0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
That would be the point on the drawing marked X. So yes I can do simple vectors.
That means the blue ball is moving 4 units in the x direction and 3 units in the y direction which means the ball is moving at 5 units along a line that is 36.9 degrees from the CD line (x-axis).
The blue ball is moving at an unchanged speed of 4 units the vector sum of 3 units in the y direction and 2.6 units in the x directionWhich is shown by the original drawing.
That change is shown in the diagram as the red mass coming to rest, no residual momentum, the blue mass moves on the line of CD an unchanged speed of 4 units and also along the line of BC at speed of 3 units.
You originally said that the blue ball was moving at 4 units in the x-direction after the collision:
it because your original numbers result in the ball moving at speed of 5 units after the collision
Now you dishonestly say that you have always said the ball is moving at 2.6 units in the x-direction.It is obvious why you made up this lie, it because your original numbers result in the ball moving at speed of 5 units after the collision, which is not what you 'want' the answer to be.
Halc's example simply refutes your spurious claim.
If one applies a force at 90 degrees to an object in motion the velocity component in the original direction will not change but acceleration will undoubtedly occur in the direction of the applied force.
Quote from: Momentus on 20/08/2023 19:28:17I think that is an excellent observationIt wasn't an observation, it was a question.And it's a question which you failed to answer.
I think that is an excellent observation
No you have made that up. Tell me which post I said that in. Use the quote function.
You are arguing in bad faith. Or to put it more simply you are lying.
Still we have the problem where the OP will not accept that a force at right angles can influence the speed of the mass.
By your assertions, the ball will attain a new velocity of 0.1 m/sec mostly west and will only make it past the edge of the track because it's falling off the tee and not go 200 meters.
blue balls speed in the y direction goes from 0 m/s before the collision to 3 m/s i
It is rather humorous that the OP says a force that is perpendicular to a moving ball cannot change the speed of the ball and then turns around and says that the blue ball does increase in speed from 0 to 3 m/s in the y direction.
The diagram shows a blue ball traveling at a velocity of A-C, which is struck by a red ball traveling at a velocity of B-C.The Blue ball is deflected with a resultant velocity C-D, the vector change is solely of direction, the red ball comes to rest its vector change is solely of magnitude.
The OP suggests that you read the Principia before making a complete fool of yourself.
Speed is distance travelled along line of motion over time, i e m/s. The speed of the blue ball along its direction of travel at all times is 4 units.
The motion of 3 units is a vector on the x axis of the speed of the blue ball after its direction has been changed by the perpendicular impulse. How is that humorous?
It is rather humorous that the OP says a force that is perpendicular to a moving ball cannot change the speed of the ball and then turns around and says that the blue ball does increase in speed from 0 to 3 m/s in the y direction
No The OP did not say that.
the blue mass moves on the line of CD an unchanged speed of 4 units and also along the line of BC at speed of 3 units.
If a force is applied perpendicular to an object's velocity, it will alter the direction of motion without changing the speed. I think that this applies to a blue ball rolling down a snooker table and struck by a red ball rolling across the tableAlso, the red ball stops at the point of impact.I cannot see how it can behave in any other way, but seek confirmation.
Nobody who actually has a valid new theory is going to publish it in a forum. New ideas are not going to come out of here.
In my description I assumed that perpendicular force did not change speed, only direction. I thought that was axiomatic.
How do you explain something to a naked science god who dismisses Newton's proof of centripetal force as irrelevant?
I am an amateur interested in science