Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jan 2010 16:23 On Jan 20, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If ANYTHING that I have said is demonstratively wrong, then, by all means summarize your points of science. As usual, you make blanket statements of my errors while never discussing the actual science. The last time you tried to discuss science you claimed that atomic decay is a chemical reaction. Obviously, your brain cant get to the seventh grade level! The plot of Einsteins full SR equation clearly shows that most (about 75%) of the energy (area under the curve) has already been applied by the time .95 of c is reached. The SR equation doesnt lie, PD. Plot the damn thing and look at the curve! (1.) Einsteins own SR equation plots to show that no particle can be accelerated to 95% of c without using up about 75% of the energy in the Universe (sic)! (2.) or Energy IN must = Energy OUT! (3.) As Ive explained to you in detail, m isnt part of a correctly written equation for Newtons Second Law of Motion. The correct equation is just F = a. Or For every uniformly applied force (to a unit mass, or unchanging mass) there is one and only one associated acceleration. The only required stipulation is that the mass be unchanging. Newtons mistake was in trying to include the elemental conversion of his formula to reflect that the mass being moved must be an unchanging mass. (4.) Thats where you really screw up, PD. At NO point is work used in the calculation of KE! For the umpteenth time: Moving an object a distance, but without there being any RESISTANCE, accomplishes no work. The only resistance to the force of gravity in falling objects is an objects inertia. You claim that falling objects are creating custom atoms of the same kind due to free-fall. Tell me, PD, what happens to those new atoms when the velocity stops, as when that object splashes into water? Do the atoms vaporize? Ha, ha, HA! (7.) Quit the smoke and mirrors, PD. Divide any number by another number that APPROACHES zero, and the resultant will APPROACH infinity. That is elemental math thats independent of the number of decimal places of your calculator. (9.) More smoke and mirrors You should defend String Theory, PD, because you constantly side-step into other universes. Ha, ha, HA! (10.) Again you side-step. The ONLY SR equation is E = mc^2 / [ 1 - v^2 / c^2] ^½. Uniformly increase v to c, and the E will APPROACH infinity. THAT violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy (or energy-mass)! (11.) You are straddling the fence. SR violates the LCE and is thus disproved. (12.) We are in absolute agreement on this point. And I wasnt implying anything! (13.) Light exceeds c every time you aim a flashlight in the direction of the Earths motion. The equation is: V = c +/- v. The M-M experiment didnt prove otherwise, because that experiment didnt have a CONTROL! How do you KNOW that no object reaches c unless you blindly believe SRwhich I have so easily disproved? Your problem is inconsistency, PD. You should work on reconciling that. NoEinstein > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: waldofj on 26 Jan 2010 03:18 > > > 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. I have rethunk it and I see you're right. As the object accelerates the constant force is acting through increasingly larger distances and energy is force times distance so the energy of the object is increasing at greater than a constant rate (which I believe is what you said :-). I don't know where my thinking went wrong, maybe I was hung up on thinking how one would go about applying a constant force to an accelerating object, or maybe I was just confusing force and energy, in which case I should be SHOT!
From: waldofj on 26 Jan 2010 12:39 > > 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. I'll agree with that, although I don't see what that has to do with the question asked. > > > 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! Newton's Second Law of Motion is wrong, don't you know that? You might think it's F = MA, it isn't it's F = dP/dT. You might think P = MV, it doesn't, P = MVgamma. This was first predicted theoretically but has since been verified experimentally to a high degree of accuracy. It's one thing to question theory but ignoring reality is just lunacy. > > > 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! nope, I was wrong about this. see my corrected answer elsewhere. > > > > > 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! Of course science is built on assumptions, we call them postulates but whatever you call them they are statements made in response to observations or lines of thought. The consequences of these assumptions are then explored logically and mathematically and a theory is produced then the theory is examined to see what predictions it makes and then those predictions are tested experimentally. If the predictions are verified, this lends credibility to the initial assumptions. I haven't been brainwashed into anything, I only accept results, and SR has had some very impressive results. Again, ignoring reality is just lunacy. > > > 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! No, you're just showing your lunacy. Your mistake is in how you think about questions 3 and 4. The fact is the amount of energy required to accelerate an object to some velocity is dependent on its rest mass and gamma (which goes to infinity at c). Again accurately verified by experiment and, again, ignoring reality is lunacy. > > > 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. I didn't say coefficients are variables, I don't know how you got that from what I said. In the LTE the independent variables are X and T and the dependent variables are X' and T'. C is a constant (empirically derived) and v is a given value (usually fixed) for a particular scenario but changes from one scenario to another, in algebra that's what coefficients are all about. I did leave out one case, if acceleration is involved then v becomes a dependent variable, a function of time or distance. > > > 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! No, it requires the acceptance of verified experimental results. Again, ignoring reality is lunacy. > > > 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! No, it doesn't. That's just your confusion over questions 3 and 4. > > > 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! Again, just your confusion over questions 3 and 4. > > > 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. Again, just your confusion over questions 3 and 4. > > 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? Again, mass increases with increasing velocity is experimentally confirmed. Ignoring reality is lunacy. > > > 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 see above. lunatic
From: Androcles on 26 Jan 2010 12:54 "waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:73032180-a3ee-4927-8ac2-d13286034cff(a)d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > 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. I'll agree with that, although I don't see what that has to do with the question asked. > > > 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! Newton's Second Law of Motion is wrong, don't you know that? You might think it's F = MA, it isn't it's F = dP/dT. You might think P = MV, it doesn't, P = MVgamma. ================================================== Newton's second law of motion is right, don't you know that? You might it's F = dP/dT; it isn't, it is "The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed." You might think P = MVgamma; it doesn't, p = mv, you stupid bigot.
From: PD on 26 Jan 2010 13:28
On Jan 25, 3:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 20, 10:19 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: If ANYTHING that I have said is > demonstratively wrong, then, by all means summarize your points of > science. I did below already. Read it. > As usual, you make blanket statements of my errors while > never discussing the actual science. The last time you tried to > discuss science you claimed that atomic decay is a chemical > reaction. Oh, come on. I said that you'd find atomic decay in chemistry books. I also said that summative mass is not conserved in chemical reactions, either, and I gave an example. Read it again. > Obviously, your brain cant get to the seventh grade > level! > > The plot of Einsteins full SR equation clearly shows that most (about > 75%) of the energy (area under the curve) has already been applied by > the time .95 of c is reached. And you think the total area of the curve is the total energy of the universe? Wherever did you get that foolish idea? I *gave* you the calculation of the energy of a proton accelerated to 0.95c. I showed you the number. I also showed that this is much, much, much smaller than the energy of a dime falling out of your pocket. Clearly, this number is not 75% of the total energy of the universe. It does not occur to you that you do not understand the plot? > The SR equation doesnt lie, PD. > Plot the damn thing and look at the curve! I *used* that equation to calculate the energy of a proton at 0.95c. You're right, it doesn't lie. And the truth that equation says is, the energy is a whole lot less than the energy of a falling dime, not 75% of the energy in the universe. The problem is you don't understand the meaning of the curve you're looking at. > > (1.) Einsteins own SR equation plots to show that no particle can be > accelerated to 95% of c without using up about 75% of the energy in > the Universe (sic)! No, it doesn't show that. You don't understand what you're looking at. Use the equation to calculate some numbers and you'll see what those data points mean. You asked the question whether there are particles that travel faster than 0.95c. The answer is YES, confirmed by measuring their speed directly, by *timing* the passage of the particles through a set distance. > > (2.) or Energy IN must = Energy OUT! In a closed system, yes. In a system that has a external source of work, then this isn't correct. But my previous answer stands. > > (3.) As Ive explained to you in detail, m isnt part of a > correctly written equation for Newtons Second Law of Motion. The > correct equation is just F = a. Or For every uniformly applied > force (to a unit mass, or unchanging mass) there is one and only one > associated acceleration. The only required stipulation is that the > mass be unchanging. Newtons mistake was in trying to include the > elemental conversion of his formula to reflect that the mass being > moved must be an unchanging mass. You asked if a uniform force produces a uniform acceleration. The answer is no, as confirmed experimentally in direct measurement. Your "corrected" form of Newton's second law is therefore in conflict with direct measurement. > > (4.) Thats where you really screw up, PD. At NO point is work used > in the calculation of KE! That's where you're wrong. You may want to look up the Work-Energy Theorem. It's about as fundamental to energy as it gets. If you'll look in 7th grade textbooks, you'll see the connection between work and kinetic energy. > For the umpteenth time: Moving an object a > distance, but without there being any RESISTANCE, accomplishes no > work. That is incorrect. You do not understand 7th grade science. Moving an object with an applied force on a frictionless ice skating rink will CERTAINLY do work. Calculating the work is a simple exercise in a 7th grade physics book. You may be looking at examples where there is no force applied to an object at all, in which case the work is zero. But there are certainly other cases where a force is applied and there is no resistance, and work is done. > The only resistance to the force of gravity in falling objects > is an objects inertia. You claim that falling objects are creating > custom atoms of the same kind due to free-fall. Custom atoms? No, I claimed no such thing. Where on earth did you get that foolish idea? > Tell me, PD, what > happens to those new atoms when the velocity stops, as when that > object splashes into water? Do the atoms vaporize? Ha, ha, HA! > > (7.) Quit the smoke and mirrors, PD. Divide any number by another > number that APPROACHES zero, and the resultant will APPROACH > infinity. OK, but something that approaches infinity is still finite and quite reasonable. > That is elemental math thats independent of the number of > decimal places of your calculator. Try it on your calculator. The calculator doesn't lie. > > (9.) More smoke and mirrors You should defend String Theory, PD, > because you constantly side-step into other universes. Ha, ha, HA! Not so. What I said below at (9) is completely accurate. > > (10.) Again you side-step. The ONLY SR equation is E = mc^2 / [ 1 - > v^2 / c^2] ^½. Don't be ridiculous. Where on earth did you get the idea that's the only equation? Would you like to see a reference that shows more of the remaining SR equations? > Uniformly increase v to c, and the E will APPROACH > infinity. THAT violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy (or > energy-mass)! No, it doesn't. Approaching infinity (still being finite) doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy at all. > > (11.) You are straddling the fence. SR violates the LCE and is thus > disproved. Not so. You must made an error, and I explained to you what your (rather simple) error is. > > (12.) We are in absolute agreement on this point. And I wasnt > implying anything! > > (13.) Light exceeds c every time you aim a flashlight in the > direction of the Earths motion. The equation is: V = c +/- v. Nope. This has been disproved in experiment. > The > M-M experiment didnt prove otherwise, because that experiment didnt > have a CONTROL! That's OK, it was disproven in about a dozen other experiments. You do know that there are experiments other than the MMX, right? Try googling "ballistic theory of light" > How do you KNOW that no object reaches c unless you > blindly believe SRwhich I have so easily disproved? I can *measure* the speed of objects. It's easy. I make two gates that mark the passage of the particles, and the two gates are a certain distance apart, and I measure the time it takes for the object to pass between the gates. This is VERY easy to do with the right equipment. > Your problem is > inconsistency, PD. You should work on reconciling that. NoEinstein > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - |