Keith Dysart wrote:

Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail. With non-ideal conditions, the
discussion is easy to drive far from the target
and prevent resolution of whether the model
works.

My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.

There seems no limit to which you will go to protect
your old wives' tales. How about taking a look at the
EZNEC file at: http://www.w5dxp.com/coil512.ez
and commenting on the results. Nobody is going to hold
his breath while you make up your mind.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 7 Dec, 12:24, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:

Sounds good, but mostly you do not examine
ideal conditions because they tend to show that
the models fail. With non-ideal conditions, the
discussion is easy to drive far from the target
and prevent resolution of whether the model
works.

My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Wrong.. When you are beyond the confines of all gravitational fields
and in a state of equilibrium then there can not be friction.
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.
Sure messes up Gauss and quite a few others. In fact the law
of
statics is based on gravitational field which extends to what
Gauss called the limits of gravitational effects.
Quite a few other laws are based on similar logic

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG(uk)

art wrote:

Wrong.. When you are beyond the confines of all gravitational fields
and in a state of equilibrium then there can not be friction.
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.
Sure messes up Gauss and quite a few others. In fact the law
of
statics is based on gravitational field which extends to what
Gauss called the limits of gravitational effects.
Quite a few other laws are based on similar logic

Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG(uk)

That has got to be the worst logic I have EVER heard and flies in the
face of common sense to be unspeakable--Roys' comment.

An object in motion, with NO external forces HAS to continue to move
with exactly the same stored energy as it began with, even a trillion
years later ...

Logic asks: Where would the stored energy go? Imparted to nothing?
Just disappears--breaking all the laws dealing with the conservation of
energy also?

Art, give up, we are in the twilight zone, look for an exit!

However, an ABSOLUTE frictionless environment may be quite difficult to
come up with ...

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:53:09 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:
Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.

Hi Art,

It was some schlemiel called Isaac Newton.

He offered a very simple equation you probably are not familiar with:
G times the Mass of Body A time the Mass of Body B
divided by
distance between them squared

This English clown's theory was put into a cocked hat by Einstein - so
you two have something in common!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 7 Dec, 16:46, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:53:09 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

Somebody somewhere has obviously postulated that gravitational
forces are every where which puts science back in the stone
ages.

Hi Art,

It was some schlemiel called Isaac Newton.

He offered a very simple equation you probably are not familiar with:
G times the Mass of Body A time the Mass of Body B
divided by
distance between them squared

This English clown's theory was put into a cocked hat by Einstein - so
you two have something in common!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I did not know that equation. Einstein said a lot of things and
was often proved in error. Did he mention equilibrium or the
other laws like:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? For that matter
how many laws of Newton did he put down?
Any idea where I can read up on that and how he arrived at that
conclusion? Seems odd that we have so many gravity centers in this
universe and a neutral point never occurs.....anywhere.
Some of those stationary things in the sky must be holding on to a
piece of string tied to the moon
No. I do not have any books on Einstein but do have Planck and
I don't recall him mentioning that.Is it just called Einsteins Law
of ???????
Art
Oh, and another thing why are you injecting the word "clown"?
Are you reverting to your old tricks or did you just slip up?

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:14:36 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

I did not know that equation. Einstein said a lot of things and
was often proved in error. Did he mention equilibrium or the
other laws like:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

Hi Arthur,

Every equation describes equilibrium, by definition.

For that matter
how many laws of Newton did he put down?

All of them.

Any idea where I can read up on that and how he arrived at that
conclusion? Seems odd that we have so many gravity centers in this
universe and a neutral point never occurs.....anywhere.

Not so. A simple example is called the "Trojan points."

Some of those stationary things in the sky must be holding on to a
piece of string tied to the moon

Well, given the moon moves, the string must move whatever is tied to
it. In short, there is nothing stationary anywhere.

No. I do not have any books on Einstein but do have Planck and
I don't recall him mentioning that.Is it just called Einsteins Law
of ???????

General relativity.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 7 Dec, 22:25, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 18:14:36 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

I did not know that equation. Einstein said a lot of things and
was often proved in error. Did he mention equilibrium or the
other laws like:
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?

Hi Arthur,

Every equation describes equilibrium, by definition.

For that matter
how many laws of Newton did he put down?

All of them.

Any idea where I can read up on that and how he arrived at that
conclusion? Seems odd that we have so many gravity centers in this
universe and a neutral point never occurs.....anywhere.

Not so. A simple example is called the "Trojan points."

Some of those stationary things in the sky must be holding on to a
piece of string tied to the moon

Well, given the moon moves, the string must move whatever is tied to
it. In short, there is nothing stationary anywhere.

No. I do not have any books on Einstein but do have Planck and
I don't recall him mentioning that.Is it just called Einsteins Law
of ???????

General relativity.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

As with the convergence of energy vectors described
in the Columbian lectures so is general relativity.
Both are procedures that are being followed
in an effort to find a path to GAT. As I stated before
it often is not the destination that counts but what
one learns on the journey . Both of these procedures
have provided insights to the universe but neither
proved to be the answer for Einsteins main quest
which was GAT. Yes, a lot of theories have been produced
by using these procedures some of which relate to our universe
and some of these theories may prove to be correct
but for the wrong reasons. Such was the making of the word
"theory" which deviates from a standard when considering a "law".
If you review Einsteins work in the search of GAT you will
find that most of his theories by his peers which he often
confided in so he is not immune to error.
With respect to the moon and the sun you are quite correct tho
I was being a bit vacitious, but it does show you are capable
of serious debate when you have a mind to together with sufficient
knoweledge to venture into unknown trails of thought, musings
and deduction.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....xg (uk)

Roy Lewallen wrote:


My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.


Isn't that like lossless wires, perfect grounds, and other such?

The conditions that cause an object to slow and stop in real life are
the proof of the law. To the contrary, it proves Newton correct. The
forces act just as they should.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:


My postulate is that Newton was wrong: moving objects come to a rest
without any external applied force. Every observation made supports
this. There's no need to consider what happens in a frictionless
environment, since such a thing doesn't exist.


Isn't that like lossless wires, perfect grounds, and other such?

The conditions that cause an object to slow and stop in real life
are the proof of the law. To the contrary, it proves Newton correct. The
forces act just as they should.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

To repeat my posting of Dec. 8:

--------------

This would be funny if it weren't sad. This newsgroup is one of the few
places I can think of where the silly statement I posted about moving
bodies and friction would be taken seriously. But it's really no
surprise, since it's much less unreasonable than the imaginative
alternative theories which are seriously presented, and just as
seriously argued, here daily.

My postulate about objects in motion was a parody of Cecil's rejection
of theoretical cases on the basis that they can't exist in practice, my
intent being to show how such a rejection leads to incorrect results.
But I see it's drawing the same serious response as Cecil's and Art's
postings. All that's missing is one of Richard's quotes from Terman and
support from Derek.

--------------

Roy Lewallen, W7EL