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



NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 22, 12:39 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

NoEinstein wrote:

On Sep 20, 6:45 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 20, 4:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 19, 4:55 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 18, 6:00 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't suppose you would care for a description of an
experimental setup which would bypass many of my objections
about your crappy Lazy Susan mounting?

Michelson and Morley floated their experimental apparatus on
mercury. This technique automatically guaranteed nearly perfect
alignment of the rotational axis with the vertical, and isolated
their optical table from distorting influences that might be
transmitted through a mechanical linkage.

Mercury is expensive, gives off hazardous vapors, and is
electrically conductive. Mounting a high voltage laser in your
rickety framework above a mercury tub sounds very stupid.

A much cheaper and safer alternative would be to use water. To
use water flotation, however, requires that the weight of the
experimental setup be greatly reduced from the arrangement that
Michelson and Morley used.

Diode lasers have a coherence length on the order of several
centimeters, so cannot be used with a large path difference
between the control and test beams. Attempting an optical
arrangement such as you use in your current XYZ interferometer
using a diode laser would not yield any perceptible fringes.
On the other hand, you claim to be able to see fringe
displacements on the order of "thousands" of fringes as your
apparatus is rotated. Surely you can build an apparatus with
one order of magnitude lesser sensitivity, and still see
"hundreds" of fringes displacement?

Float a 1.5" thick styrofoam ring in a shallow tub of water. A
centering pin sticks up from the bottom of the tub into the
central hole, but should not, under normal circumstances, touch
anything. Lay a 3/8" *** of plate glass across the styrofoam.
Since the specific gravity of glass is 2.6, the styrofoam should
float easily.

On the glass ***, place a vertical stand carrying a pen laser,
target, a partially reflecting beam splitting mirror, and your two
first surface mirrors. The vertical stand doesn't have to be
perfectly vertical since what is important is that the ROTATIONAL
AXIS is vertical. Because of the limited coherence length of a
diode laser, the first surface mirrors should be as close to the
beam splitter as possible, and the distance between the two first
surface mirrors should be no more than, say, 3 centimeters or so.
If you adopt a Michelson arrangement, you can, of course, get
much greater path lengths.

Mount a videocamera aimed at the target, and arrange some means
to document the angle in which the apparatus is pointed.

GENTLY set the apparatus in motion, and allow any waves that you
have created to die down for a couple of minutes before making
your observations. A 3/8" *** of glass should have sufficient
moment of inertia so that it will remain spinning for several
minutes in the water.

Let us know what you observe.

X
X H
X H pen laser
X H
X-- -- target
X
X
X
X
X
X
X----- beam splitter
X \ | first surface mirrors
___________________X___________________
|_______________________________________|glass ***
|wwwww| styrofoam ring |www| |wwwww| water line
| |________________| | |________________| |
| | |
|________________________|________________________|shallow
tub
centering pin

Jerry

FORGOT TO MENTION: During testing of the apparatus, examine
the centering of the assembly during rotation. I specified
-glass- for the work surface for a reason. Examine how the
assembly rotates around the central pin, and adjust the
balance so that there is no tendency to rub against the pin.
Rubbing can induce tilt, and we all know what tilt can do
to such a tall optical assembly.

Jerry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Jerry: The experiment has been done, and the conclusions
overwhelmingly disprove Einstein’s theories of relativity! Instead of
telling me how my test should have been constructed, why don't you
just replicate it using your own ideas of what is precision enough.
If you do that, you will confirm what I have found. Long discussions
aren't necessary.

Unfortunately, your experiments were too sloppily conducted to
convince anybody of anything, and your results are so poorly
documented as to be completely laughable.

A competent experimentalist is always aware of the limitations of
his/her experimental methods and procedures. When I consider the
water flotation system that I outlined to you in my previous
posts, for instance, I find myself questioning various aspects
of the design, and seek methods of either improving the design
to avoid the artifacts, or else seek methods to measure and
control for the artifacts. For example, how much water will the
styrofoam absorb? Should I perhaps recommend painting the
floatation ring with boat resin? If we are running the experiment
in continuous rotation mode, will a standing wave be set up in
the water tank which would result in a systematic rocking and
swaying that could result in an artifactual "signal"? Could we
risk putting a foam rubber adapter ring around the centering pin
to gently push of the assembly to keep it centered? How do we
measure any artifacts that might result from use of such an
adapter ring? ...and so on and so forth...

These are the sorts of thoughts that competent experimentalists
will have as they design and conduct an experiment.

On the other hand, YOU are a totally INcompetent experimentalist.
You got a result which sort of looked like what you wanted, then
didn't bother to double-check anything but went onto the internet
yelling about your major "discovery", which of course nobody
takes seriously.

You get all huffy because the defects in your experimental setup
are easily seen. Rather than admit that your experiment could be
improved, you stand by your preliminary results and will NEVER,
EVER repeat them with improvements to counter the objective
criticism with which your initial experiments were met.

How pathetic.

Jerry- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Jerry: Why don't I just promote you up to a person non grata,
like Doug. So done! — NoEinstein —

If he did he experiment carefully, he would have nothing to talk
about so he did it in a sloppy manner and then told us that we
had to accept his experiment without question. He does not like
it when his mistakes are pointed out. He has no desire to learn
from his mistakes. He does, however, like to bluster and
try to stop others from talking about his mistakes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Dear Folks: Doug is a persona non grata. He is so ruled by
negativity that he takes everything I say as an all-or-nothing affront
to his hit-in-the-head-by-a-sandbag mentality.

The tone of my original post on this subject is to define a very
simple-to-perform experiment that can easily be duplicated with an
expenditure of less than $40.00, and about four hours of preparation
time. It has been said that "Time is money." Using that standard,
Doug has long since exceeded both the $40.00 and the four hours, in
trying to cut me down. That's not showing much scientific
objectivity, is it.

Instead of just reading my replies on this post, more of you should
start dropping like-sized balls of different weights into soft clay,
to see how well Coriolis's formula, KE = 1/2 mv^2, can predict the
drop height from which those balls should imbed into the clay,
equally. There will be a maximum 5% skewing of the results, because
the lighter ball will experience more air resistance—because it must
fall for a longer time. However, that means that the results should
be 95% conclusive when the—as I predict—gross deviation from an equal
depth of penetration is observed. Coriolis is cooked; Einstein is
cooked; and physics, as is presently being 'taught', is cooked! —
NoEinstein —

There is more to doing an experiment than just dropping a few balls
and claiming that hundreds of years of physics is wrong. You have
done no analysis of the experiment. For one thing, you assume that
the deformation of the clay is inderpendent of velocity. That is
wrong. Try doing a bellyflop in a pool from 2 inches and then from
20 feet. The effect is ot the same. Again, you do not know how to
do experiments so your "results" mean nothing. The same as they did
with your interferometer which you are afraid to show pictures of
since it will show had badly built that it is. Assuming that you
actually even tried anything.
.

Quantcast