| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dew" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2005 09:29:51 AM |
| Object: |
Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations |
Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
Basis physics texts define acceleration as the second derivative of
position with respect to time (d^2*L/dT^2) or, in more straight forward
language as the rate of change of the rate of change of position with
respect to time. This experienced directly when one is in an automobile
which is increasing its speed. The speed, which is the distance traveled in
a given time, increases as time passes and, for a constant acceleration, the
distance traveled increases in proportion to the square of the elapsed time.
When one considers gravitational an unfortunate semantic problem
arises. Quite often the force applied to the seat of your pants by your
chair is asserted to be the acceleration of gravity. This assertion is false
and apparently leads to confusion. The force one feels is not the
acceleration of gravity but rather is the force which would produce the
downward acceleration (the second derivative of elevation with respect to
time) which we call free fall. The force you feel against the chair a force
which opposes the force of gravity, it is not the acceleration of gravity.
This acceleration only occurs when you are in free fall and hence cannot
sense the force of gravity,
It is this careless of definition which allows theoretical physicists
to assert that there is no force of gravity an what we consider to be the
force of gravity occurs because the chair restricts you from following a
null geodesic path around the center of the Earth. What the theoreticians
have done is to combine two independent effects which interact (inertial and
gravitational acceleration) into a single entity which they falsely assert
to be fundamental.
Newton's Second Law of Motion asserts that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction. That is to say that for a force to exist there
must be an opposing force equal in magnitude and opposite direction. Modern
physicists admit of only two exceptions to this rule, the force exerted
during inertial acceleration and the force exerted by a gravitational field.
Since these forces supposedly have nothing to sustain them they are named
"fictitious forces".
If however, one admitted the existence of the classical Aether, these forces
would no longer need to be considered "fictitious", they would exist as
simple pushes or pulls against that Aether. It is too bad that modern
physics has falsely asserted that the non-existence of the Aether has been
proven. if the classical Aether existed the answers to many puzzles would be
apparent.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://einsteinhoax.com/ . EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
.
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations |
17 Jun 2005 12:17:12 AM |
|
|
Dew wrote:
Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
Basis physics texts define acceleration as the second derivative of
position with respect to time (d^2*L/dT^2) or, in more straight forward
language as the rate of change of the rate of change of position with
respect to time. This experienced directly when one is in an automobile
which is increasing its speed. The speed, which is the distance traveled in
a given time, increases as time passes and, for a constant acceleration, the
distance traveled increases in proportion to the square of the elapsed time.
When one considers gravitational an unfortunate semantic problem
arises. Quite often the force applied to the seat of your pants by your
chair is asserted to be the acceleration of gravity.
Well, I don't know who would have made such a clearly wrong assertion.
Where were you taught physics?
This assertion is false
and apparently leads to confusion.
Yours, apparently, and for good reason.
The force one feels is not the
acceleration of gravity but rather is the force which would produce the
downward acceleration (the second derivative of elevation with respect to
time) which we call free fall.
Not that you care, but that's not right either. If you are standing,
the force you feel is the force the floor applies *upward* on your feet
to keep you from penetrating it. We've gotten into the habit of
associating it with the force of gravity downwards, but that's true
only in circumstance. If the floor accelerated downward (say, in an
elevator), the force of gravity would not change a cent, but the force
the floor exerts on your feet would diminish, as it would have to if
you were to follow the floor's acceleration downward. Because the
floor's force on us diminishes, we get the *feeling* that we are
lighter, though in fact we are not.
Please revise this repeating post to correct the physics. Please also
add the disclaimer that any confusions mentioned above are yours only
and that the mistaken assertions are yours only.
The force you feel against the chair a force
which opposes the force of gravity, it is not the acceleration of gravity.
This acceleration only occurs when you are in free fall and hence cannot
sense the force of gravity,
It is this careless of definition which allows theoretical physicists
to assert that there is no force of gravity an what we consider to be the
force of gravity occurs because the chair restricts you from following a
null geodesic path around the center of the Earth. What the theoreticians
have done is to combine two independent effects which interact (inertial and
gravitational acceleration) into a single entity which they falsely assert
to be fundamental.
Newton's Second Law of Motion asserts that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction. That is to say that for a force to exist there
must be an opposing force equal in magnitude and opposite direction. Modern
physicists admit of only two exceptions to this rule, the force exerted
during inertial acceleration and the force exerted by a gravitational field.
Since these forces supposedly have nothing to sustain them they are named
"fictitious forces".
If however, one admitted the existence of the classical Aether, these forces
would no longer need to be considered "fictitious", they would exist as
simple pushes or pulls against that Aether. It is too bad that modern
physics has falsely asserted that the non-existence of the Aether has been
proven. if the classical Aether existed the answers to many puzzles would be
apparent.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://einsteinhoax.com/ .
Every error posted above is due to your own misunderstandings and
Einstein bears no responsibility for that.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations |
16 Jun 2005 07:19:54 PM |
|
|
Dew wrote:
Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
Basis physics texts define acceleration as the second derivative of
position with respect to time (d^2*L/dT^2) or, in more straight forward
language as the rate of change of the rate of change of position with
respect to time. This experienced directly when one is in an automobile
which is increasing its speed. The speed, which is the distance traveled in
a given time, increases as time passes and, for a constant acceleration, the
distance traveled increases in proportion to the square of the elapsed time.
When one considers gravitational an unfortunate semantic problem
arises. Quite often the force applied to the seat of your pants by your
chair is asserted to be the acceleration of gravity. This assertion is false
and apparently leads to confusion. The force one feels is not the
acceleration of gravity but rather is the force which would produce the
downward acceleration (the second derivative of elevation with respect to
time) which we call free fall. The force you feel against the chair a force
which opposes the force of gravity, it is not the acceleration of gravity.
This acceleration only occurs when you are in free fall and hence cannot
sense the force of gravity,
So what you really mean above is not "the force one feels", since we
cannot feel it, but rather, "The force one would feel if we could....".
It is this careless of definition which allows theoretical physicists
to assert that there is no force of gravity an what we consider to be the
force of gravity occurs because the chair restricts you from following a
null geodesic path around the center of the Earth. What the theoreticians
have done is to combine two independent effects which interact (inertial and
gravitational acceleration) into a single entity which they falsely assert
to be fundamental.
Newton's Second Law of Motion asserts that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction.
No, that's the 3rd law.
That is to say that for a force to exist there
must be an opposing force equal in magnitude and opposite direction. Modern
physicists admit of only two exceptions to this rule, the force exerted
during inertial acceleration and the force exerted by a gravitational field.
Since these forces supposedly have nothing to sustain them they are named
"fictitious forces".
No, gravitation is not considered to be a fictitious force.
If however, one admitted the existence of the classical Aether, these forces
would no longer need to be considered "fictitious", they would exist as
simple pushes or pulls against that Aether. It is too bad that modern
physics has falsely asserted that the non-existence of the Aether has been
proven. if the classical Aether existed the answers to many puzzles would be
apparent.
That's what I say.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations |
16 Jun 2005 11:24:30 AM |
|
|
Dew wrote:
Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations
Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax " at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
