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 3 Dec 2009 11:16 On Dec 3, 10:00 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > On Dec 3, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > For you, the fact that it IS printed in textbooks, even in grade > > school textbooks, is an indication that it's wrong. Again, NoEinstein, > > you make the astounding claim that what every child is taught in grade > > school is wrong. > > > You're a nutjob, John. You know this, right? > > you are smart pd but what i dont understand is > why you talk so much. > a troll will simply never learn > no matter how hard you try to > make them understand. I'm not trying to make him understand anything. I'm just making it really clear how foolish he's being.
From: David Bostwick on 3 Dec 2009 12:16 In article <28330560-2292-4ddd-b238-1cdd7ceea880(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Raymond Yohros <bat(a)birdband.net> wrote: >On Dec 3, 10:39=A0am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> For you, the fact that it IS printed in textbooks, even in grade >> school textbooks, is an indication that it's wrong. Again, NoEinstein, >> you make the astounding claim that what every child is taught in grade >> school is wrong. >> >> You're a nutjob, John. You know this, right? >> > >you are smart pd but what i dont understand is >why you talk so much. >a troll will simply never learn >no matter how hard you try to >make them understand. A killfile can help a lot.
From: NoEinstein on 3 Dec 2009 17:11 On Dec 3, 11:00 am, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > Dear Raymond: Please give me and the readers links to your... '+new posts' on sci,physics. Calling someone a troll isn't taking SCIENCE, it is talking about your being upstaged by the MESSENGER! NoEinstein > > On Dec 3, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > For you, the fact that it IS printed in textbooks, even in grade > > school textbooks, is an indication that it's wrong. Again, NoEinstein, > > you make the astounding claim that what every child is taught in grade > > school is wrong. > > > You're a nutjob, John. You know this, right? > > you are smart pd but what i dont understand is > why you talk so much. > a troll will simply never learn > no matter how hard you try to > make them understand.
From: NoEinstein on 3 Dec 2009 17:16 On Dec 3, 12:16 pm, david.bostw...(a)chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) wrote: > In article <28330560-2292-4ddd-b238-1cdd7ceea...(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Raymond Yohros <b...(a)birdband.net> wrote: > > >On Dec 3, 10:39=A0am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> For you, the fact that it IS printed in textbooks, even in grade > >> school textbooks, is an indication that it's wrong. Again, NoEinstein, > >> you make the astounding claim that what every child is taught in grade > >> school is wrong. > > >> You're a nutjob, John. You know this, right? > > >you are smart pd but what i dont understand is > >why you talk so much. > >a troll will simply never learn > >no matter how hard you try to > >make them understand. > > A killfile can help a lot. Dear David: In the past you may have replied as being in agreement with one or more of my postulates. Why don't you... TALK SCIENCE rather than talking about the problems of dealing with parasites like PD, the Parasite Dunce. I would really like to hear you discussing important science, like: The Law of the Conservation of Energy, and how SR violates that law up, down, and sideways! NoEinstein
From: PD on 8 Dec 2009 15:13
On Dec 8, 2:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > If you will agree that both E = 1/2mv^2 and E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2] > ^1/2 go to infinity close to velocity 'c', then you will be > acknowledging that the OUTPUT energy exceeds the INPUT energy > (velocity). The issue here is the terminal energy, not the disparity > in the profile of the two curves. NoEinstein > Well, I'm glad to see that you replaced E=mc^2 with E=mc^2/(1-v^2/ c^2). At least now you're not talking about rest energy. And it's pretty obvious that E=mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2) goes to infinity when v approaches c. The term in the denominator becomes zero, and you know what happens when you divide by zero. On the other hand, I wouldn't dream of saying that E=(1/2)mv^2 goes to infinity when v approaches c. Any child with a 5th grade math education will see that it doesn't. I assume you've at least had a 5th grade math education. Of course, E=(1/2)mv^2 is known to be an approximation that only works when v is much smaller than c, and can't be used reliably at all with v anywhere near c. However, the fact that energy goes to infinity when v approaches c doesn't violate energy conservation at all. It is true, just as it has always been true, that any energy increase is due to work done by an exerted force, and this is what energy conservation requires. It is also true that for any v at all less than c, the energy is not infinite. Big is not infinite. And as we calculated before, the energy required to get a proton up to 0.9999995 c is actually pretty small, about comparable to dropping a nickel from your pants pocket. Moreover, particles that actually do travel at c do so without accelerating them from any lower speed, and so no big amount of energy is required to do that either. PD |