Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 7 Oct 2009 22:31 Inertial wrote: > > "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. At least he has given up advocating illegal violence against those who point out his mistakes.
From: doug on 7 Oct 2009 22:31 Inertial wrote: > > "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. But it is nice of him to come here for us to have someone to laugh at. > > >
From: NoEinstein on 8 Oct 2009 11:46 On Oct 7, 7:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The INPUT energy is the UNIFORM force of gravity. To have the "output" KE be the square of the time, immediately, violates the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: energy IN must = energy OUT! NoEinstein > > On Oct 7, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. > > I'm not taking the antithesis of anything. You made a mistake > (several, in fact) and I pointed that out. > > > 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. > > No, that's incorrect. It's in proportion to the SQUARE of how long the > object is subjected to the action of gravity. > You keep making the same error over and over again. > > > 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. > > Right. > > > 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. > > No, of course not, because you TURNED OFF GRAVITY, and so that force > contributes no more energy. > Remember the energy contribution is the force times the distance that > force acts through. > When you turned the force off, that product becomes zero after the > first second. > Are you really this dense? > > > In actuality, > > the force of impact will be identical, because such is determined > > solely by the VELOCITY for a unit weight. > > That's incorrect, and careful measurements clearly show that it's > incorrect. > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 8 Oct 2009 11:49 On Oct 7, 8:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Dear Inertial: You couldn't recognize a science truth if it hit you over the head like a 2 x 4. Maybe the latter is what you need to clear your thinking. NE > > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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: doug on 8 Oct 2009 12:51
NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 7, 7:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The INPUT energy is the UNIFORM force of > gravity. To have the "output" KE be the square of the time, > immediately, violates the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: energy IN > must = energy OUT! � NoEinstein � No, as you have been told of your mistake many times. You have no clue about even basic physics. That is what makes you look so stupid when you come here. > >>On Oct 7, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. >> >>I'm not taking the antithesis of anything. You made a mistake >>(several, in fact) and I pointed that out. >> >> >>> 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. >> >>No, that's incorrect. It's in proportion to the SQUARE of how long the >>object is subjected to the action of gravity. >>You keep making the same error over and over again. >> >> >>> 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. >> >>Right. >> >> >>> 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. >> >>No, of course not, because you TURNED OFF GRAVITY, and so that force >>contributes no more energy. >>Remember the energy contribution is the force times the distance that >>force acts through. >>When you turned the force off, that product becomes zero after the >>first second. >>Are you really this dense? >> >> >>> In actuality, >>>the force of impact will be identical, because such is determined >>>solely by the VELOCITY for a unit weight. >> >>That's incorrect, and careful measurements clearly show that it's >>incorrect. >> >> >> >> >>> 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 >>>� >> >>>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 -- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > |