[puppypower (OP)]

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. 

I can shed some light on this topic, but I will need to start fresh, since those two original topics have me side detoured to who knows where and why. 

Momentum is defined MV or is mass times velocity. Say we had a mass of 10 and a velocity of 10, we get a momentum of 10x 10 = 100. If we have a mass of 5 and a velocity of 20 we also get a momentum of 100; 5 X 20=100.

If we plug these same values of mass and velocity into the kinetic energy equation 1/2MV2, the first scenario gives the result of 1/2MV2= 1/2 x10 x 100 = 500. The second gives a result 1/2 MV2 = 1/2 x 5 x 400  =1000.

In this scenario, the although the momenta are equal, the kinetic energy is double for the second scenario. The same momentum does not create the same kinetic energy in all cases. One can cherry pick to make this so. This result although odd, is expected, since the velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation, thereby giving more weight to velocity change, than to the mass change. I halved the mass, but I then doubled or square the velocity. The result slanted toward the velocity side. 

If we do a more complete energy balance, and we also look at mass using E=MC2.  Mass contains a huge amount of enthalpy or internal energy. Doubling the mass will more that make up, in total energy, for the difference in the square of velocity. However, since mass is very stable and this energy is not easy to extract in motion phenomena, we rarely need to take this into account, when doing a working energy balance. Even  the doubled Kinetic energy in my example does not represent  a complete energy balance, since most of the energy is in the form of doubling the unchanging mass. What is interesting in GR deals with the mass energy while SR deals with the impact of the velocity based energy. They are dealt with separately. 

If you compare the dimensions of momentum to force; MV to MV/t or Md/t to Md/t/t,  force differs from momentum, by an extra unit of time. Force is essentially is momentum divided by time.

Work is defined as force times distance; Fd or a force applied over a distance d. This extra unit of distance, added to force, has the units of energy. Or F=Mv/t times d, has the same units as kinetic energy; 1/2Md2/t2. The dimensional analysis all adds up. To get force and kinetic energy from momentum we need to add an extra unit of time and then an extra unit of distance, which causes other types of phenomena to appear.

Momentum and Kinetic Energy differ by one extra unit of time and one extra unit of distance. To  experimentally retrieve and measure the kinetic energy, imply by any given momentum, we need to create a force situation in time; MV/t; force impulse or collusion, that might be transferred over a distance d, to measure the kinetic energy. An object in motion; momentum, will not change unless acted upon by a force;  extra time unit.

If we look at a red shift or Doppler shift, this phenomena is connected to velocity in general and relative velocity, in particulate. Whereas, kinetic energy is velocity squared. The second velocity that makes kinetic energy different, from momentum, is connected to the time associated with a force and the distance associated with work. This is not exactly, another velocity, even if the units add up.

The latter is connected to a time impulse; time potential, and distance potential, acting sequentially, and not as a formal velocity, even though these have the same dimensions. The energy change of a red shift is not the same a change simple relative velocity since the energy change has other factors; two sequential dimensions on top of that.

A better way to write kinetic energy, is MV₁ times 1/2V₂, with V₁ and V₂ not always equal. The energy change of the red shift may not be the same as the change; difference, in momentum based velocity. In my first example it was twice.

[Origin]

A 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?

[Bored chemist]

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. 

I think PP is being paranoid, but I also think I see his point.
I find that when I try to use a PC to look at threads that were locked- typically because they were rubbish- the format is scrambled.
All I see is the first post and then lots of blank space.

On the other hand, I can still see the page if I access it via my phone.
Does anyone else get this effect?


I don't know if this is OT or not; the OP introduced it.

[Bored chemist]

[nudge]
Does anyone know why the format of locked threads gets scrambled?

[Colin2B]

[nudge]
Does anyone know why the format of locked threads gets scrambled?

I’ll have a look

[Origin]

A 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?

[puppypower (OP)]

A 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?

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.

[Bored chemist]

, as well as the transfer of momentum into kinetic energy.

You can not do that.

[Bored chemist]

It seems worthy of contemplation

Why?
It is transparently wrong; why would we waste time on it?

since it has new applications for old things.

What applications are there for getting the wrong answer?
Are you going into politics?

[Bored chemist]

A 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?

Well... if he has an example of something with two different velocities, he didn't tell us about it.

[Origin]

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.

Thanks for the response, but I did not see an example of 2 velocities.  Perhaps you could work out a simple example with numbers to demonstrate your idea.