Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 3 Nov 2009 19:14 On Oct 30, 4:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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! Good. > 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. No it doesn't. Read what I said. The force of gravity remains *constant* each second. But the distance traveled each second increases. It's the distance that increases, not the force of gravity. The work done is the product of force times distance. And that increases each second. I don't know why this is so hard for you. Did you eat concrete at some point? > 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! So why is it you invent your own new > definition of energy to be "work" done? It's called the Work-Energy Theorem. 7th graders learn it. The contribution to the energy by a force is *defined* to be work. Of COURSE work and energy have the same units. > 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. 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 3 Nov 2009 19:24 On Oct 30, 4:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 27, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > How many people do you have reading your '+new posts', PD. NE > There's no way to measure usenet readership, NoEinstein. You don't know that about newsgroups? > > > > > > 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??- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 Nov 2009 10:50 On Nov 3, 6:47 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's in the very next reply. Don't you read all of the replies? NE
From: NoEinstein on 6 Nov 2009 11:30 On Nov 3, 6:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: According to the current 'science' stupidity, if force of impact (momentum) varies in proportion to the velocity of the impacting object, then the "units" must = pound-feet/ second. A quantity can vary in proportion to something else WITHOUT having that 'something else' showing up in the units! Suppose that the cost of an item on sale goes up in direct proportion to wealth of the buyer. Then, the stated sales price would be dollars-dollars/year or dollars ^2 per year. NO! The cost is expressed just in dollars without anyone needing to know that the price will get inflated if the buyer is rich! The problem with 'just' equations is that people loose track of what it is that is being measured. If a football player weighing 200 pounds blocks a lineman weighing three hundred pounds, there is a velocity at which the 200 pounder can equal or exceed the momentum of the more-or-less stationary lineman. Effectively, momentum is just an increase in hitting power (pounds) caused by velocity. My Wiley Engineering Desk Reference indicates that Work (W) = Fs foot-pounds. Then, it indicates that Kinetic Energy (W) = ½ mv^2. Setting the two Ws equal yields: Fs foot-pounds = ½ mv^2. But that equation VIOLATES the Law of the Conservation of Energy! Why? Because the KE equation is, and always has been WRONG! The links below explain why. NoEinstein Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... An Einstein Disproof for Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 Nov 2009 11:40
On Nov 3, 7:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD...: Like I keep telling you, and you AGREE for a box sliding on ice, NO work is done unless there is a force acting against a RESISTANCE. The only resistance offered by a falling object is that object's INERTIA, which remains constant throughout the fall. Most of the... distance of all is COASTING due to the velocity carry-over from precious seconds. The rate of change of the velocity in all near- Earth falling objects is uniform or LINEAR. Since MOMENTUM varies in proportion to the change of velocity, then, momentum must be increasing LINEARLY, too. KE and Momentum are IDENTICAL animals. My $40.00 KE experiment invalidates Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2, as does the Law of the Conservation of Momentum. Give it up, fellow. I've shot Coriolis and Einstein all to hell! NoEinstein > > On Oct 30, 4:20 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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! > > Good. > > > 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. > > No it doesn't. Read what I said. The force of gravity remains > *constant* each second. But the distance traveled each second > increases. It's the distance that increases, not the force of gravity. > The work done is the product of force times distance. And that > increases each second. > > I don't know why this is so hard for you. Did you eat concrete at some > point? > > > 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! So why is it you invent your own new > > definition of energy to be "work" done? > > It's called the Work-Energy Theorem. 7th graders learn it. The > contribution to the energy by a force is *defined* to be work. Of > COURSE work and energy have the same units. > > > > > 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. 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |