Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 19 Sep 2009 14:54 Y.Porat wrote: > On Sep 19, 7:54 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>Y.Porat wrote: >> >>>On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>PD wrote: >> >>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>PD wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made >>>>>>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic >>>>>>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my >>>>>>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce >>>>>>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status >>>>>>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any >>>>>>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! � NoEinstein � >> >>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in >>>>>>>>>>>>your own words". >>>>>>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a >>>>>>>>>>>>blurred distinction? >> >>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION >>>>>>>>>>>aisles! � NoEinstein � >> >>>>>>>>>>All of them. Imagine! >>>>>>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry >>>>>>>>>>is based on physics. >>>>>>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of >>>>>>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. >>>>>>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be >>>>>>>>>>believed! >>>>>>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is >>>>>>>>>>probably wrong, too. >> >>>>>>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they >>>>>>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own >>>>>>>>>criteria. >> >>>>>>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the >>>>>>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but >>>>>>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural >>>>>>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get >>>>>>>>the license. >> >>>>>>>And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are >>>>>> >>>>>>>from the architects who did read the books? >> >>>>>>Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close >>>>>>to right! >> >>>>>------------------ >>>>>now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! >>>>>and all that by his fucken QM !! >>>>>the man is a pathologic ------- >> >>>>>-----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! >>>>>who thinks he can cheat every one >> >>>>What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I >>>>told you. >>>>It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. >> >>>>>forever !!! >>>>>poor pupils of his !! >> >>>>>Y.P >>>>>=------------------------ >> >>>you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom >>>based on your shell theory >>>isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about >> >>>2 >>>i asked youas well >>>tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that >>>based on your shell model >>>toshow a calcualtion >>>that will show that teh Atom >>>of Al >>> MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au >>> ie Gold >>>(and a tom with 13 electrons around it >>>is according to you must have the same volume >>>as that og Gold with >>>79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! >>>if you say it is easy >>>you ether dont know about what youare talking about >>>or yiou are a crook >>>just one of the problems fo rthat >>>is >>>how differnt electons >> >>Since you cannot even write a coherent sentence, >>it is not surprising that you cannot do any >>science. >> >> >> >> >>>in different shells >>>repel each other !! >>>**in all 3D direction >>>even that 'simple problem >>>is >>>shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * >>>those that are beside them >>>those that are above and >>>below them etc >>>and all that in additionto the >>>Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc >>>and that i s only one of many >>> other oroblems !!! >>>another problem is >>>why should there be a screening effect >>>of closer shells on those >>>further away!! >>>i can promis you that even God >>>would not take control on that >>>turmoil >>>it seems much better >>>that you dont have a green ideal >>>about waht is going on there !!! >>>(by your fantastic model) >>>remember that word >>>'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) >> >>>and if you don thave that calcualtion >>>just show a quote >>>you can ask the hjelp of all >>>universites of the world >>>but still dont forget totellthem >>>that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that >>>Al volume is the same as Au >>>btw >>>if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that >>>heavy atoms have a bigger >>>involume than light one >>>is it not the common paradigm !! ?? >>>)is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) >>>yet we find that >>>not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) >>> are not bigger >>>but practically the ***same** volume !! >>>is it the common paradigm >>>and 'common sense """""??? (:-) >> >>Well, if you would even look at a chemistry >>book, you would start to see how stupid you look. >>But it seems easier for you to have tantrums. >> >> >> >> >>>TIA >>>Y.Porat >>>--------------------- > > > (:-) > > dont hand wave fuken crook !! > bring details !!! > to back up your claims > we dot need here the new Josf Goebbels > in a physics ng !! > > show calculations that will prove( based on your current shell > theory) > what should be the volume of Al > and what should be that of Ag So you are too lazy to look up anything and you expect everyone else to try and force feed information to you to make up for your laziness. Try reading. > > that is very simple English !!! > You do not seem to know any english. > Y.P > ------------------------ > > > Y.P > ----------------
From: PD on 19 Sep 2009 16:45 On Sep 19, 11:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>PD wrote: > > > > > > >>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > > > >>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > > > >>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > > > >>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > > > >>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > > > >>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > > > >>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > > > >>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > > > >>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > > > >>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > > > >>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > > > >>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > > > >>>>>your own words". > > > > > >>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > > > >>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > > > >>>>>blurred distinction? > > > > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > > > > >>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > > > > > >>>All of them. Imagine! > > > > > >>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > > > > >>>is based on physics. > > > > > >>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > > > > >>>biology is based on chemistry. > > > > > >>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > > > > >>>believed! > > > > > >>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > > > > >>>probably wrong, too. > > > > > > >>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > > > > >>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > > > > >>criteria. > > > > > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > > > > > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > > > > > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > > > > > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > > > > > the license. > > > > > > And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > > > > > from the architects who did read the books? > > > > > Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close > > > > to right! > > > > ------------------ > > > now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! > > > and all that by his fucken QM !! > > > the man is a pathologic ------- > > > > -----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! > > > who thinks he can cheat every one > > > What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I > > told you. > > It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. > > > > forever !!! > > > poor pupils of his !! > > > > Y.P > > > =------------------------ > > you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom > based on your shell theory > isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about And I told you that is not easy to type in an ASCII format in a newsgroup, which is why it is much better to refer to a book, which does not have those limitations. > > 2 > i asked youas well > tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that > based on your shell model > toshow a calcualtion > that will show that teh Atom > of Al > MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au > ie Gold > (and a tom with 13 electrons around it > is according to you must have the same volume > as that og Gold with > 79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! > if you say it is easy > you ether dont know about what youare talking about > or yiou are a crook > just one of the problems fo rthat > is > how differnt electons > in different shells > repel each other !! > **in all 3D direction > even that 'simple problem > is > shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * > those that are beside them > those that are above and > below them etc > and all that in additionto the > Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc > and that i s only one of many > other oroblems !!! > another problem is > why should there be a screening effect > of closer shells on those > further away!! > i can promis you that even God > would not take control on that > turmoil > it seems much better > that you dont have a green ideal > about waht is going on there !!! > (by your fantastic model) > remember that word > 'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) > > and if you don thave that calcualtion > just show a quote > you can ask the hjelp of all > universites of the world > but still dont forget totellthem > that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that > Al volume is the same as Au > btw > if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that > heavy atoms have a bigger > involume than light one > is it not the common paradigm !! ?? > )is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) > yet we find that > not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) > are not bigger > but practically the ***same** volume !! > is it the common paradigm > and 'common sense """""??? (:-) > > TIA > Y.Porat > ---------------------
From: NoEinstein on 20 Sep 2009 10:00 On Sep 18, 3:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Texts which contain willful errors have little or no veracity. If there were a disclaimer on the first pages saying: "Use this text at your own risk. In order to protect the egos and the tenures of the science establishment in academia, nothing that has ever been printed in this text which "might be" wrong has been allowed to be superseded by latter science truths.", then and only then would such text be suited for the non fiction section. Because every area of science has the same monster egos to protect, it is likely that chemistry, biology and etc., also keep getting thicker and thicker texts to side-step making any of those in the academic establishment look bad... ***Screwed-up education represents 1/3rd of our nation's problemsmonetary and otherwise!*** The funding for education, across the board, needs to be cut to 50%, immediately. And all publicly funded education should stop at age 16. Never again should public funds be used to send any person to a college or university whose diplomas aren't worth the paper they are written on. Note: The more people who are sent to higher education, the lower is the value of the diplomas. NoEinstein > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > > Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > > get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > > up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > > projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > > own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > > the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > > about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > > quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > > area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > > your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > your own words". > > > You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > blurred distinction? > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > aisles! NoEinstein > > All of them. Imagine! > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > is based on physics. > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > biology is based on chemistry. > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > believed! > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > probably wrong, too.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 20 Sep 2009 10:03 On Sep 18, 4:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dougie Boy, the Leech, has never made a 'new post' on sci.physics. All he does is pollute the group by disparaging those who actually have something to offer SCIENCE. NoEinstein > > PD wrote: > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>your own words". > >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>blurred distinction? > > >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>aisles! NoEinstein > > > All of them. Imagine! > > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > is based on physics. > > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > biology is based on chemistry. > > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > believed! > > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > probably wrong, too. > > This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > criteria. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 20 Sep 2009 10:09
On Sep 18, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Architecture is primarily an art over engineering discipline. If the world were put under the control of architects and engineersforgetting about the head-in-clouds scientists the world would be a better place. NE > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > PD wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > >>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > >>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > >>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > >>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > >>>your own words". > > >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > >>>blurred distinction? > > > >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > >>aisles! NoEinstein > > > > All of them. Imagine! > > > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > > is based on physics. > > > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > > biology is based on chemistry. > > > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > > believed! > > > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > > probably wrong, too. > > > This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > criteria. > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > the license.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |