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: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 21:30 On Jan 5, 1:36 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Jan 1, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Um uh-oh, this is another pop misconception. Mass and energhy do not > interconvert, and neither does E=mcc imply they do. However, > potential energhy becomes cinetic energhy, and the mass of the sýstem > stays--but mass then becomes within another set of bodies. > > -Aut- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Autymn: Einstein was correct when he said that mass can be converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. But he didn't realize that velocity isn't energy of the type that can convert to mass. PE, in the case of a pendulum, converts to KE. If that moving mass hits another 'ball', or etc., the energy will impart both a velocity and frictional heating to the hit object. The latter energy conversions are mechanical and thermal in nature rather than atomic, as Einstein's were implied to be. NoEinstein
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 21:31 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:4b18484f-d13b-49e0-afae-c6aa708f1326(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 31 2009, 8:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...(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. > > Dear Inertial: Then, you are in agreement with more... stupid > people. The Law of the Conservation of Energy requires that Energy IN > must = Energy OUT. Yes > The latter disproves SR. Nope > Energy (force) is > required to increase velocity. Energy is not force > But simply pushing on a lump of matter > won't increase its mass. Who said it does? Mass is invariant. > If it did, then squeezing a rubber ball > would make it get heavier and heavier. Agreeing with the counter- > intuitive isn't brilliance, Inertial, it is proof of stupidity! � NE Only yours
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 21:32 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:d14f1ea7-556e-4fce-964d-097d51393c27(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 31 2009, 8:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > Dear Inertial: "Mass, by my correct definition, is any concentration > of energy which can be moved by the flow of the ether, and which gives > off photons or charged particles." Your definition is nonsense. > Gamma rays, intermittently, give > off photons. They ARE photons, you idiot > The latter accounts for part of the observed microwave > background radiation. But the photons are shed so sparsely, that > gamma rays don't wind up attracting other gamma rays, > gravitationally. � NE � Do you actually know ANY physics at all?
From: NoEinstein on 6 Jan 2010 21:33 On Jan 6, 2:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "waldofj" <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > > news:2ee3c00c-9cd5-4f77-aeb5-8315a3cee072(a)c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> Actually, the law of gravitational attraction is just a metaphor for > >> romantic > >> love. The closer two bodies are to each other, the stronger the romantic > >> attraction, and the attraction diminishes with distance. At least, > >> that's > >> what Bob Heinlein told me. > > > I'm familiar with most of his writings but I don't recollect that one. > > Where's it from? > > Fat people are more attracted to each other than skinny people? Dear Inertial: Ah! So, THAT explains why you have so much... INERTIA! NoEinstein
From: PD on 7 Jan 2010 09:45
On Jan 6, 7:55 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 1, 9:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Y.Porat": PD, the Parasite Dunce, has never paraphrased any > aspect of science in his own words. Oh, but I have. Many times. However, there are places where you should do your own work. > The probable reason: He doesn't > have the needed neurons. At any rate, you've got PD correctly > pegged. NoEinstein > > > > > 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 > > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - |