Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 10:28 On Dec 22, 8:51 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > No, they don't. Gammas do not carry mass away. > > you're wrong on this point. Gammas definitely carry away mass. > Consider when an electron and a positron annihilate, a pair of 511 Kev > gammas are produced moving in opposite directions. They carry away all > the mass of the two particles. They just don't carry it in the form of > rest mass. Fair enough. The more correct statement is that there is no mass that is associable to each photon.
From: Autymn D. C. on 22 Dec 2009 16:02 On Dec 21, 11:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Dec 14, 8:09 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Dear Autymn: Your science reasoning is as skewed as your English > writing ability. Your having another imagined explanation for what I > have explained doesn't negate my explanation. That said... I wish you > a Happy Holidays! NoEinstein My spell was so and fine. Your maths are bogus.
From: NoEinstein on 22 Dec 2009 19:42 On Dec 21, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: Acceleration to many times 'c' requires only that the ether that's in the path be magnetized and ripped apart in front of the spaceships so that the ether passes around such. You are as flat-headed as those who said that the Earth is flat. Your negative personality doesn't want for there to be progress in any area especially science. It is amazing how you argue with authority, but without ever supporting your claims (like gamma rays having no mass) with supporting proofs. Radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight by the release of three particles. Between them, the mass gets spooned away from the mother mass. So, those three particles must have mass themselves. Mine is proof by reasoning. Yours is "proof" (sic) by hard-headed lies. You figure as long as you keep talking there will always be a fool or two to believe you. You were born a fool, and you will die a fool. I will cry not. NoEinstein > > On Dec 21, 1:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 14, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the HOPELESS Parasite Dunce: Reasoning ability has never > > been your long suit! Einstein himself said: "To accelerate even a > > speck of matter to velocity 'c', it will require more energy than is > > in all of the Universe." > > And so no "speck of matter" is ever accelerated to velocity c. It just > doesn't happen in nature. > Nothing with matter in it ever travels with speed c. It ALL travels > with speed under c. And then the energy required to get it to a speed > under c is quite finite. > > > Einstein's concept of his own SR theory is > > that his 'E' must be INFINITE at velocity 'c'. So, your self-serving > > notions don't apply! > > It would help if you would READ what he actually writes. > > > > > Yes, there are three different particles given off via radioactive > > decay. Each of those remove mass from the mother material. > > No, they don't. Gammas do not carry mass away. > > > So, each > > of thoseto their own degreedisprove SR by going very near to > > velocity 'c'. > > "Very near" the velocity c does not require infinite energy. The > energy to emit a beta particle is in fact quite low. > > > Plot the waterfall curve corresponding to SR theory and > > you can estimate the area under the curve. If the velocity of a > > particle is, say, 95% of 'c', then the total energy would be like 75% > > of that in the entire Universe. > > And that is patently ridiculous and you've never done the calculation. > I will show you exactly how to do the calculation to see what the > result will be. > A beta particle emitted at 95% of c has a gamma factor of 3.203, which > means it has an energy of 1.637 MeV. > By comparison, a dime falling out of your hip pocket acquires a > kinetic energy of 153,000,000,000 MeV. > So you see, this beta particle at 95% of c carries nothing like 75% of > the energy of the universe. It barely has more than 1 hundred- > billionth of the energy of a fallen dime. > > > Just TWO particles from a single atom > > would use up all of the energy in the Universe! (Sic, sic, SIC!) > > If you don't know how to do the calculations, you shouldn't make > statements like this. You only end up looking foolish. I thought > architects knew how to calculate, so that they know how to size beams > and so on. > > > > > As expected, you side-step the requirement that the Law of the > > Conservation of Energy not be violated in any ENERGY equation. The > > only equations not in violation are LINEAR, or additive equations. > > There can be NO exponential (including quadratic) energy equations! > > Why can't there be any nonlinear energy equations? As long as all the > energy increase is due to the work done by a force, there is no energy > lost or created. > > And the word for anything that isn't linear is not "exponential". A > quadratic equation is not exponential. Please educate yourself better. > > > > > When one says: Conservation of Energy, that has to include the energy > > locked inside of matter which has not yet decayed back to just pure > > energy. A loss of mass due to radioactive decay will conserve the > > energy and/or mass. The latter is an absolutely true statement which > > doesn't lock-in that the mass (alone) must be unchanging. You, sir, > > are a shell game con artist! Suckers will always point to a shell > > without the little ball, because youbeing the crook that you are > > tossed the ball into your hand along the way. PD, you aren't a... > > scientist, you are a hold-out from the DARK AGES OF EINSTEIN! > > NoEinstein > > The quadratic dependence you find repulsive was confirmed decades > before Einstein was born. > > > > > > > > On Dec 13, 8:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 11, 11:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 10, 8:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 8, 3:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the, yes, Parasite Dunce: True to form, you sidestep the > > > > basic issue of whether or not SR goes to infinity at 'c'. > > > > SR is a theory, not a quantity. A theory doesn't "go to" any number. > > > What number does Coulomb's law "go to"? > > > > > There is no > > > > requirement that there has been an infinite mass to test that theory. > > > > I said nothing about an infinite mass. Please check your reading > > > again. > > > > > VELOCITY is one manifestation of energy which has never, and will > > > > never, cause even a speck of mass to grow bigger. You yourself > > > > acknowledged that when the SR divisor goes to zero, E becomes > > > > infinite. > > > > Yes, but that divisor never gets to zero. It *approaches* zero. But it > > > stays nonzero, and so the mass stays finite. > > > > > Now, why the change of heart? Is 186,272 miles per second > > > > an infinite velocity? If not, then, the E resulting from traveling > > > > such velocity can't be infinite either. > > > > Don't be ridiculous. Take a look at the quantity 1/(2-x). This > > > quantity goes to infinity when x is quite finite and has the value 2. > > > It doesn't require x to be infinite for 1/(2-x) to be infinite. > > > > Did you fail 5th grade algebra? > > > > > Mathematical equations not > > > > relating to ENERGY can be quadratic, as you say, but NO energy > > > > equation can ever be anything but LINEAR! > > > > But it IS, right there. KE = (1/2)mv^2. That's quadratic in v. > > > Here's another one: Work = F * d = F * ((1/2)at*2). That's quadratic > > > in t. > > > > > In the past you've argued that gamma rays have no mass. > > > > That's right. > > > > > But all > > > > radioactive decay involves the release of gamma rays, does it not? > > > > Some radioactive decays do, yes. There are four basic kinds of natural > > > radioactive decay: alpha, beta, gamma, and fission. > > > > > And all radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight of the matter, does > > > > it not? Then, gamma rays must have mass, otherwise the radioactive > > > > decay would keep the mass the same! > > > > No sir. Mass is not a conserved quantity, never has been. There is no > > > law of conservation of mass. > > > > > Having even one gamma ray, with > > > > mass, travel at very, very close to 'c' would, if SR is correct, > > > > require most of the energy in the Universe to make that one spec of > > > > matter go so fast. > > > > Nope, because SR does not say that the Lorentz factor applies to gamma > > > rays at all. You did, but you've made a mistake. > > > > > But, obviously, there is enough energy in a lone > > > > atom to cause that gamma ray to go so fact. To me, THAT is a more > > > > profound disproof of SR than your injected requirement that a near > > > > infinite mass is required before SR can be disproved. Violating the > > > > Law of the Conservation of Energy is the simplest and most profound > > > > disproof of SR to be had; credit one... NoEinstein. > > > > > > Dear PD, the... should I still call him the Parasite Dunce?: For ONCE > > > > > > you are acknowledging that SR goes to infinity at 'c'. > > > > > > Well, "SR" doesn't go to infinity. There is a Lorentz factor gamma > > > > > that WOULD go to infinity at c. However, no massive particle ever gets > > > > > to c, so no massive particle ever sees a Lorentz factor gamma of > > > > > infinity, and the Lorentz factor gamma does not apply to massless > > > > > particles. > > > > > > > Thanks for > > > > > > realizing that fact! Pardon me for not copying that God d. Lorentz > > > > > > divisor every time I mention SR. Most encyclopedias only show E = > > > > > > mc^2 when talking about relativity. > > > > > > And this shows the problem with trying to understand relativity by > > > > > reading encyclopedia articles. > > > > > It may be of value to you to learn read something of more depth and > > > > > quality if you want to really understand it better. > > > > > > > My bet is that Einstein had no > > > > > > idea whatsoever that Lorentz had screwed up his simple minded notion: > > > > > > "Energy can be converted to mass; and mass can be converted to > > > > > > energy." In no way is the velocity of the velocity of light part of > > > > > > the measure of the total energy within a given mass. Einstein was > > > > > > also totally clueless as to just what kinds of energy will convert to > > > > > > mass. Unfortunately for Einstein, VELOCITY can never be converted to > > > > > > mass! > > > > > > Well, you may want to consider how two particles as light as electrons > > > > > can collide at high velocities and produce a particle that is 90,000 > > > > > times heavier than the two electrons combined. And yes, this has been > > > > > done millions of times. > > > > > > > When I say "exponential" I mean at a rate of increase greater than > > > > > > linear. > > > > > > Then this is a terminology problem, because that is definitely not > > > > > what "exponential" means to mathematicians and scientists. This is > > > > > part of the thing that I've been reminding you of -- that certain > > > > > words have very specific meanings and you've been using them in a much > > > > > looser and inaccurate way. > > > > > > > "Quadratic" applies specifically to parabolic rates of > > > > > > increase, like d = t^2. > > > > > > ANY function that goes as the square of another quantity is a > > > > > quadratic function. > > > > > So, for example, (1/2)mv^2 is quadratic in v. > > > > > > > I am well aware that Coriolis's equation, KE > > > > > > = 1/2mv^2 doesn't have the KE going to infinity at velocity 'c'. What > > > > > > I was wanting you to grasp is that both equations increase > > > > > > exponentially (non-linearly). > > > > > > Quadratic is not exponential. Neither of them is linear, but that > > > > > doesn't make (1/2)mv^2 exponential. I'm asking you to learn how to use > > > > > terms appropriately. > > > > > > > Thus, both equations violate the Law of > > > > > > the Conservation of Energy. That's because the two equations "input" > > > > > > velocity uniformly, but "output" the E or KE exponentially (non- > > > > > > linearly). > > > > > > That's what ANY quadratic > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 19:46 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:2d0d8b10-e2e8-4f2c-9b4e-a7ffbc50a478(a)y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 21, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: Acceleration to many times 'c' requires > only that the ether that's in the path be magnetized and ripped apart > in front of the spaceships so that the ether passes around such. BAHAHA .. you've been reading to many poor sci-fi novels instead of learning physics
From: NoEinstein on 22 Dec 2009 20:00
On Dec 22, 4:02 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Dec 21, 11:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 14, 8:09 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Dear Autymn: Your science reasoning is as skewed as your English > > writing ability. Your having another imagined explanation for what I > > have explained doesn't negate my explanation. That said... I wish you > > a Happy Holidays! NoEinstein > > My spell was so and fine. Your maths are bogus. Dear Autymn: Expert reasoning can bypass the need for math. SR's violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy can be concluded simply by looking at both sides of the energy equation and realizing that one side goes to infinity while the other does not, at velocity 'c'a clear VIOLATION of the law! I've just disproved Einstein's SR without a single math problem needing to be solved. REASON the universe, first; do the math, last. NoEinstein |