Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Autymn D. C. on 27 Jan 2010 03:20 On Jan 20, 4:33 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > 2. Is the mass-energy in the Universe conserved? > That's the current assumption and it has work very well so far. Eh, nobody can tell. Nobody can tell if any reaction perfectly conserves mass-energhy, and many clearly do not. > 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? Uniformly in..? > 5. Is 'c' a constant? > That's the current assumption and it has worked very well so far. Of course not--lenses and prisms > 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 Its, dolt > has changed over the years. At first it meant the reciprocal of the Say "changed" in English. > 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. Beta â beta. By the way, the Hellènic (Coinè) staffer β is vèta. > At first, when a constant force is applied to an object it's its, dolt > 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! Sorry, but relativity is subject to wave mekanics which has another coefficiend of coherent width, sometimes givven as de Broglie wavespan. I had proven long ago it took finite energhy to boost matter to celerity, as long as the mote was at least c/2--then again, now thas I thenk about et, it could be any speed, harmonic or not. For greater wavespans, or at milder probes, the mote's coherent with its wave for farther and longer--in other words, they match speeds. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 27 Jan 2010 03:31 On Jan 26, 9:54 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_s> wrote: > "waldofj" <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > news:73032180-a3ee-4927-8ac2-d13286034cff(a)d14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > 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. Celerity isn't infinite, great fat cretin.
From: Autymn D. C. on 27 Jan 2010 03:58 On Jan 26, 10:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 25, 3:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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. Faster than a speed is ocsýmòrònic. Fastness is not speed. > > 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. It sits? [snip thread, arseholes] -Aut
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jan 2010 17:01 On Jan 26, 3:18 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > 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! Dear waldofj: The CORRECT kinetic energy equation (my own) is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). Please note that DISTANCE of travel, nor work, are involved in the calculation. Work is only performed when a force operates against a resistance. In the case of all falling objects and objects accelerated in space, the only resisting force is the inertia of the object. Since the inertia will never chance, then, the accruing KE can only be a LINEAR increase due to a uniform increase in velocity and with a uniform applied force. Anything else would VIOLATE the Law of the Conservation of Energy! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jan 2010 17:04
On Jan 26, 12:39 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PARAPHRASE ANY SUCH PROOF, Lunatic! NoEinstein |