Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 20 Jan 2010 10:19 On Jan 19, 7:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: As you have so often done in the past, > you write what you consider to be an analogy of my points of science. > Then, you make all or part of that absurdly and elementally wrong, and > imply that what you just made up is applicable to my thought > processes. Not at all. I really don't care if it is applicable to your thought processes at all. What I am talking about is FACTS. By facts, I mean describing to you 7th grade science as you should have learned it in the 7th grade, the experimental facts that back it up, and showing you how to calculate something when you've made a silly boo-boo. When, by your thought processes, you say something stupid --- such as it takes 3/4 of the energy of the universe to get a proton up to a fraction of the speed of light --- then it is rather straightforward to show by a simple calculation that what you said is wrong, regardless of your thought processes that led you to that conclusion. I don't care how your thought processes work. If they result in answers that are demonstrably wrong, then how good can the thought processes be? > Such an idea would be a good one IF you had the brains to > correctly paraphrase anything I or others have ever said about > science. When you pretend to be writing a true analogy, but it is so > obviously FALSE, then that makes you just a fraud, not a student of > science. > > Several points of science you need to answer: 1. Is there such a > thing as particles of any name traveling 95% of 'c'? Yes, all the time. There are particles in ring accelerators right now that are traveling faster than that. Also, cosmic rays are raining through you right now with speeds greater than that. > 2. Is the mass- > energy in the Universe conserved? Yes, as far as we know. Any energy that is given to a particle to accelerate it came from something else. > 3. Will a continuous uniform force > on an initially stationary object in space cause that object to > accelerate uniformly? Interestingly no. Newton's 2nd law, F=ma, is a low-speed approximation only. The acceleration starts off uniform, but then it falls off gradually. I know that it is commonly presented to young students that with a uniform force there is a uniform acceleration, but this is only partly correct. > 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous > force cause a greater than uniform increase in the mass-energy of the > accelerated object? Yes, it certainly can. Even in the case of a falling object at low speed. It is a common misconception among young students that the application of a constant force should result in a constant increase in mass-energy. This is, however, very wrong. The increase in mass- energy is called work, and the work (you'll recall) is the *product* of applied force and the distance moved. As an object accelerates, the distance moved increases, so even when the force is constant, the work increases and is NOT constant. > 5. Is 'c' a constant? Yes. > 6. Is the mass, m, of an > object being accelerated in space by a forcethat doesn't sacrifice > any portion of the mass to produce the forcea constant? Yes, the mass is constant. There is a oldish term "relativistic mass" which increases as an object increases, but this is a number that is different than what physicists call the object's mass. > 7. Does > dividing any constant quantity by a number which keeps getting smaller > to zero cause the resultant to go to infinity? No, it doesn't. It causes it to get bigger and bigger, but it stays finite. If you take for example 2/x and let x be as small as you want -- 1, 0.1, 0.001, 0.00001, 0.000000000001, then 2/x will still be finite. You can check this with a calculator if you like. What "goes to infinity" means in math is not that it's ever infinite, but that there is no finite upper limit. There is no value of x (other than zero itself) that will make 2/x infinite. > 8. In the equation > Beta = [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2, is v a variable? Yes. > 9. If v varies > uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? No. For any value of v that is less than c, and this includes values of 0.90c, 0.95c, 0.99c, 0.9999999c, the quantity you call Beta will never be zero. It will be a small number but it will never be zero. Only when v actually IS c does the value of Beta become zero. But for no particle of any mass does v ever become c. > 10. For a uniform mass, are > v and E the only variables in SR? Certainly not. SR has a large number of variables. You may be thinking that there is only one or two equations in SR and are thinking of only those one or two equations. Perhaps if you asked the question about the equations you're thinking of, rather than saying "in SR". > 11. If v increases uniformly in > Einstein's SR equation E = mc^2 / Beta, will E go to infinity at v = > 'c'? Yes, when v actually IS c. But not that for any massive particle, v never gets to c. It can an value from zero up to just short of c, but not c itself. So E can be large, but it is always, always, always finite and it is easily calculable. This is easily seen by using your equation for Beta, which I will rewrite slightly as Beta = [1-(v/c)^2]^1/2. Now, when v=0.5c, this means v/c = 0.5 and then Beta = [1-(0.5)^2] ^1/2, which is nonzero. When v=0.9c, this means v/c = 0.9 and then Beta = [1-(0.9)^2]^1/2, which is nonzero. When v=0.95c, this means v/c = 0.95 and then Beta = [1-(0.95)^2]^1/2, which is nonzero. When v=0.9999c, this means v/c = 0.9999 and then Beta = [1-(0.9999)^2] ^1/2, which is nonzero. > 12. Is the velocity of light, 'c', infinite? No, it is finite. Note that light is not a massive particle, so it is not limited to v<c. Note also that the expression E=mc^2/Beta does not apply to light. It ONLY applies to objects with mass, and light isn't one of them. You were perhaps thinking that E=mc^2/Beta was a law that applied to absolutely everything. It isn't. > 13. Then, how > can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non infinite velocity > 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the Universe) without > violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? It doesn't. Recall that E=mc^2/Beta only applies to objects with mass, and objects with mass never get to v=c, and so Beta never gets to zero, and E never gets infinite. E is always finite and can be calculated with a calculator without generating an error. > > Truthfully answer the above, PD, and you won't need any more > sidestepping and the dreaming up of fraudulent analogies to my New > Science. My bet is that you can't do anything truthfully. > NoEinstein Glad I could help. It seems you were suffering from a rather minor confusion. > > > > > On Jan 13, 3:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Not at all. You are just making statements that are counter to > > documented evidence. I'm not the judge. Nature is. I'm just pointing > > out that it is. > > If Ronnie says that 2+7=8, and Donnie tells him this is wrong, then > > it's not a matter of whether Donnie has a better reputation than > > Ronnie or whether Donnie can teach Ronnie. Ronnie is simply wrong. > > Ronnie can go look up what 2+7 is. > > > > 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. > > > That's right. I expect you to do that homework for yourself. > > > > Most readers of this > > > don't know you from Adam. > > > And that doesn't matter. The validity of my remarks doesn't stem from > > my reputation or whether people know me. This isn't an opinion poll. > > You are making statements that are counter to documented fact. > > > > 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. > > > It is certainly in evidence, and I even suggested a tool you can use > > to locate it. I simply refuse to cut your meat for you. > > > > 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 - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 20 Jan 2010 10:20 On Jan 19, 7:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 13, 6:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 13, 4:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > A fair amount. That's what teaching courses partly is about. And that > > draws a salary.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > For a man who survives by picking change out of the returned change > boxes of pay phones and vending machines, I see you mode of operation of simply making stuff up applies generally, not just to science. > PD's "fair amount" for spoon- > feeding information must be noteworthy. NoEinstein
From: PD on 20 Jan 2010 18:03 On Jan 20, 6:33 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > Several points of science you need to answer: 1. 2. Is the mass- > > energy in the Universe conserved? 3. Will a continuous uniform force > > on an initially stationary object in space cause that object to > > accelerate uniformly? 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous > > force cause a greater than uniform increase in the mass-energy of the > > accelerated object? 5. Is 'c' a constant? 6. Is the mass, m, of an > > object being accelerated in space by a forcethat doesn't sacrifice > > any portion of the mass to produce the forcea constant? 7. Does > > dividing any constant quantity by a number which keeps getting smaller > > to zero cause the resultant to go to infinity? 8. In the equation > > Beta = [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2, is v a variable? 9. If v varies > > uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? 10. For a uniform mass, are > > v and E the only variables in SR? 11. If v increases uniformly in > > Einstein's SR equation E = mc^2 / Beta, will E go to infinity at v = > > 'c'? 12. Is the velocity of light, 'c', infinite? 13. Then, how > > can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non infinite velocity > > 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the Universe) without > > violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > I'll take a crack at it: Just a few comments > 1. Is there such a thing as particles of any name traveling 95% of > 'c'? > Of course, ever heard of a particle accelerator? > > 2. Is the mass-energy in the Universe conserved? > That's the current assumption and it has work very well so far. > > 3. Will a continuous uniform force on an initially stationary object > in space cause that object to accelerate uniformly? > No. I realize you think the answer to this question is yes and that is > where you make your first mistake. Most all of your subsequent > mistakes follow from this one. And in answering no I'm not quoting > theory, again, ever hear of particle accelerators? > > 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous force cause a greater than > uniform increase in the mass-energy of the accelerated object? > No. Rethink your answer to this one. > > 5. Is 'c' a constant? > That's the current assumption and it has worked very well so far. > > 6. Is the mass, m, of an object being accelerated in space by a force > that doesn't sacrifice any portion of the mass to produce the forcea > constant? > If by m you mean rest mass then yes, rest mass is always a constant. > On the other hand if by m you mean total mass then no, total mass > increases with velocity. Again, I'm not quoting theory, ever hear of > particle accelerators? "Total mass" is a term I'm not familiar with. There is a rather old term called relativistic mass, which has fallen out of favor as being misleading. The mass is nowadays taken to be the invariant one. > > 7. Does dividing any constant quantity by a number which keeps getting > smaller to zero cause the resultant to go to infinity? > Of course. > > 8. In the equation Beta = [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2, is v a variable? > First of all be careful of the use of that term "beta". It's meaning > has changed over the years. At first it meant the reciprocal of the > function you give here. Now beta is v/c. Here you're defining beta = 1/ > gamma. Not main stream use but ok I guess as long as you make clear > what you mean. As a general algebraic expression both v and c are > variables but if you are asking in the context of the LTE then v is a > coefficient, not a variable. > > 9. If v varies uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? > Of course. But v never goes all the way to c in the application of this expression. For all real particles for which this expression applies, v<c. > > 10. For a uniform mass, are v and E the only variables in SR? > First of all what does "uniform mass" mean? How does it differ from > just mass? Secondly, you have to put this question in some sort of > context, by it self it is meaningless. > > 11. If v increases uniformly in Einstein's SR equation E = mc^2 / > Beta, will E go to infinity at v = 'c'? > Of course. Look at questions 7 and 9. But see my comment for 9. > > 12. Is the velocity of light, 'c', infinite? > No. Roughly 300000 kilometers per second. > > 13. Then, how can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non > infinite velocity 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the > Universe) without violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > It doesn't. The flaw in your reasoning is explained in the answer to > question 3. > > At first, when a constant force is applied to an object it's > acceleration APPEARS to be uniform. However as the velocity approaches > c the increase in acceleration decreases and the closer it gets to c > the more the increasing acceleration decreases. It takes an infinite > INPUT of energy to accelerate an object to c. But see my comment for 9. This is incredibly important. > This is what gamma is > all about. Again, I'm NOT quoting theory here, EVER HEAR OF PARTICLE > ACCELERATORS? > I keep saying that because particle accelerators are the only place > where we can move objects close enough to c to test if gamma is > correct. Sorry to burst your bubble, but gamma is correct! And this isn't quite right, either. There are lots of cosmic sources of particles that get particles up to relativitistic speeds and these fall on the Earth by the bazillions.
From: waldofj on 21 Jan 2010 10:29 > > 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous force cause a greater than > > uniform increase in the mass-energy of the accelerated object? > > No. > > Rethink your answer to this one. yeah, but something about your answer just doesn't sound right to me either. Definitely needs more thought. > > 6. Is the mass, m, of an object being accelerated in space by a force > > that doesn't sacrifice any portion of the mass to produce the forcea > > constant? > > If by m you mean rest mass then yes, rest mass is always a constant. > > On the other hand if by m you mean total mass then no, total mass > > increases with velocity. Again, I'm not quoting theory, ever hear of > > particle accelerators? > > "Total mass" is a term I'm not familiar with. There is a rather old > term called relativistic mass, which has fallen out of favor as being > misleading. The mass is nowadays taken to be the invariant one. The way it was taught to me is total mass is rest mass times gamma and relativistic mass is total mass minus rest mass. I wish the physics community would come up with an unambiguous way of expressing these concepts! Saying that the term "mass" now refers to the rest mass is a step in the right direction. Hope it stays that way :-) > > 9. If v varies uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? > > Of course. > > But v never goes all the way to c in the application of this > expression. For all real particles for which this expression applies, > v<c. I made the assumption that questions 7 and 9 were just questions about limits, not if these limits are reachable or not, that would be addressed later. Of course v can never equal c, you can't divide by zero, and so forth. > > 13. Then, how can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non > > infinite velocity 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the > > Universe) without violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > It doesn't. The flaw in your reasoning is explained in the answer to > > question 3. > > > At first, when a constant force is applied to an object it's > > acceleration APPEARS to be uniform. However as the velocity approaches > > c the increase in acceleration decreases and the closer it gets to c > > the more the increasing acceleration decreases. It takes an infinite > > INPUT of energy to accelerate an object to c. > > But see my comment for 9. This is incredibly important. here we are just arguing semantics. When I say infinite energy I just mean "therefore it can't be done" I was trying to keep my answers in the context of other posts I have seen him make, consider my answer to question 3. > > This is what gamma is > > all about. Again, I'm NOT quoting theory here, EVER HEAR OF PARTICLE > > ACCELERATORS? > > I keep saying that because particle accelerators are the only place > > where we can move objects close enough to c to test if gamma is > > correct. Sorry to burst your bubble, but gamma is correct! > > And this isn't quite right, either. There are lots of cosmic sources > of particles that get particles up to relativitistic speeds and these > fall on the Earth by the bazillions. I stand by my statement. I realize cosmic rays (usually protons) come at us with fantastic energies, well beyond anything we can ever hope to produce here on earth. But, I'm not aware of any experiment that can measure the speed and energy of a cosmic ray to see if the ratio fits the gamma curve like we expect it to. On the other hand, this can be done with precision in a particle accelerator.
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jan 2010 15:07
On Jan 20, 7:33 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > Several points of science you need to answer: 1. 2. Is the mass- > > energy in the Universe conserved? 3. Will a continuous uniform force > > on an initially stationary object in space cause that object to > > accelerate uniformly? 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous > > force cause a greater than uniform increase in the mass-energy of the > > accelerated object? 5. Is 'c' a constant? 6. Is the mass, m, of an > > object being accelerated in space by a forcethat doesn't sacrifice > > any portion of the mass to produce the forcea constant? 7. Does > > dividing any constant quantity by a number which keeps getting smaller > > to zero cause the resultant to go to infinity? 8. In the equation > > Beta = [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2, is v a variable? 9. If v varies > > uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? 10. For a uniform mass, are > > v and E the only variables in SR? 11. If v increases uniformly in > > Einstein's SR equation E = mc^2 / Beta, will E go to infinity at v = > > 'c'? 12. Is the velocity of light, 'c', infinite? 13. Then, how > > can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non infinite velocity > > 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the Universe) without > > violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > > I'll take a crack at it: > 1. Is there such a thing as particles of any name traveling 95% of > 'c'? > Of course, ever heard of a particle accelerator? The 'of course' part is correct. But particle accelerators are an articial manifestation of what Nature does with ease. > > 2. Is the mass-energy in the Universe conserved? > That's the current assumption and it has work very well so far. It's not an assumption. It's the Law of the Conservation of Energy (while considering that MASS has an energy equivalent). > > 3. Will a continuous uniform force on an initially stationary object > in space cause that object to accelerate uniformly? > No. I realize you think the answer to this question is yes and that is > where you make your first mistake. Most all of your subsequent > mistakes follow from this one. And in answering no I'm not quoting > theory, again, ever hear of particle accelerators? You are way off-base! Newton's Second Law of Motion says that there is one and only one value of acceleration for every uniformly applied continuous force! > > 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous force cause a greater than > uniform increase in the mass-energy of the accelerated object? > No. You are absolutely correct! > > 5. Is 'c' a constant? > That's the current assumption and it has worked very well so far. Science isn't built on ASSUMPTIONS. The latter only work if you have been brainwashed into believing that the M-M experiment proves that 'c' is universal. But I've proved beyond any doubt that M-M, simply, didn't have a CONTROL! No bastardization of reason is required to understand that! > > 6. Is the mass, m, of an object being accelerated in space by a force > that doesn't sacrifice any portion of the mass to produce the forcea > constant? > If by m you mean rest mass then yes, rest mass is always a constant. > On the other hand if by m you mean total mass then no, total mass > increases with velocity. Again, I'm not quoting theory, ever hear of > particle accelerators? You are now showing your shallow-mindedness. Mass cannot possibly increase due to any velocity increase, because Einstein's SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy! Apply a uniform velocity increase (acceleration) to a mass, and Einstein's full SR equation will yield an exponential increase in energywhich goes to infinity at velocity 'c'. The latter is a flagrant violation of the LCE! > > 7. Does dividing any constant quantity by a number which keeps getting > smaller to zero cause the resultant to go to infinity? > Of course. You are correct! > > 8. In the equation Beta = [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2, is v a variable? > First of all be careful of the use of that term "beta". It's meaning > has changed over the years. At first it meant the reciprocal of the > function you give here. Now beta is v/c. Here you're defining beta = 1/ > gamma. Not main stream use but ok I guess as long as you make clear > what you mean. As a general algebraic expression both v and c are > variables but if you are asking in the context of the LTE then v is a > coefficient, not a variable. Now your brain is failling you, again. 'c' has an associated velocity of 186,281 mpsmaking such number a constant. "Coefficients" are empirically derived constants, NOT variables. If your latter sentence were true, then Einstein's SR equation wouldn't have any variables, and thus would not be an... EQUATION. > > 9. If v varies uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? > Of course. Correct! > > 10. For a uniform mass, are v and E the only variables in SR? > First of all what does "uniform mass" mean? How does it differ from > just mass? Secondly, you have to put this question in some sort of > context, by it self it is meaningless. To say that mass is anything but constant in being accelerated toward 'c', requires the blind acceptance of SRwhich this line of questioning will disprove. If you are open-minded, like all good scientists should be, then, the mass cannot vary in any free-space context! > > 11. If v increases uniformly in Einstein's SR equation E = mc^2 / > Beta, will E go to infinity at v = 'c'? > Of course. Look at questions 7 and 9. OK! You have just CONFIRMED that SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy! Thanks for being reasonable! > > 12. Is the velocity of light, 'c', infinite? > No. Roughly 300000 kilometers per second. Again, you are correct! If 'c' isn't infinite, then the energy being input in traveling to that non-infinite velocity cannot possibly be infinite! You have just CONFIRMED that SR violates the LCE for the second straight time! > > 13. Then, how can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non > infinite velocity 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the > Universe) without violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > It doesn't. The flaw in your reasoning is explained in the answer to > question 3. Sir, the FLAW in your reasoning is that you believe the nonsense that mass increases with increasing velocity. You can't agree on points 11 and 12 AND then disagree on point 3. Can you not see your inconsistencies? > > At first, when a constant force is applied to an object it's > acceleration APPEARS to be uniform. However as the velocity approaches > c the increase in acceleration decreases and the closer it gets to c > the more the increasing acceleration decreases. It takes an infinite > INPUT of energy to accelerate an object to c. This is what gamma is > all about. Again, I'm NOT quoting theory here, EVER HEAR OF PARTICLE > ACCELERATORS? > I keep saying that because particle accelerators are the only place > where we can move objects close enough to c to test if gamma is > correct. Sorry to burst your bubble, but gamma is correct!- Hide quoted text - You have a split personality, Guy. You can't have science be but ONE way. Violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy holds sway. Tell me this: How does velocity 'know' (ha!) what type of mass is being accelerated? And once that acceleration stops, what happens to the extra mass? Does it go up in a puff of smoke? (sic like your reasoning ability is sick) NoEinstein > > - Show quoted text - |