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 31 Dec 2009 20:05 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:14089d0c-877c-411a-836c-7a562ce33bb8(a)u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 22, 8:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > Dear Inertial Fool: I said that the energy-mass is conserved; I never > claimed that mass will never change. I didn't say otherwise > Burn a lump of coal and part of > the mass converts to energy. Very very little, if any, mass does. Its a chemical reaction. The mass of solid residue from the burnt coal has less mass, but that is not the total mass of the system. > But travel at any velocity that you > choose and there will be ZERO conversion of mass to energy (outside of > the propulsion system, of course) and ZERO conversion of velocity to > mass!!!!! Noone says velocity converts to mass.
From: Inertial on 31 Dec 2009 20:06 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:c56e5240-f678-40d8-bb40-c4fcb671e7da(a)j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 23, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: You said: "The evidence against nonzero > mass for gamma rays is in the experimental literature." But you > haven't explained how radioactive decay can LOWER the atomic weight... Mass converts to energy > unless either or all of the gamma, beta, and alpha particles have > mass. Good reasoning will trump you references to errant science > every time! � NoEinstein � And so we trump your errant science with good reasoning .. though mostly we just laugh at it.
From: Y.Porat on 1 Jan 2010 09:06 On Nov 6 2009, 10:47 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 6, 2:37 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 1:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Oct 30, 3:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 27, 4:09 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You have one standard, and one standard > > > > alone for what "true" science is, namely: Anything that has ever been > > > > printed in a college textbook is "...the truth, the whole truth, and > > > > nothing but the truth." > > > > No. What is verified by experiment is the truth. However, textbooks do > > > a pretty good job of summarizing what has been found that way to be > > > the truth. > > > ------------------------------ > > > it is funny as PD is talking as he was > > the priest of the Goddess of science: > > > experiments are the truth always ??? (:-) > > > PD forgot that an experiment means nothing > > unless it is INTERPRETATED !! > > That's incorrect, Porat. You've obviously not done a science > experiment. > > > here is an example > > > experiment tells us that it more difficult in order to add valicity > > No, that's not what experiment tells you. Various theories make > predictions about what will be observed numerically about the final > velocity of an object after a force has been applied. Measurement in > experiment simply tells you which of these models got the prediction ------------------- you hand waving is good as a harmful deceptive ** lie** !!! as long you dont tell us exactly **which experiments** and how they are done!! and then we will be able to reexamine them !!! i examined in past many experiments and saw clearly the mistaken interpretation of parrots TIA Y.Porat ------------------------
From: PD on 1 Jan 2010 13:09 On Dec 31 2009, 6:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Dec 23, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: You said: "The evidence against nonzero > mass for gamma rays is in the experimental literature." But you > haven't explained how radioactive decay can LOWER the atomic weight... > unless either or all of the gamma, beta, and alpha particles have > mass. Good reasoning will trump you references to errant science > every time! NoEinstein If you're looking for an explanation, then let's first clear up a misconception. Mass is not a conserved quantity. There is no conservation of mass law. Therefore, if mass disappears, it does not have to be carried away by anything. This is a good example of mass converting to energy, with the result that there is less mass than before. Another example is ordinary carbon. If you add up the mass of 6 protons and 6 neutrons, you find you get a number that is different than the mass of a carbon-12 nucleus. Where did the extra mass go? It was converted to energy. There is now less mass than there was originally. > > > > > 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.pdffora 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 - Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 1 Jan 2010 13:12
On Dec 31 2009, 6:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Dec 23, 9:53 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 7:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > ... Please point out where I said otherwise! NE Sure. On December 22, you said this: "Radioactive decay LOWERS the atomic weight by the release of three particles. Between them, the mass gets spooned away from the mother mass. So, those three particles must have mass themselves. Mine is proof by reasoning." |