"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Peter M. Brown wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"Rod Ryker" wrote in message
...
|
|
|
| "MP" wrote in message
...
| Rod Ryker wrote:
| Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
| I have been rehashing old arguments.
| So, Billy, this ones for you.
|
| Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
| accelerate at the same rate.
| However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
| at different rates, IOW's weight.
| Why the contradiction?
|
| The apparent contradiction is resolved
| in General Relativity.
|
| According to General Relativity the
| cannonballs do *not* accelerate, when
| they are in free fall. They *do*
| accelerate, when they "weigh", e.g.
| when they "rest" at the surface of
| the earth. [The electromagnetic forces
| push against the natural motion that
| the cannonballs would have, if there
| were no matter at the earth's surface
| prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| e.g. free fall]
|
| According to Newton's theory of gravity
| the cannon balls "accelerate" (with respect
| to absolute space), *when* they are in free
| fall. They do *not* accelerate (with respect
| to absolute space), when they rest on the
| surface of the earth.
|
|
| You mixed Newtonian ideas with ideas
| of general relativy. Therefore the
| apparent contradiction.
|
| MP
|
| Rod: Thank you for your comments.
| Any one else.

This is amusing:
[The electromagnetic forces
push against the natural motion that
the cannonballs would have, if there
were no matter at the earth's surface
prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
e.g. free fall]
He's mixing Newtonian ideas with ideas of general relativity.
That is because he hasn't leared to use the
'E-switch' used to turn the Coulomb force
on and off between paragraphs.

May I ask who "he" is? If its me then I don't understand your comment.

I belive it is poster 'MP' who forgot that it is the
Coulomb force which keeps an expired projectile
off of the ground.

If you want to refer to my bottom in contact with my chair as a Coulomb
force then some people will find it hard to understand. Call it an "external
force" and it'll be clearer. In fact all of the relativity textbooks that I
know of describe it in these terms. In this case its the 4-force of the
chair on my bottom that is pushing me off of a geodesic.

Can you clarify as to what this Coulomb force is?
It is what causes a charged comb to attract a pith
ball.

I understand what a Coulomb force is. I wanted to know what specific charges
were you refering to which were exerting the Coulomb force.


http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...tatics/index.h
tm

Ouch!! Man that hurts! I had a job interview at MIT in the department that
created those pictures. During my walk to and from the interview I herniated
a disk in my back. My life has been an absolute hell since then. I had that
darn disk removed last month. Now I'm fighting a staph infection! Yipes!

The only thing I responded to
was to say that the gravitational force and inertial forces are of the
same
nature, i.e. that each is a function of mass and thus the spatial path
the
particle travels under such force is independant of the particle's mass.

That looks consistant to me.
Force is function of (Mm)
Force is function of (Cc)


Thanks
Ya'elcome )

Sue...

Thanks again Sue

Pete

Androcles wrote:
Snip

Is that leered or learned? There is a difference, y'know.

Can you find it for me?
I am practicing my quadruple clutz and can't be
bothered:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm

)
Sue...

Androcles.

to use the
| 'E-switch' used to turn the Coulomb force
| on and off between paragraphs. When the
| writer's patter is focused on 'gravitation',
| the reader seldom notices that the magician
| deftly adjusts one of the ?greatest? forces
| we know of, to suit the ?theory? .
|
| http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
|
| Note that even after the Lorentz gauge has been
| adopted the potentials are undetermined to a
| gauge transformation using a scalar field
| which satisfies the sourceless wave equation
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node18.html
|
|
| Sue...
|
|
| Androcles.
|

Peter M. Brown wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...

Peter M. Brown wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"Rod Ryker" wrote in message
...
|
|
|
| "MP" wrote in message
...
| Rod Ryker wrote:
| Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
| I have been rehashing old arguments.
| So, Billy, this ones for you.
|
| Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
| accelerate at the same rate.
| However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
| at different rates, IOW's weight.
| Why the contradiction?
|
| The apparent contradiction is resolved
| in General Relativity.
|
| According to General Relativity the
| cannonballs do *not* accelerate, when
| they are in free fall. They *do*
| accelerate, when they "weigh", e.g.
| when they "rest" at the surface of
| the earth. [The electromagnetic forces
| push against the natural motion that
| the cannonballs would have, if there
| were no matter at the earth's surface
| prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| e.g. free fall]
|
| According to Newton's theory of gravity
| the cannon balls "accelerate" (with respect
| to absolute space), *when* they are in free
| fall. They do *not* accelerate (with respect
| to absolute space), when they rest on the
| surface of the earth.
|
|
| You mixed Newtonian ideas with ideas
| of general relativy. Therefore the
| apparent contradiction.
|
| MP
|
| Rod: Thank you for your comments.
| Any one else.

This is amusing:
[The electromagnetic forces
push against the natural motion that
the cannonballs would have, if there
were no matter at the earth's surface
prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
e.g. free fall]
He's mixing Newtonian ideas with ideas of general relativity.
That is because he hasn't leared to use the
'E-switch' used to turn the Coulomb force
on and off between paragraphs.

May I ask who "he" is? If its me then I don't understand your comment.

I belive it is poster 'MP' who forgot that it is the
Coulomb force which keeps an expired projectile
off of the ground.

If you want to refer to my bottom in contact with my chair as a Coulomb
force then some people will find it hard to understand. Call it an "external
force" and it'll be clearer. In fact all of the relativity textbooks that I
know of describe it in these terms. In this case its the 4-force of the
chair on my bottom that is pushing me off of a geodesic.

I doubt Emmy Noether leaves you 4,5,6 or any other force
after you've dorked with time and space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem



Can you clarify as to what this Coulomb force is?
It is what causes a charged comb to attract a pith
ball.

I understand what a Coulomb force is. I wanted to know what specific charges
were you refering to which were exerting the Coulomb force.

Do I refer to them by name or govennment account number?
)



http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...tatics/index.h
tm

Ouch!! Man that hurts! I had a job interview at MIT in the department that
created those pictures. During my walk to and from the interview I herniated
a disk in my back. My life has been an absolute hell since then. I had that
darn disk removed last month. Now I'm fighting a staph infection! Yipes!

You aren't suppose to look at those in four-space or
your neck will wind up like rope strands. )

The only thing I responded to
was to say that the gravitational force and inertial forces are of the
same
nature, i.e. that each is a function of mass and thus the spatial path
the
particle travels under such force is independant of the particle's mass.

That looks consistant to me.
Force is function of (Mm)
Force is function of (Cc)


Thanks
Ya'elcome )

Sue...

Thanks again Sue

Sure...
When you succeed in elevating yourself by
pulling on your bootstraps, we can discucss
how to model a force in a paradigm that is
defined to have no forces.


Sue...



Pete

"Sue..." wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| Snip
|
| Is that leered or learned? There is a difference, y'know.
|
| Can you find it for me?
| I am practicing my quadruple clutz and can't be
| bothered:
| http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...ight/index.htm

Sure. "Leered" is what old men do to fat ladies trying the half-axle,
not to be confused with King Lear of Shakespearian fame.
"Learned" is when fat ladies discover they cannot do triple axles but
can manage triple klutzes and would be better off with a luge cluge.
Androcles.


|
| )
| Sue...
|
| Androcles.
|
| to use the
| | 'E-switch' used to turn the Coulomb force
| | on and off between paragraphs. When the
| | writer's patter is focused on 'gravitation',
| | the reader seldom notices that the magician
| | deftly adjusts one of the ?greatest? forces
| | we know of, to suit the ?theory? .
| |
| | http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
| |
| | Note that even after the Lorentz gauge has been
| | adopted the potentials are undetermined to a
| | gauge transformation using a scalar field
| | which satisfies the sourceless wave equation
| | http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node18.html
| |
| |
| | Sue...
| |
| |
| | Androcles.
| |
|

Rod Ryker wrote:
Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
I have been rehashing old arguments.
So, Billy, this ones for you.

Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
accelerate at the same rate.
However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
at different rates, IOW's weight.
Why the contradiction?

No contradiction.

The force of gravity on the two balls is in the ratio 10 to 1.
The force the ground exerts on the two balls is in the ratio 1 to 1.

Using Newton's second law, it follows that the acclerations of the two
balls during the drop is 1 to 1. It also follows that the acclerations
of the two balls after impact is 10 to 1.

PD

--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.

"PD" wrote in message ups.com...

Rod Ryker wrote:
Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
I have been rehashing old arguments.
So, Billy, this ones for you.

Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
accelerate at the same rate.
However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
at different rates, IOW's weight.
Why the contradiction?

No contradiction.

The force of gravity on the two balls is in the ratio 10 to 1.
The force the ground exerts on the two balls is in the ratio 1 to 1.

Using Newton's second law, it follows that the acclerations of the two
balls during the drop is 1 to 1. It also follows that the acclerations
of the two balls after impact is 10 to 1.

PD
Rod: That is good reasoning.
Now, why does a mass attract another mass?
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.

Androcles wrote:
"Rod Ryker" wrote in message
...
|
|
|
| "MP" wrote in message
...
| Rod Ryker wrote:
| Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
| I have been rehashing old arguments.
| So, Billy, this ones for you.
|
| Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
| accelerate at the same rate.
| However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
| at different rates, IOW's weight.
| Why the contradiction?
|
| The apparent contradiction is resolved
| in General Relativity.
|
| According to General Relativity the
| cannonballs do *not* accelerate, when
| they are in free fall. They *do*
| accelerate, when they "weigh", e.g.
| when they "rest" at the surface of
| the earth. [The electromagnetic forces
| push against the natural motion that
| the cannonballs would have, if there
| were no matter at the earth's surface
| prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| e.g. free fall]
|
| According to Newton's theory of gravity
| the cannon balls "accelerate" (with respect
| to absolute space), *when* they are in free
| fall. They do *not* accelerate (with respect
| to absolute space), when they rest on the
| surface of the earth.
|
|
| You mixed Newtonian ideas with ideas
| of general relativy. Therefore the
| apparent contradiction.
|
| MP
|
| Rod: Thank you for your comments.
| Any one else.

This is amusing:
[The electromagnetic forces
push against the natural motion that
the cannonballs would have, if there
were no matter at the earth's surface
prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
e.g. free fall]
He's mixing Newtonian ideas with ideas of general relativity.

Androcles.


Rod: Great.
Now, why do masses attract masses?
It's the same reason, which you did not address,
that the two cannon balls accelerate equally.

Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Rod Ryker" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| |
| |
| | "MP" wrote in message
| ...
| | Rod Ryker wrote:
| | Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
| | I have been rehashing old arguments.
| | So, Billy, this ones for you.
| |
| | Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
| | accelerate at the same rate.
| | However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
| | at different rates, IOW's weight.
| | Why the contradiction?
| |
| | The apparent contradiction is resolved
| | in General Relativity.
| |
| | According to General Relativity the
| | cannonballs do *not* accelerate, when
| | they are in free fall. They *do*
| | accelerate, when they "weigh", e.g.
| | when they "rest" at the surface of
| | the earth. [The electromagnetic forces
| | push against the natural motion that
| | the cannonballs would have, if there
| | were no matter at the earth's surface
| | prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| | e.g. free fall]
| |
| | According to Newton's theory of gravity
| | the cannon balls "accelerate" (with respect
| | to absolute space), *when* they are in free
| | fall. They do *not* accelerate (with respect
| | to absolute space), when they rest on the
| | surface of the earth.
| |
| |
| | You mixed Newtonian ideas with ideas
| | of general relativy. Therefore the
| | apparent contradiction.
| |
| | MP
| |
| | Rod: Thank you for your comments.
| | Any one else.
|
| This is amusing:
| [The electromagnetic forces
| push against the natural motion that
| the cannonballs would have, if there
| were no matter at the earth's surface
| prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| e.g. free fall]
| He's mixing Newtonian ideas with ideas of general relativity.
|
| Androcles.
|
|
| Rod: Great.
| Now, why do masses attract masses?

Nobody knows why. It puzzled Newton, and still is a puzzle.
We can describe WHAT happens, but not WHY.
Androcles.



| It's the same reason, which you did not address,
| that the two cannon balls accelerate equally.
|
| Rod Ryker...
| It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.
|

"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message k...

wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "Rod Ryker" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| |
| |
| | "MP" wrote in message
| ...
| | Rod Ryker wrote:
| | Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
| | I have been rehashing old arguments.
| | So, Billy, this ones for you.
| |
| | Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
| | accelerate at the same rate.
| | However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
| | at different rates, IOW's weight.
| | Why the contradiction?
| |
| | The apparent contradiction is resolved
| | in General Relativity.
| |
| | According to General Relativity the
| | cannonballs do *not* accelerate, when
| | they are in free fall. They *do*
| | accelerate, when they "weigh", e.g.
| | when they "rest" at the surface of
| | the earth. [The electromagnetic forces
| | push against the natural motion that
| | the cannonballs would have, if there
| | were no matter at the earth's surface
| | prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| | e.g. free fall]
| |
| | According to Newton's theory of gravity
| | the cannon balls "accelerate" (with respect
| | to absolute space), *when* they are in free
| | fall. They do *not* accelerate (with respect
| | to absolute space), when they rest on the
| | surface of the earth.
| |
| |
| | You mixed Newtonian ideas with ideas
| | of general relativy. Therefore the
| | apparent contradiction.
| |
| | MP
| |
| | Rod: Thank you for your comments.
| | Any one else.
|
| This is amusing:
| [The electromagnetic forces
| push against the natural motion that
| the cannonballs would have, if there
| were no matter at the earth's surface
| prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| e.g. free fall]
| He's mixing Newtonian ideas with ideas of general relativity.
|
| Androcles.
|
|
| Rod: Great.
| Now, why do masses attract masses?

Nobody knows why. It puzzled Newton, and still is a puzzle.
We can describe WHAT happens, but not WHY.
Androcles.

Rod: You are correct Sir!

My idea is that the Earth (mass) accelerates the cannon balls
equally of course, but the masses are concentrated energies.
And these energies are attracted to each other.

If it is shown that light is bent by a planet, and a mass
is attracted to another mass, and two unequal masses
accelerate at the same rate towards another mass,
then it seems to me that energy attracts energy equally.

Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.

"Rod Ryker" wrote in message
...
|
|
| "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message
k...
|
| wrote in message
| oups.com...
| |
| | Androcles wrote:
| | "Rod Ryker" wrote in message
| | ...
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | "MP" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | Rod Ryker wrote:
| | | Rod: As my good friend Bill Hobba pointed out,
| | | I have been rehashing old arguments.
| | | So, Billy, this ones for you.
| | |
| | | Galileo proved that two cannon balls 10 to 1 ratio,
| | | accelerate at the same rate.
| | | However, upon landing on Earth, they accelerate
| | | at different rates, IOW's weight.
| | | Why the contradiction?
| | |
| | | The apparent contradiction is resolved
| | | in General Relativity.
| | |
| | | According to General Relativity the
| | | cannonballs do *not* accelerate, when
| | | they are in free fall. They *do*
| | | accelerate, when they "weigh", e.g.
| | | when they "rest" at the surface of
| | | the earth. [The electromagnetic forces
| | | push against the natural motion that
| | | the cannonballs would have, if there
| | | were no matter at the earth's surface
| | | prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| | | e.g. free fall]
| | |
| | | According to Newton's theory of gravity
| | | the cannon balls "accelerate" (with respect
| | | to absolute space), *when* they are in free
| | | fall. They do *not* accelerate (with respect
| | | to absolute space), when they rest on the
| | | surface of the earth.
| | |
| | |
| | | You mixed Newtonian ideas with ideas
| | | of general relativy. Therefore the
| | | apparent contradiction.
| | |
| | | MP
| | |
| | | Rod: Thank you for your comments.
| | | Any one else.
| |
| | This is amusing:
| | [The electromagnetic forces
| | push against the natural motion that
| | the cannonballs would have, if there
| | were no matter at the earth's surface
| | prohibiting natural (geodesic) motion,
| | e.g. free fall]
| | He's mixing Newtonian ideas with ideas of general relativity.
| |
| | Androcles.
| |
| |
| | Rod: Great.
| | Now, why do masses attract masses?
|
| Nobody knows why. It puzzled Newton, and still is a puzzle.
| We can describe WHAT happens, but not WHY.
| Androcles.
|
| Rod: You are correct Sir!

I usually am.


| My idea is that the Earth (mass) accelerates the cannon balls
| equally of course, but the masses are concentrated energies.
| And these energies are attracted to each other.

How nice for you.

|
| If it is shown that light is bent by a planet, and a mass
| is attracted to another mass, and two unequal masses
| accelerate at the same rate towards another mass,
| then it seems to me that energy attracts energy equally.
|

Lovely. Seem to have a nice day.
Androcles.