Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jan 2010 17:06 On Jan 26, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - A DUNCE like you deserves less time than you get from anyone, PD. NE
From: Androcles on 30 Jan 2010 17:02 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:58a71df9-7ba5-4600-9005-79f6daaab0d5(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... 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). ================================================== Bwahahahahahahaha!
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jan 2010 17:10 On Jan 27, 2:40 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jan 13, 3:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 13, 4:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > (according to the SR equation) > > > The SR equation doesn't say that at all. > > > Where on earth did you get the impression that the area of the curve > > you're looking at represents the fraction of the energy of the > > universe???? What on earth are you looking at? > > He faild calculus after dimensional analýsis.  Ev â E. plot the SR equation and look at the area under the curve. Most of that area occurs BEFORE reaching .95 'c'. So, most of the energy in the Universe would be used up in causing any small mass to reach such velocity. Of course, I've disproved SR. No "sics" are needed, just common sense! â NE â
From: PD on 1 Feb 2010 09:38 On Jan 30, 4:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 26, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > A DUNCE like you deserves less time than you get from anyone, PD. > NE Well, NoEinstein, you wanted some answers to basic questions about physics and I've given them to you. Now it appears you never wanted them in the first place. It seems you don't know what you want, do you?
From: NoEinstein on 8 Feb 2010 15:46
On Feb 1, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It would be great if a couch potato like you would find other uses for your time than pretending to be an expert on physics. Your only expertise is in side-stepping the truth and escaping into your own delusions of the vagueness in science. There is little that is vague about REAL science truths. NoEinstein > > On Jan 30, 4:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 26, 1:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > A DUNCE like you deserves less time than you get from anyone, PD. > > NE > > Well, NoEinstein, you wanted some answers to basic questions about > physics and I've given them to you. Now it appears you never wanted > them in the first place. It seems you don't know what you want, do you? |