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 17 May 2010 14:07 On May 14, 6:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey Guy: You are a CAD for implying that I make up anything. I > strongly suspect that you... MADE UP that there is a description of > the Law of the Conservation of Energy, that has WORK in any way > associated with the computation. I gave you a link AND a textbook reference. You can check whether I made it up for yourself. I also gave you a summary because you always ask for a summary. But if you don't believe the summary, then you have to look it up yourself. > And I doubt that if there was an > expression that there would be a statement saying that WORK happens > due to "displacement", even if such is due to COASTING against zero > resisting load. I also gave you a textbook reference and quoted it and summarized it for you. If you only read summaries and then doubt them, then you will never be able to discover the truth of anything. > And you are a CAD for implying that my f or p = mv > definition of MOMENTUM is wrong, when you have never cold copied the > text and the equations that say otherwise. Oh, but I have. > The letter p stands for > FORCE in most engineering texts. References, please. > You CLAIM that p means something > else, but you never quote your source. Oh, but I have. It's a shame you cannot remember what was told to you yesterday. > The reason you fault that > little College Outline Series book that says f = mv, It doesn't. You claim this, but you are lying, and you refuse to cite the ISBN or correct Library of Congress catalog number to allow someone to check your claim. You are lying and you are attempting to cover up your lie. > is because you > don't want anyone faulting your... WORK definition of Conservation of > ENERGY. Put up or shut up, PD. You are hanging by a 5% thread that > will strangle you, if your don't! NE > > > > > On May 14, 2:02 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 13, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: You are an absolute paradox: On the one hand you shun "what > > > I am sellingmy New Science"; and on the other you survive only to, > > > hopefully, elevate your lame intellectual status by protecting the > > > status quo of physics from being disproved. Your only means of > > > raising your status is now FAILING, PD, by about 19 to one. That's > > > because no more than 5% of your fellow dunces support what you are > > > doing. [*** An actual poll of the readers would be welcomed.] > > > Fascinating. Love this policy of yours of just making data up. > > > > Your "right" to be here, if it were just a matter of free speech, > > > would be clear. But since your motive is to ANCHOR having there be > > > any progress, by anyone, in SCIENCE, then, you are a person to be > > > disdained by the Human Race. "Without CHANGE there can be no > > > progress." Without the PDs of this world, there SHALL be progress! > > > NoEinstein > > > > P. S.: I don't need PD as "a client", nor would I accept such a > > > failed pedant as him for a client. > > > > > On May 12, 9:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I chose Architecture, PD, because the subject is BIG, like my > > > > > capabilities. You chose High Energy Particle Physics, because those > > > > > objects are TINY, like your BRAIN! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > Then stick to architecture, John. Not that I'll be a customer. > > > > > > > On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, > > > > > > > architecture. > > > > > > > I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your > > > > > > qualifications to practice that profession. > > > > > > > > If I had a choice between designing great concert halls > > > > > > > or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of > > > > > > > humanity, I would choose the latter every time! > > > > > > > Then why did you choose architecture instead? > > > > > > > > Concert halls are for > > > > > > > the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU > > > > > > > built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 8:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 5, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tell me, PD: If I'm so "poorly suited" for scientific work, how is it > > > > > > > > > that I've made a greater contribution to physics than all of the > > > > > > > > > previous physicists put together? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > And if you're so poorly suited for architecture, how is it that you > > > > > > > > have designed the grandest performance halls and the tallest buildings > > > > > > > > in the world? > > > > > > > > > What's the weather like today in NoEinsteinLand? > > > > > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: You are Mr. Negativity. You can only feel superior (sic) by > > > > > > > > > > > putting others down. I wish I had had you for my teacher. I'd have > > > > > > > > > > > made you the laughing-stock of the school! NE > > > > > > > > > > > Oh dear. So you DO think reality checks are just negative put-downs. > > > > > > > > > > Such a fragile ego you have, John. > > > > > > > > > > You are very poorly suited for scientific work. This is not the place > > > > > > > > > > for the thin-skinned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is talking down to the student, John, as I made > > > > > > > > > > > > clear. Would you think of this as an emotional smack-down if it > > > > > > > > > > > > happened to you, or would you consider it a fair reality-check? Or do > > > > > > > > > > > > you not like reality checks? Do you find reality checks to be nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > but negativism?- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:08 On May 15, 5:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: I am a scientist. You, on the other hand, are a suppressor > of the truth. In short, you gladly lie and sidestep if those can > "seem" to increase the power of your negativity. I invite anyone to > Poll the readers to see how many support my honesty over your FRAUD. > As things now stand, you probable just dropped to one person in 25. > NE Do scientists make up data? > > > > > On May 14, 2:02 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 13, 11:07 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD: You are an absolute paradox: On the one hand you shun "what > > > I am sellingmy New Science"; and on the other you survive only to, > > > hopefully, elevate your lame intellectual status by protecting the > > > status quo of physics from being disproved. Your only means of > > > raising your status is now FAILING, PD, by about 19 to one. That's > > > because no more than 5% of your fellow dunces support what you are > > > doing. [*** An actual poll of the readers would be welcomed.] > > > Fascinating. Love this policy of yours of just making data up. > > > > Your "right" to be here, if it were just a matter of free speech, > > > would be clear. But since your motive is to ANCHOR having there be > > > any progress, by anyone, in SCIENCE, then, you are a person to be > > > disdained by the Human Race. "Without CHANGE there can be no > > > progress." Without the PDs of this world, there SHALL be progress! > > > NoEinstein > > > > P. S.: I don't need PD as "a client", nor would I accept such a > > > failed pedant as him for a client. > > > > > On May 12, 9:22 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 5:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I chose Architecture, PD, because the subject is BIG, like my > > > > > capabilities. You chose High Energy Particle Physics, because those > > > > > objects are TINY, like your BRAIN! Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > Then stick to architecture, John. Not that I'll be a customer. > > > > > > > On May 7, 3:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 7, 9:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear PD: When you can't attack my science, you attack my profession, > > > > > > > architecture. > > > > > > > I'm not disparaging your profession at all. I'm casting doubt on your > > > > > > qualifications to practice that profession. > > > > > > > > If I had a choice between designing great concert halls > > > > > > > or etc., or figuring out how the Universe works and improving all of > > > > > > > humanity, I would choose the latter every time! > > > > > > > Then why did you choose architecture instead? > > > > > > > > Concert halls are for > > > > > > > the recreation of the lazy, like you. What great edifices have YOU > > > > > > > built, in science or otherwise? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > On May 6, 8:57 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On May 5, 12:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tell me, PD: If I'm so "poorly suited" for scientific work, how is it > > > > > > > > > that I've made a greater contribution to physics than all of the > > > > > > > > > previous physicists put together? NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > And if you're so poorly suited for architecture, how is it that you > > > > > > > > have designed the grandest performance halls and the tallest buildings > > > > > > > > in the world? > > > > > > > > > What's the weather like today in NoEinsteinLand? > > > > > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:47 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 4, 11:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear PD: You are Mr. Negativity. You can only feel superior (sic) by > > > > > > > > > > > putting others down. I wish I had had you for my teacher. I'd have > > > > > > > > > > > made you the laughing-stock of the school! NE > > > > > > > > > > > Oh dear. So you DO think reality checks are just negative put-downs. > > > > > > > > > > Such a fragile ego you have, John. > > > > > > > > > > You are very poorly suited for scientific work. This is not the place > > > > > > > > > > for the thin-skinned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 3, 11:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this is talking down to the student, John, as I made > > > > > > > > > > > > clear. Would you think of this as an emotional smack-down if it > > > > > > > > > > > > happened to you, or would you consider it a fair reality-check? Or do > > > > > > > > > > > > you not like reality checks? Do you find reality checks to be nothing > > > > > > > > > > > > but negativism?- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:16 On May 15, 5:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: Nowhere in any high school physics text does it say that > work can be done when pushing against ZERO resistance. Oh, but it does. See for example the high school text Holt Physics (2009). Chapter 5, Section 2, where it shows the work done by gravity in free fall (that is, with zero resistance). > Don't you > recall agreeing that a hockey puck sliding many feet across slick ice > isn't increasing in KE simply because a "displacement" has occurred? Yes, we agreed there is no work when there is no force against no resistance. But there is indeed work done when there is force against no resistance. You keep confusing the two, as though a hockey puck is the only case in the world where there is no resistance. > You, sir, are fighting for your crumby "science" life. > I'm still King > of the Hill, and you are a lying, sidestepping fool. Your legacy is > that you are one of the most pathetic people on planet Earth. > NoEinstein > > > > > On May 14, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD hasn't quoted any authoritative source showing that WORK is in any > > > way involved in calculating KE. > > > Oh, yes, I have, John. You don't seem to remember anything that was > > told to you the day before. > > Do you like easy to read pages? Here's one for students at West > > Virginia University:http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/WorkEngergyTheor... > > "The energy associated with the work done by the net force does not > > disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), it is > > transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this the Work- > > Energy Theorem." > > > > And he hasn't quoted any > > > authoritative source saying that "work" can be done simply by > > > COASTING, against no resistance! > > > The definition of work is in high school books, John. > > > > And he certainly can't explain how > > > 'gravity' could possibly 'know' the velocities of every falling object > > > (like hail from varying heights) and add the exact semi-parabolic KE > > > increase to each. > > > Doesn't have to, John. The force is not solely responsible for the > > increase in energy. The work is. The work is the product of both the > > force and the displacement. That's how the work increases in each > > second. It's simple, John. Seventh graders can understand it. I don't > > know why you're so much slower than the average 7th grader. > > > > In short, PD is a total, sidestepping FRAUD! And > > > 95% of the readers know that he's a fraud! NoEinstein > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:20 On May 14, 8:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD, the STONEHEAD: WORK IS NEVER NONE WITHOUT THERE BEING A RESISTING > FORCE. That isn't so. Putting it in caps doesn't make it any less wrong. There is no resistance for an object in free-fall, for example. Nor is there resistance for an object on a hockey rink while it is being pushed by a hockey stick. > HAIL THAT IS COASTING (or has large components of coasting) > DOESN"T HAVE A SEMI-PARABOLICALLY INCREASING RESISTANCE. So your > theory is patently wrong!. Oh, you never have quoted the text, nor > shown the formulas that you claim consider that COASTING objects are > increasing in either KE or work potential. Ha, ha, HA! NE Things that don't have any resistance are not necessarily coasting, John. Consider something in free-fall. Any bozo should be able to see that. > > > > > On May 14, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD hasn't quoted any authoritative source showing that WORK is in any > > > way involved in calculating KE. > > > Oh, yes, I have, John. You don't seem to remember anything that was > > told to you the day before. > > Do you like easy to read pages? Here's one for students at West > > Virginia University:http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/WorkEngergyTheor... > > "The energy associated with the work done by the net force does not > > disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), it is > > transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this the Work- > > Energy Theorem." > > > > And he hasn't quoted any > > > authoritative source saying that "work" can be done simply by > > > COASTING, against no resistance! > > > The definition of work is in high school books, John. > > > > And he certainly can't explain how > > > 'gravity' could possibly 'know' the velocities of every falling object > > > (like hail from varying heights) and add the exact semi-parabolic KE > > > increase to each. > > > Doesn't have to, John. The force is not solely responsible for the > > increase in energy. The work is. The work is the product of both the > > force and the displacement. That's how the work increases in each > > second. It's simple, John. Seventh graders can understand it. I don't > > know why you're so much slower than the average 7th grader. > > > > In short, PD is a total, sidestepping FRAUD! And > > > 95% of the readers know that he's a fraud! NoEinstein > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:27
On May 14, 7:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Thanks for copying... "something". You > pasted: "The energy associated with the work done by the net force > does not disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), > it is transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this > the Work- > Energy Theorem." > > For starters: The most common KE is for dropped objects. That simply isn't true. Every time you drive somewhere, your car (and you in it) have KE, and that has nothing to do with being dropped, I hope. Same thing with walking from your chair to the toilet, John -- hopefully you drop nothing on the way. > There is no > "work done" by the net force. Of course there is. There is an increase in kinetic energy, and this increase has to come from work. That's the work-energy theorem. If you'd like me to quote a textbook, I'll quote the same high school text I used elsewhere: Holt Physics (2009), pg 166: "The equation W_net = (1/2)mv_f^2 - (1/2)mv_i^2 derived at the beginning of this section says that the net work done by a net force acting on an object is equal to the change in the kinetic energy of the object. This important relation [is] known as the work-kinetic energy theorem..." > There is only the uniform force acting > to cause a linear increase in the KE from second ZERO. If the force > (such as a rocket engine) is cut off, the KE at the last instant > before the cut-off will continue as a constant KE. Your supposed Work- > Energy Theorem is NOT the same as the Law of the Conservation of > Energy. Oh, but it is. > If you can, find any place that says that WORK can increase > without there being a reaction LOAD. Zero LOAD = ZERO work done. I'm sorry, but that isn't so. Look at Chapter 5, section 2 of the book above, and you will see several examples. > Ha, > ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > On May 14, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD hasn't quoted any authoritative source showing that WORK is in any > > > way involved in calculating KE. > > > Oh, yes, I have, John. You don't seem to remember anything that was > > told to you the day before. > > Do you like easy to read pages? Here's one for students at West > > Virginia University:http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/WorkEngergyTheor... > > "The energy associated with the work done by the net force does not > > disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), it is > > transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this the Work- > > Energy Theorem." > > > > And he hasn't quoted any > > > authoritative source saying that "work" can be done simply by > > > COASTING, against no resistance! > > > The definition of work is in high school books, John. > > > > And he certainly can't explain how > > > 'gravity' could possibly 'know' the velocities of every falling object > > > (like hail from varying heights) and add the exact semi-parabolic KE > > > increase to each. > > > Doesn't have to, John. The force is not solely responsible for the > > increase in energy. The work is. The work is the product of both the > > force and the displacement. That's how the work increases in each > > second. It's simple, John. Seventh graders can understand it. I don't > > know why you're so much slower than the average 7th grader. > > > > In short, PD is a total, sidestepping FRAUD! And > > > 95% of the readers know that he's a fraud! NoEinstein > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |