Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 6 Nov 2009 14:10 On Nov 6, 10:44 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Nov 3, 7:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Since you have no '+new posts', But I do. I've already told you that. You just don't know how to find them. Because you're a goof. > then, it > is certain that the readership of those is ZERO, too. Why? Do readers only read new posts? If that were true, then you shouldn't bother replying to anyone else, because no one would be reading your replies, as they are not new posts. I'm sure you see the point. > 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 Nor will you. Because there is no way to tell, is there, John? > > > > > 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: NoEinstein on 11 Nov 2009 20:16 On Nov 6, 12:24 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > 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. > > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... as spoken by a blood-sucking leech. NE
From: NoEinstein on 11 Nov 2009 20:22 On Nov 6, 12:25 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: Those who agree with me are wise enough not to want to expose themselves to your mud-slinging. You've never argued a single issue of science. But you are an authority on what all of those unseen people are... laughing at. Most likely it's you! NE > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 11 Nov 2009 20:29 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:0bfad771-1fcf-47a6-8d55-b841addb1030(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 6, 12:25 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: Those who agree with me are wise enough > not to want to expose themselves to your mud-slinging. You've never > argued a single issue of science. But you are an authority on what > all of those unseen people are... laughing at. Most likely it's you! Its only crackpots who agree with other crackpots like you. You don't fool anyone with your nonsensical unscientific spamming
From: NoEinstein on 11 Nov 2009 21:10
On Nov 6, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: "Momentum" is "something" that happens to mass as the result of velocity. Colloquial usage has that "something" being a varying force of impactdependant upon the value of the velocity. If a football player runs faster, he will impact the opposing team player harder. Impacts are measured in pounds onlyNOT in pound-feet/second. The impact is PROPORTIONAL to the velocity (when such is expressed in 'g' units). So, the velocity need not occur in the units. "Force is simply an impetus to move", or that which can cause a mass to move. "Momentum is a specific force which can be attributed to having some mass be in motion with a specific velocity." The UNITS of force and momentum are identical, but the definition of those terms is different and exactly as I just explained. "Slugs" aren't necessary weight conversions, if one understands that the force of impact increases one weight unit for each 32.174 feet per second of velocity increase. My kinetic energy formula is KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The v / 32.174 (m) is the momentum equation expressed as a velocity multiple rather than a weight (slug) multiple. All falling objects have a KE = their static weight, even while just being held prior to being dropped. Roll a 1,000 pound steel ball off of a scale and onto a man's chest, and he will get to feel that... kinetic energy. A vertical drop isn't necessary! You say: "Yes, indeed. That's why the momentum is proportional to the velocity and has it in its units. Because 200 never equals 300." NO, PD! Momentum is NOT proportional to velocity! It is proportional to the change in velocity in 'g' units, only. To wit: Does changing the velocity from one foot per second to two feet per second DOUBLE the momentum? HELL NO! The latter change in momentum is like a 5% increase, not a 100% increase. But increase the velocity from 32.174 feet per second to 64.348 feet per second and you will have a 100% momentum increase! Unneeded "units" may make a mathematician happy. But those only show that the guy didn't understand what the hell he was trying to define. A typical horse produces a steady pull force. And that force need not be expressed for how long the horse was pulling. The latter is book- keeping data. Electricity is measured in KWH. But the only important number needed is the FORCE from that dynamo reaching your home or business. The length of usage of the force is a metering/book-keeping problem. Like I keep telling you, PD, Force; weight; mass; momentum; KE; and power have only POUNDS as the units. NoEinstein 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... Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... 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 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# 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 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. |