Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 26 Sep 2009 15:24 NoEinstein wrote: > On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. No. That is your stupidity talking. Rest of nonsense snipped.
From: PD on 26 Sep 2009 14:24 On Sep 26, 12:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Simple > acceleration causes momentum to increase uniformly, and that means KE > increases uniformly. There is no need for a particle for dissipating > the excess energy, because such energy wasn't there to start with! > Noeinstein Hmmm. What you've described (badly) is simple Newtonian acceleration and has nothing to do with relativity. And yet you've got a simply accelerated object with more energy that what it started with, in apparent violation of conservation of energy. Hmmmm... Got any idea how this is really supposed to work, NoEinstein? Feeling foolish today? Need someone to let you know you SHOULD feel foolish by laughing at you? > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:11 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You see, this is what separates you from science, Porat. > > > > > You have it in your head that some basic notions that come into your > > > > head MUST be true, and you simply do not have any way to verify > > > > whether they ARE true. Scientists don't do that. They check > > > > everything, every assumption to see if it really is true. > > > > > Let's take the example of your notion that no daughter can be larger > > > > than its mother. You insist that this MUST be true. A scientist would > > > > test whether that really is true by creating an explicit test of that > > > > assumption. The accelerator is a good example of that kind of test. > > > > The accelerator is specifically designed to do (among other things) > > > > collisions of light particles and to identify all the particles that > > > > come out of those collisions, and it is very carefully designed to > > > > rule out background events. > > > > > So when a scientist sees in this test that heavy daughters can come > > > > from light parents, the scientist will say, "Well, there's no arguing > > > > with experiment. It appears that the statement that no daughter can be > > > > bigger than its mother was just wrong." You, on the other hand, stick > > > > with the rule you had in your head and insist that there must be > > > > something wrong with the experiment or something else was going on > > > > that masked the truth. > > > > Not to defend Porat, who is saying things I do not understand, but the > > > behavior you describe is very common in physics, isn't it? > > > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of mass+energy > > > and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found an example where > > > these were not conserved, they invented an undetectable particle, the > > > neutrino, that was carrying away the stuff that was missing, or > > > occasionally bringing in extra when there was a lack. > > > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that > > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did happen. > > > This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos". > > > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff even > > > when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't find it, or > > > extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, they're doing what > > > you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody thinks they're wrong to do > > > so. When experiments give results that disagree with their theories they > > > usually decide that something else is going on that masks the truth. > > > Not quite, but I see where you're going. > > Momentum conservation was deduced from a number of observations, and > > then it was tested in thousands of applications after the rule was > > proposed. > > In an interesting case, though, momentum conservation seemed not to > > hold. So two candidate proposals were put forward: > > 1. Momentum is not conserved in all cases after all. > > 2. Momentum is conserved, but there is a yet undiscovered particle > > that is carrying away some of the momentum. > > Now, the key to the second is that you can't just leave it that. You > > have to find some OTHER way to verify the existence of that particle > > OTHER THAN deducing it from missing momentum. And so there were > > numerous experiments devised to do just that. The Nobel Prize was > > awarded for the first work that showed that unambiguously -- that > > neutrinos can be detected by some means other than by insisting that > > momentum be conserved. If you look at the Nobel award lecture, you'll > > learn what was involved. > > > A similar thing is going on now with dark matter. There are two > > proposals on the table: > > 1. General relativity is wrong. > > 2. General relativity is right, but there is matter that is > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark > > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold. > > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: doug on 26 Sep 2009 15:26 NoEinstein wrote: > On Sep 23, 11:40 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: I'm unaware of anyone laughing at me. As > my number one groupie, you sure like associating with someone whom you > keep suggesting is only wrong, and laughable. Tell us, Dougie Boy, > why do you keep devoting hours a week trying to disparage me? It's > because I am neither wrong nor laughable. Wrong again and laughable again, john. Your ego really does get in the way of reality.
From: Inertial on 26 Sep 2009 20:56 "doug" <xx(a)xx.com> wrote in message news:nJudnVILFKNMxiPXnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)posted.docknet... > > > NoEinstein wrote: > >> On Sep 23, 10:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Inertial: I don't care about you one way or the other. You >> should worry about what the really smart readers of my posts think of >> you�certainly unworthy of their time to comment about you mental >> shallowness. � NE � > > In other words, john is asking you to not make him look as > stupid as the rest of us have been doing to him. John prefers > to think of himself as something other than a complete fool. And incomplete fool perhaps?
From: Inertial on 26 Sep 2009 21:05
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8c2f8da5-a836-4e06-b5ce-0aa5f53308eb(a)a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 26, 12:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> On Sep 23, 11:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: I'm unaware of anyone laughing at me. > > Of course you are unaware. You're unaware of a lot of things. > > How about if it's more obvious: > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BAHAHAHAH .. hehehehe ... Muwahahaaaaaaa. |