Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 2 Nov 2009 21:39 On Nov 2, 9:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 30, 6:39 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > > > NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is indeed force times distance in > > > the desired direction. In your example of a box sliding on ice, no > > > work needs to be done if the friction is zero. On that we agree! The > > > force of gravity (or 'energy' of gravity, also in pounds) can never > > > exceed the INERTIA or static weight of the falling object. The > > > distance of fall wrongly implies that the force of gravity gets bigger > > > and bigger. Actually, the "new" distance of fall each second, 32.174 > > > feet, accrues LINEARLY. But the time vs. distance curve shows is a > > > parabola, because each new second of fall keeps repeating in every > > > subsequent second as a COASTING distance. > > > > Even by your usually erroneous definitions of units, Energy and Work > > > are NOT the same thing! > > > Except, of course, you are wrong. You do not understand units > > but that is your problem. > > > So why is it you invent your own new > > > > definition of energy to be "work" done? > > > Because that definition has been used for centuries. > > > It's because you have some > > > > screws loose and there is no Dr. Frankenstein to give you... life. By > > > recognizing that all objects in free fall are also coasting, you just > > > might could see the light. But the latter doesn't fit your contrary > > > personality. > > > It also does not fit the facts. This has been known for centuries. > > > NoEinstein (Also, see one comment in the broader > > > > text, below.) > > > >>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. > > > > Exponential can have any value from zero to infinity. Square is an > > > exponent as is cube. To say that a thing is exponential is simply > > > saying that the values aren't linear. Live and learn! NE > > > >>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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > ... and Dougie Boy is this relic from the past doing his damnedest to > hold back science progress in the 22nd century. NE - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - make that 21st century!
From: doug on 3 Nov 2009 09:52 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 30, 6:39 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is indeed force times distance in >>>the desired direction. In your example of a box sliding on ice, no >>>work needs to be done if the friction is zero. On that we agree! The >>>force of gravity (or 'energy' of gravity, also in pounds) can never >>>exceed the INERTIA or static weight of the falling object. The >>>distance of fall wrongly implies that the force of gravity gets bigger >>>and bigger. Actually, the "new" distance of fall each second, 32.174 >>>feet, accrues LINEARLY. But the time vs. distance curve shows is a >>>parabola, because each new second of fall keeps repeating in every >>>subsequent second as a COASTING distance. >> >>>Even by your usually erroneous definitions of units, Energy and Work >>>are NOT the same thing! >> >>Except, of course, you are wrong. You do not understand units >>but that is your problem. >> >> So why is it you invent your own new >> >> >>>definition of energy to be "work" done? >> >>Because that definition has been used for centuries. >> >> It's because you have some >> >> >>>screws loose and there is no Dr. Frankenstein to give you... life. By >>>recognizing that all objects in free fall are also coasting, you just >>>might could see the light. But the latter doesn't fit your contrary >>>personality. >> >>It also does not fit the facts. This has been known for centuries. >> >> � NoEinstein � (Also, see one comment in the broader >> >> >> >> >>>text, below.) >> >>>>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. >> >>>Exponential can have any value from zero to infinity. Square is an >>>exponent as is cube. To say that a thing is exponential is simply >>>saying that the values aren't linear. Live and learn! � NE � >> >>>>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.- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > > ... and Dougie Boy is this relic from the past doing his damnedest to > hold back science progress in the 22nd century. � NE � So, not only does john not know any physics, he does not even know what century it is. >
From: NoEinstein on 3 Nov 2009 18:42 On Nov 3, 9:52 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Oct 30, 6:39 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > And Dougie Boy, the leech, doesn't know how to read: "Make that the 21st Century!" in the very next sentence. NE > > >>NoEinstein wrote: > > >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is indeed force times distance in > >>>the desired direction. In your example of a box sliding on ice, no > >>>work needs to be done if the friction is zero. On that we agree! The > >>>force of gravity (or 'energy' of gravity, also in pounds) can never > >>>exceed the INERTIA or static weight of the falling object. The > >>>distance of fall wrongly implies that the force of gravity gets bigger > >>>and bigger. Actually, the "new" distance of fall each second, 32.174 > >>>feet, accrues LINEARLY. But the time vs. distance curve shows is a > >>>parabola, because each new second of fall keeps repeating in every > >>>subsequent second as a COASTING distance. > > >>>Even by your usually erroneous definitions of units, Energy and Work > >>>are NOT the same thing! > > >>Except, of course, you are wrong. You do not understand units > >>but that is your problem. > > >> So why is it you invent your own new > > >>>definition of energy to be "work" done? > > >>Because that definition has been used for centuries. > > >> It's because you have some > > >>>screws loose and there is no Dr. Frankenstein to give you... life. By > >>>recognizing that all objects in free fall are also coasting, you just > >>>might could see the light. But the latter doesn't fit your contrary > >>>personality. > > >>It also does not fit the facts. This has been known for centuries. > > >> NoEinstein (Also, see one comment in the broader > > >>>text, below.) > > >>>>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. > > >>>Exponential can have any value from zero to infinity. Square is an > >>>exponent as is cube. To say that a thing is exponential is simply > >>>saying that the values aren't linear. Live and learn! NE > > >>>>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.- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text - > > > ... and Dougie Boy is this relic from the past doing his damnedest to > > hold back science progress in the 22nd century. NE > > So, not only does john not know any physics, he does not even know what > century it is. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 3 Nov 2009 18:47 NoEinstein wrote: > On Nov 3, 9:52 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > >>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>On Oct 30, 6:39 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> > And Dougie Boy, the leech, doesn't know how to read: "Make that the > 21st Century!" in the very next sentence. � NE � And john has trouble with comprehension. Where is that next sentence? By the way, has anyone agreed with you yet? How is the publishing coming? > >>>>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is indeed force times distance in >>>>>the desired direction. In your example of a box sliding on ice, no >>>>>work needs to be done if the friction is zero. On that we agree! The >>>>>force of gravity (or 'energy' of gravity, also in pounds) can never >>>>>exceed the INERTIA or static weight of the falling object. The >>>>>distance of fall wrongly implies that the force of gravity gets bigger >>>>>and bigger. Actually, the "new" distance of fall each second, 32.174 >>>>>feet, accrues LINEARLY. But the time vs. distance curve shows is a >>>>>parabola, because each new second of fall keeps repeating in every >>>>>subsequent second as a COASTING distance. >> >>>>>Even by your usually erroneous definitions of units, Energy and Work >>>>>are NOT the same thing! >> >>>>Except, of course, you are wrong. You do not understand units >>>>but that is your problem. >> >>>> So why is it you invent your own new >> >>>>>definition of energy to be "work" done? >> >>>>Because that definition has been used for centuries. >> >>>> It's because you have some >> >>>>>screws loose and there is no Dr. Frankenstein to give you... life. By >>>>>recognizing that all objects in free fall are also coasting, you just >>>>>might could see the light. But the latter doesn't fit your contrary >>>>>personality. >> >>>>It also does not fit the facts. This has been known for centuries. >> >>>> � NoEinstein � (Also, see one comment in the broader >> >>>>>text, below.) >> >>>>>>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. >> >>>>>Exponential can have any value from zero to infinity. Square is an >>>>>exponent as is cube. To say that a thing is exponential is simply >>>>>saying that the values aren't linear. Live and learn! � NE � >> >>>>>>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.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>... and Dougie Boy is this relic from the past doing his damnedest to >>>hold back science progress in the 22nd century. � NE � >> >>So, not only does john not know any physics, he does not even know what >>century it is. >> >> >> >>- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 3 Nov 2009 18:51
On Oct 30, 3:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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." No. What is verified by experiment is the truth. However, textbooks do a pretty good job of summarizing what has been found that way to be 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. Nonsense. No such statement is made. > 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. Nope. The units of all those quantities are different. Please see the NIST. > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |