Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 27 Oct 2009 15:52 On Oct 27, 1:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 24, 1:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > ... The other readers of my replies are in a better position to say if > my 'tools' are chipping away at your rock. So far, there is enough > rock left to keep making its hard-headed presence known. NE And why don't you ask your readers if your tools are chipping away at anything? I mean REAL readers, not the ones in your imagination. > > > > > On Oct 23, 8:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Oct 23, 3:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ... And PD is a ROCK needing to be chipped away! NE > > > How's that workin' for ya?? >
From: PD on 27 Oct 2009 15:53 On Oct 27, 3:12 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Oct 24, 1:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ... The other readers of my replies are in a better position to say if > > my 'tools' are chipping away at your rock. > > So far you have made a lot of noise but zero progress. Of course > you will never make any progress. But thanks for the laughs. > Why, look, John! There's a reader of your replies now, actually saying something. Have you got one that is actually saying something otherwise?
From: NoEinstein on 30 Oct 2009 17:47 On Oct 27, 4:09 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You have one standard, and one standard alone for what "true" science is, namely: Anything that has ever been printed in a college textbook is "...the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Effectively, your non-existent brain has locked in the garbage you had accepted so readily, because you weren't smart enough to catch all of the errors. One of the biggest errors is that the 'units' must be different for every single equation. FACT: "Pounds" satisfies the only important 'answer' to: Force; momentum; KE; PE ( but is manifested only by having a distance of fall, and which accrues only as the object falls); and power. The latter, power, is simply a FORCE that can be utilized for some variable period of time, it is unnecessary to have time of usage be indicated in the 'units'. An engineer only needs to know the torque (or unit rotational force) on a shaft to compute how much FORCE (power) is available at a given electric meter. The meter does the "time of usage" calculations, so the 'units' can simply be FORCE in POUNDS! Know this, fellow, the simple and consistent definitions are the best. It doesn't take a brain to learn that most of the 'units' in mechanics are pounds of force. But you just can't get it, can you. NoEinstein > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 30 Oct 2009 17:49 On Oct 27, 4:10 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > .... If the latter would make you go away, I'd consider doing those. NE > > 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 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 30 Oct 2009 19:06
NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 27, 4:09 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You have one standard, and one standard > alone for what "true" science is, namely: Anything that has ever been > printed in a college textbook is "...the truth, the whole truth, and > nothing but the truth." Well, no, wrong again. What I accept is what has been experimentally verified. Your formulas are wrong and do not agree with millions of well done experiments. Therefore they are wrong. Effectively, your non-existent brain has > locked in the garbage you had accepted so readily, because you weren't > smart enough to catch all of the errors. I have caught your error. Are you planning on making some more? One of the biggest errors is > that the 'units' must be different for every single equation. FACT: > "Pounds" satisfies the only important 'answer' to: Force; momentum; > KE; PE ( but is manifested only by having a distance of fall, and > which accrues only as the object falls); and power. This is so wrong that it is hard to believe that even someone like you could believe this. The latter, > power, is simply a FORCE that can be utilized for some variable period > of time, it is unnecessary to have time of usage be indicated in the > 'units'. Yes, your ignorance is astounding. An engineer only needs to know the torque (or unit > rotational force) on a shaft to compute how much FORCE (power) is > available at a given electric meter. The meter does the "time of > usage" calculations, so the 'units' can simply be FORCE in POUNDS! > > Know this, fellow, the simple and consistent definitions are the > best. It doesn't take a brain to learn that most of the 'units' in > mechanics are pounds of force. But you just can't get it, can you. � The fact that you are wrong has a lot to do with why no one is accepting your nonsense. > NoEinstein � > >>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.- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > |