XPost: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics

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).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics

In sci.physics Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

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.

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.

However not sure yet if there is the accuracy available to tell the difference.

Accuracy of what?

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.

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?

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.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2.

So far the only thing you have said that makes any sense.

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.

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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics

On 23 30, Jim Pennino wrote:

In sci.physics Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2.

So far the only thing you have said that makes any sense.

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. >

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.

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.



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics

In sci.physics Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

On 23 30, Jim Pennino wrote:

In sci.physics Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Kinetic Energy = 0.5mv^2.

So far the only thing you have said that makes any sense.

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. >

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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics

On 23 03, Dave wrote:

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.

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).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics

On 05-Jan-23 4:04 am, Dave wrote:

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.sci.physics, sci.physics

On 1/4/2023 7:13 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 05-Jan-23 4:04 am, Dave wrote:

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)