Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 21:30 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:d4c49cc4-15a4-4c4d-a355-6a394d0b3b52(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 31 2009, 7:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > Dear Inertial: You are so much hot air and little or no science. No .. that's you > You've never made a '+new post', have you? Why should I? > Then, instead of making... > blanket claims that I and/or others are wrong, You are. And I just showed once again that your posts are. You don't have the integrity or honesty to admit when you're wrong .. or maybe you don't have the time, as doing so would keep you very busy indeed. > you should simply cover > your head with that blanket in shame. � NE � Why .. I'm not the spamming idiot who posts bullshit over multiple newsgroups .. that's you.
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 21:30 On Jan 5, 1:36 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Autymn: Einstein was correct when he said that mass can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. But he didn't realize that velocity isn't energy of the type that can convert to mass. PE, in the case of a pendulum, converts to KE. If that moving mass hits another 'ball', or etc., the energy will impart both a velocity and frictional heating to the hit object. The latter energy conversions are mechanical and thermal in nature rather than atomic, as Einstein's were implied to be. NoEinstein
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 21:31 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:4b18484f-d13b-49e0-afae-c6aa708f1326(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > 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. Yes > The latter disproves SR. Nope > Energy (force) is > required to increase velocity. Energy is not force > But simply pushing on a lump of matter > won't increase its mass. Who said it does? Mass is invariant. > 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 Only yours
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 21:32 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:d14f1ea7-556e-4fce-964d-097d51393c27(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > 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." Your definition is nonsense. > Gamma rays, intermittently, give > off photons. They ARE photons, you idiot > 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 � Do you actually know ANY physics at all?
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 21:33
On Jan 6, 2:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "waldofj" <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > news:2ee3c00c-9cd5-4f77-aeb5-8315a3cee072(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> 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. > > > I'm familiar with most of his writings but I don't recollect that one. > > Where's it from? > > Fat people are more attracted to each other than skinny people? Dear Inertial: Ah! So, THAT explains why you have so much... INERTIA! NoEinstein |