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: Autymn D. C. on 27 Jan 2010 02:09 On Jan 19, 5:19 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > 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 Nuclear kemism. A kemical (not molecular) reaction is between anything thas pours or flows--which could be any bodies, clear matter even or ethel gases or uranium clusters or nitrogen excimers or halide exciplices or hitherons (cetera). -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 27 Jan 2010 02:20 On Jan 8, 4:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews: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 > >> >> >> > 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. > > Try updating your dictionary to something more modern .. as well as your > physics. My English word-kit is greater than and more meteling than any of your dictionaries. And my fýsiceis are fine: mass keeps with mass and energhy keeps with energhy, inasmuch as potential and cinetic energhies interconvert. Mass and energhy aren't even linearly dependent, you dumbshit. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 27 Jan 2010 02:34 On Jan 11, 2:53 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 11, 1:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jan 7, 9:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: OK, I'll bite... Since you supposedly > > majored in High Energy Particle Physics, please tell the readers the > > NAMES of several of those H. E. particles. > > OK. Photons, protons, muons, pions, neutrons, kaons, neutrinos, > electrons, and a few more. Fotòns are not motes but waves. Plasmòns are motes, retard. > > After all, Einstein himself said: "There isn't enough > > energy in the entire UNIVERSE to cause even a speck of matter to > > travel to velocity 'c'." > > Of course, but he was talking about getting a speck of matter to > travel AT c, not a fraction of c. No material particle travels at c, Material particul is a taýtologh, and plenty of motes fare at celerity, which is not a oonstand. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 27 Jan 2010 02:40 On Jan 13, 3:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 13, 4:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > (according to the SR equation) > > The SR equation doesn't say that at all. > > Where on earth did you get the impression that the area of the curve > you're looking at represents the fraction of the energy of the > universe???? What on earth are you looking at? He faild calculus after dimensional analýsis. Ev â E.
From: Autymn D. C. on 27 Jan 2010 02:47
On Jan 11, 6:37 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 7:08 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > 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"? > > Because the mass of all the product particles are *measured*. > By comparing the *measured* masses of the initial state and the > *measured* masses, we learn that the sums are not equal. This tells > us that mass is not a conserved quantity. Shyster, your final state is at ground--the motes are not in the same reaction. > > 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. Fields are not nothing nor are they empty or moot (empty -> bare; space -> roomhead); they are very something and afar are the outter bodies of motes. -Aut |