Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Come on creative minds solve this fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico if ?you can
Next: Dark Energy: The problem with Einstein's Cosmological Constant is that there's no physics behind it
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jun 2010 11:46 On Jun 29, 11:35 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > CORRECTION! Hear rather than 'here'! NE > > On Jun 29, 9:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Folks: Who is the "crackpot": The middle school science teacher who > gravitates toward me in order to be "close" to the limelight; who only > defends the status quo; and has never made a +new post in his > life? ...Or the person who talks his New Science every day and desires > to improve the World? I wish PD could here your answers to that! > NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 11:59 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > History will record that I > > > am the greatest physicist who ever lived for all that I've explained > > > about the Universe. NoEinstein > > > Well done, John! You've scored well on the crackpot index with this > > one sentence alone. 40 points or more! > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29http://math.ucr.edu/ho...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jun 2010 11:47 On Jun 29, 6:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Your... attack the messenger time is up, PD. NE > > On Jun 29, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > PD's time has expired. NE > > For what, John? > > As you will see, John, you have control only over your own actions and > responses, not anyone else's. > > But as it turns out, you've turned over control of your own actions > and responses to others, because you respond compulsively and > reflexively to them. You are completely unable to control that > anymore. Others now control you, and you've given them that control. > You don't know why you have that compulsive reaction, but you do > anyway. It frustrates you sometimes, but you can't seem to stop > yourself. You try to justify it, saying that you owe it to "your > readers" to respond. You bluster that you're the one in control and > you try to command others to your will. But that doesn't work at all > well, does it, John? > > Why won't the world treat you nicer, the way you want them to? > Ever looked at yourself for the answer to that question? > > PD
From: PD on 30 Jun 2010 12:14 On Jun 30, 10:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jun 29, 6:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Your... attack the messenger time is up, PD. NE > If the messenger continues to spout ludicrous messags in the town square, then the passers-by will continue to giggle, point, and mock. > > > > > > On Jun 29, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > PD's time has expired. NE > > > For what, John? > > > As you will see, John, you have control only over your own actions and > > responses, not anyone else's. > > > But as it turns out, you've turned over control of your own actions > > and responses to others, because you respond compulsively and > > reflexively to them. You are completely unable to control that > > anymore. Others now control you, and you've given them that control. > > You don't know why you have that compulsive reaction, but you do > > anyway. It frustrates you sometimes, but you can't seem to stop > > yourself. You try to justify it, saying that you owe it to "your > > readers" to respond. You bluster that you're the one in control and > > you try to command others to your will. But that doesn't work at all > > well, does it, John? > > > Why won't the world treat you nicer, the way you want them to? > > Ever looked at yourself for the answer to that question? > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 30 Jun 2010 12:19 On Jun 30, 9:59 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Tim: I never claimed that "the second" is the only time that can be used. It's just the one most often used to define near Earth velocities and accelerations. No correct calculus, or other math, will ever show that 100% of an object's distance of fall is from coasting! But the greater the velocity (or the longer the time of the acceleration), the closer that number will come to being 100%. It reached 75% in only four seconds! Realize that "d x the total time in seconds" must always be subtracted from the total distance traveled. So that distance can NEVER become 100% coasting, not even at infinity! NoEinstein > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Jun 28, 6:11 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > > wrote: > > Dear Tim: You are, indeed, analytical. Each second that an object > > accelerates, the velocity at the end of any given second becomes > > coasting. That coasting distance of travel gets added to every other > > coasting carryover distance, at the end of every second, until the > > object stops accelerating. In a four second fall (Thats the maximum > > size parabola graph that fits easily on 8.5 x 11 paper.) the > > coasting is 75%, with this proviso: *** Since velocities and > > accelerations are per second, then the coasting is indicated in > > steps that change each second. I too am aware that there is a small > > coasting component after the object drops for any fraction of a > > second. So you would be right to say that there is SOME coasting > > carryover from the instant of drop. But you would be WRONG to say > > that 100% of the distance of fall is from coasting. Do you see the > > difference? The only non-coasting distance of travel for an object > > falling at g, or accelerating in space at g, is: d =16.087 feet > > per second of fall. The latter plots as a STRAIGHT line rather than a > > parabola. In four seconds of fall there is 4d due to pure > > acceleration, and 12d due to coasting, for a total distance of 16d. > > That means 12/16ths, or 75%, is from coasting. > > OK Noein. I see you are using the second as a discrete interval and so > your analysis does make some sense, though I have not followed the math > carefully. Still, the best criticism that I have for you is that as you > perform this analysis in half second discrete intervals, then quarter > second discrete intervals, and so on, that you should converge onto > existing theory, and quickly too. Depending on how you do this you might > even reconstruct calculus. There is no actual discrete unit requirement > as you have imposed. For instance I may walk at three miles per hour for > one minute, which to somebody back in time was quite a minute step. > Taking such short walks on your parabola you will find convergence, so > that at some small interval the non-coasting components will vanish. > > I guess the briefest way to break your mantra is to ask whether there is > an instantaneous velocity for an object in free fall for 0.5 secondS? Is > there a problem using this figure as a coasting component? What about > 0.51 seconds? The chord error withers here. > > - Tim > > > > > > > I drew my parabola with the fall distance in the -Y direction, just > > like for gravity. And I plotted the time in seconds in the +X > > directiondifferent from your example. I can visualize things easier > > if I dont mess with natures conventions. For the record, when a > > man pees, the stream will always follow a parabolic course down, and > > will be a complete parabola if the steam is horizontal at the start. > > NoEinstein > > >> NoEinstein wrote: > >>> On Jun 28, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> PD, haven't you heard? I'm a genius who doesn't need to read the > >>> works of anyone else to figure out what's what! "Power is: A FORCE > >>> which is available to be used CONTINUOUSLY, but which may be used for > >>> any length of time." The FORCE is what's available. The length of > >>> time used is important only when billing electric usage, or etc. NE > > >> Hi Noein. > >> I'm sorry, I'm having difficulties with usenet right now, so I am > >> replying here to your numerical breakdown, but just number three of the > >> coasting context. > > >> (3.) Coasting components of accelerated objects: > > >> Any attempt to create two devices here from the unified position of an > >> object does still seem puzzling to me. For instance, if an object > >> accelerates then we will have created new coasting components. For > >> instance let's suppose that an unaccelerated object A is travelling at v > >> along the x component of a reference frame: > >> x(A) = x0(A) + v0(A) t > >> where x(A) is the position of A, the y and z components of A being zero, > >> x0 and v0 being constants. We'll have to accept in your terminology that > >> this is a 'coasting component'. Next we'll allow A to accelerate by > >> a1(A) when A reaches x1. Constrain a1 to be constant. We see that > >> v(A) = v0(A) + a1(A) t > >> during this region of acceleration. As we have entered this region then > >> we have steadily changing velocities, and each of these is a new > >> coasting component. For instance we could just study the first of these > >> changes, though it is very small, but still we can call it > >> dv > >> so that the new velocity having just entered the acceleration is > >> v0(A) + dv > >> and since this dv is now a 'coasting component' there is actually > >> nothing left for any other component. The objects entire behavior is > >> accomodated within the concept of 'coasting components' since these > >> require a measure of instantaneous velocity. > > >> I don't see how you can say: > >> "In a four second fall, 75% of the fall distance is > >> due to COASTING." > >>e > >> By my analysis 100% of the objects fall distance is due to coasting. I > >> am willing to review how you arrive at 75% and will try to stay open > >> minded. I am sorry that the indices on my notation above aren't too > >> meaningful, but I believe the expressions are correct. I suspect that > >> your analysis uses a discrete time step instead of continuous principles > >> of calculus. > > >> - Tim > > >> On Jun 26, 7:28 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> > On Jun 25, 9:05 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > >> > Dear Tim: I ll place numerals within your reply, below, and top > >> > post my corresponding reply to you: > > >> > (1.) g is indeed 32.174 feet per second EACH second (rather than > >> > per second SQUARED). The value of the acceleration can be any value, > >> > depending, of course, on the uniform FORCE (in pounds) that is causing > >> > the acceleration. If a one pound mass is being acted upon by near > >> > Earth Gravity, such mass will have an a of 32.174 AND a g of that > >> > same amount. That will mean that the value of the a/g portion of my > >> > equation is unity; and unity times m is simply m , or the mass of > >> > the object in question. > > >> > (2.) All objects that are accelerating, regardless of the rate, have > >> > huge portions of the distance of travel attributable to COASTING > >> > alone. Suppose that an object is accelerating at g . After two > >> > seconds, the velocity will be 64.348 feet per second. If one could > >> > magically turn off the force of gravity (or turn-off the in-space > >> > thrust of the rocket motor) and the object will continue COASTING at > >> > 64.348 feet per second, indefinitely. Those same coasting components > >> > are there from every single velocity at the end of all of the seconds > >> > of time that the object is dropped, or the rocket is accelerated. > >> > COASTING components are what cause the free-drop curve to be a > >> > parabola, rather than a straight line. > > >> > (3.) No, Tim. The coasting component is part of the distance of > >> > travel of all accelerating objects; it s not left behind.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 1 Jul 2010 12:24
On Jun 30, 12:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You should know, PD. You've been laughed at and mocked so much of your life that you accept such as the norm. NE > > On Jun 30, 10:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jun 29, 6:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Your... attack the messenger time is up, PD. NE > > If the messenger continues to spout ludicrous messags in the town > square, then the passers-by will continue to giggle, point, and mock. > > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > PD's time has expired. NE > > > > For what, John? > > > > As you will see, John, you have control only over your own actions and > > > responses, not anyone else's. > > > > But as it turns out, you've turned over control of your own actions > > > and responses to others, because you respond compulsively and > > > reflexively to them. You are completely unable to control that > > > anymore. Others now control you, and you've given them that control. > > > You don't know why you have that compulsive reaction, but you do > > > anyway. It frustrates you sometimes, but you can't seem to stop > > > yourself. You try to justify it, saying that you owe it to "your > > > readers" to respond. You bluster that you're the one in control and > > > you try to command others to your will. But that doesn't work at all > > > well, does it, John? > > > > Why won't the world treat you nicer, the way you want them to? > > > Ever looked at yourself for the answer to that question? > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |