In article <[Only registered users see links. ] >,
cinquirer <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
Of course I'm using equation. You said he said work is produced by
gravity by simply holding the object down and maintaining the gravitation.
But work is defined mathematically. If you want to determine the work
done, you do the math. And the math says no work is done on the object.
So he is Just Plain Wrong about that.
I'd tether them.
Minor rockets at the side to maintain the movement? He doesn't believe in
I know the analogies he's making, in terms of muscles or internal
combustion engines or rockets. But gravitational attraction is not
accomplished by rocket propulsion. And the rocket propulsion itself must
rely on forces of its own, e.g. electromagnetism to provide the energy of
combustion. If you follow that line of argument you wind up shifting the
inexhaustible supply of force somewhere else. Except now you also need an
inexhaustible supply of energy, too, if you don't want your forces to wear
By the way, just to be clear, the work done by the rockets on the exhaust
in this case would be different from the work done by the rockets on the
He can think anything he wants to think. That doesn't make it a
There can be no explanation of gravity that is not a human-derived model.
But what we observe is that gravity doesn't wear out, and there is no flow
of energy away from a static gravitating system. And we observe no rocket
exhaust holding rocks to the ground.
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
[Only registered users see links. ] (AaronB) wrote in message news:<firstname.lastname@example.org. com>...
No. You don't get it. I mean *suppose* gravity is non-existent
in matter. And 2 objects, sun and moon can go near each other
without any attraction. Suppose your car floats at the street.
And you use a jetpack to bring it up. It will move up. But
with gravity. You may not be able to lift it even with a jetpack
lest your break your arms. So gravity is doing work by keeping
the truck to the ground. Of course, this breaks the w=fd rules.
And it may be a semantics arguments about the choice of words.
Let's just say Mccutcheon is so insistent about gravity non-existent
because of his Expansion Theory that's why he wants to annihilate
gravity. About doctored work equation. What he is basically
saying is that people are so dependent on mathematics that
they lose common sense and depend on mathematics even if
it contradicts common sense (by whatever he meant or
[Only registered users see links. ] (EL) wrote in message news:<email@example.com. com>...
[LJ] The earth is flat. Witches and warlocks are in the woods.
The sound barrier can not be broken. A nuclear detonation
would expand and destroy the planet. Ya, we use to say these types of
things in the past and laugh at them now. There seems to be to sides
to everything in life. So why can't there be two sides to gravity? Only because
everything you think you know says it can't be possible. Can any one really
prove that in all reality it is 100% impossible? Honestly., even right now
scientists are collecting data that makes them think the universe might
not be spherical but squared or walled in nature .Oh no, flat again, we are still
like little kids routing threw closets in a very big house looking for something
but not knowing exactly what that something is yet. Did that have any equivalent
entertaining abilities Einstein? If we really had all the answers we would only
ask more questions. In Ebonics **** what you heard. Don't think flat open your mind
not a text book of scientific theory. What we know today is probable not even close
to .00000000000001% of what really is. Does this sound so very wrong to anyone
in any way?
[Only registered users see links. ] (cinquirer) wrote in message news:<firstname.lastname@example.org. com>...
The system I described above works without gravity. The objects travel
in a circular object around each other because they are held together
by a rod, and one is given an initial speed. No gravity is needed.
And this makes no sense, in the light of the definitions of "energy"
No energy needed.
Wrong. There is no work there, neither needed nor produced (if one uses
the physical definition of "work").
And his reason to state this is because of his ignorance of
the workings of muscles, nothing more. The "obvious observation"
which, according to him, contradicts the "work equation" can
be understood simply if one studies how muscles work, and then
one sees that there is no contradiction at all.
No. It boils down to how work is defined, and how muscles work.
Why is there mass? Why is there charge? Why does the universe
exist? This is metaphysics, not physics.
Err, I'm quite sure that he *claims* that he was able to discover
this. But simply claiming something doesn't make it true. (I already
told you that there are several 1000 people on the web who make
quite similar claims...)
May I remind you that he doesn't even know what the 3 fundamental
forces *are*? (he got the strong force wrong)
I've already told you that there are lots of people on the web who
make such claims. Why should be go to his website (to the website
of someone who doesn't even understand work and energy!!!) and not
to any of these others?
What breaks the laws of physics about this?
And why should we believe him? Again, he doesn't even understand
work and energy!
Objects attracting each other could be caused by angles pushing
them towards each other.
Nice that you don't believe him. That's a good start.
Work is *defined* by this equation! If he wants to use another
he should explain why (yes, I know, he already has explained why, but
his explanation is nonsense and comes only from his ignorance of the
workings of muscles), and should use another name for this quantity.
Charge them up with electric charge?
Yes, that would be one possibility, too.
This makes no sense at all, sorry. There is nothing "doctored" about
the work equation; this is simply the definition of a quantiy
which was found to be *very* useful in physics.
Because he doesn't understand the laws of physics. This was
Both at once. Modern theories think that gravitons are something
like "small ripples" in spacetime.
No, thanks. If even you say that it's weird, then it's certainly
What definition of "work" is Mccutcheon using? If he wants to claim
that the object doesn't "have zero work", he first has to say what
he *means* by work. (he obviously doesn't mean the standard definition
of "work" in physics, because according to this definition, the work
I would call this "paranoia". He claims that the equation was set up
(or changed later?) in order to prevent people from seeing "The Truth"
Why does he think that this requires energy?
Oh my goodness.
Complete utter rubbish. Forces don't need a source of energy.
This makes no sense at all.
Complete utter crackpot. cinquirer, why do you keep falling for such
Err, there are hundreds of people who claim to are able to
overthrow the laws of physics, to have a theory which explains
everything in the universe, and who have published big books with
nice illustrations. This doesn't make them right.
Err, that was already done! His claim that energy is needed
to "maintain" forces is complete rubbish!
He did do exactly that. Why do you think otherwise? Only in the very
last sentence, he pointed out that this method gives the same
results as gravity.
Why on earth do you think that gravity is doing work here? What do
you mean by "work" here?
This is not a "rule", this is the *DEFINITION* of what "work"
means in physics! If you don't use this equation, you first have
to say what you *mean* when you say "work"!
The argument is: He uses the word "work" without defining it,
apparently attaching a vague, common language meaning to it,
and then whines that if he uses the word "work" with this vague
meaning, it conflicts with the equation which *defines* work
Over the last centuries, it turned out that common sense is *very*
"cinquirer" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
Look up the following link for a description of the structure protron and
neutron that does not violate the laws of physics. [Only registered users see links. ]
This paper is published in the Journal of The Theoretics. It is also
for publication in the journal Galilean Electrodynamics.