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

On Oct 23, 1:09 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 23, 9:53 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Oct 22, 2:38 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 22, 9:57 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 20, 10:26 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

NoEinstein wrote:
On Oct 18, 2:15 am, doug <x...@xxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Doug:  Ah HA!  You place value on "experiments" not being
contradicted!  Well, the used-to-be most important experiment in
history, the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, has been contradicted
mathematically and experimentally by yours truly.

No, this is not true. There have been hundred of experiments in
support of relativity and they all follow the predictions quite well.
You need to show why those hundreds of experiments and the daily
use of GPS can be explained by an alternate theory.  Doing a poor
copy of someone else's experiment is not considered a refutation,
it is considered poor lab technique.

  And all former

dropped object experiments have been conrtadicted mathematically and
experimentally by yours truly, as explained at the start of this
present post.

You doing an experiment poorly does not change the laws of physics.
I have done this type of testing for years and never saw any problems.
Your experiment was flawed as I pointed out to you. Clay is the wrong
substance to use for a test medium.

As for my being fearful of you... HA, HA, haa, ha, HA ha, HA!  Tell
everyone, Doug, what contributions to science—other than the manual
labor of lifting sand bags for impact tests on materials, have YOU
ever made?????  — NoEinstein —

I have had a quite productive scientific career and am quite happy
with it. I learned to do both correct experiments and correct analysis.
You have not so you opinion carrys no weight.  Yes you are afraid for
someone to repeat your experiment since you will not show it. I have
an optical bench which already has an interfermeter on it for other
tests I do and there are plenty of parts to put together whatever
it was you did but to do it properly.

PS:  In the future, please do NOT write "— NoEinstein — at the end of
any of your replies.  To do so is FRAUD!

You are the one who writes noeinstein at the end of the posts. My
comments are put in there and you do not seem to be able to follow
the flow to understand that. If I wrote it, it would not be
capitalized since that would be disrespectful to Einstein.

Dear Doug:  The truth isn't determined in an election or vote.  One
correct experiment can negate a zillion that were wrong.  Those
thousands you refer to are actually just uses of wrong equations over
and over.  If "the science" had been good to start with, no more than
two or three experiments should have been required to establish the
correctness of those.
— NoEinstein —

The termination or final encounter of the surface to surface morph
does require that a heavier mass will in fact penetrate further than a
low density mass of the same physical volume and shape.

I'm not saying that if deployed from the Selene/moon L1 onto the
surface of the moon would accomplish the exact same time of impactor
arrivals, but it's still most likely that the heavy density item will
cause a much larger and deeper crater than a low density item of the
exact same volume and shape.

Say one sphere of solid lead and the other a thin glass shell of an
identical sphere except filled with H2 would be a darn good test,
especially if equally deployed towards the lunar surface from the
Selene/moon L1.

The nearly ideal vacuum of the Selene/moon L1 offering at least 1e-18
bar and perhaps even as good as 1e-21 bar should help.

 ~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear BG:  Thanks for your reply!  Tests on moons... "out there" make
good conversation.  But simple tests like I describe at the start of
this old post should be verifiable at low cost by just about anyone.
Look in your scrap box and see if you have two bearings or marbles of
the approximate same size.  Weigh them on a beam balance, and use
those weights as the 'm' in KE = 1/2 mv^2 to calculate the height of
drop of the lighter sphere to have its KE match that of the heavier
sphere when dropped a lesser distance.  Now, drop both spheres into
soft clay from the heights you just calculated.  In every case, the
depths of penetration will be markedly less for the lighter sphere.
The reason:  The KE of falling objects accrues LINEARLY, not
exponentially.  Equal KEs will always cause equal penetrations!  —
NoEinstein —

I think I can agree, but haven't quite figured out where this is
leading in modern applications of physics, other than a heavy
substance is always going to cause more impact damage than any wussy
item impacting at the same moment or perhaps shortly after the heavy
item impacted.

What should be the difference if the mass of two given equal volumes
were at a ratio of 1e6:1?

How much sooner per given km drop and within a sufficient vacuum would
the million gram sphere impact as opposed to the one gram sphere of
the same exact volume?

 ~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear BG: Welcome! Most dropped object impact tests are done from
heights below 300 feet. The velocity of all falling objects in a
vacuum is the same, if dropped from the same height at the same time.
The specific gravity doesn't matter. A lighter and a heavier object
dropped from heights "predicted" by Coriolis's KE = 1/2 mv^2 'should'
cause the same size dents in soft clay if the KEs are the same, and
the size of the spheres are the same. Because the lighter sphere will
fall from a greater height, there will be approximately 5% reduction
in it's KE due to air friction or drag. However, the observed
difference in penetration depth is (volumetrically) about 50% less,
not 5% less. Won't some of you... scientists out there duplicate this
$40.00 experiment—which disproves Einstein's theories of relativity?
— NoEinstein —
.