 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Gravity and inertia are not related
An object subject to a gravitational field must accellerate. That is is must constantly increase speed. This is easy to see because when the object is first "dropped" gravity causes it to change speed, so at every point along the way gravity is operative and so causes an increase. Only if gravity operated only at the beginning and then was turned off would we expect the speed not to change. Consider pushing so hard on an object as to get a pressure that is equal to the pressure felt by an object resisting the pull of gravity. Of course we will move this first object at the same changing speed as a body in a gravitational field would move if the "pressure" of the supporting surface is removed. What's so mysterious about that? (And why is there inertia at all? why does the body resist? Because speed equals increased mass and increased energy (yeah, same thing) and these are not free.) We intentionally supply an accelleration pressure of one G and then are amazed that gravity and accelleration seem identical---but we are the ones who made it come out that way. > An object subject to a gravitational field must accellerate. [snip crap] Why did you post this sh.t again after having your slack stooopid face rubbed in it the first time? Why did you post this sh.t again with the same stooopid spelling errors? Uncle Al says, "Ignorance is educable; stupidity is forever".  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > An object subject to a gravitational field must accellerate. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > �(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 I explained in another answer that I thought usenet wasn't working because they had stopped posting stuff immediately. Al you are the stupidest of responders to trolls. Most people know to ignore me. I tell them and you right up front that I am a troll, I know zero about physics, and I only do this to get outraged reactions. Well you are the only one stoooopid enough to respond. But even better I can hear you howling in pain. So I am going to keep poking you through the bars of your cage as long as you keep squealing. (the key is that despite this being trolling you see that I have a better insight of fundamental physics than you have. Example, you and others did not realize I was talking about an object subject to a gravitational field but not on a surface---such an object must fall or orbit. Then I mentioned an object of a surface which is subject to one G of pressure---it reacts the same as another object subjected to one G of pressure by a rocket. So what? Where's the big mystery? > An object subject to a gravitational field must accellerate. That is > is must constantly increase speed. Are you sure? [...] In sci.physics Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote: > An object subject to a gravitational field must accellerate. That is > is must constantly increase speed. My refrigerator is an object subject to a gravitational field and it hasn't moved at all, much less increased in speed, in the 10 years since I pushed it in place. Why did you post this crap again? Do you think maybe there was someone that missed it the first time and didn't yet know you were an ignorant, babbling a.s? SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. > In sci.physics Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote: >> An object subject to a gravitational field must accellerate. That is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hasn't moved at all, much less increased in speed, in the 10 years > since I pushed it in place. But Jim, The man in the moon said your fridge has been spinning around and running around the sun for somethign like10 yrs and he was going to call you up and say your fridge was running but I told him not to. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 8, 8:15�pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Osmium <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. I posted it again because I thought usenet wasn't working and it had not appeared. OF COURSE an object on a table in a gravitational field does not fall. But even though it does not move it does accellerate. You and Uncle Al have a basic misunderstanding of gravity and inertia. > On Jul 8, 8:15�pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > does not fall. But even though it does not move it does accellerate. > You and Uncle Al have a basic misunderstanding of gravity and inertia. You must have a rather perverted definition of acceleration. Acceleration is the change in velocity wrt time. If an object's velocity is not changing, it sure as hell will not be accelerating. To ya all(Florida talk) Gravity and inertia are two sides to the same coin. Bert > > On Jul 8, 8:15�pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The "G" of gravity is the same "G" and astronaut feels at takeoff. They are equivalent. Therefore the person standing on the Earth, as is the astronaut, is accellerating. And yes that means they are changing their velocity. OTOH the person who falls into a deep well is "static" in a gravitational field. This is what I mean about people who know math, like Uncle Al, but who put forth a "layman's view" of physics. Read even a popular science type book about Einstein and you will understand. It's all relative and equivalent means equivalent. In sci.physics Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote: > The "G" of gravity is the same "G" and astronaut feels at takeoff. > They are equivalent. Therefore the person standing on the Earth, as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Einstein and you will understand. It's all relative and equivalent > means equivalent. Utter drooling, babbling, nonsense. Seek help for your dementia. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. >>On Jul 8, 8:15�pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Acceleration is the change in velocity wrt time. If an object's > velocity is not changing, it sure as hell will not be accelerating. I'd call him a third class troll if that weren't an insult to real third class trolls. In sci.physics Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 8:15???pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Osmium <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Remove .spam.sux to reply. > I posted it again because I thought usenet wasn't working and it had > not appeared. OF COURSE an object on a table in a gravitational field > does not fall. But even though it does not move it does accellerate. > You and Uncle Al have a basic misunderstanding of gravity and inertia. You "thought usenet wasn't working"? What a moron. Even more so if your refrigerator is on a table. Oh, and I know you will never be able to understand this, but acceleration is equal to the second derivative of position. If position is constant, all the derivatives are zero. Like I said, an ignorant, babbling a.s. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. On Jul 9, 6:25�pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Osmium <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I know that you will never be able to understand this: I am a notorious internet troll who did not qualify for high school math. My one and only mission is to annoy scientific types, like yourself and Uncle Al, and get them to make outraged and pained responses. Your response puts me in troll heaven. I'd love to troll the chemists but I don't even know enough to put together good sounding BS about chemistry as I am able to do concerning "pop" physics. I've told everyone this many times before but you keep biting. I'm throwing you back, I only keep the moderate size fish like Uncle Al. > I know that you will never be able to understand this: I am a > notorious internet troll who did not qualify for high school math. My [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but you keep biting. I'm throwing you back, I only keep the moderate > size fish like Uncle Al. LOL :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman In sci.physics Osmium <Rushtown@aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 9, 6:25???pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics Osmium <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > > - Show quoted text - > I know that you will never be able to understand this: I am a > notorious internet troll who did not qualify for high school math. My [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > but you keep biting. I'm throwing you back, I only keep the moderate > size fish like Uncle Al. Like I said, an ignorant, babbling a.s. SignatureJim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.