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 14 May 2010 19:53 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. 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. 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. The letter p stands for FORCE in most engineering texts. You CLAIM that p means something else, but you never quote your source. The reason you fault that little College Outline Series book that says f = mv, 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: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 20:01 On May 14, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: Answer this: What the hell is your definition of MOMENTUM? Quote that from the text which says that WORK is involved in calculating the Law of the Conservation of ENERGY. That law says: ENERY in must = ENERGY out. Is that too difficult for you, PD? NE > > On May 14, 2:54 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: ... and what does THAT have to do with > > the price-of-eggs in China? NE > > You made this claim: the longer a theory is debated, the less its > validity. The roundness of the earth has been debated five times > longer than relativity has been debated. According to YOU, then, the > theory that the earth is round is five times more invalid than > relativity. > > That's what it has to do with the price of eggs in China, John. > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 20:15 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. There is no "work done" by the net force. 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. If you can, find any place that says that WORK can increase without there being a reaction LOAD. Zero LOAD = ZERO work done. 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 -
From: Timo Nieminen on 14 May 2010 20:45 On May 15, 9:42 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 7:46 am, Timo Nieminen <t...(a)physics.uq.edu.au> wrote: > > Dear Timo: Since my New Science has gravity being temperature and > surface area dependent, you can't "know" the correct masses of those > stars. The "new" mass of each must consider the color temperature and > the surface area. All you know for sure is: The color temperature; > the orbital period; and the eccentricity (wobble). You can't know the > diameter(s) of the stars, because such is obscured by their own > brightness. Michelson successfully used his interferometer to measure > very small angles, but the width of stars wasn't possible I dont > think. However, you should verify this. The diameters of both Sirius A and Sirius B have been measured. Sirius A by Hanbury Brown and Twiss, using the intensity interferometer. (Wikipedia has this being done at Jodrell Bank in 1959; I thought that this was done at Narrabri somewhat later - the Narrabri instrument is optical, Jodrell Bank was radio.) Sirius B has been imaged by Hubble. Both diameters are known. > Obviously, you are intrigued with trying to confirm my New Science > from astronomy rather than from a simple Earthly experiment(s). Be it > known: The Laws of Physics are the SAME all across the Universe. > Doing experiments, here, makes the most sense, I think. If your New Science is invalidated by already existing astronomical observations, then we can save a lot of time by not bothering to do experiments that aren't needed. Since checking your predictions against astronomical observations only takes a few minutes, why not do it? > You can measure what you "think" is the total brightness. But you are > actually only measuring the very tiny cone of light that has come all > the way from the star(s) to the photoelectric cell. Which is enough to tell you the total brightness, for an isotropically radiating star. If you think that there is some reason that the measurement might be inaccurate enough to save your theory, do exlain. Again, just go outside at night and see for yourself - Sirius A is very bright, and Sirius B is invisible to the naked eye. > The color of that > tiny beam will match the color temperature of the star(s), but won't > give you a true idea of the actual lumen of a star, nor its surface > area. There could, indeed, be valid indicators of the surface areas, > but I'm not yet privy to how those could be determined. The luminosity (i.e., total brightness) and the temperature are enough to give you the surface area, at least to reasonable accuracy, simply by approximating the star as a black body. How accurate is such a black body assumption? Quite enough so, which we can tell from looking at the spectrum. > I clearly implied that the total gravity of a star is the total > luminosity over the known surface area of the star. Yes, you did. Alas, 1000 times the luminosity doesn't appear to give 1000 times the gravity. Did you really not check this before? It's such a simple and obvious check, the data are readily available online, and the mathematics is trivial (not that you should need the mathematics to be so trivial, in light of your tremendous mathematical ability). I wouldn't claim to have a theory explaining everything without checking that it actually explains at least the easily checked things.
From: NoEinstein on 14 May 2010 21:12
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. 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 > > 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 - |