• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heiwa's bathroom scale experiment

"Do you know what this mean????? It means this damn thing doesnt work at all!!!"

lolol

=)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
:jaw-dropp

Okay, this convinces me more than ever that he's trying to pull off a dumb joke. No one can possibly be this benighted.
Click to expand...
Ehhhh... This is the truth movement we are talking. Even I'm amazed to the extent at how much they take a cleaver to the field of science.
 
I made a slight change to Heiwa's experiment. Instead of using myself (and risking leg injury), I used a stack of textbooks (tied together) roughly my own weight (200 lbs). This should be a perfectly acceptable substitute.

The scale registered 202.1 lbs when I put the books on top. I then brought the scale outside, made sure it was zeroed and dropped the same stack of textbooks from my second story window.

My scale is broken because the display permanently shows the words "ERR". If Heiwa was right (which he isn't), the scale would still be fine and show the normal zeroed "0.0" on it. But instead, the force of the stack of textbooks being dropped from the second story window overloaded the sensor in my scale.

Time to buy another one!
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Let's stick to the subject.
Obviously, the H guy has not tried this himself...
Make it easy. Drop a 5 pound brick on the scale, after weighing it statically.
That way you don't break stuff--or not badly...
Click to expand...


For the fence-sitting lurkers
(since I've given up on Heiwa)

Importantly: Video tape the experiment, and record the weight reading in each frame.
Plot the recordings with respect to time.

It predict that the period of time when the force registering is greater than the weight of the brick will exactly match the time between initial impact and the brick coming to a stop.

It will be quick, so a high-speed camera would help.

A simpler method is to have a scale that will record the maximum force.



Then, a simple calculation will verify the F=ma equation.

t1 = initial contact time
t2 = time when brick velocity = 0
v1 = velocity at impact (= [2gd]0.5 where d = distance dropped)
v2 = velocity at time stopped (=0, obviously)

a = (v2 - v1)/(t2 - t1)

m is the mass of the brick.

F will be equal (within experimental error) to the average reading on the scale over the time of impact (t2 - t1).

F will also be higher than mg.


I like this experiment. It once again proves me and Dave Rogers are correct (ref. to the Pizza Tower thread) when we stated that in order to bring a falling object to a stop (which requires change in velocity, defined as acceleration) requires a retarding force greater than the weight of the falling object.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Just to be clear, an object's mass does not increase with velocity (not unless it is going really, really fast, like approaching the speed of light).

It's momentum and the force that it would apply on another object does increase with velocity however. In this case, the weight (which is a measurement of force) that a scale reads when you jump on it.
Click to expand...

ah. so what is the mass X velocity? is that force?
 
To get more of an idea of the forces involved you should be landing on the scales from the 3.7m test height with knees locked, not doing so will result in a longer deceleraton time so a lower decelerating force is required and registered by the scales.
 
alexi_drago said:
To get more of an idea of the forces involved you should be landing on the scales from the 3.7m test height with knees locked, not doing so will result in a longer deceleraton time so a lower decelerating force is required and registered by the scales.
Click to expand...
THat's why I recommended the brick...
 
parky76 said:
ah. so what is the mass X velocity? is that force?
Click to expand...

That's called Momentum.

P = mv


It's not really a force..
The units of momentum are mass*distance/time (for example: kg*m/s).
The units of a force (Newtons) are mass*distance/time/time (for example: kg*m/sec2).


Energy (kinetic) is 0.5*mv2, and has units (called Joules, which are also writen as Netowns per second) of mass*distance*distance/time/time (for example: kg*m2/sec2).
 
parky76 said:
ah. so what is the mass X velocity? is that force?
Click to expand...

Mass times velocity is called momentum. The rate of change of momentum (with time) is equal to the force acting on a body. (This is one of Newton laws).

The notion of force is useful since we know several types of forces and can compute them independently of Newton laws. A relevant exampe here is gravity.
 
Doctor Evil said:
Mass times velocity is called momentum. The rate of change of momentum (with time) is equal to the force acting on a body. (This is one of Newton laws).

The notion of force is useful since we know several types of forces and can compute them independently of Newton laws. A relevant exampe here is gravity.
Click to expand...


I win. :p
 
I found something that everyone might find interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfTE4J87aQQ

Watch the first few minutes. It pretty much explains everything we're talking about here. An MIT professor refutes Heiwa completely!

Simply put, Fscale = m * (a + g). (a + g) determines the multiplying factor of how "heavy" the scale thinks you are. The higher your velocity when you hit the scale (or in the elevator example given, moving up or down), the "heavier" you are.

Since I'm on His Royal Arrogance's ignore list, would someone who's not on ignore like to repeat all of this or at least repost the lecture video link and see what he says?
 
Last edited:
Zipster said:
I found something that everyone might find interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfTE4J87aQQ

Watch the first few minutes. It pretty much explains everything we're talking about here. An MIT professor refutes Heiwa completely!

Simply put, Fscale = m * (a + g). (a + g) determines the multiplying factor of how "heavy" the scale thinks you are. The higher your velocity when you hit the scale (or in the elevator example given, moving up or down), the "heavier" you are.

Since I'm on His Royal Arrogance's ignore list, would someone who's not on ignore like to repeat all of this or at least repost the lecture video link and see what he says?
Click to expand...



Embedded:






And Dr Evil: It had better be chocolate chip.
 
Thank you [X]. I await his reply to the video.

Probably something along the lines of "the MIT professor must be into 'NWO physics' too!"...
 
Zipster said:
Thank you [X]. I await his reply to the video.

Probably something along the lines of "the MIT professor must be into 'NWO physics' too!"...
Click to expand...


You owe me a cookie, too.


And if Heiwa follows form, he'll acknowledge that the MIT professors physics are correct, buy somehow they don't apply in the static (yes, I know it's dynamic, but Heiwa insists it can be analyzed statically) scenario case Heiwa is discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom