Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 8 Oct 2009 14:26 NoEinstein wrote: > 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 � Come on, we need something new to laugh at.
From: doug on 8 Oct 2009 14:28 Jerry wrote: > On Oct 7, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >>Falling objects are accruing energy in direct proportion to how long >>the object is subjected to the action of gravity. > > > No. Falling objects accrue energy in direct proportion to HOW FAR > THEY FALL under the influence of gravity. > > After the first second, an object has fallen about 16 feet. > After the second second, an object has fallen about 64 feet. > After the third second, an object has fallen...guess what??? > > 1) Each foot that an object falls represents the same amount of > energy accrued. Each foot that one lifts an object represents the > same amount of energy expended in lifting. > 2) The DISTANCE an object falls is proportional to the square of > the time that it has spent falling. > 3) The SPEED of a falling object is directly proportional to the > time that it has spent falling. > > Do you have any problem with statements (1), (2), or (3)? > Together, they explain why there is a square in the kinetic > energy equation. > John (no Einstein) has been here for awhile trying to peddle his hatred and jealousy of Einstein. He claims that all of classical mechanics is wrong and then moves on to various delusions about relativity. He is a crank of the worst sort even worse than, say, Kennaugh and Stowe. > Jerry
From: Inertial on 9 Oct 2009 18:27 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:a737f4e6-f8ff-414c-ab19-bd1fcb2816e5(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > 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 � Maybe you need to grow up .. do a little thinking and learning instead of spewing such nonsense as you do. Though you are amusing
From: Inertial on 9 Oct 2009 18:28 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:31de709f-2498-4015-a361-92cf9f7ce5e6(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > 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'm not
From: Inertial on 9 Oct 2009 18:29
"NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:0506f3ec-d4f5-41f0-8053-e54a974505f8(a)v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 7, 10:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > Get help, fellow! You keep loosing it... � NE � In other word.. I, like anyone with a scientific education and aptitude, can see through your lies and misconceptions. Get a new hobby. You fail at physics. |