Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 20:39 On Dec 31 2009, 8:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:14089d0c-877c-411a-836c-7a562ce33bb8(a)u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > > > 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. > > I didn't say otherwise > > > Burn a lump of coal and part of > > the mass converts to energy. > > Very very little, if any, mass does. Its a chemical reaction. The mass of > solid residue from the burnt coal has less mass, but that is not the total > mass of the system. > > > 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!!!!! > > Noone says velocity converts to mass. Dear Inertial: Then, you are in agreement with more... stupid people. The Law of the Conservation of Energy requires that Energy IN must = Energy OUT. The latter disproves SR. Energy (force) is required to increase velocity. But simply pushing on a lump of matter won't increase its mass. If it did, then squeezing a rubber ball would make it get heavier and heavier. Agreeing with the counter- intuitive isn't brilliance, Inertial, it is proof of stupidity! NE
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 20:51 On Dec 31 2009, 8:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > Dear Inertial: "Mass, by my correct definition, is any concentration of energy which can be moved by the flow of the ether, and which gives off photons or charged particles." Gamma rays, intermittently, give off photons. The latter accounts for part of the observed microwave background radiation. But the photons are shed so sparsely, that gamma rays don't wind up attracting other gamma rays, gravitationally. NE > > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:c56e5240-f678-40d8-bb40-c4fcb671e7da(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > > 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... > > Mass converts to energy > > > 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 > > And so we trump your errant science with good reasoning .. though mostly we > just laugh at it.
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 20:55 On Jan 1, 9:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Y.Porat": PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never paraphrased any aspect of science in his own words. The probable reason: He doesn't have the needed neurons. At any rate, you've got PD correctly pegged. NoEinstein > > 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 examined in past many experiments > and saw clearly the mistaken interpretation of parrots > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 21:14 On Jan 1, 1:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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." Where does my statement mention anything about... photons? Loose your smoke and mirrors, PD. You don't have the brains to be even a magician. NE
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 21:19
On Jan 1, 1:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: If PD has ever paraphrased any experiment or any other of his supposed proofs regarding science, I would like to hear about it. He avoids discussing real science like a plague. That's probably because PD has a terminal case of Einstein's disease. NoEinstein > > 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 > > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |