0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A better way to write kinetic energy, is MV1 times 1/2V2, with V1 and V2 not always equal.
This is an extension of two other topics on this subject. I would have posted this within those other topics, but for some reason when I log into those topics, I am redirected or hijacked to a parallel abridged version of the web site. In this parallel site less posts are shown. The site does not update.If I log out and act as a guest, I can see the entire topic on this site. If I log back in, I get the abridged version. I had this problem when I moved a few months ago. I was using free wifi until my internet service was reconnected. I was vulnerable to someone who was redirecting me to their phony web site. But I caught on early and I had to be selective.
[nudge]Does anyone know why the format of locked threads gets scrambled?
Quote from: puppypower on 13/01/2022 14:34:02A better way to write kinetic energy, is MV1 times 1/2V2, with V1 and V2 not always equal.Do you have an example where the kinetic energy of an object has 2 separate velocities?
, as well as the transfer of momentum into kinetic energy.
It seems worthy of contemplation
since it has new applications for old things.
V2, as written above, has the units of velocity, however, this second velocity is not always velocity V1per se. In my dimensional analysis, I first added the unit of time; 1/t to momentum to get a force impulse. This force can then cause a transfer of momentum, with the force acting over a distance; d, to define the work and the final kinetic energy. The dimensional analysis was a sequence of steps, that adds up to the units of velocity d/t. However, this is occurring sequentially, as separate units, going from momentum to force to work.As an application, say we had a billiard ball, hitting a ball of clay. This is not an ideal collusion scenario. This collusion will create work associated with the deformation of the clay, as well as the transfer of momentum into kinetic energy. My above equation can adapt to the needs of the real world but one velocity squared will not be able to do all this.This analysis was new to me and came to me the other day. It seems worthy of contemplation since it has new applications for old things.One case in point is the Doppler shift and universal red shift. The doppler shift is due to velocity between frames of references, while the red shift of the photons is connected to the energy difference that the photon appear to experience. The Doppler shift velocity needs to be squared to get the correct units for an equivalent energy change. The velocity of the photon does not change, so V2 is not the correct path. The change of observed photon energy is better modeled as sequential application of the extra t and d to change the original energy of the photons, via relative work. V1 and V2 is better, with V1 the doppler shift velocity and V2 adding t and d, directly to transfer work/energy and get a red shift with zero velocity change in the photon but a velocity reference frame difference.