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: PD on 28 Apr 2010 22:32 On Apr 28, 9:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 28, 9:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Please do this: Locate a single '+new > post' that you claim you've made and copy a single time that I have... > REPLIED on your post. In three years time I haven't had any > occasions, nor a desire, to reply to you. I only do so... "in > defense" on my own posts, because you troll the net shooting at anyone > with more than a one neuron brain. You are Mr. Negativity; you know > that, PD? NoEinstein You are free to choose your own behavior and responses, NoEinstein, although I notice you are prone to a knee-jerk, compulsive need to respond. My comment was about the futility of your trying to control the behavior and responses of others. Do you frequently indulge in futile activities, John? > > > > > On Apr 28, 8:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 27, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are > > > no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > > > It never ceases to amaze me that you believe that people contribute to > > your posts at your invitation and at your pleasure, or that you have > > any authority or influence to control anyone or anything. > > > Perhaps you don't understand what a usenet newsgroup is for. > > > > > On Apr 27, 8:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 26, 11:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are > > > > > no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > > > > > The aether does not 'flow' towards matter. > > > > > Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 > > > > > "However this is not a flow of some form of matter through space, > > > > as previously considered in the aether models or in the random > > > > particulate Le Sage kinetic theory of gravity, rather the flow is an > > > > ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam patterns that form space, > > > > and indeed only have a geometrical description at a coarse-grained > > > > level. Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns > > > > in nearby regions, and not relative to some a priori background > > > > geometrical space" > > > > > What is mistaken as 'flow' is the pressure the aether exerts towards > > > > the matter. > > > > > The the aether displaced by the matter is the "ongoing rearrangement > > > > of the quantum-foam patterns that form space". > > > > > "Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in > > > > nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the > > > > matter where the state of the aether as determined by its connections > > > > with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is > > > > the aether's state of displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 28 Apr 2010 22:50 On Apr 28, 9:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 9:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I do understand that. I've told you that. > > Dear PD: Fine; remember that you just said there is no force to cause > COASTING! Of course, John. That is Newton's First Law, first laid out by Galileo. Perhaps you've heard of them. > > > > > > 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. > > > Nevertheless, the work is the increase in energy each second. > > The work is the product of the force times the displacement. > > "Work" is the product of the force x distance moved ONLY for objects > that aren't: in free fall; in outer space; or which don't have a > resisting force matching the applied force. That's just plain wrong, John. There is no such restriction. Work is defined as the product of force and displacement under all conditions. In fact, if you will look in a freshman physics book, you will see this definition of work applied to objects in free-fall. It does no good to just make up stuff, John. It's much better to check up on the meanings of words before wildly guessing or just making things up. > The force on dropped > objects is just their static weight acting continuously until the > object hits the ground. The distance traveled times the force in a > single second is a COMPLETE work computation for that one second. Of course. That is the definition of work. Note that you agree that the distance traveled times the force is indeed the work done on a dropped object. Just a second ago, you said this expression doesn't apply to dropped objects, and now you say it does. Confused, John? > In > second two, that same work would get done, again; On the contrary, in second two, the distance traveled is three times as far, and so the work is not the same at all. Note that the work is defined as the force ACTUALLY applied times the distance ACTUALLY moved, and there is no subtraction of a component from the previous interval. You'd like it to be different, but it just isn't so. > and in all the > remaining seconds. The thing you don't understand is: The velocity at > the end of second one will COAST all the way to the ground if the > force of gravity is "cut off" at that point in time. So, in say a > four second fall, the KE will be 2W, or two weight units. At the end > of seconds two, three, and four, there will still only be 2 weight > units of force, KE or "work" done! But there will have been 16 times > as much DISTANCE traveled. Since 15/16ths of the distance fallen has > zero pounds of associated force, the latter distance is from COASTING, > and thus has NO associated work! > > All well-written equations must explain what the variables are, and > state the "limiting conditions" under which such equation is valid. Yes, indeed, John, which is why you should go back to picking up materials where those variables are very clearly defined, rather than you and I bickering about them here. I'm telling you the definitions of those variables, and they aren't what you think they are. To settle the dispute, you need only check a third and independent reference. > Your... "work" equation does neither. The next time you accelerate > your car, ease off the gas and let the car increase its... > "displacement", as you say. John, if I ease off the gas and go at constant velocity, the displacement is not increasing. It stays the same in successive seconds. That's what constant velocity MEANS, John, because velocity is displacement per unit time. It's only when something is *accelerating* (such as in free fall), that the displacement changes from second to subsequent second. I don't know why this is so hard for you. Are you slow? > If the car coasts for half a mile, the > force, KE or work reached the maximum right when you eased off the > gas. A car traveling 45 mph after traveling 1/2 mile has the SAME KE > as a car traveling one mile, the last half mile while COASTING. > NoEinstein >
From: NoEinstein on 30 Apr 2010 06:03 On Apr 28, 10:24 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > > On Apr 28, 10:18 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 9:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are > > no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > > The aether does not 'flow' towards matter. > > Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 > > "However this is not a flow of some form of matter through space, > as previously considered in the aether models or in the random > particulate Le Sage kinetic theory of gravity, rather the flow is an > ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam patterns that form space, > and indeed only have a geometrical description at a coarse-grained > level. Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns > in nearby regions, and not relative to some a priori background > geometrical space" > > What is mistaken as 'flow' is the pressure the aether exerts towards > the matter. > > The aether displaced by the matter is the "ongoing rearrangement of > the quantum-foam patterns that form space". > > "Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in > nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the > matter where the state of the aether as determined by its connections > with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is > the aether's state of displacement.
From: NoEinstein on 30 Apr 2010 06:11 On Apr 28, 10:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: The only thing futile is your having the smarts to have ever made a single '+new post'. I've made hundreds, if not thousands, of defensive replies to you on my posts. And you, with your one neuron brain, can't find even find one instance where I have replied on a (nonexistent) post of yours. You've a mental case, PD. You know that, don't you. NoEinstein > > On Apr 28, 9:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 28, 9:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Please do this: Locate a single '+new > > post' that you claim you've made and copy a single time that I have... > > REPLIED on your post. In three years time I haven't had any > > occasions, nor a desire, to reply to you. I only do so... "in > > defense" on my own posts, because you troll the net shooting at anyone > > with more than a one neuron brain. You are Mr. Negativity; you know > > that, PD? NoEinstein > > You are free to choose your own behavior and responses, NoEinstein, > although I notice you are prone to a knee-jerk, compulsive need to > respond. > > My comment was about the futility of your trying to control the > behavior and responses of others. > > Do you frequently indulge in futile activities, John? > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 8:31 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 27, 8:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are > > > > no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > > > > It never ceases to amaze me that you believe that people contribute to > > > your posts at your invitation and at your pleasure, or that you have > > > any authority or influence to control anyone or anything. > > > > Perhaps you don't understand what a usenet newsgroup is for. > > > > > > On Apr 27, 8:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 11:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey fellow: Please hawk your stupidity on your own post(s). You are > > > > > > no longer welcome, here! NoEinstein > > > > > > The aether does not 'flow' towards matter. > > > > > > Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constanthttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 > > > > > > "However this is not a flow of some form of matter through space, > > > > > as previously considered in the aether models or in the random > > > > > particulate Le Sage kinetic theory of gravity, rather the flow is an > > > > > ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam patterns that form space, > > > > > and indeed only have a geometrical description at a coarse-grained > > > > > level. Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns > > > > > in nearby regions, and not relative to some a priori background > > > > > geometrical space" > > > > > > What is mistaken as 'flow' is the pressure the aether exerts towards > > > > > the matter. > > > > > > The the aether displaced by the matter is the "ongoing rearrangement > > > > > of the quantum-foam patterns that form space". > > > > > > "Then the flow in one region is relative only to the patterns in > > > > > nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the > > > > > matter where the state of the aether as determined by its connections > > > > > with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is > > > > > the aether's state of displacement.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 30 Apr 2010 06:38
On Apr 28, 10:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 28, 9:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Apr 27, 10:16 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 9:42 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > 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.. > > > > I do understand that. I've told you that. > > > Dear PD: Fine; remember that you just said there is no force to cause > > COASTING! > > Of course, John. That is Newton's First Law, first laid out by > Galileo. Perhaps you've heard of them. > > > > > 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. > > > > Nevertheless, the work is the increase in energy each second. > > > The work is the product of the force times the displacement. > > > "Work" is the product of the force x distance moved ONLY for objects > > that aren't: in free fall; in outer space; or which don't have a > > resisting force matching the applied force. > > That's just plain wrong, John. There is no such restriction. Work is > defined as the product of force and displacement under all conditions. > Dear Dunce: Of course you prefer defending things that are wrong or incomplete. Try telling a construction foreman that you should be paid for "pushing" a wheelbarrow that has no weight and is frictionless. No resistance = zero work done! That's kind of like a boxer aiming for the jaw, but only hitting air. There was no transfer of KE, or work, there. In the case of your jaw, I wish work was transferred. Ha, ha, HA! > > In fact, if you will look in a freshman physics book, you will see > this definition of work applied to objects in free-fall. > Coriolis's wrong definition of kinetic energy: KE = 1/2mv^2 doesn't involve a force nor a distance, PD. All this time I've been humoring you when you say that work is involved in computing KE. Only the VELOCITY determines the KE for a unit mass. My correct kinetic energy equation is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). Please note that neither FORCE nor "displacement" are part of either equation. You love the "work" equation, because you've never done any. You are a just couch potato and a Parasite Dunce. > > It does no good to just make up stuff, John. It's much better to check > up on the meanings of words before wildly guessing or just making > things up. > > > The force on dropped > > objects is just their static weight acting continuously until the > > object hits the ground. The distance traveled times the force in a > > single second is a COMPLETE work computation for that one second. > > Of course. That is the definition of work. Note that you agree that > the distance traveled times the force is indeed the work done on a > dropped object. Just a second ago, you said this expression doesn't > apply to dropped objects, and now you say it does. Confused, John? > > > In > > second two, that same work would get done, again; > > On the contrary, in second two, the distance traveled is three times > as far, and so the work is not the same at all. > > Note that the work is defined as the force ACTUALLY applied times the > distance ACTUALLY moved, and there is no subtraction of a component > from the previous interval. You'd like it to be different, but it just > isn't so. > > > and in all the > > remaining seconds. The thing you don't understand is: The velocity at > > the end of second one will COAST all the way to the ground if the > > force of gravity is "cut off" at that point in time. So, in say a > > four second fall, the KE will be 2W, or two weight units. At the end > > of seconds two, three, and four, there will still only be 2 weight > > units of force, KE or "work" done! But there will have been 16 times > > as much DISTANCE traveled. Since 15/16ths of the distance fallen has > > zero pounds of associated force, the latter distance is from COASTING, > > and thus has NO associated work! > > > All well-written equations must explain what the variables are, and > > state the "limiting conditions" under which such equation is valid. > > Yes, indeed, John, which is why you should go back to picking up > materials where those variables are very clearly defined, rather than > you and I bickering about them here. I'm telling you the definitions > of those variables, and they aren't what you think they are. To settle > the dispute, you need only check a third and independent reference. > > > Your... "work" equation does neither. The next time you accelerate > > your car, ease off the gas and let the car increase its... > > "displacement", as you say. > > John, if I ease off the gas and go at constant velocity, the > displacement is not increasing. It stays the same in successive > seconds. Wow Folks: PD just said that an automobile that is COASTING covers no distance! Can you readers not see that PD is a loony bird? NE That's what constant velocity MEANS, John, because velocity > is displacement per unit time. It's only when something is > *accelerating* (such as in free fall), that the displacement changes > from second to subsequent second. I don't know why this is so hard for > you. Are you slow? > The Work equation is: W = fd. That d is the total distance at the point at which the work is to be computed, NOT the unit rate of doing the work. In fact, the TIME required to do the work isn't part of the computation at all, nor is the VELOCITY! A person pushing a 100 pound sled 100 feet does the same amount of work whether it takes him ten minutes or ten hours. You are in the process of loosing you last neuron, PD. I'll rejoice when you can't reply at all! NE Those of you interested in better understanding KE should take the following Pop Quiz: Pop Quiz for Science Buffs! http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > > If the car coasts for half a mile, the > > force, KE or work reached the maximum right when you eased off the > > gas. A car traveling 45 mph after traveling 1/2 mile has the SAME KE > > as a car traveling one mile, the last half mile while COASTING. > > NoEinstein - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |