# Re: Albert Einstein Replies to Arindam Banerjee

On Nov 5, 2:03 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:57 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

NoEinstein wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:51 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Just Me" . . .
2. In the General Theory of Relativity, what is Einstein talking about
when he states within scope of his "Principle of Equivalence" that
gravitational and inertial mass are the same, or i.e. "equivalent"?

In chapter 19 of his book, _Relativity: The Special and General
'According to Newton's law of motion, we have . . .
(Force) = (inertial mass) x (acceleration),

***[Correction, Mr. E…: Force = mv.]

Go take a high school-physics course sometime in the last three
centuries, Mr. Aristotle. Force is indeed equal to ma. You're confusing
it with momentum.

--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only
the obeisance of others!  Thus is bad government born!  Hold in your
heart that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good
government shall arise of its own accord!  Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike.  "Lone Wolf and Cub:  Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

Dear John:  For your information, I have re written the chapters on
Mechanics!

Terrific, this needs doing.

Force is: An impetus to move (a mass).

AB: Or to stop the movement of a mass.

Momentum is: An
increase in the force delivery potential of a mass due to the mass's
velocity.

AB: Due to the mass's *increased* velocity. Only if the mass's
velocity increases (that is its momentum increases) then only will
there be an increase in the force delivery potential. So here we have
a little problem with your new ideas.

KE is identical to momentum and increases according to my
equation: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m).

AB: So energy is the same as momentum which is the same as force? By
the way, you have not cared to define a or v, but never mind.

PE is either a cocked
mechanical, fluid or chemical device with a force delivery potential,

Yes.

or it is simply an available distance of fall during which KE can be
IMPARTED to the object by the uniform force of gravity.

This is significant, for textbooks show this example as a "proof" of
the law of conservation of energy. Actually this is more of a
demonstration than proof.

Work is:
force x distance in the desired direction.

Again true, but work is energy spent and if energy is the same as
force, then the distance thing in your formula does not work out. So
you see, you really cannot equate momentum with force and with energy.

Power is an available
continuous FORCE which may be utilized for any amount of time.

It is the expenditure of energy, over time. If the force is internal
and rotational like a electric motor we have enormous accleration or
rpm. If it is linear and internal we have a rail gun, or as I am
trying to do an antigravity device.

Acceleration 'g' is: 'g' = 32.174 feet per second EACH second

On most parts of the surface of the earth.

[NOT ...
per second^2!]!  Acceleration due to gravity causes a LINEAR increase
in the velocity of the falling object;

True.

a linear increase in the KE;

AB: No, since KE is proportional to the square of the velocity, it is
nonlinear increase in KE.

and a linear increase in the force of impact.

AB: Not so. The guillotine which was invented to chop off heads
easily worked on the non linearity principle - the guillotine had to
have a certain height to work. Not that it always did its job, as
poor Louis found out.

ALL of the terms,
except work have units of just POUNDS, or the metric equivalent!  —
NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

AB: Interesting to talk to you, NoEinstein. Your mistakes are so much
more obvious, than those of Einstein.

- Show quoted text -

.