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: PD on 13 Oct 2009 15:28 On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 5:33 pm, illed with charge. > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > common > > > > > you start to amuse me: (and stun me) > > > > > > empty space has the property of charge ?? (:-) > > > > > ithought that empty space is by definition > > > > > has nothing in it !! > > > > > why not witches on brooms > > > > > > does the experiment that defined that electric constant--- > > > > > > -- WAS DONE IN EMPTY SPACE ?? > > > > > DONT YOU THINK THAT > > > > > THERE WERE OTHER PHYSICAL > > > > > ENTITIES THERE THAT INFLUENCED and shaped THAT CONSTANT?? > > > > > Nope. No charges need be present in the volume considered, and you > > > > don't have to consider the region outside the volume either. > > > > did you ever think or know > > > how that electric constant was derived by an experiment?? > > > A number of them, yes. > > And not all of them included a charge in the region where this > > property was measured! > >--------------------- > > so > it was measured in Vacum?? > to measure in complete vacum should be > measuring an electric charge > 50 meters fron the palce in which any charge is > located !! Interesting... how did you come up with the number 50 meters? Out of a hat? > ie > to measure the constant in a palce that here > is no electriccharge > iow > anttime you measure charge all the sources > of that charge are near by !! > OTHA > you can measure a photons > one light year from the location of the entity that > created it and sent it > ie > you measure it neutralized of its creators !!! > dont you see the difference > ?? > ------------------ > > > > do you agree that it was derived by expariment ?? > > > all those tools and matter and physical entities that involved in > > > that experiment are meaning less for the experiment ?? > > > Oh, come on. Here we go. > > So for the photon, where you say Planck's constant tells you there is > > mass involved and so the photon must have mass, how do you know that > > the mass doesn't belong to all the tools involved in the experiment, > > rather than to the photon itself? > > Stop it. You twist and try to use a chain of logic one way for one > > see jsut above > now if it does not go with you by physics arguments > i have some formal physics arguments for you > 1 > you fell in to the trap of words interpretations > not physics interpretations > you heared that they call it > sort of > the vacuum constant'' > as if it was a proerty of Vacuum > but no one told you it is a property of vacuum: Oh, yes, they did, and it is. And as I told you, you are guilty of the same thing. You've said repeatedly that the mass in the units of Planck's constant tells you that the photon has mass. Was this determination of YOURS done with the photon being isolated from all masses by a distance of 50 meters? If so, prove it. > > the constant of charge force > WAS DERIVED IN VACUUM CONDITIONS > IT WAS DERIVED IN SOME SPACE > THAT DIDNT NOT INCLUDE SAY > AIR RUBBER WATER GASOLINE > ANOTHER GAS etc etc > they actually told you what there ** WAS NOT IN THERE!* > among posible materials that we know about them > that could be but were not there !! > and you wrongly > understood it as a property of Net VACUUM!! > -------------------------- > 2 > WHO PERMITTED YOU TO SEPARATE > A APRT OF THE FORMULA FROM THE MAIN BODY OF THE FORMULA ANDINTERPRET > IT > ASD A SEPARATED ENTITY OF THE FORMULA?? > > iow > all the componenents of the formula is > ONE PACKET ONE PARCEL !! > you cant trim jsut a part of it > and > interpret it as a separated part of the whole formula! > by trimming it from the rest of the formula > you actuallly castrated that formula !! > from its physical meaning > and went to fantastic interpretations > > (if you like it more abstaractly:-- > half of the truth is often a lie !!) > > on the other hand > while i examined > E=hf > i examined it as** a whole* > i dint separate any part of it > and didnt interpret-at it separately > as you did !! > > got the difference ?? > > ATB > Y.Porat > ----------------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 13 Oct 2009 16:34 On Oct 13, 9:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 5:33 pm, illed with charge. > > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > common > > > > > > you start to amuse me: (and stun me) > > > > > > > empty space has the property of charge ?? (:-) > > > > > > ithought that empty space is by definition > > > > > > has nothing in it !! > > > > > > why not witches on brooms > > > > > > > does the experiment that defined that electric constant--- > > > > > > > -- WAS DONE IN EMPTY SPACE ?? > > > > > > DONT YOU THINK THAT > > > > > > THERE WERE OTHER PHYSICAL > > > > > > ENTITIES THERE THAT INFLUENCED and shaped THAT CONSTANT?? > > > > > > Nope. No charges need be present in the volume considered, and you > > > > > don't have to consider the region outside the volume either. > > > > > did you ever think or know > > > > how that electric constant was derived by an experiment?? > > > > A number of them, yes. > > > And not all of them included a charge in the region where this > > > property was measured! > > >--------------------- > > > so > > it was measured in Vacum?? > > to measure in complete vacum should be > > measuring an electric charge > > 50 meters fron the palce in which any charge is > > located !! > > Interesting... how did you come up with the number 50 meters? Out of a > hat? > > > > > ie > > to measure the constant in a palce that here > > is no electriccharge > > iow > > anttime you measure charge all the sources > > of that charge are near by !! > > OTHA > > you can measure a photons > > one light year from the location of the entity that > > created it and sent it > > ie > > you measure it neutralized of its creators !!! > > dont you see the difference > > ?? > > ------------------ > > > > > do you agree that it was derived by expariment ?? > > > > all those tools and matter and physical entities that involved in > > > > that experiment are meaning less for the experiment ?? > > > > Oh, come on. Here we go. > > > So for the photon, where you say Planck's constant tells you there is > > > mass involved and so the photon must have mass, how do you know that > > > the mass doesn't belong to all the tools involved in the experiment, > > > rather than to the photon itself? > > > Stop it. You twist and try to use a chain of logic one way for one > > > see jsut above > > now if it does not go with you by physics arguments > > i have some formal physics arguments for you > > 1 > > you fell in to the trap of words interpretations > > not physics interpretations > > you heared that they call it > > sort of > > the vacuum constant'' > > as if it was a proerty of Vacuum > > but no one told you it is a property of vacuum: > > Oh, yes, they did, and it is. > > And as I told you, you are guilty of the same thing. You've said > repeatedly that the mass in the units of Planck's constant tells you > that the photon has mass. Was this determination of YOURS done with > the photon being isolated from all masses by a distance of 50 meters? > If so, prove it. > > > > > the constant of charge force > > WAS DERIVED IN VACUUM CONDITIONS > > IT WAS DERIVED IN SOME SPACE > > THAT DIDNT NOT INCLUDE SAY > > AIR RUBBER WATER GASOLINE > > ANOTHER GAS etc etc > > they actually told you what there ** WAS NOT IN THERE!* > > among posible materials that we know about them > > that could be but were not there !! > > and you wrongly > > understood it as a property of Net VACUUM!! > > -------------------------- > > 2 > > WHO PERMITTED YOU TO SEPARATE > > A APRT OF THE FORMULA FROM THE MAIN BODY OF THE FORMULA ANDINTERPRET > > IT > > ASD A SEPARATED ENTITY OF THE FORMULA?? > > > iow > > all the componenents of the formula is > > ONE PACKET ONE PARCEL !! > > you cant trim jsut a part of it > > and > > interpret it as a separated part of the whole formula! > > by trimming it from the rest of the formula > > you actuallly castrated that formula !! > > from its physical meaning > > and went to fantastic interpretations > > > (if you like it more abstaractly:-- > > half of the truth is often a lie !!) > > > on the other hand > > while i examined > > E=hf > > i examined it as** a whole* > > i dint separate any part of it > > and didnt interpret-at it separately > > as you did !! > > > got the difference ?? > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------------------- let me explain it again as simple as possible: there is a big diffference between what i did and what you did while i found the mass in E=hf i did two things 1 i realted it TOPTHE WHOLE PHYSICAL ENTITY DESCRIBED BYTHAT FORMULA ie i related it to the photon energy 2 ***i didnt relate it to just one part of the formula !!!*** as should be done in physics now lets see what you did you took the formula F el = k Q1Q2/R^2 or what ever is the exact formula and waht did **you do** with that formula??? you related the mass that you found JUST TO ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THAT FORMULA !! you ddint relate it to ALL the physicsl entity that describes electric force or what ever it describes got the difference??? you ddint have any justification TO RELATE IT ONLY TO ** A PART** (OR ONE COMPONENT ) OF THAT ENTITY DESCRIBED BY **ALL THE FORMULA *** !!! IOW you should describe mass to the electric charge force !!!! (described by that formula and by doing that you youself suplied me with another proof of NO MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !! you see that it is a golden new rule of physics !!! while it was you how did that (another ) proofe for me !!! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 19:00 On Oct 13, 3:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 9:28 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 5:33 pm, illed with charge. > > > > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > > > common > > > > > > > you start to amuse me: (and stun me) > > > > > > > > empty space has the property of charge ?? (:-) > > > > > > > ithought that empty space is by definition > > > > > > > has nothing in it !! > > > > > > > why not witches on brooms > > > > > > > > does the experiment that defined that electric constant--- > > > > > > > > -- WAS DONE IN EMPTY SPACE ?? > > > > > > > DONT YOU THINK THAT > > > > > > > THERE WERE OTHER PHYSICAL > > > > > > > ENTITIES THERE THAT INFLUENCED and shaped THAT CONSTANT?? > > > > > > > Nope. No charges need be present in the volume considered, and you > > > > > > don't have to consider the region outside the volume either. > > > > > > did you ever think or know > > > > > how that electric constant was derived by an experiment?? > > > > > A number of them, yes. > > > > And not all of them included a charge in the region where this > > > > property was measured! > > > >--------------------- > > > > so > > > it was measured in Vacum?? > > > to measure in complete vacum should be > > > measuring an electric charge > > > 50 meters fron the palce in which any charge is > > > located !! > > > Interesting... how did you come up with the number 50 meters? Out of a > > hat? > > > > ie > > > to measure the constant in a palce that here > > > is no electriccharge > > > iow > > > anttime you measure charge all the sources > > > of that charge are near by !! > > > OTHA > > > you can measure a photons > > > one light year from the location of the entity that > > > created it and sent it > > > ie > > > you measure it neutralized of its creators !!! > > > dont you see the difference > > > ?? > > > ------------------ > > > > > > do you agree that it was derived by expariment ?? > > > > > all those tools and matter and physical entities that involved in > > > > > that experiment are meaning less for the experiment ?? > > > > > Oh, come on. Here we go. > > > > So for the photon, where you say Planck's constant tells you there is > > > > mass involved and so the photon must have mass, how do you know that > > > > the mass doesn't belong to all the tools involved in the experiment, > > > > rather than to the photon itself? > > > > Stop it. You twist and try to use a chain of logic one way for one > > > > see jsut above > > > now if it does not go with you by physics arguments > > > i have some formal physics arguments for you > > > 1 > > > you fell in to the trap of words interpretations > > > not physics interpretations > > > you heared that they call it > > > sort of > > > the vacuum constant'' > > > as if it was a proerty of Vacuum > > > but no one told you it is a property of vacuum: > > > Oh, yes, they did, and it is. > > > And as I told you, you are guilty of the same thing. You've said > > repeatedly that the mass in the units of Planck's constant tells you > > that the photon has mass. Was this determination of YOURS done with > > the photon being isolated from all masses by a distance of 50 meters? > > If so, prove it. > > > > the constant of charge force > > > WAS DERIVED IN VACUUM CONDITIONS > > > IT WAS DERIVED IN SOME SPACE > > > THAT DIDNT NOT INCLUDE SAY > > > AIR RUBBER WATER GASOLINE > > > ANOTHER GAS etc etc > > > they actually told you what there ** WAS NOT IN THERE!* > > > among posible materials that we know about them > > > that could be but were not there !! > > > and you wrongly > > > understood it as a property of Net VACUUM!! > > > -------------------------- > > > 2 > > > WHO PERMITTED YOU TO SEPARATE > > > A APRT OF THE FORMULA FROM THE MAIN BODY OF THE FORMULA ANDINTERPRET > > > IT > > > ASD A SEPARATED ENTITY OF THE FORMULA?? > > > > iow > > > all the componenents of the formula is > > > ONE PACKET ONE PARCEL !! > > > you cant trim jsut a part of it > > > and > > > interpret it as a separated part of the whole formula! > > > by trimming it from the rest of the formula > > > you actuallly castrated that formula !! > > > from its physical meaning > > > and went to fantastic interpretations > > > > (if you like it more abstaractly:-- > > > half of the truth is often a lie !!) > > > > on the other hand > > > while i examined > > > E=hf > > > i examined it as** a whole* > > > i dint separate any part of it > > > and didnt interpret-at it separately > > > as you did !! > > > > got the difference ?? > > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > ---------------------------------- > > let me explain it again > as simple as possible: > > there is a big diffference between what i did > and what you did Hopeless. Simply hopeless. > while i found the mass in > E=hf > i did two things > 1 > i realted it TOPTHE WHOLE PHYSICAL ENTITY DESCRIBED BYTHAT FORMULA > ie > i related it to the photon energy > 2 > ***i didnt relate it to just one part of the formula !!!*** > as should be done in physics > now lets see what you did > > you took the formula > F el = k Q1Q2/R^2 > > or what ever is the exact formula > and waht did **you do** with that formula??? > > you related the mass that you found > JUST TO ONE OF THE COMPONENTS > OF THAT FORMULA !! > you ddint relate it to ALL the physicsl entity that describes > electric force or what ever it describes > > got the difference??? > > you ddint have any justification > TO RELATE IT ONLY TO ** A PART** > (OR ONE COMPONENT ) > OF THAT ENTITY DESCRIBED BY > **ALL THE FORMULA *** !!! > > IOW > you should describe mass to the > electric charge force !!!! > (described by that formula > and by doing that > you youself suplied me with another proof of > > NO MASS- NO REAL PHYSICS !! > > you see that it is a golden new rule of physics !!! > while it was you how did that (another ) proofe for me !!! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ----------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Autymn D. C. on 13 Oct 2009 20:05 On Oct 12, 5:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 12, 5:43 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 8:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 1:04 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Y.Porat: The failure of scientists to make charged particles > > > reach 'c' was due to the presence of ether inside the vacuum tubes. > > > The ridiculous notion behind SR resulted from extrapolation of the > > > particle experiments. In space travel, the density of ether drops off > > > the further away from massive objects you stay. In the 'Swiss Cheese' > > > voids between the galaxies, there is little or no ether. Plot your > > > intra-universe courses of travel to stay in those voids, and your > > > maximum velocity is limitless. Extra-terrestrials, and yours truly, > > > know that, because ether is polar, it can be magnetized and made to > > > RIP apart so that the spaceships don't ever impact the ether. > > > This doesn't contradict SR. > > SR placed a non-existent speed limit on light and on objects. I've > REMOVED that speed limit, conclusively! NE http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+-autumn+Huygens
From: Autymn D. C. on 13 Oct 2009 21:05
On Oct 12, 5:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Oct 12, 4:12 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > On Oct 10, 8:04 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > > That is the formula of nothing. > > > feet per second.  FORCE OF IMPACT, i.e., KE is a function of the > > > VELOCITY and the static weight of the object.  *** Since the velocity > > > i.e. -> q.e. > > energhy != forse > > mvv/2 != ma = mjt > > > > of all dropped objects increases uniformly, or LINEARLY with respect > > > to time, NOT the distance traveled, KE must, therefore, be increasing > > > LINEARLY, too.  The latter conforms to the Law of the Conservation of > > > Energy.  But your errant "distance" notion violates the L. of the C. > > > Momentum, cretin. > > KE IS momentum, Jerk!  â NE â momentum = vis inertiæ work = vis impressa cinèsis = vis viva pressure = vis mortva > Dear Autymn D. C.: No, it's the formula that REPLACES E = mc^2 and KE > = 1/2 mv^2 When v=0, KEâ 0: it's the formula of nothing. -Aut |