Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365311 > unrolled thread

Re: What is mass?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 08:35 +0200
    Re: What is mass? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-26 12:23 +0000
      Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 09:07 -0400
        Re: What is mass? Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-09-26 18:18 +0000
          Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 14:45 -0400
            Re: What is mass? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-09-26 19:49 +0000
              Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 16:38 -0400
                Re: What is mass? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-09-26 21:35 +0000
                  Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 18:44 -0400
                    Re: What is mass? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-09-26 22:57 +0000
                      Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 19:06 -0400
                        Re: What is mass? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-09-26 23:18 +0000
                          Re: What is mass? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-26 16:23 -0700
                            Re: What is mass? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-09-26 16:42 -0700
                              Re: What is mass? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-09-27 00:21 +0000
                              Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 21:24 -0400
                              Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 21:32 -0400
                              Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-27 01:20 -0400
                          Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 19:42 -0400
                            Re: What is mass? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-09-27 00:22 +0000
                              Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 21:29 -0400
                                Re: What is mass? Kent Beeler <kenbee@jefffast.au> - 2015-09-27 10:33 +0000
          Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 14:57 -0400
    Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 13:09 -0400
      Re: What is mass? Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-26 17:25 +0000
        Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 14:40 -0400
      Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-26 21:42 +0200
        Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-26 16:35 -0400
          Re: What is mass? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-27 13:48 +0200
            Re: What is mass? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-27 11:59 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#365311 — Re: What is mass?

[X-Post sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity;
 F'up2  <news:sci.physics.relativity>]

Fabian Russell wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:12:18 +0200, Poutnik wrote:
>> cannot be completely wrong equation.
> 
> The equation is wrong because it specifies mass, m, as *the* mass,
> i.e. the definitive mass or the one-and-only mass.

There is only mass.  To answer the question in the Subject header field 
value: Mass is a measure of the energy content of a body at rest in the 
laboratory frame (of reference): E = √(pc)² + (mc²)²) → m = E∕c² for p = 0, 
with p = γmv (relative rest → γ = 1, v = 0).

That is why we build huge machines to *accelerate* subatomar particles close 
to the speed of light in vacuum, and have them collide with each other to 
create particles with a lot of mass and, more recently, to "produce" energy 
through nuclear fusion.
 
> Correctly written, the *inertial* mass must be indicated because,
> as already stated, there are two different "kinds" of mass.

Two terms for the same thing is not how science works.
 
> For some reason, the concepts of inertial mass and gravitational
> mass have been effectively purged from physics,

Because physics is a science.  Superfluous terms are not used in science.  
One uses different terms for different things, the same term for the same 
thing.

> but they are still valid.

Because you say so?

> GR *assumes* the equivalence of both types

Because it can be *demonstrated*.  Read on the elevator experiment: Without 
additional information, you cannot tell whether you are far away from a 
source of gravity or in free fall, and you cannot tell whether you are 
accelerating or near a source of gravity.

(Einstein is often described as a theoretical genius only.  But, in fact, 
the text of his works shows that he was deeply guided by experiment.  And 
there is other evidence: He co-designed and had built an observatory [the 
Einsteinturm in Potsdam, Germany] only for testing GR.  And he would have 
thrown out GR like yesterday’s newspaper if it had given the wrong result 
for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.  Just as he wrote [in 
German] “then away with the cosmological term” regarding his field equations 
when Hubble’s observations confirmed Lemaître’s theory that the universe was 
in fact not static, but expanding.)

> and perhaps for this reason all textbooks incorrectly mention only a 
> single type of mass.  But, as also mentioned, GR is not yet universally
> established.

In crackpot’s heads, perhaps.  Everywhere else it is, quite literally, 
“universally” established, for example:

- in timekeeping (precise clocks are gauged based on their elevation; it can
  be demonstrated that those at higher elevation tick faster than their
  same-model counterparts at lower elevation)

- in communication (with orbital spacecraft and interplanetary probes);

  * as a special case, in satellite navigation (GPS and alternatives)

  (again, clocks close to a massive body tick slower than those farther away
  from it)

- in astronomy and astrophysics (perihelion precession, gravitational
  lensing, black holes)

- in cosmology (the ΛCDM, or *standard* model of cosmology)


PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#365324

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:35:23 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> 
> There is only mass.
> 
> Two terms for the same thing is not how science works.
>  

http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2008/SS08/EP_Mich.pdf‎

http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/HET625-M04A01.pdf

Etc., etc., etc.

In other words, go and fuck yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365327

On 26 Sep 2015 12:23:51 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:35:23 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
>> 
>> There is only mass.
>> 
>> Two terms for the same thing is not how science works.
>>  
>
>http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2008/SS08/EP_Mich.pdf?
>
>http://mek.oszk.hu/02000/02054/html/onehund.html
>
>http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/HET625-M04A01.pdf
>
>Etc., etc., etc.
>
>In other words, go and fuck yourself.

        Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.     Bad attitude.

        Your references are very nice presentations,
but the basic premise of trying to confirm the
equality of gravitational mass and inertial mass
is an anti-Einstein exercise, and a support of
Newtonian concepts.


      Einstein clearly states in his reply to the
Kottler claim that he had abandoned his
Principle of Equivalence (the equivalence
of gravitation and acceleration).

       And in reading that reply, there is no
other conclusion to be reached but that
his PoE is substantially different from the
Galilean and Newtonian EP (there is 
nothing in the Galilean and Newtonian EP
that relates freefall to inertial motion).


       I thank you for the references though,
they clearly show the instilled confusion of
the nonsense of "gravitational mass", even
though Einstein said he "united" gravitational
mass with inertial mass, the Newtonian
influence causes people to retain the 
obsolete notion of "mutual attraction".
      

       Granted, there is a need to understand
a "cause" for gravitation and it's effects, but
it is NOT attraction.
       The use of the speed of light in gravity
equations to provide a more precise result
is an indication that something is missing
in Newtonian gravitation.

      Equal falling is only best understood
if there is "NO FALLING", thinking that
two different entities could be exactly
equal with two distinctly different modes
of operation is simply an outrageous
assumption of the validity of the Newtonian
kludge designed only to provide an easy
to use tool to approximate gravitation.

       If freefall is inertial motion, and the
surface _IS_ accelerating upward, AND
the Earth and all matter _IS_ expanding,
O  N  L  Y    then is the Principle of
Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
naturally obtained.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365347

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:07:48 -0400, kefischer wrote:

>
> but the basic premise of trying to confirm the
> equality of gravitational mass and inertial mass
> is an anti-Einstein exercise, and a support of
> Newtonian concepts.
> 

But the tests go on.  Most, I would believe, consider a test of the
PoE as a test of GR:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/pag/index_files/Page1098.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365351

On 26 Sep 2015 18:18:00 GMT, Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 09:07:48 -0400, kefischer wrote:
>
>>
>> but the basic premise of trying to confirm the
>> equality of gravitational mass and inertial mass
>> is an anti-Einstein exercise, and a support of
>> Newtonian concepts.
>> 
>
>But the tests go on.  Most, I would believe, consider a test of the
>PoE as a test of GR:
>
>https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/pag/index_files/Page1098.htm

        Nothing wrong with that, but it is just equal falling
that is being tested, the gravitational mass vs inertial mass
is just grade school Newtonian nonsense.


         And as I said, equal falling can only have
one rational explanation, what appears to be
falling is inertial motion, in General Relativity,
and in the Divergent Matter model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365357

kefischer wrote:

>          And as I said, equal falling can only have
> one rational explanation, what appears to be falling is inertial motion,
> in General Relativity, and in the Divergent Matter model.

All right, show. Not bullshit, show. Talk is cheap, put your money where
your moth is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365367

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:49:43 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
<kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>>          And as I said, equal falling can only have
>> one rational explanation, what appears to be falling is inertial motion,
>> in General Relativity, and in the Divergent Matter model.
>
>All right, show. Not bullshit, show. Talk is cheap, put your money where
>your moth is.

        I may have lady bugs and box elder bugs, 
but no moths.

        If your newsreader has a search function,
simply find the threads started by me or joefischer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365370

kefischer wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:49:43 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
> <kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:
> 
>>kefischer wrote:
>>>          And as I said, equal falling can only have
>>> one rational explanation, what appears to be falling is inertial
>>> motion, in General Relativity, and in the Divergent Matter model.
>>
>>All right, show. Not bullshit, show. Talk is cheap, put your money where
>>your moth is.
> 
>         I may have lady bugs and box elder bugs,
> but no moths. If your newsreader has a search function,
> simply find the threads started by me or joefischer.

No time for that. Make it simple, two rocks 2.4 Kg and 3.2 respectively, 
initial elevation 86 metres. Predict the time it takes for each to hit the 
sea level (0 meters). Let me see your Divergent Matter in action. If you 
cant do this, you have nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365374

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
<kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:49:43 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
>> <kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:
>> 
>>>kefischer wrote:
>>>>          And as I said, equal falling can only have
>>>> one rational explanation, what appears to be falling is inertial
>>>> motion, in General Relativity, and in the Divergent Matter model.
>>>
>>>All right, show. Not bullshit, show. Talk is cheap, put your money where
>>>your moth is.
>> 
>>         I may have lady bugs and box elder bugs,
>> but no moths. If your newsreader has a search function,
>> simply find the threads started by me or joefischer.
>
>No time for that. Make it simple, two rocks 2.4 Kg and 3.2 respectively, 
>initial elevation 86 metres. Predict the time it takes for each to hit the 
>sea level (0 meters). Let me see your Divergent Matter in action. If you 
>cant do this, you have nothing.

         First, troll, the rocks don't hit sea level, the sea
accelerates upward to hit them.

        And you didn't specify when each was "released".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365376

kefischer wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
> <kenbee@jefffast.au>
> wrote:
> 
>>kefischer wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:49:43 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
>>> <kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>kefischer wrote:
>>>>>          And as I said, equal falling can only have
>>>>> one rational explanation, what appears to be falling is inertial
>>>>> motion, in General Relativity, and in the Divergent Matter model.
>>>>
>>>>All right, show. Not bullshit, show. Talk is cheap, put your money
>>>>where your moth is.
>>> 
>>>         I may have lady bugs and box elder bugs,
>>> but no moths. If your newsreader has a search function,
>>> simply find the threads started by me or joefischer.
>>
>>No time for that. Make it simple, two rocks 2.4 Kg and 3.2 respectively,
>>initial elevation 86 metres. Predict the time it takes for each to hit
>>the sea level (0 meters). Let me see your Divergent Matter in action. If
>>you cant do this, you have nothing.
> 
>          First, troll, the rocks don't hit sea level, the sea
> accelerates upward to hit them.

Hmm, be that since you insist, I dont really care. But show me the 
procedure and the result.

>         And you didn't specify when each was "released".

This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things 
falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks. Ie 
take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.

You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a 
piano player.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365377

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 22:57:18 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
<kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 21:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
>> <kenbee@jefffast.au>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>kefischer wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 19:49:43 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
>>>> <kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>kefischer wrote:
>>>>>>          And as I said, equal falling can only have
>>>>>> one rational explanation, what appears to be falling is inertial
>>>>>> motion, in General Relativity, and in the Divergent Matter model.
>>>>>
>>>>>All right, show. Not bullshit, show. Talk is cheap, put your money
>>>>>where your moth is.
>>>> 
>>>>         I may have lady bugs and box elder bugs,
>>>> but no moths. If your newsreader has a search function,
>>>> simply find the threads started by me or joefischer.
>>>
>>>No time for that. Make it simple, two rocks 2.4 Kg and 3.2 respectively,
>>>initial elevation 86 metres. Predict the time it takes for each to hit
>>>the sea level (0 meters). Let me see your Divergent Matter in action. If
>>>you cant do this, you have nothing.
>> 
>>          First, troll, the rocks don't hit sea level, the sea
>> accelerates upward to hit them.
>
>Hmm, be that since you insist, I dont really care. But show me the 
>procedure and the result.
>
>>         And you didn't specify when each was "released".
>
>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things 
>falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks. Ie 
>take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.
>
>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a 
>piano player.

        Your memory is bad, can't you remember across
name changes?     It was piano mover.

        Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365378

kefischer wrote:

>>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things
>>falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks.
>>Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.
>>
>>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a
>>piano player.
> 
> Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?     

That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.

> It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?

There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you 
misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for each 
stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365380

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-7, Kent Beeler wrote:
> kefischer wrote:
> 
> >>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things
> >>falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks.
> >>Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.
> >>
> >>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a
> >>piano player.
> > 
> > Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?     
> 
> That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.
> 
> > It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?
> 
> There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you 
> misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for each 
> stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.

Well, if you are going to ignore air resistance, etc., then the stones will fall from the same height to the ground in the same amount of time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365381

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-7, Kent Beeler wrote:
> > kefischer wrote:
> > 
> > >>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things
> > >>falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks.
> > >>Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.
> > >>
> > >>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a
> > >>piano player.
> > > 
> > > Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?     
> > 
> > That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.
> > 
> > > It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?
> > 
> > There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you 
> > misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for each 
> > stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.
> 
> Well, if you are going to ignore air resistance, etc., then the stones will fall from the same height to the ground in the same amount of time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2819205/Testing-gravity-world-s-BIGGEST-vacuum-chamber-Watch-Brian-Cox-prove-bowling-ball-feathers-fall-together.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365385

pnalsing wrote:

> On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-7, Kent Beeler wrote:
>> > kefischer wrote:
>> > 
>> > >>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those
>> > >>things falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in
>> > >>the blanks. Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero
>> > >>initial speed etc.
>> > >>
>> > >>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely
>> > >>like a piano player.
>> > > 
>> > > Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?
>> > 
>> > That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.
>> > 
>> > > It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?
>> > 
>> > There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you
>> > misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for
>> > each stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.
>> 
>> Well, if you are going to ignore air resistance, etc., then the stones
>> will fall from the same height to the ground in the same amount of
>> time.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2819205/Testing-gravity-
world-s-BIGGEST-vacuum-chamber-Watch-Brian-Cox-prove-bowling-ball-feathers-
fall-together.html

Well, the question was addressed to the piano mover. I'm not sure that he 
knows, especially in Divergent Matter, the amount of expanding should be 
accordingly different. I bet he cannot predict the number.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365390

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:42:14 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-7, Kent Beeler wrote:
>> > kefischer wrote:
>> > 
>> > >>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things
>> > >>falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks.
>> > >>Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.
>> > >>
>> > >>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a
>> > >>piano player.
>> > > 
>> > > Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?     
>> > 
>> > That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.
>> > 
>> > > It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?
>> > 
>> > There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you 
>> > misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for each 
>> > stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.
>> 
>> Well, if you are going to ignore air resistance, etc., then the stones will fall from the same height to the ground in the same amount of time.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2819205/Testing-gravity-world-s-BIGGEST-vacuum-chamber-Watch-Brian-Cox-prove-bowling-ball-feathers-fall-together.html

" Isaac Newton would say that  the ball and the feather fall because
there’s a force pulling them down: gravity,’ he said.

‘But Einstein imagined the scene very differently.

‘The “happiest thought of his life” [as Einstein called it] was this;
the reason the bowling ball and the feather fall together is because
they’re not falling.

‘They’re standing still. There is no force acting on them at all.

‘He reasoned that if you couldn’t see the background, there’d be no way
of knowing that the ball and the feathers were being accelerated towards
the Earth.

‘So he concluded they weren’t.’

This slight tweaking of Newton’s earlier theory enabled Einstein to more
accurately define his own Special Theory of Relativity.

This regards the relationship between space and time but one of its
conclusions is that nothing can travel faster than light.


Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2819205/Testing-gravity-world-s-BIGGEST-vacuum-chamber-Watch-Brian-Cox-prove-bowling-ball-feathers-fall-together.html#ixzz3mtiRS3GX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365392

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:42:14 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-7, Kent Beeler wrote:
>> > kefischer wrote:
>> > 
>> > >>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things
>> > >>falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks.
>> > >>Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.
>> > >>
>> > >>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a
>> > >>piano player.
>> > > 
>> > > Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?     
>> > 
>> > That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.
>> > 
>> > > It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?
>> > 
>> > There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you 
>> > misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for each 
>> > stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.
>> 
>> Well, if you are going to ignore air resistance, etc., then the stones will fall from the same height to the ground in the same amount of time.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2819205/Testing-gravity-world-s-BIGGEST-vacuum-chamber-Watch-Brian-Cox-prove-bowling-ball-feathers-fall-together.html

        Why is writer O'Callaghan calling it "Einstein's Special Theory
of Relativity"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365416

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 16:42:14 -0700 (PDT), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:23:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 4:18:20 PM UTC-7, Kent Beeler wrote:
>> > kefischer wrote:
>> > 
>> > >>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things
>> > >>falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks.
>> > >>Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.
>> > >>
>> > >>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a
>> > >>piano player.
>> > > 
>> > > Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?     
>> > 
>> > That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.
>> > 
>> > > It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?
>> > 
>> > There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you 
>> > misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for each 
>> > stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.
>> 
>> Well, if you are going to ignore air resistance, etc., then the stones will fall from the same height to the ground in the same amount of time.
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2819205/Testing-gravity-world-s-BIGGEST-vacuum-chamber-Watch-Brian-Cox-prove-bowling-ball-feathers-fall-together.html


http://www.briangreene.org/bg_colbert4.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HnaLnUdYvs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365382

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:18:17 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
<kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:

>kefischer wrote:
>
>>>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those things
>>>falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the blanks.
>>>Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial speed etc.
>>>
>>>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a
>>>piano player.
>> 
>> Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?     
>
>That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.
>
>> It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?
>
>There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you 
>misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for each 
>stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.

        You are a stupid name changing troll, what do you know?
They don't fall in Divergent Matter, and I don't think they fall in GR.
The surface will hit both at the same time, so all you ask is to
solve a simple acceleration problem, the time for the surface
to accelerate upward the specified distance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365386

kefischer wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:18:17 +0000 (UTC), Kent Beeler
> <kenbee@jefffast.au> wrote:
> 
>>kefischer wrote:
>>
>>>>This to morons must feel like a mystery. To the experienced those
>>>>things falls to defaults, aka at t = 0. Use your brain and fill in the
>>>>blanks. Ie take the air resistance /friction as zero, zero initial
>>>>speed etc.
>>>>
>>>>You aint look like much experienced in Divergent Matter. Merely like a
>>>>piano player.
>>> 
>>> Your memory is bad, can't you remember across name changes?
>>
>>That must be my other brother Darryl. Nice to meet you.
>>
>>> It was piano mover. Who knows gravity better than a piano mover?
>>
>>There is no Gravity in Divergent Matter, it must be something you
>>misunderstand. Then come up with that number, the time it takes for each
>>stone to fall. Piece of cake in Divergent Matter.
> 
>         You are a stupid name changing troll, what do you know?
> They don't fall in Divergent Matter, and I don't think they fall in GR.
> The surface will hit both at the same time, so all you ask is to solve a
> simple acceleration problem, the time for the surface to accelerate
> upward the specified distance.

Then come up with the derivation end evaluate the number, fool. You are 
not even a piano mover I suspect. It takes much more brain to become a 
piano mover.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web