Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 20 Nov 2009 13:59 On Nov 12, 12:05 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Nov 6, 2:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Without a RESISTANCE, one can not apply > > a force! Having an equal and opposite force is one of the primary > > laws governing structural engineeringmy college major! > > > You said: "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." > > > Apparently your mind stopped functioning in the seventh grade, PD! > > Because dunces like you, Coriolis, Einstein, and the majority of those > > teaching physics in academia don't realize that falling objects are > > adding new velocity distances to the accrued COASTING distances up to > > the point in question, doesn't negate the presence of those COASTING > > distances. Shut off the force of gravity and the object will continue > > to COAST at the last velocity, until it hits the ground. And nothing > > about your defies-the-Law-of-the-Conservation-of-Energy "Work" > > definition of KE can make COASTING not be the primary determinate of > > the distance of fall. > > > You said: "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." One name WILL do! And that name is > > pounds! > > > My $40.00 KE experiment invalidates Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2, > > No, it shows you are a complete fool. Your mistakes have been > repeatedly pointed out but you try to run and hide and pretend > that you do not look stupid. > > as does > > > the Law of the Conservation of Momentum. Give it up, fellow. I've > > shot Coriolis and Einstein all to hell! > > No, you have looked stupid and laughable. Or maybe we should just > pity you for your complete ignorance. > > [The latter is worth > > > > > repeating!] NoEinstein > > >>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 -- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Say 'that' while looking in the mirror, fool! NE
From: NoEinstein on 20 Nov 2009 14:06 On Nov 12, 9:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The fact that you inject so much of your errant thinking into my concisely explained scientific positions proves that I have touched on your... 'soft spot'. That's the half of your skull which never 'closed' following your birth. Give it up, fellow. Science isn't what you read in the seventh grade. Science is an evolving truth always vulnerable to a better and simpler explanation. NoEinstein > > On Nov 11, 8:10 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > No, it's not. Where the heck did you get that idea? Did you NEVER > learn what momentum is? > > > Colloquial usage has that > > "something" being a varying force of impactdependant upon the value > > of the velocity. > > No sir! Momentum is NOT a force of impact. Let's get that straight > right now! Sports reporters writing about football players may use the > words force, momentum, inertia, and kinetic energy interchangeably, > but in physics they are not at all interchangeable. Perhaps it would > be good to go back to your 7th grade science book and find out what > momentum means. > > > If a football player runs faster, he will impact the > > opposing team player harder. Impacts are measured in pounds > > Momentum is NOT force of impact. > > > 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" > > No sir! That is a crappy definition! Where are you reading this from? > Forces can *prevent* something from moving, and forces can make an > object that is moving LOSE its motion. > Please, John, at least start with proper definitions of words before > you start mouthing off nonsense. > > >, 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." > > No sir! Momentum is not ANY kind of force. Where are you reading this > from? > > > The UNITS of > > force and momentum are identical, > > No sir! They are completely different! > > > but the definition of those terms is > > different and exactly as I just explained. > > No sir! You did not define them correctly. > > > > > "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! > > Don't be ridiculous, John. Look in your 7th grade science book, or the > same one where you saw that work is force times distance. Look there > for what the expression for momentum is. You will see something there > that says that momentum is mass times 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? > > Yes! > > > HELL NO! The latter change in momentum is like a 5% > > increase, not a 100% increase. > > No! John, you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about! > Please look this stuff up rather than just making it up as you go > along! > > > 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. > > Tell that to a nurse who has to decide whether to give you 15 > microliters or 15 milliliters of sedative in your drip line. > > > > > 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 Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... > > Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://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 Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... > > Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... > > Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f... > > Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe... > > Curing Einsteins Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e... > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847... > > Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... > > Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is > > Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8... > > Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe... > > The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99... > > KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85... > > Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a... > > A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702... > > SR Ignored the Significance of the = Signhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/56247... > > Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf3... > > NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!http://groups..google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12... > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 20 Nov 2009 14:15 On Nov 12, 9:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Dunce: You said: "Don't be silly! When an object is dropped from a height without resistance, there certainly is a force applied to the object -- gravity!" The resistance against which gravity acts is the dropped object's INERTIA. Because the INERTIA and the object's mass are identical (measured in pounds) then the KE can only be increasing LINERALY. Distances of fall increase parabolically, because the COASTING distance at the end of each second keep right on being added in every subsequent second of fall, until the object hits the Earth. Your one neuron brain both can't and won't acknowledge that anything ever printed in your seventh grade physics book was wrong. You're living in the past, fellow. Give it up! NoEinstein > > On Nov 11, 8:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 2:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Without a RESISTANCE, one can not apply > > a force! > > Don't be silly! When an object is dropped from a height without > resistance, there certainly is a force applied to the object -- > gravity! > > When a hockey player hits a hockey puck on ice to accelerate it, there > is no resistance, and yet he has to apply a force to accelerate it! > > This is Newton's 2nd law! You may have heard of it: In order to > accelerate an object with mass, you have to apply a force, with the > amount of force being the mass times the acceleration. Surely you're > not saying that Newton was wrong too! > > > Having an equal and opposite force is one of the primary > > laws governing structural engineeringmy college major! > > > You said: "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." > > > Apparently your mind stopped functioning in the seventh grade, PD! > > Because dunces like you, Coriolis, Einstein, and the majority of those > > teaching physics in academia don't realize that falling objects are > > adding new velocity distances to the accrued COASTING distances up to > > the point in question, doesn't negate the presence of those COASTING > > distances. > > The definition of work is what I said it was, and you looked it up and > AGREED with me. > Nowhere in that definition is coasting subtracted. Nowhere. > > > Shut off the force of gravity and the object will continue > > to COAST at the last velocity, until it hits the ground. And nothing > > about your defies-the-Law-of-the-Conservation-of-Energy "Work" > > definition of KE can make COASTING not be the primary determinate of > > the distance of fall. > > > You said: "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." One name WILL do! And that name is > > pounds! > > But that's wrong, John. They are completely different 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! [The latter is worth > > repeating!] NoEinstein > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 20 Nov 2009 14:22 On Nov 20, 1:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Nov 12, 9:32 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The fact that you inject so much of your > errant thinking into my concisely explained scientific positions > proves that I have touched on your... 'soft spot'. That's the half of > your skull which never 'closed' following your birth. Give it up, > fellow. Science isn't what you read in the seventh grade. Science is > an evolving truth always vulnerable to a better and simpler > explanation. NoEinstein > Aha. Such is the Fine Art of Self-Rationalization. "He says it's a mistake on my part. But no, it must in fact be correct, and he is only complaining because I have hit on a tender spot! How I know I am right is precisely when they tell me I am wrong! If I were wrong, they would say nothing at all!" You just keep telling yourself that, NoEinstein. Now that you've convinced yourself that what's written in 7th grade science books is wrong, then perhaps it's time to question the math you were taught in the 5th grade. In fact, probably everything you've EVER been taught from 1st grade on is probably wrong, all wrong, and is in dire need of replacement by new truths that you invent. PD
From: PD on 20 Nov 2009 14:50
On Nov 20, 1:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Nov 12, 9:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Dunce: You said: "Don't be silly! When an object is dropped from > a height without > resistance, there certainly is a force applied to the object -- > gravity!" > > The resistance against which gravity acts is the dropped object's > INERTIA. Because the INERTIA and the object's mass are identical > (measured in pounds) then the KE can only be increasing LINERALY. > Distances of fall increase parabolically, because the COASTING > distance at the end of each second keep right on being added in every > subsequent second of fall, until the object hits the Earth. Your one > neuron brain both can't and won't acknowledge that anything ever > printed in your seventh grade physics book was wrong. You're living > in the past, fellow. Give it up! NoEinstein > Don't be silly, NoEinstein. Look at Newton's 2nd law which reads: F=ma. (Net force equals mass times acceleration.) The forces go on the left side, the mass or inertia goes on the right side. Inertia is not a force. If it were, it would be on the left side. Secondly, if gravity were opposed to inertia, then there would be no net force on the dropped object at all, since the two would be equal and would cancel out, and then the object wouldn't accelerate at all. It would just hang there in the air after being dropped! I do love the fact that you now say that it's not Einstein that was wrong. It's that everything printed in every 7th grade science book is wrong! Tell me, NoEinstein, what grade level book do you think the science is right in? Fifth grade books? Second grade books? Is everything you were ever taught in school since the first grade wrong? PD |