I reiterate my challenge to you to debunk Jon`C's mathematical proof.

Hahaha.

I like friend14's new title.

So what Friend14 is trying to say is this:

A. Everyone in the past 100 years of physics is completely wrong, even though all of their experiments are correct in every possible way, including proofs and controlled experimentation.
B. The reason they appear to be right is mostly "luck", and that the real theory is slightly different, except you do not see the differences in regular applications. Despite that "regular applications" include every single physics test in the past 100 years, including VERY important, accurate, and critical physics experiments like LANDING ON MARS.
C. That this one man obviously knows what he is talking about despite the fact that no one recognizes him as any sort of authority in physics, which he would definately be if, say, his theories were logical or could be proven.

In other words, everyone's wrong, they just can't see it!

He's like the christian of science.

I predict Cap'nfriend will be leaving "because of harsh arguements against me and what i beleive" any minute now.
[And his/[her?]new title kicks total ***]

Didn't you do that once?

No thats the problem.

Downsboy won't go away, even though we don't like him and make it VERY clear we don't like him.

No i didn't.

I was joking. I thought the lol implied as much?

But he DID debate his opinions like they were absolute truth, which is why he was banned.

I already have. There is no logical reason to take the mean velocity (accept to add the extra velocity value that results is v^2).

Do you know why the math works? Look where it started. Kinetic Energy is derrived from the work-energy theorim Ef=Ei + W[ext] which itself is based off of the conservation of energy which itself stems from the idea of conservation of momentum.

At this first step, there are several debunking options. The foremost being that in a newtonian environment (such as deep space), there would be no external force (or non-conservative force). This, of course, leaves us with only Ef=Ei, which is an assumption based on observation of a non-newtonian environment in the first place. It comes at no surprise then that idea of conservation of momentum [sum]mv would be objected by engineers who believed "that conservation of momentum alone was not adequate for practical calculation and who made use of Leibniz's principle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

At any rate, assuming the above is still true (for the sake of argument), then another problem occurs here:



vf-vi is a single term delta v. Even mathamatically, it is not logically applicable to seperate this term. delta v means a 'Change in Velocity'. When you seperate it into two seperate terms, you destroy that meaning.

The next problem occurs here following the assumption that energy is conserved (before successfully derriving it) by taking the mean and then destroying the relationship of velocity (delta d/t by multiplying the t value through the (1/2)sum of v) and then utilizing the destroyed relationship from above and providing the extra d/t=v varibles to later give the needed v^2:



*Note, the REAL reason they use the 'mean' velocity is to get rid of the delta relationship. Velocity = delta (d/t) and using the 'mean' is how they 'fiddled' their way out of having to deal with that relationship.

Later, it eliminates the extra additive velocity (-vi) value (from where the extra d/t value was originally added) by assuming the object started at rest (which is rarely the case except when arbitrary evaluating from the same rest frame).



[*Note, it was never "Given" that the object started at rest. It was "assumed" for the sake of making the relationship between Kinetic Energy and Conservation of Energy PE=-KE. In actuallity, the reason the vi value goes away (when you dive into the reasons why energy is observed to be conserved) is because impact (or other such interaction where energy is exchanged or evaluated) occurs at vf and vi is irrelevant and since the initial velocity is irrelevant so is the distance as the graph on the first page indicates and why there is absolutely no logical reason to take the mean velocity (d/t)).

Then they just plug and play the values back in:


And POOF, there's that magical v^2. Aren't mathamatical fiddles fun?

The underlying point is that the whole process for deriving Kinetic Energy is wrong. They whole derivation rely's on the assumption that energy is conserved before they even know what the deffinition (mathamatically) of energy is. So from the begining of the derivation, the resulting KE equation is going to be restricted to that assumption. This just reinforces the idea that they had an idea of where it should start and where it should end and they just muddled the stuff in the middle.

Again, Mr. Novak covers all of this and much more on his site in great detail. He also correctly derrives Kinetic Energy from Force.

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Your Novak is a ****ing fruitloop! He and you are riding some idiot train to the back of beyond with no clues between you!! Honestly, forget everything this pillock has ever said and read a real textbook! If you think we can build things like skyscrapers, put men on other celestial bodies, build cars that break the sodding sound barrier, hold back billions of gallons of water with eggshell dams, split the ****ing atom with maths that is "on average 15% incorrect" you can just die on fire. Really.

What you are saying to me is "Martyn, your career is based on lies. Everything you do every to safeguard the lives of people that walk into every one of your buildings is false. You are going to kill someone someday. This is because me and some utter mentalist who believes in the spirit world and lives as a recluse think that the world of physics is wrong."

And you know what? You're WRONG. You're not only wrong you're utterly deluded.

You've made me immensely angry, you've sullied my world and you're on your own. You and your ****ing retard friend.

I've said it before, this isn't a debate. You and that ball-bag-face Novak are just plain wrong. We, the REST OF THE BLOODY WORLD are right, and you, you and your mental recluse friend are wrong.

WRONG.

Stick that in your well and drown in it.

"Your Honor, I rest my case against the 'Ivory Tower'."

Martyn, I haven't ran all of the numbers in every possible senario known to man. I have stated previously, however, the the error seems to disappear in most cases during rounding. Most engineers, like you, generally round to three places for most application. My grandfather was an Architect and my dad is a multi-professional Sr. Engineer. This will likely never significantly affect you or the work you do. The biggest difference is conceptual and proving WHY such theories as String Theory, M Theory, and Relativity break down (which deal with things on very very very small scales and things on very very very large scales).

You have no clue. I have an engineering degree from one of the UK's best universities. Do you think I care about your "ivory tower"?

No?

You'd be right.

You could have fooled me with the way you just reacted to me shaking your "Ivory Tower" belief. I mean, heck, the way you just reacted is the same way that people reacted when the were told the world was round.

Oh, so I assume then that the delta t term doesn't equal (tf - ti)? That a delta x term doesn't equal (xf - xi)? What the hell do you think delta means? Delta for this context is defined as that seperation of (final - intial), there is absolutely no "meaning lost".


The relationship is not destroyed, that's more of your incomprehension. taking dx/dt=Vave and multiplying through by dt to get dx=V*dt is perfectly valid.




dx/dt simplifies numerically to V when dt = 1. We're not "getting rid of delta", that's like saying we're getting rid of '3' when substituting 5 for 2+3. They are equivalent. Period.

Oh. and Relativity's already been proven, so you have no idea what you're talking about in that regard as well.

Wow. Shocking revelation. I feel so undermined by your accusation that I feel like a fraud and am going to go to bed now and not give a flying ****. :downs:

No, it is a relationship between the final and initial. Delta never ever EVER means seperation. Who on earth told you otherwise?



No, it isn't, because delta (d/t) does NOT equal velocity, it equals delta velocity. Stop trying to weasle around this.



1. dt does not equal 1 in this case.
2. do you have any idea what the 'mean' is? It means 'average'. They are taking the 'average' instead of evaluating the actual change.



No, it hasn't. It is also well known to break down in Quantum Mechanics.

I really really should ban you for this statement. Relativistic effects have been shown to occur even at speeds many many many many times slower than c.

Hahaha, you're compairing yourself to Pythagoras and Eratosthenes. That's cute, it really is.

The difference between you and your kook and opressed scientists of the past is that their theories were proven. You could conduct experiments that would yield the same evidence every single time. None of them said that "classical physics" was incorrect: They said that the assumption that the general populas had was incorrect, and proved their own theory, thus disproving the assumption.

You, on the other hand, are saying that the reason you're right is because you've got some other guy who agrees with you, and that we've been doing it incorrectly for 100s of years. OK, proof? You're not disproving a well held belief, you're trying to disproving things that have been tested and proven.

You're not following the scientific method, either. You have yet to show one single test that proves your theory.

Expiramental Proof
Einstein's Plagiarism
Historical Fruad of Ether Measurement
Dissendent View
Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V05NO1PDF/V05N1MUN.pdf

...Einsteins Plagarism?...
Riiggghhhtttt...

bull****. This is what you just said: "change in distance over change in time is change in velocity". Sure, but only if vi = 0. If you're moving at vi=60 mph at ti=0, your xi = 0. If you instantaneously accelerate to vf=120 mph, at tf=1hr, your xf = 120 miles. By your reasoning, dx/dt=dV. dx=120, dt=1. Oh! 120/1 = 120! dx/dt=V! dV=60 you idiot (120 - 60 if you can't figure it out yourself)

Actually, they use 3 decimal places because of the accuracy of the instruments used to measure forces and velocities and such things. More accurate instruments would allow greater decimal accuracy. So, yeah, totally wrong.

If your chronometer is accurate to 3 decimal places, then it's accurate to 3 decimal places. It doesn't matter which method you use to do the math, or what you do with the number, if you don't want to extrapolate and introduce error, you cannot exceed the 3 decimal places. Period.

My name is Wolfy, and I approve this message.

No, the whole point of evaluating vf-vi is because vi may not be 0 in all cases of evaluation. Else, you could just take vf (which is what they did near the end). For instance, what if I wanted to calculate the KE of a comet orbiting the sun? It would already be in motion long before I began evaluating it.

BTW, instantaneous accelerations do not occur. Again, stop trying to weasle around this.

A. Thanks for skipping my post.
B. Stop trying to weasle around laws of physics. Because... you can't. That's why they're laws, not theories.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Actually, they use 3 decimal places because of the accuracy of the instruments used to measure forces and velocities and such things. More accurate instruments would allow greater decimal accuracy. So, yeah, totally wrong.[/QUOTE]

No, most Engineers stop after 3 decimal places regardles of the accuracy of the instrument. Granted, this isn't in all cases. I'm simply stating it as a commanlity in Enegineering practice. When you get down to ten-thousandths of a percent, what your measuring is going to be effected by varibles you can't predict anyways so it's going to be pretty insignificant (unless you're working with really big units...but then you convert to the standard and still use 3 places in many cases).

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]A. Thanks for skipping my post.[/quote]

Sorry, I was working on some other stuff, but I did get back to it. It's like 5 against 1, you don't expect me to respond to every post do you?



So, that's why Einstein was allowed to do it??? Oh, and haven't you heard, theories are just as significant as laws now...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Beacause he was SMART and could prove his theorys?

Or maybe you're just measuring something that requires that sort of accuracy, which is hardly outside the realm of possibility, nor outside common usage?

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Or maybe you're just measuring something that requires that sort of accuracy, which is hardly outside the realm of possibility, nor outside common usage?[/QUOTE]

Which is exactly why I said that the error ussually disappears in rounding...

No, it means there was no error to begin with. If you have to round off the "error" then guess what, it's not error.

If that were true, then anything we ever rounded in our entire lifetime is wrong.

Fine then.
Linear acceleration from 60 mph to 120 mph (note that dV is still 60). Distance travelled will be 90 miles, which definitely doesn't equal 60. I'm not weaseling around anything. Have you *ever* punched in numbers for the bull**** you're churning out?

Another thing regarding dx/dt=dV. you know that by saying that, you just said d/t=V? You can't have a point reference independantly define a velocity, THAT DOESN'T WORK! Look at your mouse. Call that x=0 at t=0, with v=0. Move it three(3) inches and stop. At that point, t=1s (for argument's sake), x=3. According to your nutjob logic, that mouse is still moving at 3 in/s, because it's at x=3, and t=1. In another second, it'll still be moving at 1.5 in/s, because it'll still be sitting at x=3 and t=2. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK.

Um, wow. Thanks for putting it into dumb terms!

Okay, so now where's your dt = 1?



Um no. How can it still be moving if it's still at x=3? Your not making much sense...

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]No, it means there was no error to begin with. If you have to round off the "error" then guess what, it's not error.[/quote]

Oh the error still exists even if it isn't applied. The significance of the error is largely conceptual.



Well, yes. It's called approximation. In fact, that's the problem with the idea of .999... = 1. Except in that case it's specifically referred to as a Rational Approximation. And there are theorims that are used to decrease the error of using Rational Approximation terms by spreading out the error:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RationalApproximation.html

Except, no.

The significance of the error is null, as in, there isn't any. And even if your "theories" did work, they would not change this. The "error" would "conceptually" remain just that... conceptual. Not applicable to anything except "oh, yeah, there was error in like the 5th digit, good thing it TOTALLY DOESN'T INFLUENCE ANYTHING IN THE EQUATION!"

I am saving every single one of these pages to HD. This is fracking epic.

[QUOTE=Cool Matty]Except, no.

The significance of the error is null, as in, there isn't any. And even if your "theories" did work, they would not change this. The "error" would "conceptually" remain just that... conceptual. Not applicable to anything except "oh, yeah, there was error in like the 5th digit, good thing it TOTALLY DOESN'T INFLUENCE ANYTHING IN THE EQUATION!"[/QUOTE]

It depends on what your working with, where you're working with it, your relative reference frame to other events, etc.

For the Engineering world, it's insignficant (to an application extent). The impact in the realization that there is no conservation of energy (though an atmospheric environment creates it due to the added exterior varibles beyond a newtonian environment), that E=!mc^2, and thus faster then light travel is possible, is quite significant in principle.