Why http://optionalreaction.com/articles/ghd/index.htm Isn't Working?

  • Thread starter Thread starter optionalreaction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Work
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around a website, optionalreaction.com, which is questioned for its validity and functionality. The initial inquiry about the site's non-functionality leads to a debate about the content, which some participants dismiss as nonsensical. The conversation highlights a perceived lack of humor and serious engagement from users, with one participant suggesting that the claims made on the site are fundamentally flawed and easily disproven by basic physics principles, such as Newton's second law (f=ma). The discussion also touches on the implications of the site's claims regarding energy efficiency in physics, with skepticism about the accuracy and credibility of the information presented. Overall, the thread reflects frustration over the site's content and a consensus that it lacks scientific merit.
optionalreaction
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Could anyone tell me why http://optionalreaction.com/articles/ghd/index.htm doesn't work?

Many thanks in advance (this problem has been bothering me for a long time),
Keith
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Because it is nonsense?
 
What is nonsense?
 
This discovery has been made available to the universe in the hope that it will help ease the pain and suffering of those who are victims of the universe.

That is nonsense.
 
I guess you guys have no sense of humour here?

I have had 1 (7 point) warning, and two unintelligent replies.

Cya
 
In addition, you've got a dumb website.
Goodbye.
 
optionalreaction said:
I guess you guys have no sense of humour here?
Sense of humour. OK, so it's a joke. And you were hoping to dupe others into making serious replies?

Cya
 
optionalreaction said:
Hi,

Could anyone tell me why http://optionalreaction.com/articles/ghd/index.htm doesn't work?

Many thanks in advance (this problem has been bothering me for a long time),
Keith
Just in case you're serious, do the math. Its pretty straightforward that if f=ma then ma=f. You flipped an equation over and somehow got a different answer doing it one way than the other way!

edit: IIRC, I first learned f=ma in 8th grade physical science class coincident with geometry/trigonometry. This problem is a simple sliding-on-a-frictionless-incline problem and a piece of cake for a halfway competent 8th grader. That 8th grader would probably laugh at your website's claim. So its tough to expect that real engineers would give you any more than a dismissive "that's nonsense".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The release of this information (November 2002) will stop any patents.
That was my favorite part.
 
  • #10
To start off, how do you justify your claim that:

Accelerating a ball balanced on a 45 degree slope needs only ~62.5% of the energy needed to directly accelerate a ball of equal mass.
 
Back
Top