Science > Physics > "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations"
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Suriv" |
| Date: |
13 Mar 2007 09:27:22 AM |
| Object: |
"Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations" |
"Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations"
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
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). 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 of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
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:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
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: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations" |
13 Mar 2007 10:34:24 AM |
|
|
Suriv wrote:
"Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations"
[snip interminable crap]
Newton: Inertia is a massed body. Gravitation is an accelerating
geometry.
F_i = (m_i)a (inertia)
F_g = G(m_g)M/r^2 (gravitation)
(m_i)a = G(m_g)M/r^2 (vacuum free fall, F_i = F_g)
(m_i)/(m_g) = constant (at each infinitesimal time interval; the
Equivalence Principle)
Hey schmuck - Newton says you are an *****. The only way to break
Newton consistent with observation is by admitting Einstein or
Einstein-Cartan or Weitzenböck (in which Einstein is a restricted
subset),
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance
E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com.
GPS works. Idiot.
[snip rest of crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations" |
13 Mar 2007 11:47:45 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:45F6C480.E7E5264D@hate.spam.net...
Suriv wrote: E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com.
"Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations"
[snip interminable crap]
Newton: Inertia is a massed body.
Gravitation is an accelerating geometry.
F_i = (m_i)a (inertia)
F_g = G(m_g)M/r^2 (gravitation)
(m_i)a = G(m_g)M/r^2 (vacuum free fall, F_i = F_g)
(m_i)/(m_g) = constant (at each infinitesimal time interval; the
Equivalence Principle)
Hey schmuck - Newton says you are an *****. The only way to break
Newton consistent with observation is by admitting Einstein or
Einstein-Cartan or Weitzenböck (in which Einstein is a restricted
subset),
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance
GPS works.
Idiot. Uncle Al
Hey Idiot Uncle Al, yes "GPS works" but NOT because of
Cartan or Weitzenböck nor the restricted subset-Einstein.
Thanks for that laughs, fanaticAl... ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: "Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations" |
13 Mar 2007 12:34:14 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message =
news:RAAJh.3119$I56.2728@trnddc06...
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:45F6C480.E7E5264D@hate.spam.net...
Suriv wrote: E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com.
"Defining Inertial and Gravitational Accelerations"
[snip interminable crap]
Newton: Inertia is a massed body.
Gravitation is an accelerating geometry.
F_i =3D (m_i)a (inertia)
HAHAHA!
I'd like to see a force act on ONE body!
LAW I. (inertia)
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a =
right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces =
impressed thereon.
LAW II. (acceleration)
The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force =
impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that =
force is impressed.
Obviously Uncle Fuckwit has Newton's first to laws fumbled.
Hey Uncle Schwartschmuck! Newton says you are a cretin.=20
F_g =3D G(m_g)M/r^2 (gravitation)
(m_i)a =3D G(m_g)M/r^2 (vacuum free fall, F_i =3D F_g)
(m_i)/(m_g) =3D constant (at each infinitesimal time interval; the
Equivalence Principle)
Hey schmuck - Newton says you are an *****. The only way to break
Newton consistent with observation is by admitting Einstein or
Einstein-Cartan or Weitzenb=F6ck (in which Einstein is a restricted
subset),
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance
GPS works.
Idiot. Uncle Al
Hey Idiot Uncle Al, yes "GPS works" but NOT because of
Cartan or Weitzenb=F6ck nor the restricted subset-Einstein.
Thanks for that laughs, fanaticAl... ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
