Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 10 Oct 2009 12:02 On Oct 10, 10:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 9:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 3:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 7, 12:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 !!! > > > > But never reach it. > > > Let's take a simple example. > > > Let's suppose there are two physical properties F and x, and they are > > > related this way: F=1 - 1/x. > > > When x's value is 1, then F=1 > > > When there is an object with x=2, then F for that object is 0.5. > > > When there is an object with x=10, then F for that object is 0.9. > > > When there is an object with x=1000, then F for that object is 0.999. > > > When there is an object with x=1000000, then F for that object is > > > 0.999999. > > > It's plain that the larger x is, then the closer F will be to 1. > > > But there will never be ANY object for which F = 1, no matter how big > > > x is. > > > > > that wrong paradigm that no mass canreach c > > > > jsut because of expanding a formula > > > > to an unknown position > > > > It's not 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 > > > > ------------------------- > > > but still you ddint got my point about > > limits of validations of a mathematical formula > > > the scope of physical phenomenon is not just > > always ovelaping the mathematical scope > > that is why we add factors to the mathematical formula > > and we add stsrt point and end limitation > > to the formula > > inoder to diminish the degrees of freedom > > in order to fit it to reality of the physical world > > as i brought the trend > > of smaller and smaller masses > > closing closer and closer to c > > > the fact that we didnt find yet that smallmass > > but onthe other hand we have photons that has > > some of the mass property ie momentum > > Momentum is a not a property exclusive to mass. > > You may have been taught that momentum is *defined* as mass times > velocity. If so, then you were taught incorrectly. That is not any > kind of correct definition of momentum. > > > and if you add all of it together > > it is actually duggestion and **predicting* > > that there must be a smaller mass thanknown now > > thatwill accommodate with al l the acumulative > > experimental data > > not to mention that i showed that > > the > > E=hf > > has in it **hidden* even in the formula -- the mass entity !! > > And by the same argument you've used to "show" this, you can just as > well "show" that empty space has electrical charge. > This ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... space with ether can have lines of magnetic flux, because the IOTA's (smallest energy units in the Universe) are polar. Electricity is just flowing ether in, and/or next to, conductors. NoEinstein
From: doug on 10 Oct 2009 16:36 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 9, 6:29 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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. > > > ... Did you ever take, and pass the following? > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > � NE � Well, you failed badly at it.
From: Inertial on 10 Oct 2009 20:55 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:238eab7d-8513-4b71-8121-ca3069a7d987(a)b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > All objects at rest have a 'KE' = their static weight. So you think an object at *rest* has *kinetic* energy, and this *energy* is the same as its *weight*. BAHAHAHAHAHA. You're a joke. You don't even know the meanings of the terms you use.
From: Inertial on 10 Oct 2009 20:59 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:13931ce1-526d-478d-a1c3-b2c4394a4049(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 9, 6:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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 > > ... You should have been "amused" when you took (and blindly accepted) > status quo physics. You clearly understand nothing of physics, and so are not qualified to comment
From: Inertial on 10 Oct 2009 21:01
"NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:5d624aac-67ed-4070-becb-8dfcb11275f0(a)w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 9, 6:29 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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. > > ... Did you ever take, and pass the following? > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > � NE � Why would I bother with your nonsense quiz .. you wouldn't know a correct answer if one hit you in the face. |