Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 13 Oct 2009 11:59 On Oct 13, 12:10 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: Not a soul in the world cares about having your... 'respect'. Mentally, you are a NON entity. NE > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Oct 10, 9:24 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >>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 > > > Dear Jerry: Lifting objects causes PE to accrue. The correct formula > > (mine) is: PE = w + (h / 16.087 ft.) w. PE is 100% recoverable as > > useful KE only if there is a continuous connection, or mechanism, for > > a slow energy transfer. Because most objects in free drop have no > > such connection, the recoverable KE is always less than the 'stored > > up' PE. In actuality, the only thing stored up is a potential > > distance of fall. Until such fall there is ZERO PE stored in the > > object itself! NoEinstein > > Amazingly, you keep thinking up more stupid things to say. You > cannot have been an architect or my respect for that profession > is totally gone.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 13 Oct 2009 11:59 On Oct 13, 12:10 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: Not a soul in the world cares about having your... 'respect'. Mentally, you are a NON entity. NE > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 13 Oct 2009 12:03 On Oct 13, 12:13 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dougie Boy, the leech, is a brainless android programmed to be the anti-thesis of science truths. NE > > 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 secondand 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 13 Oct 2009 13:05 NoEinstein wrote: > 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). Wrong, john, the units do not even match. > > 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. Wrong, john, this would not even sound good from a seventh grader. > > 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). > Wrong again john. This is pretty sad to see you make a fool of yourself repeatedly. > � 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 do�and 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 13 Oct 2009 13:06
NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 13, 12:10 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: Not a soul in the world cares about having > your... 'respect'. Mentally, you are a NON entity. � NE � Well, you know nothing of physics, you trip over your ego and you come here to look stupid. That is pretty sad. > >>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.- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > |