"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:41d291bb-22b7-4a77-901e-d468234a6400@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
1.  Does gravity do continuous work on falling objects?

2.  If so, would you say that gravity is the source energy for the
mechanical effects exhibited by falling objects?  If not, why?

3.  Can any falling object that began at velocity zero manifest a
force delivery potential, or kinetic energy, greater than the sum of
the forces being imparted to it by gravity as it falls?  If not, why?

4.  If a force deliver potential, or KE, is imparted to any object,
and in only ONE particular second of its fall, is it OK to recount,
anew, and on an accruing basis, that same numeric value in every
succeeding second, until the object impacts another, or until its
available kinetic energy can be extracted via mechanical means?

5.  The equation for kinetic energy that is shown in most texts is
that of Coriolis, and dates from 1830.  It says: KE = 1/2mv^2.
Einstein used such equation as the basis for his theories of
relativity.  But Einstein had his own unique ideas about what “energy”
is.  Should Coriolis’s equation be evaluated based on issues of
mechanics that were in place during Coriolis’s day?  Or should the
above equation be evaluated using Einstein’s much more controversial
ideas about what energy is?

6.  If a small test car is COASTING on a very smooth surface on a
windless day, and the velocity stays essentially unchanged during a
particular second, does the KE ‘increase’ because the car rolled, say,
20 feet during that second?  Or does the KE stay essentially the same
during that 20 feet of roll?

7.  If the same small test car has a motor that will increase its
velocity by 32 feet per second EACH second, is the car’s velocity
increasing at a uniform rate?

8.  If the car’s clutch is depressed when the car reaches a velocity
of 64 feet per second, how far will the car COAST during the next
second?

9.  Is the KE of the car being increased during the time that it is
COASTING?  Or is the total KE equal only to the accrued force that was
imparted during the time that the clutch, between the motor and the
car’s wheels, was engaged.

10.  Would you say that the ‘gravity and KE’ relationship must conform
to the LAW of the Conservation of Energy?  Or is the latter law to be
disregarded because Coriolis and Einstein didn’t understand such
relationship?

11.  Einstein says that the KE of all objects becomes infinite at
velocity ‘c’.  He came to that conclusion by realizing that Coriolis’s
equation, as in question 5, above, shows an exponential increase in KE
with respect to velocity.  Are equations “laws of nature” just because
they have been written so many times?  Or are equations subject to on-
going critical examination as to their viability?

"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:41d291bb-22b7-4a77-901e-d468234a6400@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
1.  Does gravity do continuous work on falling objects?

No.. Gravity is an Effect not a Cause of anything

2.  If so, would you say that gravity is the source energy for the
mechanical effects exhibited by falling objects?  If not, why?

No..  Gravity is the effect of seperation distance of physical
particles within the Inverse Tensor of the Quantum State

3.  Can any falling object that began at velocity zero manifest a
force delivery potential, or kinetic energy, greater than the sum of
the forces being imparted to it by gravity as it falls?  If not, why?

Nope again.. as Gravity is not the cause of the energy conversion
but just the effect of massive objects in relation to other massive
objects

4.  If a force deliver potential, or KE, is imparted to any object,
and in only ONE particular second of its fall, is it OK to recount,
anew, and on an accruing basis, that same numeric value in every
succeeding second, until the object impacts another, or until its
available kinetic energy can be extracted via mechanical means?

5.  The equation for kinetic energy that is shown in most texts is
that of Coriolis, and dates from 1830.  It says: KE = 1/2mv^2.
Einstein used such equation as the basis for his theories of
relativity.  But Einstein had his own unique ideas about what “energy”
is.  Should Coriolis’s equation be evaluated based on issues of
mechanics that were in place during Coriolis’s day?  Or should the
above equation be evaluated using Einstein’s much more controversial
ideas about what energy is?

6.  If a small test car is COASTING on a very smooth surface on a
windless day, and the velocity stays essentially unchanged during a
particular second, does the KE ‘increase’ because the car rolled, say,
20 feet during that second?  Or does the KE stay essentially the same
during that 20 feet of roll?

7.  If the same small test car has a motor that will increase its
velocity by 32 feet per second EACH second, is the car’s velocity
increasing at a uniform rate?

8.  If the car’s clutch is depressed when the car reaches a velocity
of 64 feet per second, how far will the car COAST during the next
second?

9.  Is the KE of the car being increased during the time that it is
COASTING?  Or is the total KE equal only to the accrued force that was
imparted during the time that the clutch, between the motor and the
car’s wheels, was engaged?

10.  Would you say that the ‘gravity and KE’ relationship must conform
to the LAW of the Conservation of Energy?  Or is the latter law to be
disregarded because Coriolis and Einstein didn’t understand such
relationship?

11.  Einstein says that the KE of all objects becomes infinite at
velocity ‘c’.  He came to that conclusion by realizing that Coriolis’s
equation, as in question 5, above, shows an exponential increase in KE
with respect to velocity.  Are equations “laws of nature” just because
they have been written so many times?  Or are equations subject to on-
going critical examination as to their viability?

Only in Relitive Relation to other mass

12.  Einstein also says that as an object’s velocity is increased
toward ‘c’ that its mass will become infinite, and the object will be
flattened like a pancake by its own increasing inertia.  Can any
object experience a force greater than its static weight by traveling
at a uniform acceleration (or.. x ft./sec. EACH second)?

Only in Relitive Relation to other mass

13.  Is it possible for an object traveling at a uniform acceleration
to exceed velocity ‘c’ if there is no impedance by impacts with other
matter or with the ether that is in the vacuum of space?

Not if it has Mass in relation to all other mass in the Universe.

14.  Einstein’s space-time ideas have been used as ‘escapes’ from the
rational discussions in the present subject areas.  Is it OK to still
use those ‘escapes’ even though the Michelson-Morley experiment that
caused Einstein to contrive his space-time postulates has been
invalidated as a velocity-detecting device, because it lacked a
CONTROL?

Depends on your piticular Bias

15.  Which is more correct?  (A.) Science is a static collective of
ideas.  Or (B.) Science is a continuing re evaluation of all that has
been presented in the past.

B

— NoEinstein —

Those who are interested are urged to read these earlier posts:

--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
 I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

On Apr 26, 2:15 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:41d291bb-22b7-4a77-901e-d468234a6400@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
1.  Does gravity do continuous work on falling objects?

Yes, this is demonstated by the continuing increase in the velocity of
falling objects.

2.  If so, would you say that gravity is the source energy for the
mechanical effects exhibited by falling objects?  If not, why?

Gravity is not the source energy.  Gravitational acceleration is the
result of the release of stored potential energy.  This is simple
physics.

3.  Can any falling object that began at velocity zero manifest a
force delivery potential, or kinetic energy, greater than the sum of
the forces being imparted to it by gravity as it falls?  If not, why?

No, energy is always conserved.

4.  If a force deliver potential, or KE, is imparted to any object,
and in only ONE particular second of its fall, is it OK to recount,
anew, and on an accruing basis, that same numeric value in every
succeeding second, until the object impacts another, or until its
available kinetic energy can be extracted via mechanical means?

Wow, that was a mouthful.  The kinetic energy of a falling object on
impact is precisely equal to its potential energy when at rest minus
the frictional energy expended while falling.  Everything else is
calculus detail.

5.  The equation for kinetic energy that is shown in most texts is
that of Coriolis, and dates from 1830.  It says: KE = 1/2mv^2.
Einstein used such equation as the basis for his theories of
relativity.  But Einstein had his own unique ideas about what “energy”
is.  Should Coriolis’s equation be evaluated based on issues of
mechanics that were in place during Coriolis’s day?  Or should the
above equation be evaluated using Einstein’s much more controversial
ideas about what energy is?

Actually, I believe that your posted equation for KE originated with
Newton, not Coriolis, and I have problems relating to anything that
you have posted thus far with Einstein.

My simple advice to you would be quite sure that you are well versed
in the principles of classical mechanics prior to introducing
relativity into the situation for obvious reasons.

6.  If a small test car is COASTING on a very smooth surface on a
windless day, and the velocity stays essentially unchanged during a
particular second, does the KE ‘increase’ because the car rolled, say,
20 feet during that second?  Or does the KE stay essentially the same
during that 20 feet of roll?

In gross terms and neglecting friction/air resistance, the car's
kinetic energy remains constant.

7.  If the same small test car has a motor that will increase its
velocity by 32 feet per second EACH second, is the car’s velocity
increasing at a uniform rate?

Yes, since your imposed conditions imposed that constraint.

8.  If the car’s clutch is depressed when the car reaches a velocity
of 64 feet per second, how far will the car COAST during the next
second?

Dhuh, 64 feet, assuming the same constraints.

9.  Is the KE of the car being increased during the time that it is
COASTING?  Or is the total KE equal only to the accrued force that was
imparted during the time that the clutch, between the motor and the
car’s wheels, was engaged.

No.

Correct!

10.  Would you say that the ‘gravity and KE’ relationship must conform
to the LAW of the Conservation of Energy?  Or is the latter law to be
disregarded because Coriolis and Einstein didn’t understand such
relationship?

Frankly, I believe that by now that you are some sophmoric guy playing
word games. For other readers, Coriolis is noted only for his
observation of one rahter obscure effect, while Einstein is noted for
his monumental revelation of the principles of Special Relativity
(something of monumental value, not just theory or concept).

11.  Einstein says that the KE of all objects becomes infinite at
velocity ‘c’.  He came to that conclusion by realizing that Coriolis’s
equation, as in question 5, above, shows an exponential increase in KE
with respect to velocity.  Are equations “laws of nature” just because
they have been written so many times?  Or are equations subject to on-
going critical examination as to their viability?

What the fuck, are you simply one of those uneducated Einstein
bashing, clueless assholes?  Seems like you are.

Harry C.

p.s., My comments are entirely directed a poster calling himself No
Einstein, which clearly is true. He is definitely "No Einstein". My
apologies to Paul Mays whose post I have followed-up on.

On Apr 26, 9:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[snip]

Your questions do not have answers that can be understood by someone
who does not understand classical mechanics.

On Apr 26, 2:15 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

(Snipped for the hech of it)

What the fuck, are you simply one of those uneducated Einstein
bashing, clueless assholes? Seems like you are.

Harry C.

p.s., My comments are entirely directed a poster calling himself No
Einstein, which clearly is true. He is definitely "No Einstein". My
apologies to Paul Mays whose post I have followed-up on.

On Apr 26, 10:26 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 26, 9:51 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[snip]

Your questions do not have answers that can be understood by someone
who does not understand classical mechanics.

Why Eric!  This is the first time you admit you don't understand
something.  Wow!

How is the weather in Seattle?  — NoEinstein —  

Dear Harry C.:  In spite of your "correct" answers to several
questions, your total grade is an F-  — NoEinstein —

1.  Does gravity do continuous work on falling objects?

2.  If so, would you say that gravity is the source energy for the
mechanical effects exhibited by falling objects?  If not, why?

3.  Can any falling object that began at velocity zero manifest a
force delivery potential,

or kinetic energy, greater than the sum of
the forces being imparted to it by gravity as it falls?  If not, why?

4.  If a force deliver potential, or KE, is imparted to any object,
and in only ONE particular second of its fall, is it OK to recount,
anew, and on an accruing basis, that same numeric value in every
succeeding second,

until the object impacts another, or until its
available kinetic energy can be extracted via mechanical means?

5.  The equation for kinetic energy that is shown in most texts is
that of Coriolis, and dates from 1830.  It says: KE = 1/2mv^2.

Einstein used such equation as the basis for his theories of
relativity.

 But Einstein had his own unique ideas about what “energy”
is.

 Should Coriolis’s equation be evaluated based on issues of
mechanics that were in place during Coriolis’s day?

 Or should the
above equation be evaluated using Einstein’s much more controversial
ideas about what energy is?

6.  If a small test car is COASTING on a very smooth surface on a
windless day, and the velocity stays essentially unchanged during a
particular second, does the KE ‘increase’ because the car rolled, say,
20 feet during that second?  Or does the KE stay essentially the same
during that 20 feet of roll?

7.  If the same small test car has a motor that will increase its
velocity by 32 feet per second EACH second, is the car’s velocity
increasing at a uniform rate?

8.  If the car’s clutch is depressed when the car reaches a velocity
of 64 feet per second, how far will the car COAST during the next
second?

9.  Is the KE of the car being increased during the time that it is
COASTING?

 Or is the total KE equal only to the accrued force that was
imparted during the time that the clutch, between the motor and the
car’s wheels, was engaged?

10.  Would you say that the ‘gravity and KE’ relationship must conform
to the LAW of the Conservation of Energy?

 Or is the latter law to be
disregarded because Coriolis and Einstein didn’t understand such
relationship?

11.  Einstein says that the KE of all objects becomes infinite at
velocity ‘c’.

 He came to that conclusion by realizing that Coriolis’s
equation, as in question 5, above, shows an exponential increase in KE
with respect to velocity.

 Are equations “laws of nature” just because
they have been written so many times?

 Or are equations subject to on-
going critical examination as to their viability?

12.  Einstein also says that as an object’s velocity is increased
toward ‘c’ that its mass will become infinite,

and the object will be
flattened like a pancake by its own increasing inertia.

 Can any
object experience a force greater than its static weight by traveling
at a uniform acceleration (or.. x ft./sec. EACH second)?

13.  Is it possible for an object traveling at a uniform acceleration
to exceed velocity ‘c’ if there is no impedance by impacts with other
matter or with the ether that is in the vacuum of space?

14.  Einstein’s space-time ideas have been used as ‘escapes’ from the
rational discussions in the present subject areas.

 Is it OK to still
use those ‘escapes’ even though the Michelson-Morley experiment that
caused Einstein to contrive his space-time postulates

has been
invalidated as a velocity-detecting device, because it lacked a
CONTROL?

15.  Which is more correct?  (A.) Science is a static collective of
ideas.  Or (B.) Science is a continuing re evaluation of all that has
been presented in the past.

— NoEinstein —

Those who are interested are urged to read these earlier posts:

Conservation of Energy Law Invalidates Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/042a8...
Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...

On Apr 26, 12:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

1. Does gravity do continuous work on falling objects?

Yes, though when an object reaches terminal velocity in the
atmosphere, the net work done on the object is zero.

Yes AND no... In the ranges of most free drop experiments (less than

2. If so, would you say that gravity is the source energy for the
mechanical effects exhibited by falling objects? If not, why?

No. When a baseball pitcher throws a fastball, it is falling the
moment it leaves the pitcher's hand (as there is no other force acting
on the ball but gravity after that point). However, the mechanical
effects exhibited by the fastball on the batter's noggin are mostly
NOT due to gravity.

OK... But most free drop experiments relate to the VERTICAL component

3. Can any falling object that began at velocity zero manifest a
force delivery potential,

That is a private term. You'll have to define what it means.

OK. If you have a 50 pound steel plate resting on your chest (while

or kinetic energy, greater than the sum of
the forces being imparted to it by gravity as it falls? If not, why?

Well, yes. A bird flapping vigorously in a dive can end up with a
kinetic energy that is larger than if it just folded its wings and
fell.

Wait a minute... We're talking about free drops of compact objects

4. If a force deliver potential, or KE, is imparted to any object,
and in only ONE particular second of its fall, is it OK to recount,
anew, and on an accruing basis, that same numeric value in every
succeeding second,

Is it OK? Depends on whether you want to count the total amount of KE
available or only the change in the KE in the last second. If you have
a savings account that pays 2.5% interest annually, and you started
with $100 in the account, is the amount of money you have in that
account after year two $105.06, or just $2.50? If you needed to buy a
new set of cinderblocks to put under the car in the front yard, I'd
expect you'd be able to tap the whole $105.06.

To pass a test, you must be able to read! Clearly, my "question"

until the object impacts another, or until its
available kinetic energy can be extracted via mechanical means?

5. The equation for kinetic energy that is shown in most texts is
that of Coriolis, and dates from 1830. It says: KE = 1/2mv^2.

Yes, and that has been tested in thousands of applications after
Coriolis first surmised it, and with much higher precision than what
Coriolis was able to achieve.

The equation was accepted and USED thousands of times, but it was

And in fact, in the last 80 years or so, we've been able to measure
that at sufficiently high v, that equation is clearly wrong, though it
does get the right answer to high precision at low v.

Right... compared to what?

Einstein used such equation as the basis for his theories of
relativity.

Actually, no, he didn't. If you think he did, it might be useful for
you to point out where you think he did.

The book name and page number was given to answer that several times

But Einstein had his own unique ideas about what “energy”
is.

Why? What do you think are his unique ideas about what energy is?

That "his" energy is an increase in the mass (HA, ha, ha). Except for

Should Coriolis’s equation be evaluated based on issues of
mechanics that were in place during Coriolis’s day?

No. It should be evaluated based on measurements that can be performed
today.

Einstein ACCEPTED the equation of Coriolis. But to require that one

Or should the
above equation be evaluated using Einstein’s much more controversial
ideas about what energy is?

You still haven't established what you think his controversial ideas
about energy are.

I've disproved Einstein up, down, and sideways! So, discussions of

6. If a small test car is COASTING on a very smooth surface on a
windless day, and the velocity stays essentially unchanged during a
particular second, does the KE ‘increase’ because the car rolled, say,
20 feet during that second? Or does the KE stay essentially the same
during that 20 feet of roll?

It stays the same. If however, there is work done on the small test
car and its velocity is changing, then the KE is definitely changing.
Moreover, if the car is observed to go 20 feet in one second and 40
feet in the next second, then you KNOW there is work being done on the
small test car and that the KE is definitely changing.

You continue to ESCAPE, by expanding the discussion outside of the

7. If the same small test car has a motor that will increase its
velocity by 32 feet per second EACH second, is the car’s velocity
increasing at a uniform rate?

Yes.

FANTASTIC! Since such velocity increase is what happens to all free-

8. If the car’s clutch is depressed when the car reaches a velocity
of 64 feet per second, how far will the car COAST during the next
second?

64 feet.

CORRECT!

9. Is the KE of the car being increased during the time that it is
COASTING?

Not if it goes the same distance on subsequent seconds. If, however,
the car goes further in the 2nd second than it does in the 1st second,
then the KE is being increased, yes.

Once again, you are expanding the answers outside of the clearly

Or is the total KE equal only to the accrued force that was
imparted during the time that the clutch, between the motor and the
car’s wheels, was engaged?

Actually, if you have the clutch engaged between the motor and the
car's wheels, and you are going at a constant 20 mph that whole time
(which I can certainly do, either on an icy road or in a school zone)
then the KE is not changing during that whole time either. Perhaps you
are confusing KE and force?

No! KE is a "force delivery potential". KE becomes a "force" as soon

10. Would you say that the ‘gravity and KE’ relationship must conform
to the LAW of the Conservation of Energy?

Yes. But this does not say that gravity can only dole out KE at a
constant rate with time. I don't know where you ever got the notion
that conservation of energy says that gravity can only dole out energy
at a constant rate with time.

It's a constant rate of increase, because the velocity increase is

Or is the latter law to be
disregarded because Coriolis and Einstein didn’t understand such
relationship?

What relationship did you have in mind?

THINK! Or is that too hard for you?

11. Einstein says that the KE of all objects becomes infinite at
velocity ‘c’.

All massive objects, yes. This is part of where he shows that
(1/2)mv^2 can't be right at all speeds, because... well... at v=c,
this obviously isn't infinite.

That’s because you are considering just set numerical values. Since

He came to that conclusion by realizing that Coriolis’s
equation, as in question 5, above, shows an exponential increase in KE
with respect to velocity.

No, he didn't. First of all, a v^2 dependence is not exponential. You
keep confusing an exponential behavior with a power law behavior.
Secondly, notice that when v=c, then (1/2)mv^2 isn't infinite.

Dear... "One neuron": Exponents are what "powers" are called. The

Are equations “laws of nature” just because
they have been written so many times?

No, because they've been tested in experiment, with the results
published for you to see if you would care to remove your butt from
the chair and go to the library.

So, you use "publishing" as the standard of proof... Get something

Or are equations subject to on-
going critical examination as to their viability?

Certainly subject to ongoing critical examination. That's why
experimenters continue to publish the results of tests, even to this
day. Do you have something you'd like to publish?

So, why don't you let go of your "defend the status quo with your

12. Einstein also says that as an object’s velocity is increased
toward ‘c’ that its mass will become infinite,

That definition of "mass" is not commonly used any more. This was a
usage of "something like mass" that Einstein used as a teaching
device, but more precise language today says that mass is a constant.
Einstein himself later adopted this more precise meaning of mass.

That’s one of those there "Is... isn't..." smoke screens thrown up by

and the object will be
flattened like a pancake by its own increasing inertia.

It is flattened like a pancake but that isn't an effect if its own
increasing inertia. You just made that up.

WRONG! Inertia is the ONLY resistance that "might be" available to

Can any
object experience a force greater than its static weight by traveling
at a uniform acceleration (or.. x ft./sec. EACH second)?

Certainly. Air Force pilots encounter it all the time, and that's why
they wear "gee" suits to keep themselves from passing out from those
forces during tight turns and other maneuvers.

You're escaping again! The discussion has only mentioned linear

If you get shot by a bullet from a gun, the force the bullet exerts on
your body equals the force your body exerts on the bullet (Newton's
3rd law, see your 7th grade science book), and both those forces are
more than the weight of the bullet.

So… 2 is greater than either of the 1 + 1 numbers. How profound! You

13. Is it possible for an object traveling at a uniform acceleration
to exceed velocity ‘c’ if there is no impedance by impacts with other
matter or with the ether that is in the vacuum of space?

No. And this has been tested.

Ether resistance will increase the mass of some sub-atomic particles.

14. Einstein’s space-time ideas have been used as ‘escapes’ from the
rational discussions in the present subject areas.

What constitutes a "rational discussion" in your mind?

That's the easiest of all: ANY discussion not with you! HA, ha, ha…!

Is it OK to still
use those ‘escapes’ even though the Michelson-Morley experiment that
caused Einstein to contrive his space-time postulates

Actually, Einstein didn't know much about the M-M experiment when he
was working on relativity. He was much more concerned about Maxwell's
equations.

Maxwell recommended to Michelson that he "try" detecting velocity

has been
invalidated as a velocity-detecting device, because it lacked a
CONTROL?

Well, a control is not needed in this case.

You, like Gisse, don't understand that all interferometers COMPARE two

Secondly, dozens --
repeat, DOZENS -- of experiments have been conducted since M-M that do
a much better job of testing relativity, and they all confirm
relativity. None of them are dependent on the M-M results.

All they TEST is that Einstein's equations are a close empirical

15. Which is more correct? (A.) Science is a static collective of
ideas. Or (B.) Science is a continuing re evaluation of all that has
been presented in the past.

B. But the latter is done via confrontation with published results of
experiment. Do you have something you'd like to publish?

Already answered. PD, you are still very much a PNG. Don't expect me

— NoEinstein —

Those who are interested are urged to read these earlier posts:

Conservation of Energy Law Invalidates Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/042a8...
Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...-

On Apr 28, 12:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 26, 12:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

1.  Does gravity do continuous work on falling objects?

Yes, though when an object reaches terminal velocity in the
atmosphere, the net work done on the object is zero.

Yes AND no...  In the ranges of most free drop experiments (less than
300 feet) of COMPACT objects, the terminal velocity doesn't come into
play.

 But considering air resistance, the total work done by gravity
vs. the total "effect" is still equal!  But the movement or frictional
heating of the air and the falling object will account for the energy
not recoverable from the object's "impact effects".

2.  If so, would you say that gravity is the source energy for the
mechanical effects exhibited by falling objects?  If not, why?

No. When a baseball pitcher throws a fastball, it is falling the
moment it leaves the pitcher's hand (as there is no other force acting
on the ball but gravity after that point). However, the mechanical
effects exhibited by the fastball on the batter's noggin are mostly
NOT due to gravity.

OK...  But most free drop experiments relate to the VERTICAL component
of the drop, not the horizontal.

 If that falling baseball hits you on
the exact TOP of your head, the "pain" you feel will be due to the sum
of the ball's weight, plus the effective weight increase due to the
velocity a millisecond before the ball hits.

 How hard the pitcher
threw the ball won't matter in such case.

3.  Can any falling object that began at velocity zero manifest a
force delivery potential,

That is a private term. You'll have to define what it means.

OK.  If you have a 50 pound steel plate resting on your chest (while
lying on your back), you feel the FORCE, in pounds, on your chest.  If
you raise that same plate up 16.087 feet and drop it, the same plate
will hit your chest with double the force, or 100 pounds.

 So, the
"force delivery potential" of an object falling 16.087 feet starting
from velocity zero is 2 weight units.

or kinetic energy, greater than the sum of
the forces being imparted to it by gravity as it falls?  If not, why?

Well, yes. A bird flapping vigorously in a dive can end up with a
kinetic energy that is larger than if it just folded its wings and
fell.

Wait a minute...  We're talking about free drops of compact objects
(dense), NOT powered drops of flying birds!

 Try to think with the
"box"!

4.  If a force deliver potential, or KE, is imparted to any object,
and in only ONE particular second of its fall, is it OK to recount,
anew, and on an accruing basis, that same numeric value in every
succeeding second,

Is it OK? Depends on whether you want to count the total amount of KE
available or only the change in the KE in the last second. If you have
a savings account that pays 2.5% interest annually, and you started
with $100 in the account, is the amount of money you have in that
account after year two $105.06, or just $2.50? If you needed to buy a
new set of cinderblocks to put under the car in the front yard, I'd
expect you'd be able to tap the whole $105.06.

To pass a test, you must be able to read!  Clearly, my "question"
describes "interest" (energy) earned and counted during, say, one
month.  The question did NOT say to use that same interest rate from
now on!

until the object impacts another, or until its
available kinetic energy can be extracted via mechanical means?

5.  The equation for kinetic energy that is shown in most texts is
that of Coriolis, and dates from 1830.  It says: KE = 1/2mv^2.

Yes, and that has been tested in thousands of applications after
Coriolis first surmised it, and with much higher precision than what
Coriolis was able to achieve.

The equation was accepted and USED thousands of times, but it was
never TESTED by any means that would pass the SCIENTIFIC METHOD!

 The
results given by that equation—like earthquake values on the Richter
scale—are not proportional comparisons, but they are still
comparisons!  No pilot can withstand the 'g' forces that are claimed.
But the various thresholds of survivability can still be "defined" by
values that aren't linear.

And in fact, in the last 80 years or so, we've been able to measure
that at sufficiently high v, that equation is clearly wrong, though it
does get the right answer to high precision at low v.

Right... compared to what?

Einstein used such equation as the basis for his theories of
relativity.

Actually, no, he didn't. If you think he did, it might be useful for
you to point out where you think he did.

The book name and page number was given to answer that several times
before.  I don't have time to chase it down for you.

But Einstein had his own unique ideas about what “energy”
is.

Why? What do you think are his unique ideas about what energy is?

That "his" energy is an increase in the mass (HA, ha, ha).

 Except for
subatomic particles, there has never been any observed mass increase
of ANY object.

 If there had been, people would be making gold go very
fast to make more gold!

Should Coriolis’s equation be evaluated based on issues of
mechanics that were in place during Coriolis’s day?

No. It should be evaluated based on measurements that can be performed
today.

Einstein ACCEPTED the equation of Coriolis.

 But to require that one
inject... relativity into the simple discussion of impact forces is
nothing more than an escape of those who are wrong!

 Or should the
above equation be evaluated using Einstein’s much more controversial
ideas about what energy is?

You still haven't established what you think his controversial ideas
about energy are.

I've disproved Einstein up, down, and sideways!  So, discussions of
that man's "roles" in understanding the mechanics are thus moot.

6.  If a small test car is COASTING on a very smooth surface on a
windless day, and the velocity stays essentially unchanged during a
particular second, does the KE ‘increase’ because the car rolled, say,
20 feet during that second?  Or does the KE stay essentially the same
during that 20 feet of roll?

It stays the same. If however, there is work done on the small test
car and its velocity is changing, then the KE is definitely changing.
Moreover, if the car is observed to go 20 feet in one second and 40
feet in the next second, then you KNOW there is work being done on the
small test car and that the KE is definitely changing.

You continue to ESCAPE, by expanding the discussion outside of the
simple mechanics issues stated.  I SAID that the car was COASTING!

7.  If the same small test car has a motor that will increase its
velocity by 32 feet per second EACH second, is the car’s velocity
increasing at a uniform rate?

Yes.

FANTASTIC!  Since such velocity increase is what happens to all free-
falling objects, then you are acknowledging that the velocity—caused
by the work done by gravity—increases uniformly!

 So... the work done
must be uniform, too!

 And so the KE can only be increasing LINEARLY.

The latter deductive reasoning disproves that KE increases
exponentially and thus disproves Einstein's theories of relativity!

8.  If the car’s clutch is depressed when the car reaches a velocity
of 64 feet per second, how far will the car COAST during the next
second?

64 feet.

CORRECT!

9.  Is the KE of the car being increased during the time that it is
COASTING?

Not if it goes the same distance on subsequent seconds. If, however,
the car goes further in the 2nd second than it does in the 1st second,
then the KE is being increased, yes.

Once again, you are expanding the answers outside of the clearly
stated problem.  But the first part of your reply is correct.

 Or is the total KE equal only to the accrued force that was
imparted during the time that the clutch, between the motor and the
car’s wheels, was engaged?

Actually, if you have the clutch engaged between the motor and the
car's wheels, and you are going at a constant 20 mph that whole time
(which I can certainly do, either on an icy road or in a school zone)
then the KE is not changing during that whole time either. Perhaps you
are confusing KE and force?

No!  KE is a "force delivery potential".

 KE becomes a "force" as soon
as a resistance is in place.

 So both KE and force are measured in
pounds.

10.  Would you say that the ‘gravity and KE’ relationship must conform
to the LAW of the Conservation of Energy?

Yes. But this does not say that gravity can only dole out KE at a
constant rate with time. I don't know where you ever got the notion
that conservation of energy says that gravity can only dole out energy
at a constant rate with time.

It's a constant rate of increase, because the velocity increase is
linear;

the work available is uniform (the object's static weight x
the 16.087 ft. of "new" distance increase ABOVE the coasting
distance); and the accepted momentum is increasing linearly.

 Or is the latter law to be
disregarded because Coriolis and Einstein didn’t understand such
relationship?

What relationship did you have in mind?

THINK!  Or is that too hard for you?

11.  Einstein says that the KE of all objects becomes infinite at
velocity ‘c’.

All massive objects, yes. This is part of where he shows that
(1/2)mv^2 can't be right at all speeds, because... well... at v=c,
this obviously isn't infinite.

That’s because you are considering just set numerical values.  Since
the plotted free drop curve is an inverted parabola, ALL parabolas go
to (effective) infinity very fast.

He came to that conclusion by realizing that Coriolis’s
equation, as in question 5, above, shows an exponential increase in KE
with respect to velocity.

No, he didn't. First of all, a v^2 dependence is not exponential. You
keep confusing an exponential behavior with a power law behavior.
Secondly, notice that when v=c, then (1/2)mv^2 isn't infinite.

Dear... "One neuron":  Exponents are what "powers" are called.  The
general term 'exponential' merely requires that the rate of increase
always be greater in one second than in the previous second.

Are equations “laws of nature” just because
they have been written so many times?

No, because they've been tested in experiment, with the results
published for you to see if you would care to remove your butt from
the chair and go to the library.

So, you use "publishing" as the standard of proof...  Get something
published, and that meets your status quo ideas of infallibility.

Or are equations subject to on-
going critical examination as to their viability?

Certainly subject to ongoing critical examination. That's why
experimenters continue to publish the results of tests, even to this
day. Do you have something you'd like to publish?

So, why don't you let go of your "defend the status quo with your
life" attitude!  The reason: You don't have an analytical neuron in
your brain—just that "one" status quo neuron!

12.  Einstein also says that as an object’s velocity is increased
toward ‘c’ that its mass will become infinite,

That definition of "mass" is not commonly used any more. This was a
usage of "something like mass" that Einstein used as a teaching
device, but more precise language today says that mass is a constant.
Einstein himself later adopted this more precise meaning of mass.

That’s one of those there "Is... isn't..." smoke screens thrown up by
Einstein.

 That's just his way of seeming to be right no matter how
the subject is approached.  You, too, answer in a conditional way,
because you need "escapes" if someone disagrees with you.  You keep
changing the point of reference.

and the object will be
flattened like a pancake by its own increasing inertia.

It is flattened like a pancake but that isn't an effect if its own
increasing inertia. You just made that up.

WRONG!  Inertia is the ONLY resistance that "might be" available to
flatten an object traveling in outer space.

 And the only inertia felt
by an object traveling at acceleration 'g' is its own UNIFORM weight,
NOT an increasing force!

Can any
object experience a force greater than its static weight by traveling
at a uniform acceleration (or.. x ft./sec. EACH second)?

Certainly. Air Force pilots encounter it all the time, and that's why
they wear "gee" suits to keep themselves from passing out from those
forces during tight turns and other maneuvers.

You're escaping again!  The discussion has only mentioned linear
velocity and linear velocity increases.  Objects on curving courses
have off-of-discussion-area lateral forces.

If you get shot by a bullet from a gun, the force the bullet exerts on
your body equals the force your body exerts on the bullet (Newton's
3rd law, see your 7th grade science book), and both those forces are
more than the weight of the bullet.

So… 2 is greater than either of the 1 + 1 numbers.  How profound!  You
should get that one copyrighted!

13.  Is it possible for an object traveling at a uniform acceleration
to exceed velocity ‘c’ if there is no impedance by impacts with other
matter or with the ether that is in the vacuum of space?

No. And this has been tested.

Ether resistance will increase the mass of some sub-atomic particles.

You keep escaping outside of the force of impact discussion area of
mechanics.

14.  Einstein’s space-time ideas have been used as ‘escapes’ from the
rational discussions in the present subject areas.

What constitutes a "rational discussion" in your mind?

That's the easiest of all: ANY discussion not with you!  HA, ha, ha…!

 Is it OK to still
use those ‘escapes’ even though the Michelson-Morley experiment that
caused Einstein to contrive his space-time postulates

Actually, Einstein didn't know much about the M-M experiment when he
was working on relativity. He was much more concerned about Maxwell's
equations.

Maxwell recommended to Michelson that he "try" detecting velocity
changes with his interferometer.  When 'that' experiment failed,
Lorentz, a mentor of Einstein, CONTRIVED the contraction factor Beta—
that is the divisor under the SR equation.  So, everything that
Einstein did is the direct result of his inability to understand the
workings of M-M.

has been
invalidated as a velocity-detecting device, because it lacked a
CONTROL?

Well, a control is not needed in this case.

You, like Gisse, don't understand that all interferometers COMPARE two
light beams to measure things.

 Since velocity detection demands that
one of the light courses be designed so as to change its TIME of
travel due to velocity, M-M failed because all of the optics were
mounted on the same horizontal plane.

 So, the TIME of travel of BOTH
light beams remains unchanged, even when the apparatus is rotated.
You are an "expert" on particle stuff, not on optics nor mechanics.

Secondly, dozens --
repeat, DOZENS -- of experiments have been conducted since M-M that do
a much better job of testing relativity, and they all confirm
relativity. None of them are dependent on the M-M results.

All they TEST is that Einstein's equations are a close empirical
ANALOGY to the observed effects.
 Einstein knew about those effects
BEFORE he wrote his equations.  

Now, when any observation seems to
agree with those equations people say: "See, Einstein predicted
this!"  But he predicted nothing—because he knew about unexplained
observations BEFORE he wrote the equations!  To his death Einstein
believed that gravity was just: objects accelerating along their world
lines in the space-time continuum.  He had no idea of the true cause
of gravity, so he said that his equations were the cause!  HA, ha,
ha...!

15.  Which is more correct?  (A.) Science is a static collective of
ideas.  Or (B.) Science is a continuing re evaluation of all that has
been presented in the past.

B. But the latter is done via confrontation with published results of
experiment. Do you have something you'd like to publish?

Already answered.  PD, you are still very much a PNG.  Don't expect me
to continue talking to someone with zero reasoning ability, like you.

— NoEinstein —

— NoEinstein —

Those who are interested are urged to read these earlier posts:

Conservation of Energy Law Invalidates Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/042a8....
Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...