Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 11:29 On Oct 12, 7:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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! The contribution to the energy that changes KE is called work. Please consult your 7th grade science book. > Distance of fall always includes a COASTING component. 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 secondand that is a LINEAR > increase in NON COASTING distance of fall, consistent with KE being a > LINEARELY increasing quantity. Sorry, but no. The contribution to energy as it increases each second is the product of a force times the distance covered in that second. This is known by every 7th grader but it still seems to elude you. Why didn't you ask a question about this in the 7th grade? > > 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. > Like I've told you, the existing definition of work is the only > correct term in the chapters on mechanics, Good, and then you'll also notice right next to the definition of work something called the Work-Energy theorem. > which I have otherwise > correctly re written for the benefit of science. NoEinstein > > > > > 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: PD on 13 Oct 2009 11:29 On Oct 12, 7:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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 Name two.
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 11:33 On Oct 13, 12:33 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?? A number of them, yes. And not all of them included a charge in the region where this property was measured! > > 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 ?? Oh, come on. Here we go. So for the photon, where you say Planck's constant tells you there is mass involved and so the photon must have mass, how do you know that the mass doesn't belong to all the tools involved in the experiment, rather than to the photon itself? Stop it. You twist and try to use a chain of logic one way for one thing, to suit your need, and then another way for another thing, again to suit your need. That is cheating demagoguery, the very thing you claim to despise. Look at yourself and be ashamed! > > > 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: NoEinstein on 13 Oct 2009 11:46 On Oct 10, 9:24 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Dear Jerry: In your case, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Answers: 1. Yes. The correct formula is: PE = w + h / 16.087 ft. (w). 2. NO! There is NO stored energy in the lifted object beyond its STATIC WEIGHT. What that object has is just a 'potential' distance of fall. The calculated PE can be 100% recovered ONLY if there is some mechanism to cause the slow accumulation of KE. At the time of demolition, the frame of a building will slow the descent sufficiently so that PE is very close to KE. However, in the case of dropped objects without an attached mode of slowing (energy recovery) the maximum KE will never exceed that which can be imparted during the TIME of free fall by the UNIFORM force of gravity = the object's static weight In the latter case most of that work that was expended in lifting the weight is lost (as a ground reaction) at the time of the initial lifting. 3. Yes 4. Yes (Aren't YOU a deep thinker.) 5. As stated in 2., above, there is ZERO conversion of energy occurring! Dropped objects ACCRUE KE at a uniform rate with time according to my correct formula, KE = a/g (m) = v / 32.174 (m). After one second the KE = two weight multiples. After two seconds the KE = three weight multiples (not four). NoEinstein > > 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: NoEinstein on 13 Oct 2009 11:54
On Oct 12, 4:12 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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. Dear Autymn D. C.: No, it's the formula that REPLACES E = mc^2 and KE = 1/2 mv^2 > > > 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. |