Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 12 Oct 2009 16:02 On Oct 12, 2:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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?? Nope. No charges need be present in the volume considered, and you don't have to consider the region outside the volume either. Unless you also believe that the mass in the Planck's constant that pertains to light might also be some mass somewhere far off in the universe, well away from the light. Either the rule is applied LOCALLY or it's not. Don't bend the rule to use it one way in one case and another way in another case, to suit your needs. That would be ... cheating demagoguery. > > 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 > > > ----------------------
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Oct 2009 16:12 On Oct 10, 8:04 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. That is the formula of nothing. > feet per second. FORCE OF IMPACT, i.e., KE is a function of the > VELOCITY and the static weight of the object. *** Since the velocity i.e. -> q.e. energhy != forse mvv/2 != ma = mjt > of all dropped objects increases uniformly, or LINEARLY with respect > to time, NOT the distance traveled, KE must, therefore, be increasing > LINEARLY, too. The latter conforms to the Law of the Conservation of > Energy. But your errant "distance" notion violates the L. of the C. Momentum, cretin.
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Oct 2009 16:19 weaker -> limper weaker|weller
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Oct 2009 16:34 On Sep 29, 6:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > so even according to your rules of game > > you pose falsely that the above theory > > is ;proven! ('hemetically") > > No, I *never* said the theory is proven. No theory in science is EVER > proven. If you thought that theories needed to be proven > "hermetically", then you have no idea how science works. Your post was fine until here, where you still lige.
From: Autymn D. C. on 12 Oct 2009 17:11
On Oct 6, 4:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. :> who? |