There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: mpc755 on 26 Apr 2010 13:46 On Apr 26, 12:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 24, 2:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear mpc755: Ether has zero drag on LIGHT, but a mass-proportional > drag on matter. You should understand that difference. NE > Yes, I understand the difference you are referring to, however, aether drag is the theory aether is dragged due to its proximity to matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis "According to the aether drag hypothesis light propagates in a special medium, the aether, that remains attached to things as they move. If this is the case then, no matter how fast the earth moves around the sun or rotates on its axis, light on the surface of the earth would travel at a constant velocity relative to the surface of the earth." > > > > On Apr 24, 12:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 24, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear mpc755: If your agreeing with the science notions of A. A. > > > Michelson makes you happy, BE happy. But you must realize that he was > > > only speculating about how science MIGHT be, not saying how science > > > IS. Like I explained, Michelson was a top technician of science, but > > > NOT a top analyzer of the mechanisms of science. To his credit, > > > Michelson, until his death, never accepted Lorentz's 'rubber ruler' > > > velocity-transformation of all matter. Michelson had built enough > > > things with his own two hands to KNOW that materials don't change > > > lengths due to being exposed to various velocities. That said, > > > Michelson was clueless to explain why his M-M experiment, and his mile- > > > long Chicago interferometer experiment, got nil results. The REASON > > > for the latter: Ether drag on light never occurs anywhere in the > > > Universe! NoEinstein > > > There does not seem to be much difference between aether drag and > > aether 'slowing down' due to its interaction with matter. > > > Either way, it doesn't make any difference until you are able to > > describe what occurs physically in nature in order to cause the aether > > to 'slow down'. > > > Aether is 'localized' with respect to the matter because it is > > displaced by the matter. The aether 'displaces back'. The 'displacing > > back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter. The > > pressure the aether exerts towards the matter is gravity. This > > pressure causes the aether to be 'localized' with respect to the > > matter. > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid > > medium, or not. > > > > > On Apr 24, 1:08 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 23, 1:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear mpc755: Michelson was a very nice, detail-oriented man. But he > > > > > lacked some critical analytical abilities. In Berlin, at Maxwell's > > > > > urging, he 'tested' a low-cost version of his new interferometer > > > > > design. Apparently, he lived next to a train station, so the > > > > > interference fringes got obliterated by the vibrations, frequently. > > > > > Michelson showed his general lack of analytical abilities by not > > > > > realizing that the few seconds, to maybe a minute, in which he could > > > > > see the interference rings (or bands) he should have been able to > > > > > generalize that his design wasn't working as a detector of velocity. > > > > > Instead, he figured that his instrument wasn't precise enough, or > > > > > vibration free enough, to detect the supposed (sic) drag of the ether > > > > > on the velocity of light. > > > > > > That same book has an illustration in back that shows a professional > > > > > quality pen-and-ink perspective drawing of the M-M apparatus, that is > > > > > located in a basement of what is now Case Western Reserve University. > > > > > Of course, the precise version of the interferometer didn't work to > > > > > detect velocity changes in light, either. Michelsonbeing a basically > > > > > naive mentalitydecided to construct a 'mile long' interferometer near > > > > > the University of Chicago. That instrument, too, failed to detect > > > > > velocity changes in the light. Michelson showed both his humor, and > > > > > his deceptiveness, by taking advantage of the optics alignment issues > > > > > with the mile-long, to create the illusion that he had... detected the > > > > > 'sine curve' he hoped to see. The reason he could do so, was because > > > > > the mile-long was at a fixed location that couldn't be rotated. He > > > > > realized that by selecting the right times of the day or night to plot > > > > > the oscillations of the fringe pattern about the optical center of the > > > > > instrument, he could cause the plotted points to approximate a sine > > > > > curve. Someone with my analytical ability easily realized that he had > > > > > selected the times of day to FAKE getting positive results. But I'm > > > > > not laughing that he was a deeply honest man, nor very smart. I do > > > > > applaud him for designing the Mt. Wilson interferometer to determine > > > > > THE most accurate out-and-back measurement of the velocity of light > > > > > (in air); and his most accurate measurement, in terms of the > > > > > wavelength of light, of the length of the official METER stick in > > > > > England. He would have been a great partner for constructing my own > > > > > interferometer designs that DO detect Earth velocity in the cosmos. > > > > > But not because of ether... drag on light. There is no such drag! > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > Nothing you state above has anything to do with the quote where > > > > Michelson discusses "aether displacement to the electric current". > > > > This is conceptually the same as Maxwell's displacement current. > > > > > If aether is 'slowed down' when it interacts with a nucleus then that > > > > is due to its being displaced by the nuclei. > > > > > A better term for the interaction of aether and matter is to describe > > > > the aether as 'localized' by the matter. > > > > > If a single nucleus is moving with constant momentum then the aether > > > > is exerting equal pressure to each and every part of the nuclei. This > > > > equal pressure is due to the nuclei displacing the aether. This equal > > > > pressure is due to the aether 'displacing back'. The 'displacing back' > > > > is the pressure the aether exerts towards the nuclei. > > > > > The greater the constant momentum the more aether is displaced by the > > > > nuclei the greater the aether 'displaces back'. This is what causes > > > > the pressure to vary depending upon momentum. > > > > > What your 'theory' is incapable of doing is describing what occurs > > > > physically in order for the aether to 'slow down'. It can't be > > > > friction or there would be no momentum. It is pressure. How does the > > > > aether exert pressure towards the nucleus? Because the aether is > > > > displaced by the nucleus and the aether 'displaces back'. > > > > > The analogy is a particle moving through a frictionless super fluid/ > > > > solid. > > > > > 'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum > > > > medium and the inertial motion of particles'http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf > > > > > "Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic > > > > particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory > > > > makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as > > > > the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and > > > > the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a > > > > quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results > > > > of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum > > > > medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though > > > > interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and > > > > thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion." > > > > > A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium, > > > > whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid > > > > medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the > > > > super fluid medium. > > > > > A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is > > > > at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an > > > > individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in > > > > the aether. > > > > > Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity > > > > as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what > > > > is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every > > > > nucleus which is the matter which is the object. > > > > > Once you add the concept of displacement to your theory you will then > > > > understand what is causing the aether to 'slow down', or more > > > > correctly to be 'localized'.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: spudnik on 26 Apr 2010 14:02 waht is wrong with "matter is dysplaced by matter" et cetera?... of course, there are no virtual photons, since there are no photons, at al. (see Young and his two-hole write-up ... or, pretend that the Nobel, for the photo-electrical "effect," unburies Newton's corpuscle.) > Aether is displaced by matter. > Displacement creates pressure. thus: now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder about his death at fifty-three, after dining with a convicted killer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if you really want to get into WS's politics, find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine, "Why the British Hate Shakespeare" -- if you can, at http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners. thus: the whole *problem* is the diagramming, which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched on paper. you simply do not need the pants, the lightcones they're made with, and the paradoxes of "looping in time" because of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, you won't be able to do *any* physics, that isn't "junkyard physics." > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. thus: so, if aether has mass, then it must be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist that energy cannot flow through matter, as light waves through air? in your alleged model, how does light travel through air vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, created whem "mass is converted-or-not to energy") ?? it seems that you are arguing in increasingly smaller circles. > The products retain the original mass > because the product is aether. > Light waves propagate through the aether. thus: you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" than "photons," which is three things that have never been seen. Young proved that all properties of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls o'light for British academe. well, even if any large thing could be accelerated to so close to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 26 Apr 2010 14:31 On Apr 26, 2:02 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > waht is wrong with "matter is dysplaced > by matter" et cetera?... of course, > there are no virtual photons, since > there are no photons, at al. (see Young > and his two-hole write-up ... or, pretend that > the Nobel, for the photo-electrical "effect," > unburies Newton's corpuscle.) > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > Displacement creates pressure. > > thus: > now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare > wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder > about his death at fifty-three, after dining > with a convicted killer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if > you really want to get into WS's politics, > find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine, > "Why the British Hate Shakespeare" -- if you can, > athttp://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners. > > thus: > the whole *problem* is the diagramming, > which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned > into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched > on paper. you simply do not need the pants, > the lightcones they're made with, and > the paradoxes of "looping in time" because > of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate > with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. > > quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, > per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if > biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- > Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. > > as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, > you won't be able to do *any* physics, > that isn't "junkyard physics." > > > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > > This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. > > thus: > so, if aether has mass, then it must > be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist > that energy cannot flow through matter, > as light waves through air? > > in your alleged model, > how does light travel through air > vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, > created whem "mass is converted-or-not > to energy") ?? > > it seems that you are arguing > in increasingly smaller circles. > > > The products retain the original mass > > because the product is aether. > > Light waves propagate through the aether. > > thus: > you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" > than "photons," which is three things that have > never been seen. As I just replied, there is no such thing as gravitons. I will stop responding to your posts, which are difficult, if not impossible to decipher, as long as you 'assume' something that is completely inaccurate. > Young proved that all properties > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls > o'light for British academe. well, even if > any large thing could be accelerated to so close > to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known > as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" > -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- > it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, > per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, > this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," > not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > > > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, > > thus: > what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; > his real "proof" is _1599_; > the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- > especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 26 Apr 2010 14:52 well, make my day. > As I just replied, there is no such thing as gravitons. I will stop > responding to your posts, which are difficult, if not impossible to > decipher, as long as you 'assume' something that is completely > inaccurate. > > Young proved that all properties > > of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-be-found photo- > > electrical effect, the instrumental artifact > > that save Newton's balls > > o'light for British academe. thus: waht is wrong with "matter is dysplaced by matter" et cetera?... of course, there are no virtual photons, since there are no photons, at al. (see Young and his two-hole write-up ... or, pretend that the Nobel, for the photo-electrical "effect," unburies Newton's corpuscle.) > Aether is displaced by matter. > Displacement creates pressure. thus: now, not only can we easily aver that "that Shakespeare wrote that Shakespeare," but we can also wonder about his death at fifty-three, after dining with a convicted killer, Ben Johnson. anyway, if you really want to get into WS's politics, find the cover-article *Campaigner* magazine, "Why the British Hate Shakespeare" -- if you can, at http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners. thus: the whole *problem* is the diagramming, which is just a 2D phase-space, and cartooned into a "2+1" phase-space with "pants," sketched on paper. you simply do not need the pants, the lightcones they're made with, and the paradoxes of "looping in time" because of a silly diagram, wherein "time becomes comensurate with space" saith-Minkowski-then-he-died. quaternions are noncommutative, not nonassociative, per rotations, as is easily demonstrated with a globe; if biquaternions are like octonions (a la "Cayley- Dickerson construction"), they're (tri-wise?) nonassociative. as for capNtrade, if Waxman's bill passes, you won't be able to do *any* physics, that isn't "junkyard physics." > > --No Cap and Trade Bailout for Wall Street and The City! > This is leaving the subject of physics a bit too much.. thus: so, if aether has mass, then it must be detectable. but, why on Earth do you insist that energy cannot flow through matter, as light waves through air? in your alleged model, how does light travel through air vis-a-vu the aether (that is, supposedly, created whem "mass is converted-or-not to energy") ?? it seems that you are arguing in increasingly smaller circles. > The products retain the original mass > because the product is aether. > Light waves propagate through the aether. thus: you are assuming that "gravitons" "go faster" than "photons," which is three things that have never been seen. Young proved that all properties of light is wave-ish, save for the yet-to-fbe-ound photo- electrical effect, the instrumental artifact that save Newton's balls o'light for British academe. well, even if any large thing could be accelerated to so close to teh speed of light-propagation (which used to be known as "retarded," since being found not instantaneous) is "space" -- which is no-where "a" vacuum -- it'd create a shockwave of any light that it was emmitting, per Gauss's hydrodynamic shockwaves (and, after all, this is all in the field of "magnetohydrodynamics," not "vacuum energy dynamics"). > Even if Andromeda were to be closing at 99.9999% c, thus: what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic; his real "proof" is _1599_; the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up -- especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co.... --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 26 Apr 2010 22:42
On Apr 26, 1:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Your denseness makes you incapable of understanding that NO force is required to cause an object to COAST. The velocity of a falling object at the end of second one COASTS all the way through till the object strikes the ground. The velocity at the end of second two does the same thing, and etc. The INCREASE in velocity per second is uniform (as you agreed two replies back). It is the COASTING carry-over velocity which causes the shape of the free- drop curve (distance vs. time) to be a parabola. In spite of what you suppose some G. D. formula says, there can be NO work performed unless there is a resisting force! And since you suppose that the work done is increasing semi-parabolically (as would match KE = 1/2mv^2), then, the resisting FORCE must be increasing semi- parabolically, too. However, the only force countering the force of gravity is the INERTIA of the object dropped, and that never changes! The CORRECT formula for the kinetic energy of dropped objects is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). And that formula increases LINEARLY, not parabolically. Both Coriolis and Einstein were wrong to think that a linear input of energy (velocity) will produce an exponential increase in KE. Doing so violated the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So, the readers will know: PD, the Parasite Dunce has never made a +new post in the three plus years that I have been visiting sci.physics. I copy some of my expertly explained posts, below. NoEinstein P. S.: In particular, see the two posts with the *** ... ***. Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... *** Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! *** http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... An Einstein Disproof for Dummies http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... Another look at Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... Three Problems for Math and Science http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en Matter from Thin Air http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90 Curing Einsteins Disease http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 *** Dropping Einstein Like a Stone *** http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en# Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is Copyrighted.) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en# Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0 The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002 A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en# SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817 Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849 NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7 There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en& > > On Apr 26, 11:05 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 24, 2:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear BLOCKHEAD PD, the Parasite Dunce: You have only a one neuron > > brain (encased in concrete). So, to you 'experimental evidence' > > matters even when the conclusions of such are WRONG. > > I'm sorry, John, but if you think that experimental results make no > sense because it conflicts with your common sense, then your common > sense is what's wrong. > > > IF as you say > > (sic) the KE of falling objects accrues non-linearly (sic), then the > > INPUT energyfrom the force of gravitymust be non linear, too > > (sic). > > The input of energy comes from work. There is more to work than just > the force. Recall the work is the *product* of force and displacement. > So it is entirely possible for the force to be linear and the work to > be nonlinear, or the force to be constant and the work to be non- > constant. This is really not complicated, John, and 7th graders have > no difficulty with it, so I don't know why you have such a problem > with it. > > > NOTE: You must agree to that statement if you accept that the > > Law of the Conservation of Energy is correct. Agreed? Then, tell me, > > PD, what about the UNIFORM force of gravity is non linear? You've > > already agreed that the VELOCITY of falling objects is increasing > > uniformly in simple accelerations. Newton's Laws of Motion state that > > a uniform force will cause one and only one associated acceleration. > > If the acceleration is... 'g', then the uniform FORCE causing the > > acceleration is the unchanging static WEIGHT of the falling object. > > Yes, indeed. But the work is not the force alone. The work is the > *product* of the force times the displacement. > In the first second, a gravitational force of 2 lbs will cause a rock > to cover 16 ft, if it starts from rest. In the next second, the same > gravitational force of 2 lbs on the same rock will cause the rock to > cover an additional 48 ft. > So you see, the work done on the rock, which is the amount of energy > that gravity supplies to the rock, is three times higher in the second > interval compared to the first interval, even though the force stays a > constant 2 lbs. > > > > > You typically escape from the above statements of truth by digging > > into your dusty textbooks. > > Nope. Real experiments, done in freshman labs. > > > You then SHOEHORN the errant mechanical > > definition of 'work' into the dropped object results. The latter are > > errant simply because the equation doesn't clarify that the 'distance > > of travel' is indicative of... 'work done' ONLY if there is a FORCE > > being applied against a RESISTANCE which is equal and opposite. > > That simply isn't correct, John. If there were a resistance force that > were equal and opposite, then the net force on the object would be > zero. Newton advised us in the late 1600's that the net force is the > product of mass and acceleration (F=ma, surely you've heard of it), so > that if the net force is zero, then the acceleration is zero. So a > dropped rock that is accelerating cannot possibly have zero net force > on it. In fact, NOTHING that is accelerating can have a net force of > zero acting on it. > > > > > > > That > > means that when the force increases, the RESISTANCE increases by the > > same amount. > > > For dropped objects, the only force causing the one rate of > > acceleration is the object's static weight. And the only RESISTANCE > > is the object's INERTICthat exactly matches the static weight, > > applied FORCE. Since the distance of fall with respect to time isn't > > LINEAR, but parabolic, then, the ENTIRE non linear component of the > > distance of fall has to be due to COASTINGbecause there isnt an > > associated increase in either the applied force, OR the resistance. > > > Folks, PD majored in high energy particle physics. I majored in > > architecture and STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. Of those majors, which one > > would likely be the most proficient in understanding... the > > applications of FORCES? > > Well, John, since the introductory courses that structural engineers > and architects have to take are taught in physics departments, I'm > sure it would be physicists that are more proficient. And since you > seem have trouble with F=ma, let alone work, which are 7th grade > concepts that are needed for a HIGH SCHOOL diploma, let alone > structural engineer certification, I'm a little surprised you fooled > your instructors enough to be admitted to college at all. > > > > > Im sure PD will invent ways to sidestep even > > the clearest statements of truths. But as long as you readers out > > there understand what I've explained, then PD can go jump-in-a-lake! > > NoEinst > > > > On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 24, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The big difference between us is that I > > > > acknowledge TRUTHS where those be found. You, on the other hand, > > > > attack the truths wherever they be found, probably because TRUTHS > > > > invalidate much of what you were taught was high-and-mighty in > > > > school. Have fun defending the errors in science to your grave, > > > > PD. No Einstein > > > > Well, it appears that we are just acknowledging different statements > > > as truth. You maintain yours are. > > > I maintain the ones that are supported by experimental evidence and > > > aren't merely the result of just "thinking about things" are the > > > truth. > > > So, when there is a conflict between experimental evidence and the > > > result of just "thinking about things," then one or the other needs to > > > be acknowledged and the other dismissed. I think I've chosen properly, > > > and I think you've chosen out of ego. > > > > > P. S.: You never have acknowledged that there is a COASTING > > > > component accruing within the 'distance of fall' of all near Earth > > > > objects that causes the time vs. distance plot to be a parabola, > > > > rather than a straight line. > > > > Oh, but I have. This is built into Newtonian mechanics. You think it > > > is something new, but it is not. > > > > > Until you understand the COASTING > > > > component, you can't understand that KE is accruing UNIFORMLY with > > > > respect to time. Side-stepping science TRUTHS is your specialty, > > > > isn't it, PD. > > > > No, sir, the experimental evidence shows that the KE accrues > > > NONuniformly with time. This is even with the coasting element > > > acknowledged. > > > I showed you several times that this is the case. > > > Kinetic energy accrues with work. > > > Work is the product of force and distance. > > > Even when the force is nonzero and constant, the distance increases in > > > subsequent intervals, even including the coasting component. If the > > > distance is L in the first time increment, it will be *3L* in the next > > > time increment, and no subtraction of a coasting component will > > > restore that to the same contribution as in the first time increment. > > > This is *measured* to extreme precision. > > > > You're hosed, NoEinstein. Sorry. > > > Don't let your ego stand in the way of the confrontation between > > > experiment (truth) and reasoning (hit or miss). > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |