Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 8 Oct 2009 12:52 NoEinstein wrote: > 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 � Are you back to threatening violence again? > >>"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: NoEinstein on 8 Oct 2009 11:58 On Oct 7, 8:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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. Dear Inertial: If 'so', then why are you one of my groupies? I'll tell you why: I've disproved all of the status-quo relativity and mechanics garbage that you blindly accepted in college as the "badge" that you are an intellectual. I have knocked the props out from under your made-up superiority. That's why you fight memuch like a swinging kid facing a much larger opponent who holds you at bay by your head while your swings fall short of ever reaching my body. NE
From: NoEinstein on 8 Oct 2009 12:03 On Oct 7, 10:26 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dougie Boy, the leech, keeps letting off steam. Has anyone ever read a reply of his that discusses issues of SCIENCE? The only issue of importance to Dougie Boy is protecting his delusional intellectual superiority (sic). NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 8 Oct 2009 13:04 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 7, 8:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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. > > > Dear Inertial: If 'so', then why are you one of my groupies? No, he is one of your detractors. He thought you might be capable of learning but now knows you are a fool. I'll > tell you why: I've disproved all of the status-quo relativity and > mechanics garbage that you blindly accepted in college as the "badge" > that you are an intellectual. Well, you tripped over you ego and looked stupid but that has nothing to do with science. I have knocked the props out from under > your made-up superiority. That's why you fight me�much like a > swinging kid facing a much larger opponent who holds you at bay by > your head while your swings fall short of ever reaching my body. � NE There is no fight against you since you are incapable of even starting. You were toast as soon as you came here. Everyone has made you look stupid. > �
From: NoEinstein on 8 Oct 2009 12:07
On Oct 7, 10:29 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Go away, groupie! Your psychosis is uncurable. NE |