Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 2 Oct 2009 14:18 NoEinstein wrote: > On Sep 30, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Sep 30, 8:53 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>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 - >> >>>PD: Imparting new energy, such as by the uniform force of gravity, >>>lets KE accrue (uniformly). Since energy IN still = energy OUT, the >>>Law of the Conservation of Energy is NOT violated! � NoEinstein � >> >>Ah, now you're getting it! >>Now, what was your problem with relativistic energy increase? Did you >>think there wasn't any force applied to speed particles up?- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > > Of course! An input force is always associated with an increase in > velocity. However, Einstein's SR claims that there is infinite energy > input required to get an object to 'c'. But since acceleration only > requires a uniform thrust force, the accrued total energy (after about > a year of traveling at 'g') is far from infinite. Lets see, you makes stupid assumprions and then reach stupid conclusions. That is your pattern. Einstein assumed > energy accrued that was the second power of the energy actually > required to get to 'c', and THAT violates the Law of the Conservation > of Energy! � NE � No, of course it does not. Your stupidity is not a scientific argument.
From: PD on 2 Oct 2009 14:07 On Oct 2, 11:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 30, 11:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: For you, a rock that falls four times as far will hit four > times as hard. Well, I'm not sure we're talking the same language. Physics uses quite precise language, as I'm sure architecture does to. A rock that falls four times as far will have four times the energy when it lands. This is certainly testable by a variety of methods, including bolometers. Then there isn't any real question about it, since it's just a quantity that you measure, like the length of a carrot or the volume of syrup in a jug. "Hitting hard" can mean how much momentum is transferred or what the force of the impact is. That strongly depends on the mass of the object it hits. > WRONG! The KE that you seem to think accrues > proportional to distance of fall INCLUDES THE COASTING CARRYOVER > DISTANCES FROM PREVIOUS SECONDS. Well, yes, of course. Otherwise it would just have the same value after every meter fallen, and we know THAT isn't true. > KE, like momentum, increases in > direct proportion to the increase in VELOCITY, No, sir, not according to experimental measurement, as I've been pointing out to you. > NOT the increase in > distance which is mostly due to coasting carryover. And that's simply wrong. You can test it by a number of methods, if you're careful with the method. > Because the > velocity of falling objects increases uniformly, KE does too. Nope. > > Read the following to better understand: Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > NoEinstein >
From: PD on 2 Oct 2009 14:16 On Oct 2, 11:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 30, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 30, 8:53 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 - > > > > PD: Imparting new energy, such as by the uniform force of gravity, > > > lets KE accrue (uniformly). Since energy IN still = energy OUT, the > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy is NOT violated! NoEinstein > > > Ah, now you're getting it! > > Now, what was your problem with relativistic energy increase? Did you > > think there wasn't any force applied to speed particles up?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Of course! An input force is always associated with an increase in > velocity. Excellent. > However, Einstein's SR claims that there is infinite energy > input required to get an object to 'c'. No, he said that WOULD be true if we tried to get an object *with mass* (even a "speck of matter") up to c -- which is never done. And it actually takes a quite reasonable amount of energy to get a smallish object like a proton pretty darned close to c. And it's done by applying an input force. Obviously. > But since acceleration only > requires a uniform thrust force, the accrued total energy (after about > a year of traveling at 'g') is far from infinite. Right, and also nowhere near c. By the way, a uniform thrust force can provide an acceleration substantially higher than g, and often does. > Einstein assumed > energy accrued that was the second power of the energy actually > required to get to 'c' Two comments. I don't see any second power of the *energy* anywhere in Einstein's equations. Secondly, none of those equations pertain to actually getting anything to c. Nowhere does he calculate the energy to actually get anything to c. >, and THAT violates the Law of the Conservation > of Energy! NE I don't see why. There is a finite force that is applied. You get a finite amount of energy supplied in so doing. And you end up with a velocity that is less than c. (Though it might be close to c.) Are you somehow under the bonehead impression that getting something close to infinite must also be infinite?
From: Inertial on 2 Oct 2009 19:49 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:b6174761-0354-48bf-9ed4-02a919dfb404(a)a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 30, 6:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> >> news:d1dad377-3245-46c9-8229-94db34fb4451(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Sep 28, 7:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:b024d9b8-84c9-456a-8d96-151683fed85e(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Sep 26, 9:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Dear Inertial: Uncontrolled laughter in an airhead is a sure sign >> >> > of >> >> > mental illness. Get help! � NE � >> >> >> Get fvcked >> >> > ...oh! I hit your "soft spot" did I! Ha, ha, ha, HA! � NE � >> >> You are such a little child. > > You're the one with the soft spot, not me. � NE � Really? Seems like I'm pressing your buttons just fine. You really are delusional.
From: NoEinstein on 6 Oct 2009 19:16
On Oct 2, 2:18 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dougie Boy, the leech, is all-knowing concerning what other readers 'think'. He hides behind the pronoun 'we' to try to seem more important. D. B., who has never made a '+ new post,' is the only one being laughed at. NE > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Sep 30, 11:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Sep 30, 8:53 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>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 - > > >>>PD: Imparting new energy, such as by the uniform force of gravity, > >>>lets KE accrue (uniformly). Since energy IN still = energy OUT, the > >>>Law of the Conservation of Energy is NOT violated! NoEinstein > > >>Ah, now you're getting it! > >>Now, what was your problem with relativistic energy increase? Did you > >>think there wasn't any force applied to speed particles up?- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text - > > > Of course! An input force is always associated with an increase in > > velocity. However, Einstein's SR claims that there is infinite energy > > input required to get an object to 'c'. But since acceleration only > > requires a uniform thrust force, the accrued total energy (after about > > a year of traveling at 'g') is far from infinite. > > Lets see, you makes stupid assumprions and then reach stupid > conclusions. That is your pattern. > > Einstein assumed > > > energy accrued that was the second power of the energy actually > > required to get to 'c', and THAT violates the Law of the Conservation > > of Energy! NE > > No, of course it does not. Your stupidity is not a scientific argument.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |