FR Bending of Light -- Proof

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:

Ok, so PE can be negative.
Now the rock falls and the PE is converted to KE.

What is the KE of 1/2 m_rock * v^2 when v is negative?

KE = 1/2 m_rock * v^2

KE will always be positive.

"Negative PE converts to positive KE." - Phil Bouchard.
Illogical idiot alert!

On Jan 27, 2:26*pm, "Androcles" wrote:


"Negative PE converts to positive KE." - Phil Bouchard.
Illogical idiot alert!

Oh, Androcles, surely you can't be so stupid as to think you've laid
an artful trap.
Well, maybe for a buffoon like Phil, yes, but if you really believe
this is a fundamental problem with the law of conservation of energy,
then it's time to get the rust-brush out again.
(But you and I know that you're just playing little games for the
purposes of heckling.)

Androcles wrote:

"Negative PE converts to positive KE." - Phil Bouchard.
Illogical idiot alert!

There is nothing wrong with that because the total mechanical energy
will be conserved. KE will keep increasing but PE will decrease
negatively thus canceling each other.


"I don't know my own questions." -- Androcles

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...
"I don't know my own questions." -- Androcles

Oh look, we are playing Jeopardy!
"I don't know." - Phil Bouchard.
How did mechanical energy get into the conversation?

Illogical idiot alert!

On 1/27/10 12:54 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

You are incredibly naive, Phil! Take a freshman physics class.

If v = m/s and s is reduced then v will increase. If v increases then E
= 1/2mv^2 will increase as well.

Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Didn't you study mathematics once, or did you just make
that up!

Androcles wrote:

Oh look, we are playing Jeopardy!
"I don't know." - Phil Bouchard.
How did mechanical energy get into the conversation?

Illogical idiot alert!

You got me there, I can't answer that! You just saved Einstein!

Sam Wormley wrote:

Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Didn't you study mathematics once, or did you just make
that up!

Thanks for the correction, I posted too quickly.

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:

Oh look, we are playing Jeopardy!
"I don't know." - Phil Bouchard.
How did mechanical energy get into the conversation?

Illogical idiot alert!

You got me there, I can't answer that! You just saved Einstein!

Ok, so PE can be negative.
Now the rock falls and the PE is converted to KE.

What is the KE of 1/2 m_rock * v^2 when v is negative?

KE = 1/2 m_rock * v^2

KE will always be positive.

"Negative PE converts to positive KE." - Phil Bouchard.
Illogical idiot alert!

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...
Sam Wormley wrote:

Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity

Didn't you study mathematics once, or did you just make
that up!

Thanks for the correction, I posted too quickly.

Idiot alert!
Wormley should state that velocity is defined as
upsilon = d(xi)/d(tau) in the "moving frame"
and v = dx/dt in the "stationary frame".
Didn't he NOT study relativity once, or did
he just make that up! (oops... ...up?)
Didn't he NOT study English punctuation once, or did he just invent his own?

On Jan 27, 5:44*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
* *Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil!
* * *http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Velocity.html

I looked there and then at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Wavenumber.html
and found this:
"There are unfortunately two different definitions of the
wavenumber. French (1971, p. 214) uses the definition
(1) k = 1/
gamma,
where gamma is the wavelength. However, as French notes, it is more
common in theoretical physics to use the definition
(2) k = 2 pi/
gamma".

In the quantum of energy in a photon, the length per wave is equal
to 2 pi r, where r is the length of a radius of a circle. Let r = 1
cm for now. Then gamma = 2pi cm; and Eq 1 says
the wavenumber k = 1/gamma = 1/2pi = .1591549 cm.
HOWEVER, if we let r = .0001 cm then Eq 1 says
the wavenumber k = 1/gamma = 1/(2pi x .0001) = 1591.5494 cm
and Eq 2 says
k = 2pi/(2pi x gamma = 2 pi/(2pi x .0001) = 1/.0001) = 10,000 cm.
Either way, why should the "wavenumber" be a function of an unknown
value of r; but if r is stipulated it remains a constant regardless of
how many waves there might be in a given photon? Why should the "wave
number" of the 4th wave in a series of 500 be the same as that of the
44th and the 53nd and all of them?

As to Sam's "Velocity is defined as dr/dt, Phil!"; Phil had said:
"If v = m/s and s is reduced then v will increase."
In his equation, m denotes "meters" and s denotes "seconds".
In Sam's equation, dr denotes a length and dt an interval of time.
Since the unit of length is a meter and the unit of time is a
second,
v = m/s = meters per second is either identical or equivalent to
v = dr/dt = meters per second.

glird