Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Oct 2009 05:43 On Oct 10, 8:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:04 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Y.Porat: The failure of scientists to make charged particles > reach 'c' was due to the presence of ether inside the vacuum tubes. > The ridiculous notion behind SR resulted from extrapolation of the > particle experiments. In space travel, the density of ether drops off > the further away from massive objects you stay. In the 'Swiss Cheese' > voids between the galaxies, there is little or no ether. Plot your > intra-universe courses of travel to stay in those voids, and your > maximum velocity is limitless. Extra-terrestrials, and yours truly, > know that, because ether is polar, it can be magnetized and made to > RIP apart so that the spaceships don't ever impact the ether. This doesn't contradict SR.
From: PD on 12 Oct 2009 11:07 On Oct 12, 4:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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!! No, that is not correct. Momentum is *whatever* contribution is supplied by an object in a system such that the total system momentum is conserved. You have this habit of extrapolating from the macrocosm to the microcosm. That might make you feel comfortable, but it is not warranted as a mental strategy and it leads to mistakes. The microcosm is DIFFERENT than the macrocosm. > 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 > > -----------------
From: Y.Porat on 12 Oct 2009 12:13 On Oct 12, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 4:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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!! > > No, that is not correct. Momentum is *whatever* contribution is > supplied by an object in a system such that the total system momentum > is conserved. > --------------------- so if it is the total system calculation it means that th ephoton does not have a momentum? 2 you ddint answer this momentum has the dimension of mass th e mass is not there for ornamentation it is an indispensible part of the physicsl phenomenon you spaoke about eelctric constant in the charge formula the mass is even there and you never met an eelctric chagre that is acociated that way or another with mass!! iow in a univers without mass there will be no elcteric charge and your experience does not show otherwise ! eelctric force mesengers are a property of mass they are not massless 'witches on brooms' mass can sent only mass messengers not spooks > You have this habit of extrapolating from the macrocosm to the > microcosm. i dont consier that as a proof i consider that as a good indication!! the profs are on top of that Y.P ----------------------
From: PD on 12 Oct 2009 13:43 On Oct 12, 11:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 12, 4:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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!! > > > No, that is not correct. Momentum is *whatever* contribution is > > supplied by an object in a system such that the total system momentum > > is conserved. > > --------------------- > > so if it is the total system calculation > it means that th ephoton does not have a momentum? Yes it does, but its contribution is NOT mass times velocity (because momentum is not defined as mass times velocity) > > 2 > you ddint answer this > momentum has the dimension of mass > th e mass is not there for ornamentation > it is an indispensible part of the physicsl > phenomenon Not so. Empty space has a property that includes units of charge, but this does not mean that empty space is filled with charge. > > you spaoke about eelctric constant in > the charge formula > the mass is even there > and you never met an eelctric chagre > that is acociated that way or another > with mass!! > iow > in a univers without mass there will be no > elcteric charge > and your experience does not show otherwise ! > > eelctric force mesengers are a property of mass > they are not massless 'witches on brooms' > mass can sent only mass messengers > not spooks > > > You have this habit of extrapolating from the macrocosm to the > > microcosm. > > i dont consier that as a proof > i consider that as a good indication!! > > the profs are on top of that > > Y.P > ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 12 Oct 2009 15:52
On Oct 12, 7:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 11:13 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 12, 4:10 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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!! > > > > No, that is not correct. Momentum is *whatever* contribution is > > > supplied by an object in a system such that the total system momentum > > > is conserved. > > > --------------------- > > > so if it is the total system calculation > > it means that th ephoton does not have a momentum? > > Yes it does, but its contribution is NOT mass times velocity (because > momentum is not defined as mass times velocity) > > > > > 2 > > you ddint answer this > > momentum has the dimension of mass > > th e mass is not there for ornamentation > > it is an indispensible part of the physicsl > > phenomenon > > Not so. Empty space has a property that includes units of charge, but > this does not mean that empty space is filled with charge. > ------------------- common you start to amuse me: (and stun me) empty space has the property of charge ?? (:-) ithought that empty space is by definition has nothing in it !! why not witches on brooms does the experiment that defined that electric constant--- -- WAS DONE IN EMPTY SPACE ?? DONT YOU THINK THAT THERE WERE OTHER PHYSICAL ENTITIES THERE THAT INFLUENCED and shaped THAT CONSTANT?? metaphorically if you spray an empty room with some perfume it meas that an empty room has built in it the perfume entity ??? Y.Porat -------------------- > > > > you spaoke about eelctric constant in > > the charge formula > > the mass is even there > > and you never met an eelctric chagre > > that is acociated that way or another > > with mass!! > > iow > > in a univers without mass there will be no > > elcteric charge > > and your experience does not show otherwise ! > > > eelctric force mesengers are a property of mass > > they are not massless 'witches on brooms' > > mass can sent only mass messengers > > not spooks > > > > You have this habit of extrapolating from the macrocosm to the > > > microcosm. > > > i dont consier that as a proof > > i consider that as a good indication!! > > > the profs are on top of that > > > Y.P > > ---------------------- |