|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
I had a laugh at this site. Appears to be crackpot... but I've not read through it entirely, may be somehwat logical. But I believe it is completely crackpot...
http://www.webspawner.com/users/relativity/ He is wrong, even with the classical physics, on several occasions. Sometimes, he doesn't bother with the mathematics (like on his initial argument that c cannot be constant), that might prove him wrong. Then, he gives a completely faulty "proof", that Work = Force x Time (!). Just for laughs, but if you want to discuss, do it, please. EDIT: I forgot to post the link earlier! ![]()
__________________
Limericks, written by me: http://limericker.blogspot.com |
|
|||
|
a case of too much brilliance and too little education
__________________
inventing and writing forum You dont know how little you know. till you know enought to know that you still know nothing |
|
|||
|
haha, that is a rather funny link...i just may pass this onto a few professors of mine! The simple fact he added the extremely powerful acronym, QED, states his short lived life in science. QED is so powerful even the most prolific scientists and philosophers shy very very far away from it. You must be absolutely certain you are correct when you make such an utterance. Quite entertaining :P
|
|
||||
|
Yeah it is rather silly to suggest at this stage that everything physics is founded on is wrong, without showing that his alternative actually works.
He had me stumped for a while though on example one on this page: http://www.webspawner.com/users/energylaw/ about the two rockets... (he claims that if a rocket uses its energy to slow itself down, it must be destroying energy because at the end it has no KE) I finally worked out the flaw in his argument though, he ignores the mass (and hence the KE) of ejected material- The ejected mass would be much greater when fired from a reverse thruster as its speed is v+u, the ejection speed + the rockets speed. Hence its KE is much greater than the KE of the ejected mass from a rocket that just went forwards, so energy is conservered. We can all sleep in peace again ![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|