Fortuna Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Check out this guy's Alternative physics. . I especially liked The Earth Is Motionless Center of The Universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 is he joking? i havent read a single one yet that isnt absolutely rediculus. i cant tell if hes really full of himself and actually that dumb or if its supposed to be a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortuna Posted April 14, 2005 Author Share Posted April 14, 2005 Calli, I hope that it is a joke, but reading over it, I think he is serious. Ok, this one is just plain silly ! Centrifugal Force Can't Create "Gravity" In Rotating-Cylinder Spaceship In several science programs and movies about the future space travel, there is presented an idea that, the gravity on the spaceship could be created by rotation of the drum-like spaceship. HA! For the centrifugal force to create "gravity", the body has to weigh something. In the gravityless space bodies have no weight. Therefore the rotation of the spaceship would be irrelevant to the weightless objects. You can see clearly how the idea is wrong on mathematical level. The equation for centrifugal force is F=mv2/r. If m=0 then F=0 * v2/r, F= 0 / r, F= 0. So, unless there is gravity to start with, there is no way of "creating" it by rotation and "centrifugal force". If the space station rotated, it would rotate without you. If m=0 then F=0 * v2/r, m= 0 ??? FALSE ! (This guy blows me away.) Well, apparently somebody doesn't understand the difference between weight and mass ! Weight and mass are proportional by the gravitational accleration of whatever planet you are on, provided that m(object) << M(planet), usually a safe assumption for the average human and the average planet (the ones we know of anyway). OK, I agree that it might be impractical to simulate gravity with centripetal force, but let's see. Let's try a simple calculation. Lets assume a ship like the one on 2001, with a radius of 100 meters from the center of rotation to outer rim, where we want to have a simulated gravity. So, how fast would it have to rotate to simulate earth gravity (9.8 m/s^2) for a 150 lb (68 Kg) person. F = ma = mv^2 / r (definition of force set equal to centripetal force) So we have ; a = v^2/r (the m's cancel out - nice, but we knew that) => v = (ar)^1/2 puting in our values ; v = (9.8 m/s^2 * 100m)^1/2 -> (980(m2/s2)) ^1/2 = 31 m/s So, our ship would need to rotate such that a point on the outer rim has a velocity of 31 m/s. In radians/sec, that would be 31 m/s * 2pi rad / 2pi*100 m = .31 rad/s As long as a person stood firmly on the floor, they should experience a force very close to the gravity on earth provided the thing spins at .31 rad/sec. PS - Double check my math. The one about the earth satellite is even dumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 i dont bother with any of that math stuff, i just like to use pure logic. anyone who has ever ridden on one of those spinny things in the playground knows that this guy is full of... stuff. anyone who has taken physics understands that the reason is because the thing pushes you one way, but then the wall is there, so your constantly trying to move to the wall and its constantly turning your momentum in another direction, where there is yet again, a wall. if you think through the situation in your head you realize that as long as the person had contact with something on the ship to get him moving in a circle he would be pulled to the outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 I especially liked The Earth Is Motionless Center of The Universe Well i tried but stopped after the first few lines. BTW are you saying you believe the universe revolves around the earth.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 i dont bother with any of that math stuff' date=' i just like to use pure logic. anyone who has ever ridden on one of those spinny things in the playground knows that this guy is full of... stuff. anyone who has taken physics understands that the reason is because the thing pushes you one way, but then the wall is there, so your constantly trying to move to the wall and its constantly turning your momentum in another direction, where there is yet again, a wall. if you think through the situation in your head you realize that as long as the person had contact with something on the ship to get him moving in a circle he would be pulled to the outside.[/quote'] I think you should think the situation over in your head....or read the posts in the thread.Its already been explained quite well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 I think you should think the situation over in your head....or read the posts in the thread.Its already been explained quite well! i did... and i think my way of proving hes an idiot works just fine, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortuna Posted April 15, 2005 Author Share Posted April 15, 2005 Originally Posted by fortuna I especially liked The Earth Is Motionless Center of The Universe Well i tried but stopped after the first few lines. BTW are you saying you believe the universe revolves around the earth.? Newtonian, What ! No, I was being sarcastic. I thought the "Yikes" in the title, the eek and confused emoticons, and my little calc about the rotating spaceship, the "some body doesn't understand the diff between mass and weight" expressed my feeling well enough, but I guess I'd better be explicit. HELL NO ! I DON'T really like it at all. I think this guy has done waaayyy too many hallucinogenic drugs, and those drugs are making him think the bible is a science text. Um, do you think the universe revolves around the earth ? Calli, Agreed, your analogy was sufficient. It really doesn't take any formal math or physics to recognize a crackpot of this magnitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 i really think he must be joking, or at least just seeing how many stupid people he can fool. he seems to have a fairly wide understanding of physics, and then in the example above he uses mass instead of weight solely for the purpose of making the math not work. im guessing hes just taking basic principles and doing stupid little things like that, which the average highschooler might not catch, but most educated people will. (wait a minute... im in highschool ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callipygous Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 i particularly like his one on newtons force and work, where he trys to tell us that our definitions of work and force are wrong because he thinks the words themselves mean something different. : ) ROFL. check out his one on the big bang. hes not even trying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reverse Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Wonder what sort of education he has had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pulsar-21 Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 on his thoughts on the big bang he wonders why the galaxys arent colliding well that would be like taking two marbles, spacing them 400 feet away from each other, and then trying to hit one of them blind folded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reverse Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 This guy is not really worth spending time on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 I read this: Einstein's theory of relativity is insignificant and childish yet it is by many considered: "the biggest theory in physics" Einstein himself is considered to be substitute of the word "genius". Then I laughed. Then I closed the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick silver Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 dave............ the quote that you have at the top of your post................who ever said that is an idiot. just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 I propose we refer to it as "Fizzicks". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Pupil Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 uhh i think he didn't take anything out of highschool. his comments are redundant and through the use of pure logic that, yes even us high schoolers posess, are proven wrong. I think he just reads things in national geographic and tries to prove them wrong. quite pityable though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 I propose we refer to it as "Fizzicks". LOL, that's the exact way I spell it for my physics links folder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 My favourite was Anybody who is against Einstein is automatically dismissed as "anti-semantic", if you get my meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeonBlack Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Because... SUN EMITS LIGHT! Therefore it can't ATTRACT something it EMITS!!! If Sun emits light rays, then it could only deflect the light beam from another star AWAY from Sun, not TOWARD it, as it is currently believed... LOL : ) This site is obviously a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcarlson Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 THis guy is an idiot. Lets just leave it at that. He obvious doesn't realize that all velocity is relative, and that gravity is caused by mass, not weight. 10. Copernicus didn�t provide evidence to support his theory. 11. Contrary to Copernicus, it's not mathematically possible to �calculate� if the Earth is revolving around the Sun roflmao. I like how he also mentions "Centrifugal" as opposed to "Centripetal" Force about 18 times on every page... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Because... SUN EMITS LIGHT! Therefore it can't ATTRACT something it EMITS!!! If Sun emits light rays, then it could only deflect the light beam from another star AWAY from Sun, not TOWARD it, as it is currently believed... LOL : ) This site is obviously a joke... omg thats ridiculous... emit does not = repulse lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Now we know that the Earth is not flattened on the top and bottom. If that was true, objects would weigh differently. even though things DO weighh differently at the top and bottom of Earth... lol A mindless explosion would only create chaos with chunks of dirt flying around Oh I bet there was dirt (???) flying around ROFLMAO I can't stand this anymore... I searching the site for an e-mail address and ream this guy out... I'm in grade 12 physics and its embarrassing... my god, a 13 yr old would probably laugh at this stuff EDIT: BTW, his address is pkolasa@hotmail.com... Have Fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 oo this has got to go on my debunking pseudo-science page. did you guys know that the flat earth society is still around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now