Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: HMLS Theory of Gravitation? (was Discrete Scale Relativity...)
Next: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 18:06 On Jul 21, 4:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 20, 10:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Alright, Dunce: In words, the Law of the Conservation of Energy > says: Energy in must = energy out. That's right. It does NOT say velocity change in = energy change out. There's nothing in "energy in = energy out" that says a thing about proportionality between velocity and energy. Perhaps you can't read? > Such law doesn't say... the time > spent falling under the influence of gravity must equal the distance > fallen. Energy isn't on either side of that equation. Is it, Dunce? > NE > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 7:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Well PD, even a DUNCE like you can sometimes ask a logical question. > > > You asked: "2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends > > > on one variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the > > > quantity must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy?" > > > > The reason is simple: The Law of the Conservation of Energy has been > > > accepted by scientists for over 500 years. > > > I'm sorry, but you'll still have to explain. > > What does linear dependence on variables have to do with conservation? > > The law of conservation is not "velocity in = energy out". > > > > Such Law was agreed to, > > > but not understood, mathematically, by Einstein. Tests which burned > > > substances in closed glass containers showed that a mass (say wood) > > > doesn't disappear, it converts into gases, or to water vapor and ash > > > that continue in the tubing. The total mass and energy are unchanged > > > by burning; only distributed to different places by the burning > > > process. If a lump of coal goes into the container, the energy and > > > the residue will be, say, half as much as if two lumps of the > > > identical coal were put in. Conceptually, energy in (coal) must = > > > energy out (heat and light). When there are no high temperatures > > > involved, a FORCE 'in' must = the force 'out'. Or the velocities in > > > must = to the velocities out. > > > > Einstein assumed (wrongly) that a linearly increasing velocity will > > > cause an exponentially increasing Energy (and mass) to accrue. He > > > contended that speeding objects became larger and were FLATTENED by > > > being caught between their own inertia and the forces being applied to > > > try to keep accelerating the objects. Einstein's most elemental error > > > was his mistaking acceleration of the acceleration for simple > > > acceleration. He did such because he wrongly assumed that simple > > > acceleration was causing an exponential increase in velocity. The two > > > reasons he got that notion was Newton's miss-writing of the equation > > > for 'g'; and Coriolis's miss-writing of the KE that accrues in falling > > > (accelerating) objects. If Newton and Coriolis hadn't goofed, Big > > > Time, Einstein never would have written his SR equation to be > > > exponentially increasing. Einstein spent too much time with... > > > equations, and not enough time doing simple math. If he had been > > > better at math, he would have realized his SR violated the Law of the > > > Conservation of Energy. NoEinstein > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if > > > > > a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY > > > > > EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly! > > > > > 1. I'm not a school teacher. > > > > > > But youa school teacher > > > > > must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of > > > > > time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of > > > > > the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR, > > > > > or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD.. > > > > > 2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends on one > > > > variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the quantity > > > > must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy? > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one > > > > > > > VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and > > > > > > > Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. The most > > > > > > > basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of > > > > > > > the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell, > > > > > > > by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone elses > > > > > > > time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? NoEinstein > > > > > > > :>) > > > > > > Everybody knows that if you have a quantity that depends on only one > > > > > > variable, then if you increase the variable linearly, then the > > > > > > quantity must also increase linearly. Everybody knows that. > > > > > > > Like in d=(1/2)gt^2, where there is only the variable t. You increase > > > > > > the time linearly, and the distance must increase... whoops.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: spudnik on 21 Jul 2010 19:28 there, you've hit upon the self-same absurdity of Newton's "theory" of corpuscles, vis-a-vu waves of light in the non-vacuum of space (unconsciously .-) thus quoth: Does every dust speck have gravitons? And if not, how do the specks know... "which way the mass is"? --BP's cap&trade "free-er trade nostrum" is before Senate! http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/chapter-8-the-permian-basin-gang/
From: NoEinstein on 22 Jul 2010 15:14 On Jul 21, 6:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD. the Dunce's Dunce: Velocity change, as in the variable MOMENTUM for a unit mass, will cause a velocity-proportional force on the mass being moved. Applied forces manifest ENERGY. If there is energy expressed on EITHER side of the equation, the Law of the Conservation of Energy must hold sway. Try as you will to misunderstand, your understanding isn't a requirement to have my New Science be Universally valid. Truths are truths, plain and simple! NoEinstein > > On Jul 21, 4:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 20, 10:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Alright, Dunce: In words, the Law of the Conservation of Energy > > says: Energy in must = energy out. > > That's right. It does NOT say velocity change in = energy change out. > > There's nothing in "energy in = energy out" that says a thing about > proportionality between velocity and energy. > > Perhaps you can't read? > > > > > Such law doesn't say... the time > > spent falling under the influence of gravity must equal the distance > > fallen. Energy isn't on either side of that equation. Is it, Dunce? > > NE > > > > On Jul 19, 7:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 19, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Well PD, even a DUNCE like you can sometimes ask a logical question.. > > > > You asked: "2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends > > > > on one variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the > > > > quantity must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy?" > > > > > The reason is simple: The Law of the Conservation of Energy has been > > > > accepted by scientists for over 500 years. > > > > I'm sorry, but you'll still have to explain. > > > What does linear dependence on variables have to do with conservation? > > > The law of conservation is not "velocity in = energy out". > > > > > Such Law was agreed to, > > > > but not understood, mathematically, by Einstein. Tests which burned > > > > substances in closed glass containers showed that a mass (say wood) > > > > doesn't disappear, it converts into gases, or to water vapor and ash > > > > that continue in the tubing. The total mass and energy are unchanged > > > > by burning; only distributed to different places by the burning > > > > process. If a lump of coal goes into the container, the energy and > > > > the residue will be, say, half as much as if two lumps of the > > > > identical coal were put in. Conceptually, energy in (coal) must = > > > > energy out (heat and light). When there are no high temperatures > > > > involved, a FORCE 'in' must = the force 'out'. Or the velocities in > > > > must = to the velocities out. > > > > > Einstein assumed (wrongly) that a linearly increasing velocity will > > > > cause an exponentially increasing Energy (and mass) to accrue. He > > > > contended that speeding objects became larger and were FLATTENED by > > > > being caught between their own inertia and the forces being applied to > > > > try to keep accelerating the objects. Einstein's most elemental error > > > > was his mistaking acceleration of the acceleration for simple > > > > acceleration. He did such because he wrongly assumed that simple > > > > acceleration was causing an exponential increase in velocity. The two > > > > reasons he got that notion was Newton's miss-writing of the equation > > > > for 'g'; and Coriolis's miss-writing of the KE that accrues in falling > > > > (accelerating) objects. If Newton and Coriolis hadn't goofed, Big > > > > Time, Einstein never would have written his SR equation to be > > > > exponentially increasing. Einstein spent too much time with... > > > > equations, and not enough time doing simple math. If he had been > > > > better at math, he would have realized his SR violated the Law of the > > > > Conservation of Energy. NoEinstein > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if > > > > > > a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY > > > > > > EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly! > > > > > > 1. I'm not a school teacher. > > > > > > > But youa school teacher > > > > > > must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of > > > > > > time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of > > > > > > the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR, > > > > > > or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD. > > > > > > 2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends on one > > > > > variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the quantity > > > > > must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy? > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one > > > > > > > > VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and > > > > > > > > Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially.. The most > > > > > > > > basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of > > > > > > > > the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell, > > > > > > > > by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone elses > > > > > > > > time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > :>) > > > > > > > Everybody knows that if you have a quantity that depends on only one > > > > > > > variable, then if you increase the variable linearly, then the > > > > > > > quantity must also increase linearly. Everybody knows that. > > > > > > > > Like in d=(1/2)gt^2, where there is only the variable t. You increase > > > > > > > the time linearly, and the distance must increase... whoops.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 22 Jul 2010 16:24 On Jul 22, 2:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 21, 6:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD. the Dunce's Dunce: Velocity change, as in the variable > MOMENTUM for a unit mass, will cause a velocity-proportional force on > the mass being moved. Applied forces manifest ENERGY. If there is > energy expressed on EITHER side of the equation, the Law of the > Conservation of Energy must hold sway. Try as you will to > misunderstand, your understanding isn't a requirement to have my New > Science be Universally valid. Truths are truths, plain and simple! > NoEinstein Have you noticed that your Spluttering and Gibbering don't earn any more Credibility by capitalizing the Words? That's what Loony People do. > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 4:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 20, 10:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Alright, Dunce: In words, the Law of the Conservation of Energy > > > says: Energy in must = energy out. > > > That's right. It does NOT say velocity change in = energy change out. > > > There's nothing in "energy in = energy out" that says a thing about > > proportionality between velocity and energy. > > > Perhaps you can't read? > > > > Such law doesn't say... the time > > > spent falling under the influence of gravity must equal the distance > > > fallen. Energy isn't on either side of that equation. Is it, Dunce? > > > NE > > > > > On Jul 19, 7:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 19, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Well PD, even a DUNCE like you can sometimes ask a logical question. > > > > > You asked: "2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends > > > > > on one variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the > > > > > quantity must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy?" > > > > > > The reason is simple: The Law of the Conservation of Energy has been > > > > > accepted by scientists for over 500 years. > > > > > I'm sorry, but you'll still have to explain. > > > > What does linear dependence on variables have to do with conservation? > > > > The law of conservation is not "velocity in = energy out". > > > > > > Such Law was agreed to, > > > > > but not understood, mathematically, by Einstein. Tests which burned > > > > > substances in closed glass containers showed that a mass (say wood) > > > > > doesn't disappear, it converts into gases, or to water vapor and ash > > > > > that continue in the tubing. The total mass and energy are unchanged > > > > > by burning; only distributed to different places by the burning > > > > > process. If a lump of coal goes into the container, the energy and > > > > > the residue will be, say, half as much as if two lumps of the > > > > > identical coal were put in. Conceptually, energy in (coal) must = > > > > > energy out (heat and light). When there are no high temperatures > > > > > involved, a FORCE 'in' must = the force 'out'. Or the velocities in > > > > > must = to the velocities out. > > > > > > Einstein assumed (wrongly) that a linearly increasing velocity will > > > > > cause an exponentially increasing Energy (and mass) to accrue. He > > > > > contended that speeding objects became larger and were FLATTENED by > > > > > being caught between their own inertia and the forces being applied to > > > > > try to keep accelerating the objects. Einstein's most elemental error > > > > > was his mistaking acceleration of the acceleration for simple > > > > > acceleration. He did such because he wrongly assumed that simple > > > > > acceleration was causing an exponential increase in velocity. The two > > > > > reasons he got that notion was Newton's miss-writing of the equation > > > > > for 'g'; and Coriolis's miss-writing of the KE that accrues in falling > > > > > (accelerating) objects. If Newton and Coriolis hadn't goofed, Big > > > > > Time, Einstein never would have written his SR equation to be > > > > > exponentially increasing. Einstein spent too much time with... > > > > > equations, and not enough time doing simple math. If he had been > > > > > better at math, he would have realized his SR violated the Law of the > > > > > Conservation of Energy. NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if > > > > > > > a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY > > > > > > > EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly! > > > > > > > 1. I'm not a school teacher. > > > > > > > > But youa school teacher > > > > > > > must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of > > > > > > > time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of > > > > > > > the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR, > > > > > > > or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD. > > > > > > > 2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends on one > > > > > > variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the quantity > > > > > > must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy? > > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one > > > > > > > > > VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and > > > > > > > > > Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. The most > > > > > > > > > basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of > > > > > > > > > the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell, > > > > > > > > > by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone elses > > > > > > > > > time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > :>) > > > > > > > > Everybody knows that if you have a quantity that depends on only one > > > > > > > > variable, then if you increase the variable linearly, then the > > > > > > > > quantity must also increase linearly. Everybody knows that. > > > > > > > > > Like in d=(1/2)gt^2, where there is only the variable t. You increase > > > > > > > > the time linearly, and the distance must increase... whoops..- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 22 Jul 2010 22:20
On Jul 22, 4:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: The words being emphasized are for the brain dead, like you. Apparently, you never learned what the '=' sign means. The energy IN must = the energy OUT. NoEinstein > > On Jul 22, 2:14 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 6:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD. the Dunce's Dunce: Velocity change, as in the variable > > MOMENTUM for a unit mass, will cause a velocity-proportional force on > > the mass being moved. Applied forces manifest ENERGY. If there is > > energy expressed on EITHER side of the equation, the Law of the > > Conservation of Energy must hold sway. Try as you will to > > misunderstand, your understanding isn't a requirement to have my New > > Science be Universally valid. Truths are truths, plain and simple! > > NoEinstein > > Have you noticed that your Spluttering and Gibbering don't earn any > more Credibility by capitalizing the Words? That's what Loony People > do. > > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 4:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 20, 10:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Alright, Dunce: In words, the Law of the Conservation of Energy > > > > says: Energy in must = energy out. > > > > That's right. It does NOT say velocity change in = energy change out. > > > > There's nothing in "energy in = energy out" that says a thing about > > > proportionality between velocity and energy. > > > > Perhaps you can't read? > > > > > Such law doesn't say... the time > > > > spent falling under the influence of gravity must equal the distance > > > > fallen. Energy isn't on either side of that equation. Is it, Dunce? > > > > NE > > > > > > On Jul 19, 7:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Well PD, even a DUNCE like you can sometimes ask a logical question. > > > > > > You asked: "2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends > > > > > > on one variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the > > > > > > quantity must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy?" > > > > > > > The reason is simple: The Law of the Conservation of Energy has been > > > > > > accepted by scientists for over 500 years. > > > > > > I'm sorry, but you'll still have to explain. > > > > > What does linear dependence on variables have to do with conservation? > > > > > The law of conservation is not "velocity in = energy out". > > > > > > > Such Law was agreed to, > > > > > > but not understood, mathematically, by Einstein. Tests which burned > > > > > > substances in closed glass containers showed that a mass (say wood) > > > > > > doesn't disappear, it converts into gases, or to water vapor and ash > > > > > > that continue in the tubing. The total mass and energy are unchanged > > > > > > by burning; only distributed to different places by the burning > > > > > > process. If a lump of coal goes into the container, the energy and > > > > > > the residue will be, say, half as much as if two lumps of the > > > > > > identical coal were put in. Conceptually, energy in (coal) must = > > > > > > energy out (heat and light). When there are no high temperatures > > > > > > involved, a FORCE 'in' must = the force 'out'. Or the velocities in > > > > > > must = to the velocities out. > > > > > > > Einstein assumed (wrongly) that a linearly increasing velocity will > > > > > > cause an exponentially increasing Energy (and mass) to accrue. He > > > > > > contended that speeding objects became larger and were FLATTENED by > > > > > > being caught between their own inertia and the forces being applied to > > > > > > try to keep accelerating the objects. Einstein's most elemental error > > > > > > was his mistaking acceleration of the acceleration for simple > > > > > > acceleration. He did such because he wrongly assumed that simple > > > > > > acceleration was causing an exponential increase in velocity. The two > > > > > > reasons he got that notion was Newton's miss-writing of the equation > > > > > > for 'g'; and Coriolis's miss-writing of the KE that accrues in falling > > > > > > (accelerating) objects. If Newton and Coriolis hadn't goofed, Big > > > > > > Time, Einstein never would have written his SR equation to be > > > > > > exponentially increasing. Einstein spent too much time with.... > > > > > > equations, and not enough time doing simple math. If he had been > > > > > > better at math, he would have realized his SR violated the Law of the > > > > > > Conservation of Energy. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if > > > > > > > > a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY > > > > > > > > EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly! > > > > > > > > 1. I'm not a school teacher. > > > > > > > > > But youa school teacher > > > > > > > > must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of > > > > > > > > time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of > > > > > > > > the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR, > > > > > > > > or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD. > > > > > > > > 2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends on one > > > > > > > variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the quantity > > > > > > > must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy? > > > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one > > > > > > > > > > VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and > > > > > > > > > > Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. The most > > > > > > > > > > basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of > > > > > > > > > > the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell, > > > > > > > > > > by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone elses > > > > > > > > > > time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > :>) > > > > > > > > > Everybody knows that if you have a quantity that depends on only one > > > > > > > > > variable, then if you increase the variable linearly, then the > > > > > > > > > quantity must also increase linearly. Everybody knows that. > > > > > > > > > > Like in d=(1/2)gt^2, where there is only the variable t.. You increase > > > > > > > > > the time linearly, and the distance must increase... whoops.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |