Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 13 Oct 2009 00:10 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 10, 9:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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.- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > > No? But the readers of my replies who actually have brains understand > the correctness! � NE � You notice that no one has ever agreed with your stupidity.
From: doug on 13 Oct 2009 00:13 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 10, 11:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Side-Stepping PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is NOT the same as > KE! Wrong again john. Distance of fall always includes a COASTING component. Wrong again john. If the > fall distance in one second, 16.087 feet, is taken as a datum and > called 'd', the coasting distances (hidden) within the parabolic time > vs. distance curve are as follows: Second 1, coasting distance 'zero'; > Second 2, coasting distance 2d; Second 3, coasting distance 4d; and > Second 4, coasting distance, 6d. The distances 'left' over are > increasing one 'd', or 16.087 feet, each second�and that is a LINEAR > increase in NON COASTING distance of fall, consistent with KE being a > LINEARELY increasing quantity. Wrong again john. > > It would be possible to convert KE to useful work done at impact or > slow-down. But such would be a tacked-on, different physics problem > concerned with the weight of the object(s) impacted. Knowing you, you > will weasel out by insisting that the discussion be on work, not KE. More stupidity john. > Like I've told you, the existing definition of work is the only > correct term in the chapters on mechanics, which I have otherwise > correctly re written for the benefit of science. � NoEinstein � No, you have just demonstrated your complete stupidity. > >>On Oct 10, 10:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >>>On Oct 8, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: An object's "distance of fall" isn't an >>>"energy" component! >> >>Of course it is. Please consult on the definition of work, which is >>how a force makes an energy contribution. >>This contribution is the force times the distance the force acts >>through. >>The distance is indeed a factor in the energy contribution. >> >>I'm astounded -- ASTOUNDED, I tell you! -- that you have forgotten >>this basic fact that 7th graders know. >>It is in fact the basis for the playground see-saw, not to mention the >>block-and-tackle pulley system. >> >> >>>The only force acting on a dropped object is the >>>uniform (per unit weight) force of gravity. An object in space that >>>is traveling 1,000 miles per hour, after traveling 1,000 miles, will >>>impact with the identical KE as a like-size object that traveled one >>>million miles at 1,000 miles per hour. >> >>But if it is traveling at a constant 1000 miles per hour, then there >>is obviously no force acting on the object. >>If there were a force acting on it, it would continue to accelerate. >>Since there is no force acting on it, then there is no contribution to >>the energy whether it is traveling a thousand miles or a million >>miles. >> >>If you want to know how a force contributes to the energy, then >>consider cases where the force is present. Looking at cases where >>there is no force acting on the object any more will not help you >>understand the basics. >> >> >>> Distance of travel has NO >>>direct influence on the object's KE. Try to get that through your >>>hard head! � Noeinstein � >> >>I'm sorry, NoEinstein, but this is REALLY basic, 7th grade stuff. >>Nobody that failed to learn the material from the 7th grade should be >>allowed to be licensed as an architect, in my opinion. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>On Oct 8, 10:46 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>On Oct 7, 7:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The INPUT energy is the UNIFORM force of >>>>>gravity. >> >>>>No sir. The input energy is the PRODUCT of the force of gravity and >>>>the distance the force acts through. >>>>This is a simple fact, verified by experiment. >>>>And as an object falls, though the force is uniform, the distance per >>>>second increases each second, and so the product is not uniform though >>>>the force is uniform. >>>>I've explained this to you a half-dozen times, and you still don't >>>>seem to understand this. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? >> >>>>> To have the "output" KE be the square of the time, >>>>>immediately, violates the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: energy IN >>>>>must = energy OUT! � NoEinstein � >> >>>>Sorry, no, the INPUT energy is also increasing as the square of time, >>>>as I've explained several times. Energy is conserved.- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > >
From: Y.Porat on 13 Oct 2009 01:33 On Oct 12, 10:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. did you ever think or know how that electric constant was derived by an experiment?? do you agree that it was derived by expariment ?? all those tools and matter and physical entities that involved in that experiment are meaning less for the experiment ?? > 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. > ------------------------- there is a difference between light and an electric charge light is not a force messenger it is a whole physical entity for itself it is sort of a 'ricochet' (split-ed out ) of some bigger mass !! electric charge is done by force messengers ie some matter was sending it to space you never find electric charge that was no created by some mass present here or further away ps let us forget the talking about demagogy **both of us** try to make a sincere discussion in order of better understanding of physics ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- > > > > 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: Y.Porat on 13 Oct 2009 02:36 On Oct 13, 7:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 10:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > did you ever think or know > how that electric constant was derived by an experiment?? > > do you agree that it was derived by expariment ?? > all those tools and matter and physical entities that involved in > that experiment are meaning less for the experiment ?? > > > 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. > > ------------------------- > > there is a difference between light > and an electric charge > > light is not a force messenger > it is a whole physical entity for itself > > it is sort of a 'ricochet' (split-ed out ) of some bigger mass !! > > electric charge is done by force messengers > ie > some matter was sending it to space > you never find electric charge that was no created by some mass > present here or further away > ps > let us forget the talking about demagogy > **both of us** try to make a sincere discussion > in order of better understanding of physics > > ATB > Y.Porat > ----------------------- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > ---------------------- typo light is not an **attraction force** messenger while charge is !! 2 it is much easier to find the connection between eelctric charge and ---mass: the eelctric (or magnetic) *charge * can be found *only* in a close vicinity of mass!! i guess that you cant find it in places that are *very far* from *any * mass 3 the epectric charge is recycling ie coming in and out of mass that is not the case about light Y.P --------------------------- Y.P --------------------
From: NoEinstein on 13 Oct 2009 11:16
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. Hey Inertial guy: If your supposed scientific education and aptitude (Shouldn't that be: Science Education?) is so great, why is it that you have NEVER made a "+new post" on sci.physics relative to any issue of science? The likely reason: Your only 'aptitude' is to defend whatever science GARBAGE that you were taught (sic) in college. Defending that which has been conclusively proved to be wrong doesn't stand you in good stead as a "scientist" (ha!). NoEinstein |