Home | Community | Message Board


Vaposhop
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Original Seeds Store Shop: buy cannabis seeds, Buy CBD

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,123
Loc: my room
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Huston, we have a problem.
    #1463743 - 04/16/03 02:18 PM (14 years, 7 months ago)

Read and post your thoughts:
http://nov55.com/ener.html


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblematts
matts

Registered: 01/28/02
Posts: 3,649
[Re: Anno]
    #1463791 - 04/16/03 02:46 PM (14 years, 7 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,123
Loc: my room
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Huston, we have a problem. [Re: matts]
    #1463822 - 04/16/03 02:58 PM (14 years, 7 months ago)

If what this guy is writing is correct, no wonder that Columbia crashed.....


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineExtravagantDream
Beacon in theDarkness
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/02
Posts: 1,271
Loc: Somewhere in the Local Su...
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Houston, we have a problem* [Re: Anno]
    #1464126 - 04/16/03 04:46 PM (14 years, 7 months ago)

I think the guy is an idiot. Although he has some pretty cool proofs he falters in his first statement.

"Part One: Neither force x distance nor ?mv? is kinentic energy.

A 4kg object dropped 1m (meter) has the same amount of ?mv? as a 1kg object dropped 4m, because force times distance equals ?mv? for an accelerating mass. But a rocket accelerating the masses to those velocities requires twice as much energy as fuel for the large mass as for the small one.*

Therefore, both masses do not have the same energy; the rocket does not transform energy in proportion to ?mv?; ?mv? is not kinetic energy; and a gallon of fuel does not produce a consistent amount of ?mv?."

Two different masses should NOT have the same energy when moving at the same velocity. And he states that the larger one requires twice as much as the smaller one (m1 = 4kg-large, m2 = 1kg - small). This is false as well, as according to both ?mv? and Fd the energy required will be 4 times as much. Even to his definition of mv (momentum) being kenetic energy, it should take 4 times as much energy.

?m1v? = ?m2v? X 4
since ?v? is constant;
m1 = 4m2 => 4=4(1)

Fd = mad
m1ad = m2ad X 4
since acceleration and the distance covered in that acceleration is equal;
m1 = 4m2 => 4=4(1)

p = mv
m1v = m2v X 4
since he explicitly states that v is equal
m1 = 4m2 => 4=4(1)

In all three examples it should take 4 times as much energy to accelerate a large* mass than a small* mass. Where the large mass was previously defined as 4 times the small one.

I also recall him saying that the potential energy will not equal the kinetic energy by relating a falling object to one that is accelerating upwards.

Ug=gmx, where g is the acceleration of earth, m the mass of the object, and x the distance that it can fall.

This should equal the the kinetic energy it achieves just before hitting the ground if it did fall: ?mv?, where m is the mass of the object and v is the final velocity of the object just before hitting the ground.

These can be related by th equation V? = Vo? + 2a(X-Xo). I will not prove this since it is a simple calculus precedure from the known assumption of V=at. We shall have the initial position and velocity as zero just for simplicity. so that V? = 2aX.

?mv? = mgx ?
Since the mass will not change in this situation we will omit it.
?v? = gx ?
?(2aX) = gx ?
ax=gx, since the acceleration is g (gravity) in this situation.

He* then goes on to "prove" a crap load of other stuff that I really just skimmed through. Although he seems to be fairly accurate it what he is doing, he is essentialy trying to disprove that ?mv? isn't kinetic energy by proving that mv correlates to correct fuel amounds when talking about power.

Note: He* is an assumtion of the name "Gary."

Seems like there are a bunch of faulty assumption and implications that are proven only by the implication itself. Almost like defining a word with the word itself.

There is actually alot I agree with but some of the sets I find to be argumentative. Very interesting nonetheless, but I highly doubt no physics would have noticed it before if it was so incorrect. Maybe when I have some time to investigate I will prove the bastard, myself of "Gary," wrong.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 10 months, 13 days
Re: Huston, we have a problem. [Re: Anno]
    #1464824 - 04/16/03 08:05 PM (14 years, 7 months ago)

Is he subtracting out the mass of the fuel that has been burned? I haven't read it very closely, but it seems that he assumes that the mass of the rocket is constant even though fuel is being burned?


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineExtravagantDream
Beacon in theDarkness
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/02
Posts: 1,271
Loc: Somewhere in the Local Su...
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Huston, we have a problem. [Re: Seuss]
    #1464900 - 04/16/03 08:39 PM (14 years, 7 months ago)

In the first instance he is just talking about a constant mass being pushed by a force. Later on he briefly gets into a simple variable mass problem.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,534
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
Re: Huston, we have a problem. [Re: ExtravagantDream]
    #1466535 - 04/17/03 09:57 AM (14 years, 7 months ago)

What's really funny is that this stuff is just first year physics.

If it didn't work, I don't think we'd be using orbital slingshotting to get spacecraft to remote parts of the solar system the way it's actually done. Think about the incredible accuracy and precision required to do what was done with Voyager 2 (20+ years ago!) to swing by Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune and use small engine burns at each encounter to modify the orbit just so. If current accepted physics didn't work, that wouldn't have happened. This is stuff that NASA and JPL do all the time these days.

If he's right, then he should be able to propose and perform an actual, reproducible experiment that would verify his explanation at the expense of the old way. When he does that I'll pay more attention to his stuff.


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,123
Loc: my room
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Huston, we have a problem. [Re: ToxicMan]
    #1466667 - 04/17/03 10:47 AM (14 years, 7 months ago)

I have an answer from you from this guy?s standpoint:

How can you be so sure Voyager 2 and the whole space program isn?t a hoax?
Cause his calculation deliver the PROOF that it must be ...  :wink: 


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAnnoA
Experimenter
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 06/18/99
Posts: 24,123
Loc: my room
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Huston, we have a problem. [Re: ToxicMan]
    #1466677 - 04/17/03 10:51 AM (14 years, 7 months ago)

Btw, did you see his stuff on mushrooms?
Is this the same class as his physics?

http://nov55.com/mr/index.html


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineToxicManM
Bite me, it's fun!
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/28/02
Posts: 6,534
Loc: Aurora, Colorado
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
Re: Huston, we have a problem. [Re: Anno]
    #1466793 - 04/17/03 11:41 AM (14 years, 7 months ago)

Any time somebody starts off with the idea that current, accepted science is fraud you can be pretty sure you don't need to waste your time.

His mushroom stuff is better than his physics. It reads like he's actually studied them in the lab. I think he's trying to conclude that morels are evolved from yeasts and only since the last ice age. Since Dr. Nancy Weber is the authority on morels (and ascomycetes in general) and she's currently involved in genetic studies of their relationships I'll wait to see what she publishes. From what she was saying I think we should see within a couple years. Too bad I didn't see this stuff before I went to a lecture by her last October. It would have been fun to print it off and ask her opinion of it.


--------------------
Happy mushrooming!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineExtravagantDream
Beacon in theDarkness
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/24/02
Posts: 1,271
Loc: Somewhere in the Local Su...
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Houston, we have a problem.* [Re: ToxicMan]
    #1467029 - 04/17/03 01:29 PM (14 years, 7 months ago)

Maybe his problem in physics lies in not clearly understanding quantum physics. He seems to have done alot of calculation on the basis of classic, where some discrepencies may be acounted for.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 10 months, 13 days
Re: Huston, we have a problem. [Re: Anno]
    #1476334 - 04/20/03 01:20 PM (14 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Btw, did you see his stuff on mushrooms?
Is this the same class as his physics?




I quit reading after I saw the following:

Quote:

A growing procedure for morels... [snip] It involves growing sclerotia (underground spore mass) under sterile conditions and using it as nutrients.




Nothing like using underground spore masses for nutrients.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Original Seeds Store Shop: buy cannabis seeds, Buy CBD

General Interest >> Science and Technology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Extra ENERGY in 9/11 buildings: Tell the Teacher
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Visionary Tools 3,775 63 10/05/09 12:34 AM
by Diploid
* Physics Help Viki 678 7 09/03/04 08:42 PM
by deff
* MyTheory of Reality: Psychedelics, Consciousness, and Quantum Physics tyler_0_durden 1,442 15 05/20/09 01:43 PM
by DieCommie
* physics help needed on a problem blacksabbathrulz 1,147 5 02/02/05 07:56 AM
by phalloidin
* Physics questions usually have 3 solutions. funnybunny 952 7 08/29/07 06:53 AM
by Seuss
* Quantum Physics - The double slit experiment
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
MDMC 12,886 122 05/20/09 01:54 PM
by Newbie
* The newest free energy nut HagbardCeline 1,249 7 05/06/08 08:55 PM
by supra
* The response to the modern aburdities of Einsteinian Physics
( 1 2 3 all )
cleeen 2,919 44 07/26/07 01:07 PM
by Diploid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Lana, trendal, automan
996 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 19 queries.