[Origin]

Trust is clearly understood by NASA to be energy. I will just repeat the point you evaded "So 2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules of thrust?"

You have said "2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules" a couple of times.  What are you talking about?  Maybe if we hash that out we could find the source of your misunderstanding.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

The weight or force of 1 kg due to gravity on the surface of the earth is  about 10 Newtons.

A rare perfect agreement

10 Newtons is 10  3d0115ca1ccaac9138b871d44df3d27a.gif
1 Joule is 1 dcc41cf5e8f8482e5511dd88aa31ef63.gif

Please not that:  10 3d0115ca1ccaac9138b871d44df3d27a.gif does not equal 1

Mathematical derivatives are fun... But let's try a physically real one. If I dropped one newton 1 m what would you guess its weight would be in the first milliseconds of hitting a scale? Fact is a Newton moving a velocity of 9.8 has a momentum equal to 1 kg moving 1 meter per second.

I think you are either trolling or a "lost ball in high weeds".

These kind of opinions aren't very helpful...not exactly persuasive science

edited for a silly mistake.

I don't think you got them all

No.  A 100 gm object that is not moving has no velocity.

It's kind of a change of subject... But I think it can be logically proven that you never stop moving in gravity. Parts of you right now are pushing into the Earth.. they must be moving to push in. The earth pushes you back up... It moves pieces of you back up. If you're not falling in gravity... you are in fact oscillating in gravity.

Nope.  It will be accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 but the velocity after falling 1 meter will not be 9.8 m/s, it will be moving at about 4.5 m/s

Good point... So a unit of momentum would be 1/2 a joule.

[Origin]

Doesn't change the fact that the treatment is brutally unfair... Why solicit people with new theories to post if they aren't going to be allowed to defend the post?

You started out saying that standard science is "silly nonsense" and "nonscience".  Maybe if you didn't come in here with a chip on your shoulder you wouldn't get this type of response?

[Origin]

Oh for crying out loud now momentum is in the units of joules too?!?

So a unit of momentum would be 1/2 a joule

I don't see how this conversation can go any where else but continue on a death spiral...

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

You have said "2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules" a couple of times.  What are you talking about?  Maybe if we hash that out we could find the source of your misunderstanding.

Well I actually stated it in the form of a question... If we agree that a joule can be converted into other units like Watts or thermal units.. Then it should be agreed it would be impossible for a spaceship to go straight if it is leaking 2000 units of heat out one side of the ship and only 2 units out the other side.

You started out saying that standard science is "silly nonsense" and "nonscience".

That's not exactly what I said... If I said conventional science has plus and minus wrong would you convert that into I said all science is wrong? I clearly believe physics has made a lot of what will be proven to be mistakes... Space isn't bent nothing is entangled and I think kinetic energy is mush. I don't think I was aggressively rude and making any of my arguments against kinetic energy. May I inquire, have you actually read the history of the formula?

Maybe if you didn't come in here with a chip on your shoulder you wouldn't get this type of response?

Disagreement isn't Pleasant... We should agree to try not to make it any more unpleasant than is necessary.

Oh for crying out loud now momentum is in the units of joules too?!?

Ironic that you love doing mathematical this equals that stuff... But hate doing it to physical reality

I don't see how this conversation can go any where else but continue on a death spiral...

300 years ago the argument ended in a propaganda spiral... The fact is the subject is shrouded in a black void of absent evidence.... If Newton were alive he would want this fight fought.

[Bored chemist]

you have still produced no physical experimental evidence in defense of your 350 year old religious idea

Yes I have.
Designs work.

[Bored chemist]

No That is gibberish.

Yes, saying  a kilometre is half a second is stupid, because they are different things.
And saying

a newton is 1/10 of a joule

is just as stupid, and for the same reason.

You need to recognise that.

[Bored chemist]

I don't think I was aggressively rude and making any of my arguments against kinetic energy.

You have not actually made any arguments against it.
You just made mistakes.

[Bored chemist]

The simple truth is the kinetic energy formula can't be defended as good science because there is NO good physical experimental evidence proving its predictions.

This is probably the best known data on the subject
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/answers/what-is-the-stopping-and-braking-distance-of-a-car

[Origin]

So a unit of momentum would be 1/2 a joule.

You do realize that you are saying that: , which is impossible?

It is difficult to discuss physics with you when you seem to not even understand the absolute basics.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

    you have still produced no physical experimental evidence in defense of your 350 year old religious idea

Yes I have.
Designs work.

Experimental evidence is a Cornerstone of good science... Math without physical evidence is just a fable.. an abstract analogy

    a newton is 1/10 of a joule

is just as stupid, and for the same reason.

You need to recognise that.

Saying it's stupid and proving it aren't the same thing. Doing it your way let's look at the math... A joule is a Newton falling 1 m ...as has been pointed out at impact the velocity will be 4.8m/s... If we were to drop that on a spring scale what would you guess the maximum deflection/reading would be?

You have not actually made any arguments against it.
You just made mistakes.

I'm rubber you're glue blah blah blah... Can you quote a single good argument leibnitz Made in defense of the "living Force"

This is probably the best known data on the subject

Like the clay experiments of the 1700 this is more poor reasoning, and bad science. The faster your velocity the less weight per square inch on the road surface. ie. Less friction. Your data also does not show the 4x prediction of your mathematics. far short in fact.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

You do realize that you are saying that: 2dd18161f150ebc922465b14757eda51.gif, which is impossible?

that gibberish isn't quoting me... Why would I divide a square second (whatever that is) into a square meter when trying to determine a linear velocity? Collisions aren't gravity Against Gravity... There are no constant forces applied at a constant rate.

It is difficult to discuss physics with you when you seem to not even understand the absolute basics.

I would agree that we agree on too few basic facts. I like physical evidence you apparently don't. I don't think leibnitz made a single rational argument in defense of vmv. I don't think the clay experiments of the 1700s should have fooled anyone with meager scientific literacy. I don't think it's nice to say Newton said things he didn't say. ...etc.

[Kryptid]

The other moderators and I were just having a conversation about what constitutes a reason for locking threads. One of things that we hit on was that repetition of something that is firmly known to be false despite continual correction could be grounds for locking a thread. For that reason, I am going to advise you to:

(1) Stop saying that force is energy (when you claimed that a newton is 1/10 of a joule). A stick of dynamite contains energy even if there is no force acting on it.
(2) Stop saying that energy is momentum (when you claimed momentum is the only energy there ever was or ever will be). A stick of dynamite contains energy even if it’s sitting still (and therefore has no momentum).

If you do not cease with this, I am going to lock the thread to stop the spam.

If you want me to demonstrate that the standard kinetic energy equation is correct, then I will do so. Let’s start with something that, hopefully, isn’t too much of a stretch for you to agree on: if an elevator goes up 1 floor, then a certain amount of energy has to be expended in order to raise it up against the force of gravity. The amount of energy expended will be the same whether it is going from ground level up to floor 1 or whether it is going from floor 1 to floor 2. This is because the elevator is moving the same distance against gravity in both cases*.

(*Yes, I’m aware that gravity becomes weaker with distance, but on the scale of something so small as a building when compared to the Earth, that effect is negligible for all practical purposes here.)

So we can conclude that it takes twice as much energy for the elevator to be raised against gravity when moving twice the distance. In order for energy to be conserved, the inverse must also be true. An object that falls twice the distance gains twice the kinetic energy. This leads to point number 1:

(1) The amount of kinetic energy gained by an object when it falls is linearly proportional to the distance that it falls.

Now we move on to acceleration due to gravity. When an object is released in a gravitational field with a force of 1G, that mass will accelerate at a rate of 9.81 meters per second per second (which is something that I hope you do not dispute, since this actually has been measured).

So what we need to know is how fast it is travelling after some distance D and how fast it is travelling after some distance 2D (I’ll say 1 meter and 2 meters, to make this easier and we are going to ignore air resistance. We can say we perform this experiment in a vacuum chamber). We can do this using Torricelli’s equation. The final velocity after falling one meter is:

(v_final)² = (v_initial)² + 2aΔx

(v_final)² = 0² + 2(9.81)(1)
(v_final)² = 19.62
v_final = √19.62
v_final = 4.42945 m/s

The final velocity after falling two meters is:

(v_final)² = 0² + 2(9.81)(2)
(v_final)² = 39.24
v_final = √39.24
v_final = 6.2641839 m/s

So how much faster is the object going after falling twice as far? That would be 6.2641839/4.42945 = 1.4141966 times faster. Despite falling twice as far (and therefore gaining twice as much kinetic energy, as per “point number 1”), the object has not gained twice the speed, but less than twice the speed instead. This leads to point number 2:

(2) Doubling an object’s kinetic energy results in only about a 1.4142-fold increase in speed.

Now the question arises, does this match what the standard kinetic energy equation predicts? When rearranged to solve for velocity when kinetic energy is known, the equation takes the form: v = √(KE/(0.5)m). When kinetic energy is set to 1 joule for a mass of 1 kilogram, we get:

v = √(KE/(0.5)m)
v = √(1/(0.5)1)
v = √(2)
v = 1.4142 m/s

If we double the kinetic energy to 2 joules, we get;

v = √(KE/(0.5)m)
v = √(2/(0.5)1)
v = √(4)
v = 2 m/s

Since 2 divided by 1.4142 is equal to 1.4142, we see that the standard kinetic energy equation matches what was stated in point number 2. So there you have it, a step-by-step explanation for how we know that the kinetic energy equation is correct. So we can now come to one of three conclusions:

(1) Point number 1 is wrong (that energy isn’t gained linearly with distance fallen),
(2) Point number 2 is wrong (which in turn either means that Torricelli’s equation for acceleration is wrong or that I have done a miscalculation), or
(3) The kinetic energy equation is correct.

So which is it?

[Bored chemist]

Experimental evidence is a Cornerstone of good science

The fact that science works is experimental evidence.
You have provided none.
Whenever I point this out you repeat the lie that I have not given any evidence.

Doing it your way let's look at the math

That's not doing it my way; it's doing it wrong.

Your data also does not show the 4x prediction of your mathematics. far short in fact.

The data shows it's a quadratic.
That's enough to show that you are wrong.

Stop dist.JPG (29.43 kB . 514x326 - viewed 922 times)

[Bored chemist]

The other moderators and I were just having a conversation about what constitutes a reason for locking threads. One of things that we hit on was that repetition of something that is firmly known to be false despite continual correction could be grounds for locking a thread.

I invite the mods to consider  including that here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0#lastPost
with a view to curtailing this sort of nonsense  more readily in future.

(Though it could be regarded as part of  section 4  "4.Keep it science").

[Colin2B]

I invite the mods to consider  including that here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0#lastPost
with a view to curtailing this sort of nonsense  more readily in future.

(Though it could be regarded as part of  section 4  "4.Keep it science").

In the terms a new user agrees to at registration there is a clause that says  “you will not post any material which is false, ......., inaccurate..........”.
Obviously, there is some leeway to allow a new theorist to state their case, but we are considering our response to blatant misinformation, whether deliberate or due to ignorance. 

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

The other moderators and I were just having a conversation about what constitutes a reason for locking threads. One of things that we hit on was that repetition of something that is firmly known to be false despite continual correction could be grounds for locking a thread. For that reason, I am going to advise you to:

Like the Inquisition to Galileo... Stop speaking your truth or else.

(1) Stop saying that force is energy

Stop quoting Newton and descarte

A stick of dynamite contains energy even if there is no force acting on it.

I certainly never argued otherwise... But that energy has nothing to do with the energy its mass in motion would provide in a car accident.

(2) Stop saying that energy is momentum (when you claimed momentum is the only energy there ever was or ever will be).

Why don't you just ban everything written by the descarte and Newton

A stick of dynamite contains energy even if it’s sitting still (and therefore has no momentum).

If I throw a can of gas against a brick wall and it just spills out should I assume all the chemical energy in the gasoline added to the momentum that hit the wall?

If you do not cease with this, I am going to lock the thread to stop the spam.

The Protectors of the faith have spoken ...bok Bok

If you want me to demonstrate that the standard kinetic energy equation is correct, then I will do so.

I'm interested in physical experimental evidence... Like most of the great scientists in history.

if an elevator goes up 1 floor....

I haven't received any reasonable reply to the thought experiments I provided... And now you want to change the subject

So we can conclude that it takes twice as much energy for the elevator to be raised against gravity when moving twice the distance.

Only if the velocity remains constant... Gravity Falls like rain the longer you're in it the more you collect. A larger your mass the more you collect.

In order for energy to be conserved, the inverse must also be true. An object that falls twice the distance gains twice the kinetic energy.

in gravity it takes 4 times the distance to double the velocity... Twice the time

(1) The amount of kinetic energy gained by an object when it falls is linearly proportional to the distance that it falls.

None of my thought experiments have anything directly to do with gravity. How is this conversation relevant to you proving 8 lb bowling balls going 16 miles an hour have twice as much energy as 16 lb balls going eight.

Now we move on to acceleration due to gravity. When an object is released in a gravitational field with a force of 1G, that mass will accelerate at a rate of 9.81 meters per second per second (which is something that I hope you do not dispute, since this actually has been measured).

Yet in the first meter it only achieves a speed of 4.8 m/s

So how much faster is the object going after falling twice as far? That would be 6.2641839/4.42945 = 1.4141966 times faster. Despite falling twice as far (and therefore gaining twice as much kinetic energy, as per “point number 1”), the object has not gained twice the speed, but less than twice the speed instead. This leads to point number 2:

This has nothing to do with any of my arguments. If I drop a 1 Mass object 1 m from the fulcrum of a lever. And place a a 1/2 Mass object 2 meters from the fulcrum on the other side of the leaver... The half mass object will not be launched at only 1.4 the velocity of the dropped Mass

(2) Doubling an object’s kinetic energy results in only about a 1.4142-fold increase in speed.

The subject under contention is the existence of kinetic energy. Momentum is the only thing that ever needs to be conserved

Since 2 divided by 1.4142 is equal to 1.4142, we see that the standard kinetic energy equation matches what was stated in point number 2. So there you have it, a step-by-step explanation for how we know that the kinetic energy equation is correct. So we can now come to one of three conclusions:

(1) Point number 1 is wrong (that energy isn’t gained linearly with distance fallen),
(2) Point number 2 is wrong (which in turn either means that Torricelli’s equation for acceleration is wrong or that I have done a miscalculation), or
(3) The kinetic energy equation is correct.

So which is it?

Point 1 is certainly wrong as gravity is a time dependent Force. As Newton said force equals change in the momentum over unit of time... If you want to know the total Force you just find the total change in the momentum.

point 2 is only relevant when analyzing force applied at a constant rate

As to (3) I would point out that For the first 100 years the kinetic energy equation was vmv.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

The fact that science works is experimental evidence.

That's like saying religion is working because everyone isn't a mass murderer

You have provided none.
Whenever I point this out you repeat the lie that I have not given any evidence.

In every case I have requested <b>"physical" experimental evidence.</b> I have perpetrated no lies.

    Doing it your way let's look at the math

That's not doing it my way; it's doing it wrong.

Wrong how?

    Your data also does not show the 4x prediction of your mathematics. far short in fact.

The data shows it's a quadratic.
That's enough to show that you are wrong.

So when your kind says it takes "four times as much fuel to go twice as fast" you really mean three times? And I guess you're just going to ignore the sensible argument at higher speeds reduce friction.

    The other moderators and I were just having a conversation about what constitutes a reason for locking threads. One of things that we hit on was that repetition of something that is firmly known to be false despite continual correction could be grounds for locking a thread.

I invite the mods to consider  including that here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0#lastPost
with a view to curtailing this sort of nonsense  more readily in future.

(Though it could be regarded as part of  section 4  "4.Keep it science").

This kind of censorship is ugly... You're making intelligence look stupid... And cowardly

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 23:35:46

    I invite the mods to consider  including that here
    https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0#lastPost
    with a view to curtailing this sort of nonsense  more readily in future.

    (Though it could be regarded as part of  section 4  "4.Keep it science").

In the terms a new user agrees to at registration there is a clause that says  “you will not post any material which is false, ......., inaccurate..........”.
Obviously, there is some leeway to allow a new theorist to state their case, but we are considering our response to blatant misinformation, whether deliberate or due to ignorance. 

This is an amazing sham to be perpetrated by people who sell themselves as science lovers

[Kryptid]

So you are saying that you are not going to comply. That's strike 2. 3 strikes and you're out. I'm giving you one more chance to fix that problem.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

So you are saying that you are not going to comply. That's strike 2. 3 strikes and you're out. I'm giving you one more chance to fix that problem.

If I could request immunity for this one post... I'm not exactly clear regarding my crimes... I believe momentum is energy... Descarte believed momentum was energy... Galileo believed momentum was energy.... Newton believed momentum was energy. You're saying I'm not allowed to use any of their arguments, or any arguments of my own in defense of that sincere belief?   ... So I'm supposed to argue why kinetic energy is wrong without arguing why momentum is right?