Fundamental to the understanding of the dynamics of moving bodies are
Newton's three Laws of Motion: (1) LAW OF INERTIA: A body will remain
at rest, or in a state of uniform motion, until acted upon by an
unbalanced force. (2) LAW OF ACCELERATION: The rate of change of
momentum is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body,
and is in the same direction. The formula: F = ma. (3) LAW OF
EQUIVALENT REACTIONS: For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction.

From the time of Aristotle, interest in the dynamics of moving bodies
centered on the dynamics of falling bodies-because those effects were
so readily observable, and repeatable. About 1600 Simon Stevin
refuted Aristotle's contention that "heavier objects fall faster than
lighter objects." Beginning in 1604, Galileo began quantifying the
acceleration of various sizes and materials of balls as those rolled
down inclined planes of various slopes. His trigonometric
calculations were the first that approximated the acceleration of
gravity to be 30 or so feet per second, per second. Note: The present
form of that expression is often written g = 32 ft./sec.^2.

This writer has determined that Galileo's idea about the acceleration
due to gravity-that was also accepted by Sir Isaac Newton, and has
been matter-of-factly accepted by most scientists up to the present day
-is WRONG. And this writer has determined that Newton's second Law of
Motion is critically vague, so much so, that such should be considered
WRONG, too. A final discovery of WRONGNESS is: Newton's Law of
"Universal" Gravitation isn't universal at all! But I will not
elucidate on the latter, here, except to say that his equation for
such Law needs a variable correction factor for all systems of
attraction beyond the Earth and the Moon.

Most dictionaries define acceleration due to gravity: "An increase in
the velocity of a body caused by the force of gravity, amounting to
about 32.17 feet per second per second at or near sea level." For
four centuries scientists have concerned themselves more with the
numeric value of the distance that objects free fall in one second,
than they have with embarrassingly HUGE error in the total meaning of
that definition!

Rates of fall DISTANCE increases are NOT the same as rates of VELOCITY
increases! It has wrongly been assumed that because a typical dense
and compact object will fall 32.17 feet in one second, and because the
average velocity at the end of one second is 32.17 feet per second,
that gravity, somehow, keeps increasing velocity such amount each and
every second...

Here is what ACTUALLY happens: The AVERAGE velocity in the first
second of fall is 32.17 feet per second. But because the object's
initial velocity is ZERO, the object's velocity at one second of drop
is 64.34 feet per second. What the latter means is: falling objects
will reach a velocity of 32.17 feet per second in ONLY half of a
second! "Somehow", the force of gravity gets all dense and compact
falling objects up to the "numerical" acceleration in only .5
seconds. If such velocity value is taken as a NEW frame-of-reference,
then after another .5 seconds, the force of gravity will increase the
acceleration ANOTHER 32.17 feet per second, for a total velocity at
the end of one second of 64.34 feet per second! Therefore, the
CORRECT definition of the acceleration of gravity is: g = 32.174 feet
per second per ½ SECOND! Einsteiniacs, and in particular, myopic,
physics PhDs who think that they can refute my CORRECT definition,
above, are invited to do so!

Newton's Second Law of Motion is WRONG-because such isn't clear
whether it is intended to apply to single impulse forces, or to
continuously applied forces, or to both. The extended definition of
that law: An outside force acting on a body causes the body to
accelerate in the direction of the force; the acceleration is directly
proportional to the force, and inversely proportional to the mass of
the body.

One time, single force applications are INCAPABLE of causing
accelerations of anything! What those cause is: a momentary
acceleration-of-the-acceleration, followed by a uniform (or
decreasing, in air) velocity! An acceleration can only be caused by a
CONTINUOUSLY applied force! Since neither Newton nor Einstein seemed
to know the difference, they are WRONG!

It is easy for Einsteiniacs to hide behind the complexity of
Einstein's theories. They willingly dumb-out to most attempts at
being reasonable with them. This independent scientist has disproved
Michelson-Morley, Lorentz-FitzGerald, Coriolis, Galileo, Newton, and
Einstein! But my simple disproof of the four hundred year old
"definition" of the acceleration due to gravity should convince any
doubters: NoEinstein is the truth!

- NoEinstein -

__________

Dear NoEinstein:

On Sep 28, 1:28 pm, NoEinstein wrote:
....
Most dictionaries define acceleration due to
gravity: "An increase in the velocity of a
body caused by the force of gravity, amounting
to about 32.17 feet per second per second at
or near sea level." For four centuries
scientists have concerned themselves more with
the numeric value of the distance that objects
free fall in one second, than they have with
embarrassingly HUGE error in the total meaning
of that definition!

Rates of fall DISTANCE increases

Which is ds/dt... equates to velocity.

are NOT the same as rates of VELOCITY
increases!

Which is dv/dt... equates to accleration. You finally get one right.

It has wrongly been assumed that because
a typical dense and compact object will
fall 32.17 feet in one second,

Somewhere bewteen second zero and second two... because it only falls
around 16 feet between second one and second zero, and another 48 feet
between second two and second one.

and because the average velocity at the
end of one second is 32.17 feet per second,
that gravity, somehow, keeps increasing
velocity such amount each and every second...

Proven by experiment. But then, you don't know anything about
research in the last 100 years or so. Do a Google search on evacuated
towers. In fact, orbits (such as satellites and the Moon) don't work
if the Universal Gravitational Constant (not the little g you keep
screwing up) is not constant at least to out beyond the solar system
we are in.

You are just too funny for words. Thanks!

David A. Smith