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: doug on 30 Oct 2009 19:08 NoEinstein wrote: > On Oct 27, 4:10 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > ... If the latter would make you go away, I'd consider doing those. � No, you tripping over your ego is what keeps us reading your nonsense. We keep expecting you to learn something and apologize to all of us. Or were you refering to your previous illegal threats of violence? You should get some help for that problem too. > NE � > >>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>On Oct 23, 10:44 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>... Laughter is an indication of your inferiority complex psychosis, >>>not a measure of my errors in science. >> >>No, we are laughing at both your errors in physics and you tripping >>over your ego. >> >> Groupies like you are most >> >> >>>evident to all who read my replies. Mine have substance, while yours >>>only attack the messenger. � NE � >> >>Lets see, you know no physics and only bluster. At least you are >>no longer making threats of violence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>>>On Oct 22, 9:27 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>... and Dougie Boy, the Leech's place is to detract from those >>>>>actually making contributions to science�which he never had the >>>>>mentality to do, himself. Sad; very sad... � NE � >> >>>>So john thinks that making his nonsense posts and demonstrating >>>>his complete ignorance of science is making a contribution? >>>>It does give us something to show the students as to how >>>>stupid you will look if you follow john's path. We do enjoy laughing >>>>at you. Keep it up. >> >>>>>>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>>>>>On Oct 20, 1:25 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>On Oct 19, 5:00 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 16, 2:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Kinetic Energy is identical to >>>>>>>>>>>MOMENUTM. >> >>>>>>>>>>Except, of course, that this is completely wrong. If they >>>>>>>>>>were the same, they would have the same name. And the same >>>>>>>>>>units. And the same formulas. So john is zero for three there. >> >>>>>>>>>>It's how hard an object of known weight will impact due to >> >>>>>>>>>>>having some specific velocity. It turns out that KE will increase ONE >>>>>>>>>>>WEIGHT UNIT of FORCE for every 32.174 ft. per second increase in >>>>>>>>>>>velocity. In the case of falling objects, that velocity increase >>>>>>>>>>>occurs every second of the fall. >> >>>>>>>>>>This is just word nonsense and does not rise to the level of wrong. >> >>>>>>>>>>>Work�like we both agree�is force x distance. Move something twice as >>>>>>>>>>>far against some resistance, and in the desired direction, and you do >>>>>>>>>>>twice as much WORK. But the distance of fall of falling objects isn't >>>>>>>>>>>against any resistance! >> >>>>>>>>>>That is pretty funny. You quote the formula but then demonstrate >>>>>>>>>>complete ignorance of what it means. >> >>>>>>>>>>So, no work can be calculated. >> >>>>>>>>>>Wrong again, john. >> >>>>>>>>>>What is >> >>>>>>>>>>>known, however, is that the WEIGHT of the object is uniformly acting >>>>>>>>>>>DOWN, for however long the object falls. >> >>>>>>>>>>>*** The majority of the distance of fall is due to the accruing >>>>>>>>>>>coasting velocity each second. >> >>>>>>>>>>This is also pretty funny and has nothing to do with science. >> >>>>>>>>>>What that is like is taking your foot >> >>>>>>>>>>>off of the accelerator when you reach 32.174 ft. / sec. During the >>>>>>>>>>>next second (ignoring road friction and wind resistance) the car will >>>>>>>>>>>COAST 32.174 feet. The latter distance doesn't increase KE, because >>>>>>>>>>>the velocity hasn't changed! If you would actually take the following >>>>>>>>>>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs, >> >>>>>>>>>>It is good for a laugh. >> >>>>>>>>>>you might better understand that distance >> >>>>>>>>>>>of travel doesn't increase KE, nor momentum (the same thing), >> >>>>>>>>>>Wrong again john. >> >>>>>>>>>>in any >> >>>>>>>>>>>way. The equation for momentum is mass x velocity (in 'g' >>>>>>>>>>>multiples). 'D' is nowhere to be seen in such. >> >>>>>>>>>>John is trying to increase the density of stupid statements >>>>>>>>>>in his posts. >> >>>>>>>>>>� NoEinstein � >> >>>>>>>>>>>Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! >>>>>>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... >> >>>>>>>>>>>Dropping Einstein Like a Stone >>>>>>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 16, 12:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 13, 1:39 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear jbriggs444: Your definition of work is like a time-motion >>>>>>>>>>>>>study. My definition is AFTER the work has been done, and its >>>>>>>>>>>>>quantity gets evaluated. My formal definition of work is: W = FD x >>>>>>>>>>>>>cos. of angle of deviation from the desired direction of motion. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>Good. Now, let's look at YOUR definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>Notice that term D. >>>>>>>>>>>>What do you think D stands for? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>It is the DISTANCE the object moves while the force is acting on the >>>>>>>>>>>>object. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>Now go back and look at what I told you a few days ago about why the >>>>>>>>>>>>work increases each second as an object falls, even as the force >>>>>>>>>>>>remains the same. You see? You AGREE with me, by invoking that formula >>>>>>>>>>>>above. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>No >>>>>>>>>>>>>motion in desired direction would = zero work done. Effective KE is >>>>>>>>>>>>>AFTER all of the forces have been added or subtracted according to >>>>>>>>>>>>>their vectors. The resultant velocity times the mass that is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>motion yields the KE (in weight multiples, like pounds). � NoEinstein >>>>>>>>>>>>>� >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 13, 12:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 13, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PD: You are off-your-rocker. Go into a small room and talk to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>yourself. No one with half a brain reads your replies. I only scan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>down to your first foot-in-the-mouth nonsense. � NE � >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>So do I. Usually that results in reading clear to the bottom of a PD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>post. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 12, 7:32 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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! >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The contribution to the energy that changes KE is called work. Please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>consult your 7th grade science book. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>This one gave me pause. It's too causal for my taste. It implies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>that if two opposite forces act on a uniformly moving object that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>neither of them do any work since neither of them change KE. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>One can argue that this definition isn't quite right for non-rigid >>>>>>>>>>>>>>bodies and that it requires clarification for rotating bodies. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Still, it's not a bad starting point. A simplification suitable for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>pedagogical purposes. Especially when the discussion doesn't involve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>rigidity or rotation. And if you read it just right, it is equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>to what I consider to be a good definition. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Me, I define work as the vector dot product of instantaneous point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>force times the incremental motion of the target object at the contact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>point integrated over the life of the force. If it's not a point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>force, you can integrate over the contact area as well. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've had discussions previously with folks who think that you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>>supposed to do a path integral of force times incremental movement of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>the force along a path. That's wrong. It's force times incremental >>>>>>>>>>>>>>movement of the object to which the force is applied. For point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>objects it's the same thing. For extended objects it's not.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>... Dougie Boy's reply is duly disregarded. � NE � >> >>>>>>>>This is john admitting he has not answers to the his mistakes which >>>>>>>>were pointed out to him. Go ahead and run away john. We are all >>>>>>>>keeping you in your place.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>... yeah, right. Ha, ha, HA! � NE � >> >>>>>>Well, lets see, john. No one has ever agreed with you and >>>>>>many say they are laughing at you. You are in your place. >>>>>>Your place is to play the clown for us. Your place is to >>>>>>make stupid statements about physics for our amusement. >>>>>>Your place is to look like a fool as you trip over your >>>>>>inflated but useless ego. In the mean time, science >>>>>>is ignoring you as it should. You have never done any >>>>>>science but you do have tantrums well. You must have >>>>>>practiced that a lot even as an adult.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > >
From: NoEinstein on 30 Oct 2009 18:20 Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is indeed force times distance in the desired direction. In your example of a box sliding on ice, no work needs to be done if the friction is zero. On that we agree! The force of gravity (or 'energy' of gravity, also in pounds) can never exceed the INERTIA or static weight of the falling object. The distance of fall wrongly implies that the force of gravity gets bigger and bigger. Actually, the "new" distance of fall each second, 32.174 feet, accrues LINEARLY. But the time vs. distance curve shows is a parabola, because each new second of fall keeps repeating in every subsequent second as a COASTING distance. Even by your usually erroneous definitions of units, Energy and Work are NOT the same thing! So why is it you invent your own new definition of energy to be "work" done? It's because you have some screws loose and there is no Dr. Frankenstein to give you... life. By recognizing that all objects in free fall are also coasting, you just might could see the light. But the latter doesn't fit your contrary personality. NoEinstein (Also, see one comment in the broader text, below.) > > On Oct 27, 1:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 24, 1:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It's amazing how you paraphrase the > > science truths that I stated better, then imply that I must have been > > wrong. You "changed the subject" to be objects that are sliding on > > frictionless surfaces, which obviously require no work to keep them > > moving. You prove absolutely nothing by agreeing with the obvious. > > > Try this: (1.) What is the SOURCE of the energy that causes objects to > > fall? > > The source of the energy is the WORK done by gravity. > Work is force x distance. > The force is constant and is the same in second 2 than it is in second > 1. > The distance is increases and is more in second 2 than it is in second > 1. > Therefore the product force x distance is increasing and is more in > second 2 than in second 1. > Therefore the source of the energy is increasing and is more in second > 2 than in second 1. > > I don't know why this is so hard for you. This is stuff that 7th > graders get. > > > (2.) Is that SOURCE energy uniform or exponential? > > NEITHER. The source increases, but not exponentially. It increases as > the square of time, and that is a function much different than > exponential. > Exponential can have any value from zero to infinity. Square is an exponent as is cube. To say that a thing is exponential is simply saying that the values aren't linear. Live and learn! NE > > > PD > > > If you will > > please answer both of those, then your "credibility" to comment on any > > energy issue will be on-the-table. Good luck! NoEinstein > > So far, we know that you are having difficulty grasping things that > 7th graders understand.
From: NoEinstein on 30 Oct 2009 18:22 On Oct 27, 3:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > How many people do you have reading your '+new posts', PD. NE > > On Oct 27, 1:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 24, 1:26 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ... The other readers of my replies are in a better position to say if > > my 'tools' are chipping away at your rock. So far, there is enough > > rock left to keep making its hard-headed presence known. NE > > And why don't you ask your readers if your tools are chipping away at > anything? > I mean REAL readers, not the ones in your imagination. > > > > > > > > On Oct 23, 8:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 23, 3:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > ... And PD is a ROCK needing to be chipped away! NE > > > > How's that workin' for ya??- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 30 Oct 2009 19:39 NoEinstein wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is indeed force times distance in > the desired direction. In your example of a box sliding on ice, no > work needs to be done if the friction is zero. On that we agree! The > force of gravity (or 'energy' of gravity, also in pounds) can never > exceed the INERTIA or static weight of the falling object. The > distance of fall wrongly implies that the force of gravity gets bigger > and bigger. Actually, the "new" distance of fall each second, 32.174 > feet, accrues LINEARLY. But the time vs. distance curve shows is a > parabola, because each new second of fall keeps repeating in every > subsequent second as a COASTING distance. > > Even by your usually erroneous definitions of units, Energy and Work > are NOT the same thing! Except, of course, you are wrong. You do not understand units but that is your problem. So why is it you invent your own new > definition of energy to be "work" done? Because that definition has been used for centuries. It's because you have some > screws loose and there is no Dr. Frankenstein to give you... life. By > recognizing that all objects in free fall are also coasting, you just > might could see the light. But the latter doesn't fit your contrary > personality. It also does not fit the facts. This has been known for centuries. � NoEinstein � (Also, see one comment in the broader > text, below.) > >>On Oct 27, 1:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >>>On Oct 24, 1:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It's amazing how you paraphrase the >>>science truths that I stated better, then imply that I must have been >>>wrong. You "changed the subject" to be objects that are sliding on >>>frictionless surfaces, which obviously require no work to keep them >>>moving. You prove absolutely nothing by agreeing with the obvious. >> >>>Try this: (1.) What is the SOURCE of the energy that causes objects to >>>fall? >> >>The source of the energy is the WORK done by gravity. >>Work is force x distance. >>The force is constant and is the same in second 2 than it is in second >>1. >>The distance is increases and is more in second 2 than it is in second >>1. >>Therefore the product force x distance is increasing and is more in >>second 2 than in second 1. >>Therefore the source of the energy is increasing and is more in second >>2 than in second 1. >> >>I don't know why this is so hard for you. This is stuff that 7th >>graders get. >> >> >>> (2.) Is that SOURCE energy uniform or exponential? >> >>NEITHER. The source increases, but not exponentially. It increases as >>the square of time, and that is a function much different than >>exponential. >> > > Exponential can have any value from zero to infinity. Square is an > exponent as is cube. To say that a thing is exponential is simply > saying that the values aren't linear. Live and learn! � NE � > >> >>PD >> >> >>> If you will >>>please answer both of those, then your "credibility" to comment on any >>>energy issue will be on-the-table. Good luck! � NoEinstein � >> >>So far, we know that you are having difficulty grasping things that >>7th graders understand. > >
From: NoEinstein on 2 Nov 2009 21:30
On Oct 30, 6:39 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > NoEinstein wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: WORK is indeed force times distance in > > the desired direction. In your example of a box sliding on ice, no > > work needs to be done if the friction is zero. On that we agree! The > > force of gravity (or 'energy' of gravity, also in pounds) can never > > exceed the INERTIA or static weight of the falling object. The > > distance of fall wrongly implies that the force of gravity gets bigger > > and bigger. Actually, the "new" distance of fall each second, 32.174 > > feet, accrues LINEARLY. But the time vs. distance curve shows is a > > parabola, because each new second of fall keeps repeating in every > > subsequent second as a COASTING distance. > > > Even by your usually erroneous definitions of units, Energy and Work > > are NOT the same thing! > > Except, of course, you are wrong. You do not understand units > but that is your problem. > > So why is it you invent your own new > > > definition of energy to be "work" done? > > Because that definition has been used for centuries. > > It's because you have some > > > screws loose and there is no Dr. Frankenstein to give you... life. By > > recognizing that all objects in free fall are also coasting, you just > > might could see the light. But the latter doesn't fit your contrary > > personality. > > It also does not fit the facts. This has been known for centuries. > > NoEinstein (Also, see one comment in the broader > > > > > text, below.) > > >>On Oct 27, 1:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>On Oct 24, 1:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It's amazing how you paraphrase the > >>>science truths that I stated better, then imply that I must have been > >>>wrong. You "changed the subject" to be objects that are sliding on > >>>frictionless surfaces, which obviously require no work to keep them > >>>moving. You prove absolutely nothing by agreeing with the obvious. > > >>>Try this: (1.) What is the SOURCE of the energy that causes objects to > >>>fall? > > >>The source of the energy is the WORK done by gravity. > >>Work is force x distance. > >>The force is constant and is the same in second 2 than it is in second > >>1. > >>The distance is increases and is more in second 2 than it is in second > >>1. > >>Therefore the product force x distance is increasing and is more in > >>second 2 than in second 1. > >>Therefore the source of the energy is increasing and is more in second > >>2 than in second 1. > > >>I don't know why this is so hard for you. This is stuff that 7th > >>graders get. > > >>> (2.) Is that SOURCE energy uniform or exponential? > > >>NEITHER. The source increases, but not exponentially. It increases as > >>the square of time, and that is a function much different than > >>exponential. > > > Exponential can have any value from zero to infinity. Square is an > > exponent as is cube. To say that a thing is exponential is simply > > saying that the values aren't linear. Live and learn! NE > > >>PD > > >>> If you will > >>>please answer both of those, then your "credibility" to comment on any > >>>energy issue will be on-the-table. Good luck! NoEinstein > > >>So far, we know that you are having difficulty grasping things that > >>7th graders understand.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - .... and Dougie Boy is this relic from the past doing his damnedest to hold back science progress in the 22nd century. NE |