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: NoEinstein on 2 Jun 2010 19:53 On Jun 1, 3:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear Burt: Gravity from flowing ether can produce downward FORCES that match the mass of the objects. The 'strength' of natural gravity on Earth never exceeds one pound for a one pound mass, or always matches the static weight of the object in question. NoEinstein > > On Jun 1, 12:25 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 25, 6:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD: Your comment, below, about equal and opposite thrust force > > and resistance force would be astute, if not for this fact: Objects at > > rest, waiting to be dropped, are already experiencing a downward force > > equal to their static weight. As soon as the retaining force is > > released, there is a dynamic imbalance that starts the object > > accelerating at 'g'. The downward force can never exceed the object's > > inertia. If 'a' is substituted for 'g', the acceleration could > > (perhaps) be greater, and the force would not be limited to the > > inertia. The latter is true ONLY for objects dropped near the Earth. > > My correct kinetic energy equation, KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m) > > works anywhere in the Universe, as long as the "Pound" of reference is > > that for 'g', or on Earth. NE > > > > On May 23, 4:08 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 20, 9:42 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear PD: If you had ever taken a course in structural engineering, > > > > there are TWO distinct types of force interactions. The STATIC ones > > > > always have the opposing forces being equal. > > > > Yes, indeed, so the net force is zero, so the acceleration is zero. > > > Hence the word "static". > > > > > But the DYNAMIC ones > > > > only have a FORCE equal to the LESSER resistance of the two. > > > > What??? > > > > Let's take a simple example. There is a wooden block on a wooden > > > inclined plane, and the plane is tipped up until the block starts to > > > slide, accelerating. List the forces acting on the block, what their > > > origin is, what direction the force is pointing. > > > > > You've > > > > never realized that DYNAMICS limits the downward force on the falling > > > > object to be whatever the INERTIA of the object is. Since the inertia > > > > of a one pound mass will always be just one pound, there can never be > > > > an exponential KE increase, because the force and the resistance are > > > > equal. > > > > WHAT???? > > > If the force and resistance were equal, then there would be two equal > > > and opposite forces acting on the object, and you'd be back to a > > > static situation. Try again. > > > > See the block example. > > > > > Since your precious WORK would have to increase exponentially, > > > > that violates simple dynamics, because the distances traveled by > > > > falling objects differ so markedly from second to second. I hope that > > > > you are sitting down, PD, because the latter statement means that > > > > there can neither be an increasing Work nor and increasing KE, from > > > > just the accruing COASTING components, which you are so reluctant to > > > > acknowledge. The COASTING components of the distance of fall for all > > > > dropped objects KILLS your made-up science! NoEinstein > > > > > > On May 20, 7:40 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 18, 9:18 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 17, 6:04 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 2:59 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: You have changed the subject AWAY from > > > > > > > > KE, > > > > > > > > No, I didn't. I responded directly to your post about ether flow on > > > > > > > muons. > > > > > > > > > because you can't find any place in any text that states: "Work is > > > > > > > > being done even if there is no resistance. (sic) The only requirement > > > > > > > > to have work is that there be a displacement. (sic) Thus, if a hockey > > > > > > > > puck slides twice as far across the ice, twice as much work was done, > > > > > > > > and there is twice as much KE in the puck, even if the ice is > > > > > > > > frictionless. (sic)." > > > > > > > > You are not paying attention. > > > > > > > Remember, PD: I am King of the Hill in science. It isn't "my job" to > > > > > > pay attention to you. > > > > > > :>) > > > > > Just make sure you tell yourself that each day in the mirror. If you > > > > > like, please add the line, "And I am the heir to the throne of the > > > > > kingdom, by birthright." You may also consider adding, if you are > > > > > feeling confident, "And I am irresistible to women." > > > > > > > > There is no work if there is no force present, even in the absence of resistance. > > > > > > > I correct you: 'There is no work if there is no force present', AND > > > > > > there is no corresponding resistance > > > > > > There is no work done if there is no net force, regardless whether > > > > > there is resistance or not. > > > > > > > > There is work if there is a force present, even in the absence of resistance. > > > > > > > Dear PD: Newton's Laws of Motion require: "For every action there > > > > > > must be an equal and opposite reaction." It is IMPOSSIBLE to apply a > > > > > > force... UNLESS there is a corresponding resisting force! > > > > > > Newton's 3rd law is not a statement about a resisting force. That is a > > > > > common mistake by high school students that is corrected in virtually > > > > > every textbook on the subject. For example, from the high school text > > > > > that I've been quoting from, page 133: > > > > > "One important thing to remember about action-reaction pairs is that > > > > > each force acts on a different object. Consider the task of driving a > > > > > nail into wood.... To accelerate the nail and drive it into the wood, > > > > > the hammer exerts a force on the nail. According to Newton's third > > > > > law, the nail exerts a force on the hammer that is equal to the > > > > > magnitude of the force that the hammer exerts on the nail. > > > > > "The concept of action-reaction pairs is a common source of confusion > > > > > because some people assume incorrectly that equal and opposite forces > > > > > balance one another and make any change in the state of motion > > > > > impossible. If the force that the nail exerts is equal to the force > > > > > the hammer exerts on the nail, why doesn't the nail remain at rest? > > > > > "The motion of the nail is affected only by the forces acting on the > > > > > nail. To determine whether the nail will accelerate, draw a free-body > > > > > diagram to isolate the forces acting on the nail.... The force of the > > > > > nail on the hammer is not included in the diagram because it does not > > > > > act on the nail. According to the diagram, the nail will be driven > > > > > into the wood because there is a net force acting on the nail. Thus, > > > > > action-reaction pairs do not imply that the net force on either object > > > > > is zero. The action-reaction forces are equal and opposite, but either > > > > > object may still have a net force acting on it." > > > > > > > That is > > > > > > like applying the "force" of a skyscraper in a marsh. The maximum > > > > > > static force that can ever be applied is determined by the supporting > > > > > > capacity of the marsheffectively ZERO. My thesis in Architecture > > > > > > was: "Float Foundations for Poor Soils". Essentially, I created > > > > > > structural boats under buildings to support those by the bouyancy of > > > > > > the marsh. For the record, I made an 'A' on that thesis. > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > The resistance on electrons imposed by the ether IS the force being > > > > > > > > measured in those early Lorentz experiments. > > > > > > > > Sorry, what "Lorentz experiments"? > > > > > > > Lorentz experimented, extensively, with trying to measure the velocity > > > > > > and the mass of electrons. Those were inside vacuum tubes, and were > > > > > > speeded up by electromagnets. But, strangely, the electrons > > > > > > encountered exponentially more resistance the closer the velocity came > > > > > > to 'c'. > > > > > > Reference, please. > > > > > > > The equation beta = 1 / [1 - v^2/c^2]^1/2 was written years > > > > > > before the M-M experiment. Lorentz shoehorned such to also explain > > > > > > (sic) the nil results of M-M. Lorentz was a mathematition who DABBLED > > > > > > in science. Expect bad results whenever that happens. > > > > > > > > > So, the very experiments > > > > > > > > you inquire about, only need the correct CAUSE, not a new set of > > > > > > > > experiments! > > > > > > > > A correct cause would be accompanied by calculations, indicating the > > > > > > > size of the effect expected due to this cause. Without those > > > > > > > calculations, you've got nothing. > > > > > > > PD, the drag on electrons due to the ether that is clumping in front > > > > > > is very close to Lorentz's Beta. > > > > > > Prove that. > > > > > > > The MATH is close to correct, but > > > > > > the cause is ether drag. > > > > > > Prove that. Show the derivation. Your bluff is called. > > > > > > > Note: Ether can drag electrons and massive > > > > > > objects, but it never drags photons! NoEinstein - 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 - > > What is the strength of gravity?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |