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 7 Jan 2010 09:50 On Jan 6, 8:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 1, 1:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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." > > Where does my statement mention anything about... photons? Gamma rays are photons, NoEinstein. Please check your facts before you mouth off. > Loose your > smoke and mirrors, PD. You don't have the brains to be even a > magician. NE
From: PD on 7 Jan 2010 09:51 On Jan 6, 8:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jan 1, 1:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: If PD has ever paraphrased any experiment or any other of his > supposed proofs regarding science, I would like to hear about it. As I said, you are not entitled to that service for free. I'd be more than happy to point to where you can look it up. > He > avoids discussing real science like a plague. That's probably because > PD has a terminal case of Einstein's disease. NoEinstein > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:06 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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've already told you where to look up the documentation about which > > experiments have been done and how they are done. > > You'd like to have that documentation summarized here. > > You are not entitled to that service for free. > > You are certainly capable of looking up that documentation yourself. > > > > i examined in past many experiments > > > and saw clearly the mistaken interpretation of parrots > > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > ------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: Autymn D. C. on 7 Jan 2010 23:36 On Jan 6, 6:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 > Dear Autymn: Einstein was correct when he said that mass can be > converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. But he not
From: Inertial on 7 Jan 2010 23:57 "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:9de64805-d645-4755-800f-c8477c4947d1(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 6, 6:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> 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 s�stem >> > stays--but mass then becomes within another set of bodies. >> >> > -Aut > >> Dear Autymn: Einstein was correct when he said that mass can be >> converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. But he > > not Nuclear bombs and reactors prove you wrong, Autistic one.
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 08:06
On Jan 7, 8:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:9de64805-d645-4755-800f-c8477c4947d1(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jan 6, 6:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> 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 > > >> Dear Autymn: Einstein was correct when he said that mass can be > >> converted into energy and energy can be converted into mass. But he > > > not > > Nuclear bombs and reactors prove you wrong, Autistic one. Read above and its last line, lackwit. |