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: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 20:15 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:50db7aa9-8f23-4fae-8c98-d303155bb268(a)g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 22, 4:02 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> On Dec 21, 11:15 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> > On Dec 14, 8:09 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > Dear Autymn: Your science reasoning is as skewed as your English >> > writing ability. Your having another imagined explanation for what I >> > have explained doesn't negate my explanation. That said... I wish you >> > a Happy Holidays! � NoEinstein � >> >> My spell was so and fine. Your maths are bogus. > > Dear Autymn: Expert reasoning can bypass the need for math. SR's > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy It doesn't > can be concluded > simply by looking at both sides of the energy equation and realizing > that one side goes to infinity while the other does not, at velocity > 'c'�a clear VIOLATION of the law! That was math .. and incorrect math at that. > I've just disproved Einstein's SR > without a single math problem needing to be solved. No .. you just got it wrong > REASON the > universe, first; do the math, last. � NoEinstein � That's probably why you are so inept when in comes to physics.
From: Inertial on 22 Dec 2009 20:17 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:dc4203f3-600c-4bbf-8209-c2ffea14f858(a)z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 22, 10:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 22, 8:51 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >> >> > > No, they don't. Gammas do not carry mass away. >> >> > you're wrong on this point. Gammas definitely carry away mass. >> > Consider when an electron and a positron annihilate, a pair of 511 Kev >> > gammas are produced moving in opposite directions. They carry away all >> > the mass of the two particles. They just don't carry it in the form of >> > rest mass. >> >> Fair enough. The more correct statement is that there is no mass that >> is associable to each photon. > > Dear PD: NOW you are agreeing that gamma rays carry away the "mass" > of the two particles. Nope .. the mass is turned into energy and the gamma rays have that energy. The total mass is not conserved. > As is typical for you, you are on both sides of > the mass issue. Photons and all matter Photons are not matter > are composed of ether units I > call IOTAs. BAHAHAHA > Whether a mass is at rest or not has little or no effect > on its mass�only on the KE of that mass should such impact another > mass. Velocity does NOT increase the mass of any object! � > NoEinstein �
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 09:52 On Dec 22, 6:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Dec 21, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: Acceleration to many times 'c' Nothing gets accelerated to many times "c". > requires > only that the ether that's in the path be magnetized and ripped apart > in front of the spaceships so that the ether passes around such. You > are as flat-headed as those who said that the Earth is flat. Your > negative personality doesn't want for there to be progress in any area > especially science. It is amazing how you argue with authority, but > without ever supporting your claims (like gamma rays having no mass) > with supporting proofs. The evidence against nonzero mass for gamma rays is in the experimental literature. It's been *measured*. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/listings/rpp2009-list-photon.pdf for a list of references, where you can read all about those measurements. > Radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight by > the release of three particles. Three particles? Not in gamma decay. Perhaps you are confused. > Between them, the mass gets spooned > away from the mother mass. Not so. The mass of the products does not add up to the mass of the parent. Mass is not conserved. This is a *measured* fact. > So, those three particles must have mass > themselves. Mine is proof by reasoning. But your reasoning is counter to experimental *measurement*. Measurement is what's used in science to determine what the real facts are. When reasoning comes in conflict with measured facts, then it's the reasoning that is put in doubt, every single time. > Yours is "proof" (sic) by > hard-headed lies. Sorry, but not the case. Reality is determined by measurement. Measurements are not lies. > You figure as long as you keep talking there will > always be a fool or two to believe you. You were born a fool, and you > will die a fool. I will cry not. NoEinstein > >
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 09:53 On Dec 22, 7:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Dec 22, 10:28 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 8:51 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > No, they don't. Gammas do not carry mass away. > > > > you're wrong on this point. Gammas definitely carry away mass. > > > Consider when an electron and a positron annihilate, a pair of 511 Kev > > > gammas are produced moving in opposite directions. They carry away all > > > the mass of the two particles. They just don't carry it in the form of > > > rest mass. > > > Fair enough. The more correct statement is that there is no mass that > > is associable to each photon. > > Dear PD: NOW you are agreeing that gamma rays carry away the "mass" > of the two particles. Please read what I said. There is no mass that is associable to each photon. > As is typical for you, you are on both sides of > the mass issue. Photons and all matter are composed of ether units I > call IOTAs. Whether a mass is at rest or not has little or no effect > on its massonly on the KE of that mass should such impact another > mass. Velocity does NOT increase the mass of any object! > NoEinstein
From: Autymn D. C. on 23 Dec 2009 09:59
On Dec 22, 5:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Dear Autymn: Expert reasoning can bypass the need for math. SR's Reckening does not bypass tealcraft. > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy can be concluded > simply by looking at both sides of the energy equation and realizing > that one side goes to infinity while the other does not, at velocity > 'c'a clear VIOLATION of the law! I've just disproved Einstein's SR > without a single math problem needing to be solved. REASON the > universe, first; do the math, last. NoEinstein Energhy conservs energhy. Velocity is not energhy. Everything is bound by energhy; it has a speed; therefore, everything waxs within a speed. The same applies for bodies in a sonic medium as they near its celerity, if drag didn't inflect with speed. -Aut |