Re: Dropping Coriolis Like a Feather (is Copyrighted.)

On Apr 10, 4:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 9, 2:11 pm, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 9, 11:07 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 8, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 8, 8:16 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

For too long Einstein's mistaken notion: "There isn't enough energy in
the entire Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to
velocity 'c'"... has been allowed to limit man's vision for the future.
Though he was obsessively hard working, moronic Einstein got the above
mistaken notion from the 1830 kinetic energy equation of Coriolis, KE
= 1/2mv^2.  And Coriolis formulated such equation in an attempt to
quantify the impact effects of falling objects--most dropped in ranges
below 100 feet.

No one before yours truly has considered that a large portion of the
destructive effects of falling objects--or any speeding object, such as
a cannon ball--results from this simple fact: "All materials have
strengths which vary depending upon the speeds of application of the
loads."  But since the destructive effects of, say, a dropped stone or
a fired cannonball "seemed" to be the result of the velocities of
those objects, it is understandable--but not scientifically justifiable--
that Coriolis's equation tried to account for 100 percent of the
effect of a falling unit weight by making the KE increase
exponentially as a function of its velocity.

If, say, 50% of the destructive effects of a falling unit mass is due
to the reduced strengths of the materials when subjected to high speed
loading, and the other 50% is due to the unit mass's velocity at the
instant just before impact, then it is easy to see how Coriolis erred
in making KE a function of v^2.  Since the "strength of materials"
aspect of any KE experiment depends on the materials being hit, and on
their geometries, a proper KE equation can only describe the force of
the impact, not any certain description of the destructive effects..

The equation for 'momentum', F = mv, has coexisted in the texts with
Coriolis's flawed KE equation.  Both describe impact effects, but as I
explained above, Coriolis's equation is WRONG.  And the momentum
equation is correct only if the mass is expressed in "slugs".  One
slug is equal to 32.174 pounds.  Being the practical person that I am,
I don't believe that a person should have to look up values, or have
to read the "fine print", to be able to correctly utilize an
equation.  So I have rewritten the momentum equation: F = v/32..174
(m).  That "32.174" is under the 'v', because forces of impact
increase in multiples of the velocity used to define the acceleration
due to gravity.  Such velocity value--that happens to be the velocity
at the end of the first second of a compact object's free fall--is
32.174 feet/second.  The earliest texts gave the value at 32; later
texts showed 32.2; and the exact value, without rounding off, is
32.174.

I am the first person to realize that any object about to be dropped
is ALREADY ACCELERA-TING!  The Force of Gravity is causing the mass to
have weight.  And the "destructive potential" of that weight doesn't
require a distance of fall, nor a velocity in which to accrue.  For
example: Roll a cannonball off of a level table onto a stretched-level
piece of tissue paper.  The instant application of the load to the
tissue paper will rip it.  So, to correctly describe the KE of any
falling object, that object must begin with an impact potential equal
to its own weight!

The correct KE equation for falling objects is my own: KE = a/g (m) +
v/32.174 (m).  Such has been verified in an experiment to determine
the height (velocity derived) from which a small clevis pin must be
dropped to equal the inertia (weight) of a larger clevis pin.  And my
equation correctly predicted the height.  The errant Coriolis equation
missed the drop height prediction by close to fifty feet!  Why was
that so?  Because, even though Coriolis's equation is a second power
function of 'v', MY equation begins with a KE value of 1 weight
multiple of force, while Coriolis's equation begins with a KE value of
ZERO.

A final nail in Coriolis's KE equation's coffin is that his equation
would require that gravity have some unexplained mechanism to SENSE
the velocity of falling objects--so that gravity can impart more KE to
a faster falling object, than to a slower falling one.  If a billion
equal size hail stones were falling, but every one of them began
falling from a different height, the Force of Gravity would have to
have a super computer and speed detection devices under each and every
hail stone.  And gravity would need to have some magic mechanism for
continuing to apply the most KE to the fastest falling hail stones..

Correct laws of physics can't have a zillion special conditions as
would be required for those hailstones.  My correct KE equation,
above, only requires that gravity impart a uniform continuous downward
force equal to any object's static weight.  Correct simplicity trumps
the incorrect and complicated every time!

Values, like 'g' forces, have been calculated for a long time using
Coriolis's errant KE equation.  As with the Richter Scale for
Earthquakes, it isn't necessary that values be... linear... in order to
serve as a basis for comparison.  The tragedy of Coriolis's errors is
that Albert Einstein used that man's ideas to write his own theories
of relativity.  I have now summarily disproved both of those.  I've
disproved the FOUNDATIONS of Einstein's theories, not just moot
quantitative particulars.  By this simple to understand disproof of
Coriolis, the entire direction of science and technology in the world
is changed.

-- NoEinstein --

See also: Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1...
Cleaning Away Einstein's Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847...
Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4...

If you want to waste money copyrighting nonsense, go right ahead.
Your treatise is juvenile and without any basis.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Igor2:  You are a coward.  You attack the fringes of my post, not
the substance.  Since you are without substance yourself, then that
explains it.  -- NoEinstein

What substance?  It's all fringe.  You post like a five year old girl.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Folks: Igor2 posts like a pedophile.  -- NoEinstein --

Do you have extensive pedophile experience to make such a observation?
.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast