Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 17:55 On Jan 11, 2:10 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 7, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Gamma rays are at the top of the energy > spectrum. For photons, yes. > Matter can emit photons, such as infrared, but no mass is > lost in the process. That's not so. There is mass lost or gained in any chemical reaction as well. Chemists usually ignore it, but it's there. > That is because photonsbasically, > concentrations of ether, or IOTAsget replenished by the gravitational > ether that is constantly replacing the lost ether. However, when > matter emits a gamma ray (probably a proton), the mass gets lowered, > and will not be replenished by the inflow of more ether. If gamma > rays are... 'just' light, as you say, then there would be no lowering > of the mass due to atomic decay. Any 7th grader knows that gammas are just light. Anything in the electromagnetic spectrum is just light. http://lot.astro.utoronto.ca/spectrum.html > Talk, science, PD, or shut your > puppet (to the status quo) mouth! NoEinstein I'm just flabbergasted what you don't know that 7th graders know. > > > > > On Jan 6, 8:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > Gamma rays are photons, NoEinstein. Please check your facts before you > > mouth off. > > > > Loose your > > > smoke and mirrors, PD. You don't have the brains to be even a > > > magician. NE - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 17:57 On Jan 11, 2:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > Well! Now PD is requiring that I (or others) must pay to hear him > discuss actual science! If you want summaries of scientific papers, yes, you have to pay for it. Of course, you could just read the scientific papers for free on your own. But you want your food chewed for you. Services like that warrant a fee. > Since he has never discussed science in the > past, then, I would suppose that the amount of money PD could command > for looking things up would be minus infinity dollars. Ha, ha, HA! > NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 13 Jan 2010 16:22 On Jan 11, 2:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: My thought processes are evident in most of my replies for the past three years. On the other hand, your "thought processes" (ha!) consist of claiming that I am wrong as though you are the final judge. But you never discuss science! You only disparage any proof I givewhich was largely based on reasonby claiming that there is other data out there (which you are of course unwilling to paraphrase) that says otherewise. Most readers of this don't know you from Adam. You don't give links to any new posts that you have made, but claim that they are out there. In short, you claim expertise which is nowhere in evidence. Your only... "worth", PD, is in giving me cause to keep restating my New Science for the thinking readers who are out there. So, I suppose you are doing a service... But mainly, you are just a pain. NoEinstein Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... An Einstein Disproof for Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7 > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 13 Jan 2010 17:13 On Jan 11, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Pd, the Parasite Dunce: I said: "Matter can emit photons, such as infrared, but no mass is lost in the process." You said: "That's not so. There is mass lost or gained in any chemical reaction as well. Chemists usually ignore it, but it's there." Wow! You must have FLUNKED chemistry! All chemical reactions require at least two different elements to combine! ATOMIC DECAY involves only a single element, and is thus NOT a chemical reaction. You see, PD, opening your mouth to discuss science, more often than not, will have you putting your foot in it! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > On Jan 11, 2:10 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Gamma rays are at the top of the energy > > spectrum. > > For photons, yes. > > > Matter can emit photons, such as infrared, but no mass is > > lost in the process. > > That's not so. There is mass lost or gained in any chemical reaction > as well. Chemists usually ignore it, but it's there. > > > That is because photonsbasically, > > concentrations of ether, or IOTAsget replenished by the gravitational > > ether that is constantly replacing the lost ether. However, when > > matter emits a gamma ray (probably a proton), the mass gets lowered, > > and will not be replenished by the inflow of more ether. If gamma > > rays are... 'just' light, as you say, then there would be no lowering > > of the mass due to atomic decay. > > Any 7th grader knows that gammas are just light. Anything in the > electromagnetic spectrum is just light.http://lot.astro.utoronto.ca/spectrum.html > > > Talk, science, PD, or shut your > > puppet (to the status quo) mouth! NoEinstein > > I'm just flabbergasted what you don't know that 7th graders know. > > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 8:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > Gamma rays are photons, NoEinstein. Please check your facts before you > > > mouth off. > > > > > Loose your > > > > smoke and mirrors, PD. You don't have the brains to be even a > > > > magician. NE - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 13 Jan 2010 17:15
On Jan 11, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Well! Now PD is requiring that I (or others) must pay to hear him > > discuss actual science! > > If you want summaries of scientific papers, yes, you have to pay for > it. > Of course, you could just read the scientific papers for free on your > own. > But you want your food chewed for you. Services like that warrant a > fee. > > > > > Since he has never discussed science in the > > past, then, I would suppose that the amount of money PD could command > > for looking things up would be minus infinity dollars. Ha, ha, HA! > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - How much money have you made chewing other people's food for them, PD? NoEinstein |