1. Tsolkas's Law:

THE LAW OF FREE-FALL

a) Two unequal masses m1 and m2 (m1≠m2) which are simultaneously allowed to fall freely from the same height h in the gravitational field of a mass M, always fall at different velocitiesυ1≠υ2, either the gravitational field of mass M is non-homogeneous (g= non constant) or considered to be homogeneous (g = constant).
From the two unequal masses, the larger mass moves at a smaller velocity and the smaller one moves at a greater velocity.
b) Conversely, two equal masses m1 and m2 (m1=m2) which are simultaneously allowed to fall freely from the same height h in the gravitational field of a mass M, always fall at the same velocities υ1=υ2, either the gravitational field of mass M is non-homogeneous(g= non constant) or considered to be homogeneous (g = constant).
Where g is the intensity of the gravitational field of mass M.

http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/docume...uivalence.html

tsolkas

2.

3. 2 unequal masses fall with the same speed, it were proven by gallileo several hundread years ago

4. In fact 2 different masses were proven to fall at equal velocities by newton.

5. no, it was gallileo but newton gave the mathematical evidence of it. gallileo gave the physical evidence first

im getting more and more sick of ppl who goes against normal physics becuase there is something they dont like about it

F=Gm<sub>1</sub>m<sub>2</sub>/r²
F=dp/dt
but scince this is a none relative situation we can say F=m<sub>2</sub>a

then

Gm<sub>1</sub>m<sub>2</sub>/r²=m<sub>2</sub>a

remove m<sub>2</sub> from both sides
Gm<sub>1</sub>/r²=a
so no matter the mass of m<sub>2</sub> the acceleration is allways teh same, just as newton figured it out

6. Im sure it was Newton....Actually you may be right was it at the leaning tower of PIza yeah?

Yeah me too

7. its a rumor about the tower, but he used long what ever its caleld wich he rolled spheres on, and science it wasent exacly freefall, but the effect on both of them were the same and he could observe it he saw that they allways went equaly fast at any given point

this reminds me of martillo

8. Originally Posted by Zelos
its a rumor about the tower, but he used long what ever its caleld wich he rolled spheres on, and science it wasent exacly freefall, but the effect on both of them were the same and he could observe it he saw that they allways went equaly fast at any given point
Yep now I think of it you are right, It doesn't really matter who discovered it though just that it was.

9. yepp, you gotta be a complete morron to say anything against that it all fall with the same speed/acceleration. not even our dear friend martillo does that

10. He doesn't? Wow!

11. Originally Posted by Zelos
its a rumor about the tower, but he used long what ever its caleld wich he rolled spheres on,
Inclined plane.

12. Thank You
Gracias
Tack

13. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
Haha, found the error already. The first part of his first relation is not the correct form of conservation of energy. He just threw a whole lot of terms together to make a formula that would conveniently disprove einstein. The conservation of energy formula is U+K=C. Any conservation of energy formula from classical mechanics MUST have a constant C term in its formula, and he has failed to put one in. Thus, his conclutions cannot be accurate due to his incorrect formula for COE.

Now lets see how many of his experiments i can disprove =D.

Experiment 1:
He assumes his two aircraft to be inertial reference frames, but they are not. If they move at a constant velocity, Then the spherical form of earth's gravity will cause the force within the aircraft will vary. If they move around the earth, then they may be inertial reference frames localy, but they cannot be considered inertial reference frames with respect to each other, as his "experiment" does.

Experiment 2:
"An aircraft B is moving towards transmitter A at a steady velocity υ, across a straight line and at the same altitude h." By virtue of flying towards the transmitter at a constant velocity, the plane cannot remain at a constant velocity. Also, if it were flying at a constant speed, they could not fly at a constant height. Also he says that the light moves at speed C relative to the plane, but that is wrong. The plane merely OBSERVES the light ray to move at a speed C.

Experiment 3:
Sorry, dont have enough time for this one right now, will work on it later.

Experiment 4:
In this experiment he just says "The answer is NO!" but the answer is, in fact, yes. Go and do it.

Experiment 5:
"If Experiment ΧΤ b is conducted, then UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES whatsoever will observer Π΄ notice inside his automobile S΄ the presence of a magnetic field (either a steady or changing one), and certainly he will not notice the presence of any electromagnetic field (steady or changing one)." He obviously ahsnt conducted the experiment, because this conclusion is WRONG. (lol)

Experiment 6:
Well, he doesn't claim a result in this experiment, but im fairly sure that this experiment cant even be carried out, because all of the gamma waves will come out at different frequencies, so there is no way tell what the initial "v" of the wave is and there is thus no way to determine how much the doppler effect takes place.

Experiment 7:
Same as #6, just a different equation is applied.

Experiment 8:
Well, several things are wrong with this one. First is an error in measurement. You dont measure the "velocity of revolution." There is only an angular velocity and a radius, from which an absolute velocity can be calculated. Aside from that, There is no evidence currently supporting the fact that the galaxy is revolving around anything. Also, This is a very funny experiment to carry out. The detector on Earth will notice something very strange that is NOT predicted by the New Ether Theory. The detector will be very surprised to find that no matter how many times the experiment is carried out, the detector will notice that the signals from the satellite will always come more frequently than expected. This frequency increase is due to a prediction of Relativity and is not predicted by the New Ether Theory. And about the M-M rebutal, that is all just a dodge. One would have to understand the nature of the ether, which nobody does. If one doesn't understand the nature of the ether, then there is no reason to believe the existence of an "etherosphere," for all fluids we know of will NOT exibit this behavior around a sphere traveling through the fluid.

Finaly, about the Mercury idea that was proposed. Sorry, but the rotation of the sun WAS taken into account in the calculation of the rotation Murcury's perihelion.

OK, well, there you go. I have just disproven nearly all of what was "Proven." if you have any problems with what i have posted, post on the forums or email me

14. Originally Posted by Zelos
yepp, you gotta be a complete morron to say anything against that it all fall with the same speed/acceleration. not even our dear friend martillo does that
The notion that 2 unequal masses will fall at the same speed is pretty naive. Do you really think that the effect of air friction will be non-measurable?

15. we assume of course its the same form/size. But ofcourse over long distances with big size differens air friction willl be noticble. But we can also think as we are on the moon

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement