Prev:  Sponge baths are cheaper.
Next: When will Tom Potter claim Brad Guth and Hanson are zionist operatives ?
From: PD on 21 Apr 2010 16:47
On Apr 15, 11:53 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2:56 pm, Sam <sam.n.seab...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Sam:  Some of the first ‘modern’ computers were designed,
> specifically, to do the math on the ballistics of projectiles.
> Amazingly, they got the results correct, while having the formula for
> the acceleration due to velocity… WRONG.  The correct way to write
> such is:  g = 32.174 feet/per second EACH second (NOT per second^2!).
> The velocity increases LINERALY, not parabolically!

Right. That's how you write 32 ft/s per s. It's 32 ft/s/s or in units
shorthand, 32 ft/s^2.

Newton and Galileo both knew that this meant velocity increases
linearly. That's what (32 ft/s)/s means. They also understood that the
distance increases parabolically. That's what (32 ft)/s^2 means.

>  That humongous
> error by Galileo and later by Newton

So at least you've recognized that your disagreement is not with
Einstein, but with Newton and Galileo. That is, you don't agree with
any of the physics that has been understood since the early 1600's.

It doesn't occur to you that perhaps you don't understand even the
basics, if you can't make sense of even Galilean or Newtonian physics?

> is the likely reason that both
> Coriolis and Einstein supposed, wrongly, that the energy or kinetic
> energy of accelerating objects increases exponentially (sic).  If any
> of those men had simply realized, as I have, that velocity changes
> LINERALY, then the KE (or E) could only be increasing linearly, too.
> To do otherwise would be to violate the Law of the Conservation of
> Energy.

That's nonsense. Conservation laws do not say that if quantity X
depends on quantity Y, and Y increases linearly, then X must increase
linearly too. It's something you made up, and it's wrong.

Here's another example. If you double the voltage across a light bulb,
the power emitted quadruples. This doesn't violate energy
conservation, either, and it's an experimental fact -- something you
can check with a battery, a rheostat, a voltmeter, and a light bulb.

>
> The DISTANCE of fall increases by the square of the time of fall.
> That’s because falling objects always have a COASTING carry-over
> velocity from the previous second(s).  So, most of the distance of
> fall is due to that coasting carry-over, NOT due to an increasing
> velocity input.  A 500 pound projectile will have a 500 pound downward
> force acting on it from the time such leaves the gun barrel until it
> hit’s the target or the ground.  Knowing that, plus the muzzle
> velocity and the angle of fire, will allow calculating the
> ballistics.  None of those equations you cite are necessary if one
> knows the (correct) simple physics that is in play.  — NoEinstein —
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > I've been experimenting with an online projectile-motion application.
>
> > Link to the app is here
>
> >http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/3/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=102...
>
> > If you open the simulation and click on the "copyright" symbol you
> > will see how they have solved the system of equations.
>
> > What mystifies me is how they eliminated acceleration!
>
> > Their solution for initial velocity v is
>
> > v = 4 * (x-x0)
> >      ---------------------------------------------------
> >      cos(w) * sqrt ((x-x0)tan(w)+(y0-y))
>
> > That is, when the cannon is aimed at angle w, it needs velocity v to
> > hit the target.
>
> > The question is, how did they arrive at this solution. Most of the
> > literature gives us equations for horizontal range, vertical height
> > reached at time t etc but every solution includes the acceleration due
> > to gravity.
>
> > If someone could shed some light on the algebra/physics that would be
> > great.
>
> > thanks,
> > Sam
>
>

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev:  Sponge baths are cheaper.
Next: When will Tom Potter claim Brad Guth and Hanson are zionist operatives ?