Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New Volcanic Activity This Week- Three~~ Total 16 active
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: NoEinstein on 30 Sep 2009 09:36 On Sep 28, 7:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:b024d9b8-84c9-456a-8d96-151683fed85e(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > > > On Sep 26, 9:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > Dear Inertial: Uncontrolled laughter in an airhead is a sure sign of > > mental illness. Get help! NE > > Get fvcked ....oh! I hit your "soft spot" did I! Ha, ha, ha, HA! NE
From: NoEinstein on 30 Sep 2009 09:45 On Sep 26, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 26, 12:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 24, 8:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: All of the 'science' needed for doing engineering is > > covered, in total, in courses taught by the engineering department > > (s). > > You will find that this is bullshit. Ask any professor in the > engineering department of your nearest university. I know they have a > couple there in South Carolina. > > You may also ask whether the engineering department grants any student > a degree in engineering without taking, passing, and exhibiting > competence in required physics classes. > > > That requirement for taking physics is simply for EMPLOYING > > useless physicists! NoEinstein > > Making stuff up again, John? > > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 9:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 20, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD: "Engineering" is taught in various colleges of engineering > > > > NOT in the useless college of physics. Can you show otherwise? > > > > NoEinstein > > > > This may not be familiar to you, NoEinstein, but all engineers are > > > required to take physics courses from the physics department, not the > > > engineering department. They use the physics that they learn in the > > > physics department later in their engineering work. > > > > > > On Sep 20, 9:09 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Architecture is primarily an art over > > > > > > engineering discipline. If the world were put under the control of > > > > > > architects and engineersforgetting about the head-in-clouds scientists > > > > > > the world would be a better place. NE > > > > > > Why do you say that? Engineers practice physics. > > > > > What's head-in-the-clouds about that? > > > > > Note that a lot of the physics that is used by architects and > > > > > engineers is the stuff you've rejected. > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > > > > > > >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > > > > > > >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > > > > > > >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > > > > > > >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > > > > > > >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > > > > > > >>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > > > > > > >>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > > > > > > >>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > > > > > > >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > > > > > > >>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > > > > > > >>>your own words". > > > > > > > > >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > > > > > > >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > > > > > > >>>blurred distinction? > > > > > > > > > >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > > > > > > > >>aisles! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > All of them. Imagine! > > > > > > > > > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > > > > > > > > is based on physics. > > > > > > > > > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > > > > > > > > biology is based on chemistry. > > > > > > > > > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > > > > > > > > believed! > > > > > > > > > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > > > > > > > > probably wrong, too. > > > > > > > > > This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > > > > > > > rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > > > > > > > criteria. > > > > > > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > > > > > > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > > > > > > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > > > > > > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > > > > > > the license.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PD can do no creative thinking. He only cook-books the status quo! NE
From: NoEinstein on 30 Sep 2009 09:50 On Sep 26, 3:24 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Folks: SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. > > No. That is your stupidity talking. > > Rest of nonsense snipped. Dougie Boy, the leech, violates the "law" that those who reply on sci.physics should actually be interested in advancing the cause of science. Dougie Boy only wishes to compensate for his mental deficiencies by attacking those who have actual intelligence. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 30 Sep 2009 09:53 On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 26, 12:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Folks: SR violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Simple > > acceleration causes momentum to increase uniformly, and that means KE > > increases uniformly. There is no need for a particle for dissipating > > the excess energy, because such energy wasn't there to start with! > > Noeinstein > > Hmmm. What you've described (badly) is simple Newtonian acceleration > and has nothing to do with relativity. > And yet you've got a simply accelerated object with more energy that > what it started with, in apparent violation of conservation of energy. > Hmmmm... > Got any idea how this is really supposed to work, NoEinstein? > Feeling foolish today? > Need someone to let you know you SHOULD feel foolish by laughing at > you? > > > > > > > > On Sep 24, 2:11 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You see, this is what separates you from science, Porat. > > > > > > You have it in your head that some basic notions that come into your > > > > > head MUST be true, and you simply do not have any way to verify > > > > > whether they ARE true. Scientists don't do that. They check > > > > > everything, every assumption to see if it really is true. > > > > > > Let's take the example of your notion that no daughter can be larger > > > > > than its mother. You insist that this MUST be true. A scientist would > > > > > test whether that really is true by creating an explicit test of that > > > > > assumption. The accelerator is a good example of that kind of test. > > > > > The accelerator is specifically designed to do (among other things) > > > > > collisions of light particles and to identify all the particles that > > > > > come out of those collisions, and it is very carefully designed to > > > > > rule out background events. > > > > > > So when a scientist sees in this test that heavy daughters can come > > > > > from light parents, the scientist will say, "Well, there's no arguing > > > > > with experiment. It appears that the statement that no daughter can be > > > > > bigger than its mother was just wrong." You, on the other hand, stick > > > > > with the rule you had in your head and insist that there must be > > > > > something wrong with the experiment or something else was going on > > > > > that masked the truth. > > > > > Not to defend Porat, who is saying things I do not understand, but the > > > > behavior you describe is very common in physics, isn't it? > > > > > For example, physicists generally believe in conservation of mass+energy > > > > and momentum, and angular momentum. So when they found an example where > > > > these were not conserved, they invented an undetectable particle, the > > > > neutrino, that was carrying away the stuff that was missing, or > > > > occasionally bringing in extra when there was a lack. > > > > > And somebody got a nobel prize for confirming that the reaction that > > > > people thought would violate conservation of stuff really did happen. > > > > This was interpreted as "direct observation of neutrinos". > > > > > I'm not saying they're wrong to believe in conservation of stuff even > > > > when they get examples where stuff disappears and they can't find it, or > > > > extra stuff sometimes appears out of nowhere. Just, they're doing what > > > > you accuse Porat of doing, and mostly nobody thinks they're wrong to do > > > > so. When experiments give results that disagree with their theories they > > > > usually decide that something else is going on that masks the truth.. > > > > Not quite, but I see where you're going. > > > Momentum conservation was deduced from a number of observations, and > > > then it was tested in thousands of applications after the rule was > > > proposed. > > > In an interesting case, though, momentum conservation seemed not to > > > hold. So two candidate proposals were put forward: > > > 1. Momentum is not conserved in all cases after all. > > > 2. Momentum is conserved, but there is a yet undiscovered particle > > > that is carrying away some of the momentum. > > > Now, the key to the second is that you can't just leave it that. You > > > have to find some OTHER way to verify the existence of that particle > > > OTHER THAN deducing it from missing momentum. And so there were > > > numerous experiments devised to do just that. The Nobel Prize was > > > awarded for the first work that showed that unambiguously -- that > > > neutrinos can be detected by some means other than by insisting that > > > momentum be conserved. If you look at the Nobel award lecture, you'll > > > learn what was involved. > > > > A similar thing is going on now with dark matter. There are two > > > proposals on the table: > > > 1. General relativity is wrong. > > > 2. General relativity is right, but there is matter that is > > > undiscovered and not accounted for. > > > And once again, it is important to establish the presence of dark > > > matter by some evidence OTHER THAN it makes general relativity hold. > > > And so there are a number of experiments in progress to do just that. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - PD: Imparting new energy, such as by the uniform force of gravity, lets KE accrue (uniformly). Since energy IN still = energy OUT, the Law of the Conservation of Energy is NOT violated! NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 30 Sep 2009 10:00
On Sep 28, 1:22 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Folks: The entire education system in the USA is due for a > > revamping. The primary motive for attending any university is to > > become identified with their sports teams. > > This is john speaking for his own motivations. Those of > us who got educations and are using them chose schools > for their technical merit. > > Education, beyond what one > > > > > can self teach, is a huge waste of time and money! NE > > >>On Sep 26, 12:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>On Sep 24, 8:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>Dear PD: All of the 'science' needed for doing engineering is > >>>covered, in total, in courses taught by the engineering department > >>>(s). > > >>You will find that this is bullshit. Ask any professor in the > >>engineering department of your nearest university. I know they have a > >>couple there in South Carolina. > > >>You may also ask whether the engineering department grants any student > >>a degree in engineering without taking, passing, and exhibiting > >>competence in required physics classes. > > >>> That requirement for taking physics is simply for EMPLOYING > >>>useless physicists! NoEinstein > > >>Making stuff up again, John? > > >>>>On Sep 23, 9:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>On Sep 20, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>Dear PD: "Engineering" is taught in various colleges of engineering > >>>>>NOT in the useless college of physics. Can you show otherwise? > >>>>>NoEinstein > > >>>>This may not be familiar to you, NoEinstein, but all engineers are > >>>>required to take physics courses from the physics department, not the > >>>>engineering department. They use the physics that they learn in the > >>>>physics department later in their engineering work. > > >>>>>>On Sep 20, 9:09 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Architecture is primarily an art over > >>>>>>>engineering discipline. If the world were put under the control of > >>>>>>>architects and engineersforgetting about the head-in-clouds scientists > >>>>>>>the world would be a better place. NE > > >>>>>>Why do you say that? Engineers practice physics. > >>>>>>What's head-in-the-clouds about that? > >>>>>>Note that a lot of the physics that is used by architects and > >>>>>>engineers is the stuff you've rejected. > > >>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>>>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>>>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>>>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>>>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>>>>>>>>>>your own words". > >>>>>>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>>>>>>>>>>blurred distinction? > > >>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>>>>>>>>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>>>All of them. Imagine! > >>>>>>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > >>>>>>>>>>is based on physics. > >>>>>>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > >>>>>>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. > >>>>>>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > >>>>>>>>>>believed! > >>>>>>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > >>>>>>>>>>probably wrong, too. > > >>>>>>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > >>>>>>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > >>>>>>>>>criteria. > > >>>>>>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > >>>>>>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > >>>>>>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > >>>>>>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > >>>>>>>>the license.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... Dougie Boy, would make a great "poster boy" for whatever nothing of a university he 'may' have attended. NE |