Prev: The Black Knight Satelite
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 25 Jun 2010 09:05
NoEinstein wrote:
> On Jun 24, 3:55 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> Dear Tim: Happy to oblige! The 1830 Coriolis equation, KE = 1/2 mv2
> has only one variable for a unit mass of 1 (anything). That variable
> is the velocity, v, of the falling object. The distance of fall is
> given by the equation d = t^2, and forms a parabola. At t = one
> second, the distance of fall is 16.087 feet; two seconds it's four
> times that; three seconds, nine times; and four seconds, 16 x 16.087
> feet. Supposedly "smart people" see the second power increase in
> distance and wrongly assume that that distance is proportional to the
> work done, and thus to the kinetic energy as well. They fail to
> realize that the entire curved (vs. a straight line) part of the
> distance of fall is due to the COASTING carry-over distances from the
> previous seconds! In a four second fall, 75% of the fall distance is
> due to COASTING. And since zero effort is required to coast, then
> there is no work associated with the curved portion of the parabola,
> and there is no KE being caused by COASTING!
>
> As with MOMENTUM, the energy variable is the VELOCITY relative to the
> standard, 'g', velocity of 32.174 feet per second EACH second. That
> means that doubling the velocity to 2g will double the MOMENTUM. But
> it won�t double the kinetic energy. Here's why: All objects just
> sitting there without moving, have the force of gravity already acting
> upon the object before it is even dropped. So... the correct formulas
> for kinetic energy is my own KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). Such

Isn't it true that g = 32.174 ? Isn't it also true that a = 32.174?
Also the trailing (m) is difficult to interpret algebraically. I assume
that m means mass.

I like coasting, but the fact that I can coast down a hill does tamper
with your own usage of this word. If I do read your own usage as
strictly zero acceleration, then I am puzzled to find that the coasting
portion of the object will be left behind by the accelerated portion. I
guess I'm critical of your choice of words but still admit as I read
your statement that it reads smoothly. As I attempt to follow your
thinking I am lead to calculus and the instantaneous acceleration that
integrates to velocity and then position. We are free to setup initial
conditions, or at least we are used to believing this.

> includes the object�s static weight. If the velocity is 2g, then the
> KE will be 3 weight units of force. That's right KE is a force!

Well, it is right nearby:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)
and in that link is your favorite man to pick on; Coriolis.

>
> Using Coriolis�s (wrong) KE equation I calculated the height of drop
> of a small metal clovis pin such that its KE should match the INERTIA
> of a larger clovis pin. I recorded the sounds caused by the impacts
> from various heights. That confirmed that the KE-to-inertia match
> occurred in agreement with MY KE equation, not Coriolis�s! This is an
> extremely accurate experiment, because the �ringing� sound of the
> metal to metal impact turns to a dull CLUNK when the inertia of the
> larger clovis pin is matched. The reason it turns to a dull CLUNK is
> because the smaller pin will stay in contact with the larger pin so
> long, that the ringing sound immediately gets dampened, as though you
> had touched your finger to the small ringing pin. In order to make a
> ringing sound, the object must bounce off faster than the sound
> frequency of the pin. I have a copyrighted paper explaining these
> things. This is just a spontaneous summary of such.

Neat. What is a clovis pin? Is it a short steel rod with a small hole
drilled in one end and a head on the other end? You drop the little one
on the big one, and then drop the big one on the little one? This is a
peculiar experiment. I would think controlling the position of the
collision along each rod, and the substrate supporting the initially
stationary pin would matter quite alot.

As we attempt new theories I think we should ask what is fundamental.
Existing theory has been taught to us in a carefully constructed
curriculum. We might go about in a circle chasing what is fundamental.
If energy conservation is fundamental then energy must be fundamental,
but if energy is defined in terms of distance then distance is more
fundamental... If the structure returns to itself then this is
acceptable, but this sort of structure also provides a flexibility in
its redundancy. Elimination of the redundancy will yield a less
controversial form, but then the context of this new form will be
conflicted from the circular context. This is the gibberish problem. A
new theory, even if correct, will read as gibberish to those trained in
the existing context. So I am happy to credit you with a clean attempt.
I hope you'll get a small chuckle out of this.

Thanks Noein for expounding. I'm thinking about it, not that hard, but
still, I am. It would be really neat to turn over one of the stepping
stones and find a buried treasure. Even just a small modification as you
are trying could have major consequences. I think it might be healthy to
attempt your construction away from the flat acceleration field.

- Tim

>
> Hope this helps! � NoEinstein �
>
>> NoEinstein wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 6:35 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> Dear Tim: From reading some of your daily �back-and-forth� with Timo,
>>> I can generalize that you like conversations about �science� that
>>> isn�t yet firmly and correctly explained. In your reply to me, you
>>> continue to discuss p (or F) = mv (true!) and KE = 1/2mv^2 (wrong!) as
>>> though these things haven�t yet been determined. Please Note: I
>>> easily disproved the latter kinetic energy equation upon realizing
>>> that the KE was accruing exponentially (semi-parabolically), while the
>> I haven't seen this developed so I'd appreciate a stronger explanation.
>> In this way we are in the same camp.You say KE accrues exponentially,
>> but exponential to what? As I understand kinetic energy objects can gain
>> of lose kinetic energy over time, especially with interactions with
>> other objects, and the reference frame does matter. I'd appreciate a
>> more careful explanation from you. I am interested and do enjoy
>> reviewing and encourage alternative theories. Still, from a skeptical
>> position we should challenge each other's views to help refine them.
>>
>> - Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>> input energy�the uniform force of gravity, that�s equal to every
>>> object�s static weight�increases uniformly. Can�t a smart fellow like
>>> you see that the energy OUT is exceeding the energy IN? *** No energy
>>> equation can EVER be exponential without violating the LCE! And that
>>> includes Einstein�s SR, E = mc^2 / beta!
>>> Your problem, Tim, is that you are so used to discussing things that
>>> haven�t been figured out, that you treat my daily explanations of my
>>> New (true) Science as if that hasn�t been figured out, either. A high
>>> percentage of those making �+new posts� on sci,physics ask some
>>> question. Asking questions means the person either doesn�t know, or
>>> the person wishes to start an open-ended conversation on some subject
>>> that is �vague� and not yet firmed-up as science. *** None of my +new
>>> posts ask a question, because I already know the correct science!
>>> For too many in this group, they love vagueness because they get to
>>> pontificate, knowing the other side can�t win. All they have to do is
>>> to continue to� disagree. Have you ever succeeded in getting someone
>>> to change their mind about science, Tim?
>>> Like I told Sue, if she doesn�t understand why the Coriolis KE
>>> equation AND Einstein�s SR equation invalidates the LCE, to please
>>> explain. If I could get you to realize simple truths in science, one-
>>> by-one, and if you would let that modify your� too vague overall
>>> notions about science, you could become a leader in science�rather
>>> than just another �recreational�, armchair physicist who likes to
>>> converse just for the sake of conversing. If you understand the Law
>>> of the Conservation of Energy, say so. If you don�t understand it,
>>> then, there isn�t much purpose in my replying to you, again. �
>>> NoEinstein �
>>>> On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> > On Jun 20, 9:54 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>> > Dear Sue: KE = 1/2mv^2 has the "KE" varying, exponentially, while the
>>>> > input energy, the velocity, is varying linearly. That's a clear
>>>> > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, just like SR is.
>>>> > You are a "slow learner", Sue. If you don't understand this reply,
>>>> > please explain your problem. � NoEinstein �
>>>> I'm going to partially disagree with your statement here Noein. Down at
>>>> momentum, velocity, and energy things seem so fundamental that we should
>>>> not challenge the laws. Still, maybe there is some new way of looking at
>>>> things, and if that new way does exist then it could possibly involve
>>>> some reinterpretation. Long ago we have memorized
>>>> p = m v
>>>> E = m v v / 2
>>>> as fundamental equations of classical physics. Yet which one is
>>>> fundamental? They appear to be informationally redundant, in that their
>>>> components are redundant.
>>>> The derivative relationship is clearly present but in terms of v so that
>>>> dE/dv = p
>>>> Another trouble is that this E is limited to kinetic energy, and we know
>>>> that other energy forms exist. Somehow the momentum does too. This is
>>>> the point that Timo was making, though modified slightly by me here.
>>>> Momentum does not necessarily just mean
>>>> m v .
>>>> A photon has no mass and so from a naive perspective its momentum must
>>>> be zero by this line above. What we are grappling with is the question
>>>> of what is fundamental because so many concepts have arisen.
>>>> If we accept conservation of energy then we are discussing change in
>>>> energy, as in the change in energy is zero. Well, dE/dv is a change in
>>>> energy figure. To me part of what is open is that there are many energy
>>>> types. This may mean that momentum, as a word, takes on new meaning to
>>>> someone like me who thinks that momentum is strictly
>>>> m v .
>>>> There is a bifurcation here that I do not believe is properly discussed
>>>> yet. I would rather attempt a replacement theory that will not have
>>>> these problems. By the lines above mass and velocity are more
>>>> fundamental than energy and momentum, and yet mass remains mysterious.
>>>> I am not done with this analysis. I'm happy to leave it open. I can see
>>>> how some would see this approach as foolhardy, yet I have witnessed
>>>> fundamentals overlooked in mathematics. I feel certain that physics is
>>>> capable of the same behavior.
>>>> - Tim- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
From: NoEinstein on 26 Jun 2010 19:28
On Jun 25, 9:05 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
Dear Tim: I’ll place numerals within your reply, below, and “top
post” my corresponding reply to you:

(1.) ‘g’ is indeed 32.174 feet per second EACH second (rather than…
per second SQUARED). The value of the acceleration can be any value,
depending, of course, on the uniform FORCE (in pounds) that is causing
the acceleration. If a one pound mass is being acted upon by near
Earth Gravity, such mass will have an ‘a’ of 32.174 AND a ‘g’ of that
same amount. That will mean that the value of the a/g portion of my
equation is unity; and unity times ‘m’ is simply ‘m’, or the mass of
the object in question.

(2.) All objects that are accelerating, regardless of the rate, have
huge portions of the distance of travel attributable to COASTING
alone. Suppose that an object is accelerating at ‘g’. After two
seconds, the velocity will be 64.348 feet per second. If one could
magically turn off the force of gravity (or turn-off the in-space
‘thrust’ of the rocket motor) and the object will continue COASTING at
64.348 feet per second, indefinitely. Those same coasting components
are there from every single velocity at the end of all of the seconds
of time that the object is dropped, or the rocket is accelerated.
COASTING components are what cause the ‘free-drop’ curve to be a
parabola, rather than a straight line.

(3.) No, Tim. The coasting component is part of the distance of
travel of all accelerating objects; it’s not… left behind.

(4.) Take my word for it: Calculus is not required to define anything
about acceleration! Your college math courses taught that the rate of
change of the velocity of falling objects corresponds to the SLOPE of
the distance vs. time curve. The latter is a parabola, and the slope
of those changes UNIFORMELY, or linearly at: 32.174 feet each second.

(5.) Clovis pins are used to transfer loads in double shear. They
have nice button heads and transverse holes at regular spacing for
inserting cotter pins or wire form shear pins. In my experiment, the
larger 5/8” diameter Clovis pin was lightly suspended by coil springs
attached to a soft 5/8” I. D. rubber grommet. In order to “load” the
springs, that pin must be impacted by a sudden force which exceeds the
INERTIA (static weight) of such pin. In short, the inertia of the pin
will absorb 100% of the impact until the inertia of the pin is
exceeded. Because of that fact, the springs don’t vary the desired
parameters of the experiment.

The smaller Clovis pin was 3/8” in diameter (turned head down). A
light Nylon fishing line was attached through the end-most transverse
hole of such; and that line passed through a small metal screw-eye
attached to a molding near the ceiling of a room in my home. A
distance scale was placed against the wall to allow determining the
exact distance of drop of the pin. Once the small pin was at the
desired height, I tossed the Nylon line toward the ceiling so that
there would be little if any friction at the eyelet to slow the rate
of fall of the pin. A microphone placed near the pins recorded the
sound of the impacts on “voice analysis” software. A ringing sound
was clearly different from the ‘clunk’ sound, as indicated on the
graphic print-out of the sounds of each of the drops. Only the 3/8”
pin was dropped.

(6.) The “collisions” were all head-to-head and on axis.

(7.) There is no need to “hide” in the unknown, Tim. I’ve have
easily disproved Coriolis and Einstein. No portion of their theories
needs to be… “salvaged”.

(8.) Since when is a successful experiment… an “attempt”? Try to
realize this fact, Tim: My New Science is TRUE science. I don’t care
in the least how damning the truth is to those who have believed
falsehoods. And that includes you. — NoEinstein —

(1.) Isn't it true that g = 32.174 ? Isn't it also true that a =
32.174?
Also the trailing (m) is difficult to interpret algebraically. I
assume
that m means mass.

(2.) I like coasting, but the fact that I can coast down a hill does
tamper
with your own usage of this word. (3.) If I do read your own usage
as
strictly zero acceleration, then I am puzzled to find that the
coasting
portion of the object will be left behind by the accelerated portion.
I
guess I'm critical of your choice of words but still admit as I read
your statement that it reads smoothly. (4.) As I attempt to follow
your
thinking I am lead to calculus and the instantaneous acceleration
that
integrates to velocity and then position. We are free to setup
initial
conditions, or at least we are used to believing this.
> includes the object’s static weight. If the velocity is 2g, then the
> KE will be 3 weight units of force. That's right KE is a force!

Well, it is right nearby:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)
and in that link is your favorite man to pick on; Coriolis.
> Using Coriolis’s (wrong) KE equation I calculated the height of drop
> of a small metal clovis pin such that its KE should match the INERTIA
> of a larger clovis pin. I recorded the sounds caused by the impacts
> from various heights. That confirmed that the KE-to-inertia match
> occurred in agreement with MY KE equation, not Coriolis‘s! This is an
> extremely accurate experiment, because the ’ringing’ sound of the
> metal to metal impact turns to a dull CLUNK when the inertia of the
> larger clovis pin is matched. The reason it turns to a dull CLUNK is
> because the smaller pin will stay in contact with the larger pin so
> long, that the ringing sound immediately gets dampened, as though you
> had touched your finger to the small ringing pin. In order to make a
> ringing sound, the object must bounce off faster than the sound
> frequency of the pin. I have a copyrighted paper explaining these
> things. This is just a spontaneous summary of such.

Neat. (5.) What is a clovis pin? Is it a short steel rod with a small
hole
drilled in one end and a head on the other end? You drop the little
one
on the big one, and then drop the big one on the little one? (6.) This
is a
peculiar experiment. I would think controlling the position of the
collision along each rod, and the substrate supporting the initially
stationary pin would matter quite a lot.
(7.) As we attempt new theories I think we should ask what is
fundamental.
Existing theory has been taught to us in a carefully constructed
curriculum. We might go about in a circle chasing what is
fundamental.
If energy conservation is fundamental then energy must be
fundamental,
but if energy is defined in terms of distance then distance is more
fundamental... If the structure returns to itself then this is
acceptable, but this sort of structure also provides a flexibility in
its redundancy. Elimination of the redundancy will yield a less
controversial form, but then the context of this new form will be
conflicted from the circular context. This is the gibberish problem.
A
new theory, even if correct, will read as gibberish to those trained
in
the existing context. So I am happy to credit you with a clean (8.)
attempt.
I hope you'll get a small chuckle out of this.
Thanks Noein for expounding. I'm thinking about it, not that hard,
but
still, I am. It would be really neat to turn over one of the stepping
stones and find a buried treasure. Even just a small modification as
you
are trying could have major consequences. I think it might be healthy
to
attempt your construction (??) away from the flat acceleration field.
(What??)
- Tim

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The Black Knight Satelite
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete