Question about gravity
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 17:04 In article <cf5d9744-aad7-45d0-8e56-24255b139d00 @j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au says... > > On Mar 22, 3:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > It's an analogy. I could have easily placed an atomic clock on the > > space station. > > > > So, there is an atomic clock on the space station. The space station > > is in a geostationary orbit and is traveling fast enough in orbit > > around the Earth that after one year an atomic clock on the space > > station states 360 days have passed. > > > > In order to determine how much time has actually passed an Observer on > > the space station makes measurements against the distant stars in > > order to determine one year has passed. > > > > The Observer on the space station understands the Earth orbits the Sun > > every year. > > > > The Earth's orbit of the Sun is a more correct 'clock'. > > x x targets > O |) |) Planet, 2 sight lines and 2 trajectories. > ^ ^ 2 equal guns (joule, gram) > > elevations: sea level and 20,000 km > > 1. Which parabolic trajectory is more > like a straight line? > > 2. Which bullet spends more time flying? > > < Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to > gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, > by just analyzing the various transformations that would > make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: > > * the invariance of physical systems with respect > to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws > of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives > the law of conservation of linear momentum; > * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law > of conservation of angular momentum; > * invariance with respect to time translation gives > the well-known law of conservation of energy >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment > > > Sue... Not exactly sure what you are getting at but light propagates with respect to the aether so the trajectory of the bullet is different than the 'trajectory' of light which propagates with respect to the aether whose state is determined by its connections with the Earth.
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 17:07 On Mar 22, 3:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 4:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 2:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It's an analogy. I could have easily placed an atomic clock on the > > > space station. > > > > So, there is an atomic clock on the space station. The space station > > > is in a geostationary orbit and is traveling fast enough in orbit > > > around the Earth that after one year an atomic clock on the space > > > station states 360 days have passed. > > > > In order to determine how much time has actually passed an Observer on > > > the space station makes measurements against the distant stars in > > > order to determine one year has passed. > > > > The Observer on the space station understands the Earth orbits the Sun > > > every year. > > > > The Earth's orbit of the Sun is a more correct 'clock'. > > > I can't believe you thought there were windows on the GPS satellite > > for the observers on board to look at the stars. Geez, what an idiot! > > This moment will live for a long time in posterity. > > I was using an Observer on a GPS satellite who uses the distant stars > to determine a year passed as an analogy. I placed the Observer on the > GPS satellite because we are in agreement an atomic clock on a GPS > satellite ticks at a different rate than a similar atomic clock on the > Earth. > > The fact that you are so desperate not to have to understand an > Observer who uses the distant stars to determine a year has passed is > correctly determining how much time has passed shows how delusional > you are. > > The fact that you can not understand the Observer on the GPS Satellite > with windows is an analogy shows how delusional you are. GPS satellite with windows. For observers. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
From: mpc755 on 22 Mar 2010 17:08 In article <92d7bc14-fc61-469c-8edd- 6af7163c104b(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com says... > > On Mar 22, 3:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 4:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 2:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > It's an analogy. I could have easily placed an atomic clock on the > > > > space station. > > > > > > So, there is an atomic clock on the space station. The space station > > > > is in a geostationary orbit and is traveling fast enough in orbit > > > > around the Earth that after one year an atomic clock on the space > > > > station states 360 days have passed. > > > > > > In order to determine how much time has actually passed an Observer on > > > > the space station makes measurements against the distant stars in > > > > order to determine one year has passed. > > > > > > The Observer on the space station understands the Earth orbits the Sun > > > > every year. > > > > > > The Earth's orbit of the Sun is a more correct 'clock'. > > > > > I can't believe you thought there were windows on the GPS satellite > > > for the observers on board to look at the stars. Geez, what an idiot! > > > This moment will live for a long time in posterity. > > > > I was using an Observer on a GPS satellite who uses the distant stars > > to determine a year passed as an analogy. I placed the Observer on the > > GPS satellite because we are in agreement an atomic clock on a GPS > > satellite ticks at a different rate than a similar atomic clock on the > > Earth. > > > > The fact that you are so desperate not to have to understand an > > Observer who uses the distant stars to determine a year has passed is > > correctly determining how much time has passed shows how delusional > > you are. > > > > The fact that you can not understand the Observer on the GPS Satellite > > with windows is an analogy shows how delusional you are. > > GPS satellite with windows. For observers. > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA! Yes, in the analogy. There is an observer who is looking out the window in the GPS satellite. The observer in the GPS satellite determines one year has passed based upon measurements taken of distant stars.
From: Sue... on 22 Mar 2010 17:52 On Mar 22, 5:04 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > In article <cf5d9744-aad7-45d0-8e56-24255b139d00 > @j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au says... > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 3:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It's an analogy. I could have easily placed an atomic clock on the > > > space station. > > > > So, there is an atomic clock on the space station. The space station > > > is in a geostationary orbit and is traveling fast enough in orbit > > > around the Earth that after one year an atomic clock on the space > > > station states 360 days have passed. > > > > In order to determine how much time has actually passed an Observer on > > > the space station makes measurements against the distant stars in > > > order to determine one year has passed. > > > > The Observer on the space station understands the Earth orbits the Sun > > > every year. > > > > The Earth's orbit of the Sun is a more correct 'clock'. x x targets O |) |) Planet, 2 sight lines and 2 trajectories. ^ ^ 2 equal guns (joule, gram) > > elevations: sea level and 20,000 km > > > 1. Which parabolic trajectory is more > > like a straight line? > > > 2. Which bullet spends more time flying? > > > < Application of Noether's theorem allows physicists to > > gain powerful insights into any general theory in physics, > > by just analyzing the various transformations that would > > make the form of the laws involved invariant. For example: > > > * the invariance of physical systems with respect > > to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws > > of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives > > the law of conservation of linear momentum; > > * invariance with respect to rotation gives the law > > of conservation of angular momentum; > > * invariance with respect to time translation gives > > the well-known law of conservation of energy >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment > ============ > > Not exactly sure what you are getting at Does this help ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory_of_a_projectile Sue...
From: PD on 22 Mar 2010 17:52
On Mar 22, 11:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 9:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > You made a mistake in thinking that stresses only exist in solids. I > > > showed you that was a mistake. > > > You are now making a mistake that physical properties only pertain to > > > matter. This is also a mistake. > > > I said that permanent stress can only exist in solid. > > No, you did not say "permanent". > Nor is an electric field "permanent". > Ken, being ignorant is correctable. Being stupid is forgivable. Being a liar is a sin, even if it is a compulsive defect of character. You bring shame on your family. |