Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 25 Nov 2009 20:54 On Nov 20, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You've committed a cardinal sin: Improperly paraphrasing my words, then making fun of your OWN misunderstanding. Such shows how desperate you are in the face of overwhelming evidence of your being wrong... again and again and again. You can't understand a single thing about physics beyond what you so blindly accepted in seventh grade. They should erect a statue of you standing in the corner wearing a pointed hat, with the title DUNCE. NoEinstein > > 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: NoEinstein on 25 Nov 2009 21:40 On Nov 20, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Newton was a diligent scientist. He wrote a supposed "universal" law of gravitation which didn't take into account that gravity is greater per unit of mass for bodies that are very hot. The latter MISTAKE by Newton, when corrected, will show that there is ZERO missing mass in the Universe! The mass of the universe was simply calculated improperly, as if everything therein is essentially cold. *** Newton's WRITTEN, or verbal, Second Law of Motion says that uniform forces will cause uniform accelerations that are proportional to the force, for unit masses. But the equation F = MA doesn't say that at all! In his verbal law is the stipulation that the mass BE a unit mass. But that doesn't require that mass occur in the equation at all! I repeat! requiring that the mass BE a unit mass doesn't require that mass occur in the equation! What that means is that the force, F, increases in proportion to Acceleration, or in multiples of the 'standard' of acceleration, 'g'. The correctly written equation is: F (or KE) = v / 32.174 feet per second. The latter is IDENTICAL to MOMENTUM, with the increment of increase being a standard velocity, rather than a standard weight (slug...). If F = MA (sic) were correct, then, the forces from such equation could be set equal to F = mv or the momentum equation. That would be: MA = mv (sic). Stupid Sir Isaac Newton apparently believed that VELOCITY and ACCELERATION are the same thing! And he believed such because he didn't know that variables can be proportional to some standard, without having that standard occur in the equation! So... this "NoEinstein guy" has disproved Newton; Einstein; Lorentz, Coriolis, and about six generations of the airheads purporting to teach physics in academia! May they all get their stand-in-the-corner- with-pointy-hats bronze statues in tribute to their shallowness. NoEinstein > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 25 Nov 2009 21:57 On Nov 20, 3:03 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The strength of gravity is a push toward the center of mass in space > and aether. > > Mitch Raemsch Give it up, Burt. The force (strength) of gravity varies in proportion to the ether density and flow at any particular place in the universe. Gravity does NOT act over distances much greater than the typical galactic interval. So, there isn't some "stop the expansion" gravity worth seeking, nor is there a missing mass that would be needed to slow down the Hubble expansion. There is NO expansion of the Universe taking place, and there was NO Big Bang!! Newton and Einstein screwed things up. Einstein gave shallow physicists an escape (Could that be inside of a... STRING? Ha, ha HA!) by saying that space and time don't exist near massive objects. And Newton goofed by sticking the word UNIVERSAL in front of an equation that is only apt to Earth - Moon and some observed solar system planets' motions. The mass of the Sun has been wrongly calculated, but the force of its gravity is accurate. I can say one thing, Burt: You keep putting you don't figure ideas out there. Is anyone listening? NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 25 Nov 2009 22:07 On Nov 21, 7:33 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Dear Inertial: Those who don't understand read textbooks to find answers. Those who DO understand, have no need for textbooks at all! NoEinstein > > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6e6f25be-2612-4bb8-ac26-4fef7811fd05(a)n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > I doubt he's even read a physics book at any grade level. And though he may > have been TAUGHT since 1st grade, he appears not to have LEARNT very much..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 25 Nov 2009 22:28
On Nov 25, 6:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Nov 20, 3:03 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > The strength of gravity is a push toward the center of mass in space > > and aether. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Give it up, Burt. The force (strength) of gravity varies in God is doing gravity. > proportion to the ether density and flow at any particular place in > the universe. Gravity does NOT act over distances much greater than > the typical galactic interval. So, there isn't some "stop the > expansion" gravity worth seeking, nor is there a missing mass that > would be needed to slow down the Hubble expansion. There is NO > expansion of the Universe taking place, and there was NO Big Bang!! > Newton and Einstein screwed things up. Einstein gave shallow > physicists an escape (Could that be inside of a... STRING? Ha, ha > HA!) by saying that space and time don't exist near massive objects. > And Newton goofed by sticking the word UNIVERSAL in front of an > equation that is only apt to Earth - Moon and some observed solar > system planets' motions. The mass of the Sun has been wrongly > calculated, but the force of its gravity is accurate. I can say one > thing, Burt: You keep putting you don't figure ideas out there. Is > anyone listening? NoEinstein |