Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #398980 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-19 15:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-24 21:37 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 95 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-19 15:14 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-19 23:48 +0000
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-19 19:35 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-20 14:57 +0000
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 16:10 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-20 17:27 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 22:06 +0100
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 16:15 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:19 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 16:18 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-20 21:22 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 23:47 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-21 05:22 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 16:26 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-21 17:28 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 23:04 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-22 05:05 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 16:14 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-22 17:42 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-22 17:53 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 19:17 -0800
Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-22 19:31 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-22 21:28 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 22:44 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 04:24 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 06:26 -0800
Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:40 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 04:21 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:30 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 16:24 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 17:23 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 18:40 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 19:04 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 19:35 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-24 07:06 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 19:12 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 19:32 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-23 20:19 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-24 01:47 -0800
Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-24 07:08 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-24 08:42 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:10 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-26 14:29 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-26 14:35 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-26 14:49 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g xxein1@att.net - 2016-11-24 07:20 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-24 18:05 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-24 21:03 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-24 19:46 -0800
Pathetic crank Peter Riedt perseveres in his imbecility "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-24 20:00 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 20:15 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 23:27 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 03:12 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 03:19 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 06:36 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 07:08 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-25 18:30 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:26 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-26 08:47 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-26 14:33 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 19:18 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:08 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-27 01:55 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-27 04:04 -0800
Peter Riedt discloses his new cretinisms "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-27 05:39 -0800
Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work embarrassing himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 17:36 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:06 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-26 14:27 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-21 17:38 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 22:57 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:43 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Maryann Tonn <libradaz@libradazert.info> - 2016-11-22 14:03 +0000
Re: The relationship G and g Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 08:57 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Dusty Kollman <uberdriver@uberdriver.info> - 2016-11-22 17:23 +0000
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 16:07 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:28 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 16:29 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:09 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 19:30 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:33 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 07:48 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:25 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-23 08:47 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:08 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:02 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g patdolan@comcast.net - 2016-11-19 15:55 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 16:07 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 17:07 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 16:55 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:17 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 16:16 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:01 -0600
Re: The relationship G and g "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-21 06:04 -0800
Re: The relationship G and g Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-11-25 15:19 +1100
Re: The relationship G and g "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-24 21:37 -0800
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 19:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d82cede9-7d0d-4b44-ac9e-7e65c03ea908@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399426 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:42:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with > > > the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > > > > > The question was and is how does g relate to G not > > > > >"...acceleration due to a mass > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. > > You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull! G is a universal force (different in every star system), g is a local force (limited to the confines of a free fall body).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 19:31 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work |
| Message-ID | <95046f76-4821-4541-9227-ce44c092b4e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399433 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:17:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:42:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with > > > > the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > > > > > > > The question was and is how does g relate to G not > > > > > > >"...acceleration due to a mass > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. > > > > You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull! > > G is a universal force Nope, cretin, it is not a "force" > (different in every star system), Nope, imbecile, it is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. > g is a local force (limited to the confines of a free fall body). Nope, cretin, g is not "a force" Pathological imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 21:28 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work |
| Message-ID | <e314353d-e9d3-421f-8317-5984a62155e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399436 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:31:39 PM UTC-6, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:17:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:42:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass > > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with > > > > > the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > > > > > > > > > The question was and is how does g relate to G not > > > > > > > > >"...acceleration due to a mass > > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. > > > > > > You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull! > > > > G is a universal force > > Nope, cretin, it is not a "force" > > > > (different in every star system), > > Nope, imbecile, it is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. Yep ... it is the Slope of Change in the rate of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 22:44 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work |
| Message-ID | <3cce8ab9-5433-424e-9325-e69064dce7d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399436 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:31:39 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:17:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:42:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass > > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with > > > > > the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > > > > > > > > > The question was and is how does g relate to G not > > > > > > > > >"...acceleration due to a mass > > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. > > > > > > You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull! > > > > G is a universal force > > Nope, cretin, it is not a "force" > > > > (different in every star system), > > Nope, imbecile, it is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. > What is the evidence for being the same throughout the universe? > > > > g is a local force (limited to the confines of a free fall body). > > Nope, cretin, g is not "a force" > It represents the gravitational force between two bodies relative to their masses as a number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 04:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work |
| Message-ID | <b3bb8404-1da5-4ab5-ade2-90a5b9cd7c45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399443 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:44:41 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:31:39 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > > > Nope, cretin, g is not "a force" > > > It represents the gravitational force between two bodies relative to their > masses as a number. Stop blathering nonsense. In NG, g = G*M/r^2. It is an ACCELERATION, not a force. You don't understand the simplest thing about gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 06:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work |
| Message-ID | <90b436db-701f-4d9f-b053-d7216f628b65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399443 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 10:44:41 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:31:39 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:17:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:42:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass > > > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with > > > > > > the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. > > > > > > > > > > > The question was and is how does g relate to G not > > > > > > > > > > >"...acceleration due to a mass > > > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. > > > > > > > > You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull! > > > > > > G is a universal force > > > > Nope, cretin, it is not a "force" > > > > > > > (different in every star system), > > > > Nope, imbecile, it is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. > > > What is the evidence for being the same throughout the universe? > > It is inferred from the equations of motion of planets and galaxies. You did not acknowledge your imbecility above (as expected). > > > > > g is a local force (limited to the confines of a free fall body). > > > > Nope, cretin, g is not "a force" > > > It represents the gravitational force between two bodies relative to their masses as a number. No, it doesn't. Keep digging yourself, imbecile. As usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 09:40 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work |
| Message-ID | <o14da1$ga3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399443 |
On 11/23/2016 12:44 AM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:31:39 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:17:58 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:42:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 9:05:08 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I have used that equation to show that the acceleration due to a mass >>>>>> undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass >>>>>> WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass. I have also used it with >>>>>> the acceleration terms to study frame dragging. >>>>>> >>>>> The question was and is how does g relate to G not >>>>> >>>>>> "...acceleration due to a mass >>>>>> undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass >>>>>> WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. >>>> >>>> You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull! >>> >>> G is a universal force >> >> Nope, cretin, it is not a "force" >> >> >>> (different in every star system), >> >> Nope, imbecile, it is a UNIVERSAL CONSTANT. >> > What is the evidence for being the same throughout the universe? Measuring orbital parameters for extrasolar systems. >> >> >>> g is a local force (limited to the confines of a free fall body). >> >> Nope, cretin, g is not "a force" >> > It represents the gravitational force between two bodies relative to their masses as a number. > No, that's not what it represents. The force (in the weak field limit, which applies in most systems) is known to be proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. However, this number Mm/r^2 also does not have the dimensions of force, so a conversion factor is needed to get a number with dimensions of force. G is that conversion factor, and it is universal for all systems anywhere in the universe. A conversion factor is not a force, any more than 2.54 cm/in is a length. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 04:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36800dbf-131e-47ce-8a94-0177597d113d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399433 |
On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 8:17:58 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:42:50 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 5:14:35 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > The question was and is how does g relate to G not > > > > > > >"...acceleration due to a mass > > > > undergoing relative velocity wrt a test mass points to where the mass > > > > WILL BE when the force reaches the test mass". Keep it simple. > > > > You imbecilic liar, g IS acceleration, you prevaricating numbskull! > > G is a universal force No, it's not. You are NOT free to take G and make it different from what it's been for hundreds of years. > (different in every star system), It's caked the UNIVERSAL gravitational constant, which means it DOESN'T change. Certainly not for every star system. > g is a local force (limited to the confines of a free fall body). g is NOT a force. It is an acceleration. You are blathering nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 09:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14cmj$e7d$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399433 |
On 11/22/2016 9:17 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > G is a universal force (different in every star system), g is a local force > (limited to the confines of a free fall body). > Neither G nor g is a force. Neither has the dimensions of force. When you say G is universal and yet different in every star system, you are uttering an oxymoron. G is universal EVERYWHERE. Its value does not change anywhere in the observable universe. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 16:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c5676ad1-57d7-441e-a1f2-f257f82c5ea8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399471 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:30:31 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/22/2016 9:17 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > G is a universal force (different in every star system), g is a local force > > (limited to the confines of a free fall body). > > > > Neither G nor g is a force. Neither has the dimensions of force. > > When you say G is universal and yet different in every star system, you > are uttering an oxymoron. > > G is universal EVERYWHERE. Its value does not change anywhere in the > observable universe. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables G has been labelled universal since Newton. It is not; every star system has its own value for G. No evidence exists for ubiquity other than a blind belief in ancient ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 17:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54b7f772-c078-4b07-aeec-28d617bdaddb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399554 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:24:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > G has been labelled universal since Newton. It is not; every star system has > its own value for G. No evidence exists for ubiquity other than a blind > belief in ancient ignorance. And NO evidence exists that it is not universal. Until such evidence is found, you are babbling baloney. > Correct but PV is equal to nRT. The left hand side equates the right > hand side (is equal to). Wow! The king of triviality scores a big one. Are you so stupid that you would claim from this that P = T? You are being a dishonest fool. g does NOT equal G. Your crazy speculations are totally without merit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 18:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <411844db-0487-49c8-8b8d-649950a08aa3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399557 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:23:04 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:24:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > G has been labelled universal since Newton. It is not; every star system has > > its own value for G. No evidence exists for ubiquity other than a blind > > belief in ancient ignorance. > > And NO evidence exists that it is not universal. Until such evidence is > found, you are babbling baloney. > > > Correct but PV is equal to nRT. The left hand side equates the right > > hand side (is equal to). > > Wow! The king of triviality scores a big one. Are you so stupid that > you would claim from this that P = T? You are being a dishonest fool. > g does NOT equal G. Your crazy speculations are totally without merit. I did not claim P = T or g = G. I claim that PV = nRT and g = G modified by other elements which I do know but will not disclose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 19:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12db5bd6-fc24-4d83-b1c0-48f9964b748f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399565 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:40:04 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > I claim that PV = nRT and g = G modified by other elements which I do know but will not disclose. Cretin. Incurable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 19:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74011390-320f-41a4-916b-70f5a733a0c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399566 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 11:04:50 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:40:04 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > > I claim that PV = nRT and g = G modified by other elements which I do know but will not disclose. > > Cretin. Incurable. You suffer from rahs, repetitive ad hom syndrome. No problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 07:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f44fcd31-2cb0-4237-a296-59f25617afb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399570 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 7:35:03 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 11:04:50 AM UTC+8, Dono, wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 6:40:04 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > I claim that PV = nRT and g = G modified by other elements which I do know but will not disclose. > > > > Cretin. Incurable. > > You suffer from rahs, repetitive ad hom syndrome. No problem. You suffer from cretinism. Incurable <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 19:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a3fd3a6-60e1-40f5-935d-2cf82420c2ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399565 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:23:04 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:24:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > G has been labelled universal since Newton. It is not; every star > > > system has its own value for G. No evidence exists for ubiquity other > > > than a blind belief in ancient ignorance. > > > > And NO evidence exists that it is not universal. Until such evidence is > > found, you are babbling baloney. > > > > > Correct but PV is equal to nRT. The left hand side equates the right > > > hand side (is equal to). > > > > Wow! The king of triviality scores a big one. Are you so stupid that > > you would claim from this that P = T? You are being a dishonest fool. > > g does NOT equal G. Your crazy speculations are totally without merit. > > I did not claim P = T or g = G. I claim that PV = nRT and g = G modified > by other elements which I do know but will not disclose. You just contradicted yourself. Have you blown out your logic chip? Those "other elements" are called VARIABLES. You know, M and r. It has been found by experiment that g is proportional to M and inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the test point to M. G is the constant of proportionality. There has been no exception to this within the solar system and there is NO reason to believe that it is different for different stars, none whatsoever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 19:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3706c3b0-ec83-42ed-838f-e5a030003aff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399567 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 11:12:08 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:23:04 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:24:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > G has been labelled universal since Newton. It is not; every star > > > > system has its own value for G. No evidence exists for ubiquity other > > > > than a blind belief in ancient ignorance. > > > > > > And NO evidence exists that it is not universal. Until such evidence is > > > found, you are babbling baloney. > > > > > > > Correct but PV is equal to nRT. The left hand side equates the right > > > > hand side (is equal to). > > > > > > Wow! The king of triviality scores a big one. Are you so stupid that > > > you would claim from this that P = T? You are being a dishonest fool. > > > g does NOT equal G. Your crazy speculations are totally without merit. > > > > I did not claim P = T or g = G. I claim that PV = nRT and g = G modified > > by other elements which I do know but will not disclose. > > You just contradicted yourself. Have you blown out your logic chip? > Those "other elements" are called VARIABLES. You know, M and r. It > has been found by experiment that g is proportional to M and inversely > proportional to the square of the distance from the test point to M. > G is the constant of proportionality. There has been no exception to > this within the solar system and there is NO reason to believe that it > is different for different stars, none whatsoever. Your argument is reasonable but incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 20:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7e184a9-ed06-4816-b320-4f768310e675@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399569 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:32:56 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 11:12:08 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:23:04 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:24:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > G has been labelled universal since Newton. It is not; every star > > > > > system has its own value for G. No evidence exists for ubiquity other > > > > > than a blind belief in ancient ignorance. > > > > > > > > And NO evidence exists that it is not universal. Until such evidence is > > > > found, you are babbling baloney. > > > > > > > > > Correct but PV is equal to nRT. The left hand side equates the right > > > > > hand side (is equal to). > > > > > > > > Wow! The king of triviality scores a big one. Are you so stupid that > > > > you would claim from this that P = T? You are being a dishonest fool. > > > > g does NOT equal G. Your crazy speculations are totally without merit. > > > > > > I did not claim P = T or g = G. I claim that PV = nRT and g = G modified > > > by other elements which I do know but will not disclose. > > > > You just contradicted yourself. Have you blown out your logic chip? > > Those "other elements" are called VARIABLES. You know, M and r. It > > has been found by experiment that g is proportional to M and inversely > > proportional to the square of the distance from the test point to M. > > G is the constant of proportionality. There has been no exception to > > this within the solar system and there is NO reason to believe that it > > is different for different stars, none whatsoever. > > Your argument is reasonable but incorrect. Oh really? What evidence do YOU have that G is not a constant? None at all, of course. So your vacuous claim is nothing but bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 01:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0fef3357-d5b4-4e57-bcbf-4aaf6b32c375@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399574 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:19:14 PM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:32:56 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 11:12:08 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 9:23:04 AM UTC+8, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 5:24:34 PM UTC-7, Peter Riedt wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > G has been labelled universal since Newton. It is not; every star > > > > > > system has its own value for G. No evidence exists for ubiquity other > > > > > > than a blind belief in ancient ignorance. > > > > > > > > > > And NO evidence exists that it is not universal. Until such evidence is > > > > > found, you are babbling baloney. > > > > > > > > > > > Correct but PV is equal to nRT. The left hand side equates the right > > > > > > hand side (is equal to). > > > > > > > > > > Wow! The king of triviality scores a big one. Are you so stupid that > > > > > you would claim from this that P = T? You are being a dishonest fool. > > > > > g does NOT equal G. Your crazy speculations are totally without merit. > > > > > > > > I did not claim P = T or g = G. I claim that PV = nRT and g = G modified > > > > by other elements which I do know but will not disclose. > > > > > > You just contradicted yourself. Have you blown out your logic chip? > > > Those "other elements" are called VARIABLES. You know, M and r. It > > > has been found by experiment that g is proportional to M and inversely > > > proportional to the square of the distance from the test point to M. > > > G is the constant of proportionality. There has been no exception to > > > this within the solar system and there is NO reason to believe that it > > > is different for different stars, none whatsoever. > > > > Your argument is reasonable but incorrect. > > Oh really? What evidence do YOU have that G is not a constant? None at > all, of course. So your vacuous claim is nothing but bullshit. G is a constant but is dependent on the mass of a primary gravity centre, i.e. a star. SR and GR are stuck in a groove and can't see beyond the track they are in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 07:08 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres |
| Message-ID | <233079fa-557c-4066-897a-44c486715681@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399585 |
On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:47:35 AM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote: > > G is a constant but is dependent on the mass of a primary gravity centre, LOL. Ultimate cretinism from the eminent cretin. > SR and GR are stuck in a groove and can't see beyond the track they are in. Delusional imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web