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: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 9 Oct 2009 19:54 Dear Inertial: "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:02dfa7e2$0$16735$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:31de709f-2498-4015-a361-92cf9f7ce5e6(a)b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >> On Oct 7, 8:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message >>> >>> news:3bbab9ac-9b37-478d-b18f-32d15005d966(a)z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> > On Oct 7, 4:27 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Dear Y. P.: I've disproved SR; remember? >>> >>> BAHAHHAHAHA .. you've done nothing of the kind. You >>> don't even understand SR .. you don't even understand >>> basic physics. You're a joke. >> >> Dear Inertial: If 'so', then why are you one of my groupies? > > I'm not I figure you are waiting around for this particular "blonde" to walk in front of a train... David A. Smith
From: Y.Porat on 10 Oct 2009 03:45 On Oct 8, 12:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. > --------------------------- infinite force for a big mass not as it becomes the smallest one THE MASS OF THE PHOTON you ignored completely the experimental dta that AS A MASS BECOMES SMALLER AND SMALLER IT CAN REACH CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c if you are not intelligent enough to get out of your 'box' and recognize **exception cases ***--- it wil be your problem and you will never make advance !!! ATB Y.P ------------------------------ >
From: Inertial on 10 Oct 2009 05:26 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c6e2c1aa-08e8-49cd-9b60-c51114dfb3fe(a)e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 8, 12:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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. >> --------------------------- > infinite force for a big mass No .. not a 'big' mass .. infinite force for ANY non-zero mass to get to c. > not as it becomes the smallest one > THE MASS OF THE PHOTON Mass of zero > you ignored completely the experimental dta No .. that is what YOU are ignoring > that AS A MASS BECOMES SMALLER AND SMALLER > IT CAN REACH CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c Yes it can. But can never get there as long as it has mass > if you are not intelligent enough > to get out of your 'box' > and recognize **exception cases ***--- No exceptions. > it wil be your problem and you will never make advance !!! It is your insistence that the universe makes exception fro the things you don't like or understand that is YOUR problem.
From: PD on 10 Oct 2009 09:59 On Oct 7, 12:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 !! > it can be an exception case > (beyound your common paradigm) > of which the mass of the photon is so small > that it CAN move at c !! > even experiments can indicate that trend: > > as masses become smaller and smaller > they reach CLOSER AND CLOSER > to c !!! But never reach it. Let's take a simple example. Let's suppose there are two physical properties F and x, and they are related this way: F=1 - 1/x. When x's value is 1, then F=1 When there is an object with x=2, then F for that object is 0.5. When there is an object with x=10, then F for that object is 0.9. When there is an object with x=1000, then F for that object is 0.999. When there is an object with x=1000000, then F for that object is 0.999999. It's plain that the larger x is, then the closer F will be to 1. But there will never be ANY object for which F = 1, no matter how big x is. > that wrong paradigm that no mass canreach c > jsut because of expanding a formula > to an unknown position It's not 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 > > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 10 Oct 2009 10:27
On Oct 10, 3:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 7, 12:55 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 !! > > it can be an exception case > > (beyound your common paradigm) > > of which the mass of the photon is so small > > that it CAN move at c !! > > even experiments can indicate that trend: > > > as masses become smaller and smaller > > they reach CLOSER AND CLOSER > > to c !!! > > But never reach it. > Let's take a simple example. > Let's suppose there are two physical properties F and x, and they are > related this way: F=1 - 1/x. > When x's value is 1, then F=1 > When there is an object with x=2, then F for that object is 0.5. > When there is an object with x=10, then F for that object is 0.9. > When there is an object with x=1000, then F for that object is 0.999. > When there is an object with x=1000000, then F for that object is > 0.999999. > It's plain that the larger x is, then the closer F will be to 1. > But there will never be ANY object for which F = 1, no matter how big > x is. > > > that wrong paradigm that no mass canreach c > > jsut because of expanding a formula > > to an unknown position > > It's not 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 > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ------------------------- but still you ddint got my point about limits of validations of a mathematical formula the scope of physical phenomenon is not just always ovelaping the mathematical scope that is why we add factors to the mathematical formula and we add stsrt point and end limitation to the formula inoder to diminish the degrees of freedom in order to fit it to reality of the physical world as i brought the trend of smaller and smaller masses closing closer and closer to c the fact that we didnt find yet that smallmass but onthe other hand we have photons that has some of the mass property ie momentum and if you add all of it together it is actually duggestion and **predicting* that there must be a smaller mass thanknown now thatwill accommodate with al l the acumulative experimental data not to mention that i showed that the E=hf has in it **hidden* even in the formula -- the mass entity !! Y.P ----------------- |