0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Trust is clearly understood by NASA to be energy. I will just repeat the point you evaded "So 2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules of thrust?"

The weight or force of 1 kg due to gravity on the surface of the earth is about 10 Newtons.

10 Newtons is 10 3d0115ca1ccaac9138b871d44df3d27a.gif1 Joule is 1 dcc41cf5e8f8482e5511dd88aa31ef63.gifPlease not that: 10 3d0115ca1ccaac9138b871d44df3d27a.gif does not equal 1

I think you are either trolling or a "lost ball in high weeds".

edited for a silly mistake.

No. A 100 gm object that is not moving has no velocity.

Nope. It will be accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 but the velocity after falling 1 meter will not be 9.8 m/s, it will be moving at about 4.5 m/s

Doesn't change the fact that the treatment is brutally unfair... Why solicit people with new theories to post if they aren't going to be allowed to defend the post?

So a unit of momentum would be 1/2 a joule

You have said "2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules" a couple of times. What are you talking about? Maybe if we hash that out we could find the source of your misunderstanding.

You started out saying that standard science is "silly nonsense" and "nonscience".

Maybe if you didn't come in here with a chip on your shoulder you wouldn't get this type of response?

Oh for crying out loud now momentum is in the units of joules too?!?

I don't see how this conversation can go any where else but continue on a death spiral...

you have still produced no physical experimental evidence in defense of your 350 year old religious idea

No That is gibberish.

a newton is 1/10 of a joule

I don't think I was aggressively rude and making any of my arguments against kinetic energy.

The simple truth is the kinetic energy formula can't be defended as good science because there is NO good physical experimental evidence proving its predictions.

So a unit of momentum would be 1/2 a joule.

you have still produced no physical experimental evidence in defense of your 350 year old religious ideaYes I have.Designs work.

a newton is 1/10 of a jouleis just as stupid, and for the same reason.You need to recognise that.

You have not actually made any arguments against it.You just made mistakes.

This is probably the best known data on the subject

You do realize that you are saying that: 2dd18161f150ebc922465b14757eda51.gif, which is impossible?

It is difficult to discuss physics with you when you seem to not even understand the absolute basics.

Experimental evidence is a Cornerstone of good science

Doing it your way let's look at the math

Your data also does not show the 4x prediction of your mathematics. far short in fact.

The other moderators and I were just having a conversation about what constitutes a reason for locking threads. One of things that we hit on was that repetition of something that is firmly known to be false despite continual correction could be grounds for locking a thread.

I invite the mods to consider including that herehttps://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0#lastPostwith a view to curtailing this sort of nonsense more readily in future.(Though it could be regarded as part of section 4 "4.Keep it science").

The other moderators and I were just having a conversation about what constitutes a reason for locking threads. One of things that we hit on was that repetition of something that is firmly known to be false despite continual correction could be grounds for locking a thread. For that reason, I am going to advise you to:

(1) Stop saying that force is energy

A stick of dynamite contains energy even if there is no force acting on it.

(2) Stop saying that energy is momentum (when you claimed momentum is the only energy there ever was or ever will be).

A stick of dynamite contains energy even if it’s sitting still (and therefore has no momentum).

If you do not cease with this, I am going to lock the thread to stop the spam.

If you want me to demonstrate that the standard kinetic energy equation is correct, then I will do so.

if an elevator goes up 1 floor....

So we can conclude that it takes twice as much energy for the elevator to be raised against gravity when moving twice the distance.

In order for energy to be conserved, the inverse must also be true. An object that falls twice the distance gains twice the kinetic energy.

(1) The amount of kinetic energy gained by an object when it falls is linearly proportional to the distance that it falls.

Now we move on to acceleration due to gravity. When an object is released in a gravitational field with a force of 1G, that mass will accelerate at a rate of 9.81 meters per second per second (which is something that I hope you do not dispute, since this actually has been measured).

So how much faster is the object going after falling twice as far? That would be 6.2641839/4.42945 = 1.4141966 times faster. Despite falling twice as far (and therefore gaining twice as much kinetic energy, as per “point number 1”), the object has not gained twice the speed, but less than twice the speed instead. This leads to point number 2:

(2) Doubling an object’s kinetic energy results in only about a 1.4142-fold increase in speed.

Since 2 divided by 1.4142 is equal to 1.4142, we see that the standard kinetic energy equation matches what was stated in point number 2. So there you have it, a step-by-step explanation for how we know that the kinetic energy equation is correct. So we can now come to one of three conclusions:(1) Point number 1 is wrong (that energy isn’t gained linearly with distance fallen),(2) Point number 2 is wrong (which in turn either means that Torricelli’s equation for acceleration is wrong or that I have done a miscalculation), or(3) The kinetic energy equation is correct.So which is it?

The fact that science works is experimental evidence.

You have provided none.Whenever I point this out you repeat the lie that I have not given any evidence.

Doing it your way let's look at the mathThat's not doing it my way; it's doing it wrong.

Your data also does not show the 4x prediction of your mathematics. far short in fact.The data shows it's a quadratic.That's enough to show that you are wrong.

The other moderators and I were just having a conversation about what constitutes a reason for locking threads. One of things that we hit on was that repetition of something that is firmly known to be false despite continual correction could be grounds for locking a thread.I invite the mods to consider including that herehttps://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0#lastPostwith a view to curtailing this sort of nonsense more readily in future.(Though it could be regarded as part of section 4 "4.Keep it science").

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 23:35:46 I invite the mods to consider including that here https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0#lastPost with a view to curtailing this sort of nonsense more readily in future. (Though it could be regarded as part of section 4 "4.Keep it science").In the terms a new user agrees to at registration there is a clause that says “you will not post any material which is false, ......., inaccurate..........”.Obviously, there is some leeway to allow a new theorist to state their case, but we are considering our response to blatant misinformation, whether deliberate or due to ignorance.

So you are saying that you are not going to comply. That's strike 2. 3 strikes and you're out. I'm giving you one more chance to fix that problem.