Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 7 Oct 2009 06:09 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ee74a6a9-1bb3-4eb3-84eb-51a19bf8535b(a)v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > 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 !!!! Wrong formula. That's not the formula for force required to add velocity Try F = (gamma^3) . ma Or you can write it this way... F /(gamma^3) = ma I'll copyright that. Make sure you give me credit when you use it > Gamma is not linear That's right > but exponential But it is not exponential either > it becomes infinitely big as closing to c !!! Yes it does. Especially when you use the correct formula.
From: Y.Porat on 7 Oct 2009 07:23 On Oct 7, 12:09 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:ee74a6a9-1bb3-4eb3-84eb-51a19bf8535b(a)v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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 !!!! > > Wrong formula. That's not the formula for force required to add velocity > > Try > > F = (gamma^3) . ma > > Or you can write it this way... > > F /(gamma^3) = ma > > I'll copyright that. Make sure you give me credit when you use it > > > Gamma is not linear > > That's right > > > but exponential > > But it is not exponential either > > > it becomes infinitely big as closing to c !!! > > Yes it does. Especially when you use the correct formula. ------------------- (:-) --------------
From: PD on 7 Oct 2009 09:07 On Oct 7, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 You and NoEinstein have the same problem understanding what "exponential" means. > it becomes infinitely big as closing to c !!! Actually, it gets finitely big. It never gets infinite. > > Y.P > ---------------------------------------
From: Inertial on 7 Oct 2009 09:12 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8286dd2c-2059-491e-8945-3c6f027f770f(a)p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 7, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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 > > You and NoEinstein have the same problem understanding what > "exponential" means. > >> it becomes infinitely big as closing to c !!! > > Actually, it gets finitely big. It never gets infinite. True the closer to c, the bigger, but not infinite. It 'approaches' infinity (ie no finite limit), so the limit at v=c is infinite. But one never gets to the limit for anything with mass.
From: Y.Porat on 7 Oct 2009 13:55
On Oct 7, 3:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 7, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > You and NoEinstein have the same problem understanding what > "exponential" means. > > > it becomes infinitely big as closing to c !!! > > Actually, it gets finitely big. It never gets infinite. > > > > > Y.P > > --------------------------------------- but waht you does not understand is that anyphysics formula has its limits of validations and a limit case mathematically (and even not mathematically) is th epoint at which to formula stops working or being relavant totake an example if we say that no mass can reach c it is an extrapolation beyond the legitimate limits of th eformula to say that a mass can or cannot reach c because it is mathematically a limit case so you cant say that the photon cannot have mass because it moves at c !! it can be an exception case (beyound your common paradigm) of which the mass of the photon is so small that it CAN move at c !! even experiments can indicate that trend: as masses become smaller and smaller they reach CLOSER AND CLOSER to c !!! that wrong paradigm that no mass canreach c jsut because of expanding a formula to an unknown position interpretating it arbitrarily 'as you like it' was one of the disasters that happend to physics at the 20 th centuries leading to curved space time massless particles etc etc etc ATB Y.Porat ------------------------- |