Cassandra physics has the right gravity

[Jim Pennino]

It has recently come to my attention that speed
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)

v = at no matter how much you babble.

Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".

Gravitational acceleration is a constant period. Of course assuming
distances that are not a significant fraction of the planet in size.

Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.

Gibberish.

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.

Not that you would ever know given your utter lack of understanding of
math.

[Dave]

Post by Jim Pennino

It has recently come to my attention that speed
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)

v = at no matter how much you babble.

Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".

Gravitational acceleration is a constant period. Of course assuming
distances that are not a significant fraction of the planet in size.

Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.

Gibberish.

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.

Not that you would ever know given your utter lack of understanding of
math.

I'm expecting that what I'm calling Cassandra physics is a correct
interpretation of general relativity for schoolchildren and the public.

Can't blow the great man with the bad hair away yet.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino

It has recently come to my attention that speed
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)

v = at no matter how much you babble.

Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".

Gravitational acceleration is a constant period. Of course assuming
distances that are not a significant fraction of the planet in size.

Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.

Gibberish.

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.

Not that you would ever know given your utter lack of understanding of
math.

I'm expecting that what I'm calling Cassandra physics is a correct
interpretation of general relativity for schoolchildren and the public.

Utter nonsense.

All relativistic relationship include c.

[Jim Pennino]

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.

If you think about it: work in is directly proportional to
height, so why shouldn't the kinetic energy on the way down.
(kinetic energy being proportional to velocity, not velocity
squared).
Is there a miscount of matter somewhere?
Like missing dark stuff that no-one can find.
Can corrected physics explain it?

Everyone that completed high school physics and math can find all the
things for which you are utterly clueless.

[Dave]

Post by Jim Pennino

It has recently come to my attention that speed
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)

v = at no matter how much you babble.

Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".

Gravitational acceleration is a constant period. Of course assuming
distances that are not a significant fraction of the planet in size.

Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.

Gibberish.

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.

Not that you would ever know given your utter lack of understanding of
math.

Most of the clarity came listening to this

(Led Zeppelin Achilles Last Stand)
on repeat for an least an hour.
Ned's Atomic Dustbin also gets credit + some others.

As an ex Cold War Boffin, what kept everyone going was rock and more of
it. China knows this know, with its home grown Indie scene.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino

It has recently come to my attention that speed
increase due to gravity is constant per distance fallen,
not per unit time. (unreviewed - hot off my head)

v = at no matter how much you babble.

Cassandra says: "Gravitational acceleration is constant
per unit distance, not time".

Gravitational acceleration is a constant period. Of course assuming
distances that are not a significant fraction of the planet in size.

Suitably geeky so if you don't know any physics you haven't
a clue of the many and various implications.

Gibberish.

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.

Not that you would ever know given your utter lack of understanding of
math.

Most of the clarity came listening to this
http://youtu.be/YWOuzYvksRw (Led Zeppelin Achilles Last Stand)
on repeat for an least an hour.
Ned's Atomic Dustbin also gets credit + some others.
As an ex Cold War Boffin, what kept everyone going was rock and more of
it. China knows this know, with its home grown Indie scene.

Yeah, right, everyone knows that great insight into math and physics can
be had by listening to old rock music, particularly when doing several
doobies.

[Jim Pennino]

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.

That is because you have absolutely no insight into the equations
involved or how to apply them.

If you were to apply an impulse (look it up) to the ball that gives the
ball an initial velocity such that it rises too 100 m, stops and then
falls back to the ground, then plotted all the variables involved, you
(well, maybe not you, but someone with an education) would find that
going up and down are essentially mirrors of each other.

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.

Here we have your typical crackpot blaming his lack of understanding of
math and physics on some global conspiracy.

Nice that you bought a real physics book, but you also have to read and
understand it.

To do that you also need some books on math.

[Dave]

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.
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.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.

Post by Dave
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>

[Dave]

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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. There is a hint in
Wikipedia, but it is such a shocking truth that is difficult to take on
board. Decisions are made by society, and to keep your job etc, you need
to agree. With a steady pension, I have a luxury. I am making no
judgement on you as a person, I just want you to explain the rocket sled.

Sums:
20kg weight,
5m/s increase
f=ma
same rocket burn
energy is 0.5*m*v^2
same energy to increase by 5m/s

Initial speed final speed initial KE(J) final KE (J)
0 5 0 250 (0.5*20*5*5)
20 25 4000 6250 (0.5*20*25*25)
1000 1005 10,000,000 10,100,250 (0.5*20*1005*1005)

Anyone who says there is free energy with the conventional physics
presented (relativity only kicks in when super fast), I suggest gets
medical leave.

I am not on the side of the nonsense of free energy, as demonstrated by
the math. If you believe in the KE as shown, I suggest you make a free
energy boiler and get very, very rich.

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave
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>

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.

Utter, babbling nonsense.

The laws of physics don't magically change and these facts are checked
on a daily basis by implication every time anything based on these facts
works, such as every time a rocket launches, among many, many other
things.

This is so stupid there is no point in reading any further.

<snip remaining unread>

[Joe]

On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 21:17:59 +0000

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino
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.

Actually, I did, along with many thousands of other children about half
a century ago. It was then a standard school physics experiment, though
it's probably considered too dangerous today.

Suspend a ferromagnetic weight from an electromagnet, Start an electric
clock when you de-energise the magnet. Stop the clock when the weight
hits a switch some distance below (it would be done with optical or
Hall effect sensors today). We used a Morse key as the control, as
prescribed, but a more consistent result was achieved by
interposing a changeover relay.

Do this over a range of heights. Produce a graph which fits the data
points (trivial with a spreadsheet, a bit harder using logarithms).
Newton is vindicated.

[Dave]

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.

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.
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.

[Dave]

Post by Dave

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.

Post by Dave
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.

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.
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.

[Dave]

Post by Dave

Post by Dave

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).

For clarity, that will be in a vacuum tube.

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.

Post by Dave
All I got to do was drop steel balls in different cylinders of fluids
with varying viscosity, on a bench.

Post by Dave
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.

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.
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.

[Dave]

Post by Dave

Post by Dave

Post by Dave

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).

For clarity, that will be in a vacuum tube.

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.

Post by Dave
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.

Post by Dave

Post by Dave
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.

It has recently come to my attention that speed
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.
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.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave
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.

[Dave]

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave
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?
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.

Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
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.

[Dave]

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave
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?
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.

Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
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.

Copyright release on the below in exact and equivalent:
(and rights and patents) all public domain - attribution annon.:

Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
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

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave
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?
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.

Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
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.

Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
works out. (final kinetic energy, same added energy)

It is all explained by equations of motion and I am not going to type
them in again.

You can read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion#Uniform_acceleration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Newtonian_kinetic_energy

I might make one suggestion for you; instead of just generating tables
of numbers, plot those numbers.

[Dave]

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave
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?
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.

Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
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.

Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
works out. (final kinetic energy, same added energy)

It is all explained by equations of motion and I am not going to type
them in again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion#Uniform_acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Newtonian_kinetic_energy
I might make one suggestion for you; instead of just generating tables
of numbers, plot those numbers.

That is a sensible suggestion. Gets a better handle on the scale of the
discrepancy. Also coming to mind are the old 16 inch naval guns which
had a spin engine for the shells. The story is that spinning makes them
more stable in flight, but did they go further as well?

[Jim Pennino]

<snip old crap>

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino
It is all explained by equations of motion and I am not going to type
them in again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion#Uniform_acceleration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Newtonian_kinetic_energy
I might make one suggestion for you; instead of just generating tables
of numbers, plot those numbers.

That is a sensible suggestion. Gets a better handle on the scale of the
discrepancy.

There is no discrepancy other than in your mind.

Post by Dave
Also coming to mind are the old 16 inch naval guns which
had a spin engine for the shells.

No such thing.

Post by Dave
The story is that spinning makes them
more stable in flight, but did they go further as well?

Of course spinning a ballistic object makes it more stable, something
the rest of the world has known for about 500 years and it is achieved
by rifling a gun's barrel.

You are just chock full of silly nonsense.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

Post by Jim Pennino

Post by Dave
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?
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.

Can you please explain me then how the rocket sled thought experiment
works out. (final kinetic energy, same added energy)

I already did several times.

You do not have sufficient understanding of analytic geometry and
algebra to be able to understand what is happening nor do you understand
the general equations of motion.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave
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).

Most people did it in high school.

There is nothing magical about any particular height.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

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.

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

Do a REAL experiment, not one based entirely on your ignorant thoughts.

<snip remaining babbling nonsense>