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 19 Jan 2010 20:15 On Jan 13, 6:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD the Parasite Dunce: As you have so often done in the past, you write what you consider to be an analogy of my points of science. Then, you make all or part of that absurdly and elementally wrong, and imply that what you just made up is applicable to my thought processes. Such an idea would be a good one IF you had the brains to correctly paraphrase anything I or others have ever said about science. When you pretend to be writing a true analogy, but it is so obviously FALSE, then that makes you just a fraud, not a student of science. Several points of science you need to answer: 1. Is there such a thing as particles of any name traveling 95% of 'c'? 2. Is the mass- energy in the Universe conserved? 3. Will a continuous uniform force on an initially stationary object in space cause that object to accelerate uniformly? 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous force cause a greater than uniform increase in the mass-energy of the accelerated object? 5. Is 'c' a constant? 6. Is the mass, m, of an object being accelerated in space by a forcethat doesn't sacrifice any portion of the mass to produce the forcea constant? 7. Does dividing any constant quantity by a number which keeps getting smaller to zero cause the resultant to go to infinity? 8. In the equation Beta = [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2, is v a variable? 9. If v varies uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? 10. For a uniform mass, are v and E the only variables in SR? 11. If v increases uniformly in Einstein's SR equation E = mc^2 / Beta, will E go to infinity at v = 'c'? 12. Is the velocity of light, 'c', infinite? 13. Then, how can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non infinite velocity 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the Universe) without violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? Truthfully answer the above, PD, and you won't need any more sidestepping and the dreaming up of fraudulent analogies to my New Science. My bet is that you can't do anything truthfully. NoEinstein > > On Jan 13, 3:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 11, 2:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: My thought processes are evident in most > > of my replies for the past three years. On the other hand, your > > "thought processes" (ha!) consist of claiming that I am wrong as > > though you are the final judge. > > Not at all. You are just making statements that are counter to > documented evidence. I'm not the judge. Nature is. I'm just pointing > out that it is. > If Ronnie says that 2+7=8, and Donnie tells him this is wrong, then > it's not a matter of whether Donnie has a better reputation than > Ronnie or whether Donnie can teach Ronnie. Ronnie is simply wrong. > Ronnie can go look up what 2+7 is. > > > But you never discuss science! You > > only disparage any proof I givewhich was largely based on reasonby > > claiming that there is other data out there (which you are of course > > unwilling to paraphrase) that says otherewise. > > That's right. I expect you to do that homework for yourself. > > > Most readers of this > > don't know you from Adam. > > And that doesn't matter. The validity of my remarks doesn't stem from > my reputation or whether people know me. This isn't an opinion poll. > You are making statements that are counter to documented fact. > > > You don't give links to any new posts that > > you have made, but claim that they are out there. In short, you claim > > expertise which is nowhere in evidence. > > It is certainly in evidence, and I even suggested a tool you can use > to locate it. I simply refuse to cut your meat for you. > > > Your only... "worth", PD, is > > in giving me cause to keep restating my New Science for the thinking > > readers who are out there. So, I suppose you are doing a service... > > But mainly, you are just a pain. NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jan 2010 20:19 On Jan 13, 6:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 4:13 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 11, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Pd, the Parasite Dunce: I said: "Matter can emit photons, such > > as infrared, but no mass is lost in the process." You said: "That's > > not so. There is mass lost or gained in any chemical reaction as well. > > Chemists usually ignore it, but it's there." > > > Wow! You must have FLUNKED chemistry! All chemical reactions require > > at least two different elements to combine! > > Oh, I dunno about that. Take a look at a chemistry book where you'll > find a chapter on radioactive decay. > > Moreover, I said that mass is lost or gained in any chemical reaction > AS WELL as the one you referred to. > > > > > ATOMIC DECAY involves > > only a single element, and is thus NOT a chemical reaction. You see, > > PD, opening your mouth to discuss science, more often than not, will > > have you putting your foot in it! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Nowhere in any Chemistry book is atomic decay called a... "Chemical Reaction", PD. Having a chapter on atomic decay in a Chemistry book doesn't make the latter a chemical reaction, DUNCE. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jan 2010 20:23 On Jan 13, 6:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 4:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 11, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 11, 2:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Well! Now PD is requiring that I (or others) must pay to hear him > > > > discuss actual science! > > > > If you want summaries of scientific papers, yes, you have to pay for > > > it. > > > Of course, you could just read the scientific papers for free on your > > > own. > > > But you want your food chewed for you. Services like that warrant a > > > fee. > > > > > Since he has never discussed science in the > > > > past, then, I would suppose that the amount of money PD could command > > > > for looking things up would be minus infinity dollars. Ha, ha, HA! > > > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > How much money have you made chewing other people's food for them, > > PD? NoEinstein > > A fair amount. That's what teaching courses partly is about. And that > draws a salary.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - For a man who survives by picking change out of the returned change boxes of pay phones and vending machines, PD's "fair amount" for spoon- feeding information must be noteworthy. NoEinstein
From: waldofj on 20 Jan 2010 07:33 > Several points of science you need to answer: 1. 2. Is the mass- > energy in the Universe conserved? 3. Will a continuous uniform force > on an initially stationary object in space cause that object to > accelerate uniformly? 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous > force cause a greater than uniform increase in the mass-energy of the > accelerated object? 5. Is 'c' a constant? 6. Is the mass, m, of an > object being accelerated in space by a forcethat doesn't sacrifice > any portion of the mass to produce the forcea constant? 7. Does > dividing any constant quantity by a number which keeps getting smaller > to zero cause the resultant to go to infinity? 8. In the equation > Beta = [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2, is v a variable? 9. If v varies > uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? 10. For a uniform mass, are > v and E the only variables in SR? 11. If v increases uniformly in > Einstein's SR equation E = mc^2 / Beta, will E go to infinity at v = > 'c'? 12. Is the velocity of light, 'c', infinite? 13. Then, how > can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non infinite velocity > 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the Universe) without > violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? > I'll take a crack at it: 1. Is there such a thing as particles of any name traveling 95% of 'c'? Of course, ever heard of a particle accelerator? 2. Is the mass-energy in the Universe conserved? That's the current assumption and it has work very well so far. 3. Will a continuous uniform force on an initially stationary object in space cause that object to accelerate uniformly? No. I realize you think the answer to this question is yes and that is where you make your first mistake. Most all of your subsequent mistakes follow from this one. And in answering no I'm not quoting theory, again, ever hear of particle accelerators? 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous force cause a greater than uniform increase in the mass-energy of the accelerated object? No. 5. Is 'c' a constant? That's the current assumption and it has worked very well so far. 6. Is the mass, m, of an object being accelerated in space by a force that doesn't sacrifice any portion of the mass to produce the forcea constant? If by m you mean rest mass then yes, rest mass is always a constant. On the other hand if by m you mean total mass then no, total mass increases with velocity. Again, I'm not quoting theory, ever hear of particle accelerators? 7. Does dividing any constant quantity by a number which keeps getting smaller to zero cause the resultant to go to infinity? Of course. 8. In the equation Beta = [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2, is v a variable? First of all be careful of the use of that term "beta". It's meaning has changed over the years. At first it meant the reciprocal of the function you give here. Now beta is v/c. Here you're defining beta = 1/ gamma. Not main stream use but ok I guess as long as you make clear what you mean. As a general algebraic expression both v and c are variables but if you are asking in the context of the LTE then v is a coefficient, not a variable. 9. If v varies uniformly to 'c', will Beta go to zero? Of course. 10. For a uniform mass, are v and E the only variables in SR? First of all what does "uniform mass" mean? How does it differ from just mass? Secondly, you have to put this question in some sort of context, by it self it is meaningless. 11. If v increases uniformly in Einstein's SR equation E = mc^2 / Beta, will E go to infinity at v = 'c'? Of course. Look at questions 7 and 9. 12. Is the velocity of light, 'c', infinite? No. Roughly 300000 kilometers per second. 13. Then, how can the energy, E, caused by traveling to the non infinite velocity 'c' be an infinite energy (everything in the Universe) without violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy? It doesn't. The flaw in your reasoning is explained in the answer to question 3. At first, when a constant force is applied to an object it's acceleration APPEARS to be uniform. However as the velocity approaches c the increase in acceleration decreases and the closer it gets to c the more the increasing acceleration decreases. It takes an infinite INPUT of energy to accelerate an object to c. This is what gamma is all about. Again, I'm NOT quoting theory here, EVER HEAR OF PARTICLE ACCELERATORS? I keep saying that because particle accelerators are the only place where we can move objects close enough to c to test if gamma is correct. Sorry to burst your bubble, but gamma is correct!
From: Androcles on 20 Jan 2010 08:23
"waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:9ba666a4-aba8-4a76-8503-750299ebc425(a)j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > I'll take a crack at it: 1. Is there such a thing as particles of any name traveling 95% of 'c'? Of course, ever heard of a particle accelerator? =================================== One particle travels at 2c relative to the other. Ever heard of relative motion? =================================== 2. Is the mass-energy in the Universe conserved? That's the current assumption and it has work very well so far. 3. Will a continuous uniform force on an initially stationary object in space cause that object to accelerate uniformly? No. I realize you think the answer to this question is yes and that is where you make your first mistake. Most all of your subsequent mistakes follow from this one. And in answering no I'm not quoting theory, again, ever hear of particle accelerators? ===================================== The correct answer was "yes", and you are quoting crackpot theory. This is where you make your millionth mistake. Again, ever hear of relative motion? ===================================== 4. Does the uniform input of a continuous force cause a greater than uniform increase in the mass-energy of the accelerated object? No. 5. Is 'c' a constant? That's the current assumption and it has worked very well so far. ====================================== The correct answer was "no", and you are quoting crackpot theory. This is where you repeat your two millionth mistake. ====================================== Sorry to burst your bubble, but gamma is correct! ===================================== Sorry to burst your bubble, but gamma is bullshit! You are quoting theory! |