Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
NASA pages that mentioned kinetic energy as 1/2*mv^2, tried to show him how harmonic oscillators workDocument was about jet engines and had absolutely nothing to do with navigating a spaceship in empty space.
Please post the times at which the contradictory results are obtained.Walter Lewin: https://youtu.be/-q-WiX-KVXo?t=1268
At about 3:15 you says it's a complete contradiction because the momentum doesn't change.The experiments have completely contrary results. In one experiment the two Mass object leaves with 2/3 the initial velocity... In the other it is 1/3.
But momentum is a conserved property. We wouldn't expect it to change.
What point did you think you were making?
At best, you seem to have shown that your experimental error trying to judge distances per frame in a video is worse the the electronic timers in the other video.The entire reason the arbor scientific video has a tape measure running along the track is to produce highly accurate documentation of speed.
Clearly you don't understand what the video shows.When experiments don't produce the same results just pretend they did? That certainly isn't out of any good "science" book.
One of of us doesn't; and I say it shows what the guy who made it says that it shows.
I'll show you the arbor scientific video that completely contradicts the results of professor Lewin.
At 22 minutes or so, you can see that the results he measures agree with the predictions of conventional science to within 2% or betterClearly you don't understand what the video shows.
Are you saying that your predictions offer better accuracy, or are you citing a video that shows science working, but pretending that it shows a failure?
Show us a video of one then.
The fact is, painfully simple experiments can provide decisive answers.I'm only asking for the same thing from you. You contend that things with the same momentum can have different Energies. I'm just saying show me.
Show us a video of one then.
I'm not going to do anything until we can agree on a set-up, though.I have likewise limited ability to do technically precise experiments... I likewise don't want to expend the effort if in the end you will just claim some loophole.
I don't have a high-speed camera, so making accurate measurements of velocity directly would be potentially difficult for me.In analyzing different videos I have found 30 frames per second to be more then adequate.
calculate how fast the lighter ball is moving once it is thrown into the air by how high it fliesAs long as we agree that its maximum velocity will be its Lift-Off velocity where the kinetic energy is at maximum and the gravitational potential energy is at minimum.
The second would be a similar idea, but using a spring instead of a lever.The catch with a spring is it must be balanced to the size of objects. The spring must be stiff/fast enough to move the lighter object at the required speed.
Why would it be helpful to muddle up units like that?I care not as the units are redundant. But until it is accepted that weight/pressure is a unit of heat then there's little hope of creating a universal energy unit. I think "momentum's" should be understood as a quantity of energy... A number of energy units.
You seem not to understand that the pendulum bends.I'll agree I don't understand what you're talking about and how it's relevant to the basic function of a lever.
Five minutes of stating that "science is wrong" without any evidence that science is wrong, or evidence that you are right.If you're claiming there was something unfactual in the description of how the lever works could you quote that error.
You just don't understand that momentum and energy are different things.I don't think Jesus Is God either.
Until you learn that you are jut babbling.I don't think much of what you type either
OK, well isn't it interesting that if you use those units for a joule in you calculationsHaving common agreeable units is a good thing... I think it would be sensible to call the weight of 100 grams a newton and the weight of a kilogram a jewel. Unfortunately 100 g falling 1 m would only be one half a joule... So maybe we should just agree that a kilogram has a weight of 2 joules?
you can build a nuclear power plant; probably just a lucky coincidence right?So there wouldn't be radioactive isotopes without the invention of the kinetic energy Theory?
So in your new physics what are the units of a joule?1j=1/2kg
That means if 1 [unit of momentum] equals 1/2 joule then another way of writing that is 2dd18161f150ebc922465b14757eda51.gif.Obviously I'm "exactly" opposing everything on the right side of that equation. I think that's all fairy tale baby slobber (Except for the mv part)... I obviously didn't say it or defend it.
Where is the strawman?
might have been as low as 10The profile page says 35 but I'll give it another try
Conservation of momentum is not only about the magnitude of momentum, but also its direction. A 10-ton train falling downwards and a 5-ton train moving upwards at twice the speed do not, in fact, have the same momentum (as they are moving in opposite directions).Momentum is mass times velocity. I can't possibly understand the word game you are playing here.
If we have a very rusty lever that is stuck in place, we can drop the 10-ton train on one side and the 5-ton train won't move at all.Why don't you just prohibit thought experiments as an argument tool... Clearly the thought experiment isn't about broken leavers.
That doesn't mean that conservation of momentum is violated because the 10-ton trained stopped moving without the 5-ton train moving in response. Rather, momentum is conserved by the system's interaction with the Earth itself (which the lever is presumably anchored to). The Earth itself conserves the momentum of the system by moving in response to the movement of the trains and levers.You should give out awards for the greatest evasion of a point made. I think you have a sure winner here.
So you can't use conservation of momentum as a means to conclude that the 5-ton train must move at twice the speed of the 10-ton train.I wasn't using conservation of momentum as a proof of what happens. I was merely pointing out that the event would not be a violation of conservation of momentum. Do you think Galileo would be unconvinced regarding the basic functions of a lever?
What we are arguing about is your claim that it is perfectly sensible to believe that we have generated twice as much kinetic energy by merely droping the 10-ton train.I didn't say you said that... I'm arguing that it is the factual consequence of the experiment accepting your theory of kinetic energy
I never said that.
The movements all must happen in the same time.The top of a pendulum doesn't have to move distance in the same time frame as the bottom of the pendulum?
No, they can not.
What I don't understand is your hysterical fear.When this board is shut down for no good reason it won't be an imaginary event. It will just be more inquisitional censorship.
That is because the "hysterical fear" only exists in your imagination.
I disagree with this entirelySo the entire paragraph Was Shakespearean perfection... And anyone who might disagree should be insulted and censored. Fun Club you have here.
Every single experiment and observation has shown it to be true.
If you disagree with it, you are a fantasist.
What two definitions of the same thing do you think you are talking about?From 1650 to about 1812 there was extensive debate among scientists regarding the nature of "energy". Not unlike the debate regarding the existence of an aether. Some scientists believe momentum defines energy... Others believed in the "living Force". I will plainly argue that the trial of these facts only took place in kangaroo courts. And the issue needs fair and disciplined adjudication. Which it clearly won't receive here.
Did you actually perform this experiment in physical reality? If not, then you are still the pot calling the kettle black.In starting this subject I intended to provide video links to clips of different experiments. I did not realize I would be prevented from doing so. Regardless I wish there were more "actual experiments" in the reservoir of data to be processed. I wish physics would repeat the Eddington experiment with the four hundred times better resolution from space. We should agree that it would be very nice if you could show an experiment where it takes four times more gas you go twice as fast. Regarding my thought experiment, levers have been used for tens of thousands of years by human beings. Essential to its function is its ability to conversationally convert different forms of momentum. The fact that a 10-ton train dropped on one side of a lever can produce a 5-ton train going 2x as fast on the other side should not be a possible dispute as the momentum is conserved. What we are arguing about is your claim that it is perfectly sensible to believe that we have generated twice as much kinetic energy by merely droping the 10-ton train.
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.Look up the word Preposterous and the word strawman.
Actual what I wrote is exactly what you said. The fact that you don't realize it is kind of like the definition of, "you don't know what you are talking about".
You seem to define intelligence as saying the same wrong thing over and over again.Newton didn't say f=ma ... And it's an insult to Einstein to think he would approve of your censorship.
Interestingly, Einstein is said to have made the opposite observation. He said that repeatedly doing the same thing, hoping for a different outcome is insanity.
No, it's saying that the designers of equipment these days rely on physics.I think it's safe to say most Engineers don't use any theoretical physics and Historically trial and error is the greater success story.
If physics did not work, the designs would fail.
You are saying that physics is wrong.Surveys say most physicists believe there's a fundamentally incompatibility between the theories of relativity and those of quantum mechanics. What I don't understand is your hysterical fear.
I realise you think you are only saying that one small bit of it is wrong, but you fail to understand that the whole of physics fits together.
So you can't just change one little bit of it.So if I was to reduce that to a meme it would be "leave it broken stupid"
We are saying you can not use things that were proven to be mistaken.Well I certainly disagree that you have proven anything... Beyond proving you don't like free speech.
The fact that the earliest scientists did not distinguish between momentum and energy is interesting, but only if you are studying "the history of science".your Modern science is apparently doing more stepping on the shoulders of giants... then standing on them.
Their misunderstanding are not part of modern science.
Momentum is right; when you are talking about the thing you get by multiplying mass by velocity.Do you have an Einstein quote regarding the sanity of having two different opposing definitions of the same thing? For the first hundred years the subject was argued no one thought the concepts were compatible. Now you just say they are.
And kinetic energy is right when you are talking about the thing you get by multiplying mass by half of the square of the velocity.
They are different.
They have different properties; both are conserved, but one can be converted to other forms.I disagree with this entirely... But apparently I'm not able to argue it without risking my speaking rights.
It will in fact leave the lever with twice the velocityThink of a rigid pendulum, there are small movements at the top and very large movements at the bottom. The movements all must happen in the same time. The movement at the bottom must travel more distance at a higher velocity.
Prove it.
It is not a sham. No one is stopping you explaining a new scientific theoryYou have overtly convicted me of crimes I have not committed and overtly threatened my ability to continue to make arguments.
but someone who posts the following “Force = energy =work =weight = heat ..a joule is the weight of 1 kg” clearly has no understanding of science and maths and is just trolling pure misinformation.On my website I am offering $2,000 for any well-known physicist too debunk my claims ... I'm offering up to $100 an hour to any physicist capable of participating in a recorded conversation to debate me on these subjects. I'm not trolling you ...you're trolling me.
Your choice, not ours.
The problem is not so much what your beliefs are as the fact that you won't accept when they are shown to be wrong. That is a long-standing problem on this forum that started years and years ago. Energy is neither force nor momentum. These things are very well understood by the science community. We didn't just sit still during the time of Newton or Galileo. We have learned a lot since then. What they believed is irrelevant to what is actually true.I certainly disagree with most of this but out of fear of losing my speaking rights I will not respond.
You are also causing a problem by requiring us to show a physical experiment that confirms our statements while at the same time not requiring your own statements to be backed up by physical experiment. You have not actually thrown coke bottles or dimes out of a spaceship. You have not crashed trains into springs. That is the pot calling the kettle black.
You are trying to use your own intuition about what you think should happen as some kind of refutation of modern science. Intuition isn't evidence. That isn't going to work.
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?
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.In every case I have requested <b>"physical" experimental evidence.</b> I have perpetrated no lies.
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 mathWrong how?
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.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 data shows it's a quadratic.
That's enough to show that you are wrong.
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.This kind of censorship is ugly... You're making intelligence look stupid... And cowardly
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").
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 23:35:46This is an amazing sham to be perpetrated by people who sell themselves as science lovers
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.
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 energyStop 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?