Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
Author Message
brian a m stuckless
science forum Guru

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 2024

Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:23 am    Post subject: GEDANKEN acceleration.

\$\$ GEDANKEN acceleration a & g experimental analysis:

\$\$ 1. F_constant v^2 velocity v Dis-place
\$\$ Acceleration a = ---------- = --------- = ---------- = ---------.
\$\$ m1 dis-place (unit sec) (sec)^2
\$\$
\$\$ " " ..varies with mass m1; m1 iNCREASEs with velocity v.

\$\$ 2. F_variable v1^2 vbob^2 G*M1
\$\$ Acceleration g = ---------- = ---- = ------ = ------------ ..@rA.
\$\$ m1 rA lbob (n - 1)*rA^2
\$\$
\$\$ 4*(pi)^2*lbob 4*(pi)^2*rA RADiAL velocity Dis-place
\$\$ " " = ------------- = ----------- = --------------- = ---------.
\$\$ tbob^2 t1^2 (unit sec) (sec)^2
\$\$
\$\$ Acceleration g *doesN'T vary* with m1, the Force F_variable does.
\$\$ Acceleration g *doesN'T vary* with m1 ..it varies with v1 and rA.
\$\$ [Even though m1 also iNCREASEs with ANY velocity, as per gammma].

\$\$ Local CONSTANT Force F_constant = m1*a ; g_constant at radius rA.
\$\$ [This means ..as acceleration a varies, the TEST mass m1 varies].
\$\$ PROOF GRAViTATiON Force F_variable is NOT iNDEPENDENT of mass m1.
\$\$ This PROVEs GRAViTATiONAL acceleration g, iNDEPENDENT of mass m1.

 Quote: The answer is not the same for force and acceleration. Forget the GMm/[n-1]*r^2 for a second. Just consider a piano and a golf ball, both held 20 feet above the ground. The force of gravitational attraction between the Earth and the piano is a *whole lot* more than the force of gravitational attraction between the Earth and the golf ball. That much is unquestioned. (We call this force of attraction near the surface of the earth "weight".) But now release both the piano and the golf ball, and they both accelerate towards the ground at *identical* rates. Now how can the force be so much different, but the acceleration be the same?

Re: There was TWO KiNDs of mass (if any), in GR; CENTRAL M1 & TEST m1.
Re: A CENTRAL mass M1 (if any in GR) had a "field" ..NOT TEST mass m1.
Re: [Mathematically speaking, there was NO "ANGULAR momentum", in GR].
Re: [PROFOUNDLY there was NO "SPACE-time-curvature" AFTER ALL, in GR].
Re: [NOTE there was NO G_uv or T_uv equated or equitable mass, in GR].

Re: Was HARD, for a GR World-POiNT-mass on a GR World-SPACE-time-line.
Re: Coup-GR DECLARED "No-PRiOR-Geometry", CUTTiNG it's own WORLD-line.

Re: GEDANKEN acceleration. End of POST.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
 The time now is Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:44 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics The Ethics of Profiting from Foreknowledge (was: Earth ac... markwh04@yahoo.com Physics 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:21 pm Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy. Max Keon Relativity 17 Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:40 am Acceleration Of Photons? symphony Relativity 0 Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:40 pm Acceleration Anomaly NovaWatcher New Theories 1 Sun May 21, 2006 3:23 am Cosmic acceleration (from back-reaction) melroysoares@hotmail.com1 Research 6 Wed May 17, 2006 10:28 am