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 10:01 On Sep 28, 1:25 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: The energy of any falling object, as well as any > > accelerating object in space, is accruing at a uniform rate with > > time. > > No, it is accruing linearly with distance, not time. > > And the value of the energy is the sum of the unit force being > > > applied each second. > > Wrong again, john. You never did take any science classes. > > Your "almost" niche is high energy particle > > > > > physics. Youve always been a total Dunce regarding any other issues > > of science. NE > > >>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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dougie Boy flunks... AGAIN! Ha, has, ha! NE
From: PD on 30 Sep 2009 11:03 On Sep 30, 7:56 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 28, 1:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Being casually amused is one thing. But > being a total groupie to someone (me) whom you think is wrong (but > know in your HEART is right!) is indication of your having a grave > mental illness. You mistake my purpose. When a comedian performs, I like to attend in the audience and have a good laugh. This doesn't make anyone in the audience a groupie, nor does their laughter indicate mental illness. Now, if the comedian doesn't intend to be comical and thinks that the people laughing in the audience are crazy, then THAT is a sign of mental illness. > Such is probably grounded on your having a deep- > seated intellectual inferiority complex, which you tried, > unsuccessfully, to placate by majoring in "hard" (ha!) high energy > particle physics. I didn't say anything about it being "hard". Where did you get that idea? > You are someone living in the past and the status > quo. For you, there can be no progress nor higher understanding in > science. I urge you to make a few "new posts" yourself to see how > many people rush to support your views on any issue in science. > NoEinstein Why would posting anything on an open-access, unmoderated newsgroup be an indicator of anything? You might as well judge a person's reputation by their ability to staple posters on telephone poles. > > > > > On Sep 28, 11:03 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 26, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If a Parasite Dunce... laughs, who cares! NE > > > Well, at least you're now educated on the mistake you made that you > > weren't aware of anyone laughing at you. Now you are simply saying > > that you don't care if people laugh at you. > > > That's fine. It ensures that you will be a source of comic amusement > > for quite a while.
From: PD on 30 Sep 2009 11:07 On Sep 30, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 28, 3:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, The Parasite Dunce: If my 5-year major course in > architecture had concentrated on teaching just what "an architect" > needs to know, that course would have been only three years long. In > the UK, students 'read' for degrees. But they still must pass exams. > The portion of any licensed profession which directly effects the > life, health and safety of the public should continue to require > proficiency exams. So, just to capture the thought, you believe that architects should skip school and just pass proficiency exams? Does your firm hire architects who passed proficiency exams but who didn't go to school? How many? > However, since most majors taught in colleges > don't require subsequent licensing, it would be more beneficial for > the students to read up on their area(s) of interest and to skip > college all together. For that matter, skip elementary and high school, too. How well does that work for HS drop-outs, statistically? Oh, that's right, a lot of them don't know how to READ proficiently. Hmmmm.... > The "dirty jobs" guy on TV says that more > people should consider doing the relatively high paying jobs that few > others want to do, instead of getting just a "clean" formal > education. NoEinstein Yes, I know you get a lot of your wisdom from what TV show hosts say. > > > > > On Sep 28, 11:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. Education, beyond what one > > > can self teach, is a huge waste of time and money! NE > > > I would presume that this also means that architects should declare > > themselves self-certified on the basis of what they have self-taught. > > > Interesting plan. Do you have a firm that employs such self-taught, > > self-certified architects? This would be a good thing to note in the > > phone book.
From: PD on 30 Sep 2009 11:15 On Sep 30, 8:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 28, 3:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The 'free drop curve', or time vs. > distance curve, of all near Earth falling objects plots as a parabola, > d = t^2. The DISTANCE of fall is the square of the time, That's right, and the energy accrued is proportional to the distance. Anybody who is a civil engineer that has worked on dams knows this. > NOT the > energy that is accruing during the fallwhich is LINEAR! Nope, that's experimentally wrong. > Simple > acceleration, such as g or: 32.174 feet / second EACH second (not PER > second!) has a LINEAR increase in velocity which is due to one and > only one continuous force acting! Well, first of all, "per" and "each" are synonyms. You can look it up. And just because the energy accrued comes from the action of one force does not make energy and force the same thing. If I fill a 5 gallon jug with water and it takes 5 seconds to fill it, that doesn't make a gallon the same thing as a second, or volume the same thing as time. > In the case of small falling > objects near the Earth the uniform force is the static WEIGHT of the > object. That's right. > Such weight, a FORCE, when acting over time, will impart the > same KE in each new second that it imparted in the previous second. Nope. That's wrong. The energy imparted is not calculated from the force alone. The energy imparted is the product of the force times the distance covered in that second. But the distance covered in the next second is much larger than the distance covered in the previous second. Therefore the energy imparted is larger in the next second than it was in the previous second. I understand your confusion. You don't understand how the same force can provide different amounts of energy in subsequent seconds. This is a common question raised by freshman students. What I don't get is why you didn't ask this question when you were a freshman and were required to take the physics class on the way to your architecture license, as it is something you CERTAINLY should have straightened out a long time ago. But it seemed to elude your attention back then and has only come back to haunt you now, years and years later. > In other words KE accrues ADDITIVELY. My own CORRECT formula for > kinetic energy is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). The latter also > replaces E = mc^2 as regards energy variation due to velocity. > > You are way out of your league to second guess any part of my New > Science in the areas of mechanics and relativity. High energy > particle physics can't be generalized beyond your shallow education. > NoEinstein > > > > > On Sep 28, 11:19 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 26, 2:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: The energy of any falling object, as well as any > > > accelerating object in space, is accruing at a uniform rate with > > > time. > > > Nope. It accrues as the SQUARE of the time. > > > > And the value of the energy is the sum of the unit force being > > > applied each second. > > > Nope. They don't even have the same units. It's like saying quarts are > > the same as inches. > > > > Your "almost" niche is high energy particle > > > physics. > > > Nope. As I said, what you described badly would apply to Newtonian > > physics as well. > > > Moreover, you still haven't figured out that if a falling body gathers > > energy, this seemingly invalidates the law of conservation of energy, > > no? The final kinetic energy is more than the initial kinetic energy. > > > Same thing is true for a car going from 0 mph to 30 mph. (SURELY > > you're not saying this is a relativistic case.) Here gravity isn't > > working at all, but the final kinetic energy is higher than the > > initial kinetic energy. Violates the law of conservation of energy, > > no? > > > > Youve always been a total Dunce regarding any other issues > > > of science. NE > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 30 Sep 2009 11:16
On Sep 30, 8:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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? > > > PD can do no creative thinking. He only cook-books the status quo! > NE Well, one man's "creative thinking" is another man's "making stuff up". Note that park-bench mutterers covered in pigeon droppings are highly creative people, dreaming up new stuff hourly. |