If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

Reactor drone said:
Really?
Click to expand...

FF's answer to your question involved varying the mass rather than the distance/time as you asked. So he was wrong in claiming you were wrong.

But the little scenario he proposed was correct in itself and I suspect this is what ozeco41 was replying to. It's probably FF deliberately sowing confusion again.
 
Reactor drone said:
Really?
Click to expand...

FF is right in what he says, that if you accelerate two objects equally for the same time, they will have the same velocity.

What he misses is that time is scaled as well because time is proportional to distance, so if object A travels further than object B and both are under the acceleration, then Object A will have a higher velocity.
 
GlennB said:
It's probably FF deliberately sowing confusion again.
Click to expand...

I think it's another misreading actually. He interpreted it to mean that at greater distances an object of greater mass will have a higher velocity than one of a lower mass, even though both have the same acceleration.

He didn't understand that what RD meant was that an object that travels a greater distance will have a higher velocity over one that travels a shorter distance.
 
Reactor drone said:
Really?
Click to expand...
In the context I put it and carefully quoted FF - YES really.

Your quote mine naturally changed the meaning when you removed the "this" which was a correct statement AND implied a re-referencing to another statement which I had not commented on. :rolleyes:

GlennB said:
But the little scenario he proposed was correct in itself
Click to expand...
Of course - hence my tongue in cheek agreeing with FF - he got it right. He often gets little bits right. Part of the game plan.

GlennB said:
... and I suspect this is what ozeco41 was replying to.
Click to expand...
Only "suspect" :D
I quoted a standalone assertion by FF which was correct and stated "correct". Shouldn't be much doubt about that. ;)

GlennB said:
.. It's probably FF deliberately sowing confusion again.
Click to expand...
...errr not with the content of my post which I wrote myself :boggled:

Now with that little side track resolved - I return members to the scheduled program. :)


Note to self: Take care when having bits of fun. They don't always survive the medium.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Please explain how scale affects similar directions of motion, similar accelerations, and similar sequences of net forces. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Multiply the linear dimensions of a system comprising a mass falling on a structure by a factor of two. All the masses will increase by a factor of eight, and potential energy released by falling masses by a factor of sixteen. The ability of the structure to resist the forces generated by this potential energy will increase by a factor of four. The ability of a structure to resist forces will therefore decrease relative to the forces exerted by a factor of four, which will affect the acceleration of the falling mass and the structure.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Multiply the linear dimensions of a system comprising a mass falling on a structure by a factor of two. All the masses will increase by a factor of eight, and potential energy released by falling masses by a factor of sixteen. The ability of the structure to resist the forces generated by this potential energy will increase by a factor of four. The ability of a structure to resist forces will therefore decrease relative to the forces exerted by a factor of four, which will affect the acceleration of the falling mass and the structure.

Dave
Click to expand...

Exactly a massive change between the energy accelerating the mass increasing momentum Gravity, and the resistance provided by electromagnetic bonding holding the materials together.

The energy values will be distorted by a change in Scales, size.
 
FalseFlag said:
Please explain how scale affects similar directions of motion, similar accelerations, and similar sequences of net forces. Thanks.
Click to expand...

If you are so absolutely sure Cole is right, and since we are discussing braking distance, I propose an experiment to test Cole's theory, we the debunkers will take a small truck 5000LBS pounds, and fill it with as many debunkers as we can.

You take a Semi and fill it with truthers, until the gross Vehicle weight = 80,000 pounds, we will find a 300ft Cliff, and mark 75 yards from the edge, we will accelerate both vehicles to
45 miles an hour.

At the 75 yard line we will hit the brake not until then, Cole says both vehicle will stop, and since Cole has to be right one way or another we will end this argument over whether he is a fraud or not.:rolleyes:

I am sure this experiment will give your side of the debate truly smashing results.:Did

Ps. This is a hypothetical experiment do not try this at home.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Oh but he didn't state what group is responsible. Could be da joos.
Click to expand...

The evil Röthschilds and the Enlightened Ones are also a favorite.

And we mustn't forgot the evil plan from "Them" to plunge the world into a New World Order.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Take your pick, please. -60% for NWO, -30% for Illuminati, -50% for evil US gubmint, -20% for Iraq and -80% for Zionism.
 
Reactor drone said:
You appear to have responded to a point I didn't make. Different distance at the same acceleration implies different time. So, while your point that objects accelerating at the same rate for the same time achieve the same speed is correct, it has nothing to do with what I said.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what you actually said, wrote, implied, or otherwise want to be true, none of it is relevant to Cole's experiments.
 
PhantomWolf said:
FF is right in what he says, that if you accelerate two objects equally for the same time, they will have the same velocity.

What he misses is that time is scaled as well because time is proportional to distance, so if object A travels further than object B and both are under the acceleration, then Object A will have a higher velocity.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with Cole's experiment?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Multiply the linear dimensions of a system comprising a mass falling on a structure by a factor of two. All the masses will increase by a factor of eight, and potential energy released by falling masses by a factor of sixteen. The ability of the structure to resist the forces generated by this potential energy will increase by a factor of four. The ability of a structure to resist forces will therefore decrease relative to the forces exerted by a factor of four, which will affect the acceleration of the falling mass and the structure.

Dave
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should let Cole know this. Better yet, perform an experiment showing how Cole is wrong.
 
FalseFlag said:
Regardless of what you actually said, wrote, implied, or otherwise want to be true, none of it is relevant to Cole's experiments.
Click to expand...

I see you've temporarily ditched your "huh, I never read that" tactic for a "this is irrelevant" one. Of course, neither are convincing or original.

FalseFlag said:
Perhaps you should let Cole know this. Better yet, perform an experiment showing how Cole is wrong.
Click to expand...

However, you haven't ditched your misconceptions about science. :rolleyes:
 
FalseFlag said:
What "misconceptions" do I have? Please post one of them, and then post a link to a credible source that proves I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Thirty pages of misconceptions later, and you're still asking........ This used to be funny.
 
FalseFlag said:
What "misconceptions" do I have? Please post one of them, and then post a link to a credible source that proves I am wrong.
Click to expand...

What misconceptions do you have...
All of these. Plus this is the source that proves you wrong, it is not credible.

Tried to find a credible source that proves you wrong, but better than credible is the fantasy and BS from Cole, which proves you wrong.
You have failed to post any evidence to support Cole for over 955 posts... a perfect recorded of failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom