KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.

If two perfectly spherical balls have the same diameter and surface
smoothness, but are of different weights, when they are dropped they
will have the same air resistance as they fall. If such balls are
dropped from an identical height, and both subsequently impact the
same horizontal bed of soft clay, the heavier ball will penetrate into
the clay further than the lighter ball.

Since the 17th century, people have observed the varying depths of
penetration of a given lead shot or canon ball as the height of fall
is increased. Since Galileo, fall distances could be correlated into
the falling objects’ velocities. Observations that a ball which falls
with double the velocity seemed to penetrate four times as far into
soft clay, led many to suppose that kinetic energy was accruing
parabolically with respect to velocity.

In 1830, Coriolis modified the former, purely parabolic increase in
kinetic energy into a semi-parabolic, but still exponential, rate of
increase. His well known equation is: KE = ½ mv^2. But such has
never been verified by any means which meets Scientific Method
standards.

The resistance of clay to impact varies widely. The individual
particles of clay are free to slide over adjacent particles. And the
resistance to such sliding is determined by the angle of internal
friction of the particles. That is analogous to the force required to
slide a given object down an inclined plane. Most know that the
coefficient of SLIDING friction is less than the coefficient of
friction at rest. So, the internal friction of clay that’s already
beginning to slide (internally) is also less than the friction of clay
particles that are at rest. What that means is: The energy required
to cause a given depth of penetration doesn’t vary linearly.

For the above reason, a single round ball falling from varying heights
and impacting soft clay could never accurately correlate to the amount
of KE present at impact. But a most simple new impact test which I
have devised, which uses two same-size, but different weight balls,
CAN correlate to the KE present! Such experiment is described below:

If any heavy ball is dropped into clay, it will impact with a KE which
has been assumed to be given by Coriolis’s equation. If KE = ½ mv^2
is true, then there must be a greater height from which a lighter, but
same size, ball can be dropped so that the lighter ball will impact
with the SAME kinetic energy as the heavier ball.

The amazing thing about having two different density, but same size
balls impacting soft clay with the SAME kinetic energy, is that the
size of the resulting holes in the clay should be IDENTICAL! Under
the latter conditions, the consistency and material characteristics of
the clay have no influence whatsoever on the KE comparison being
made. *** “If two same size balls of different density impact with
the same KE, they will make IDENTICAL holes regardless of the type and
softness of the clay being impacted.” ***

Coriolis’s KE equation allows calculating the velocity of fall needed
to, say, double the impact of a given ball. But his equation also
allows calculating the impact velocity necessary for a lighter ball to
impact with the SAME kinetic energy as a heavier one.

If Coriolis’s equation is correct, the KE of the heavier ball can be
set equal to the KE of the lighter ball. For any two same size balls
of known weight, the lighter ball will be some percentage of the
heavier ball‘s weight. By substituting the lesser weight (as a
percentage, if you assume that the heavier ball is ‘unity’ weight)
into Coriolis’s equation, it is easy to solve the equation for the ‘v’
needed to cause the lighter ball to have the same KE as the heavier
ball. That velocity can be converted to the distance of fall—using
accepted equations.

If Coriolis’s equation is “a law of nature”, the size of the holes in
the clay should be identical. However, as I have long suspected,
Coriolis’s equation is wrong. It assumes that the KE is accruing semi-
parabolically. But the UNIFORM force of gravity can only be imparting
KE at a LINEAR rate, not at a semi-parabolic one. Coriolis’s equation
violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy. KE must correlate
exactly to the amount of force that gravity can impart. And the
accruing force from gravity increases LINEARLY.

Today, I ran a simple KE test. I dropped a ¾” dia. chrome steel ball
from a height of 3.3684 feet into a small flower pot full of just-
mixed art clay. That ball sank in close to its ‘equator’. I
immediately went up my outdoor staircase and dropped a ¾” dia. PTFE (a
heavy fluoroplastic ball, weighing .2807 times as much as the chrome
steel ball), from an exact height of 12 feet. The KE value should be .
10469323 for each ball. Note: 12 feet of drop = .745944d, where d =
16.087 feet, the distance of fall in one second. The time of fall is .
86368 seconds for the lighter ball.

The PTFE ball landed 1” from the chrome steel ball. It sank into the
clay only about .75 as deep. If Coriolis’s equation was correct, both
balls would be imbedded equally. Those two balls are stuck in the
clay. I will let everything air dry to serve to document my
experiment.

The above simple experiment can be run with any two equal size, but
different weight balls. (Ping Pong balls excluded.) Use Coriolis’s
equation to make the KE values for each ball weight equal. If you
have access to a tall building where drops can be made from two
heights as required to satisfy the equations, the results, still,
won’t cause equal size holes in the clay. A semi-parabolic equation,
like Coriolis’s, can never predict impact results when the Law of
Nature is a LINEAR increase in KE with respect to velocity! My
correct equation is: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m).

The above described experiment is another of my conclusive disproofs
of Coriolis. Since Coriolis’s equation gave Einstein the mistaken
notion that the energy progression in traveling to velocity ‘c’ is
parabolic, BOTH of Einstein’s theories of relativity are disproved,
yet again, by yours truly!

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —

.

Relevant Pages
Loading