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

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

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

"Rod Ryker" wrote in message
...
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?
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.


Free particles accelerate at the same rate in a graviational field. A
particle on the earth is not free - the earth exerts a force on it.

Bill

"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.

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
|
| "Rod Ryker" wrote in message
| ...
| 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?
| --
| Rod Ryker...
| The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
|
|
| Free particles accelerate at the same rate in a graviational field. A
| particle on the earth is not free - the earth exerts a force on it.
|
| Bill

This too is amusing, perhaps Bill has his peas floating in gravy.
I can't think what else a 'gravi' - ational field might me.
Androcles

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. 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.

"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. Can
you clarify as to what this Coulomb force is? 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.

Thanks

Pete

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.

Can you clarify as to what this Coulomb force is?
It is what causes a charged comb to attract a pith
ball.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elefor.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL...tics/index.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

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...


Pete

"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

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