Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: doug on 20 Oct 2009 13:25 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 19, 5:00 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>On Oct 16, 2:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Kinetic Energy is identical to >>>MOMENUTM. >> >>Except, of course, that this is completely wrong. If they >>were the same, they would have the same name. And the same >>units. And the same formulas. So john is zero for three there. >> >>It's how hard an object of known weight will impact due to >> >> >>>having some specific velocity. It turns out that KE will increase ONE >>>WEIGHT UNIT of FORCE for every 32.174 ft. per second increase in >>>velocity. In the case of falling objects, that velocity increase >>>occurs every second of the fall. >> >>This is just word nonsense and does not rise to the level of wrong. >> >> >> >> >>>Work�like we both agree�is force x distance. Move something twice as >>>far against some resistance, and in the desired direction, and you do >>>twice as much WORK. But the distance of fall of falling objects isn't >>>against any resistance! >> >>That is pretty funny. You quote the formula but then demonstrate >>complete ignorance of what it means. >> >> So, no work can be calculated. >> >>Wrong again, john. >> >> What is >> >> >>>known, however, is that the WEIGHT of the object is uniformly acting >>>DOWN, for however long the object falls. >> >>>*** The majority of the distance of fall is due to the accruing >>>coasting velocity each second. >> >>This is also pretty funny and has nothing to do with science. >> >> What that is like is taking your foot >> >> >>>off of the accelerator when you reach 32.174 ft. / sec. During the >>>next second (ignoring road friction and wind resistance) the car will >>>COAST 32.174 feet. The latter distance doesn't increase KE, because >>>the velocity hasn't changed! If you would actually take the following >>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs, >> >>It is good for a laugh. >> >> you might better understand that distance >> >> >>>of travel doesn't increase KE, nor momentum (the same thing), >> >>Wrong again john. >> >> in any >> >> >>>way. The equation for momentum is mass x velocity (in 'g' >>>multiples). 'D' is nowhere to be seen in such. >> >>John is trying to increase the density of stupid statements >>in his posts. >> >> � NoEinstein � >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! >>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... >> >>>Dropping Einstein Like a Stone >>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... >> >>>>On Oct 16, 12:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>On Oct 13, 1:39 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>Dear jbriggs444: Your definition of work is like a time-motion >>>>>study. My definition is AFTER the work has been done, and its >>>>>quantity gets evaluated. My formal definition of work is: W = FD x >>>>>cos. of angle of deviation from the desired direction of motion. >> >>>>Good. Now, let's look at YOUR definition. >>>>Notice that term D. >>>>What do you think D stands for? >> >>>>It is the DISTANCE the object moves while the force is acting on the >>>>object. >> >>>>Now go back and look at what I told you a few days ago about why the >>>>work increases each second as an object falls, even as the force >>>>remains the same. You see? You AGREE with me, by invoking that formula >>>>above. >> >>>>>No >>>>>motion in desired direction would = zero work done. Effective KE is >>>>>AFTER all of the forces have been added or subtracted according to >>>>>their vectors. The resultant velocity times the mass that is in >>>>>motion yields the KE (in weight multiples, like pounds). � NoEinstein >>>>>� >> >>>>>>On Oct 13, 12:08 pm, 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 � >> >>>>>>So do I. Usually that results in reading clear to the bottom of a PD >>>>>>post. >> >>>>>>>>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. >> >>>>>>This one gave me pause. It's too causal for my taste. It implies >>>>>>that if two opposite forces act on a uniformly moving object that >>>>>>neither of them do any work since neither of them change KE. >> >>>>>>One can argue that this definition isn't quite right for non-rigid >>>>>>bodies and that it requires clarification for rotating bodies. >> >>>>>>Still, it's not a bad starting point. A simplification suitable for >>>>>>pedagogical purposes. Especially when the discussion doesn't involve >>>>>>rigidity or rotation. And if you read it just right, it is equivalent >>>>>>to what I consider to be a good definition. >> >>>>>>Me, I define work as the vector dot product of instantaneous point >>>>>>force times the incremental motion of the target object at the contact >>>>>>point integrated over the life of the force. If it's not a point >>>>>>force, you can integrate over the contact area as well. >> >>>>>>I've had discussions previously with folks who think that you're >>>>>>supposed to do a path integral of force times incremental movement of >>>>>>the force along a path. That's wrong. It's force times incremental >>>>>>movement of the object to which the force is applied. For point >>>>>>objects it's the same thing. For extended objects it's not.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > > ... Dougie Boy's reply is duly disregarded. � NE � This is john admitting he has not answers to the his mistakes which were pointed out to him. Go ahead and run away john. We are all keeping you in your place.
From: Inertial on 22 Oct 2009 19:03 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:6ac0140a-7b9a-4578-9e9e-dc09dc603a5a(a)p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 20, 12:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Actually... I want absolutely nothing > from you except that you simply go away! Funny.. that's what the rest of us want from you .. stop spamming this forum with your nonsense. Though you are good to laugh at.
From: Don Stockbauer on 22 Oct 2009 19:12 On Oct 22, 6:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:6ac0140a-7b9a-4578-9e9e-dc09dc603a5a(a)p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 20, 12:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Actually... I want absolutely nothing > > from you except that you simply go away! > > Funny.. that's what the rest of us want from you .. stop spamming this forum > with your nonsense. Though you are good to laugh at. Kinder, kinder.
From: NoEinstein on 22 Oct 2009 19:23 On Oct 20, 1:25 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Oct 19, 5:00 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>NoEinstein wrote: > > >>>On Oct 16, 2:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Kinetic Energy is identical to > >>>MOMENUTM. > > >>Except, of course, that this is completely wrong. If they > >>were the same, they would have the same name. And the same > >>units. And the same formulas. So john is zero for three there. > > >>It's how hard an object of known weight will impact due to > > >>>having some specific velocity. It turns out that KE will increase ONE > >>>WEIGHT UNIT of FORCE for every 32.174 ft. per second increase in > >>>velocity. In the case of falling objects, that velocity increase > >>>occurs every second of the fall. > > >>This is just word nonsense and does not rise to the level of wrong. > > >>>Worklike we both agreeis force x distance. Move something twice as > >>>far against some resistance, and in the desired direction, and you do > >>>twice as much WORK. But the distance of fall of falling objects isn't > >>>against any resistance! > > >>That is pretty funny. You quote the formula but then demonstrate > >>complete ignorance of what it means. > > >> So, no work can be calculated. > > >>Wrong again, john. > > >> What is > > >>>known, however, is that the WEIGHT of the object is uniformly acting > >>>DOWN, for however long the object falls. > > >>>*** The majority of the distance of fall is due to the accruing > >>>coasting velocity each second. > > >>This is also pretty funny and has nothing to do with science. > > >> What that is like is taking your foot > > >>>off of the accelerator when you reach 32.174 ft. / sec. During the > >>>next second (ignoring road friction and wind resistance) the car will > >>>COAST 32.174 feet. The latter distance doesn't increase KE, because > >>>the velocity hasn't changed! If you would actually take the following > >>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs, > > >>It is good for a laugh. > > >> you might better understand that distance > > >>>of travel doesn't increase KE, nor momentum (the same thing), > > >>Wrong again john. > > >> in any > > >>>way. The equation for momentum is mass x velocity (in 'g' > >>>multiples). 'D' is nowhere to be seen in such. > > >>John is trying to increase the density of stupid statements > >>in his posts. > > >> NoEinstein > > >>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316.... > > >>>Dropping Einstein Like a Stone > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1.... > > >>>>On Oct 16, 12:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>On Oct 13, 1:39 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>Dear jbriggs444: Your definition of work is like a time-motion > >>>>>study. My definition is AFTER the work has been done, and its > >>>>>quantity gets evaluated. My formal definition of work is: W = FD x > >>>>>cos. of angle of deviation from the desired direction of motion. > > >>>>Good. Now, let's look at YOUR definition. > >>>>Notice that term D. > >>>>What do you think D stands for? > > >>>>It is the DISTANCE the object moves while the force is acting on the > >>>>object. > > >>>>Now go back and look at what I told you a few days ago about why the > >>>>work increases each second as an object falls, even as the force > >>>>remains the same. You see? You AGREE with me, by invoking that formula > >>>>above. > > >>>>>No > >>>>>motion in desired direction would = zero work done. Effective KE is > >>>>>AFTER all of the forces have been added or subtracted according to > >>>>>their vectors. The resultant velocity times the mass that is in > >>>>>motion yields the KE (in weight multiples, like pounds). NoEinstein > >>>>> > > >>>>>>On Oct 13, 12:08 pm, 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 > > >>>>>>So do I. Usually that results in reading clear to the bottom of a PD > >>>>>>post. > > >>>>>>>>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. > > >>>>>>This one gave me pause. It's too causal for my taste. It implies > >>>>>>that if two opposite forces act on a uniformly moving object that > >>>>>>neither of them do any work since neither of them change KE. > > >>>>>>One can argue that this definition isn't quite right for non-rigid > >>>>>>bodies and that it requires clarification for rotating bodies. > > >>>>>>Still, it's not a bad starting point. A simplification suitable for > >>>>>>pedagogical purposes. Especially when the discussion doesn't involve > >>>>>>rigidity or rotation. And if you read it just right, it is equivalent > >>>>>>to what I consider to be a good definition. > > >>>>>>Me, I define work as the vector dot product of instantaneous point > >>>>>>force times the incremental motion of the target object at the contact > >>>>>>point integrated over the life of the force. If it's not a point > >>>>>>force, you can integrate over the contact area as well. > > >>>>>>I've had discussions previously with folks who think that you're > >>>>>>supposed to do a path integral of force times incremental movement of > >>>>>>the force along a path. That's wrong. It's force times incremental > >>>>>>movement of the object to which the force is applied. For point > >>>>>>objects it's the same thing. For extended objects it's not.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text - > > > ... Dougie Boy's reply is duly disregarded. NE > > This is john admitting he has not answers to the his mistakes which > were pointed out to him. Go ahead and run away john. We are all > keeping you in your place.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... yeah, right. Ha, ha, HA! NE
From: doug on 22 Oct 2009 21:27
NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 20, 1:25 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>On Oct 19, 5:00 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>>>On Oct 16, 2:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Kinetic Energy is identical to >>>>>MOMENUTM. >> >>>>Except, of course, that this is completely wrong. If they >>>>were the same, they would have the same name. And the same >>>>units. And the same formulas. So john is zero for three there. >> >>>>It's how hard an object of known weight will impact due to >> >>>>>having some specific velocity. It turns out that KE will increase ONE >>>>>WEIGHT UNIT of FORCE for every 32.174 ft. per second increase in >>>>>velocity. In the case of falling objects, that velocity increase >>>>>occurs every second of the fall. >> >>>>This is just word nonsense and does not rise to the level of wrong. >> >>>>>Work�like we both agree�is force x distance. Move something twice as >>>>>far against some resistance, and in the desired direction, and you do >>>>>twice as much WORK. But the distance of fall of falling objects isn't >>>>>against any resistance! >> >>>>That is pretty funny. You quote the formula but then demonstrate >>>>complete ignorance of what it means. >> >>>> So, no work can be calculated. >> >>>>Wrong again, john. >> >>>> What is >> >>>>>known, however, is that the WEIGHT of the object is uniformly acting >>>>>DOWN, for however long the object falls. >> >>>>>*** The majority of the distance of fall is due to the accruing >>>>>coasting velocity each second. >> >>>>This is also pretty funny and has nothing to do with science. >> >>>> What that is like is taking your foot >> >>>>>off of the accelerator when you reach 32.174 ft. / sec. During the >>>>>next second (ignoring road friction and wind resistance) the car will >>>>>COAST 32.174 feet. The latter distance doesn't increase KE, because >>>>>the velocity hasn't changed! If you would actually take the following >>>>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs, >> >>>>It is good for a laugh. >> >>>> you might better understand that distance >> >>>>>of travel doesn't increase KE, nor momentum (the same thing), >> >>>>Wrong again john. >> >>>> in any >> >>>>>way. The equation for momentum is mass x velocity (in 'g' >>>>>multiples). 'D' is nowhere to be seen in such. >> >>>>John is trying to increase the density of stupid statements >>>>in his posts. >> >>>> � NoEinstein � >> >>>>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... >> >>>>>Dropping Einstein Like a Stone >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... >> >>>>>>On Oct 16, 12:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>On Oct 13, 1:39 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>Dear jbriggs444: Your definition of work is like a time-motion >>>>>>>study. My definition is AFTER the work has been done, and its >>>>>>>quantity gets evaluated. My formal definition of work is: W = FD x >>>>>>>cos. of angle of deviation from the desired direction of motion. >> >>>>>>Good. Now, let's look at YOUR definition. >>>>>>Notice that term D. >>>>>>What do you think D stands for? >> >>>>>>It is the DISTANCE the object moves while the force is acting on the >>>>>>object. >> >>>>>>Now go back and look at what I told you a few days ago about why the >>>>>>work increases each second as an object falls, even as the force >>>>>>remains the same. You see? You AGREE with me, by invoking that formula >>>>>>above. >> >>>>>>>No >>>>>>>motion in desired direction would = zero work done. Effective KE is >>>>>>>AFTER all of the forces have been added or subtracted according to >>>>>>>their vectors. The resultant velocity times the mass that is in >>>>>>>motion yields the KE (in weight multiples, like pounds). � NoEinstein >>>>>>>� >> >>>>>>>>On Oct 13, 12:08 pm, 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 � >> >>>>>>>>So do I. Usually that results in reading clear to the bottom of a PD >>>>>>>>post. >> >>>>>>>>>>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. >> >>>>>>>>This one gave me pause. It's too causal for my taste. It implies >>>>>>>>that if two opposite forces act on a uniformly moving object that >>>>>>>>neither of them do any work since neither of them change KE. >> >>>>>>>>One can argue that this definition isn't quite right for non-rigid >>>>>>>>bodies and that it requires clarification for rotating bodies. >> >>>>>>>>Still, it's not a bad starting point. A simplification suitable for >>>>>>>>pedagogical purposes. Especially when the discussion doesn't involve >>>>>>>>rigidity or rotation. And if you read it just right, it is equivalent >>>>>>>>to what I consider to be a good definition. >> >>>>>>>>Me, I define work as the vector dot product of instantaneous point >>>>>>>>force times the incremental motion of the target object at the contact >>>>>>>>point integrated over the life of the force. If it's not a point >>>>>>>>force, you can integrate over the contact area as well. >> >>>>>>>>I've had discussions previously with folks who think that you're >>>>>>>>supposed to do a path integral of force times incremental movement of >>>>>>>>the force along a path. That's wrong. It's force times incremental >>>>>>>>movement of the object to which the force is applied. For point >>>>>>>>objects it's the same thing. For extended objects it's not.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>... Dougie Boy's reply is duly disregarded. � NE � >> >>This is john admitting he has not answers to the his mistakes which >>were pointed out to him. Go ahead and run away john. We are all >>keeping you in your place.- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > > ... yeah, right. Ha, ha, HA! � NE � Well, lets see, john. No one has ever agreed with you and many say they are laughing at you. You are in your place. Your place is to play the clown for us. Your place is to make stupid statements about physics for our amusement. Your place is to look like a fool as you trip over your inflated but useless ego. In the mean time, science is ignoring you as it should. You have never done any science but you do have tantrums well. You must have practiced that a lot even as an adult. |