Absurdity of taught mechanics when firing rockets down - evidence of
magic powder.
Consider this setup- a falling body which can fire a rocket for a
distance of five meters to double the acceleration due to gravity of
10m/s^2 t0 20m/s^2
Also have the standard equations of F=ma (force =mass x acceleration)
and energy = force x distance
If fired at the start of a drop the five meters takes a lot longer than
if fired towards the end of a 60m drop. This is because the falling
body is already going faster. Yet, with energy = force x distance, the lower down you are when the rocket is ignited, the less powder you need because the 5m drop doesn't take as long, hence you need less and less
for the same energy (force x distance) so it becomes more and more magic.
Calculated added energy is force x distance.
Obviously the added energy is related to the burn time.
What is taught is clearly not right, since the energy added is more like force x time. (amount of powder burnt). Or maybe I'm completely wrong
and and misreading my data book which says
FORCE= MLT^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
ENERGY = ML^2T^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
The politics angle is that most kids give up on physics education, and I
have to say I don't blame them, because what is taught doesn't add up.
See previous posts since Dec 2022. Teaching at universities is generally abysmal, and most students, like the lecturers don't really understand
it and learn enough to get a grade by turning the handle.
On 06-Feb-23 8:11 am, Dave wrote:
Absurdity of taught mechanics when firing rockets down - evidence of
magic powder.
Consider this setup- a falling body which can fire a rocket for a
distance of five meters to double the acceleration due to gravity of
10m/s^2 t0 20m/s^2
Also have the standard equations of F=ma (force =mass x acceleration)
and energy = force x distance
If fired at the start of a drop the five meters takes a lot longer
than if fired towards the end of a 60m drop. This is because the
falling body is already going faster. Yet, with energy = force x
distance, the lower down you are when the rocket is ignited, the less
powder you need because the 5m drop doesn't take as long, hence you
need less and less for the same energy (force x distance) so it
becomes more and more magic.
Calculated added energy is force x distance.
Obviously the added energy is related to the burn time.
What is taught is clearly not right, since the energy added is more
like force x time. (amount of powder burnt). Or maybe I'm completely
wrong and and misreading my data book which says
FORCE= MLT^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
ENERGY = ML^2T^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
The politics angle is that most kids give up on physics education, and
I have to say I don't blame them, because what is taught doesn't add
up. See previous posts since Dec 2022. Teaching at universities is
generally abysmal, and most students, like the lecturers don't really
understand it and learn enough to get a grade by turning the handle.
Burning the fuel is doing two things - accelerating the rocket in one direction, and accelerating the reaction mass in the other.
If the rocket is already moving relative to an observer, then when the
rocket is fired, the rocket moves faster relative to the observer, but
the reaction mass moves slower. So from the perspective of the observer,
the rocket gets more energy, but the reaction mass gets less.
Your analysis is assuming that all the energy ends up in the rocket,
which is manifestly untrue.
Sylvia.
On 06-Feb-23 8:11 am, Dave wrote:
Absurdity of taught mechanics when firing rockets down - evidence of
magic powder.
Consider this setup- a falling body which can fire a rocket for a
distance of five meters to double the acceleration due to gravity of
10m/s^2 t0 20m/s^2
Also have the standard equations of F=ma (force =mass x acceleration)
and energy = force x distance
If fired at the start of a drop the five meters takes a lot longer
than if fired towards the end of a 60m drop. This is because the
falling body is already going faster. Yet, with energy = force x
distance, the lower down you are when the rocket is ignited, the less
powder you need because the 5m drop doesn't take as long, hence you
need less and less for the same energy (force x distance) so it
becomes more and more magic.
Calculated added energy is force x distance.
Obviously the added energy is related to the burn time.
What is taught is clearly not right, since the energy added is more
like force x time. (amount of powder burnt). Or maybe I'm completely
wrong and and misreading my data book which says
FORCE= MLT^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
ENERGY = ML^2T^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
The politics angle is that most kids give up on physics education, and
I have to say I don't blame them, because what is taught doesn't add
up. See previous posts since Dec 2022. Teaching at universities is
generally abysmal, and most students, like the lecturers don't really
understand it and learn enough to get a grade by turning the handle.
Burning the fuel is doing two things - accelerating the rocket in one direction, and accelerating the reaction mass in the other.
If the rocket is already moving relative to an observer, then when the
rocket is fired, the rocket moves faster relative to the observer, but
the reaction mass moves slower. So from the perspective of the observer,
the rocket gets more energy, but the reaction mass gets less.
Your analysis is assuming that all the energy ends up in the rocket,
which is manifestly untrue.
Sylvia.
On 23 03, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 06-Feb-23 8:11 am, Dave wrote:
Absurdity of taught mechanics when firing rockets down - evidence of
magic powder.
Consider this setup- a falling body which can fire a rocket for a
distance of five meters to double the acceleration due to gravity of
10m/s^2 t0 20m/s^2
Also have the standard equations of F=ma (force =mass x acceleration)
and energy = force x distance
If fired at the start of a drop the five meters takes a lot longer
than if fired towards the end of a 60m drop. This is because the
falling body is already going faster. Yet, with energy = force x
distance, the lower down you are when the rocket is ignited, the less
powder you need because the 5m drop doesn't take as long, hence you
need less and less for the same energy (force x distance) so it
becomes more and more magic.
Calculated added energy is force x distance.
Obviously the added energy is related to the burn time.
What is taught is clearly not right, since the energy added is more
like force x time. (amount of powder burnt). Or maybe I'm completely
wrong and and misreading my data book which says
FORCE= MLT^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
ENERGY = ML^2T^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
The politics angle is that most kids give up on physics education,
and I have to say I don't blame them, because what is taught doesn't
add up. See previous posts since Dec 2022. Teaching at universities
is generally abysmal, and most students, like the lecturers don't
really understand it and learn enough to get a grade by turning the
handle.
Burning the fuel is doing two things - accelerating the rocket in one
direction, and accelerating the reaction mass in the other.
If the rocket is already moving relative to an observer, then when the
rocket is fired, the rocket moves faster relative to the observer, but
the reaction mass moves slower. So from the perspective of the
observer, the rocket gets more energy, but the reaction mass gets less.
Your analysis is assuming that all the energy ends up in the rocket,
which is manifestly untrue.
If you buy a 200N rocket you expect to get 200N of thrust. There is only
one rocket mass, and for the short time say 400g of fuel used on a 20kg
mass isn't that much.
Sylvia.
On 23 47, Dave wrote:
On 23 57, Jim Pennino wrote:Might be easier just to write a smartphone app, use the accelerometer,
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 23 37, Jim Pennino wrote:Once more, the rest of the world has found no issues with Newton's laws
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:Can't attack the argument, go for the person, like a bad soccer player. >>>
Absurdity of taught mechanics when firing rockets down - evidence of >>>>>> magic powder.
Absurd perhaps to a marginally educated crackpot that doesn't
understand
things like analytical geometry, slopes, and basic calculus, but the >>>>> rest of the world has found no issues* with Newton's laws of motion in >>>>> over 300 years.
If you ever perform an actual experiment, that is something real with >>>>> actual measurements, that shows Newton's laws of motion are incorrect, >>>>> you can start planning on how you will spend your Nobel Prize money. >>>>>
of motion in over 300 years.
Real experiments that gathered real data have been regularly performed
in physics classes across the entire planet for over 300 years and no
one has found any problems yet.
How many real experiments have you actually performed and where is the
data?
Spending too much money on a pipe dream is crazy. OK on hobby budget
e.g. USD 400/month, or USD 4000/month for others.
The airtrack experiments have been showing inconsistencies for years,
but all that's said is that kinetic energy is lost in collision. What
I could do is have a 4m vacuum drop tube in my house without
structural alteration. Need to see what I can get with expected 1/1000
of a second timer accuracy and 2mm measurement accuracy. Over 25 years
ago 8 bit micros had no problems with 1/10000 of a second reaction
time due to no operating system overhead. Basically light beam time
from 0m, 1m, 2m, 3m. Then with fast spinning items, to see if there is
any change, which would be an interesting find.
and drop onto something soft. (say 4m drop for the timing). 0.1s
accuracy expected.
If faster than standard acceleration (9.8m/s^2) even in air, then
something is amiss.
What I do need revision on is the equations for motion where the "acceleration" is directly proportional to the distance.
Still need formulas worked out for:
distance as a function of time
speed as a function of time.
speed as a function of distance is like: v= ks, where k is the constant acceleration per meter of drop (about 2) and s is the distance.
Absurdity of taught mechanics when firing rockets down - evidence of
magic powder.
Consider this setup- a falling body which can fire a rocket for a
distance of five meters to double the acceleration due to gravity of
10m/s^2 t0 20m/s^2
Also have the standard equations of F=ma (force =mass x acceleration)
and energy = force x distance
If fired at the start of a drop the five meters takes a lot longer than
if fired towards the end of a 60m drop. This is because the falling
body is already going faster. Yet, with energy = force x distance, the
lower down you are when the rocket is ignited, the less powder you need because the 5m drop doesn't take as long, hence you need less and less
for the same energy (force x distance) so it becomes more and more magic.
Calculated added energy is force x distance.
Obviously the added energy is related to the burn time.
What is taught is clearly not right, since the energy added is more like force x time. (amount of powder burnt). Or maybe I'm completely wrong
and and misreading my data book which says
FORCE= MLT^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
ENERGY = ML^2T^-2 (dimensions of MASS*LENGTH*LENGTH/(TIME*TIME))
On 23 52, Dave wrote:
On 23 47, Dave wrote:There are free accelerometer recorder smartphone apps, which work.
On 23 57, Jim Pennino wrote:Might be easier just to write a smartphone app, use the accelerometer,
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 23 37, Jim Pennino wrote:Once more, the rest of the world has found no issues with Newton's laws >>>> of motion in over 300 years.
In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:Can't attack the argument, go for the person, like a bad soccer player. >>>>
Absurdity of taught mechanics when firing rockets down - evidence of >>>>>>> magic powder.
Absurd perhaps to a marginally educated crackpot that doesn't
understand
things like analytical geometry, slopes, and basic calculus, but the >>>>>> rest of the world has found no issues* with Newton's laws of motion in >>>>>> over 300 years.
If you ever perform an actual experiment, that is something real with >>>>>> actual measurements, that shows Newton's laws of motion are incorrect, >>>>>> you can start planning on how you will spend your Nobel Prize money. >>>>>>
Real experiments that gathered real data have been regularly performed >>>> in physics classes across the entire planet for over 300 years and no
one has found any problems yet.
How many real experiments have you actually performed and where is the >>>> data?
Spending too much money on a pipe dream is crazy. OK on hobby budget
e.g. USD 400/month, or USD 4000/month for others.
The airtrack experiments have been showing inconsistencies for years,
but all that's said is that kinetic energy is lost in collision. What
I could do is have a 4m vacuum drop tube in my house without
structural alteration. Need to see what I can get with expected 1/1000
of a second timer accuracy and 2mm measurement accuracy. Over 25 years
ago 8 bit micros had no problems with 1/10000 of a second reaction
time due to no operating system overhead. Basically light beam time
from 0m, 1m, 2m, 3m. Then with fast spinning items, to see if there is
any change, which would be an interesting find.
and drop onto something soft. (say 4m drop for the timing). 0.1s
accuracy expected.
If faster than standard acceleration (9.8m/s^2) even in air, then
something is amiss.
What I do need revision on is the equations for motion where the
"acceleration" is directly proportional to the distance.
Still need formulas worked out for:
distance as a function of time
speed as a function of time.
speed as a function of distance is like: v= ks, where k is the constant
acceleration per meter of drop (about 2) and s is the distance.
Already used one in my "suspicious" apps tablet, which I used for apps
which need access to shared storage etc.
Need to buy a new phone, because I'm not about to drop my regular mobile
4m, even onto soft surfaces. Need put into a nose cone with fins, after checking if anything can be found in a drop as short as 4m. (Can be
easily laser measured to 5mm).
There are reasons why Newtonian physics may be taught, to create clockworkers. However these reasons don't wash any more, the
educationalist science (women led) has identified the ticker tape
trolley experiment as a key point in disengagement from education, and
as a qualified and paid up Chartered Physicist I'm saying that it is
likely bad science which is being taught, which needs careful
consideration as to whether better models for kinetic energy and gravity exist to avoid waste of human capital post BREXIT.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 168:20:03 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,545 |