Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 6 Oct 2009 19:36 On Oct 2, 2:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never considered a better rationale than the errant mechanics garbage that he was taught in school. Distance of fall increases to the second power relative to time. But in any given second the KE that's imparted depends solely on the increase in VELOCITYand that increases LINEARLY for all near-Earth falling objects. The force of gravity applies a uniform downward force exactly equal to the static weight of the object. That downward force is analogous to the uniform thrust of a rocket motor. Uniform, i. e., LINEAR, velocity increases cause a uniform increase in the KE. That is saying: 'Energy IN = energy OUT." The latter conforms to the Law of the Conservation of Energy! But Einstein's second power increase in KE due to a uniform increase in velocity, violates the L. of the C. of E. You have been explained these things dozens of times. Take the following Pop Quiz (and flunk) if you are to ever get basic things RIGHT! NoEinstein Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 6 Oct 2009 20:51 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 2, 2:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never considered a better rationale than > the errant mechanics garbage that he was taught in school. Distance > of fall increases to the second power relative to time. But in any > given second the KE that's imparted depends solely on the increase in > VELOCITY�and that increases LINEARLY for all near-Earth falling > objects. The force of gravity applies a uniform downward force > exactly equal to the static weight of the object. That downward force > is analogous to the uniform thrust of a rocket motor. Uniform, i. e., > LINEAR, velocity increases cause a uniform increase in the KE. That > is saying: 'Energy IN = energy OUT." The latter conforms to the Law > of the Conservation of Energy! But Einstein's second power increase > in KE due to a uniform increase in velocity, violates the L. of the C. > of E. You have been explained these things dozens of times. Well, this is just as wrong this time as the other fifty times you said it. Why do you want to look stupid in public repeatedly? Take the > following Pop Quiz (and flunk) if you are to ever get basic things > RIGHT! � NoEinstein � > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > >>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 �- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 6 Oct 2009 20:01 On Oct 6, 6:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 2, 2:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never considered a better rationale than > the errant mechanics garbage that he was taught in school. Distance > of fall increases to the second power relative to time. But in any > given second the KE that's imparted depends solely on the increase in > VELOCITY Yes, it depends on the *square* of the velocity. > and that increases LINEARLY for all near-Earth falling > objects. And because the velocity increases linearly with time, and because the KE depends on the square of the energy, then the KE increases as the square of time. You see? It's not so difficult. Even an architect would understand it. > The force of gravity applies a uniform downward force > exactly equal to the static weight of the object. That downward force > is analogous to the uniform thrust of a rocket motor. Uniform, i. e., > LINEAR, Nope. Uniform means CONSTANT, not linear. Constant thrust stays the same value. Linearly increasing things change value with time in a straight line. A uniform force does not increase with time. Uniform doesn't mean linear. You have your words mixed up. Moreover, the amount of energy contributed by a force is not constant, even if the force is constant. (This is your big mistake.) Remember that the energy contributed by a force is calculated as the PRODUCT of force times distance. So even if the force stays uniform with time, the distance in each second increases with time. This means that the product of force times distance in each second INCREASES each second. That means that the energy contributed by a force in the next second is GREATER than the energy contributed by a force in the previous second, even if the force remains uniform. Do you understand this now? Most 7th graders get it, even if you haven't. > velocity increases cause a uniform increase in the KE. That > is saying: 'Energy IN = energy OUT." The latter conforms to the Law > of the Conservation of Energy! But Einstein's second power increase No, this is not Einstein's increase. This was established LONG BEFORE Einstein. Einstein had nothing to do with it. The square increase is CLASSICAL mechanics, not relativity. The blame you place on Einstein has nothing to do with Einstein. And you simply don't understand classical mechanics. Which is remarkable for a licensed architect. > in KE due to a uniform increase in velocity, violates the L. of the C. > of E. You have been explained these things dozens of times. Take the > following Pop Quiz (and flunk) if you are to ever get basic things > RIGHT! NoEinstein > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > > > > > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 6 Oct 2009 20:23 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:627f946c-88d9-4f68-845f-ed279459f688(a)o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 2, 7:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > Dear I.: Most of the time I post on sci.physics. If my replies wind > up other places it's because others think that my ideas are worthy. � > NE � No .. you're just a spammer.
From: Y.Porat on 7 Oct 2009 04:27
On Oct 7, 2:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 6, 6:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 2, 2:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never considered a better rationale than > > the errant mechanics garbage that he was taught in school. Distance > > of fall increases to the second power relative to time. But in any > > given second the KE that's imparted depends solely on the increase in > > VELOCITY > > Yes, it depends on the *square* of the velocity. > > > and that increases LINEARLY for all near-Earth falling > > objects. > > And because the velocity increases linearly with time, and because the > KE depends on the square of the energy, then the KE increases as the > square of time. You see? It's not so difficult. Even an architect > would understand it. > > > The force of gravity applies a uniform downward force > > exactly equal to the static weight of the object. That downward force > > is analogous to the uniform thrust of a rocket motor. Uniform, i. e., > > LINEAR, > > Nope. Uniform means CONSTANT, not linear. Constant thrust stays the > same value. Linearly increasing things change value with time in a > straight line. A uniform force does not increase with time. Uniform > doesn't mean linear. You have your words mixed up. Moreover, the > amount of energy contributed by a force is not constant, even if the > force is constant. (This is your big mistake.) Remember that the > energy contributed by a force is calculated as the PRODUCT of force > times distance. So even if the force stays uniform with time, the > distance in each second increases with time. This means that the > product of force times distance in each second INCREASES each second. > That means that the energy contributed by a force in the next second > is GREATER than the energy contributed by a force in the previous > second, even if the force remains uniform. Do you understand this now? > Most 7th graders get it, even if you haven't. > > > velocity increases cause a uniform increase in the KE. That > > is saying: 'Energy IN = energy OUT." The latter conforms to the Law > > of the Conservation of Energy! But Einstein's second power increase > > No, this is not Einstein's increase. This was established LONG BEFORE > Einstein. Einstein had nothing to do with it. > > The square increase is CLASSICAL mechanics, not relativity. > > The blame you place on Einstein has nothing to do with Einstein. > > And you simply don't understand classical mechanics. Which is > remarkable for a licensed architect. > > > in KE due to a uniform increase in velocity, violates the L. of the C. > > of E. You have been explained these things dozens of times. Take the > > following Pop Quiz (and flunk) if you are to ever get basic things > > RIGHT! NoEinstein > > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - ------------------- moreover at very high velocities the force needed to add velocity is not linear it is an **exponential order** F/Gamma = ma !!!! Gamma is not linear but exponential it becomes infinitely big as closing to c !!! Y.P --------------------------------------- |