Quote from george_tsiros :

lol
i do not know what galileo was supposed to prove, but two balls of same material but different size will NOT go the same speed in an incline

hint: moment of inertia

(that's what i think, though... )

you see how he got it wrong and and i had to got upset to prove what phisics say

i want to learn but not what most say but the TRUTH

i repeated galileos experiment with a different outcome

internet says that galileo sent down the ramp different size marbles and all reach the end of the ramp at the same time

this is false,i experimented it many times, and as galileo said:

'If experiments are performed thousands of times in all seasons and in every place without once producing the effect described by the philosophers, poets and historians, this means nothing and we must believe their words and not our own eyes.'

i wonder, how many people in the world knows that galileo stated that different size marbles go down the ramp at the same rate, very few, you didnt know,maybe 1%, so 50 million

and of this 50 million how many have actually tested this?

it might be easy i was the only one

see how easy would be lie to people?

oh i just want to check if ive been lied

actually i was taught the pisa story but if you research this on the net seems quite probable that story is false, he used ramps

but to make it even worse i tested the experiment by galilelo with ramps and i saw that balls dont go down at the same speed, bigger one falls first

so appears a lie the pisa story and appears a lie he checked big and small marbles go down the ramp at the same time

i would have repeated the pisa experiment, but from that position i would be unable to know which hits the ground first

edit:

and shouldnt the biger mass actually have more rolling friction? friction=u*Fnormal

Last edited by lerts, Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:44.

i already did the experiment with 2 different size solid steel balls(if you use a hollowed ball and a solid one is not valid)

and contrary of what physics states bigger goes down faster

but ill do it again and this time i will record it, though i dont know how with a webcam

i think that all solid balls indepedently of size or density roll down a ramp at same speed, in fact this is what galileo is supposed to have proved

when i end my vacation ill buy the biggest still ball roller and race it with a small one

though physics say they should fall at same rate ill prove with a video actually bigger ball falls first

the problem is that whom ever saw that video would not even know how physics states they will fall

yep have you tried it?, its easy, you can move your finger to the best distance

the white glow could be due to seeing the edge blurred due to being focused on the letters but if you watch the point of the finger youll see there the white glow extends farther, this cant be due to seeing it blurred, in fact i saw violet colour there once

thanks george i apreciate you admit both small and big marble will fall down the ramp at same speed,(roll is not an adequate word since actually bigger one will roll slower,w is slower) i was determined to leave the forum if nobody admitted that

now switching subject:

i was studing with a finger in the midle of my sight and i noticed that i saw better the letters that were in the edge of my finger

i noticed actually you can see the aura with this method, focusing on the leeters and concentrating on the edge of the finger

i saw a clear white line around the finger and in the point of the finger some violet light, and i can repeat it whenever i want, i did it in the morning and in the afternon
plz try it

dont know how to solve it, i just passed adavnced mechanics but not yet basic physics, i miss many things and many dont remember, infact all i learnt incollege i forget it soon, i just learn what i study for fun

though im much self didact at physics

here this may convince you:

I am not sure what the strating conditions of your balls are.
However, one of the most famous experiments ever performed was by Galileo,
some 400 years ago. He wanted to know whether heavy objects fell faster
than light ones. The famous story is that he went to the top of the leaning
tower of Pisa and dropped two objects, one heavy and one light. He saw that
they fell at the same rate! It has been shown that this was just a story
because Galileo did not have any way to measure the rate at which the
objects fell (he did not have a camera or other high speed recording
device). What he did do is make a ramp out of wood, and roll balls of
various weights down this ramp. The ramp allowed him extra time to measure
how long it took for the balls to reach the bottom. It took the same length
of time, no matter how heavy the balls were. This was the basis for a
well-known law of acceleration due to gravity.

from:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00210.htm

plz you george or somebody tell me you believe current physics say that different size marbles fall down a ramp at the same rate, this is begining to upset me

i have nothing against george tsiros though he insulted me he praised me before

different size marbles fall at same rate down a ramp, i discussed it before maybe this convinces you:

quote:
Originally posted by raaaid:
same mass, half rotational speed, cuadruple moment of inertia implies double rotational energy

so the same mass but with double radius ends with same linear energy but double rotatioanl energy

Wrong. "same mass, half rotational speed, cuadruple moment of inertia implies double rotational energy" No, it does not and I don't know where you got this from. It does not have quadruple moment of inertia, only double, since angular velocity is only half the original and moment of inertia is quadruple.

Let's calculate it. So, we have two spheres, first one m=1 (kg), r=1 (m), second one m=1 (kg), r=2 (m). Moment of inertia for a sphere is I=(2mr^2)/5.

First one rotates at an angular velocity omega, second one at omega/2, right? Then, rotational kinetic energy of the first sphere is:

Wkr1=(I*Omega^2)/2=([(2mr^2)/5]*Omega^2)/2=m*r^2*Omega^2/5.

Now, for the second sphere:

Wkr2=(I*(Omega/2)^2)/2=([(2m(2r)^2) /5]*(Omega/2)^2)/2=m*r^2*Omega^2/5.

Look, what a coincidence! They are the same!!

What you are forgetting here raaaid is, that a double sphere will have QUADRUPLE moment of inertia, not double.

Now let's calculate it AGAIN, this time using moments of inertia :

First sphere will have angular momentum:

Gama1=I1*Omega1=((2mr^2)/5)*(v/r)=(2mrv)/5 since I=(2mr^2)/5 and Omega=v/r.

and, since Wkr=(I*Omega^2)/2 and Gama=I*Omega, we can derive

Wkr=Gama^2/(2*I)=(2mrv)^2/(5^2*(2mr^2)/5) => Wkr1=(2mv^2)/5

Second sphere will have angular momentum:

Gama2=I2*Omega2=((2m((2r)^2))/5)*(v/2r)=((2m((2r)^2))/5)*(v/2r)= (4mrv)/5

from which we derive rotational kinetic energy same way as above, Wkr=Gama^2/(2*I)

So, Wkr2=Gama2^2/(2*I2)=[(4mrv)/5]^2/[(2*m(2r)^2)/5]=, believe or not, exactly the same as for the first sphere:=> Wkr2=(2mv^2)/5.

Again, half the rotational velocity with double the radius does not imply quadruple angular momentum, only double, since it is the product of angular velocity (which is halved) and moment of inertia (which is quadrupled).

All clear now?

from here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru ... 23110283/m/9821018375/p/4

in fact what i say is:

current physics state that different sizes marbles will fall down a ramp at the same rate and this was exactly galileo experiment

i tested it myself and i could check than he bigger one fell 1st

this was due to george inviting me to test physics by myself just as galileo, so i told him i had done galileo experiment with different results

i dont think this is bull sheet, bigger marbles fall down a ramp faster than smaller ramp, this contradics current physics and anybody can test it

now will you care to check if you are being lied as i did, or youll just think that theres no the slightest mistake in basic physics, that when most agree it must be true

im sorry to say that is obvious in the other forum there are more helpfull people

education system is pathetic here no clue:

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=9542

and you keep not knowing what a solid ball is

a hollow ball is not a solid ball

a ball with a lead core is not a solid ball

we were talking about small marble(maybe with this you understand what a solid ball is) vs a big marble

did you race a big marble vs a small marble?

edit:

you said object of smaller moment o inertia falls first, take a look at these tyres:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/tyres.jpg

obviously biggest one has bigger moment of inertia than smallest one

at the end of the ramp samll one goes a 97 kmph and big one at 141kph

as can be seen here:

http://www.break.com/index/rolling-tires-off-a-ski-jump.html

exactly the contrary to what you said

Last edited by lerts, Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:40.

the 5th axiom is not wrong is independent, revolutionary though but not wrong

i was wrong about that one

yet i still say both small and big ball according to phisics fall at same rate

i proved it with 3 serious mainstream links and mathematically

you proved you cant even tell a ball from a ring or a disc

forget 5th axiom i was wrong and prove the small ball falls 1st, i did it with 3 links and a demonstration


so you wont discuss wether the small ball falls 1st, i proved it, you just proved 1st to be an ignorant who extrapolates wrongly from race momentum that smaller momentum goes faster, when its bloody obvious that the big ball though having more momentum also have a thicker axle of spin so w is slower

small ball falls first cause i saw a momentum race and smaller momentum won and like the small ball has smaller momentum...

go and check it as you preach, or prove it or admit you are wrong but stop calling me names with your gang

Last edited by lerts, Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:16.

as for the 5th postulate:

it was set by euclides, he thought it could be proved from the 4 other axioms but he was unable, ever since this was one of the problems that more thought was dedicated to

in the 19th century gauss supposed to make a reductio ad absurdum what if not only one but can pass 2 straight lines paralel trough a point and he found there was no contradiction, but he didnt dare to publish it since it was too grounbreaking his discovery that it was posible having two lines through that point

later lobachesky whose father knew gauss published it, probably he copied it from gauss

later another guy even supposed no straight line could go through an exterior point of that line, no contradiction either

this proved the fith axiom independent and ended with more of 2000 years of misconception and splitting gemetry from maths

Last edited by lerts, Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:08.

i wont laugh at you anymore cuase i didnt like it when you did to me so ill be constructive:

take a 1 kg ball with 1 m radius vs one of 1 kg with 2 m radius:

1m radius ball:

I=2/5*m*r2=0.4
2 m radius ball
I=1.6
supposing an equal final speed of 1 m/s for both:
w1=1
w2=0.5

L=I*w
L1=0.4*1=0.4
L2=1.6*0.5=0.8

E=1/2 L*w^2

E1=1/2*0.4*1^2=0.2
E2=1/2*0.8*0.5^2=0.2

as you can see only way for energy be equal as must be weighting both balls the same is they both falling at the same rate

i hope you have fixed your confusion

actually got it wrong E=1/2*I*w^2

so E1= 1/2*0.4*1^2=0.2
E2=1/2*1.6*0.5^2=0.2

supposely energy is still conserved so they both fall at same rate

Last edited by lerts, Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:49.

sphere, disc, ring, of this only the sphere is a ball, in the 1st case

sphere, disc, ring, double semiring, only the 1st is a ball

so you dont even know what a ball is?

you said small ball and big ball, a ball is not a ring or a disc, didnt you watch sesame street?

so im still waiting for a link that says a small ball falls first

ball not ring, if posible solid though id like to know if current physics consider than a hollow ball falls at the same time than solid one (edit not they dont)

i suppose youmust think my links are a lie, is this correct?, id like to know the answer to this

so far its being proved you are more delusional than me yo dont even know what a ball is

as we say in spain you went to get sheep wool and you got your hair shaved

Last edited by lerts, Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:04.

are you saying all links provided are wrong and you are right, seems those links dont understand your point either

give me a single link saying smaller ball falls first i gave you plenty saying the opposite, im sick of momentums just prove it as i did

my father is a mathematician and he explained me plenty well the story if you want to learn search yourself if you want to discuss back up your info of the smaller ball falling 1st

this is funny, to study relativty and quantum physics and not having a clue about galileo experiment, man you need basic phisics before going cuantic

all right as a phisicist ou said smaller ball fell first, you dont have to read the links just what i copy past so you dont wast your time:

http://www.channel4.com/histor ... history/e-h/galileo1.html

Galileo also found that the weight of the ball did not matter – balls of different weights all arrived at the end of the ramp in the same time.

http://homepage.mac.com/dtrapp/ePhysics.f/labI_2.html

While Galileo might be right, he had no technology to actually measure the acceleration of a rapidly falling object. So he reasoned that an inclined plane would dilute the fall of a ball, but not change the nature of the steady acceleration.
Galileo was able to show that if the acceleration is steady, the the distance fallen will be proportional to the square of the time of fall: d = 1/2 at2, where a is the acceleration constant.


no mass to take into account in that formula


http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00210.htm


What he did do is make a ramp out of wood, and roll balls of
various weights down this ramp. The ramp allowed him extra time to measure
how long it took for the balls to reach the bottom. It took the same length
of time, no matter how heavy the balls were. This was the basis for a
well-known law of acceleration due to gravity.


and my fauvorite since it matches my experiments:

http://askville.amazon.com/Kin ... ewer.do?requestId=8795109


"Kindergarten kids tested ... istent with science"

whos gona question physics but who actually wantsto learn as kids, of course im a child in mind

Last edited by lerts, Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:23.

paralel lines cut in euclidean geometry, it broke a 24 centry axiom, thats why geometry splitted from maths

i have my opinions, i did the different size ball experiment on a ramp and i will do it again, you wont, youll believe without questioning

btw according classical physics different size balls fall down a ramp at the same rate, you dont even know what classic physics says and neither you are gonna experiment it, another matter is hollow balls, but solid ones fall a the same rate, ill povide you with several mainstram physics links that say so later

Last edited by lerts, Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:03.

in my opinion the same that history is taught with bias, happens the same with all the rest of the subjects

we are taught in order to make us think certain way, for example magic doesnt exist but all tribes have a chaman who goes to the magic world

why should we believe more thousand of years of science than millions of years of tribal experience that includes magic, we are made to go antinature by science

that a concept is old doesnt prove a thing, take the 4th axiom of mathematics that say 2paralel lines doesnt cut,it took 24 centuries to discover with the euclidean geometry it was false, 2400 years of missconception

just think out of the box, how do ufos fly? they break all known laws of physics

and i believe the universe is nothing, matter is energy and energy is motion of matter or motion of motion, nothing, just an illusion, a mirage maybe even an hologram

and no the guards are stronger than you, eve if you hit them they will continue either alays lying or always telling the truth

Last edited by lerts, Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:00.

i think im gonna take a break, ive been dreaming on momentums, here it goes a riddle which appeared in inside the laberinth, is my fauvorit ridle

there are two doors one leads home and the other to get lost, there are 2 guards, one always says the truth and other always lies

how would you find the door home by questioning the guards, but you have to explain why

yes its a double yoyo spining in empty space both with a translation around center B and a rotation around center A, which i consider a translation as well being the weights eccentric, around center B

im trying to find out how it behaves as the radius of the double yoyo grows

seems to me momentum conservation and energy conservation cant accomplish at the same time in this case, of course i can be wrong but id like to know where and then what would the speeds be when the radius doubles, 2 m

hope this is more clear, but my presentation always suks:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/yoyos2.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/yoyo.jpg

is a solid weightless yoyo except for the 1 kg weights at a distance of 1 m from the ceter of the yoyo A

the radius of the axle i dont know it but i suppose is such that allows a translation from point b, the hold of the yoyo of 2 m/s and a rotation from the center of the yoyo A of 2 m/s

calculating the size of the axle so translation and rotation are 2 m/s im unable but i consider certain that with certain axle size i can get those initial speeds,wait i think thickness of axle should be 1 m radius

now i find difficult to mix linear and rotational momentums so instead of a solid yoyo i took an equivalent of 2 weights united by a weightless disc, of 1 kg each 1 m off center, it should have a momen of inertia equivalent to a certain yoyo

on this way i consider momentum as linear with respect to the center of the yoyo A instead of angular, and the same for energy

ive been from 2000 believing cons of moentum is wrong and studying about it, since i had the idea for an inertial thuster, thats why i explain my self so bad, i think everybody knows what i know

the only mistake they pointed out was the equation which i already solved

then why dont you help me and point me to my mistakes so at least i learn

sorry to come out o my cage but this is general interest:

there are many pages and programs that let you watch tv on the net, most channels are boring but some are interesting

can anybody reccomend me a good free program to watch legal tv on the net?