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: Inertial on 7 Oct 2009 18:53 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:63e56937-46b7-480d-ad8f-5b6e73ed832a(a)g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 7, 3:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 7, 3:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Oct 7, 2:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Oct 6, 6:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> > > > On Oct 2, 2:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never considered a better rationale >> > > > than >> > > > the errant mechanics garbage that he was taught in school. >> > > > Distance >> > > > of fall increases to the second power relative to time. But in any >> > > > given second the KE that's imparted depends solely on the increase >> > > > in >> > > > VELOCITY >> >> > > Yes, it depends on the *square* of the velocity. >> >> > > > �and that increases LINEARLY for all near-Earth falling >> > > > objects. >> >> > > And because the velocity increases linearly with time, and because >> > > the >> > > KE depends on the square of the energy, then the KE increases as the >> > > square of time. You see? It's not so difficult. Even an architect >> > > would understand it. >> >> > > > The force of gravity applies a uniform downward force >> > > > exactly equal to the static weight of the object. That downward >> > > > force >> > > > is analogous to the uniform thrust of a rocket motor. Uniform, i. >> > > > e., >> > > > LINEAR, >> >> > > Nope. Uniform means CONSTANT, not linear. Constant thrust stays the >> > > same value. Linearly increasing things change value with time in a >> > > straight line. A uniform force does not increase with time. Uniform >> > > doesn't mean linear. You have your words mixed up. Moreover, the >> > > amount of energy contributed by a force is not constant, even if the >> > > force is constant. (This is your big mistake.) Remember that the >> > > energy contributed by a force is calculated as the PRODUCT of force >> > > times distance. So even if the force stays uniform with time, the >> > > distance in each second increases with time. This means that the >> > > product of force times distance in each second INCREASES each second. >> > > That means that the energy contributed by a force in the next second >> > > is GREATER than the energy contributed by a force in the previous >> > > second, even if the force remains uniform. Do you understand this >> > > now? >> > > Most 7th graders get it, even if you haven't. >> >> > > > velocity increases cause a uniform increase in the KE. That >> > > > is saying: 'Energy IN = energy OUT." The latter conforms to the >> > > > Law >> > > > of the Conservation of Energy! But Einstein's second power >> > > > increase >> >> > > No, this is not Einstein's increase. This was established LONG BEFORE >> > > Einstein. Einstein had nothing to do with it. >> >> > > The square increase is CLASSICAL mechanics, not relativity. >> >> > > The blame you place on Einstein has nothing to do with Einstein. >> >> > > And you simply don't understand classical mechanics. Which is >> > > remarkable for a licensed architect. >> >> > > > in KE due to a uniform increase in velocity, violates the L. of the >> > > > C. >> > > > of E. You have been explained these things dozens of times. Take >> > > > the >> > > > following Pop Quiz (and flunk) if you are to ever get basic things >> > > > RIGHT! � NoEinstein � >> >> > > > Pop Quiz for Science >> > > > Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... >> >> > > > > On Oct 2, 11:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Sep 30, 11:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > Dear PD: For you, a rock that falls four times as far will hit >> > > > > > four >> > > > > > times as hard. >> >> > > > > Well, I'm not sure we're talking the same language. Physics uses >> > > > > quite >> > > > > precise language, as I'm sure architecture does to. >> >> > > > > A rock that falls four times as far will have four times the >> > > > > energy >> > > > > when it lands. This is certainly testable by a variety of >> > > > > methods, >> > > > > including bolometers. Then there isn't any real question about >> > > > > it, >> > > > > since it's just a quantity that you measure, like the length of a >> > > > > carrot or the volume of syrup in a jug. >> >> > > > > "Hitting hard" can mean how much momentum is transferred or what >> > > > > the >> > > > > force of the impact is. That strongly depends on the mass of the >> > > > > object it hits. >> >> > > > > > WRONG! The KE that you seem to think accrues >> > > > > > proportional to distance of fall INCLUDES THE COASTING >> > > > > > CARRYOVER >> > > > > > DISTANCES FROM PREVIOUS SECONDS. >> >> > > > > Well, yes, of course. Otherwise it would just have the same value >> > > > > after every meter fallen, and we know THAT isn't true. >> >> > > > > > KE, like momentum, increases in >> > > > > > direct proportion to the increase in VELOCITY, >> >> > > > > No, sir, not according to experimental measurement, as I've been >> > > > > pointing out to you. >> >> > > > > > NOT the increase in >> > > > > > distance which is mostly due to coasting carryover. >> >> > > > > And that's simply wrong. You can test it by a number of methods, >> > > > > if >> > > > > you're careful with the method. >> >> > > > > > Because the >> > > > > > velocity of falling objects increases uniformly, KE does too. >> >> > > > > Nope. >> >> > > > > > Read the following to better understand: Pop Quiz for Science >> > > > > > Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... >> >> > > > > > � NoEinstein �- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> > ------------------- >> > moreover >> > at very high velocities >> > the force needed to add velocity >> > is not linear >> > it is an **exponential order** >> >> > F/Gamma = ma !!!! >> > Gamma is not linear >> > but exponential >> >> You and NoEinstein have the same problem understanding what >> "exponential" means. >> >> > it becomes infinitely big as closing to c !!! >> >> Actually, it gets finitely big. It never gets infinite. >> >> >> >> > Y.P >> > --------------------------------------- > > but waht you does not understand > is that > anyphysics formula has its limits of validations > and a limit case mathematically > (and even not mathematically) > is th epoint at which to formula > stops working or being relavant > totake an example > if we say that no mass can reach c > it is an extrapolation beyond the > legitimate limits of th eformula > to say that a mass can or cannot reach c > because it is mathematically a limit case > so > you cant say that the photon cannot have mass > because it moves at c !! Thats exactly what you can say. The limit is that an object with mass cannot get to speed c. > it can be an exception case > (beyound your common paradigm) No need for exceptions > of which the mass of the photon is so small > that it CAN move at c !! Its so small that it is zero > even experiments can indicate that trend: Experiments are all consistent with the mass being zero > as masses become smaller and smaller > they reach CLOSER AND CLOSER > to c !!! Yes .. we know that. But that can't get to c. > that wrong paradigm that no mass canreach c As you said .. you need infinite force to at c Unless mass is zero. > jsut because of expanding a formula > to an unknown position > interpretating it arbitrarily 'as you like it' > was one of the disasters that happend > to physics at the 20 th centuries > leading to curved space time > massless particles etc etc etc No disaster .. its called a better understanding .. advancing science, rather than being held back by old prejudices and preconceptions.
From: NoEinstein on 7 Oct 2009 19:27 On Oct 6, 8:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: PD's primary "argument" is the take the anti-thesis of anything I, or others with brains, say. For the few clear thinkers among you let me explain: Falling objects are accruing energy in direct proportion to how long the object is subjected to the action of gravity. If there were a magic way to just turn-off gravity after, say, only one second of fall, the dropped object would continue moving at 32.174 feet per second... until it hit the ground. After three total seconds of fall such object will have dropped exactly 16.087 ft. in the first second + 32.174 ft. in the second second, plus 32.174 ft. in the third second, for a total of about 81 feet. PD would have you believe that, upon hitting, the latter object will impact with a force five times the force of that same object falling for only ONE second. In actuality, the force of impact will be identical, because such is determined solely by the VELOCITY for a unit weight. In the latter example 80% of the distance of fall contributed ZERO additional KE, because the object was COASTING. And that same COASTING component is hidden within the parabolic free-drop curve for all objects dropped. During the first four seconds of the fall of any object, 75% of the distance of fall is due to carry-over COASTING distance while only 25% is due to the four-fold velocity increase at the end of four seconds. I hope some of you thinkers can grasp such a clear explanation. NoEinstein Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > On Oct 6, 6:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 2, 2:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never considered a better rationale than > > the errant mechanics garbage that he was taught in school. Distance > > of fall increases to the second power relative to time. But in any > > given second the KE that's imparted depends solely on the increase in > > VELOCITY > > Yes, it depends on the *square* of the velocity. > > > and that increases LINEARLY for all near-Earth falling > > objects. > > And because the velocity increases linearly with time, and because the > KE depends on the square of the energy, then the KE increases as the > square of time. You see? It's not so difficult. Even an architect > would understand it. > > > The force of gravity applies a uniform downward force > > exactly equal to the static weight of the object. That downward force > > is analogous to the uniform thrust of a rocket motor. Uniform, i. e., > > LINEAR, > > Nope. Uniform means CONSTANT, not linear. Constant thrust stays the > same value. Linearly increasing things change value with time in a > straight line. A uniform force does not increase with time. Uniform > doesn't mean linear. You have your words mixed up. Moreover, the > amount of energy contributed by a force is not constant, even if the > force is constant. (This is your big mistake.) Remember that the > energy contributed by a force is calculated as the PRODUCT of force > times distance. So even if the force stays uniform with time, the > distance in each second increases with time. This means that the > product of force times distance in each second INCREASES each second. > That means that the energy contributed by a force in the next second > is GREATER than the energy contributed by a force in the previous > second, even if the force remains uniform. Do you understand this now? > Most 7th graders get it, even if you haven't. > > > velocity increases cause a uniform increase in the KE. That > > is saying: 'Energy IN = energy OUT." The latter conforms to the Law > > of the Conservation of Energy! But Einstein's second power increase > > No, this is not Einstein's increase. This was established LONG BEFORE > Einstein. Einstein had nothing to do with it. > > The square increase is CLASSICAL mechanics, not relativity. > > The blame you place on Einstein has nothing to do with Einstein. > > And you simply don't understand classical mechanics. Which is > remarkable for a licensed architect. > > > > > in KE due to a uniform increase in velocity, violates the L. of the C. > > of E. You have been explained these things dozens of times. Take the > > following Pop Quiz (and flunk) if you are to ever get basic things > > RIGHT! NoEinstein > > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > > On Oct 2, 11:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 30, 11:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD: For you, a rock that falls four times as far will hit four > > > > times as hard. > > > > Well, I'm not sure we're talking the same language. Physics uses quite > > > precise language, as I'm sure architecture does to. > > > > A rock that falls four times as far will have four times the energy > > > when it lands. This is certainly testable by a variety of methods, > > > including bolometers. Then there isn't any real question about it, > > > since it's just a quantity that you measure, like the length of a > > > carrot or the volume of syrup in a jug. > > > > "Hitting hard" can mean how much momentum is transferred or what the > > > force of the impact is. That strongly depends on the mass of the > > > object it hits. > > > > > WRONG! The KE that you seem to think accrues > > > > proportional to distance of fall INCLUDES THE COASTING CARRYOVER > > > > DISTANCES FROM PREVIOUS SECONDS. > > > > Well, yes, of course. Otherwise it would just have the same value > > > after every meter fallen, and we know THAT isn't true. > > > > > KE, like momentum, increases in > > > > direct proportion to the increase in VELOCITY, > > > > No, sir, not according to experimental measurement, as I've been > > > pointing out to you. > > > > > NOT the increase in > > > > distance which is mostly due to coasting carryover. > > > > And that's simply wrong. You can test it by a number of methods, if > > > you're careful with the method. > > > > > Because the > > > > velocity of falling objects increases uniformly, KE does too. > > > > Nope. > > > > > Read the following to better understand: Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316.... > > > > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 7 Oct 2009 19:28 On Oct 6, 8:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:627f946c-88d9-4f68-845f-ed279459f688(a)o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 2, 7:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > Dear I.: Most of the time I post on sci.physics. If my replies wind > > up other places it's because others think that my ideas are worthy. > > NE > > No .. you're just a spammer. .... then YOU must be a pointed-head SPAM junkie! NE
From: NoEinstein on 7 Oct 2009 19:32 On Oct 7, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Y. P.: I've disproved SR; remember? Nothing 'special' happens close to 'c' other than simply reaching a Universal measuring datum of much larger potential velocities. NE > > On Oct 7, 2:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 6, 6:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Oct 2, 2:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never considered a better rationale than > > > the errant mechanics garbage that he was taught in school. Distance > > > of fall increases to the second power relative to time. But in any > > > given second the KE that's imparted depends solely on the increase in > > > VELOCITY > > > Yes, it depends on the *square* of the velocity. > > > > and that increases LINEARLY for all near-Earth falling > > > objects. > > > And because the velocity increases linearly with time, and because the > > KE depends on the square of the energy, then the KE increases as the > > square of time. You see? It's not so difficult. Even an architect > > would understand it. > > > > The force of gravity applies a uniform downward force > > > exactly equal to the static weight of the object. That downward force > > > is analogous to the uniform thrust of a rocket motor. Uniform, i. e., > > > LINEAR, > > > Nope. Uniform means CONSTANT, not linear. Constant thrust stays the > > same value. Linearly increasing things change value with time in a > > straight line. A uniform force does not increase with time. Uniform > > doesn't mean linear. You have your words mixed up. Moreover, the > > amount of energy contributed by a force is not constant, even if the > > force is constant. (This is your big mistake.) Remember that the > > energy contributed by a force is calculated as the PRODUCT of force > > times distance. So even if the force stays uniform with time, the > > distance in each second increases with time. This means that the > > product of force times distance in each second INCREASES each second. > > That means that the energy contributed by a force in the next second > > is GREATER than the energy contributed by a force in the previous > > second, even if the force remains uniform. Do you understand this now? > > Most 7th graders get it, even if you haven't. > > > > velocity increases cause a uniform increase in the KE. That > > > is saying: 'Energy IN = energy OUT." The latter conforms to the Law > > > of the Conservation of Energy! But Einstein's second power increase > > > No, this is not Einstein's increase. This was established LONG BEFORE > > Einstein. Einstein had nothing to do with it. > > > The square increase is CLASSICAL mechanics, not relativity. > > > The blame you place on Einstein has nothing to do with Einstein. > > > And you simply don't understand classical mechanics. Which is > > remarkable for a licensed architect. > > > > in KE due to a uniform increase in velocity, violates the L. of the C.. > > > of E. You have been explained these things dozens of times. Take the > > > following Pop Quiz (and flunk) if you are to ever get basic things > > > RIGHT! NoEinstein > > > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > > > On Oct 2, 11:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 30, 11:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD: For you, a rock that falls four times as far will hit four > > > > > times as hard. > > > > > Well, I'm not sure we're talking the same language. Physics uses quite > > > > precise language, as I'm sure architecture does to. > > > > > A rock that falls four times as far will have four times the energy > > > > when it lands. This is certainly testable by a variety of methods, > > > > including bolometers. Then there isn't any real question about it, > > > > since it's just a quantity that you measure, like the length of a > > > > carrot or the volume of syrup in a jug. > > > > > "Hitting hard" can mean how much momentum is transferred or what the > > > > force of the impact is. That strongly depends on the mass of the > > > > object it hits. > > > > > > WRONG! The KE that you seem to think accrues > > > > > proportional to distance of fall INCLUDES THE COASTING CARRYOVER > > > > > DISTANCES FROM PREVIOUS SECONDS. > > > > > Well, yes, of course. Otherwise it would just have the same value > > > > after every meter fallen, and we know THAT isn't true. > > > > > > KE, like momentum, increases in > > > > > direct proportion to the increase in VELOCITY, > > > > > No, sir, not according to experimental measurement, as I've been > > > > pointing out to you. > > > > > > NOT the increase in > > > > > distance which is mostly due to coasting carryover. > > > > > And that's simply wrong. You can test it by a number of methods, if > > > > you're careful with the method. > > > > > > Because the > > > > > velocity of falling objects increases uniformly, KE does too. > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > Read the following to better understand: Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316.... > > > > > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > ------------------- > moreover > at very high velocities > the force needed to add velocity > is not linear > it is an **exponential order** > > F/Gamma = ma !!!! > Gamma is not linear > but exponential > it becomes infinitely big as closing to c !!! > > Y.P > ---------------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 7 Oct 2009 19:48
On Oct 7, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 6, 8:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: PD's primary "argument" is the take the anti-thesis of > anything I, or others with brains, say. I'm not taking the antithesis of anything. You made a mistake (several, in fact) and I pointed that out. > For the few clear thinkers > among you let me explain: > > Falling objects are accruing energy in direct proportion to how long > the object is subjected to the action of gravity. No, that's incorrect. It's in proportion to the SQUARE of how long the object is subjected to the action of gravity. You keep making the same error over and over again. > If there were a > magic way to just turn-off gravity after, say, only one second of > fall, the dropped object would continue moving at 32.174 feet per > second... until it hit the ground. After three total seconds of fall > such object will have dropped exactly 16.087 ft. in the first second + > 32.174 ft. in the second second, plus 32.174 ft. in the third second, > for a total of about 81 feet. Right. > PD would have you believe that, upon > hitting, the latter object will impact with a force five times the > force of that same object falling for only ONE second. No, of course not, because you TURNED OFF GRAVITY, and so that force contributes no more energy. Remember the energy contribution is the force times the distance that force acts through. When you turned the force off, that product becomes zero after the first second. Are you really this dense? > In actuality, > the force of impact will be identical, because such is determined > solely by the VELOCITY for a unit weight. That's incorrect, and careful measurements clearly show that it's incorrect. > In the latter example 80% > of the distance of fall contributed ZERO additional KE, because the > object was COASTING. And that same COASTING component is hidden > within the parabolic free-drop curve for all objects dropped. During > the first four seconds of the fall of any object, 75% of the distance > of fall is due to carry-over COASTING distance while only 25% is due > to the four-fold velocity increase at the end of four seconds. I hope > some of you thinkers can grasp such a clear explanation. NoEinstein > > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > > > On Oct 6, 6:36 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Oct 2, 2:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never considered a better rationale than > > > the errant mechanics garbage that he was taught in school. Distance > > > of fall increases to the second power relative to time. But in any > > > given second the KE that's imparted depends solely on the increase in > > > VELOCITY > > > Yes, it depends on the *square* of the velocity. > > > > and that increases LINEARLY for all near-Earth falling > > > objects. > > > And because the velocity increases linearly with time, and because the > > KE depends on the square of the energy, then the KE increases as the > > square of time. You see? It's not so difficult. Even an architect > > would understand it. > > > > The force of gravity applies a uniform downward force > > > exactly equal to the static weight of the object. That downward force > > > is analogous to the uniform thrust of a rocket motor. Uniform, i. e., > > > LINEAR, > > > Nope. Uniform means CONSTANT, not linear. Constant thrust stays the > > same value. Linearly increasing things change value with time in a > > straight line. A uniform force does not increase with time. Uniform > > doesn't mean linear. You have your words mixed up. Moreover, the > > amount of energy contributed by a force is not constant, even if the > > force is constant. (This is your big mistake.) Remember that the > > energy contributed by a force is calculated as the PRODUCT of force > > times distance. So even if the force stays uniform with time, the > > distance in each second increases with time. This means that the > > product of force times distance in each second INCREASES each second. > > That means that the energy contributed by a force in the next second > > is GREATER than the energy contributed by a force in the previous > > second, even if the force remains uniform. Do you understand this now? > > Most 7th graders get it, even if you haven't. > > > > velocity increases cause a uniform increase in the KE. That > > > is saying: 'Energy IN = energy OUT." The latter conforms to the Law > > > of the Conservation of Energy! But Einstein's second power increase > > > No, this is not Einstein's increase. This was established LONG BEFORE > > Einstein. Einstein had nothing to do with it. > > > The square increase is CLASSICAL mechanics, not relativity. > > > The blame you place on Einstein has nothing to do with Einstein. > > > And you simply don't understand classical mechanics. Which is > > remarkable for a licensed architect. > > > > in KE due to a uniform increase in velocity, violates the L. of the C.. > > > of E. You have been explained these things dozens of times. Take the > > > following Pop Quiz (and flunk) if you are to ever get basic things > > > RIGHT! NoEinstein > > > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > > > On Oct 2, 11:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 30, 11:15 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD: For you, a rock that falls four times as far will hit four > > > > > times as hard. > > > > > Well, I'm not sure we're talking the same language. Physics uses quite > > > > precise language, as I'm sure architecture does to. > > > > > A rock that falls four times as far will have four times the energy > > > > when it lands. This is certainly testable by a variety of methods, > > > > including bolometers. Then there isn't any real question about it, > > > > since it's just a quantity that you measure, like the length of a > > > > carrot or the volume of syrup in a jug. > > > > > "Hitting hard" can mean how much momentum is transferred or what the > > > > force of the impact is. That strongly depends on the mass of the > > > > object it hits. > > > > > > WRONG! The KE that you seem to think accrues > > > > > proportional to distance of fall INCLUDES THE COASTING CARRYOVER > > > > > DISTANCES FROM PREVIOUS SECONDS. > > > > > Well, yes, of course. Otherwise it would just have the same value > > > > after every meter fallen, and we know THAT isn't true. > > > > > > KE, like momentum, increases in > > > > > direct proportion to the increase in VELOCITY, > > > > > No, sir, not according to experimental measurement, as I've been > > > > pointing out to you. > > > > > > NOT the increase in > > > > > distance which is mostly due to coasting carryover. > > > > > And that's simply wrong. You can test it by a number of methods, if > > > > you're careful with the method. > > > > > > Because the > > > > > velocity of falling objects increases uniformly, KE does too. > > > > > Nope. > > > > > > Read the following to better understand: Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316.... > > > > > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - |