Tom Potter wrote:

If you visit my web site,
and download the physics tutorial,
you will see that there are TWO spaces, NOT one,
involved in an interaction, and that
"Newton's formula Fg=GMm/r^2"
only has ONE space ("r").

As can be seen by tossing a bolas into the air,
two bodies interact about a common point,
in a common time (The time period of the system.).

The use of ONE space leads to several errors,
that have to be corrected by resorting to such
unnecessary concepts as "reduced mass".


Bull****, Potter!

In article , (Danshawen) writes:
I liked Tom Potter's discussion, but regarding G;

Newton's formula Fg=GMm/r^2 is quite wrong inside of a gravitating body, or
else the force becomes infinite as r tends to zero, even inside of a light
gravitating body, such as a baseball.

Little knowledge may be worse than no knowledge. I suggest some
education, before it is too late.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Danshawen) writes:
I liked Tom Potter's discussion, but regarding G;

Newton's formula Fg=GMm/r^2 is quite wrong inside of a gravitating body,
or
else the force becomes infinite as r tends to zero, even inside of a
light
gravitating body, such as a baseball.

Little knowledge may be worse than no knowledge. I suggest some
education, before it is too late.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Danshawen seems to be making the point
that as "r" approaches zero,
that (GMm/r^2) becomes infinite.

Please explain how you come up with your response"
"I suggest some education, before it is too late."
from this.

Are you asserting that his math is wrong,
or that a person with "some education" would not use this equation,
or that this equation is not a good starting point
from where to establish a dichotomy,
or just what prompted your response??????

It seems to me that the intelligent, rational thing to do
would be to demonstrate that your "education"
justifies the response you gave.

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

===============
WHO instigates conflict and war for power and wealth?
WHO instigated the class wars of the 1900's?
WHO is instigating the religious wars of the 2000's?
WHO has a well organized propaganda machine?
WHO gang attacks all who expose their agenda and methods?

Visit my web site, and download the world's best physics tutorial!
===============

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
Tom Potter wrote:

If you visit my web site,
and download the physics tutorial,
you will see that there are TWO spaces, NOT one,
involved in an interaction, and that
"Newton's formula Fg=GMm/r^2"
only has ONE space ("r").

As can be seen by tossing a bolas into the air,
two bodies interact about a common point,
in a common time (The time period of the system.).

The use of ONE space leads to several errors,
that have to be corrected by resorting to such
unnecessary concepts as "reduced mass".

Bull****, Potter!

As he commonly does, Sam Wormly
demonstrates his ignorance of physics
and his compulsion to try to boost his
weak ego, by making a childish, low-class remark.

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

===============
WHO instigates conflict and war for power and wealth?
WHO instigated the class wars of the 1900's?
WHO is instigating the religious wars of the 2000's?
WHO has a well organized propaganda machine?
WHO gang attacks all who expose their agenda and methods?

Visit my web site, and download the world's best physics tutorial!
===============

On 19 Nov 2003 21:17:59 -0800, (chenmou) wrote:

I'm interested in the relation between space and time.
I'd like to discuss with persons involved in this group.

Space and time are totally unrelated fundamental entities. There are as
different as 'apples' and 'slowly'.

Space/time graphs can be used as a diagnostic tool, but the trick of
multiplying time by a velocity, eg 'c', just converts it into a length of
ordinary 3D space.


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 19 Nov 2003 21:17:59 -0800, (chenmou) wrote:

I'm interested in the relation between space and time.
I'd like to discuss with persons involved in this group.

Space and time are totally unrelated fundamental entities. There are as
different as 'apples' and 'slowly'.

Space/time graphs can be used as a diagnostic tool, but the trick of
multiplying time by a velocity, eg 'c', just converts it into a length of
ordinary 3D space.


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Light and time are unrelated as well.
Relativity theorem expresses time as a function of speed of moving
frame and light speed.
The Lorentz trasformation was derived from the trace of light source
somtimes.
People applies Lorentz trasformations to derive several govermening
equations relate to special relativity, but they did not give a
reasonable derivation for Lorentz transformation.
This is why so many different versions of derivations for Lorentz
exists, and these derivations use various constraint equations to link
time, velocity and velocity of light. Michelson-Morley Experiment also
measures light trace.

Do you know how the relativity will be expressed if no light available
in our universe? Do you mean no light, and therefore no time?

On 23 Nov 2003 19:18:12 -0800, (chenmou) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 19 Nov 2003 21:17:59 -0800, (chenmou) wrote:

I'm interested in the relation between space and time.
I'd like to discuss with persons involved in this group.

Space and time are totally unrelated fundamental entities. There are as
different as 'apples' and 'slowly'.

Space/time graphs can be used as a diagnostic tool, but the trick of
multiplying time by a velocity, eg 'c', just converts it into a length of
ordinary 3D space.


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Light and time are unrelated as well.

Well, we don't really know much about either so I don't think you can say that
with certainty.

Relativity theorem expresses time as a function of speed of moving
frame and light speed.
The Lorentz trasformation was derived from the trace of light source
somtimes.
People applies Lorentz trasformations to derive several govermening
equations relate to special relativity, but they did not give a
reasonable derivation for Lorentz transformation.
This is why so many different versions of derivations for Lorentz
exists, and these derivations use various constraint equations to link
time, velocity and velocity of light. Michelson-Morley Experiment also
measures light trace.

The LT concept is pretty simple. Unfortunately it is based on incorrect
assumptions whichever way it is derived.


Do you know how the relativity will be expressed if no light available
in our universe? Do you mean no light, and therefore no time?

Measurements can be made using an infinite grid of synched clocks. This
simulates an instantaneous universe which requires no light for communications
or measurements.


Henri Wilson.
See the Stupidity of Relativity.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Hi Henri,


The LT concept is pretty simple. Unfortunately it is based on incorrect
assumptions whichever way it is derived.


Correct assumption implies correct conception and derivation.
Do you agree with my statement?

Best regards

Chenmou

"Tom Potter" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Danshawen) writes:
I liked Tom Potter's discussion, but regarding G;

Newton's formula Fg=GMm/r^2 is quite wrong inside of a gravitating body,
or
else the force becomes infinite as r tends to zero, even inside of a
light
gravitating body, such as a baseball.

Little knowledge may be worse than no knowledge. I suggest some
education, before it is too late.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Danshawen seems to be making the point
that as "r" approaches zero,
that (GMm/r^2) becomes infinite.

Please explain how you come up with your response"
"I suggest some education, before it is too late."
from this.

Are you asserting that his math is wrong,
or that a person with "some education" would not use this equation,
or that this equation is not a good starting point
from where to establish a dichotomy,
or just what prompted your response??????

It seems to me that the intelligent, rational thing to do
would be to demonstrate that your "education"
justifies the response you gave.

As dork "theoretical" physicists need to be reminded
that since the only education you need is third-grade.

Since the only facts you need to figure out ****head
physics a

1) Classical Gravity DOESN'T WORK inside of a baseball.
2) "modern" GRAVITY DOESN'T WORK inside of a black hole.

And in these Political Correct Times, that's
announcement is always with:

Keep the change morons, keep the change commies,
but whatever you ever you to do, keep it in Princeton.
Since radioactive gay people aren't allowed
on the streets.






--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

===============
WHO instigates conflict and war for power and wealth?
WHO instigated the class wars of the 1900's?
WHO is instigating the religious wars of the 2000's?
WHO has a well organized propaganda machine?
WHO gang attacks all who expose their agenda and methods?

Visit my web site, and download the world's best physics tutorial!
===============

"Tom Potter" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Danshawen) writes:
I liked Tom Potter's discussion, but regarding G;

Newton's formula Fg=GMm/r^2 is quite wrong inside of a gravitating body,
or
else the force becomes infinite as r tends to zero, even inside of a
light
gravitating body, such as a baseball.

Little knowledge may be worse than no knowledge. I suggest some
education, before it is too late.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

Danshawen seems to be making the point
that as "r" approaches zero,
that (GMm/r^2) becomes infinite.

Please explain how you come up with your response"
"I suggest some education, before it is too late."
from this.

Are you asserting that his math is wrong,
or that a person with "some education" would not use this equation,
or that this equation is not a good starting point
from where to establish a dichotomy,
or just what prompted your response??????

It seems to me that the intelligent, rational thing to do
would be to demonstrate that your "education"
justifies the response you gave.

As dork "theoretical" physicists need to be reminded
that since the only education you need is third-grade.

Since the only facts you need to figure out ****head
physics a

1) Classical Gravity DOESN'T WORK inside of a baseball.
2) "modern" GRAVITY DOESN'T WORK inside of a black hole.

And in these Political Correct Times, that's
announcement is always with:

Keep the change morons, keep the change commies,
but whatever you ever you to do, keep it in Princeton.
Since radioactive gay people aren't allowed
on the streets.






--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

===============
WHO instigates conflict and war for power and wealth?
WHO instigated the class wars of the 1900's?
WHO is instigating the religious wars of the 2000's?
WHO has a well organized propaganda machine?
WHO gang attacks all who expose their agenda and methods?

Visit my web site, and download the world's best physics tutorial!
===============