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 12 Oct 2009 20:32 On Oct 10, 11:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Side-Stepping PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is NOT the same as KE! Distance of fall always includes a COASTING component. If the fall distance in one second, 16.087 feet, is taken as a datum and called 'd', the coasting distances (hidden) within the parabolic time vs. distance curve are as follows: Second 1, coasting distance 'zero'; Second 2, coasting distance 2d; Second 3, coasting distance 4d; and Second 4, coasting distance, 6d. The distances 'left' over are increasing one 'd', or 16.087 feet, each secondand that is a LINEAR increase in NON COASTING distance of fall, consistent with KE being a LINEARELY increasing quantity. It would be possible to convert KE to useful work done at impact or slow-down. But such would be a tacked-on, different physics problem concerned with the weight of the object(s) impacted. Knowing you, you will weasel out by insisting that the discussion be on work, not KE. Like I've told you, the existing definition of work is the only correct term in the chapters on mechanics, which I have otherwise correctly re written for the benefit of science. NoEinstein > > On Oct 10, 10:21 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: An object's "distance of fall" isn't an > > "energy" component! > > Of course it is. Please consult on the definition of work, which is > how a force makes an energy contribution. > This contribution is the force times the distance the force acts > through. > The distance is indeed a factor in the energy contribution. > > I'm astounded -- ASTOUNDED, I tell you! -- that you have forgotten > this basic fact that 7th graders know. > It is in fact the basis for the playground see-saw, not to mention the > block-and-tackle pulley system. > > > The only force acting on a dropped object is the > > uniform (per unit weight) force of gravity. An object in space that > > is traveling 1,000 miles per hour, after traveling 1,000 miles, will > > impact with the identical KE as a like-size object that traveled one > > million miles at 1,000 miles per hour. > > But if it is traveling at a constant 1000 miles per hour, then there > is obviously no force acting on the object. > If there were a force acting on it, it would continue to accelerate. > Since there is no force acting on it, then there is no contribution to > the energy whether it is traveling a thousand miles or a million > miles. > > If you want to know how a force contributes to the energy, then > consider cases where the force is present. Looking at cases where > there is no force acting on the object any more will not help you > understand the basics. > > > Distance of travel has NO > > direct influence on the object's KE. Try to get that through your > > hard head! Noeinstein > > I'm sorry, NoEinstein, but this is REALLY basic, 7th grade stuff. > Nobody that failed to learn the material from the 7th grade should be > allowed to be licensed as an architect, in my opinion. > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 10:46 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 7, 7:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The INPUT energy is the UNIFORM force of > > > > gravity. > > > > No sir. The input energy is the PRODUCT of the force of gravity and > > > the distance the force acts through. > > > This is a simple fact, verified by experiment. > > > And as an object falls, though the force is uniform, the distance per > > > second increases each second, and so the product is not uniform though > > > the force is uniform. > > > I've explained this to you a half-dozen times, and you still don't > > > seem to understand this. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? > > > > > To have the "output" KE be the square of the time, > > > > immediately, violates the LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY: energy IN > > > > must = energy OUT! NoEinstein > > > > Sorry, no, the INPUT energy is also increasing as the square of time, > > > as I've explained several times. Energy is conserved.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 12 Oct 2009 20:34 On Oct 10, 8:55 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:238eab7d-8513-4b71-8121-ca3069a7d987(a)b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > All objects at rest have a 'KE' = their static weight. > > So you think an object at *rest* has *kinetic* energy, and this *energy* is > the same as its *weight*. BAHAHAHAHAHA. You're a joke. You don't even > know the meanings of the terms you use. Your... laughter is your psychosis. Have you ever made a '+new post' on sci.physics? Ha, ha, HA! NE
From: NoEinstein on 12 Oct 2009 20:37 On Oct 10, 8:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:13931ce1-526d-478d-a1c3-b2c4394a4049(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > You clearly understand nothing of physics, and so are not qualified to > comment- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ....Spoken by a dunce who has not made a '+new post' in his life. Ha, ha HA! NE
From: NoEinstein on 12 Oct 2009 20:39 On Oct 10, 9:01 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:5d624aac-67ed-4070-becb-8dfcb11275f0(a)w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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 > > Why would I bother with your nonsense quiz .. you wouldn't know a correct > answer if one hit you in the face.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No? But the readers of my replies who actually have brains understand the correctness! NE
From: NoEinstein on 12 Oct 2009 20:48
On Oct 10, 9:24 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Oct 10, 10:04 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 8, 12:21 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Dear Jerry ("another" hard-head): You need to take the following Pop > > Quiz for Science Buffs. If you doand will learn from the rationale > > (Though that's doubtful for you...)you will realize THIS basic fact: > > A compact object is traveling 32.174 feet per second, as at the end of > > one second of free-fall, and will have traveled 16.087 feet. Such > > will impact with a KE of 2 of its static weight units. For each > > second of fall its KE will increase one additional weight unit. All > > objects at rest have a 'KE' = their static weight. The CORRECT > > formula is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). At the end of second one, > > KE = 2. > > Your formula may be YOUR definition of energy, but it is not > anyone else's definition. Kinetic energy is not "splat power". > > Let us go back to MY questions. > > 1) If I lift an object 64 feet, is the energy it took me to lift > it the first foot equal to the energy it took me to lift it > the second foot, third foot, fourth foot... sixty-third foot, > sixty-fourth foot? > > Yes/No > > 2) If I drop an object 64 feet, is the kinetic energy acquired > by the object equal to the energy that it took to lift it 64 > feet? > > Yes/No > > 3) If I drop an object, does it fall about 16 feet the first > second, and after two seconds, is the total distance fallen > approximately 64 feet? > > Yes/No > > 4) Is 16 equal to one-fourth of 64? > > Yes/No > > 5) Is the amount of potential energy converted to kinetic energy > after one second equal to one-fourth the amount of potential > energy converted to kinetic energy after two seconds? > > Yes/No > > I need to know at what point you start saying "No". > > Jerry Dear Jerry: Lifting objects causes PE to accrue. The correct formula (mine) is: PE = w + (h / 16.087 ft.) w. PE is 100% recoverable as useful KE only if there is a continuous connection, or mechanism, for a slow energy transfer. Because most objects in free drop have no such connection, the recoverable KE is always less than the 'stored up' PE. In actuality, the only thing stored up is a potential distance of fall. Until such fall there is ZERO PE stored in the object itself! NoEinstein |