Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 27 Oct 2009 14:33 On Oct 23, 10:44 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > .... Laughter is an indication of your inferiority complex psychosis, not a measure of my errors in science. Groupies like you are most evident to all who read my replies. Mine have substance, while yours only attack the messenger. NE > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Oct 22, 9:27 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > ... and Dougie Boy, the Leech's place is to detract from those > > actually making contributions to sciencewhich he never had the > > mentality to do, himself. Sad; very sad... NE > > So john thinks that making his nonsense posts and demonstrating > his complete ignorance of science is making a contribution? > It does give us something to show the students as to how > stupid you will look if you follow john's path. We do enjoy laughing > at you. Keep it up. > > > > > > >>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. > > >>>>>>>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 > > >>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.- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 27 Oct 2009 14:47 On Oct 24, 1:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It's amazing how you paraphrase the science truths that I stated better, then imply that I must have been wrong. You "changed the subject" to be objects that are sliding on frictionless surfaces, which obviously require no work to keep them moving. You prove absolutely nothing by agreeing with the obvious. Try this: (1.) What is the SOURCE of the energy that causes objects to fall? (2.) Is that SOURCE energy uniform or exponential? If you will please answer both of those, then your "credibility" to comment on any energy issue will be on-the-table. Good luck! NoEinstein > > On Oct 23, 8:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 22, 7:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You said: "Nonsense. Again, at constant > > speed the net force on the object (being pushed) is zero. But for an > > accelerating object (like one in freefall), this isn't so." Be it > > known: PD fabricates "science" to suit his whim. He is saying that > > sliding a heavy box across the floor at say one foot per minute for > > ten minutes means that no work is being done, because the speed is > > constant. > > No NET work is being done. This is really pretty easy to see. > Recall that total force equals mass times acceleration. This is > Newton's 2nd law of motion. > Recall also that if something is moving at constant speed, then its > acceleration is zero. > Now, because the acceleration is zero, then mass times acceleration is > also zero. > Then it should be clear that the total force on the box must be zero, > because force = mass x acceleration = 0 here. > Now, since the force is zero, and the work = force x distance, then > the work is zero. > > It's really pretty simple and I don't see why you think it is > complicated. > > > Tell THAT to the man doing the ten minutes of pushing! If > > a person had gotten the object sliding at constant speed on a > > frictionless surface, that person would not be doing any additional > > work while the object slid. > > Of course not, because the acceleration would be zero and the force > would therefore be zero and so the work would be zero. > > > The latter is the limiting case of that > > "dolly" I mentioned as reducing the reactive force, and thus reducing > > the work required to move the box ten feet. In effect, PD has > > confirmed that Work IS force proportional, > > Of course it is. We already knew that. Work is force x distance. > > > unless he insists that > > sliding a box across a rough floor requires no effort. In which case > > he is a fool's fool's fool. > > > PD doesn't understand that NO FORCE CAN BE APPLIED WITHOUT THERE BEING > > A LIKE REACTIVE FORCE in the opposite direction. > > Careful. The reaction force is not the same thing as resistance. This > is the mistake that many 7th graders mistake and are quickly corrected > on. > Surely you can tell me you were corrected on this mistake in the 7th > grade along with the others. > > > For example: Hit a > > fly by swinging a baseball bat and you should kill the fly; right? > > Not necessarily. The only reactive force that such a collision can > > have is just the static weight of that fly. > > Nonsense. > > Tell me that you can make a baseball fly out of the ballpark by > applying a force to it equal to its static weight. > > > And since many flies can > > sustain a force on their bodies of one 'g', then the fly will survive > > to fly again. > > > The parabolically increasing distance of fall, with respect to time, > > of dropped objects is due to an accumulation of 32.174 feet of > > COASTING distance for each second that the object drops. PD himself > > admits that there is no "work" being done if the object travels at > > constant speed. > > That's not an admission. That's me TEACHING you that. > > But an object in free fall is not traveling at constant speed or with > zero force, is it? > > Remember that work = force x distance. > > The force is not zero on an object that is falling. The force is equal > to its weight. > > But an object dropped from rest will drop 16.1 ft in the first second, > and 48.3 ft in the second second. > > Therefore the work in the second second is three times the work in the > first second, even though the force is constant. Surely you see this. > It's as obvious as multiplying 9 x 1 and 9 x 3. > > > The COASTING components that dominate the distance of > > fall curve add no KE (nor work) because each second's COASTING > > component is at CONSTANT speed! The velocity of falling objects > > increases uniformly, or LINEARLY. Since the energy being INPUT is > > just that object's static weight, which is constant; and since the > > only reactive force is just the object's INERTIA, then the KE can only > > be increasing uniformly, as I have proved and reproved time and again. > > > If PD is happy violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy, > > There is no violation of the law of conservation of energy here. The > kinetic energy of the falling object is increasing because gravity is > doing work. > And the work delivered in each second is work = force x distance. And > the distance covered in each second increases. So the work delivered > each second increases each second. > This is OBVIOUS. > > > then > > he is also happy violating the law of reason. > > Surely you see the reason of what I have explained to you. > > > None of my explanations > > regarding these things have been made for the edification of that > > hopeless mentality, PD. I've volunteered this time so that the > > "thinkers" among you readers can understand what I have done, and how > > such contributes to my disproof of both SR and GR. NoEinstein > > I'll remind you that your quibble is not with Einstein, or with SR or > with GR, but with 7th grade science books. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 27 Oct 2009 16:09 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 23, 9:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > Dear Inertial: What you've done is to paraphrase what I've said. For > once you actually are in agreement with me! So, how does that > manifest my gross misunderstanding of physics? Lets see, how long a list do you want? You do not know the difference between energy and force. You do not know classical mechanics. You do not know anything about units. You do not understand anything about relativity. You only work off of you jealousy and hatred of Einstein. How many more do you want? If you read your own posts you will see a never ending stream of stupidity. By repeating the > truths which I stated, you are probably trying to claim authorship of > same. If you know so much... physics, why don't you make a '+new > post' so that others can better understand your shallowness? � > NoEinstein � > >>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message >> >>news:28ea1740-8fec-4c5b-8e83-b1064f22c9b8(a)p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>>On Oct 22, 7:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You said: "Nonsense. Again, at constant >>>speed the net force on the object (being pushed) is zero. But for an >>>accelerating object (like one in freefall), this isn't so." Be it >>>known: PD fabricates "science" to suit his whim. He is saying that >>>sliding a heavy box across the floor at say one foot per minute for >>>ten minutes means that no work is being done, because the speed is >>>constant. >> >>It there is no friction. If there is friction, you need to do work to >>overcome it. >> >> >>>Tell THAT to the man doing the ten minutes of pushing! >> >>It there is no friction, once it is sliding, they don't need to push, as it >>will just keep going at the speed you push it (we are using ice here to say >>there is no friction). >> >>If you want to change its speed, you need to do work (eg to stop it) >> >> >>>If >>>a person had gotten the object sliding at constant speed on a >>>frictionless surface, that person would not be doing any additional >>>work while the object slid. >> >>That's right .. so you agree than >> >> >>>The latter is the limiting case of that >>>"dolly" I mentioned as reducing the reactive force, and thus reducing >>>the work required to move the box ten feet. In effect, PD has >>>confirmed that Work IS force proportional, unless he insists that >>>sliding a box across a rough floor requires no effort. In which case >>>he is a fool's fool's fool. >> >>Your gross misunderstandings of physics put you in no position to criticise. > >
From: doug on 27 Oct 2009 16:10 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 23, 10:44 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > ... Laughter is an indication of your inferiority complex psychosis, > not a measure of my errors in science. No, we are laughing at both your errors in physics and you tripping over your ego. Groupies like you are most > evident to all who read my replies. Mine have substance, while yours > only attack the messenger. � NE � Lets see, you know no physics and only bluster. At least you are no longer making threats of violence. > >>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>On Oct 22, 9:27 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>... and Dougie Boy, the Leech's place is to detract from those >>>actually making contributions to science�which he never had the >>>mentality to do, himself. Sad; very sad... � NE � >> >>So john thinks that making his nonsense posts and demonstrating >>his complete ignorance of science is making a contribution? >>It does give us something to show the students as to how >>stupid you will look if you follow john's path. We do enjoy laughing >>at you. Keep it up. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>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.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 27 Oct 2009 15:51
On Oct 27, 1:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 24, 1:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It's amazing how you paraphrase the > science truths that I stated better, then imply that I must have been > wrong. You "changed the subject" to be objects that are sliding on > frictionless surfaces, which obviously require no work to keep them > moving. You prove absolutely nothing by agreeing with the obvious. > > Try this: (1.) What is the SOURCE of the energy that causes objects to > fall? The source of the energy is the WORK done by gravity. Work is force x distance. The force is constant and is the same in second 2 than it is in second 1. The distance is increases and is more in second 2 than it is in second 1. Therefore the product force x distance is increasing and is more in second 2 than in second 1. Therefore the source of the energy is increasing and is more in second 2 than in second 1. I don't know why this is so hard for you. This is stuff that 7th graders get. > (2.) Is that SOURCE energy uniform or exponential? NEITHER. The source increases, but not exponentially. It increases as the square of time, and that is a function much different than exponential. PD > If you will > please answer both of those, then your "credibility" to comment on any > energy issue will be on-the-table. Good luck! NoEinstein So far, we know that you are having difficulty grasping things that 7th graders understand. |