Eric Gisse wrote:
> MobyDikc wrote:
> > Rather than understanding the universe as matter/energy and space-time,
> > how about:
> >
> > space-time-matter
>
> How about understanding the current theories before you run off
> inventing your own?

Feynman admits to never understanding the theories he replaced:

"I worked on this problem about eight years until the final publication
in 1947. The beginning of the thing was at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, when I was an undergraduate student reading about the
known physics, learning slowly about all these things that people were
worrying about, and realizing ultimately that the fundamental problem
of the day was that the quantum theory of electricity and magnetism was
not completely satisfactory. This I gathered from books like those of
Heitler and Dirac. I was inspired by the remarks in these books; not by
the parts in which everything was proved and demonstrated carefully and
calculated, because I couldn't understand those very well. At the young
age what I could understand were the remarks about the fact that this
doesn't make any sense, and the last sentence of the book of Dirac I
can still remember, "It seems that some essentially new physical ideas
are here needed." So, I had this as a challenge and an inspiration. I
also had a personal feeling, that since they didn't get a satisfactory
answer to the problem I wanted to solve, I don't have to pay a lot of
attention to what they did do."

I suppose you might be a greater physicist than he, though?

What great theories have you made, and how did you make them.

As such an authority on who can create a theory and who can't, surely
you must have some great accomplishments in physics under your belt?


> > For example:
> >
> > at 0 seconds a 50kg ball is 100m above the earth - at 1 second the ball
> > is 50m above the earth
> >
> > From this alone we can calculate velocity, acceleration, force, work,
> > power, potential energy, and kinetic energy.
>
> Really?
>
> From those 5 numbers you can calculate all that?
>
> Prove it.

We can say that the velocity of ball from 0 seconds to 1 second was, on
average, 50m/s

We can say that the acceleration of the ball due to gravity at 0
seconds was 9.8m/s/s

Thus we can figure the initial downward velocity of the mass was
40.2m/s

That gives us the velocity, mass, and height of the ball at two point
in time.

The PE and KE of the ball at those times is different, but trivial to
calculate.



> > It might sound like a ridiculous suggestion, but maybe the first step
> > in unifiying the laws of physics is to break down the barrier between
> > space-time and matter?
>
> I love it when the uneducated make theories.

Are you a physicist?

Where does your authority on hypothesis creation specifically, and
physics in general come from?

Eric Gisse wrote:

[snip]
> Oh dear, you still don't understand what I'm talking about!

Ok then.

What is the KE of the object at 0 seconds?

Here again is what is known:

a ball is 100 m above the earth when the clock says 0 seconds
the mass of the earth is 5.9742 × 10^24 kg
the mass of the ball is 50 kg
and at 1 second, the ball is 50 m above the earth
only the altitude has changed, the latitude and longitude of the ball
are fixed

My answer is:

the ball traveled 50 m in 1 second, so its average velocity is 50m/s
the ball would accelerate 9.8 m/s during that one second due to gravity
so the ball's initial velocity must be 40.2 m/s
the KE = 1/2 * 50 kg * 40.2 m/s

1005 kg*(m/s)^2

If that's the wrong answer, I suppose it is because the instantaneous
velocity is not 50 m/s at 1 second.

If that's the wrong number, what's the right one?

 Original post & context:
1165278141.098704.153950@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com
1165382231.818341.70770@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com