Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 7 Oct 2009 20:18 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:0cfb8c18-81df-46cf-91ff-113747a9cf01(a)l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 6, 8:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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. > > ... then YOU must be a pointed-head SPAM junkie! � NE � You're childish as usual. Maybe you should go learn some basic physics instead of wasting time posting the same old spam over and over.
From: Inertial on 7 Oct 2009 20:19 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:3bbab9ac-9b37-478d-b18f-32d15005d966(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 7, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Dear Y. P.: I've disproved SR; remember? BAHAHHAHAHA .. you've done nothing of the kind. You don't even understand SR .. you don't even understand basic physics. You're a joke.
From: doug on 7 Oct 2009 22:26 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 6, 8:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: PD's primary "argument" is the take the anti-thesis of > anything I, or others with brains, say. Since you are always wrong, PD has the correct approach. And you are wrong, since others with brains just laugh at you. For the few clear thinkers > among you let me explain: > > Falling objects are accruing energy in direct proportion to how long > the object is subjected to the action of gravity. If there were a > magic way to just turn-off gravity after, say, only one second of > fall, the dropped object would continue moving at 32.174 feet per > second... until it hit the ground. After three total seconds of fall > such object will have dropped exactly 16.087 ft. in the first second + > 32.174 ft. in the second second, plus 32.174 ft. in the third second, > for a total of about 81 feet. PD would have you believe that, upon > hitting, the latter object will impact with a force five times the > force of that same object falling for only ONE second. In actuality, > the force of impact will be identical, because such is determined > solely by the VELOCITY for a unit weight. In the latter example 80% > of the distance of fall contributed ZERO additional KE, because the > object was COASTING. And that same COASTING component is hidden > within the parabolic free-drop curve for all objects dropped. During > the first four seconds of the fall of any object, 75% of the distance > of fall is due to carry-over COASTING distance while only 25% is due > to the four-fold velocity increase at the end of four seconds. I hope > some of you thinkers can grasp such a clear explanation. � NoEinstein > � So you repeat your nonsense to show just how stupid you are. > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > >>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 -- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > >
From: doug on 7 Oct 2009 22:29 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 6, 8:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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. > > > ... then YOU must be a pointed-head SPAM junkie! � NE � No, we are just all here to laugh at you and your incompetence. You must have been an awful architect as well.
From: doug on 7 Oct 2009 22:30
NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 7, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Y. P.: I've disproved SR; remember? Of course you have not. You have showed nearly infinite stupidity but that is different. Nothing 'special' happens > close to 'c' other than simply reaching a Universal measuring datum of > much larger potential velocities. � NE � See, another demonstration of your ignorance. |