| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"St. M" |
| Date: |
14 Feb 2005 04:57:25 AM |
| Object: |
4 |
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight. Can
we say that this accelerating motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity
that is being produced?
In what sense is the gravitational field
relative?
An astronaut traveling on an
interplanetary mission awakens one day
to find that there is an acceleration
towards the back of the space craft. Can
the astronaut decide, without looking
outside, whether this is due to a constant
acceleration of the craft itself or to
having landed on some planet or
satellite?
The Principle of Equivalence says that it
is impossible to distinguish between
accelerated motion and the effects of
gravity. An alternate form of this
principle is that gravitational mass and
inertial mass are equivalent. Can you
explain the second form of the principle
by using the first form?
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 07:02:41 AM |
|
|
"St. M" <stmuni@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1108378645.526566.76290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight. Can
we say that this accelerating motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity
that is being produced?
Simulates.
The reverse is also true.
I used to work with flight simulators, and acceleration in a flight
simulator is simulated by gravity. The motion platform is tilted.
Producing real acceleration along a runway is impractical, the hydraulic
legs of the motion platform have limited extension.
Flight simulators have to be FAA and CAA approved.
We've improved over the 1929 version, but the laws of physics
have remained the same.
http://www.airforce.forces.ca/16wing/heritage/airmus5_e.asp
In what sense is the gravitational field
relative?
The Earth's gravitational field doesn't get left behind as we
orbit the sun. The moon would take off on its own jolly vacation if it
did,
and so would we.
An astronaut traveling on an
interplanetary mission awakens one day
to find that there is an acceleration
towards the back of the space craft. Can
the astronaut decide, without looking
outside, whether this is due to a constant
acceleration of the craft itself or to
having landed on some planet or
satellite?
No. The gravity simulation is rather a good one, and would easily obtain
FAA approval. He wouldn't know without consulting other crew members
or looking out of the window.
The Principle of Equivalence says that it
is impossible to distinguish between
accelerated motion and the effects of
gravity.
Uh huh, sure. Human sensory perception evolved such that
we are unable to determine any difference and oddly enough,
neither do our accelerometers. The best way to detect the presence
or absence of a large nearby mass is to detect electromagnetic radiation
from it. We call that "looking". :-)
We can of course supply the EM radiation artificially or naturally,
using radar or a flashlight or sunlight. It depends on what the receiver
is sensitive to.
An alternate form of this
principle is that gravitational mass and
inertial mass are equivalent. Can you
explain the second form of the principle
by using the first form?
I'd give it a go if you could define "inertia" and "mass", because
mass = E/c^2,
E = hf,
and
c = wavelength * f, so
m = hf/(wf)^2
= h/(w^2 f^3)
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 03:10:39 PM |
|
|
"St. M" wrote:
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight.
We know about the Equivalence Principle,
Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität u. Electronik 4 411 (1907)
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2 English translation,
A. Beck, trans. (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1989) p.
252.
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
Can
we say that this accelerating motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity
that is being produced?
Moot point re linear acceleration. Read the references, above.
Angular acceleration gives you a transverse Doppler effect.
[snip]
The Principle of Equivalence says that it
is impossible to distinguish between
accelerated motion and the effects of
gravity. An alternate form of this
principle is that gravitational mass and
inertial mass are equivalent. Can you
explain the second form of the principle
by using the first form?
If m_g and m_i were not fundamentally indistinguishable for any and
all bodies, what could we say about contrasted local bodies' free fall
paths in vacuum, difference/average?
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/equiv.html>
Phys. Rev. D 7(12) 3563 (1973)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209110
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9806062
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805088
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212034
http://Phys. Rev. D 43(12) 3789 (1991)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 09:42:47 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:421113CF.A4922576@hate.spam.net...
If m_g and m_i were not fundamentally indistinguishable for any and
all bodies, what could we say about contrasted local bodies' free fall
paths in vacuum, difference/average?
We could say "[snip crap] Idiot."
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 09:35:54 AM |
|
|
St. M wrote:
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight. Can
we say that this accelerating motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity
that is being produced?
No experiment can tell the difference in a closed environment...
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 03:26:42 PM |
|
|
The gain in mass is pushing the wieght down the gravity slope.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 11:00:08 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:35:54 GMT
<uz3Qd.66922$EG1.22600@attbi_s53>:
St. M wrote:
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight. Can
we say that this accelerating motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity
that is being produced?
No experiment can tell the difference in a closed environment...
Well...there is the issue of the curvature of the spacetime
caused by the gravity and/or acceleration, but it looks
extremely small.
I see three effects.
[1] Accelerating elevator. The bending of spacetime is flat,
in the sense that no matter where one goes in the car, the
curvature has the same vector, namely, pointing straight down.
[2] Planet. The bending is generally spherical, and points
to the mass center.
[3] Centripetal acceleration. The bending is concave, and
points away from the spin center. Rama (Arthur C. Clarke's
fictional spacecraft) and _2001_ (again, Arthur C. Clark,
brilliantly adapted by Stanley Kubrick) are good examples
of this effect, though I've heard of no contemporary
spacecraft which attempt to spin to cause this sort of
pseudo-gravity. (Earthbound carnival rides, of course, use
this effect to alter perceptions, just for the fun thereof.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 11:12:27 AM |
|
|
Dear The Ghost In The Machine:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:u8v6e2-bsk.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:35:54 GMT
<uz3Qd.66922$EG1.22600@attbi_s53>:
St. M wrote:
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight. Can
we say that this accelerating motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity
that is being produced?
No experiment can tell the difference in a closed environment...
Well...there is the issue of the curvature of the spacetime
caused by the gravity and/or acceleration, but it looks
extremely small.
I see three effects.
[1] Accelerating elevator. The bending of spacetime is flat,
in the sense that no matter where one goes in the car, the
curvature has the same vector, namely, pointing straight down.
And the elevator is made of real, deformable materials, so that the floor
will "dip" into the center. You can't really be sure that way either.
Maybe a laser level could be configured to tell the difference...
[2] Planet. The bending is generally spherical, and points
to the mass center.
[3] Centripetal acceleration. The bending is concave, and
points away from the spin center. Rama (Arthur C. Clarke's
fictional spacecraft) and _2001_ (again, Arthur C. Clark,
brilliantly adapted by Stanley Kubrick) are good examples
of this effect, though I've heard of no contemporary
spacecraft which attempt to spin to cause this sort of
pseudo-gravity. (Earthbound carnival rides, of course, use
this effect to alter perceptions, just for the fun thereof.)
I thought Spacelab was so configured? A manned Mars mission will probably
need to be.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
15 Feb 2005 01:00:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<N>
wrote
on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:12:27 -0700
<HZ4Qd.38279$Yu.16977@fed1read01>:
Dear The Ghost In The Machine:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:u8v6e2-bsk.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:35:54 GMT
<uz3Qd.66922$EG1.22600@attbi_s53>:
St. M wrote:
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight. Can
we say that this accelerating motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity
that is being produced?
No experiment can tell the difference in a closed environment...
Well...there is the issue of the curvature of the spacetime
caused by the gravity and/or acceleration, but it looks
extremely small.
I see three effects.
[1] Accelerating elevator. The bending of spacetime is flat,
in the sense that no matter where one goes in the car, the
curvature has the same vector, namely, pointing straight down.
And the elevator is made of real, deformable materials, so that the floor
will "dip" into the center. You can't really be sure that way either.
Maybe a laser level could be configured to tell the difference...
Hard to say. As I said, the effect is extremely small.
After all, the Earth is a spherical shell 6.378 * 10^6 m
in radius. That translates into a floor bulge of about
6.378 * 10^6 * (1 - cos(theta/2)), where theta is the subtended
angle of the width of the elevator in a circle of that radius.
If we assume 2m in width, one gets about a 80 nm bulge.
This is less than 1/5 the wavelength of green light (500 nm).
[2] Planet. The bending is generally spherical, and points
to the mass center.
[3] Centripetal acceleration. The bending is concave, and
points away from the spin center. Rama (Arthur C. Clarke's
fictional spacecraft) and _2001_ (again, Arthur C. Clark,
brilliantly adapted by Stanley Kubrick) are good examples
of this effect, though I've heard of no contemporary
spacecraft which attempt to spin to cause this sort of
pseudo-gravity. (Earthbound carnival rides, of course, use
this effect to alter perceptions, just for the fun thereof.)
I thought Spacelab was so configured? A manned Mars mission
will probably need to be.
I'm not sure they ever bothered with Spacelab, although there
was that famous picture of the astronauts running around the
circular bit (which was probably storage lockers). I agree
that a manned Mars mission will need artificial gravity,
and probably a nice large quantity of calcium supplements. :-)
(Not that Martian gravity is all that strenuous, but presumably
we will bring them back someday...)
David A. Smith
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
15 Feb 2005 01:49:54 AM |
|
|
mars ? hell , nasa cant go to the moon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
15 Feb 2005 10:00:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, tj Frazir
<GravityPhysics@webtv.net>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:49:54 -0500
<15632-4211A9A2-75@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net>:
mars ? hell , nasa cant go to the moon.
How much did we want to spend? That's the real question.
One can calculate the amount of energy required per kg, and
then the $ per joule (or, if one prefers, kilowatt-hour
or TNT equivalent) It takes a lot of energy to raise a mass
200 km and start it moving at 8 km/s -- and that's just to
get into orbit.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
15 Feb 2005 11:22:03 AM |
|
|
No ITS NOT how much you want to spend.
You think nasa is the great poobaa.
I'd take 8 people out of hear and beat nasa to the moon.
Nasa used a side thruster that is as stupid as pushing to the side
against a dock when you are falling. The morons at NASA argued about
evry detail and the brass allways winns.
Nasa built stoopid crap and NASA had an invention problem .
I beet the water turbines 500 to 1 just because no one else did enouph
math to draw thi simple sliding vane with a rolling inner cam.
HOVER DAM 500 times its self would run 500 usa states.
Nasa did NOT go to the moon.
I don't fucking like the fact.
Don't assume nasa can invent the way .
Simple problems in the wrong hands become clusterfucked.
IF NO engineer physicsist or anyone on the planet ever drew a sliding
vane rotor like this
then why not ???
because the morons that built the turbine wrote the idiots books.
They don't have the math on 500 psi water from 1000 feet driving a
vane that slid up to block the flow 100 % so a 20x30 inch plate has
300,000 pounds pushing it forward 30 mph.
The book says this is 60 HP and you even did the math.
150 tons of push going 30 mph is more than 60 hp.
I dont have a dish I use a superconductor.
I put a superconductor tape inside a led wire then insulated it. Nasa
neads a dish .
ALL NUNA ( ussr ) used 8 thrusters pointed down and knows what a giro
will do to you in the situation.
The nasa test lander dont work because the L thrusters point to the
sides instead of down.
The idiots toulk what was stupid on the ground and put it in space.
They faked the entire thing.
They killed people to shut them up.
Nasa would have a drone on the moon with a live cam on it today if
they had anything up there. And nasa can not hit a 20x20 refector on
the moon with a laser ,,thats stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
16 Feb 2005 09:00:04 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, tj Frazir
<GravityPhysics@webtv.net>
wrote
on Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:22:03 -0500
<26900-42122FBB-379@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net>:
No ITS NOT how much you want to spend.
You think nasa is the great poobaa.
I'd take 8 people out of hear and beat nasa to the moon.
Then do it. Of course, you do realize you might want to
come *back*, so plan accordingly. :-)
But you have the capital, or so you keep telling us.
I'll be scanning the news in 2-3 years or so looking for
articles on "SpaceShip Two". (Or would it be "Moonship One"?)
Nasa used a side thruster that is as stupid as pushing to the side
against a dock when you are falling. The morons at NASA argued about
evry detail and the brass allways winns.
camel: (n) A horse designed by committee.
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
16 Feb 2005 10:39:51 AM |
|
|
Shure . Nasa lander wount work rite now .
They own the test vessel.
I posted its pic.
Thats 10 times easyer than the lunar lander too.
The problem is that if your standing on a surf board and start to fall
over and you push to the side aganst the dock it can not put yo back up
on the board.
Did nasa use magic pixy dust do defie the laws of physics ??
Watch the vidio it fires to the side.
The wrong way and its very stupid.
The rocket laderal truster must point down to work and left the falling
side.
Not even nasa can defie the laws of physics.
Thats not nasa only mistake about the matter either . But thats
enouph of one .
Nasa did not difie the laws of physics at any time.
Nasa flunked physics a few times.
nasa started out stupid.
Then some iarkie sob decided we were stupid and it don;t matter.
Then we dont even want to look at the real moon images and count nasa
mistakes.
nasa has the moon defieing the laws of physics.
here's a 300 pound rock ( if on the earth )
no where near a hill ..so it landed or rolled there. but then 4
inches of dust wount stop it.
It dint role there because there is no tracks .
No dust on it so i landed on the dust without disturbing the dust .
How does a 300 pound rock fall in the middle of no where and have 4
inches of dust stop it ?
It's not a magic rock . It's not even a moon rock it is a river rock.
But lets say its on the moon. How did 4 inches of dust stop that rocks
fall ??????????????????????????
If it hit the ground and rolled there then where are all the rock
tracks ????????????????
Forget the letter C and the arrow drawn on that rock with a magic
marker.
I want to know How 4 inches of dust stopped a rock that was blasted
out of the moon and landed in 4 inches of dust and came to a stop.
he has no trouble digging deeper than the rock by scooping .
You cant drop that rock off the back of a truck
and have 4 inches of dust stop it without moving some dust.
The rock defies physics 4 times.
The lander defied the laws of physics.
The lnder ground trainer defied the laws of physics.
BUT rocks don't defie no laws of physics.
That rock was placed in 4 inches of dust very slowly by a person
hanging from a crain.
It hardly made a crack in the dust but you can see it.
Shure I can race nasa to the moon at 40 knots. But then I know what
gravity is and how it works. I wount use no rocket.
I wount fefie any laws .
nasa broke too many.
But that rock in the pic broke no laws .
and rocks dont walk.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
15 Feb 2005 11:51:06 AM |
|
|
Two rules to add to this ..
If you understood gravity , as a gain in mass
then you are 2 rules from UNCLE AL biulding a UFO instead of a mistake.
1 . motion as netic energy and things at rest resist impulsive force.
The reaction waits on that impulsive resistance.
2 ,,gravity and EMF dont wait for imulsive force so impulsive force
dont afect gravity or electric . A mass resist changing direction and
resist impulsive forces.
Unless is gravity or magnetic.
3 . rpm 1/2 C is the orbital speed limit of
resistance to impulsive force.
It changes mass at C but its a mass in motion too.
But it is a mass in motion too.
BUT untill you understand gravity two rules dont mean much.
Once you understand the atom in the feild
is evry part that orbits the atom has more mass when its on the top
side of the orbit then the bottom side of the orbit wile its in orbit.
Then the center of the atom has more mass on one side than te other.
the atom pushes its self down the energy slope.
Now its moving ..
when you say now at 1/2 C in a disk
wile a magnet points the atom down ..
it must wait 180 * befor it can fall.
it can change mass but the fall is dragging space.
Uncle al is trying to,,see if space will drag like ienstien said it
does.
ienstien would have biult the ufo.
Your stuck.
U think Im nutzo now ,,wait till you understand gravityphsyics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
15 Feb 2005 01:37:57 PM |
|
|
By Dr Ienstien 1953
The Universe.
publish dienied , no new information <<<<<<<<< Thats that the Gov
says.
Sending things into orbit to look for ienstiens space dragging ???
Understand iensien's gravity and ienstien's dark energy and ienstien
knew about space dragging.
But he was not saying the earth drags space as it turns to slow to drag
space.
BUT look here =A9=A1=A9 iestien told the Gov about the bomb.
If iestien wrote a book called The Universe and the GOV wount pint the
fucker then you bet your ***** he had somthing to say.
BUT USA Gov thinks if no ienstiens ever xsisted we would not have the
fucking bomb and the world would be better off.
But now here's ienstien with the UFO in a book.
They don't quite understand it and they don't want to.
Don't print iestiens last book.
Just say no new information.
.......... ienstein was no fool.
he gave a copie to Gen Gradly.
he died in 60 . I bought his old house ,,no one lived in it for 20
years so I could take it apart pice by pice and found gen bradlys box
of small ireplaceale things.
1980 I have the BOOK ienstien wrote.
In a box under a house.
The Universe By Dr. Ienstien
space dragging was not my idia nor dark energy.
It's ienstien's ufo ,,I just followed th directions and understood the
book,
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Kibo Parry" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
15 Feb 2005 09:24:37 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net) wrote:
By Dr Ienstien 1953
The Universe.
publish dienied , no new information <<<<<<<<< Thats that the Gov
says.
Sending things into orbit to look for ienstiens space dragging ???
Understand iensien's gravity and ienstien's dark energy and ienstien
knew about space dragging.
And don't forget that song Iensien wrote about Old MacDonald saying I-E-I-E-O.
You know, I had to type "Iensien" about five times before I got it to
come out wrong enough to match yours. Imitating you makes my fingers
feel like they're being wrenched out of joint. Ouch.
But he was not saying the earth drags space as it turns to slow to drag
space.
BUT look here =A9=A1=A9 iestien told the Gov about the bomb.
If iestien wrote a book called The Universe and the GOV wount pint the
fucker then you bet your ***** he had somthing to say.
BUT USA Gov thinks if no ienstiens ever xsisted we would not have the
fucking bomb and the world would be better off.
But now here's ienstien with the UFO in a book.
They don't quite understand it and they don't want to.
Don't print iestiens last book.
Just say no new information.
.......... ienstein was no fool.
he gave a copie to Gen Gradly.
he died in 60 . I bought his old house ,,no one lived in it for 20
years so I could take it apart pice by pice and found gen bradlys box
of small ireplaceale things.
1980 I have the BOOK ienstien wrote.
In a box under a house.
Uh huh. Any feet in ruby slippers sticking out from under there?
The Universe By Dr. Ienstien
space dragging was not my idia nor dark energy.
It's ienstien's ufo ,,I just followed th directions and understood the
book,
So now that you've followed the directions for building Dr. Ienstein's
Magic Invisible Folding UFO, does it fit inside your invisible yacht
or vice versa? I hope your two invisible vehicles can't fit inside
each other at the same time, because that would cause one of those
time-space paradoxes that can cause space to become even more deformed
than your spelling.
-- K.
And who's "Gen Gradly"?
Is he a friend of Gugs Gunny,
Gob Garker, and Guckaroo Ganzai?
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Kibo Parry" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
16 Feb 2005 01:29:14 AM |
|
|
John Burrage (jburrage@cyllene.uwa.edu.au) wrote:
[...]
KAZAAM! Holographically-barcoded new Kontext-Away trims down the text
with an aerosol cloud of tiny scissors that act like one big pair of
scissors which aren't even cloudy!
Otherwise I will be forced to cancel my imaginary subscription to
"Shitty Science Digest". And no one wants that to happen.
SPORK! Kontext-Away folds itself up like a map of Disneyland with a
map of Hell printed on the back, and then digests itself with its own
enzymes, then excretes itself into a trash can personally placed by
Walt Disney on the bank of the river Styx!
Dear John Burrage,
"Shitty Science Digest" became a TV show but it got cancelled after
they changed its title to "seaQuest DSV".
Short shameful confession: I just spent a few hours reading all 400 or
so articles I've ever posted which contained the word "seaQuest" in order
to produce a secret compilation of the 164 "best" ones which I could then
use to annoy people I don't like. (I picked out my five favorites and
sent them to one of the producers of "seaQuest".) Now that I've conducted
my review of everything I've ever said about NBC's "seaQuest", I note
two patterns:
1. I didn't write about it at all before it premiered in 1993, and
then I wrote about it more and more until the final episodes aired
about four or five years later, and then I wrote about it less
and less until now when I hardly ever mention "seaQuest" any more.
2. Wow, I had forgotten all the many ways that show sucked.
I write about a lot of stuff I can't remember twelve years later,
and I was surprised to find out I did not remember every detail
concerning "seaQuest". I must be getting senile.
-- K.
Also, I must be getting senile.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
15 Feb 2005 10:44:55 PM |
|
|
Tell us about the book THE UNIVERSE by DR IENSTIEN ,,,kiboooo.
tell us how gravity moves mass dumbass kboo if you have a clue .
ienstien told you now why don't you comprhend it kibooo ?
try to figer it out or replicate it ?
tell us dumbass kiboo .
Put some soul in it and tell us all how gravity moves mass .
Is F equal the gain of mass pushing the wieght kibooo ?
Punch the keys and show me the gain in mass is identical to F then
kiboooooo.
Kibooommm
what size TV is on the wall in this pic ?
3 foot x 5 ??
Google Image Result for
http://www.cruiseweb.com/RCIIMAGES/RCIVOYAGER-ROOM-OWNERSUITE.JPG
Address:http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cruiseweb.com/RCIIMAGES/RCIVOYAGER-ROOM-OWNERSUITE.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.cruiseweb.com/RCI-EXPLORER.HTM&h=358&w=540&sz=73&tbnid=jI07d7-TFSMJ:&tbnh=86&tbnw=130&start=17&prev=/images%3Fq%3DVoyager%2Bcruise%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26c2coff%3D1
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Kibo Parry" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
16 Feb 2005 05:17:36 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net) wrote:
Tell us about the book THE UNIVERSE by DR IENSTIEN ,,,kiboooo.
tell us how gravity moves mass dumbass kboo if you have a clue .
ienstien told you now why don't you comprhend it kibooo ?
Tell you what. Either figure out what my name is, or figure out what
his name is, or at least figure out what your name is, Mr. Fraser/Frazir,
and then maybe I'll tell you whether I think you're a moron.
Afterwards, I'll read your imaginary book to you. You know, that
one you claimed Einstein wrote a few decades after he died. Right
around the same time Nigel Calder wrote "Einstein's Universe",
which was by Nigel Calder, a man who was named Nigel Calder and
therefore was not named Einstein, Ienstien, Iensien, or Frazir.
(Nigel Calder is also known for writing several books on how to
sail a boat, but you wouldn't know anything about that.)
try to figer it out or replicate it ?
tell us dumbass kiboo .
Put some soul in it and tell us all how gravity moves mass .
Is F equal the gain of mass pushing the wieght kibooo ?
Punch the keys and show me the gain in mass is identical to F then
kiboooooo.
Kibooommm
Gee, how did you choose your favorite vowel for this week?
Was it the only one you could spell with your cereal when you asked
your mommy for Alpha-Bits and she fooled you by bringing home cheap
generic Cheerios?
what size TV is on the wall in this pic ?
3 foot x 5 ??
Google Image Result for
http://www.cruiseweb.com/RCIIMAGES/RCIVOYAGER-ROOM-OWNERSUITE.JPG
Dude, that's not a TV. It's a photo on a Web page. And it's only
about four inches tall.
I can't wait until you discover all the fun you can have with something
called a "mirror". You can look into it and pretend there's a twit
looking back at you!
You should also get one of those mobiles with the black and white
faces on it. Those stimulate babies' tiny brains, though I'm not
sure they'd work on one as small as yours.
-- K.
Want to buy a slightly-used
NASA-designed busy box?
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
16 Feb 2005 10:07:13 AM |
|
|
Dont fucking even try to worm out of the subject kiboooo m
How does gravity move mass Kiboo.
I dont give a ***** about your personal life .
Snip yer ***** ya wrote..
NOW KIBOO .
you can scream and holler all day .
tell us how mass moves mass ad how gravity moves mass kiboo.
Is the gain in mass identical to F ???
Thats the question dumbass I know you dont kow what the top of the
page says when your at the bottom.
How does gravity move mass kibooo m ?
Just tell us ,,no one cares abot your personal *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Kibo Parry" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
16 Feb 2005 03:19:20 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net) wrote:
Dont fucking even try to worm out of the subject kiboooo m
How does gravity move mass Kiboo.
Well, first it made you dense. Then it attracted you to sci.physics
(where the nuts go.) Eventually it may lead to you discovering a
black hole, but I'd hate to be on duty at the emergency room the
night you limp in to get your favorite cucumber back.
I dont give a ***** about your personal life .
Snip yer ***** ya wrote..
NOW KIBOO .
you can scream and holler all day .
Hey, I'm typing with my _inside_ voice.
I know that for practical reasons you've never technically had an
outside voice -- Are you typing with your padded-cell voice, or your
corridor to the electroshock room voice?
tell us how mass moves mass ad how gravity moves mass kiboo.
Is the gain in mass identical to F ???
Dude, that wasn't part of the equations just because your science
teacher kept writing that letter at the top of your homework.
I know it's one of the two letters you're obsessed with, but
maybe someday you'll read about the others if we can find you
an alphabet book that won't get you all wound up before naptime.
So when do we get to the part of the episode where you tell us
you were brought to us by the letters F and O? 'Cause I'd love
to see you F O.
Thats the question dumbass I know you dont kow what the top of the
page says when your at the bottom.
I wouldn't know. I always look at the backs of Web pages. That's
where the cool graffiti is.
How does gravity move mass kibooo m ?
Just tell us ,,no one cares abot your personal *****.
Wrong! I do!
HA! I have destroyed your whole theory! Now I shall win the Nobel Prize
For Talking To An Obvious Idiot! (It comes in a plastic Easter basket.)
-- K.
It's one of only two Nobel Prizes
made of candy. (The other one's
for discovering that candy causes
herpes, but I don't want that --
you can have it.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin S. Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
16 Feb 2005 10:22:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:17:36 -0500, (James "Kibo"
Parry) wrote:
In sci.physics, tj Frazir (GravityPhysics@webtv.net) wrote:
what size TV is on the wall in this pic ?
3 foot x 5 ??
Google Image Result for
http://www.cruiseweb.com/RCIIMAGES/RCIVOYAGER-ROOM-OWNERSUITE.JPG
What I want to know is what search terms a Net Loon uses to come up
with that result.
big+*****+tv+on+an+imaginary+bote+that+I+pretend+to+own -sanity ?
--
DISCLAIMER: if your name is Cal, this post is a deliberate joke, probably being
played on you personally, at this very moment, even though it might not seem like it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
16 Feb 2005 10:52:45 AM |
|
|
Here's a rock that defies physics.
4 inches of dust stopped this rock from the colorado river.
I say a crane helped.
No hill to role down so it landed there .
IC ,, a rock falls from the moons sky basted out of the moon ,,erroded
and landed on the ground and 4 inches of dust brings it to a stop.
He broght that rock back tooooooooo =B9=B9=B9=B9=A1=A1
I ***** you NOT ..thats the worlds most faimouse rock . It went from
the colorado river to the moon and back again .
5Rakeemup.gif
Address:http://www.ulo.ucl.ac.uk/~diploma/year_one/arc_nasa/lunar/images/5=
Rakeemup.gif
Changed:5:43 AM on Wednesday, August 4, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 Iensien's Dark Energy Ienstien's spcadragger |
16 Feb 2005 11:12:50 AM |
|
|
Where did yo get a pic of a cruise ship ?
Some one was in here wile i was in the head.
I lost the page so forget it.
That tv wasn't as big as mine anyway .
The owners suite is no where near like mine.
nice bote ..Ill give the voyager that ..
hay ,,wasnt boath ships of that line dead in the water yesterday ??
Ships wire news..
Mayday ship in distress .
40 to 50 foot waves then a 100 foot waves knocks some glass out of the
pilot house and the servo board shorts out the starboard engine wile the
port engine still has a piston out.
Can;t start the turbine the servo is wet.
ship T boaned by 40 foot seas with no sea anchore to keep them in the
wave .
nearing shore it could be teend for all aboard a criuse ship ,,,BUT
WAIT < ITS THE FRENCH
NAVY mm..lol , to the rescue..
captain said the servo and speeker got wet
a french navy do you understand eglish ?
he couldn't hear you ,,no problem we were enjoying the ride. One lady
hurt her leg but the bartender called the ships doctors.
we have a broken window ,,the captain said.
The french navy allmost sank in the seas but that 145000 ton cruise
ship just got out of the shower.
145000 tons 130 feet wide ,,a 40 foot wave
100 mph winds ,,no problem .
But the frence was on a 800 ton tender with a 8 foot draft ,,The crew
was puking and the tolets over run .
The only thng they could have done is run into the cruise ship.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Fenimore Woolson" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 10:02:29 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:35:54 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
St. M wrote:
An accelerating spaceship gives the
astronauts the sensation of weight. Can we say that this accelerating
motion
simulates gravity or is it real gravity that is being produced?
No experiment can tell the difference in a closed environment...
I thought that if it's gravity, the part of the box nearest the
planet feels the gravity a little more strongly than the opposite part;
but that with acceleration the pull is equal all over the spaceship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 motion in the field |
14 Feb 2005 06:47:00 PM |
|
|
take that atom by its self.
First I want you to understand how nutz the electron can orbit. You
can pull the orbit smash is make a square with oints and just take a
magnet and fool with paterns .
/////////
Imagne its the ONLY atom and you are going to smash the electron
field in one side and make the field swing out on the back side.
But wile you do this ,,watch the center point of te atom. Thats
where all the mass is orbiting the center of the atom.
When you push the field the center resist motion and sags in the field
wile you push on the field and make it smash in on one side and swing
out on the other.
The electron wount move the atom but will change the energy te
nutrons orbit in .
The nutron has less displacement in the field on one side than the
other . The Gain in mass is not equal on boath sides of the atom.
The gain in mass is pushing the wieght of te atom in gravity . The
atom pushes its self down the energy slope.
Resistance to motion is the gain in mass resisting motion.
If you look at the shape of the field of the atom wile falling or
beeing pushed you see the center of the atom is near one side of the
field where the field is thin.
EMF is another manipulation of the gain in mass beeing controled as
wave interaction
afects the energy slope accross an atom.
Get more gain in mass on one side of the atom then the other and its
moving .
This small % of the mass of the atom is the gain in mass from one side
of the atom to the other side.
1/2 the atom pushes the other 1/2 .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 10:16:11 AM |
|
|
Constance Fenimore Woolson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:35:54 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
No experiment can tell the difference in a closed environment...
I thought that if it's gravity, the part of the box nearest the
planet feels the gravity a little more strongly than the opposite part;
but that with acceleration the pull is equal all over the spaceship.
Ah ha --- smart lad!
Wormley was wrong again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 03:21:42 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Constance Fenimore Woolson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:35:54 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
No experiment can tell the difference in a closed environment...
I thought that if it's gravity, the part of the box nearest the
planet feels the gravity a little more strongly than the opposite part;
but that with acceleration the pull is equal all over the spaceship.
Ah ha --- smart lad!
Wormley was wrong again.
Use the word "local," Sam. Detecting tidal forces gravitation vs.
inertial acceleration is cheating. Proper Equivalence Principle tests
are conducted in a clean Minkowksi space (not avalable in the real
world) or in a sufficently small volume that field gradient and
divergence are arbitrarily below detection limits.
Is gravitation an irrotational conservative field? We're looking...
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 06:55:30 PM |
|
|
Gravity is how much energy is displaced per time unit.
The energy pit of gravity is the low that forms as matter takes up
space so it cant expand with the universe.
The more anything moves the more space in time it displaces.
Up is a gain in mass so as the parts of te atom orbit the atoms center
they gain and loose mass as they orbit .
The atom in the energy slope has more mass fallint twards its enter
from one side than the other. The diferance between the two is the
gain in mass . The gain in mass is pushing the atoms wieght to less
energy.
math ,, the gain in mass equals F.
f--ma
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: 4 |
14 Feb 2005 03:51:57 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Constance Fenimore Woolson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:35:54 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:
No experiment can tell the difference in a closed
environment...
I thought that if it's gravity, the part of the box nearest the
planet feels the gravity a little more strongly than the opposite
part;
but that with acceleration the pull is equal all over the
spaceship.
Ah ha --- smart lad!
Wormley was wrong again.
Use the word "local," Sam. Detecting tidal forces gravitation vs.
inertial acceleration is cheating. Proper Equivalence Principle
tests
are conducted in a clean Minkowksi space (not avalable in the real
world) or in a sufficently small volume that field gradient and
divergence are arbitrarily below detection limits.
Is gravitation an irrotational conservative field? We're looking...
Explanation for Sam (with pending correction by Uncle Al): an
irrotational conservative field is one where the work produced by the
displacement of a test mass between any two points is independent of
the path followed and depends only on the starting and ending points.
Such is for example the electrostatic field.
Obviously, the above definition does not allow testing the
gravitational field anywehre locally for EP violation. Local energy
conservation violation is beyond detection in scales other than close
to Planck's.
Have to think of something else...
Mike
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
