-of- > > > > > > > > > touch with the People! NoEinstein Real name: John A. Armistead > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 1:42 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 10:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 9:19 am, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you not believe in the statement "...all people are created equal, > > > > > > > > > > > > and are endowed by their creator..."? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I don't. <shrug> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you don't. You believe yourself to be significantly better > > > > > > > > > > than other folks, and so you've said. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you would like to revoke your US citizenship, so that you do not > > > > > > > > > > > > have to abide in a country that was founded on this principle, I'm > > > > > > > > > > > > sure that can be arranged. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmmm... Why do you think the US citizenship has anything to do with > > > > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > > US citizenship involves an oath to uphold the Constitution for one, > > > > > > > > > > which was written following the declaration of intent to form a new > > > > > > > > > > nation, for another, in which those words were written. > > > > > > > > > > > If you do not believe that being a citizen implies allegiance to that > > > > > > > > > > Constitution, I suggest walking into the nearest police station and > > > > > > > > > > declaring your intent to ignore it. > > > > > > > > > > > Ignoramus. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's find an example. > > > > > > > > > > > > The bankers lend money to idiots who think they deserve to live a > > > > > > > > > > > mansions. Well, obvious the idiots cannot do so. The idiots default > > > > > > > > > > > on the loans. The bankers got bailed out on their losses, and the > > > > > > > > > > > idiots walked away without much consequences. The ones that did not > > > > > > > > > > > participate have to pay for all that bullshit. Of course, all people > > > > > > > > > > > are not created equal. You just have to be in the right place at the > > > > > > > > > > > right time. Hell, even Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the > > > > > > > > > > > liar can be worshipped as a god by self-styled physicists. Go figure > > > > > > > > > > > that one out. It should not be very difficult to do so, Mr. ex- > > > > > > > > > > > professor if one is to believe PD used to be a professor of physics. > > > > > > > > > > > <shrug>- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jun 2010 10:31 On Jun 18, 12:03 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear GogoJF: You're new to sci.physics. Burt is a nice but delusional older guy hooked on figuring out physics by himself. When he says something wrong, it gives me a chance to set the record straight. Burt also makes short replies. That allows me to keep my replies short, toosince my time is at a premium. If you are interested in conversations, Burt is good for half of one of those. But if you are interested in learning NEW SCIENCE truths, read links to my posts. I don't converse, I explain! NoEinstein > > On May 29, 8:30 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 > > Mitch, this is a great thread. Very good arguments on all sides!
From: PD on 18 Jun 2010 11:32 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
From: BURT on 18 Jun 2010 15:14 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: NoEinstein on 18 Jun 2010 18:56
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 |