Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
NoEinstein
over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
-- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
> A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
> over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
> during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
> much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
> contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
> believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
this post?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
>
> -- NoEinstein --
PD
> A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component
Component of what? Velocity? Distance? Acceleration?
> carried
> over from the previous second.
> (1.) How much of the distance of fall
> during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting?
> (2.) And how
> much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
> contribute to the force of impact of the object?
> (3.) Lastly, if you
> believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
Are you talking about *force*, *energy*, *momentum*, or *velocity* of
impact? They are all *different* quantities, measured with different
units, and they are no more comparable than quarts and BTUs.
Here is a simple example to feed your head. A baseball is thrown
horizontally toward home plate at 95 mph. You have two choices how to
reduce the velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy of the ball to
zero:
a) you can catch the ball in a mitt and let the mitt, your hand, and
your wrist "give" over some distance.
b) you can brace your legs behind you and let the ball hit you in the
forehead.
In both cases, all of the velocity, kinetic energy, and momentum
carried by the ball are reduced to zero, and so the change in these
quantities is the same in both cases (a) and (b).
The *force* of impact, if you will kindly test this in your backyard,
is measurably different.
Likewise, you can devise simple experiments (hopefully putting
yourself at bodily risk) whereby in one case the momentum and the
kinetic energy are both completely transferred to a second object, and
in the other case the momentum is transferred but most of the kinetic
energy is not.
Similarly, you can devise simple experiments whereby the *force* of
impact of an identical object in two cases is identical, but the
energy delivered is different.
These simple experiments, which you are completely oblivious to, are
the reason why scientists distinguish the quantities *force* of
impact, *energy transfer* of impact, *momentum transfer* of impact,
and *velocity change* of impact, said distinction being something else
that you are oblivious to.
It would help *enormously* if you spent some time doing the
experiments that illustrate the distinctions between these quantities,
before wasting time in your backyard performing an analysis of your
own experiment that muddles them all up.
PD
Igor
> A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
> over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
> during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
> much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
> contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
> believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
>
>
> -- NoEinstein --
Take a highschool physics course and maybe you'll find out.
tantal
maybe im sure you dont realize tha anomalies
you just did here
you predict that all tha kinetic is transformed in
to work and heat, right? 100% right?
wrong, it is much more than that
tantal
> On Feb 26, 5:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
> > over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
> > during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
> > much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
> > contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
> > believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> > force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> > factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
>
> How about explaining to us why we should explain introductory physics
> to you and correct the many misunderstandings that you display in just
> this post?
sure you dont realize tha complexity of this question
show tha details in your work
Igor
I think you mispelled "inanity".
Uncle Al
>
> A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
> over from the previous second.
That was quick. All velocity is relative. Idiot.
> (3.) Lastly, if you
> believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
[snip rest of crap]
"Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have three grandfathers? One would not be surprised to learn
you have but one (natal, not surviving). That your family tree does
not branch is not compensated by your falling from the top of the
Stupid Tree and hitting every branch on the way down. Assuredly the
impact at the bottom reflects your taken path.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
PD
For you, I offer special deal. $199.99. One day only. Nobody else gets
this good a deal.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
>
> > > -- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein
> A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
> over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
> during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
> much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
> contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
> believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
>
>
> -- NoEinstein --
xxein: The 'coasting' component can come from two different sources.
It can come from no initial velocity (gravity without inertial
velocity to preceed it), or from an inertial velocity that is pre-
presented into a gravitational situation.
In either case, a m vs.r factor determines g (acceleration) that is
added to the velocity. Simply put, an acceleration just adds to
velocity of any mass.
Androcles
"xxein" <xx...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:680cbf21-ea15-46f6...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
All that to say velocity is the integral of acceleration? Geez you stupid
shit.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
understand the message.
If you believe that what you were "taught" in college is sacred, then
by all means proclaim such. But if you are objective enough to even
consider becoming a scientist, show some objectivity. I will walk you
by the hand. But you must first know how to walk. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
Sorry PD. You have no idea what objectivity in science is. Your
notion of "science" is to pit your stubbornness against my truths.
But you loose, because you are a looser. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
Dear Igor2: I have asked three simple questions which you can't
answer. So, it is YOU who need remedial work. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
Dear Tantal: Welcome to my post, new guy! Sorry, but your comment is
too vague... unless you can explain it. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
Dear Uncle AL: Long time no hear! I was hoping you, and others, can
answer "three simple questions". Is it an insult to you to be asked
simple questions? Give it another try! But if you can't do it, then
maybe it is you who are the... idiot. -- NoEinstein --
>
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
> > over from the previous second.
>
> [snip crap]
>
> That was quick. All velocity is relative. Idiot.
>
> > (3.) Lastly, if you
> > believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> > force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> > factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> "Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
>
> Do you have three grandfathers? One would not be surprised to learn
> you have but one (natal, not surviving). That your family tree does
> not branch is not compensated by your falling from the top of the
> Stupid Tree and hitting every branch on the way down. Assuredly the
> impact at the bottom reflects your taken path.
>
> --
NoEinstein
>
Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
graphs? -- NoEinstein --
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
Dear xxein: Welcome to my post, newcomer! Your reply suggests that
you're reading-too-much-into my three simple questions. Obviously,
the distance of fall during the first second--which is not mentioned in
the problem--has no carryover distance from the previous second.
That's because the object was just being held, and hasn't yet started
to fall at "time" zero.
Please re read my initial post. "Acceleration", or any definition of
acceleration, isn't needed to answer the distance of fall questions.
But one must know that falling objects increase their distances by the
formula: d = t^2. Note: Since the distance of fall in the first
second is 16.087 feet, such amount becomes "d". And the units of time
is in seconds.
Better than your "simply put" definition, below: Acceleration is: A
uniform, additive increase of an object's velocity. And the distance
of fall vs. time curve, d = t^2, plots as a PARABOLA (inverted,
preferred).
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
> calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
> college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
> two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
> simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
> saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
> understand the message.
I'm not a graduate yet, but you have to understand the stuff you are
arguing about was taught to me in HIGH SCHOOL. Do you even know where
the formula d = 1/2 gt^2 + v_0 t + x_0 comes from?
>
> If you believe that what you were "taught" in college is sacred, then
> by all means proclaim such. But if you are objective enough to even
> consider becoming a scientist, show some objectivity. I will walk you
> by the hand. But you must first know how to walk. -- NoEinstein --
Not once yet have you actually tried discussing anything taught to me
in college - again, everything so far is based on what I learned in
high school. I'm yet to actually see you actually discuss relativity -
all I see is whining about Coriolis, which is a slam against /
classical mechanics/. SR is not classical mechanics.
If you wish to complain about my objectivity, try doing it from under
your real name instead of "NoEinstein" so your hypocracy isn't nearly
as obvious. Do you actually sign the spew you send to universities
with "NoEinstein"? If not, why are you doing it here? Are you such a
dysfunctional human being that you can't grasp that talking to a
scientist under that name pretty much ensures you'll be laughed at
whether or not your ideas are even considered?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Eric Gisse
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:>
> >
> Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
> graphs? -- NoEinstein --
Wouldn't it be great if you could do some simple experiments?
[...]
Jeff▲Relf
he's delusional ( of course ) not as much as you are,
trying to police a vast network of Universities.
PD
> On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
> graphs? -- NoEinstein --
>
Guys, wouldn't it be great if when NoEinstein says he won't post
responses anymore, that he actually does what he says he's going to
do?
PD
PD
> On Feb 26, 11:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry PD. You have no idea what objectivity in science is. Your
> notion of "science" is to pit your stubbornness against my truths.
Actually, if you want to know what science is, there are a whole bunch
of short books for beginners that explain what science is and how it
works. Would you like some suggestions?
If the meaning of science as explained in these books doesn't meet
your expectations, it's possible that you're just confused about the
meaning of the word and you were looking for a different word
entirely. If that's the case, then it's likely that you didn't mean to
post to a science newsgroup at all, but some other group, because
"science" doesn't mean what you thought it means. I'd be happy to
direct you to a newsgroup that is more along the lines of what you
were looking for. Probably something in the "rec" area.
> But you loose, because you are a looser. -- NoEinstein --
And I see you did just as well in your middle school English classes
as you did in your middle school science classes.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 8:26 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component
>
> > Component of what? Velocity? Distance? Acceleration?
>
> > > carried
> > > over from the previous second.
> > > (1.) How much of the distance of fall
> > > during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting?
> > > (2.) And how
> > > much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
> > > contribute to the force of impact of the object?
> > > (3.) Lastly, if you
> > > believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> > > force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> > > factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
>
> > Are you talking about *force*, *energy*, *momentum*, or *velocity* of
> > impact? They are all *different* quantities, measured with different
> > units, and they are no more comparable than quarts and BTUs.- Hide quoted text -
Randy Poe
> On Feb 27, 5:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
> > calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
> > college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
> > two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
> > simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
> > saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
> > understand the message.
>
> I'm not a graduate yet, but you have to understand the stuff you are
> arguing about was taught to me in HIGH SCHOOL. Do you even know where
> the formula d = 1/2 gt^2 + v_0 t + x_0 comes from?
Not only taught, but experimentally tested and validated
by the student in high school.
I honestly think that NoEinstein doesn't understand that
there is supposed to be a connection between equations
and the real world.
- Randy
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 27, 10:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 5:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
> > > calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
> > > college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
> > > two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
> > > simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
> > > saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
> > > understand the message.
>
> > I'm not a graduate yet, but you have to understand the stuff you are
> > arguing about was taught to me in HIGH SCHOOL. Do you even know where
> > the formula d = 1/2 gt^2 + v_0 t + x_0 comes from?
>
> Not only taught, but experimentally tested and validated
> by the student in high school.
Seriously. I can still remember doing the drop tests.
I could walk up to the physics department /right now/ and grab the
photogates and bearings with fishing line attached to test his ideas.
Eric Gisse
He would, but we are the only people who pay attention to him.
Igor
> On Feb 26, 1:44 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Igor2: I have asked three simple questions which you can't
> answer. So, it is YOU who need remedial work. -- NoEinstein --
>
So the top poster says I need remedial work? The main problem is that
your original questions didn't make much sense. Quantities in physics
have precise definitions. Maybe you need to learn some of them before
making a complete fool out of yourself and coming off like a complete
ignoramous. Besides, if there is anything wrong with a physical
theory, it can only be falsified by observation, and not by any
crackpot mathematics.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: It is obvious how much your ego gets boosted by being a
college student. But I won't complicate my simple Einstein disproofs
just to make them more appealing to your ego. Tell me: Can you plot
the requested down-turned parabola, or not? And you haven't done any
of the 10th grade algebra to verify my Einstein disproofs [
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en ];
and you couldn't calculate the side angle of a hemispherical pyramid.
What you need is to become a more focused 'scientist'. Those attach
the problems at hand. You seem to prefer to attack the problems some
place else. That way, your... answers won't be subject to grading.
Loose some ego, and some laziness; your brain is a terrible thing to
waste. -- NoEinstein --
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
Eric: What...? Are my 'simple experiments' too complicated for you?
More and more I suspect that Eric has crammed before exams to pass
courses, then he promptly forgets everything in the course. That
could explain why he can't graph a parabola, or write a few simple
algebraic equations to verify that 'c' isn't the maximum velocity in
the universe. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Jeff: When one university gets its due, they all will fall in
line. 'Policing' isn't my thing. Pointing out corruption (as in
North Carolina's universities) is what needs doing, not what I want to
do. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: My KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m) correctly predicts the
"real world" drop height at which a small clevis pin's KE matches the
inertia (weight) of a larger clevis pin. And my Z-Y-Z interferometer
detects the "real world" fringe shifts caused by the Earth's velocity
in the cosmos.
Have you ever done any successful "real world" scientific
experiments? -- NoEinstein --
mitc...@hotmail.com
> A small falling object near the Earth has a COASTING component carried
> over from the previous second. (1.) How much of the distance of fall
> during each of seconds 2, 3, and 4 is due to coasting? (2.) And how
> much do those individual coasting distances, in seconds 2, 3, and 4,
> contribute to the force of impact of the object? (3.) Lastly, if you
> believe, as I do, that coasting distances aren't contributing to the
> force of impact in any second, then what is the sole determining
> factor in the force of impact of a small unit mass?
>
16 feet in first second
48 feet in second second
This does not fit the 32 feet persecond squared
Eric Gisse
> On Feb 27, 10:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > NoEinstein wrote:
> > > On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> > > Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
> > > graphs? -- NoEinstein --
>
> > Wouldn't it be great if you could do some simple experiments?
>
> > [...]
>
> Eric: What...? Are my 'simple experiments' too complicated for you?
Not at all. They just don't say what you think they say.
> More and more I suspect that Eric has crammed before exams to pass
> courses, then he promptly forgets everything in the course. That
> could explain why he can't graph a parabola, or write a few simple
> algebraic equations to verify that 'c' isn't the maximum velocity in
> the universe. -- NoEinstein --
What you suspect is utterly irrelevant. You haven't studied even a
fraction of what I have. My educated surpassed yours in high school.
PD
> On Feb 27, 10:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > NoEinstein wrote:
> > > On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> > > Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
> > > graphs? -- NoEinstein --
>
> > Wouldn't it be great if you could do some simple experiments?
>
> > [...]
>
> Eric: What...? Are my 'simple experiments' too complicated for you?
What simple experiments? You haven't posted the methodology of your
experiments or published them anywhere to evaluate either the
simplicity or the complexity of them.
PD
Publish those experiments so that they can be objectively evaluated.
What you *claim* they demonstrate is no more believable than your
claiming they prove that clouds are held up by pixies, until you
publish them for review.
There are lots of charlatans who have claimed to have perpetual motion
machines, automobile engines that run on air, and skin creams that
reverse aging and prolong life. Those that keep those inventions
buried in their garage or their basements die with them in oblivion.
>
> Have you ever done any successful "real world" scientific
> experiments? -- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
PD
>
> 16 feet in first second
> 48 feet in second second
>
> This does not fit the 32 feet persecond squared
Why, yes, yes it does.
The relationship between the distance and the acceleration for an
object dropped from rest near the surface of the earth is very simple:
(distance) = (1/2)(acceleration)(time)^2
Please plug in 32 fet per second squared in for the acceleration, and
then find out what the distance is after (time) = 1second and (time) =
2 seconds.
It fits *superbly*.
PD
Randy Poe
> On Feb 28, 9:44 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:52 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 5:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 26, 10:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Eric: Can you draw a parabola? Or... do you have a graphing
> > > > calculator? I've asked for specific information that you, as a
> > > > college graduate in physics, should be able to provide in a minute or
> > > > two. Can you plot: d = t^2? I am trying to "walk you through" the
> > > > simple reasoning to understanding why Einstein goofed. Of course, it
> > > > saves you time to attack the messenger rather than trying to
> > > > understand the message.
>
> > > I'm not a graduate yet, but you have to understand the stuff you are
> > > arguing about was taught to me in HIGH SCHOOL. Do you even know where
> > > the formula d = 1/2 gt^2 + v_0 t + x_0 comes from?
>
> > Not only taught, but experimentally tested and validated
> > by the student in high school.
>
> > I honestly think that NoEinstein doesn't understand that
> > there is supposed to be a connection between equations
> > and the real world.
>
> "real world" drop height at which a small clevis pin's KE matches the
> inertia (weight) of a larger clevis pin.
I doubt it.
> And my Z-Y-Z interferometer
> detects the "real world" fringe shifts caused by the Earth's velocity
> in the cosmos.
I severely doubt it.
> Have you ever done any successful "real world" scientific
> experiments?
I work in industrial R&D, not basic research. But the
answer is "yes".
- Randy
Daryl McCullough
>16 feet in first second
>48 feet in second second
>
>This does not fit the 32 feet persecond squared
It certainly does. At the start of the 1-second
interval, the object is traveling at 0 feet
per second. At the end of the 1-second interval, the
object is traveling at 32 feet per second. The
distance traveled is computed in terms of the
*average* velocity:
D_traveled = V_average * Time_traveled
During the first 1-second interval, V_average is 16 feet per
second, the average of 0 and 32. During the second 1-second
interval V_average is 48 feet per second, the average of
32 and 64.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
NoEinstein
Dear Mitch: Thanks for being the first person to reply regarding the
'stated problem'--not regarding me, the problem stater! Rounded off,
16 ft. is the unit of 'd' in the equation for the PARABOLA that
defines: the fall distance with respect to time for dropped objects: d
= t^2. At time = 2 seconds, the accrued distance of fall is 4d or 64
feet. DURING the 2nd second, the object fell 48 feet, just like you
have stated.
My question (1.), relative to second number 2, requests the COASTING
distance during such second. If the acceleration due to gravity, 'g',
could (magically) be turned off at any point in the object's fall, the
object would stop increasing in velocity. Instead, it would continue
falling at the last velocity before the acceleration stopped. Think
of that like merging into traffic on an Interstate: You push down on
the gas; accelerate; then, when you reach the desired merging speed,
you let up on the gas and begin traveling at a uniform velocity.
If a falling object stopped accelerating at the end of second 1, it
would have a (rounded off) velocity of 32 ft per second. And THAT is
the same velocity with which the falling object will continue
coasting! So, during second 2, that object will travel 32 ft. by
COASTING. You correctly stated the total fall distance DURING second
2 to be: 48 ft. If the total is 48, and the COASTING accounts for 32
ft. of such distance, then the amount of fall distance that can be
attributed to "just" acceleration (the total minus any COASTING) is
exactly 16 ft. (rounded off).
And during the first second--as you correctly stated--the object fell 16
ft. due to acceleration. As explained above, the object fell another
16 ft. due to acceleration--after the COASTING distance is deducted.
Why do I subtract the COASTING distance? Because the KE of falling
objects was WRONGLY deduced by Coriolis, Einstein and so many others,
to be proportional to the distance of fall--or corresponding to that
parabola: d = t^2. Yet, the impact of, say, a car traveling 32 ft per
second for the one mile is exactly the same as the impact of that same
car if it had traveled 100 miles at 32 ft. per second. INCREASED
DISTANCE OF TRAVEL DOES NOT INCREASE THE FORCE OF IMPACT! Only an
increase in VELOCITY will increase the FORCE (in pounds) of impact!
Mitch, thanks to broaching the subject of my original post! Please
continue to do the same thing for seconds 3 and 4, so we can continue
this most important discussion! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Eric: Your EGO enters the room before you do. Unless you can
show some objectivity for science truths, I must decline to reply to
you. But read my reply to Mitch, above. That is the type of
'thinking' I was trying to squeeze out of your radish brain. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks, PD is a persona none grata. He is just a pest; ignore him. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks, PD is a persona none grata. He is just a pest; ignore him. --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Folks: PD flunks a knowledge of anything. The Bam Bam of duck
hunting destroyed his brain. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
wrote:
> mitchg...@hotmail.com says...
Dear Daryl: You are so right! Thanks for making the second OBJECTIVE
reply! Mitch made the first one. Please read my reply to him,
above. Among the three of us, we should be able to correct the
Einstein stupidity that has gone on far too long. -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
You won't be responding to me anymore? Oh no! What will I do if I lose
the invaluable tutelage of someone who misunderstands basic high
school physics?
We'll see - it looks like Paul and I are the only people in existence
who even pay attention to you anymore.
none
What does this say about your analysis capability?
none
competent experimenters and is a standard experiment in beginning
Physics classes which you clearly have not taken. Learn some
real physics and then come to comment from a position of knowledge
not just your biased hatred of successful scientists.
PD
> On Feb 29, 9:00 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 9:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 10:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> > > > > Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
> > > > > graphs? -- NoEinstein --
>
> > > > Wouldn't it be great if you could do some simple experiments?
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > Eric: What...? Are my 'simple experiments' too complicated for you?
>
> > What simple experiments? You haven't posted the methodology of your
> > experiments or published them anywhere to evaluate either the
> > simplicity or the complexity of them.
Note that NoEinstein does not contest this.
PD
I see you haven't given up aspirations of crowd control. You can see
that your efforts had *zero* effect on me, and yet you try it on
others by telling them what to do.
"Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting
different results."
Guess who said that?
PD
PD
Are you saying the above is wrong? Do tell.
PD
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD is a persona none grata interested only in being a pest.
He should bug off. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Someone, call a groupie exterminator! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
A man hit a mule in the head with a 2 x 4, and got hauled into court.
The judge asked the man why he hit the mule. He replied: "Judge, I
had to get its attention!" -- NoEinstein --
PD
> On Mar 1, 12:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 4:49 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 29, 9:00 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 9:52 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 27, 10:54 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:>
>
> > > > > > > Guys, wouldn't it be great if PD would actually do some simple
> > > > > > > graphs? -- NoEinstein --
>
> > > > > > Wouldn't it be great if you could do some simple experiments?
>
> > > > > > [...]
>
> > > > > Eric: What...? Are my 'simple experiments' too complicated for you?
>
> > > > What simple experiments? You haven't posted the methodology of your
> > > > experiments or published them anywhere to evaluate either the
> > > > simplicity or the complexity of them.
>
> > Note that NoEinstein does not contest this.
Again, note that he STILL doesn't contest this.
>
> > > > > More and more I suspect that Eric has crammed before exams to pass
> > > > > courses, then he promptly forgets everything in the course. That
> > > > > could explain why he can't graph a parabola, or write a few simple
> > > > > algebraic equations to verify that 'c' isn't the maximum velocity in
> > > > > the universe. -- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Folks, PD is a persona none grata. He is just a pest; ignore him. --
> > > NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Folks: PD is a persona none grata interested only in being a pest.
> He should bug off. -- NoEinstein ---
Haven't we already discussed this? What you think SHOULD happen is
irrelevant.
PD
> On Mar 1, 12:57 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 4:53 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 29, 9:07 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 10:05 pm, mitchg...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > 16 feet in first second
> > > > > 48 feet in second second
>
> > > > > This does not fit the 32 feet persecond squared
>
> > > > Why, yes, yes it does.
> > > > The relationship between the distance and the acceleration for an
> > > > object dropped from rest near the surface of the earth is very simple:
> > > > (distance) = (1/2)(acceleration)(time)^2
> > > > Please plug in 32 fet per second squared in for the acceleration, and
> > > > then find out what the distance is after (time) = 1second and (time) =
> > > > 2 seconds.
> > > > It fits *superbly*.
>
> > > > PD
>
> > > Folks: PD flunks a knowledge of anything. The Bam Bam of duck
> > > hunting destroyed his brain. -- NoEinstein --
>
> > Are you saying the above is wrong? Do tell.
Is it wrong, NoEinstein?
>
> > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A man hit a mule in the head with a 2 x 4, and got hauled into court.
> The judge asked the man why he hit the mule. He replied: "Judge, I
> had to get its attention!" -- NoEinstein --- Hide quoted text -
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: For over a year PD has tried to get me to let him sit in
judgement of my Einstein disproofs. Most of those disproofs are as
simple as reading whether a flipped coin is "heads" or "tails". There
are no "committees" required to review such simple things. And the
truth in the matter of a coin flip is indisputable. My results
disproving Einstein are explained in each of my posts, and in about
10% of my replies to others. PD seeks fame by pestering those
destined to be more famous than him. He is a very mixed up duck
hunter. -- NoEinstein --
none
You shared one bit of analysis with the group and that was
your estimate of average velocity in the MM experiment. Your math
was wrong so there was no need to look at your physics conclusion which
was also therefore wrong.
Your formula for distance under acceleration was also wrong.
So you have produced nothing correct so far.
What you want is to have everyone accept your drivel without any
examination of it. Of course everyone laughs at you. You need to
learn some math and then you can start to learn some physics.
New kooks are interesting for awhile but they get to be predictable
after awhile. You have gotten to that phase. You are joining the
Setos and that ilk. You still have a long way to go before you
get to Hammond. He is truly a world class kook.
PD
Actually, that's wrong too. I require nothing on your part to sit in
judgement of your so-called "Einstein disproofs". You put them out
there, and the readers judge. I'm one of them.
> Most of those disproofs are as
> simple as reading whether a flipped coin is "heads" or "tails".
Except that you've apparently tried to flip a sugar cube or a golf
ball and tried to call it heads or tails.
> There
> are no "committees" required to review such simple things.
That's correct. You'll note I needed no such committee to review it.
The incorrectness is immediately and painfully obvious to every
*single* reader that it's presented to.
> And the
> truth in the matter of a coin flip is indisputable.
Except when you've flipped a golf ball and called it heads.
> My results
> disproving Einstein are explained in each of my posts, and in about
> 10% of my replies to others.
And your explanations are plainly and painfully wrong, as has been
pointed out to you by a bunch of independent, individual readers.
> PD seeks fame by pestering those
> destined to be more famous than him.
That's wrong, too. I seek no fame whatsoever. Those who speak up in
defense of what is correct and against that which is wrong are not
necessarily motivated by a desire for fame. Nor can you make such
people shut up at your whim. Nor is it appropriate that you should
expect to post whatever notion crosses your head in a public place and
have it either be supported or met with silence.
> He is a very mixed up duck
> hunter. -- NoEinstein ---
PD
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Folks: Again, I add "None" to my persona non grata list. He is
this 'fly boy' expert who expects everyone to believe that he is...
authoritative, because he says "wrong" and "no" so much. The only
thing None is an authority on is how to be an instant fool; just add
water! -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD could never flip a 'sugar cube' to see which end landed up,
because he would eat it on the way down. The man has a... 'sweetness'
deficiency, and brain deficiency, too. -- NoEinstein --
none
of physics and that we are not allowed to question your claims. It does
not work that way. Physics progresses when claims are subject to, and
survive, intense scrutiny. You have demonstrated that your math is
wrong and therefore we cannot accept your conclusions.
You cannot calculate average velocity.
You think Galileo said d=t^2. That is wrong.
You do not believe in energy.
You actually have no clue what you are rebelling against.
If you want people to accept what you have to say, you have to
offer a rational and well reasoned, mathematically backed explanation.
You have done none of that.
Can you?
I repeat, it is time for you to study some physics if you want to
find out what you are actually claiming.
PD
I love it. You can't help it, can you? You're like a little Jack-in-
the-box. All I have to do is wind the crank, and after a little song,
up you pop!
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: More ho hum from PD. Someone should put a bucket over his
head and a mop in his hand. Everything he says is a mess that he
should be required to clean up. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: Don't read what None says. He will surely infect you with
'Einstein's disease' if you do. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD admires my dependability to... pop up. Does anyone know of
a "PD" pop-up blocker? -- NoEinstein --
Randy Poe
Are you familiar with the opus of James Harris? He
too is fond of using "folks" to address the imaginary
peanut gallery of lurkers who agree with him.
- Randy
Eric Gisse
Or you could just stop reading and responding, rather than being the
predictable attention whore that you are.
none
In other words, you are afraid to have people examine your ideas since
even you know they are wrong and you are just trolling.
NoEinstein
>
Dear Randy: I certainly don't think that everyone of the 300 plus
people per week who read my posts agree with me! But it would defy
probability if some of them don't agree. "Folks" is a good simple way
of referring to a group or crowd. By using that word, I'm not copying
anyone. -- NoEinstein --
>
> > Folks: PD admires my dependability to... pop up. Does anyone know of
> > a "PD" pop-up blocker? -- NoEinstein --
>
> Are you familiar with the opus of James Harris? He
> too is fond of using "folks" to address the imaginary
> peanut gallery of lurkers who agree with him.
>
NoEinstein
>
Dear Eric: Ask yourself this: Why are you so interested in what I
have to say? Surely you aren't following my replies just for your
amusement. I asked "three simple questions" at the start of this
post. CAN YOU ANSWER THEM WITHOUT WISE CRACKS? If you can, I will
explain how those questions disprove your... idol, Einstein. --
NoEinstein --
>
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
>
> > Folks: More ho hum from PD. Someone should put a bucket over his
> > head and a mop in his hand. Everything he says is a mess that he
> > should be required to clean up. -- NoEinstein --
>
> Or you could just stop reading and responding, rather than being the
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 5, 6:05 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Eric: Ask yourself this: Why are you so interested in what I
> have to say? Surely you aren't following my replies just for your
> amusement. I asked "three simple questions" at the start of this
> post. CAN YOU ANSWER THEM WITHOUT WISE CRACKS? If you can, I will
> explain how those questions disprove your... idol, Einstein. --
> NoEinstein --
What is the point in caving to the demands of someone who'd fail a
high school physics course?
>
> Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
NoEinstein
>
Folks: "None" is one FISH I caught which I wasn't trolling for. Throw
him back! He's too bony, and his flesh is poisoned with mercury. --
NoEinstein --
>
>
> > Folks: Don't read what None says. He will surely infect you with
> > 'Einstein's disease' if you do. -- NoEinstein --
>
> In other words, you are afraid to have people examine your ideas since
Randy Poe
> Dear Randy: I certainly don't think that everyone of the 300 plus
> people per week who read my posts agree with me! But it would defy
> probability if some of them don't agree.
Based on what probability model? Would it defy probability
if I released 300 bricks in midair, and every single one of
them went downward instead of up or sideways?
> "Folks" is a good simple way
> of referring to a group or crowd. By using that word, I'm not copying
> anyone.
Oh, I don't know. The resemblance is startling in any number
of aspects.
- Randy
Androcles
HAHAHAHA!!!
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d52c39a6-a59d-4759...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
PD
> "Energy is a scalar" -- Blind Poe.
> HAHAHAHA!!!
>
Why yes, yes it is.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:940e4a07-5334-49b4...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Rocks have energy to fall up off the ground and hit your dense skull, huh?
Why no, no they don't.
Rocks have energy to fall down off cliffs and crack your stupid head,
why yes, yes they do.
Even very basic physics is beyond you, Phuckwit Duck.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:940e4a07-5334-49b4...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "Energy is a scalar" -- Blind Poe.
> > HAHAHAHA!!!
>
> | Why yes, yes it is.
> | HAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> Rocks have energy to fall up off the ground and hit your dense skull, huh?
> Why no, no they don't.
> Rocks have energy to fall down off cliffs and crack your stupid head,
> why yes, yes they do.
Ah, very good. So rocks go in the direction that potential energy
points? So suppose I have a rock sitting on top of a gentle incline
with a 20% grade. In which direction does the potential energy point?
Along the slope or directly down?
> Even very basic physics is beyond you, Phuckwit Duck.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
This is indeed amusing for both of us, Androcles. Let's see how revved
up you'll get and how quickly you can get to Wrong today.
PD
Androcles
On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:940e4a07-5334-49b4...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "Energy is a scalar" -- Blind Poe.
> > HAHAHAHA!!!
>
> | Why yes, yes it is.
> | HAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> Rocks have energy to fall up off the ground and hit your dense skull, huh?
> Why no, no they don't.
> Rocks have energy to fall down off cliffs and crack your stupid head,
> why yes, yes they do.
| Ah, very good.
Thank you.
| So rocks go in the direction that potential energy
| points?
I don't give the answers to homework questions, Duck,
I only give hints. You have to work it out for yourself
and then turn in your assignment to Professor Poe.
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7d0b01ef-f4f9-4ae2...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 6, 8:07 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:940e4a07-5334-49b4...@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 6, 12:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > > "Energy is a scalar" -- Blind Poe.
> > > HAHAHAHA!!!
>
> > | Why yes, yes it is.
> > | HAHAHAHAHA!!!
>
> > Rocks have energy to fall up off the ground and hit your dense skull, huh?
> > Why no, no they don't.
> > Rocks have energy to fall down off cliffs and crack your stupid head,
> > why yes, yes they do.
>
> | Ah, very good.
> Thank you.
>
> | So rocks go in the direction that potential energy
> | points?
>
> I don't give the answers to homework questions, Duck,
> I only give hints. You have to work it out for yourself
> and then turn in your assignment to Professor Poe.
It seems that you have learned to stop yourself once you've arrived at
Wrong, rather than continuing to run around in tight circles and
crossing Wrong over and over and over again.
PD
Androcles
Why, you said "Ah, very good". Why yes, you did.
Clearly you found nothing Wrong in what I said and accepted
a correction to your Wrong. Clearly you are a contradictory
fuckhead. :-)
Now work it for yourself which direction the energy has and
why that makes it not a scalar, turn your assignment in to
Professor Poe who was clearly Wrong.
HAHAHA!!!
(When you've passed first grade I'll teach you real physics.)
Jeff▲Relf
One person ( using Google Groups ) might download my crap 100 times,
never reading it once... Google Groups calls that 100 “ Views ”.
Google Groups' “ Profile & Stats --> 7-Day Activity ” report says:
I made 53 replies, received 55 direct replies, and got 465 “ Views ”.
UseNet is basically email, where you reply to just one person;
but with a twist:
a few others ( e.g. Eric Gisse or Uncle Al ) might read and reply to it.
Jeff▲Relf
Mr. NoEinstein's English is fantastic,
you'd do well to emulate it... too bad you're so lazy ( and lame ).
You harm no one but yourself when you start your post with this spam:
“ Top posting repaired.
On Mar 5, 10:33 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Mar 4, 11:42 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote: ”.
JSH ( James Harris ) uses Google on FireFox 2 on Windows Vista
on Comcast Cable in Ukiah, CA 95482.
Mr. NoEinstein uses Google on IE7 on Win XP
on Bell South in Greenville, SC.
I don't know what Mr. NoEinstein is trying to say,
( inertial mass has energy, and energy has inertial mass )
but James reminds me of Tom Potter. I picture him saying:
“ Professors that aren't producing a lot of money to fuel up my jets
[ thus weaking the health of the planet,
just as over-consumption of food and drugs weakens the body ]
are parasites leaching away my tax dollars. ”.
James is another crude oil junkie, and we all pay the price.
NoEinstein
Folks: Potential energy, PE, "points" in the direction of the
available impetus, and the available direction of motion. Objects
rolling down inclined planes don't "have" PE at the start. They only
have "the potential" of a distance to roll. During the time of the
roll, the force of gravity is imparting KE. If the point of reference
is the inclined plane itself, the force is vertical; equal to the
rock's weight; and constant throughout the roll. If the point of
reference is the axis of motion, then the KE will increase as: Sine
alpha [m + v / 32.174 (m)]; neglecting friction, of course.
Presumably, "the rock" is perfectly spherical. -- NoEinstein --
PD
Lovely. If you don't know what the words mean, just make it up as you
go.
PD
Neil B.
Del phi, in symbol font as Ñ f = ¶f/fx i + ¶f/fy j + ¶f/fz k = the vector of the gradient of the potential energy, which is going to be parallel to the vector of whatever field is applying the force (like g, E, etc.) Getting the units of phi right is tricky, but it is "voltage" in EM since charge moving a distance through the voltage yields a certain energy. BTW voltage is a Lorentz scalar, so not transformed by velocity (but energy is, multiplied by the gamma factor.) But not all energy should be imagined in this form. The energy equivalent of mass, the energy just sitting in a chunk of matter, is effectively not such a vector field even though microscopic regions can be characterized that way (within the limits of quantum mechanics.)
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric: If I am the "attention whore", then you are the "John". --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric: What is the point of my "caving in" to someone without
scientific objectivity? Did you ever ask your head physics professor
at your Questionable U. why he never realized that M-M doesn't have a
CONTROL? Apparently, your main interest is: brown-nosing the status
quo. Is that why you manage to keep inching toward graduation after
all those years trying? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Jeff: I'll let anyone, even you, win your race for numbers. I
have goals for improving the world. Do you have any goals,
whatsoever, that are positive? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Jeff: Glad you like my "English"! Your philosophies wander all
over the place. If you can, talk "science" one item at a time; I'll
reply in kind. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
Folks: Recently, someone mentioned that PD is a retired engineer of
some kind. Those don't normally present themselves as 'experts' in
science. PD can't refute my disproofs of Einstein, so he accuses me
of... making things up. Well, that's a compliment--because my New
Mechanics required reasoning and problem solving ability! On the
contrary, PD has to work very hard to keep writing non substantive put-
downs of me, his apparent *idol. [*That's because: If what I'm saying
is a trivial thing, shouldn't PD (and those like him) have just
stopped following me around by now?] -- NoEinstein --
Jeff▲Relf
I try to be happy no matter how much I've lost or will lose.
When I lose my job, I'd like to explore my “ Urban Camping ” options.
While I'm more than happy to offer suggestions,
I don't expect to change anyone... the world is as it is.
Randy Poe
> On Mar 8, 11:51 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: Recently, someone mentioned that PD is a retired engineer of
> some kind.
That's Androcles. I gather that PD is a working physicist,
and my recollection of his publication record and references
to his work is that he works in experimental particle
physics, i.e., on accelerator experiments.
He's posted his publication record a couple of times
in answer to your requests. It's no surprise that
you never actually read it and make stuff up instead.
- Randy
Daryl McCullough
>Folks: Potential energy, PE, "points" in the direction of the
>available impetus, and the available direction of motion.
No, that's not true. In physics, there is a distinction
between *force* and *potential energy*. Force points in
a particular direction, but potential energy does not.
The relationship between the force F in the x-direction
and potential energy U is this:
F = - delta-U/delta-x
where delta-U is the change in the potential energy
resulting from moving an object a distance delta-x
in the x-direction. What this equation says is that
the force F always points in the direction of *decreasing*
potential energy. Since gravitational potential energy
increases as an object gets higher, that means that
the force points *down*, towards decreasing potential
energy.
>Objects rolling down inclined planes don't "have" PE at the start.
That's not correct. For an object in a constant gravitational field,
the potential energy is given by:
U = m g z
where m is the mass of the object, g is the
acceleration of gravity (9.8 meters per second-squared
on the Earth), and z is the height of the object.
The force in the z-direction is given by
F = - (change in U)/(change in z)
= - m g (change in z)/(change in z)
= - m g
So the force is constant, and it is proportional
to the mass. Force always points down, but potential
energy doesn't have a direction.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
PD
> On Mar 8, 11:51 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Folks: Recently, someone mentioned that PD is a retired engineer of
> some kind.
As always, what you repeat as gospel is wrong. I have never been an
engineer and I am not retired.
> Those don't normally present themselves as 'experts' in
> science.
You apparently don't have a clear understanding of who WOULD be in a
position to present themselves as more of an expert in science than
you.
> PD can't refute my disproofs of Einstein, so he accuses me
> of... making things up.
Pointing out that a proof has numerous errors in it is usually
sufficient as a refutation. And yes, you make things up.
> Well, that's a compliment--because my New
> Mechanics required reasoning and problem solving ability!
So do most mental delusions. Now, can you tell me what the difference
is between a delusion that requires reasoning and problem-solving
ability, and a scientific theory that requires reasoning and problem-
solving ability? No, I didn't think so.
> On the
> contrary, PD has to work very hard
There's another error, one I've corrected in the past. I spend a *very
small* fraction of my time on you, so little that it is almost no
effort at all. I imagine it just must seem like a lot to you, because
it takes you so long to generate the feeble mess that you do produce.
Still, correcting your mistakes is worth the very little time
investment I have to make.
> to keep writing non substantive put-
> downs of me, his apparent *idol. [*That's because: If what I'm saying
> is a trivial thing, shouldn't PD (and those like him) have just
> stopped following me around by now?] -- NoEinstein --
And again, this is a fallacy that I've pointed out to you before. You
have this incorrect notion that if someone posts something that is
wrong, then it will be ignored, and if it is right it will get a lot
of attention. This isn't quite right. As you can see, you can
certainly find a venue where you will post something that is wrong,
and it will not be ignored. So you are not only wrong about the
physics, but you are also wrong about how wrong ideas are received. I
don't know how much more you can be wrong about, but in your case, I
imagine your potential for being wrong is enormous.
PD
Pmb
"Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fr3hu...@drn.newsguy.com...
> NoEinstein says...
>
>>Folks: Potential energy, PE, "points" in the direction of the
>>available impetus, and the available direction of motion.
>
> No, that's not true. In physics, there is a distinction
> between *force* and *potential energy*. Force points in
> a particular direction, but potential energy does not.
>
> The relationship between the force F in the x-direction
> and potential energy U is this:
>
> F = - delta-U/delta-x
There are instances where there are extra terms. E.g. if the force is the
Lorentz force then there is an extra term to account for the magnetic field
F = -grad U + v x B
Other examples are the inertial forces in rotating frames of references such
as the expression for the Centrifugal force and the Coriolis force.
Best wishes
Pete
Tom Roberts
Pmb wrote:
> "Daryl McCullough" <stevend...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fr3hu...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> The relationship between the force F in the x-direction
>> and potential energy U is this:
>> F = - delta-U/delta-x
>
> There are instances where there are extra terms. E.g. if the force is the
> Lorentz force then there is an extra term to account for the magnetic field
> F = -grad U + v x B
Had someone clobbered the object with a baseball bat there would be
"extra terms" from that, too -- why not mention them (and a host of
similar possibilities)?
Clearly one should stick to the discussion at hand, and not bring up
unrelated stuff that COULD happen but was not in the original discussion.
> Other examples are the inertial forces in rotating frames of references such
> as the expression for the Centrifugal force and the Coriolis force.
But those are not really forces. They are quite clearly COORDINATE
ACCELERATIONS which in non-relativistic mechanics can be treated AS IF
they were fictitious "forces".
And beware of mixing up theoretical contexts: it is hopeless to use such
fictitious "forces" in relativistic mechanics, but the Lorentz force
cannot be used consistently in non-relativistic mechanics.
[Violating the above dictum: there is a way to show that there
are no such "extra terms" by working in a coordinate-
independent manner using differential forms on spacetime.]
Tom Roberts
NoEinstein
Dear Jeff: You seem to have two sides. One is this rebellious
science buff. The other is the less-is-more survivor. Why are you so
attached to the Seattle and University of Washington locale? --
NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: Though PD is a persona non grata as far as I'm concerned,
I'm still curious why he considers himself the final word. Like you,
occasionally he mentions something that, if correctly explained, could
educate others on science. I don't have anything against either of
you, personally. It's a time management thing. -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
wrote:
>
Dear Daryl: The "potential energy" in my New Mechanics comes from
gravity. As I've recently explained to Randy Poe, elevating an object
against gravity causes ZERO increase in the potential energy. All
that is increased is a "potential" distance of fall. Build a landfill
under the elevated object and it looses its fall distance. So, in the
former case (before the landfill) the direction of the KE which
results from the fall has to be on the axis of the force of gravity,
and it's therefore directional.
Are you associated with Cornell University? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Daryl: A quick addendum: All objects have a PE that is equal to
their static weigh, even if a landfill is under the object. --
NoEinstein --