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 10 Oct 2009 11:42 On Oct 8, 2:28 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > On Oct 7, 6:27 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>Falling objects are accruing energy in direct proportion to how long > >>the object is subjected to the action of gravity. > > > No. Falling objects accrue energy in direct proportion to HOW FAR > > THEY FALL under the influence of gravity. > > > After the first second, an object has fallen about 16 feet. > > After the second second, an object has fallen about 64 feet. > > After the third second, an object has fallen...guess what??? > > > 1) Each foot that an object falls represents the same amount of > > energy accrued. Each foot that one lifts an object represents the > > same amount of energy expended in lifting. > > 2) The DISTANCE an object falls is proportional to the square of > > the time that it has spent falling. > > 3) The SPEED of a falling object is directly proportional to the > > time that it has spent falling. > > > Do you have any problem with statements (1), (2), or (3)? > > Together, they explain why there is a square in the kinetic > > energy equation. > > John (no Einstein) has been here for awhile trying to peddle > his hatred and jealousy of Einstein. He claims that all of > classical mechanics is wrong and then moves on to various > delusions about relativity. He is a crank of the worst sort > even worse than, say, Kennaugh and Stowe. > > > > > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... and Dougie Boy, the leech, still has never made a '+ new post' on sci-physics. NE
From: NoEinstein on 10 Oct 2009 11:46 On Oct 9, 6:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:a737f4e6-f8ff-414c-ab19-bd1fcb2816e5(a)o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 7, 8:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > Dear Inertial: You couldn't recognize a science truth if it hit you > > over the head like a 2 x 4. Maybe the latter is what you need to > > clear your thinking. NE > > Maybe you need to grow up .. do a little thinking and learning instead of > spewing such nonsense as you do. > > Though you are amusing .... You should have been "amused" when you took (and blindly accepted) status quo physics. NE
From: NoEinstein on 10 Oct 2009 11:48 On Oct 9, 6:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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 .... OK. Then, stop showing up at my "concerts"! NE
From: NoEinstein on 10 Oct 2009 11:50 On Oct 9, 6:29 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:0506f3ec-d4f5-41f0-8053-e54a974505f8(a)v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 7, 10:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > Get help, fellow! You keep loosing it... NE > > In other word.. I, like anyone with a scientific education and aptitude, can > see through your lies and misconceptions. > > Get a new hobby. You fail at physics. .... Did you ever take, and pass the following? Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... NE
From: NoEinstein on 10 Oct 2009 11:54
On Oct 10, 3:45 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ------------------------------ > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... The larger the frontal area of the mass the greater will be the resistance from the ether. NE |