wrote in message
oups.com...
Umm well we can, water can be made to flow up hill on a slope.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060329_water_uphill.html

No, it can't. The water is propelled by steam. It's not flowing, it's
boiling.

And steam makes a frictionless cushion so it should be shooting
downhill. There was also another URL which you have conveniently
snipped
from your reply.


"Bill" wrote:
And water vapor goes up to make clouds all without the help of scientists
or
steam.


Nice backpedal.
You really urped on that one "Bill."

Please explain. I don't understand your comment.




Gravity does not exist at the LaGrangian point.


Yes it does. Gravity always exists. At a LaGrange point, the gravity
of one mass is cancelled by the mass of another. So gravity has no
effect on free bodies at a LaGrange point, but gravity still exists.

How does one know it exists there? By measuring it? Or by postulating it?
If gravity of one mass is cancelled by another then it does not exist, the
net force is zero. Zero means nothing. Anyway, you are completely wrong.
Gravity can be higher at a Lagrangian point provided it is countered by
acceleration forces. It says so on this NASA website:

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wlagran.html

"There exists another Lagrangian point L2 at about the same distance from
Earth but on the night side, away from the Sun. A spacecraft placed there is
more distant from the Sun and therefore should orbit it more slowly than the
Earth; but the extra pull of the Earth adds up to the Sun's pull, and this
allows the spacecraft to move faster and keep up with the Earth. "

Here we see no cancellation of gravity at all. Your definition of a
Langrangian point is incorrect. There are many places in space where there
is no local gravity.






Oil droplets could go up or down under the control of Milliken.


Wrong again. Oil droplets could appear to go up or down under his
telekinetic control.
"Seems" is not the same as "is" no matter how much it appears to be.


Milliken won the Nobel Prize for measuring the charge to mass ratio of
electrons. He used an electric field to lift or drop oil droplets.
"Telekinetic control" is in the realm of pseudoscience. Milliken was not a
stage actor who entertained audiences, he was a real scientist who
discovered some of the fundamentals we use today. Here is some information
on the man and the experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-drop_experiment

I may be missing something, but could you refer me to where he used
"Telekinetic control" on the oil droplets. There is some controversy over
his fudging of the data which would indicate he could not use his mind to
control the outcome of the experiment. Could you explain more please?




If one accelerates toward the earth at the correct rate the gravitational
field disappears.


Nope. It is cancelled out by the acceleration (the "correct rate"
happens to be 32 ft/sec/sec, or about 1 g.... how difficult is it to
figure this out?) but gravity never "disappears."

Gravitational field disappears to the observer. The correct rate depends on
altitude and location over the earth. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_anomaly

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/free-fall.html Quotes Einstein as
follows:

"Just as is the case with the electric field produced by electromagnetic
induction, the gravitational field has similarly only a relative existence.
For if one considers an observer in free fall, e.g. from the roof of a
house, there exists for him during his fall no gravitational field---at
least in his immediate vicinity. (A. Einstein, manuscript written in 1919"





Photons do not change speed due to acceleration in the earth's
gravitational
field. They change colour.


An energy effect nontheless. Does a net change in energy always cause
a change in velocity and only a change in velocity? There are other
forms of energy.

Actually it causes a net change in momentum which is a change in velocity or
mass or one looks at the total differential. Furthermore a change in color
is a change in velocity, the photon vibrates about its central position
faster or slower according to its new frequency. If it maintains the same
amplitude and a higher frequency it must oscillate faster. Where do you
think the higher energies come from at higher frequencies (shorter
wavelengths)? Since the ensemble velocity is fixed and the mass is fixed
then the velocity of oscillation must increase to account for the higher
energy.

Velocity is the only form of energy. Heat is the movement of particles,
electromagnetic energy is the movement of charge, etc. Potential energy
(energy not realized) is the only form not involving velocity because it is
static. Furthermore, the velocity must be relative to a reference.






A clock runs at two different rates for two observers travelling at
different speeds.


No they don't. They run at different rates relative to the observers.

I'm talking about a single clock. Why are you talking about 2 clocks? All
measurement is relational.



In other words, "Bill" you flunked the physics test and you don't know
as much as you think you do.

By your standard? Please correct my responses to your comments above.




In spite of all these wonders there still ain't no such thing as a free
lunch.

Got that one right.... the 1/2 pt extra credit doesn't save your grade
though.


I look forward to your help and comments with my replies to your
scientifically astute and accurate commentary. It's not often we get someone
here who really knows their **** and is willing to help others. Thanks
immensely.

Bill




DSK