Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: glird on 9 Jan 2010 09:34 On Dec 22, 7:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Photons and all matter are composed of ether units I > call IOTAs. 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! Although I agree with your last sentence, some questions remain open. 1. Does an iota have any weight? 2. Is an iota a particle? 3. Are iotas incompr4essible? 4. If the answer to q 3 is No, then why do you need iotas at all? Why not let "aether" denote "the continuous compressible non-particulate form of the same matter out of which particles are made"? glird
From: glird on 9 Jan 2010 11:16 On Jan 8, 9:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote > >> >> Dear Autymn: Einstein was correct when he said that mass can be > >> >> converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. But he > > >> > not > > >> Nuclear bombs and reactors prove you wrong, Autistic one. > > > Read above and its last line, lackwit. > > I read enough. Not quite. Try "The Nature of Reality" or "The Universe". Or "The Painted Pony" which showed in 1993 that the quantity of matter ("MASS") of an atom isn't concerted into anything else at all; it is released as a continuous form of the same matter out of which atoms are formed. The other two books explain that in total detail, including the structure of atoms. glird xHOW that works.
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 09:37 On Jan 8, 7:08 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 23 2009, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 6:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Dec 21, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > How do you know that the missing weight is due to "mass is not > conserved"? Because the mass of all the product particles are *measured*. By comparing the *measured* masses of the initial state and the *measured* masses, we learn that the sums are not equal. This tells us that mass is not a conserved quantity. > > > > So, those three particles must have mass > > > themselves. Mine is proof by reasoning. > > Particles have weight. The dark matter that is also released does > not. > > > 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. > > Experiments measure quantities. In physics, nobody know nor cares > what they are quantities OF. Of course we care. > When reasoning says it is impossible for > waves to be conducted by nothing (called "empty space"), that remaisn > true regardless of > how much our measurements reveal. No sir. Reasoning does NOT dictate nature over measurements. It is precisely the opposite. That is precisely how science uses experiment to *correct* what our human minds think is reasonable. We have been wrong countless times about what is reasonable to believe about nature, and we have used experiment to correct those mistakes. > > > > Yours is "proof" (sic) by hard-headed lies. > > > Sorry, but not the case. Reality is determined by measurement. > > Measurements are not lies. > > Measurements yield quantities. The quantities are not lies. But > until we know WHAT is being quantified, we know nothing about reality > other than the quantities themselves. > > glird
From: NoEinstein on 11 Jan 2010 14:31 On Jan 7, 9:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Readers: I hope most of you can see through the Parasite Dunce's claims to discuss science on sci.physics. I repeat: "PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never paraphrased any aspect of science in his own words." Correct science can usually be summarized in a few sentences. But errant science won't have validity no matter how many links are given or how much status quo acceptance is claimed! NoEinstein > > On Jan 6, 7:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > Oh, but I have. Many times. However, there are places where you should > do your own work. > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 14:36
On Jan 11, 1:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 7, 9:45 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Readers: I hope most of you can see through the Parasite Dunce's > claims to discuss science on sci.physics. I repeat: "PD, the Parasite > Dunce, has never paraphrased any aspect of science in his own words." > Correct science can usually be summarized in a few sentences. Whatever gave you that foolish idea? > But > errant science won't have validity no matter how many links are given > or how much status quo acceptance is claimed! NoEinstein Ah, so the science YOU say is errant, is errant, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. So in other words, you have arranged things in your fantasy world where you cannot possibly be wrong about anything. > > > > > On Jan 6, 7:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Oh, but I have. Many times. However, there are places where you should > > do your own work. > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - |