Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 1 Jan 2010 13:12 On Dec 31 2009, 6:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Dec 23, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 7:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: NOW you are agreeing that gamma rays carry away the "mass" > > > of the two particles. > > > Please read what I said. There is no mass that is associable to each > > photon. > > > ... Please point out where I said otherwise! NE Sure. On December 22, you said this: "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."
From: PD on 1 Jan 2010 13:13 On Jan 1, 8:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 6 2009, 10:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 6, 2:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 1:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 3:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 27, 4:09 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You have one standard, and one standard > > > > > alone for what "true" science is, namely: Anything that has ever been > > > > > printed in a college textbook is "...the truth, the whole truth, and > > > > > nothing but the truth." > > > > > No. What is verified by experiment is the truth. However, textbooks do > > > > a pretty good job of summarizing what has been found that way to be > > > > the truth. > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > it is funny as PD is talking as he was > > > the priest of the Goddess of science: > > > > experiments are the truth always ??? (:-) > > > > PD forgot that an experiment means nothing > > > unless it is INTERPRETATED !! > > > That's incorrect, Porat. You've obviously not done a science > > experiment. > > > > here is an example > > > > experiment tells us that it more difficult in order to add valicity > > > No, that's not what experiment tells you. Various theories make > > predictions about what will be observed numerically about the final > > velocity of an object after a force has been applied. Measurement in > > experiment simply tells you which of these models got the prediction > > ------------------- > you hand waving is good as a harmful deceptive ** lie** !!! > as long you dont tell us exactly **which experiments** > and how they are done!! > and then we will be able to reexamine them !!! I've already told you where to look up the documentation about which experiments have been done and how they are done. You'd like to have that documentation summarized here. You are not entitled to that service for free. You are certainly capable of looking up that documentation yourself. > > i examined in past many experiments > and saw clearly the mistaken interpretation of parrots > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 Jan 2010 13:36 On Jan 1, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 31 2009, 6:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > If you're looking for an explanation, then let's first clear up a > misconception. > Mass is not a conserved quantity. There is no conservation of mass > law. Therefore, if mass disappears, it does not have to be carried > away by anything. > This is a good example of mass converting to energy, with the result > that there is less mass than before. > Another example is ordinary carbon. > If you add up the mass of 6 protons and 6 neutrons, you find you get a > number that is different than the mass of a carbon-12 nucleus. Where > did the extra mass go? It was converted to energy. There is now less > mass than there was originally. Um uh-oh, this is another pop misconception. Mass and energhy do not interconvert, and neither does E=mcc imply they do. However, potential energhy becomes cinetic energhy, and the mass of the sýstem stays--but mass then becomes within another set of bodies. -Aut
From: Greg Neill on 5 Jan 2010 14:50 Autymn D. C. wrote: > Um uh-oh, this is another pop misconception. Something to do with soft drinks? ? Mass and energhy do not > interconvert, and neither does E=mcc imply they do. Dunno what energhy is. > However, > potential energhy becomes cinetic energhy, So, this potential energhy has something to do with movies? > and the mass of the s�stem > stays--but mass then becomes within another set of bodies. Sounds like a porno film. Are you sure you're posting in the right newsgroup?
From: David Bostwick on 5 Jan 2010 16:31
In article <4b4397f4$0$1592$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com>, "Greg Neill" <gneillRE(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: >Autymn D. C. wrote: > >> Um uh-oh, this is another pop misconception. > >Something to do with soft drinks? > >? Mass and energhy do not >> interconvert, and neither does E=mcc imply they do. > >Dunno what energhy is. > >> However, >> potential energhy becomes cinetic energhy, > >So, this potential energhy has something to do with >movies? > >> and the mass of the s�stem >> stays--but mass then becomes within another set of bodies. > >Sounds like a porno film. Are you sure you're posting >in the right newsgroup? > > Actually, the law of gravitational attraction is just a metaphor for romantic love. The closer two bodies are to each other, the stronger the romantic attraction, and the attraction diminishes with distance. At least, that's what Bob Heinlein told me. |