Re: Questions Einstein got wrong:

On Apr 26, 2:15 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:41d291bb-22b7-4a77-901e-d468234a6400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1.  Does gravity do continuous work on falling objects?

Yes, this is demonstated by the continuing increase in the velocity of
falling objects.

2.  If so, would you say that gravity is the source energy for the
mechanical effects exhibited by falling objects?  If not, why?

Gravity is not the source energy. Gravitational acceleration is the
result of the release of stored potential energy. This is simple
physics.

3.  Can any falling object that began at velocity zero manifest a
force delivery potential, or kinetic energy, greater than the sum of
the forces being imparted to it by gravity as it falls?  If not, why?

No, energy is always conserved.

4.  If a force deliver potential, or KE, is imparted to any object,
and in only ONE particular second of its fall, is it OK to recount,
anew, and on an accruing basis, that same numeric value in every
succeeding second, until the object impacts another, or until its
available kinetic energy can be extracted via mechanical means?

Wow, that was a mouthful. The kinetic energy of a falling object on
impact is precisely equal to its potential energy when at rest minus
the frictional energy expended while falling. Everything else is
calculus detail.

5.  The equation for kinetic energy that is shown in most texts is
that of Coriolis, and dates from 1830.  It says: KE = 1/2mv^2.
Einstein used such equation as the basis for his theories of
relativity.  But Einstein had his own unique ideas about what “energy”
is.  Should Coriolis’s equation be evaluated based on issues of
mechanics that were in place during Coriolis’s day?  Or should the
above equation be evaluated using Einstein’s much more controversial
ideas about what energy is?

Actually, I believe that your posted equation for KE originated with
Newton, not Coriolis, and I have problems relating to anything that
you have posted thus far with Einstein.

My simple advice to you would be quite sure that you are well versed
in the principles of classical mechanics prior to introducing
relativity into the situation for obvious reasons.

6.  If a small test car is COASTING on a very smooth surface on a
windless day, and the velocity stays essentially unchanged during a
particular second, does the KE ‘increase’ because the car rolled, say,
20 feet during that second?  Or does the KE stay essentially the same
during that 20 feet of roll?

In gross terms and neglecting friction/air resistance, the car's
kinetic energy remains constant.

7.  If the same small test car has a motor that will increase its
velocity by 32 feet per second EACH second, is the car’s velocity
increasing at a uniform rate?

Yes, since your imposed conditions imposed that constraint.

8.  If the car’s clutch is depressed when the car reaches a velocity
of 64 feet per second, how far will the car COAST during the next
second?

Dhuh, 64 feet, assuming the same constraints.

9.  Is the KE of the car being increased during the time that it is
COASTING?  Or is the total KE equal only to the accrued force that was
imparted during the time that the clutch, between the motor and the
car’s wheels, was engaged.

No.


10.  Would you say that the ‘gravity and KE’ relationship must conform
to the LAW of the Conservation of Energy?  Or is the latter law to be
disregarded because Coriolis and Einstein didn’t understand such
relationship?

Frankly, I believe that by now that you are some sophmoric guy playing
word games. For other readers, Coriolis is noted only for his
observation of one rahter obscure effect, while Einstein is noted for
his monumental revelation of the principles of Special Relativity
(something of monumental value, not just theory or concept).

11.  Einstein says that the KE of all objects becomes infinite at
velocity ‘c’.  He came to that conclusion by realizing that Coriolis’s
equation, as in question 5, above, shows an exponential increase in KE
with respect to velocity.  Are equations “laws of nature” just because
they have been written so many times?  Or are equations subject to on-
going critical examination as to their viability?

What the ***, are you simply one of those uneducated Einstein
bashing, clueless assholes? Seems like you are.

Harry C.

p.s., My comments are entirely directed a poster calling himself No
Einstein, which clearly is true. He is definitely "No Einstein". My
apologies to Paul Mays whose post I have followed-up on.


.

Quantcast