Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 28 Sep 2009 13:07 On Sep 28, 11:03 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 26, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If a Parasite Dunce... laughs, who cares! NE Well, at least you're now educated on the mistake you made that you weren't aware of anyone laughing at you. Now you are simply saying that you don't care if people laugh at you. That's fine. It ensures that you will be a source of comic amusement for quite a while.
From: Y.Porat on 28 Sep 2009 13:08 On Sep 28, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 10:32 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 28, 4:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 28, 2:41 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 24, 9:11 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. > > > > > --------------------- > > > > and you ddint mension the fantastic fact that > > > > that thory is talking about > > > > creation of one antiproton for each Porton > > > > In that collision, yes. Because of the selection rules for that > > > collision. > > > --------------------- > > > what are those selectin rules and who invented them > > sort of > > an ad hock invention to fitthe theory to the experiment > > or supply ad hock excuses for nonsense ??!! > > i can invent just now a selction dule that > > no force messenger can ber gigger than its mother > > doe si tnot make sense if you consider he conseravtion rules ?? > > ------------- > > > > > could you beleive that > > > > is it an enourmous stupidity unless i am missing something!! > > > > You must be missing something because this is seen every day. > > > but Mr PD you forgot that there is and > > ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU SEE IN AN ACCELERATOR WITH > > HUGE ENERGIES THAT DO NOT EXIST IN MY AND YOUR BODY!!! > > So? The weak interaction is something that is understood across a wide > range of energies, just like Newton's laws of motion are understood > across a wide range of forces. It makes no sense to say that just > because the energy scales are different, the laws of physics in one > are completely different than in the other. This is how a physical law > becomes useful, when you can study it in a controlled environment and > then apply it successfully in other environments. In fact, that is the > ESSENCE of experimental science. It's what lets biologists do things > in test tubes and that allows them to apply the results in living > organisms. It's what allows chemists to do things with a few > molecules, and that allows them to apply the results in bulk material. > > > not in your chair not in your table > > while your weak force is in your chair and table > > each fracton of a second > > am i wrong about that weak force existing at any piece of matter > > around us ???!! > > The weak force is CERTAINLY present and acting in any piece of > ordinary matter. This has been known for half a century at least. > > > > > and for each proton and each Neutron > > > it seems that one of us is > > out of his mind !!! > > ------------------------- > > > > > please thing of it > > > > it is alleged to present a process that exists in any of our Atoms > > > > while in those Atoms each fraction of a second > > > > are proton neutron as well as Anti proton and anti neutrons > > > > are created ?? > > > > Yes. Of course the antiprotons and antineutrons don't live long > > > because they come in contact with protons and neutrons. > > > so who told you how close one to other are > > those Protons and antiprotons that you created in your in > > mmgiantion > > (justbecause of a stupid paper calculation ) > > Not paper. Experiment. Please get it into your head that physicists > use EXPERIMENTS with REAL things, not just paper and pencil. > > > together with themonster that is hundreds of times bigegr than a > > proton ??? > > and all that in mime and your body ??? !!! > > the same as in that monstr accelerator ??? > > yes and iforgoe to mension another cruciaal argument ?? > > > THE PROBVABILTY TOGETTHOSE W AND Z IS ONE TO .............. A FEW > > BILLIONS !! > > The weak interaction is a billion times weaker than the strong > interaction. So? > > > got it or not did you forgot that ?? > > now > > > IS THE PROBABILITY OF MAKING THE WEAK FORCE IN MY AND YOUR BODY IS > > AS WELL > > ONE TO AFEW BILLIONS ??? > > Compared to the strong, force, yes. Fortunately, it is easy to pick > them out. > > Likewise, albinos are rare. But it's easy to pick them out. > > > > > could you live a fraction of a second > > with such PROBABILITY FOR WAEK FORCE > > to act > > IN YOUR BODY ???!! > > and h eprotons and antiprotons wil go excatly tothe pplaces that you > > dreamt about > > or evennever thought were are those > > Antiprotons find their 'Proper location > > tofit to your theory?? > > No, they just do it because they do, as observed in experiment. The > theory is successful because it matches what is seen in experiment. > > > why should i beleive you that you have a concrete rule to tell us > > where are those antiprotons goto ?? > > You don't have to believe me if you don't want to. It's not my job to > convince you. The data are in libraries, and the detailed accounting > of the theory is in books in the libraries. If you don't want to go to > the library to learn about it, then you won't learn anything. If you > don't want to believe it, then you won't ever believe it, even if it > is true. > > > and how far from the protons ?? > > and besides > > even if those antiprotons donot meat another proton > > WHAT AND HOW AND WHY DO THEY DISAPPEAR > > WHY SHOULD NOT THE CREATED PROTON NOT DISAPPEAR AS WELL ?? > > It often does. There is much for you to learn! > > > what is becoming of theose antiproton that disappear > > if they disappear where is the energy created ?? > > while according to you > > it is jsut the proton that doe snot disapear while the > > anti proton disappear ?? > > ami drunk or may be > > you play a most complicated enigmatic chess game with yourself ?? > > > dont you start to feel that one uf us got out of his mind ??? > > or more mildly > > one of us is jsut a parrot -- a sucker ?? > > Nope. Experimental evidence is experimental evidence. It's hard to > argue with experimental evidence. The day you begin to claim that > experimental evidence must be wrong because it is in conflict with > your intuition, that is the day you stop thinking scientifically. > > > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------ Mr PD you forgot that those ecperiments are to be INTERPRETATED ! non of it telles you that there was there an antiproton that went far away form the Proton and diappreared jsut becuse you say so and itd energ disappeared jsut because you say so you tellme about experients in biolgy...ddiyou ever saw anexperimenent in biology that is gone in atemparature to 1000 deg C ?? lels amke it short if one wahnt to cheat and doesnot accept common logic you can never discuss with him anytime you ahve no answer yousend me to the liberary and yoiu think you cheat litle children!! if you knwe the anser you coud bring it the inorganic world i snot so cleaver as to understand your devious theories yo9u ddintr answer reasonable on any of my questions your proton and antiproton that live togeher youcan tellit to suckes not to peaple thaat understand the basic of physics and not table mathematicians that kep on talking about experiments whil they are unable to see the nonsens of combining between waht is done in ahuge accelerator with huge energies withwaht is done in our body each farction od a second fror instance i asked how comwe that there is such a monster like in the accelerator withprobability of one to a billion and you say 'but in small ebnergies it create a much smaller monster .. do you hear what you say ? you are talking literature ! BTW in engineering even in aironautics we do experiments in enegies of the same order as in reality !! sometines 2 3 5 times bigger but that is jsut in order of the safly factor and then we see that the structure broke !1 got it IN A HIGHER ENERGY THE STRUCTRE BREALES !! got it yuo ucant fiddle with enourmous differences df enery every beginner in science knows the limiys of symetry laws !! again limit of symerty beaking EACH PROCESS HAS IT S LIMIT OF ENERGY LEVER for instance for the solid phase yo have the ordibant temperture for liqiod another level for plasma completely laws of plasme than solid gliding beyNd the SPECIFIC energy level foe a certain symetry law you get BREAKING OF THE SYMERTY LAW OF THAT phase at e Bgig Bang there were certian enelgy levels later while it cooled down completely other particles were created etc etc etc so in short Mr PD yo u are yalking tosoemone who understand a bit the basic of physice there for can tell you when a trheory is DEAD BNY ARRIVAL !! spplease dont senf me to liberraris to spend my (and your !!)precious time anytime we meet nonsense physics btw i dont understand waht is you 'religious fight to protect theories that are not yours and you dont really and deeply understand it all along . ie to be ''hermetically closed '' iow AND AT THE END OF THE DAY IT IS NOT *YOUR **** THEORY AT ALL ** !! dont be a sucker and dont consider all others to be suckers !!! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------
From: PD on 28 Sep 2009 15:11 On Sep 28, 11:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 26, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: The entire education system in the USA is due for a > revamping. The primary motive for attending any university is to > become identified with their sports teams. Education, beyond what one > can self teach, is a huge waste of time and money! NE > I would presume that this also means that architects should declare themselves self-certified on the basis of what they have self-taught. Interesting plan. Do you have a firm that employs such self-taught, self-certified architects? This would be a good thing to note in the phone book.
From: PD on 28 Sep 2009 15:15 On Sep 28, 11:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: The energy of any falling object, as well as any > accelerating object in space, is accruing at a uniform rate with > time. Nope. It accrues as the SQUARE of the time. > And the value of the energy is the sum of the unit force being > applied each second. Nope. They don't even have the same units. It's like saying quarts are the same as inches. > Your "almost" niche is high energy particle > physics. Nope. As I said, what you described badly would apply to Newtonian physics as well. Moreover, you still haven't figured out that if a falling body gathers energy, this seemingly invalidates the law of conservation of energy, no? The final kinetic energy is more than the initial kinetic energy. Same thing is true for a car going from 0 mph to 30 mph. (SURELY you're not saying this is a relativistic case.) Here gravity isn't working at all, but the final kinetic energy is higher than the initial kinetic energy. Violates the law of conservation of energy, no? > Youve always been a total Dunce regarding any other issues > of science. NE > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 28 Sep 2009 15:26
On Sep 28, 12:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Mr PD you forgot that those ecperiments are to be > INTERPRETATED ! No sir. This is where you have lost your understanding of how experimental science works. Experiments are designed to be unambiguous. Competing theories are explored until it is determined where they make DIFFERENT predictions about what will be observed. Then this is the place where the experiment is designed to make a measurement. Theory A will make a prediction X. Theory B will make a prediction Y. Then you make a measurement. It will either agree with X or it will agree with Y. There is not a lick of interpretation or ambiguity involved. > > non of it telles you that there was there an antiproton that went far > away form the Proton > and diappreared jsut becuse you say so > and itd energ disappeared jsut because you say so > > you tellme about experients in biolgy...ddiyou ever saw > anexperimenent in biology that is gone in atemparature to > 1000 deg C ?? The biological model does not extend to 1000 deg C. But the weak interaction model DOES. > lels amke it short > > if one wahnt to cheat and doesnot accept common logic > you can never discuss with him Sorry, Porat, but common sense is a liar and a cheat and it has shown itself to be so century after century after century. After all, Aristotle appealed to common sense when he said that all objects tend to slow to rest unless there is a force that compels them to keep moving, and this matched common sense for 2000 years, and it was flat wrong. After all, it appealed to common sense that the Earth was at the center and the universe revolved around it, and this matched common sense for thousands of years, and it was flat wrong. Likewise, it appealed to common sense that when two events were simultaneous, they would be simultaneous for all observers, and this matched common sense for 2000 years, and it was flat wrong. Appealing to common sense is NOT a reliable way to find scientific truth, Porat. It NEVER HAS BEEN. When you learn the role of careful experimentation in determining what the truth is, you'll be a lot less reliant on your common sense. > anytime you ahve no answer yousend me to the liberary > and yoiu think you cheat litle children!! > if you knwe the anser you coud bring it > > the inorganic world i snot so cleaver as to understand your devious > theories > yo9u ddintr answer reasonable on any of my questions > your proton and antiproton that live togeher > youcan tellit to suckes not to peaple thaat understand > the basic of physics > and not table mathematicians that kep on talking about experiments > whil they are unable to see the nonsens > of combining between waht is done in ahuge accelerator > with huge energies withwaht is done in our body > each farction od a second > fror instance > i asked how comwe that there is such a monster > like in the accelerator withprobability of > one to a billion and you say > 'but in small ebnergies it create a much smaller monster .. > do you hear what you say ? > you are talking literature ! > > BTW in engineering even in aironautics > we do experiments in enegies of the same order > as in reality !! Not necessarily, no. You are apparently ignorant of a lot of those tests. > sometines 2 3 5 times bigger > but that is jsut in order of the safly factor > and then we see that the structure > broke !1 > got it IN A HIGHER ENERGY THE STRUCTRE BREALES !! > got it > yuo ucant fiddle with enourmous differences df enery > every beginner in science knows the limiys of symetry laws !! > again > limit of symerty beaking > > EACH PROCESS HAS IT S LIMIT OF ENERGY LEVER > > for instance > for the solid phase yo have the ordibant temperture > for liqiod another level > for plasma completely laws of plasme than solid > > gliding beyNd the SPECIFIC energy level > foe a certain symetry law you get > BREAKING OF THE SYMERTY LAW OF THAT > phase > > at e Bgig Bang there were certian enelgy levels > later while it cooled down completely other particles > were created etc etc etc > so in short Mr PD > yo u are yalking tosoemone who understand a bit the basic of physice > there for can tell you when a trheory is > DEAD BNY ARRIVAL !! > spplease dont senf me to liberraris to spend my > (and your !!)precious time > anytime we meet nonsense physics > btw > i dont understand waht is you 'religious fight > to protect theories that are not yours > and you dont really and deeply understand it all along . ie to > be ''hermetically closed '' > iow > AND AT THE END OF THE DAY IT IS NOT *YOUR **** THEORY AT ALL ** !! Nor am I claiming it is. That's why I'm suggesting you to to PUBLIC resources to find out what the real information is. > > dont be a sucker > and dont consider all others to be suckers !!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------ |