There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: "The Einstein Hoax"
Next: ALL DIZEAZZEZ ARE DEZERVED ! ESPECIALLY THE CANCER GOODY, BACKBONE OF THE JUICY DIZEAZZEZ INDUSTRY
From: PD on 11 May 2010 14:16 On May 7, 5:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 3:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: No. Since you are a fraud, I would be > > happy if you could find, and paraphrase, even one bit of evidence > > supporting, Lorentz. He and Einstein (ha!) were meant for each other! > > NE > > Oh, this is easy. There is a circular track that circulates muons at a > lab called g-2. > > Here is a picture of it, in case you doubt it's real:http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/pictures/g2magnet2.jpg > > The ring is about 30 feet across and about 90 feet around. Muons at > rest live for 2.2 microseconds, which is easily observed with a Navy > surplus oscilloscope. If the muons lived that long in the ring, they > would go around the ring about 24 times before decaying. Instead, they > go around 37 times. That is, they live longer when they are traveling > fast around the ring. But the extra time they have before decaying is > exactly what Lorentz time dilation says they will have. Perfect > example of just one bit of evidence that time dilation is real. There > is of course scads and scads of further evidence. > > There. Short and sweet, and indisputable. > I hope you see, John, that the Lorentz equations are fully consistent with experimental measurements.
From: PD on 11 May 2010 14:20 On May 7, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 > > isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until > > you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- > > head FRAUD! NoEinstein So, John, do you now see how 1/2mv^2 is not in violation of the conservation of energy? I showed you how below, in plain language, step by step. Even a 7th grader can follow it. > > Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask > you this time to print it out. > > The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy > of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. > > The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of > the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely > to this work. > > In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the > increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by > the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of > kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work > that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law > of conservation of energy has been respected. > > In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it > will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an > additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has > remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the > second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that > it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the > second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. > > Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, > after the first second, is the force of gravity times the > displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic > energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, > we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's > the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic > energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 > ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger > than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll > add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the > displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this > added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it > now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 > ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first > second. > > Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since > the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in > subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which > gravity added. The energy is conserved. > > It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in > the ratios 1:4:9. > Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios > 1:2:3. > > Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, > losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as > the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. > > There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is > proportional to v^2. > > Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of > this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > > On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > > > > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > > > > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > > > > NoEinstein > > > > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not > > > remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your > > > newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times > > > when it has been explained to you. > > > > I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins > > > anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. > > > > I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to > > > you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by > > > morning, do you? > > > > PD > >
From: spudnik on 12 May 2010 16:11 yeah, kinetic & potential energies, and the relations between them -- it is so high-school (but there is no reason not to do the experiments in grade-school, instead of babysitting & learning dysorders from teh force-feeding of the three Rs .-) thus: Copenhagen's "reifiying" of the mere probabilities of detection, is the biggest problem, whence comes both "perfect vacuum" and "quantum foam" etc. ad vomitorium, as well as the brain-dead "photon" of massless and momentumless and pointy rocks o'light, perfectly aimed at the recieving cone in your eye, like a small pizza pie. <verbatim deleted> > So both setups are needed to get the direct > measurement of what happens in both cases. > What you want to do is to replace this experiment with the one only > involving detectors at the slits, and then insisting that nothing > changes if the detector is not at the slits. > > read more » thus: all vacuums are good, if they suck hard enough, but there is no absolute vacuum, either on theoretical or Copenhagenskooler fuzzy math grounds. ao, what is the "ruling out" in the article? > From what I've read so far I'm not buying any pure vacuum effect has > been explained theoretically. Relying on Thomas's article from Baez thus: magnetohydrodynamics is probably the way to go, yes; not "perfect vacuum or bearings" -- and, where did the link about YORP, include any thing about the air-pressure?... seems to me, it's assuming Pascal's old, perfected Plenum. twist your mind away from the "illustrated in _Conceptual Physics/for Dummies_" nothingness of the massless & momentumless & pointy "photon" of the Nobel-winning "effect" in an electronic device -- yeah, CCDs -- the Committee's lame attempt to "save the dysappearance" of Newton's corpuscle. also, please don't brag about free God-am energy, til you can demonstrate it in a perpetuum mobile! > > In the link mentioned above is stated, that the > > vacuum has an optimum at 0.05 bar and that hard > > vacuum wouldn't work, because the mill stops. > It stops because it has bad bearings. These asteroids thus: so, a lightmill is that thing with black & white vanes on a spindle in a relative vacuum? you can't rely on "rocks o'light" to impart momentum to these vanes, only to be absorbed electromagnetically by atoms in them; then, perhaps, the "warm side" will have some aerodynamic/thermal effect on the air in the bulb, compared to the cool one. thus: even if neutrinos don't exist, Michelson and Morely didn't get no results! > Could neutrino availability affect decay rates? thus: I've been saying, for a while, that if "green" gasoline can be made ... anyway, see "Green Freedom" in the article, which is not quite what I was refering to! > http://thorium.50webs.com/ thus: every technique has problems. like, you can't grow hemp-for haemorrhoids under a photovoltaic, without a good lightbulb. the real problem is that, if Santa Monica is any indication, the solar-subsidy bandwagon is part of the cargo-cult from Southwest Asia (as is the compact flourescent lightbub, the LED lightbulb etc. ad vomitorium). > Government subsidies, and fat returns on PVs? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 22:01 On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > PD: What, exactly, is Newton's Second Law useful for? In essence it says that the uniform, continuous force that's necessary to cause a given acceleration must be the same fraction (up or down) as the target acceleration relates to 32.174 feet per second, each second. Or, in order to produce, say, a 64.348 feet/sec., each second acceleration, there must be two pounds of force acting upon each one pound of the object's mass. Or... a doubling of the continuous force will cause a 32.174 feet per second, each second increase in the acceleration, IF the initial acceleration was 'g'. Newton's second law wasn't very useful, was it. The force and the acceleration must be in this proportion: F = v / 32.174 (m). I say 'v', rather than 'A', because the compared fractions have the same unites in both the top and bottom of the fraction. So, the units cancel out. That leaves just the numeric portion of the fraction. All accelerations use the "per second" velocity as the datum point. So, in essence, you are comparing two velocities at "one second". That's why it says "v/32.174" instead of "A/32.174". V/32.174 (m) = the MOMENTUM of the object! That is the latter half of my correct kinetic energy equation which replaces Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mc^2; and Einstein's E = mc^2 / beta, or : *** KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). Note: Having a unit mass in any equation doesn't require that there be a "work" calculation for moving the mass. The only thing needed is to know that the VELOCITY, and the force will be in the proportion as given by my equation. NoEinstein > > On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, > then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. > > Now you don't seem so sure. > > You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing > to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law. And I > want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark > ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 > years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are > the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. > > PD
From: NoEinstein on 12 May 2010 22:16
On May 7, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: It's interesting that you are eager to play the Wizard and to assert what I never said, nor considered worthy of comment. But you have yet to back up any of your "the experiments show"; "or the texts say..." by paraphrasing any point of science that you think refutes any part of my New Science. If you can't put... useful information in your replies for the readers to see, then, you simply don't have anything, pro or con, to contribute. "Changing the subject", PD, isn't SCIENCE, it's cowardice! NoEinstein > > On May 6, 9:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Consider this, PD: The validity of any science theory is inversely > > proportional to the time spend debating it. Einstein's 'relativity' > > has been debated for over a century, and such is patently WRONG! > > NoEinstein > > There is ongoing debate about whether the Earth is flat, John.http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm > Since this debate has been going on for 500 years, by your argument, > the claim that the earth is round is 5x as wrong as relativity is. > > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > > > > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > > > > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > > > > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > > > > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > > > > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, > > > then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. > > > > Now you don't seem so sure. > > > > You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing > > > to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law. And I > > > want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark > > > ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 > > > years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are > > > the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |