On 22 14, Dave wrote:
It has recently come to my attention that speedHere is another thought experiment:
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)
Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".
Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.
One for uk.politics- should schools and universities be
allowed to teach rubbish? Seems so in Arts, but there is
often an assumption that physics courses have correct
learning.
You have a 5kg medicine ball (no cannon balls these days)
You take said ball up 100m. Using conventional physics,
the work done in E=mass x gravity x height
To work for each 10m gain is obviously the same for each- who would
dispute this?
Then on the way down the gains for each 10m segment are completely
different because it goes through each 10m segment faster as it
accelerates at 9.8m/s. This makes no sense.
In Cassandra Physics, I'm saying the kinetic energy speed gain is the
same energy for each meter you drop as you put in to lift it up through
the same meter. It is a nonsense? No.
And don't tell me now I'm out of date and that Newtonian stuff is for
kids at junior high. I bought University Physics, Young and Freedman
15th Edition, and it has E= 1/2 m v^2 also gravity at 9.8m/s^2, not 2m/s
per meter. Likely they had a massive barney at some conference, and they decided that they couldn't handle units which cancel, so they got it
wrong, which is holding everything back now.
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
It has recently come to my attention that speedHere is another thought experiment:
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)
Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".
Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.
One for uk.politics- should schools and universities be
allowed to teach rubbish? Seems so in Arts, but there is
often an assumption that physics courses have correct
learning.
You have a 5kg medicine ball (no cannon balls these days)
You take said ball up 100m. Using conventional physics,
the work done in E=mass x gravity x height
To work for each 10m gain is obviously the same for each- who would
dispute this?
Then on the way down the gains for each 10m segment are completely
different because it goes through each 10m segment faster as it
accelerates at 9.8m/s. This makes no sense.
Sorry, it does make sense. Once gravity is defined as m/s^2 and energy
with v^2, there will be an internal consistency with the conservation of energy.
As per previous post with a rocket sled, with adding a fixed amount of
energy from a short burn (same added velocity), the added energy depends
on the initial speed. This doesn't make sense.
You sure in this ?
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:24:01 AM UTC+2, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:Sorry, it does make sense. Once gravity is defined as m/s^2 and energy
It has recently come to my attention that speedHere is another thought experiment:
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)
Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".
Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.
One for uk.politics- should schools and universities be
allowed to teach rubbish? Seems so in Arts, but there is
often an assumption that physics courses have correct
learning.
You have a 5kg medicine ball (no cannon balls these days)
You take said ball up 100m. Using conventional physics,
the work done in E=mass x gravity x height
To work for each 10m gain is obviously the same for each- who would
dispute this?
Then on the way down the gains for each 10m segment are completely
different because it goes through each 10m segment faster as it
accelerates at 9.8m/s. This makes no sense.
with v^2, there will be an internal consistency with the conservation of
energy.
As per previous post with a rocket sled, with adding a fixed amount of
energy from a short burn (same added velocity), the added energy depends
on the initial speed. This doesn't make sense.
With F=ma, and having a short rocket burn for say 1 second, in a vacuum.
Maybe F=ma is wrong, but I doubt it.
i.e. E=1/2 m v^2 for kinetic energy. i.e. how strong do you need to make
the end wall?
In Cassandra Physics, I'm saying the kinetic energy speed gain is the
same energy for each meter you drop as you put in to lift it up through
the same meter. It is a nonsense? No.
And don't tell me now I'm out of date and that Newtonian stuff is for
kids at junior high. I bought University Physics, Young and Freedman
15th Edition, and it has E= 1/2 m v^2 also gravity at 9.8m/s^2, not 2m/s >>> per meter. Likely they had a massive barney at some conference, and they >>> decided that they couldn't handle units which cancel, so they got it
wrong, which is holding everything back now.
On 23 14, Dave wrote:For clarity, that will be in a vacuum tube.
On 23 44, Augǝl wrote:
You sure in this ?
Measuring gravitational acceleration in a 60m drop should be well within
the education budget of a physics department (no additional funding
needed.) Even with a "correct" outcome of 9.8m/s, can be used in 1st
Year undergraduate lab experiment (write up, measurement error, graphing etc).
All I got to do was drop steel balls in different cylinders of fluids
with varying viscosity, on a bench.
I'm sure "conventional" physics is wrong at low speeds, thanks to the
rocket sled thought experiment, until shown otherwise. Cassandra
physics is like one explanation which fixes this particular case.
More outlandish explanations may exist which I'm not purporting -
these are that relativistic effects occur at much lower velocity than
previously considered, like mass is reduced when this speed up.
I'd love this and would explain flying saucers.
i.e. F=ma and E=0.5mv^2, are both correct in the rocket sled and for
projectiles (as in all the text books).
I haven't plugged in the numbers, and my math is rusty, depends how
the wind blows. In the way of things possible that some kid somewhere
was not bowing to authority and insisting there is a problem. I'd say,
there is a problem, don't worry about it, it's all a model anyway, we
live in a transform.
Also I don't know who has measured gravity in free fall, from a drop
from gravity. Clearly using non falling things works out, but a
pendulum isn't much of a free fall.
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:24:01 AM UTC+2, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:Sorry, it does make sense. Once gravity is defined as m/s^2 and energy >>>> with v^2, there will be an internal consistency with the
It has recently come to my attention that speedHere is another thought experiment:
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)
Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".
Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.
One for uk.politics- should schools and universities be
allowed to teach rubbish? Seems so in Arts, but there is
often an assumption that physics courses have correct
learning.
You have a 5kg medicine ball (no cannon balls these days)
You take said ball up 100m. Using conventional physics,
the work done in E=mass x gravity x height
To work for each 10m gain is obviously the same for each- who would
dispute this?
Then on the way down the gains for each 10m segment are completely
different because it goes through each 10m segment faster as it
accelerates at 9.8m/s. This makes no sense.
conservation of
energy.
As per previous post with a rocket sled, with adding a fixed amount of >>>> energy from a short burn (same added velocity), the added energy
depends
on the initial speed. This doesn't make sense.
With F=ma, and having a short rocket burn for say 1 second, in a
vacuum.
Maybe F=ma is wrong, but I doubt it.
i.e. E=1/2 m v^2 for kinetic energy. i.e. how strong do you need to
make
the end wall?
In Cassandra Physics, I'm saying the kinetic energy speed gain is the >>>>> same energy for each meter you drop as you put in to lift it up
through
the same meter. It is a nonsense? No.
And don't tell me now I'm out of date and that Newtonian stuff is for >>>>> kids at junior high. I bought University Physics, Young and Freedman >>>>> 15th Edition, and it has E= 1/2 m v^2 also gravity at 9.8m/s^2, not
2m/s
per meter. Likely they had a massive barney at some conference, and
they
decided that they couldn't handle units which cancel, so they got it >>>>> wrong, which is holding everything back now.
On 23 44, Augǝl wrote:
You sure in this ?
I'm sure "conventional" physics is wrong at low speeds, thanks to the
rocket sled thought experiment, until shown otherwise. Cassandra
physics is like one explanation which fixes this particular case.
More outlandish explanations may exist which I'm not purporting - these
are that relativistic effects occur at much lower velocity than
previously considered, like mass is reduced when this speed up.
I'd love this and would explain flying saucers.
i.e. F=ma and E=0.5mv^2, are both correct in the rocket sled and for projectiles (as in all the text books).
I haven't plugged in the numbers, and my math is rusty, depends how the
wind blows. In the way of things possible that some kid somewhere was
not bowing to authority and insisting there is a problem. I'd say, there
is a problem, don't worry about it, it's all a model anyway, we live in
a transform.
Also I don't know who has measured gravity in free fall, from a drop
from gravity. Clearly using non falling things works out, but a
pendulum isn't much of a free fall.
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:24:01 AM UTC+2, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:Sorry, it does make sense. Once gravity is defined as m/s^2 and energy
It has recently come to my attention that speedHere is another thought experiment:
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)
Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".
Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.
One for uk.politics- should schools and universities be
allowed to teach rubbish? Seems so in Arts, but there is
often an assumption that physics courses have correct
learning.
You have a 5kg medicine ball (no cannon balls these days)
You take said ball up 100m. Using conventional physics,
the work done in E=mass x gravity x height
To work for each 10m gain is obviously the same for each- who would
dispute this?
Then on the way down the gains for each 10m segment are completely
different because it goes through each 10m segment faster as it
accelerates at 9.8m/s. This makes no sense.
with v^2, there will be an internal consistency with the conservation of >>> energy.
As per previous post with a rocket sled, with adding a fixed amount of
energy from a short burn (same added velocity), the added energy depends >>> on the initial speed. This doesn't make sense.
With F=ma, and having a short rocket burn for say 1 second, in a vacuum. >>> Maybe F=ma is wrong, but I doubt it.
i.e. E=1/2 m v^2 for kinetic energy. i.e. how strong do you need to make >>> the end wall?
In Cassandra Physics, I'm saying the kinetic energy speed gain is the
same energy for each meter you drop as you put in to lift it up through >>>> the same meter. It is a nonsense? No.
And don't tell me now I'm out of date and that Newtonian stuff is for
kids at junior high. I bought University Physics, Young and Freedman >>>> 15th Edition, and it has E= 1/2 m v^2 also gravity at 9.8m/s^2, not
2m/s
per meter. Likely they had a massive barney at some conference, and
they
decided that they couldn't handle units which cancel, so they got it
wrong, which is holding everything back now.
On 23 36, Dave wrote:
On 23 14, Dave wrote:For clarity, that will be in a vacuum tube.
On 23 44, Augǝl wrote:
You sure in this ?
Measuring gravitational acceleration in a 60m drop should be well
within the education budget of a physics department (no additional
funding needed.) Even with a "correct" outcome of 9.8m/s, can be used
in 1st Year undergraduate lab experiment (write up, measurement error,
graphing etc).
There is a well connected YouTube channel (e.g. gets to interview Bill
Gates, access to US NIST labs) which has a budget, and likes things like this. However I doubt they will want to do a proper experiment. The
drop from a helicopter onto sandcastles was ill considered time wasting
in my view, and not proper science.
I'm sure "conventional" physics is wrong at low speeds, thanks to the
rocket sled thought experiment, until shown otherwise. Cassandra
physics is like one explanation which fixes this particular case.
More outlandish explanations may exist which I'm not purporting -
these are that relativistic effects occur at much lower velocity than
previously considered, like mass is reduced when this speed up.
I'd love this and would explain flying saucers.
i.e. F=ma and E=0.5mv^2, are both correct in the rocket sled and for
projectiles (as in all the text books).
I haven't plugged in the numbers, and my math is rusty, depends how
the wind blows. In the way of things possible that some kid
somewhere was not bowing to authority and insisting there is a
problem. I'd say, there is a problem, don't worry about it, it's all
a model anyway, we live in a transform.
Also I don't know who has measured gravity in free fall, from a drop
from gravity. Clearly using non falling things works out, but a
pendulum isn't much of a free fall.
On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:24:01 AM UTC+2, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:Sorry, it does make sense. Once gravity is defined as m/s^2 and energy >>>>> with v^2, there will be an internal consistency with the
It has recently come to my attention that speedHere is another thought experiment:
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)
Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".
Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.
One for uk.politics- should schools and universities be
allowed to teach rubbish? Seems so in Arts, but there is
often an assumption that physics courses have correct
learning.
You have a 5kg medicine ball (no cannon balls these days)
You take said ball up 100m. Using conventional physics,
the work done in E=mass x gravity x height
To work for each 10m gain is obviously the same for each- who would >>>>>> dispute this?
Then on the way down the gains for each 10m segment are completely >>>>>> different because it goes through each 10m segment faster as it
accelerates at 9.8m/s. This makes no sense.
conservation of
energy.
As per previous post with a rocket sled, with adding a fixed amount of >>>>> energy from a short burn (same added velocity), the added energy
depends
on the initial speed. This doesn't make sense.
With F=ma, and having a short rocket burn for say 1 second, in a
vacuum.
Maybe F=ma is wrong, but I doubt it.
i.e. E=1/2 m v^2 for kinetic energy. i.e. how strong do you need to
make
the end wall?
In Cassandra Physics, I'm saying the kinetic energy speed gain is the >>>>>> same energy for each meter you drop as you put in to lift it up
through
the same meter. It is a nonsense? No.
And don't tell me now I'm out of date and that Newtonian stuff is for >>>>>> kids at junior high. I bought University Physics, Young and Freedman >>>>>> 15th Edition, and it has E= 1/2 m v^2 also gravity at 9.8m/s^2,
not 2m/s
per meter. Likely they had a massive barney at some conference,
and they
decided that they couldn't handle units which cancel, so they got it >>>>>> wrong, which is holding everything back now.
On 23 44, Augǝl wrote:
You sure in this ?
I'm sure "conventional" physics is wrong at low speeds, thanks to the
rocket sled thought experiment, until shown otherwise. Cassandra
physics is like one explanation which fixes this particular case.
On 23 14, Dave wrote:
Measuring gravitational acceleration in a 60m drop should be well within
the education budget of a physics department (no additional funding
needed.) Even with a "correct" outcome of 9.8m/s, can be used in 1st
Year undergraduate lab experiment (write up, measurement error, graphing etc).
On 23 43, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
The best way for this to proceed is for someone to market a gravity drop >>> measurement kit. All you need is access to 60m of vertical with anchor
points. Expect cost is about USD 20,000 - 30,000.
Don't think an augured hole would wash. Could do this on my land, but
where's the fun when it's all hidden away?
About three times that much for a one-off.
You do know that all this has been known since the 14th Century and the
only person that has any problem with it is YOU?
Again, which is more likely:
A: All the scientists in every country on the planet that have ever
lived have been wrong since the 14th Century.
B: Some muppet who doesn't understand analytic geometry or basic
calculus and apparently never done a real expirement has discovered
through thought expirements something that has eluded trained scientist
accross the planet for 500 years and contradicts 500 years of world wide
measurements.
works out. (final kinetic energy, same added energy)
F=ma; E=0.5mv^2
20 kg sled with 200N rocket burning for 1 second. No friction, in a vacuum. 1- rest
2- starting at 20m/s
3- starting at 1000m/s
Posted again the uk.politics.misc. The only UK living politicians I
know of with any science education are Lord Willetts, and David Davis MP.
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:
The best way for this to proceed is for someone to market a gravity drop
measurement kit. All you need is access to 60m of vertical with anchor
points. Expect cost is about USD 20,000 - 30,000.
Don't think an augured hole would wash. Could do this on my land, but
where's the fun when it's all hidden away?
About three times that much for a one-off.
You do know that all this has been known since the 14th Century and the
only person that has any problem with it is YOU?
Again, which is more likely:
A: All the scientists in every country on the planet that have ever
lived have been wrong since the 14th Century.
B: Some muppet who doesn't understand analytic geometry or basic
calculus and apparently never done a real expirement has discovered
through thought expirements something that has eluded trained scientist accross the planet for 500 years and contradicts 500 years of world wide measurements.
On 23 43, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
The best way for this to proceed is for someone to market a gravity drop >>> measurement kit. All you need is access to 60m of vertical with anchor
points. Expect cost is about USD 20,000 - 30,000.
Don't think an augured hole would wash. Could do this on my land, but
where's the fun when it's all hidden away?
About three times that much for a one-off.
You do know that all this has been known since the 14th Century and the
only person that has any problem with it is YOU?
Again, which is more likely:
A: All the scientists in every country on the planet that have ever
lived have been wrong since the 14th Century.
B: Some muppet who doesn't understand analytic geometry or basic
calculus and apparently never done a real expirement has discovered
through thought expirements something that has eluded trained scientist
accross the planet for 500 years and contradicts 500 years of world wide
measurements.
works out. (final kinetic energy, same added energy)
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
It has recently come to my attention that speedHere is another thought experiment:
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)
Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".
Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.
One for uk.politics- should schools and universities be
allowed to teach rubbish? Seems so in Arts, but there is
often an assumption that physics courses have correct
learning.
You have a 5kg medicine ball (no cannon balls these days)
You take said ball up 100m. Using conventional physics,
the work done in E=mass x gravity x height
To work for each 10m gain is obviously the same for each- who would
dispute this?
Then on the way down the gains for each 10m segment are completely
different because it goes through each 10m segment faster as it
accelerates at 9.8m/s. This makes no sense.
Sorry, it does make sense. Once gravity is defined as m/s^2 and energy
with v^2, there will be an internal consistency with the conservation of
energy.
What in the world are you babbling about?
Gravity has ALWAYS been defined in units of m/s^2 and kinetic energy has ALWAYS been .5*m*v^2.
As per previous post with a rocket sled, with adding a fixed amount of
energy from a short burn (same added velocity), the added energy depends
on the initial speed. This doesn't make sense.
Yes, it does, if you understand math.
<snip remaining babble>
On 23 50, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
On 22 14, Dave wrote:
It has recently come to my attention that speedHere is another thought experiment:
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)
Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".
Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.
One for uk.politics- should schools and universities be
allowed to teach rubbish? Seems so in Arts, but there is
often an assumption that physics courses have correct
learning.
You have a 5kg medicine ball (no cannon balls these days)
You take said ball up 100m. Using conventional physics,
the work done in E=mass x gravity x height
To work for each 10m gain is obviously the same for each- who would
dispute this?
Then on the way down the gains for each 10m segment are completely
different because it goes through each 10m segment faster as it
accelerates at 9.8m/s. This makes no sense.
Sorry, it does make sense. Once gravity is defined as m/s^2 and energy
with v^2, there will be an internal consistency with the conservation of >>> energy.
What in the world are you babbling about?
Gravity has ALWAYS been defined in units of m/s^2 and kinetic energy has
ALWAYS been .5*m*v^2.
Exactly, no one has gone back to check the basics.
On 23 36, Dave wrote:
On 23 14, Dave wrote:
On 23 44, Augǝl wrote:
You sure in this ?
Measuring gravitational acceleration in a 60m drop should be well within the education budget of a physics department (no additional funding needed.) Even with a "correct" outcome of 9.8m/s, can be used in 1stFor clarity, that will be in a vacuum tube.
Year undergraduate lab experiment (write up, measurement error, graphing etc).
There is a well connected YouTube channel (e.g. gets to interview Bill Gates, access to US NIST labs) which has a budget, and likes things like this. However I doubt they will want to do a proper experiment. The
drop from a helicopter onto sandcastles was ill considered time wasting
in my view, and not proper science.
On 23 50, Jim Pennino wrote:
Gravity has ALWAYS been defined in units of m/s^2 and kinetic
energy has ALWAYS been .5*m*v^2.
Exactly, no one has gone back to check the basics.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 49:37:41 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,314 |
| Posted today: | 1 |