Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 6 Nov 2009 11:44 On Nov 3, 7:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Since you have no '+new posts', then, it is certain that the readership of those is ZERO, too. It's a safe bet that I do have a readership of my posts, though I don't have a specific number spelled out. NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 6 Nov 2009 12:24 NoEinstein wrote: > 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 You are not that important. > �
From: doug on 6 Nov 2009 12:25 NoEinstein wrote: > On Nov 3, 7:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Since you have no '+new posts', then, it > is certain that the readership of those is ZERO, too. It's a safe bet > that I do have a readership of my posts, though I don't have a > specific number spelled out. � NE � Yes and you can be sure that everyone is laughing at you. You notice that no one has ever agreed with your nonsense. > >>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 -- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 6 Nov 2009 14:04 On Nov 6, 10:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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) Momentum is not "force of impact". Force and momentum are two different things entirely. > varies in proportion to the > velocity of the impacting object, then the "units" must = pound-feet/ > second. slug-ft/s, but close enough. > A quantity can vary in proportion to something else WITHOUT > having that 'something else' showing up in the units! Not really. This is what dimensional analysis is all about. This is covered in chapter 1 of chemistry and physics high school textbooks, and is also covered pretty extensively in 7th grade science books. > 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 above is so FUNNY, John. You're such a hoot. "Sure, the units are there, but we'll just hide them so the customer doesn't know he's being cheated. Hiding them is ok because scientifically they're not needed. Wink, wink." > 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. Yes, indeed. That's why the momentum is proportional to the velocity and has it in its units. Because 200 never equals 300. > Effectively, > momentum is just an increase in hitting power (pounds) caused by > velocity. No. Power, force, momentum are all DIFFERENT things, John, except in the sports pages. > > 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. And if you'll check the units, you'll find that's correct. Notice that mass and force do not share the same units. I know you're not used to this, but check carefully your engineering reference for the units of mass. > But that > equation VIOLATES the Law of the Conservation of Energy! Certainly not! > Why? > Because the KE equation is, and always has been WRONG! The links > below explain why. NoEinstein But those links are wrong.
From: PD on 6 Nov 2009 14:08
On Nov 6, 10:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. No, there is no work done on it because you're not applying any push to it, if it is going at constant speed. It has nothing to do with resistance. It has to do with the force applied. Please read the definition of work. > The only resistance offered by a falling object is that > object's INERTIA, which remains constant throughout the fall. The force applied is gravity. And that is constant in free-fall, correct. I said that already. Please read what I wrote. > Most of > the... distance of all is COASTING due to the velocity carry-over from > precious seconds. That doesn't matter. The work is the force applied times the distance traversed. NOWHERE in the definition of work does it say to subtract out the distance it would have gone if coasting. Please pay attention to the definition of work in your 7th grade science book. > 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. Yes, it is. > KE and Momentum are IDENTICAL animals. Not at all. Kinetic energy, momentum, force, mass, are all DIFFERENT animals. That's why they have different names, John. Otherwise one name would do. > 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 - |