Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 29 Sep 2009 09:44 On Sep 29, 4:55 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 29, 5:50 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > Inertial wrote: > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:355c55a5-12af-4532-b868-efe8bcf53419(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.... > > > >> it is enough that you will not be able to find a single particle that > > >> needed to your theory > > >> THAT YOUR THEORY IS INCONSISTENT EVEN BY YOUR > > >> OWN RULES > > >> UNLESS YOU ARE CHEATING > > >> SHAMELESSLY !! > > >> iow > > >> what yo do here i s more propaganda than science !!! > > >> and in propaganda some times > > >> the bigegr the lie > > >> the more chance to be accepted by suckers !! > > >> but not me and alike me !! > > > >> but you cant cheat every body forever !! > > >> Y.Porat > > > > Yet again, we find a crackpot accusing others of the very shortcomings > > > and failing of himself. You can't cheat everybody forever, Porat. But > > > most have us have already worked out that you don't understand physics > > > in the slightest. > > > Porat has not worked out that his complete lack of knowledge of > > grammar is matched only by his complete lack of knowledge of science. > > Even if he were to make any science sense, which he does not, it > > would be hidden behind his ignorance of how to present it. > > ---------------- > i noticed that dugi and PD are actually > Mr jekel and Mr Hide > now > Dugi > just take a cureent example of my the above > discussions and show us how you would present it > btw] > i dont think that peopel who really are interesting in my findings > and arguments > would not care for 'cosmetics ' of 'beautiful presentation' > i am quite sure that the main thing is > they understand me quit well !! > btw > the fantastic explantion that PD brought about > protons and antiprotons living together peacefully '' > in our every day life > that is** many degrees of much lower energy levels ** > is so fantastic and devious ??? Why is it fantastic? This has been known for a very long time, Porat. Why does it matter that YOU find it incredible? > that it is hard to confront such nonsense physics > it i such a stupid illusive lie that leaves you nearly speechless > sort of someone comming to you and lelling you : > me and a another hundred people > saw jst a minute ago > 3 bitches on brooms passing over NJ > wi tth e speed of o.58237 c ... > Y.Porat > ----------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 29 Sep 2009 11:05 On Sep 29, 3:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 8:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 28, 9:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 28, 12:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Mr PD you forgo 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 > > > > ------------------------ > > > you abstart hand wavings does not impress me > > nore shouldimpress anyone > > the devil isin the detailes > > That's right. Just don't expect all the details to be delivered to you > on Usenet. Would you like some useful book references where you can > find the details? > Care to explain, Porat, what it is about your situation that you > cannot go someplace where books are? > ---------------- i dont need many books fo r me it is enough to examine the base of that theory to tell you imediately it is dead by arrival !! > > i said that the enrgy leevl of that huge accelerator is not theone > > that isin our every day > > life it as nothing to do with it > > you speal lofty about desighning experiments and interpretating it > > > he very notion that waht you get in the huge accelerator is waht you > > get in out every day matter > > that byitself is > > WRONG INTERPRETATION! > > That's not so. First of all, those energies are rather ordinary. > Cosmic rays beat anything we can get in an accelerator by ten billion > times. Nature spans a whole range of energies, from atomic levels (a > few eV to a few keV for electromagnetic interactions, a few MeV up to > a GeV for strong and weak nuclear interactions) up to cosmic ray > levels (up to billions of quadrillions of eV), tell me about it (:-) but that exactly one of my claimes but youfrogot to tellus that any energy levels has it limitsof validation of its reality and trheory !! just remenber the Big Bang theory: accordint to that ther is a very vast scale or a long level of phases of matetr from the Big banf untillour every day life doi ahve toremind you al that long list ofdifferent phases each phase with its specific particles that exist **OR DO NOT EXIST IN THAT PHASE !!* remember ??! sort of methephorically loking for coconuts in our globe and you cant find coconuts at the north pole !!! --------- and we have built our > machines to look now at the center of that range (about a TeV), but Tev is not our common energies at OUR EVERY DAY MATTER WHILE you claim that the protons and Antiprotons found in that tev macine are AS WELL in each Atom of our ordianry regular matter !!!??? AND YOU FORGOT THE REALTIVE PROPORTION IN THAT PROCESS THAT IS ALLEGEDTO DESCRIBE TH ESITUATION IN OUR EVERY DAY MATTER !! according tothe alleged process it is one proton for one anti proton but you forgot that protons are a bout a half of our every day matter and if the number of Anti porotons is the same as that of protons in iour common matter -- we have to disappear at once !!! dont you see it is an immediate falsification of that theory ??! it is not as the very little number of anti protons that comes from sapce it is a one to one proportion!! to the numberof **our* protons ....n our every day matetr . ------------ where > something interesting is expected to happen. We are not out of range > of every day reality at all. We're smack dab in the middle of it. even the middle of it is ways above the energy level of our every day matter >---------------- > I really don't care that all you want to look at is the low end of > what every day reality has to offer. > -------------- you run away from the inconvenient point of your theory and it is exactly the place that i want to drag you to ie ''your'''' weak points !! (btw we always remeber that you ddint invent that theory (:-) -------------------- > > as i told you > > eachenery level has its lwas of symetry > > once you out ot the elergy level by > > MANY ORDERS OF ENERGY LEVEL > > **THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN > > YOUR ACCELERATOR AND EVERY DAY DEALITY !!! > > and i actually make it much shotter our dispute: > > > you ahven t explain your model eevn not experimentally TO FIT EVEN > > YOUR THEORY while > > ***YOU STILL MISSING PARTICLES IN THAT FAIRY STORY OF YOURS > > Yes, and there is nothing wrong with having some open questions in a > theory. I've already told you that, but you seem to have forgotten it > overnight. i rmeber it nicely but dont agree with you!! a hole is a hole !! and no hole should be swept under the carpet . > --------------------- > > you are missing some particles that > > you youself mentioned and i even didnt know about that fact > > you miss as well the Higgs Boson > > though the huge efforts to find it !! > > you cant present it as a minor 'hole'just because you present it as a > > minor 'hole' !! > > It's not a minor hole. It's a major open question. It's not a hole at > all. It'll be a hole if we look where we think it should be an it > isn't there. So far, we haven't been able to look where we think it > should be. > > > your theory ids full of holes as i indicated > > and you could not answer them > > (jut by sending me to yiour stupid parrots library i saw just the > > vikipedia > > and it was enough tfo rme to realize that it is dead by arrival > > Sorry, Porat, but your reliance on free internet resources is going to > doom you to incorrect conclusions. You need better materials. but it was not only the vikipedia it was you that assured me (something i didn know and sw it with amazement ...) that in the suggested porocess of that theory they get one anti poroton for each proton isnt that so ??? ----------------- > > > > force messengers that are 100 times bigegr than their mother !! > > only a stupid mathematician whould accelt it without blinking an > > eye !! ... > > That's not true, Porat. Physicists have accepted this for almost a > century. I realize that YOU have problems with it, but that's not a > problem shared by most others. > ----------------- 500 yeas ago every one saw it with his own eys that the sun is orbiting earth... i am not impressed with that parrots culture . > ------------- > > > so even according to your rules of game > > you pose falsely that the above theory > > is ;proven! ('hemetically") > > No, I *never* said the theory is proven. No theory in science is EVER > proven. If you thought that theories needed to be proven > "hermetically", then you have no idea how science works. > --------- but here we see not a prove we see a disprove !! not to mention that there are missing parcicles in **addition** to the missing Higgs ------------- > > > > it is enough that you will not be able to find a single particle that > > needed to your theory > > We have to look for it where it can be found easily. We haven't done > that yet. so as for now that thoery is a fairy tale > ------------ > > THAT YOUR THEORY IS INCONSISTENT EVEN BY YOUR > > OWN RULES > > UNLESS YOU ARE CHEATING > > SHAMELESSLY !! > > iow > > what yo do here i s more propaganda than science !!! > > and in propaganda some times > > the bigegr the lie > > the more chance to be accepted by suckers !! > > but not me and alike me !! > > > but you cant cheat every body forever !! > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------------- btw though our discussion seems to be not sympathic i think it is very imporatnt to criticize it from all directions and i appreciate your taking part in it !! TIA Y.Porat --------------
From: NoEinstein on 30 Sep 2009 08:56 On Sep 28, 1:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Being casually amused is one thing. But being a total groupie to someone (me) whom you think is wrong (but know in your HEART is right!) is indication of your having a grave mental illness. Such is probably grounded on your having a deep- seated intellectual inferiority complex, which you tried, unsuccessfully, to placate by majoring in "hard" (ha!) high energy particle physics. You are someone living in the past and the status quo. For you, there can be no progress nor higher understanding in science. I urge you to make a few "new posts" yourself to see how many people rush to support your views on any issue in science. NoEinstein > > 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: NoEinstein on 30 Sep 2009 09:11 On Sep 28, 3:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, The Parasite Dunce: If my 5-year major course in architecture had concentrated on teaching just what "an architect" needs to know, that course would have been only three years long. In the UK, students 'read' for degrees. But they still must pass exams. The portion of any licensed profession which directly effects the life, health and safety of the public should continue to require proficiency exams. However, since most majors taught in colleges don't require subsequent licensing, it would be more beneficial for the students to read up on their area(s) of interest and to skip college all together. The "dirty jobs" guy on TV says that more people should consider doing the relatively high paying jobs that few others want to do, instead of getting just a "clean" formal education. NoEinstein > > 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: NoEinstein on 30 Sep 2009 09:31
On Sep 28, 3:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The 'free drop curve', or time vs. distance curve, of all near Earth falling objects plots as a parabola, d = t^2. The DISTANCE of fall is the square of the time, NOT the energy that is accruing during the fallwhich is LINEAR! Simple acceleration, such as g or: 32.174 feet / second EACH second (not PER second!) has a LINEAR increase in velocity which is due to one and only one continuous force acting! In the case of small falling objects near the Earth the uniform force is the static WEIGHT of the object. Such weight, a FORCE, when acting over time, will impart the same KE in each new second that it imparted in the previous second. In other words KE accrues ADDITIVELY. My own CORRECT formula for kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The latter also replaces E = mc^2 as regards energy variation due to velocity. You are way out of your league to second guess any part of my New Science in the areas of mechanics and relativity. High energy particle physics can't be generalized beyond your shallow education. NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |