Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 14 Oct 2009 00:00 On Oct 14, 1:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 3:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 9:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 5:33 pm, illed 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! > > > > >--------------------- > > > > > so > > > > it was measured in Vacum?? > > > > to measure in complete vacum should be > > > > measuring an electric charge > > > > 50 meters fron the palce in which any charge is > > > > located !! > > > > Interesting... how did you come up with the number 50 meters? Out of a > > > hat? > > > > > ie > > > > to measure the constant in a palce that here > > > > is no electriccharge > > > > iow > > > > anttime you measure charge all the sources > > > > of that charge are near by !! > > > > OTHA > > > > you can measure a photons > > > > one light year from the location of the entity that > > > > created it and sent it > > > > ie > > > > you measure it neutralized of its creators !!! > > > > dont you see the difference > > > > ?? > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > see jsut above > > > > now if it does not go with you by physics arguments > > > > i have some formal physics arguments for you > > > > 1 > > > > you fell in to the trap of words interpretations > > > > not physics interpretations > > > > you heared that they call it > > > > sort of > > > > the vacuum constant'' > > > > as if it was a proerty of Vacuum > > > > but no one told you it is a property of vacuum: > > > > Oh, yes, they did, and it is. > > > > And as I told you, you are guilty of the same thing. You've said > > > repeatedly that the mass in the units of Planck's constant tells you > > > that the photon has mass. Was this determination of YOURS done with > > > the photon being isolated from all masses by a distance of 50 meters? > > > If so, prove it. > > > > > the constant of charge force > > > > WAS DERIVED IN VACUUM CONDITIONS > > > > IT WAS DERIVED IN SOME SPACE > > > > THAT DIDNT NOT INCLUDE SAY > > > > AIR RUBBER WATER GASOLINE > > > > ANOTHER GAS etc etc > > > > they actually told you what there ** WAS NOT IN THERE!* > > > > among posible materials that we know about them > > > > that could be but were not there !! > > > > and you wrongly > > > > understood it as a property of Net VACUUM!! > > > > -------------------------- > > > > 2 > > > > WHO PERMITTED YOU TO SEPARATE > > > > A APRT OF THE FORMULA FROM THE MAIN BODY OF THE FORMULA ANDINTERPRET > > > > IT > > > > ASD A SEPARATED ENTITY OF THE FORMULA?? > > > > > iow > > > > all the componenents of the formula is > > > > ONE PACKET ONE PARCEL !! > > > > you cant trim jsut a part of it > > > > and > > > > interpret it as a separated part of the whole formula! > > > > by trimming it from the rest of the formula > > > > you actuallly castrated that formula !! > > > > from its physical meaning > > > > and went to fantastic interpretations > > > > > (if you like it more abstaractly:-- > > > > half of the truth is often a lie !!) > > > > > on the other hand > > > > while i examined > > > > E=hf > > > > i examined it as** a whole* > > > > i dint separate any part of it > > > > and didnt interpret-at it separately > > > > as you did !! > > > > > got the difference ?? > > > > > ATB > > > > Y.Porat > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > let me explain it again > > as simple as possible: > > > there is a big diffference between what i did > > and what you did > > Hopeless. Simply hopeless. > > > while i found the mass in > > E=hf > > i did two things > > 1 > > i realted it TOPTHE WHOLE PHYSICAL ENTITY DESCRIBED BYTHAT FORMULA > > ie > > i related it to the photon energy > > 2 > > ***i didnt relate it to just one part of the formula !!!*** > > as should be done in physics > > now lets see what you did > > > you took the formula > > F el = k Q1Q2/R^2 > > > or what ever is the exact formula > > and waht did **you do** with that formula??? > > > you related the mass that you found > > JUST TO ONE OF THE COMPONENTS > > OF THAT FORMULA !! > > you ddint relate it to ALL the physicsl entity that describes > > electric force or what ever it describes > > > got the difference??? > > > you ddint have any justification > > TO RELATE IT ONLY TO ** A PART** > > (OR ONE COMPONENT ) > > OF THAT ENTITY DESCRIBED BY > > **ALL THE FORMULA *** !!! > > > IOW > > you should describe mass to the > > electric charge force !!!! > > (described by that formula > > and by doing that > > you youself suplied me with another proof of > > > NO MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > > you see that it is a golden new rule of physics !!! > > while it was you how did that (another ) proofe for me !!! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -------------------- (:-) since i am well aware to your sensitivities let's remain colleagues !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------
From: NoEinstein on 16 Oct 2009 12:12 On Oct 13, 1:05 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote > Dougie Boy, the leech. "As the twig is bent, thus grows the tree." In your case you are WARPED! Stupidity like you keep showing has no cure. NE >: > 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 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 16 Oct 2009 12:15 On Oct 13, 1:06 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Apparently, you come here to be... the FOOL. NE
From: NoEinstein on 16 Oct 2009 12:21 On Oct 13, 12:06 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: Not a soul in the world cares about having > > your... 'respect'. Mentally, you are a NON entity. NE > > It's an unmoderated newsgroup and you have the right to post as you see > fit. > > But that was unkind. Dear Jonah: Though I am a nice person (to nice people), Dougie Boy, the leech, deserves only the disdain of the readers for his psychotic negativity in the face of new science truths. People like him are the black spots on these groups. NE
From: NoEinstein on 16 Oct 2009 12:30
On Oct 13, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "Conversations" usually have give-and- take. In the two plus years that I've known that you... exist, not once have you been swayed to accept the viewpoint of anyone other than the status quo. Your bastion is to cling to the stupidity of the past, rather than to question and to correct the errors of the past. Calling you a Parasite is the highest high compliment I can make. NE > > On Oct 13, 11:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: You are off-your-rocker. Go into a small room and talk to > > yourself. No one with half a brain reads your replies. I only scan > > down to your first foot-in-the-mouth nonsense. NE > > Interesting how you project that "no one" reads my replies. How do you > know? > Is this from the same pool of information that tells you that > intelligent readers agree with your posts, even though there is not a > one that has come out and said that? > > As for what you read of my replies, I'm not surprised. You're not here > to have a conversation about anything. You're here to hear yourself > talk. And you take pride in the fact (and consider it an > accomplishment) to do so on an unmoderated newsgroup. While you're at > it, congratulate yourself for breathing without help today. > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |