Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Autymn D. C. on 23 Dec 2009 09:59 On Dec 22, 5:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Dear Autymn: Expert reasoning can bypass the need for math. SR's Reckening does not bypass tealcraft. > 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 Energhy conservs energhy. Velocity is not energhy. Everything is bound by energhy; it has a speed; therefore, everything waxs within a speed. The same applies for bodies in a sonic medium as they near its celerity, if drag didn't inflect with speed. -Aut
From: glird on 30 Dec 2009 11:36 On Dec 22, 9:51 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >< 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. > Hello, intelligent newcomer. Welcome to these newsgroups. Please define the words "mass", "electron", "particle", and "gamma", in your prior paragraph. Your message reminded me of something I pasted at the top of an unrelated file, for a reason I forgot. Here it is: " The speed of 11 GeV electrons is within 3 parts in 10^6 of the speed of visible light." How can an electron be a particle if it travels at a speed such that its "mass" would be so immense that if it hit the ground it would destroy the entire planet Earth? glird
From: NoEinstein on 31 Dec 2009 19:02 On Dec 22, 8:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Dear Inertial: Instead of making blanket claims that I am wrong, select any one point of my science and prove that such is wrong. The Law of the Conservation of Energy states: "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed." In other words: the sum total of the energy-mass is conserved. Energy predictions, like E = mc^2 / (1 - v^2 / c^2)^1/2, have the energy becoming infinite at velocity 'c', while the velocity increases UNIFORMLY. Uniform accelerations have one and only one continuous force associated therewith (as per Newton's Second Law of Motion). So, the only energy being input in traveling to velocity 'c' is a continuous uniform force. The above LCE will limit the total energy to that which accrues due to the action of a continuous force for some amount of time. Realizing that E would be increasing exponentially, doesn't require addition, subtraction, multiplication, nor division. Those are the MATH that's not needed in my simple disproofs of all of Einstein's MORONIC notions. NoEinstein > > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:50db7aa9-8f23-4fae-8c98-d303155bb268(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > 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 > > It doesn't > > > 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! > > That was math .. and incorrect math at that. > > > I've just disproved Einstein's SR > > without a single math problem needing to be solved. > > No .. you just got it wrong > > > REASON the > > universe, first; do the math, last. NoEinstein > > That's probably why you are so inept when in comes to physics.
From: NoEinstein on 31 Dec 2009 19:10 On Dec 22, 8:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Dear Inertial Fool: I said that the energy-mass is conserved; I never claimed that mass will never change. Burn a lump of coal and part of the mass converts to energy. But travel at any velocity that you choose and there will be ZERO conversion of mass to energy (outside of the propulsion system, of course) and ZERO conversion of velocity to mass!!!!! NoEinstein > > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:dc4203f3-600c-4bbf-8209-c2ffea14f858(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > On Dec 22, 10:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > > Dear PD: NOW you are agreeing that gamma rays carry away the "mass" > > of the two particles. > > Nope .. the mass is turned into energy and the gamma rays have that energy. > The total mass is not conserved. > > > As is typical for you, you are on both sides of > > the mass issue. Photons and all matter > > Photons are not matter > > > are composed of ether units I > > call IOTAs. > > BAHAHAHA > > > > > Whether a mass is at rest or not has little or no effect > > on its massonly on the KE of that mass should such impact another > > mass. Velocity does NOT increase the mass of any object! > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 31 Dec 2009 19:18
On Dec 23, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: You said: "The evidence against nonzero mass for gamma rays is in the experimental literature." But you haven't explained how radioactive decay can LOWER the atomic weight... unless either or all of the gamma, beta, and alpha particles have mass. Good reasoning will trump you references to errant science every time! NoEinstein > > On Dec 22, 6:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: Acceleration to many times 'c' > > Nothing gets accelerated 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. > > The evidence against nonzero mass for gamma rays is in the > experimental literature. It's been *measured*.http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/listings/rpp2009-list-photon.pdffor a list of > references, where you can read all about those measurements. > > > Radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight by > > the release of three particles. > > Three particles? Not in gamma decay. Perhaps you are confused. > > > Between them, the mass gets spooned > > away from the mother mass. > > Not so. The mass of the products does not add up to the mass of the > parent. Mass is not conserved. This is a *measured* fact. > > > So, those three particles must have mass > > themselves. Mine is proof by reasoning. > > But your reasoning is counter to experimental *measurement*. > Measurement is what's used in science to determine what the real facts > are. When reasoning comes in conflict with measured facts, then it's > the reasoning that is put in doubt, every single time. > > > Yours is "proof" (sic) by > > hard-headed lies. > > Sorry, but not the case. Reality is determined by measurement. > Measurements are not 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 - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |