Discussion:
Is a vacuum needed for checking speed increase due to gravity?
(too old to reply)
Dave
2023-01-04 17:04:03 UTC
Permalink
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.

Checked the price of 60m of 250mm diameter, 5mm clear polycarbonate
tube, and it is about GBP 20,000. A bit beyond a hobby budget, but OK
for a regional science centre or university.

The next best thing might be a steamlined body. Dropping this would get
you an exact time of start and finish, and be filmable for confirmation.

However not sure yet if there is the accuracy available to tell the
difference. The good news is that it is in within many people's
entertainment discretionary spending limits. Say USD 300 for the item,
and about USD 60 for each drop, which may be destructive of parts.

I would say don't go for crowd funding on this, likely get the money,
but then reluctance, prevarication, and total apathy from anyone you are
paying to do any work. (riggers, planners etc.)

Since this is also posted to alt.conspiracy, the new angle here is that
the Americans went to the moon, but the rockets etc they used to go and
come back don't compute with generally accepted classical physics.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2.

My working hypothesis is that kinetic energy is proportional to v.
There are many and various implications from this including how gravity
works, and also then general relativity and possibly rotational inertia
(which is needed for flying saucers).

From a rocket sled thought experiment it is clear the generally
accepted classical physics is inconsistent. (There is free energy
generated).
Jim Pennino
2023-01-04 17:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.
Only by you.

For the rest of the world the question was settled hundreds of years
ago.
Post by Dave
Checked the price of 60m of 250mm diameter, 5mm clear polycarbonate
tube, and it is about GBP 20,000. A bit beyond a hobby budget, but OK
for a regional science centre or university.
Any science centre or university already knows that answer and has no
motivation to do this other than for an educational display.
Post by Dave
The next best thing might be a steamlined body. Dropping this would get
you an exact time of start and finish, and be filmable for confirmation.
Streamlining has nothing to do with timing or filming.
Post by Dave
However not sure yet if there is the accuracy available to tell the
difference.
Accuracy of what?
Post by Dave
The good news is that it is in within many people's
entertainment discretionary spending limits. Say USD 300 for the item,
and about USD 60 for each drop, which may be destructive of parts.
Or a box of assorted fishing weights for $12.
Post by Dave
I would say don't go for crowd funding on this, likely get the money,
but then reluctance, prevarication, and total apathy from anyone you are
paying to do any work. (riggers, planners etc.)
Do you need crowd funding to afford $12?
Post by Dave
Since this is also posted to alt.conspiracy, the new angle here is that
the Americans went to the moon, but the rockets etc they used to go and
come back don't compute with generally accepted classical physics.
The Apollo 15 mission also dropped a hammer and a feather on the Moon on
live TV broadcast to the entire planet.
Post by Dave
Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2.
So far the only thing you have said that makes any sense.
Post by Dave
My working hypothesis is that kinetic energy is proportional to v.
The is because you are an uneducated twatt waffle when it comes to
science and math.
Post by Dave
There are many and various implications from this including how gravity
works, and also then general relativity and possibly rotational inertia
(which is needed for flying saucers).
Actually the only implication from this is that you are a crackot.
Post by Dave
From a rocket sled thought experiment it is clear the generally
accepted classical physics is inconsistent. (There is free energy
generated).
Also implicates that you are a crackpot.

Thought experiments don't generate testable data.
Dave
2023-01-04 18:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.
Only by you.
For the rest of the world the question was settled hundreds of years
ago.
The same hundreds of years ago they bled people to balance the humours.
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
Checked the price of 60m of 250mm diameter, 5mm clear polycarbonate
tube, and it is about GBP 20,000. A bit beyond a hobby budget, but OK
for a regional science centre or university.
Any science centre or university already knows that answer and has no
motivation to do this other than for an educational display.
Yes, I would pay like USD 25.00 to see a good drop and film it, for
confirmation either way. Education has value.
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
The next best thing might be a steamlined body. Dropping this would get
you an exact time of start and finish, and be filmable for confirmation.
Streamlining has nothing to do with timing or filming.
It has everything to do with timing and the way to can interpret
results, due to terminal velocity.

Height is easy to measure now with laser measures. Start from various
heights and get a timing profile. Not sure if you need profiles during a
descent.
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
However not sure yet if there is the accuracy available to tell the
difference.
Accuracy of what?
Accuracy of timing, and a decision as to whether the speed does up with
the time of the drop, or the distance dropped.
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
The good news is that it is in within many people's
entertainment discretionary spending limits. Say USD 300 for the item,
and about USD 60 for each drop, which may be destructive of parts.
Or a box of assorted fishing weights for $12.
Good starting point, hope they are environmentally safe (not lead).
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
I would say don't go for crowd funding on this, likely get the money,
but then reluctance, prevarication, and total apathy from anyone you are
paying to do any work. (riggers, planners etc.)
Do you need crowd funding to afford $12?
Raise USD 100,000, don't spend it properly and deliver the goods (either
way) you get prosecuted for fraud.
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
Since this is also posted to alt.conspiracy, the new angle here is that
the Americans went to the moon, but the rockets etc they used to go and
come back don't compute with generally accepted classical physics.
The Apollo 15 mission also dropped a hammer and a feather on the Moon on
live TV broadcast to the entire planet.
Exactly, they are people still spreading unlikely stories, like that it
was all sent from the moon in high def, filmed from a screen in NASA and
rebroadcast on 405 line TV. Someone is trying to keep the conspiracy
going.
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2.
So far the only thing you have said that makes any sense.
Post by Dave
My working hypothesis is that kinetic energy is proportional to v.
The is because you are an uneducated twatt waffle when it comes to
science and math. >
Post by Dave
There are many and various implications from this including how gravity
works, and also then general relativity and possibly rotational inertia
(which is needed for flying saucers).
Actually the only implication from this is that you are a crackot.
Spending USD 100,000 on a vacuum drop unless you're wealthy isn't
desirable behaviour. USD 500 for some fun is OK, better than betting.
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
From a rocket sled thought experiment it is clear the generally
accepted classical physics is inconsistent. (There is free energy
generated).
Also implicates that you are a crackpot.
Thought experiments don't generate testable data.
The results shouldn't show free energy, but exact results.
Jim Pennino
2023-01-04 19:13:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.
Only by you.
For the rest of the world the question was settled hundreds of years
ago.
The same hundreds of years ago they bled people to balance the humours.
A practice that stopped well over a hundred years ago.

There is also a very big difference between making observations on the
laws of physics and experimenting with humans to see what happens, i.e.
that latter is very highly restricted.
Post by Dave
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
Checked the price of 60m of 250mm diameter, 5mm clear polycarbonate
tube, and it is about GBP 20,000. A bit beyond a hobby budget, but OK
for a regional science centre or university.
Any science centre or university already knows that answer and has no
motivation to do this other than for an educational display.
Yes, I would pay like USD 25.00 to see a good drop and film it, for
confirmation either way. Education has value.
Or you could pay nothing and just watch the video from the Apollo
mission.
Post by Dave
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
The next best thing might be a steamlined body. Dropping this would get
you an exact time of start and finish, and be filmable for confirmation.
Streamlining has nothing to do with timing or filming.
It has everything to do with timing and the way to can interpret
results, due to terminal velocity.
Nope, wrong once again because of your poor math skills.
Post by Dave
Height is easy to measure now with laser measures. Start from various
heights and get a timing profile. Not sure if you need profiles during a
descent.
Height is easy to measure with a tape measure and as there are no
magical distances over which the laws of physics change, it does not
take very much height to do a good experiment over short distances.

A trivially doable experiment would be to drop various lead weights from
a 3 M pole and verify they all hit the ground at 7.7 m/s.
Post by Dave
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
However not sure yet if there is the accuracy available to tell the
difference.
Accuracy of what?
Accuracy of timing, and a decision as to whether the speed does up with
the time of the drop, or the distance dropped.
Utter nonsense because you have no understanding of math or physics.

It goes up with both, muppet.
Post by Dave
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
The good news is that it is in within many people's
entertainment discretionary spending limits. Say USD 300 for the item,
and about USD 60 for each drop, which may be destructive of parts.
Or a box of assorted fishing weights for $12.
Good starting point, hope they are environmentally safe (not lead).
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
I would say don't go for crowd funding on this, likely get the money,
but then reluctance, prevarication, and total apathy from anyone you are
paying to do any work. (riggers, planners etc.)
Do you need crowd funding to afford $12?
Raise USD 100,000, don't spend it properly and deliver the goods (either
way) you get prosecuted for fraud.
And ice cream has no bones, muppet.
Post by Dave
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
Since this is also posted to alt.conspiracy, the new angle here is that
the Americans went to the moon, but the rockets etc they used to go and
come back don't compute with generally accepted classical physics.
The Apollo 15 mission also dropped a hammer and a feather on the Moon on
live TV broadcast to the entire planet.
Exactly, they are people still spreading unlikely stories, like that it
was all sent from the moon in high def, filmed from a screen in NASA and
rebroadcast on 405 line TV. Someone is trying to keep the conspiracy
going.
Only crackpots believe in massive conspiracies.
Post by Dave
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2.
So far the only thing you have said that makes any sense.
Post by Dave
My working hypothesis is that kinetic energy is proportional to v.
The is because you are an uneducated twatt waffle when it comes to
science and math. >
Post by Dave
There are many and various implications from this including how gravity
works, and also then general relativity and possibly rotational inertia
(which is needed for flying saucers).
Actually the only implication from this is that you are a crackot.
Spending USD 100,000 on a vacuum drop unless you're wealthy isn't
desirable behaviour. USD 500 for some fun is OK, better than betting.
Your obsession with a vacuum just further confirms your utter lack of
understanding of the math involved.
Post by Dave
Post by Jim Pennino
Post by Dave
From a rocket sled thought experiment it is clear the generally
accepted classical physics is inconsistent. (There is free energy
generated).
Also implicates that you are a crackpot.
Thought experiments don't generate testable data.
The results shouldn't show free energy, but exact results.
Crackpot babble.
Dave
2023-01-04 22:17:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.
In my thinking there's enough evidence to say "The facts will be
presented to the court."

i.e. not a record of the fact, but
1- an air track with collisions (hard and soft) and kinetic energy
lifting a weight stack. Who says a courtroom is stuffy?
2- a day out with drops measured by stopwatch- no possibility for
fiddling. Hopefully in a vacuum tube. Different items, no possibility
for secret fast spinning to change anything.
Post by Dave
Checked the price of 60m of 250mm diameter, 5mm clear polycarbonate
tube, and it is about GBP 20,000.  A bit beyond a hobby budget, but OK
for a regional science centre or university.
The next best thing might be a steamlined body.  Dropping this would get
you an exact time of start and finish, and be filmable for confirmation.
However not sure yet if there is the accuracy available to tell the
difference.  The good news is that it is in within many people's
entertainment discretionary spending limits.  Say USD 300 for the item,
and about USD 60 for each drop, which may be destructive of parts.
I would say don't go for crowd funding on this, likely get the money,
but then reluctance, prevarication, and total apathy from anyone you are
paying to do any work. (riggers, planners etc.)
Since this is also posted to alt.conspiracy, the new angle here is that
the Americans went to the moon, but the rockets etc they used to go and
come back don't compute with generally accepted classical physics.
Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2.
My working hypothesis is that kinetic energy is proportional to v. There
are many and various implications from this including how gravity works,
and also then general relativity and possibly rotational inertia (which
is needed for flying saucers).
From a rocket sled thought experiment it is clear the generally
accepted classical physics is inconsistent.  (There is free energy
generated).
Jim Pennino
2023-01-04 23:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.
In my thinking there's enough evidence to say "The facts will be
presented to the court."
i.e. not a record of the fact, but
1- an air track with collisions (hard and soft) and kinetic energy
lifting a weight stack. Who says a courtroom is stuffy?
You have no clue what collisions entail or how one would derive anything
from them.
Post by Dave
2- a day out with drops measured by stopwatch- no possibility for
fiddling. Hopefully in a vacuum tube. Different items, no possibility
for secret fast spinning to change anything.
Actually a chronograph at the end of the fall would be far more
accurate.

This is the babbling of a crackpot.

<snip old crap>
Jim Pennino
2023-01-04 23:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.
No, there is not.

Read:

https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics/motion/equations-of-motion/

and learn how the derivation of the equations of motion is done using
the algebraic method, the graphical method, and the calculus method.

No vacuum chambers or precision timers required, just the basic
assumptions that distances are meters, acceleration is constant and in
units of m/s^2 and time is in seconds.
Sylvia Else
2023-01-05 01:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.
Each metre descended gives the same loss of potential energy, and the
same corresponding increase in kinetic energy. But since kinetic energy
goes up with the square of the velocity, the latter does not increase at
a constant rate per metre descended. So m/s per metre descended is a
useless measure.

Sylvia.
Jim Pennino
2023-01-05 01:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2, or
m/s per meter descended.
Each metre descended gives the same loss of potential energy, and the
same corresponding increase in kinetic energy. But since kinetic energy
goes up with the square of the velocity, the latter does not increase at
a constant rate per metre descended. So m/s per metre descended is a
useless measure.
Sylvia.
As has been this entire conversation.

Crackpots are uneducatable.
whodat
2023-01-05 06:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Dave
There is doubt about whether gravity speed increase should be m/s^2,
or m/s per meter descended.
Each metre descended gives the same loss of potential energy, and the
same corresponding increase in kinetic energy. But since kinetic energy
goes up with the square of the velocity, the latter does not increase at
a constant rate per metre descended. So m/s per metre descended is a
useless measure.
Sylvia.
It warms my heart to see this expressed here. Thanks.

Loading...