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 8 Jan 2010 09:11 "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:d6e5274c-4e74-4dae-ab5d-fc27f960daf9(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > 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 >> >> > 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. > > Read above and its last line, lackwit. I read enough.
From: Autymn D. C. on 8 Jan 2010 09:21 On Jan 8, 6:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:d6e5274c-4e74-4dae-ab5d-fc27f960daf9(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > I read enough. And you wot nouht.
From: Inertial on 8 Jan 2010 19:19 "Autymn D. C." <lysdexia(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:d9ab8e00-85af-449e-8132-eb9b34b61276(a)34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 8, 6:11 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in >> messagenews:d6e5274c-4e74-4dae-ab5d-fc27f960daf9(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> > 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. >> >> > Read above and its last line, lackwit. >> >> I read enough. > > And you wot nouht. Try updating your dictionary to something more modern .. as well as your physics.
From: glird on 8 Jan 2010 20:08 On Dec 23 2009, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 6:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 4:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. How do you know that the missing weight is due to "mass is not conserved"? > > So, those three particles must have mass > > themselves. Mine is proof by reasoning. Particles have weight. The dark matter that is also released does not. > 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. Experiments measure quantities. In physics, nobody know nor cares what they are quantities OF. When reasoning says it is impossible for waves to be conducted by nothing (called "empty space"), that remaisn true regardless of how much our measurements reveal. > > Yours is "proof" (sic) by hard-headed lies. > > Sorry, but not the case. Reality is determined by measurement. > Measurements are not lies. Measurements yield quantities. The quantities are not lies. But until we know WHAT is being quantified, we know nothing about reality other than the quantities themselves. glird
From: glird on 9 Jan 2010 09:34
On Dec 22, 7:00 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > 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! Although I agree with your last sentence, some questions remain open. 1. Does an iota have any weight? 2. Is an iota a particle? 3. Are iotas incompr4essible? 4. If the answer to q 3 is No, then why do you need iotas at all? Why not let "aether" denote "the continuous compressible non-particulate form of the same matter out of which particles are made"? glird |