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

Groups > sci.physics > #708319 > unrolled thread

Lucretius right on falling masses!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-15 14:40 -0700
    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 00:15 -0700
      Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 00:17 -0700
        Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 00:35 -0700
    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 00:27 -0700
    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 01:30 -0700
      Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-16 14:03 -0700
        Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-18 17:00 -0700
          Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 09:04 -0700
            Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-19 14:35 -0700
              Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 03:58 -0700
            Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-20 00:35 -0700
            Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-25 17:08 -0500
    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 12:20 -0700
      Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-16 13:52 -0700
      Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-23 10:10 -0500
        Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-23 14:02 -0400
          Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-23 14:38 -0500
        Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-23 23:38 -0700
    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-20 14:02 -0700
      Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 19:16 -0400
        Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-20 17:31 -0700
      Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-21 15:06 -0700
        Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-21 21:36 -0700
          Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-24 01:51 -0700
            Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Anthony Perkins <invalid@example.com> - 2018-10-24 22:10 -0700
              Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-24 22:34 -0700
            Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-25 14:41 -0700
              Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-25 16:53 -0700
                Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-26 14:43 -0700
                  Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-26 16:00 -0700
                    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-27 00:43 -0700
                      Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-27 15:34 -0700
                        Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-27 18:16 -0700
                  Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 09:55 -0700
                    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-27 12:14 -0700
    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-25 19:08 -0700
      Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-25 21:21 -0700
    Re: Lucretius right on falling masses! yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-25 21:23 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#708319 — Lucretius right on falling masses!

I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!

Double-A

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#708405

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:40:33 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> 
> Double-A

====================
so ??
what does it mean ??!!
--for me it means that :

the falling of those masses is done by ???

BY manly   
OUR EARTH !!!! alone 
NOT BY F EN ''CURVED SPACE''
 
''space is not sensitive enough 
to the difference between the 
'big mass''
and the smaller mass !!!
our earth is NOT sensitive enough for that difference

2
 
and the small'' or big mass''above 
is negligible to 
--mass of earth !!!
''that is the main actor here !
=================================
New copyright  thinking
against f en ''curved space'' notion 
==================
Y.Porat
===========================

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

#708406

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 10:15:26 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:40:33 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> ====================
> so ??
> what does it mean ??!!
> --for me it means that :
> 
> the falling of those masses is done by ???
> 
> BY manly   
> OUR EARTH !!!! alone 
> NOT BY F EN ''CURVED SPACE''
>  
> ''space is not sensitive enough 
> to the difference between the 
> 'big mass''
> and the smaller mass !!!
> our earth is NOT sensitive enough for that difference
> 
> 2
>  
> and the small'' or big mass''above 
> is negligible to 
> --mass of earth !!!
> ''that is the main actor here !
> =================================
> New copyright  thinking
> against f en ''curved space'' notion 
> ==================
> Y.Porat
> ===========================

sory!! as usual typo
mainly
not ''manly ..
TIA
Y.P
=================

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

#708408

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 10:17:34 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 10:15:26 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:40:33 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > > I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > 
> > ====================
> > so ??
> > what does it mean ??!!
> > --for me it means that :
> > 
> > the falling of those masses is done by ???
> > 
> > BY manly   
> > OUR EARTH !!!! alone 
> > NOT BY F EN ''CURVED SPACE''
> >  
> > ''space is not sensitive enough 
> > to the difference between the 
> > 'big mass''
> > and the smaller mass !!!
> > our earth is NOT sensitive enough for that difference
> > 
> > 2
> >  
> > and the small'' or big mass''above 
> > is negligible to 
> > --mass of earth !!!
> > ''that is the main actor here !
> > =================================
> > New copyright  thinking
> > against f en ''curved space'' notion 
> > ==================
> > Y.Porat
> > ===========================
> 
> sory!! as usual typo
> mainly
> not ''manly ..
> TIA
> Y.P
> =================
and another copyright question about the above :"

CAN ANYONE TELL  US WHAT IS AND /'HOW different 
IS
 THE CURVED SPACE AROUND THE above 2 FALLING MASSES 
LOOK LIKE ?  
and difference between curvature :
 1
 around the 'big mass' )

and curvature
 2 
around 'small''  mas above ??
===============
(:-)
 other  copyright questions 
=================
TIA
Y.P
=====================
'

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

#708407

On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 08:40:33 UTC+11, Double-A  wrote:
> I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> 
> Double-A

They had forgotten in between.

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

#708415

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:40:33 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> 
> Double-A

=======================
thank you again A A

now a question that came to my mind
concerning to the above : :
==

DID SHWARTSCIELD ? (sorry i for got his exact spelling was he dealing with that  case  of galileo /lucretius 
case ??
and what will be exactly be ''his 
'curved space''look like 
in that above  case ?/!!
===

TIA
Y.P
=======================



  

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

#708525

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 1:30:51 AM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:40:33 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> =======================
> thank you again A A
> 
> now a question that came to my mind
> concerning to the above : :
> ==
> 
> DID SHWARTSCIELD ? (sorry i for got his exact spelling was he dealing with that  case  of galileo /lucretius 
> case ??
> and what will be exactly be ''his 
> 'curved space''look like 
> in that above  case ?/!!
> ===
> 
> TIA
> Y.P
> =======================


The problem is how does the Earth cause bodies thousands of miles from it to accelerate towards it?  What is the mechanism?  That is what Einstein was tring to explain with his curved space concept.  He thought that the Earth must do something to space, so that space can in turn cause the objects it is in contact with to accelerate.  Mere attraction at a distance seems impossible to explain. You have any better ideas?

Double-A

 

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

#708847

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:03:17 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 1:30:51 AM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:40:33 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > > I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > 
> > =======================
> > thank you again A A
> > 
> > now a question that came to my mind
> > concerning to the above : :
> > ==
> > 
> > DID SHWARTSCIELD ? (sorry i for got his exact spelling was he dealing with that  case  of galileo /lucretius 
> > case ??
> > and what will be exactly be ''his 
> > 'curved space''look like 
> > in that above  case ?/!!
> > ===
> > 
> > TIA
> > Y.P
> > =======================
> 
> 
> The problem is how does the Earth cause bodies thousands of miles from it to accelerate towards it?  What is the mechanism?  That is what Einstein was tring to explain with his curved space concept.  He thought that the Earth must do something to space, so that space can in turn cause the objects it is in contact with to accelerate.  Mere attraction at a distance seems impossible to explain. You have any better ideas?
> 
> Double-A
====================
thank you A A
a good question :
now see google 
''THE Y CIRCLON MECHANISM' !!
it is not space that is curving

it is something else that is curving 
stem out from  any  mass !! 
---
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract 
----------------------
at its appendix !!
=====
from 1993 !!
===
TIA
Y.Porat
===================

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

#708935

Stars radiate two different things; photons with spin 1/1 and neutrinos with spin 1/2.
Black holes trap both, but deal with them differently. Neutrinos have the same spin as black holes, so they are absorbed by the hole and power it. Photons have different spin, but cannot get away because Space is spinning at c at the center, so they get collected as accretion discs, which gradually draw the arms in, spinning them faster, until the next harmony is reached, when the discs are released. The harmony depends on what size of black hole

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

#708962

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 9:04:30 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Stars radiate two different things; photons with spin 1/1 and neutrinos with spin 1/2.
> Black holes trap both, but deal with them differently. Neutrinos have the same spin as black holes, so they are absorbed by the hole and power it. Photons have different spin, but cannot get away because Space is spinning at c at the center, so they get collected as accretion discs, which gradually draw the arms in, spinning them faster, until the next harmony is reached, when the discs are released. The harmony depends on what size of black hole


And so what are they released as?  A bit flash?  Or something more?

Double-A

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

#709008

AA
“And so what are they released as?  A bit flash?  Or something more? ”
They’re released as Quasars- the next photon up

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

#709002

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 7:04:30 PM UTC+3, john wrote:
> Stars radiate two different things; photons with spin 1/1 and neutrinos with spin 1/2.
> Black holes trap both, but deal with them differently. Neutrinos have the same spin as black holes, so they are absorbed by the hole and power it. Photons have different spin, but cannot get away because Space is spinning at c at the center, so they get collected as accretion discs, which gradually draw the arms in, spinning them faster, until the next harmony is reached, when the discs are released. The harmony depends on what size of black hole

======================
very nice !!
but what has all the above todo 
with 
.***curved ***space ???!!!
2
what has Galileo and Lucretius findings 
got to do with it ???!!!
you neglected the main issue above !!
===================================
TIA
Y.P
===============

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

#709675

On 10/19/2018 11:04 AM, john wrote:
> Stars radiate two different things; photons with spin 1/1 and neutrinos with spin 1/2.
> Black holes trap both, but deal with them differently. Neutrinos have the same spin as black holes, so they are absorbed by the hole and power it. Photons have different spin, but cannot get away because Space is spinning at c at the center, so they get collected as accretion discs, which gradually draw the arms in, spinning them faster, until the next harmony is reached, when the discs are released. The harmony depends on what size of black hole
> 

zug zug...      What If I had 3 black holes of different sizes ?

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

#708497

On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> 
> Double-A

Light still falls at C... its not ever the same as matter.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#708522

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:20:47 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> > I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> Light still falls at C... its not ever the same as matter.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch


Yes.  I meant light objects, not light itself.

Double-A

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

#709355

On 10/16/2018 2:20 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
>> I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
>>
>> Double-A
> 
> Light still falls at C... its not ever the same as matter.
>                      ^
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

you mean c

 C stands for Capacitance


and "falls" is incorrect too, light "propagates"
fall infers a direction, light traves at the same speed, c, in any
direction.

and light only travels at c in a vacuum, not in materials.



"Light still falls at C" is poor

"light propagates at c in a vacuum"

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

#709364

On 10/23/2018 11:10 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/16/2018 2:20 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
>>> I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
>>>
>>> Double-A
>>
>> Light still falls at C... its not ever the same as matter.
>>                       ^
>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>
> 
> you mean c
> 
>   C stands for Capacitance
> 
> 
> and "falls" is incorrect too, light "propagates"
> fall infers a direction, light traves at the same speed, c, in any
> direction.
> 
> and light only travels at c in a vacuum, not in materials.
> 
> 
> 
> "Light still falls at C" is poor
> 
> "light propagates at c in a vacuum"
> 
Attempting to educate the willfully ignorant is really just wasted energy.

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

#709372

On 10/23/2018 1:02 PM, benj wrote:
> On 10/23/2018 11:10 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 10/16/2018 2:20 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
>>>> I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the
>>>> Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he
>>>> correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in
>>>> space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years
>>>> before Galileo!
>>>>
>>>> Double-A
>>>
>>> Light still falls at C... its not ever the same as matter.
>>>                       ^
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>
>> you mean c
>>
>>   C stands for Capacitance
>>
>>
>> and "falls" is incorrect too, light "propagates"
>> fall infers a direction, light traves at the same speed, c, in any
>> direction.
>>
>> and light only travels at c in a vacuum, not in materials.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Light still falls at C" is poor
>>
>> "light propagates at c in a vacuum"
>>
> Attempting to educate the willfully ignorant is really just wasted energy.

agree, this guy thinks he is Roy Masters,  who invented the "Thigh Master"

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

#709427

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 6:10:32 PM UTC+3, Sergio wrote:
> On 10/16/2018 2:20 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> >> I have been reading a book by Lucretius 50 BC, "On the Nature of the Universe".  Of course he was wrong about some things, but he correctly asserted that both light and heavy objects falling in space would both fall at the same speed!  This was 1,600 years before Galileo!
> >>
> >> Double-A
> > 
> > Light still falls at C... its not ever the same as matter.
> >                      ^
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> you mean c
> 
>  C stands for Capacitance
> 
> 
> and "falls" is incorrect too, light "propagates"
> fall infers a direction, light traves at the same speed, c, in any
> direction.
> 
> and light only travels at c in a vacuum, not in materials.
> 
> 
> 
> "Light still falls at C" is poor
> 
> "light propagates at c in a vacuum"
=====================
yet 
do you know that 
photons has*** mass**
the only mass 
??!!!!
==
TIA
Y.P
===================

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

#709032

Lucretius - "You are bound therefore to acknowledge that in other regions there are other earths and various tribes of men and breeds of beasts."

This must be what Bruno had been reading when he started proclaiming his belief that there were many worlds like ours, a view that hat medieval Church found too hard to swallow, and resulted in his being burned at the stake!

Double-A

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web