----- Original Message ----- From: Harry Veeder <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009 10:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Variant and Invariant Forces: Steorn's Error?
> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Harry Veeder <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, February 6, 2009 8:39 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Variant and Invariant Forces: Steorn's Error? > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Terry Blanton <[email protected]> > > Date: Friday, February 6, 2009 9:39 am > > Subject: [Vo]:Time Variant and Invariant Forces: Steorn's Error? > > > > > I posted at Steorn: > > > > > > > > > http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=61501&page=1#Item_1> > > > The energy required to lift a bucket results from applying a force > > > over a distance. The amount of energy required is not a > function of > > > time. Whether the bucket is lifted in minutes or hours, the energy > > > expended is the same for a given distance. Gravity is a time > > invariant> force. > > > > Well that is what the math indicates, but I have suggested before > that> gravity or, more precisely, WEIGHT is a "time varying" force. > > > > In Newtonian gravity weight W is a function of mass m, and > > gravitational acceleration g. Without specifying the precise > > relationship > > one may write this functional relationship as W = f(m,g) > > > > My suggestion is that weight is a function of mass m, gravitational > > acceleration g, and velocity v: W = f(v,m,g) > > > > If *weight* decreases with velocity it would matter how quickly the > > bucket was lifted a given distance because it would reduce the > energy> required. > > > > harry > > > > The power requirement would be less than expected because of the > reducedweight. > Harry > and it is all wrong. Harry
