Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- From: doug <xx@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:18:36 -0800
NoEinstein wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:01 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:55 pm, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
On Aug 24, 12:52 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Doug:
You say: “The advantage that universities have is that they are teaching the truth which is experimentally verified.”
Clearly, the latter is a biased comment. And it’s a broad
generalization that doesn’t hint of objectivity. Objectivity ‘might’
have been hinted if you had said: *What universities teach is
constantly being scrutinized for errors, and in many cases is verified
in common sense experiments.*
What you are missing is that there is experimental verification of
what is taught. You have done a sloppy, poorly understood experiment
and you feel that somehow that should undo hundreds of years of
verified experiments. Since these experiments are verified many times
every day, you are wrong. That is too subtle, you are WRONG>
Hundreds of thousands of man hours are wasted every year teaching
Einstein’s relativity. Just one experiment, M-M, gave use “rubber”
rulers and space-time. If universities are so great (ha!) at teaching
truths, and verifying things with experiments, why is it that the
physics departments of 22 “major” US universities (Ha!, that’s a non
sequitur; there are no major universities in this country!) are
unwilling to accept my conclusive and revolutionary finding that the
foundation experiment of relativity, M-M, doesn’t have a CONTROL? And
why is it that my mathematical proof, which uses simple high school
algebra, wasn’t looked at, objectively, by any university? And why is
it that none of those “truthful” and “experiment verifying”
universities—though invited—were willing to travel to SC to witness my
X, Y, & Z interferometer detecting Earth’s movement in the cosmos?
They are unwilling to accept your "finding" because it is WRONG. You
have no idea what a proper experiment looks like. Your toy attempt to
do something is wrong. You need to study it to see why. Others have
pointed things out to you but you do not know enough physics to
understand what they are saying so you just continue to look silly.
Your choice, learn or continue to look foolish.
I’ll tell you why! Universities are bastions of the status quo, and
that alone! No professor of physics wants an architect—even one with
a high IQ and aptitude for physics—to prove to the world that what
they have been “teaching” to their trusting, but largely naïve
students, was WRONG! And no professor at a university is going to
make waves that lower the status of any other professor, lest someone
else lower theirs So, when things are WRONG, everyone at
universities clams up.
Whereas, when you are WRONG, you just bluster even more.
Most of the WIMPS who teach at universities do so to get a high paying
state job with great benefits and a pension. If any person working at
a university agrees with new science, and his boss is embarrassed
thereby, that person could be in jeopardy of loosing his job, or
almost as bad: being passed-up for a promotion or tenure. The staid,
dishonest and corrupt cultures at universities depend on everyone
projecting an air of perfection—which simply ISN’T there!
“You have done an experiment which you do not understand so you assume the entire world has been wrong for hundreds of years.”
Doug, the latter is your assessment. By making such an “all knowing”
statement, you reveal just how much my new science truths have knocked-
the-props-out-from-under your supposed status as a “fart smeller…
smart fellow”!
Your experiment is at odds with those done over period of hundreds of
years. You seem to think that no one has ever done an experiment to
verify the KE formula. This shows how little you know.
“I spent years doing fracture mechanics where we dropped things on other things and measured the energies.”
You measured the energies using an equation KE = ½ mv^2 which was
WRONG. Such violates the Law of the Conservation of Energy, as does
Einstein’s E = mc^2. The KE values obtained with that wrong equation
can still be comparative, however. If two tests have 8g impacts
(according to the wrong formula) those impacts are still the ‘same’
numerical value for the two experiments done. But the correct value
for the KE, using my KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m), is 5g, or five
weight multiples. Coriolis’s equation EXAGERATES the KE that’s
there. Such is the reason his equation, also, violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy.
This also shows how little you know. We used heights, we used
velocities and we used integrated load versus distance curves. They
all gave the same answers. Physics works, math works but your
uneducated "explanations" do not. If you were right, these would
not give the same answers.
“You can look up drop towers, pendulum impact testers, and others for more information. We could (and did) calculate energies from measuring drop height, and velocities. We measured energy loss by measuring heights (in the case of uninstrumented pendulum testers) as well as velocity before and after collisions. All followed the standard KE formula perfectly. These experiments are being done worldwide thousands of times per day and there have been no
anomolous results. Given this, and your lack of physics knowledge, why
resort to bluster and name calling. The universe is not going to
change the laws of physics to make you happy.”
Doug: The reason you should believe me (though I don’t care whether
you do, or not) is because: “Energy out must = energy in.” The force
of gravity is a uniform force = to objects’ WEIGHTS for all near Earth
fall distances. Uniform forces cause uniform accelerations, such as
‘g’. And uniform accelerations, ALL uniform accelerations, are LINEAR
increases in velocity, NOT parabolic increases in velocity as Einstein
believed, nor semi-parabolic increases as Coriolis believed. The
conflicting existing equation (with Coriolis’s equation) is that for
momentum, F = mv. The latter is correct for non accelerating bodies.
But all accelerating bodies must have the momentum increased by their
STATIC weight. That is exactly what my experimentally verified
equation does!
It would be a good idea for you to look at a physics textbook sometime.
Like many who have been corrupted by the status quo that keeps being
doled out by universities, you found it easier to just accept the long
standing errors of others than to put-on-your-thinking-cap.
I accept them because they are proven by millions of experiments on a
continuous basis.
Instead
of making personal attacks on me,
There is no personal attack. I am just pointing out that you are wrong.
You would benefit from study and you might learn something. You are
the one making yourself look very silly.
the messenger, answer this one
question: *** Do you agree that the rate of increase in the VELOCITY
of falling objects correlates to the SLOPE of the parabolic free-drop
curve? Any mathematicians worth-their-salt will tell you that the
slope of a parabolic curve varies LINEARLY with respect to time. If
you can concur with that simple “math” derivative, every argument you
have made in support of Coriolis is nullified! Your being shown to be
wrong isn’t fun. But it’s far better than playing-the-fool by
defending the errors of others. — NoEinstein —
Since you have shown no errors in current physics, I will not cling to
your errors. I prefer the truth. But, keep on posting your humor as
it really helps cheer us up.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dear Doug: You have used up your allotted reply time from me. I'll
gladly let history decide whose experiments are most important.
"Simple things that are correct will trump complicated things that are
wrong." — NoEinstein —
It is good that you are admitting defeat. Your one misunderstood
experiment versus millions done before and continuing to be done on
a daily basis make it clear which is correct. You cannot defend your
position so you try to bluster and avoid discussion. You are good for
some humor though.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- From: NoEinstein
- Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- References:
- KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- From: NoEinstein
- Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- From: NoEinstein
- Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- From: Ray Vickson
- Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- From: Jerry
- KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- Prev by Date: Re: Einstein Made It Up As He Went Along
- Next by Date: Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- Previous by thread: Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- Next by thread: Re: KE = ½ mv^2 is disproved in a new falling object impact test.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
