Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jerry on 10 Oct 2009 21:24 On Oct 10, 10:04 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 8, 12:21 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > Dear Jerry ("another" hard-head): You need to take the following Pop > Quiz for Science Buffs. If you doand will learn from the rationale > (Though that's doubtful for you...)you will realize THIS basic fact: > A compact object is traveling 32.174 feet per second, as at the end of > one second of free-fall, and will have traveled 16.087 feet. Such > will impact with a KE of 2 of its static weight units. For each > second of fall its KE will increase one additional weight unit. All > objects at rest have a 'KE' = their static weight. The CORRECT > formula is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). At the end of second one, > KE = 2. Your formula may be YOUR definition of energy, but it is not anyone else's definition. Kinetic energy is not "splat power". Let us go back to MY questions. 1) If I lift an object 64 feet, is the energy it took me to lift it the first foot equal to the energy it took me to lift it the second foot, third foot, fourth foot... sixty-third foot, sixty-fourth foot? Yes/No 2) If I drop an object 64 feet, is the kinetic energy acquired by the object equal to the energy that it took to lift it 64 feet? Yes/No 3) If I drop an object, does it fall about 16 feet the first second, and after two seconds, is the total distance fallen approximately 64 feet? Yes/No 4) Is 16 equal to one-fourth of 64? Yes/No 5) Is the amount of potential energy converted to kinetic energy after one second equal to one-fourth the amount of potential energy converted to kinetic energy after two seconds? Yes/No I need to know at what point you start saying "No". Jerry
From: doug on 11 Oct 2009 02:03 Inertial wrote: > "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. > > John has no idea of the difference between energy and force. And it gets worse from there.
From: doug on 11 Oct 2009 02:04 Inertial wrote: > > "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. He failed the quiz totally. It is good to read the links for a laugh at how his ego is making look like a fool. > >
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Oct 2009 04:36 ghamma isn't much for sun's temperature. You suck.
From: Y.Porat on 12 Oct 2009 05:10
On Oct 10, 4:50 pm, 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > > > 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. > --------------------------- it is not correct in you* circular* argumentation!! momentum is massinmotion in macrocosm and it is jsut ike that in microcosm!! you chnged it to me energy wothout mass why? because you wrongly assumes that tjhe phootn has no mass here is the circular argumentation my argumets are more consistant with weider physics it is you who restricted it arbirarily based on a mis und ersyanding that the photon has mass and yet can move at c 2 see the dimention of energy and momentum and start to learn the basic of physics how a physics formula is done and used !! and we ahve already been lengthily on that as well !! -------------------- > > and if you add all of it together > > it is actually suggestion 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. ----------------- easy east and slowly just dont jump: did you ever found an electric charge in a place that there was no mass in it ???!!! no electric charge and no physics -- WITHOUT MASS acting it it sometimes the mass is hiding somewhere or near by !!! you have jsut to look for it !!! (but look god enough ) and be sure you will find it in its hiding place ...... --------------- > This SHOULD be an indicator to you that something is wrong with the > method used to "show". ---------------- exactly boomeranging to you as well -------------------- > > Y.P > > ----------------- |