[DebatePhysics (OP)]

1/2 vmv Was willfully created to Force reality to match religious daydreams. The history of its creation, defense, and eventual acceptance is a mockery of the scientific method. Truth was forsaken for agenda, evidence was exaggerated, distorted, and quote mined to support a plainly silly notion of reality.

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. For example: Show me it taking 4 times as much fuel to go twice as fast.

Here are links to some short videos on the subject: [I made two short YouTube videos for the purpose of supporting the argument I would post here... Very disappointing you don't allow external links]
<links to personal channel removed>

Here are some simple thought experiments illustrating the logical paradoxes the formula creates.

If I'm in space and I throw a 2 L bottle of coke (2 kg) away from me at 1mph., do I received the same thrust if I shoot a dime (2 grams) away from me at 1000mph.? If so isn't this proof against the kinetic energy formula?

Is there any physical evidence defending the kinetic energy theorem? The theory says an 8 lb bowling ball will produce twice as much "energy" as a 16 pound ball thrown with the same effort. No pro bowler can make A lighter ball work. Why?

If I shoot two objects with inverse velocity to Mass ratios (for exp. 10m 5v vs 5m 10v) into gravity your formula says one object will have twice as much energy as the other at liftoff. If I let the objects fall, on an identical spring they will be recorded to impose the same pressure, the same joules of energy. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory? or Do you dispute the fact?

Your theory says a 5-ton train going 10 miles an hour has twice as much energy--ability to do work as a 10 ton going 5 miles an hour. I claim you will never prove that to be true, and that if you actually collected the energy of the moving objects in a scientifically sensible manor it will be clearly demonstrated that they have the same capacity to do work.

Do you think a 5-ton 10 miles an hour train can do twice as much work has a 10 ton train going 5 miles an hour? Do you think you can create heat or deformation and transfer 100% of your momentum to another object?

[Kryptid]

If I'm in space and I throw a 2 L bottle of coke (2 kg) away from me at 1mph., do I received the same thrust if I shoot a dime (2 grams) away from me at 1000mph.?

Momentum is defined as mass times velocity, so the two different cases should indeed have the same momentum.

If so isn't this proof against the kinetic energy formula?

No, it isn't. All it means is that a lighter object has to have a disproportionately larger amount of kinetic energy in order to conserve the momentum of the system.

The theory says an 8 lb bowling ball will produce twice as much "energy" as a 16 pound ball thrown with the same effort.

I don't follow you. What physics term are you using when you say "effort"? Do you mean force?

If I shoot two objects with inverse velocity to Mass ratios (for exp. 10m 5v vs 5m 10v) into gravity your formula says one object will have twice as much energy as the other at liftoff. If I let the objects fall, on an identical spring they will be recorded to impose the same pressure, the same joules of energy. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory? or Do you dispute the fact?

I'm not entirely sure what your set-up is. You say that you are shooting the objects "into" gravity, but then say something about "liftoff", which implies they are going "against" gravity rather than "into" gravity. I'm going to assume that you are talking about objects being shot upwards from a planet's surface like a bullet.

If we ignore air friction, then the lighter of the two objects will have more total kinetic energy and will therefore fly higher before reaching maximum altitude. This act of flying upwards converts kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy. When the objects start to fall, they will convert all of that potential energy back into kinetic energy. So you would indeed expect the faster, lighter object to have more total kinetic energy when it falls back to the ground. There is no contradiction here.

Your theory says a 5-ton train going 10 miles an hour has twice as much energy--ability to do work as a 10 ton going 5 miles an hour. I claim you will never prove that to be true, and that if you actually collected the energy of the moving objects in a scientifically sensible manor it will be clearly demonstrated that they have the same capacity to do work.

It doesn't seem like you actually have an argument here and are simply calling it wrong because it defies your intuition.

If you can find something wrong with the derivation of the kinetic energy formula, you could well end up being famous:

I think a pretty good argument that the kinetic energy equation is right is the fact that we can send spacecraft to other planets. If the equation was wrong, we'd have found out quickly as the calculations would have sent them way off the mark.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

Momentum is defined as mass times velocity, so the two different cases should indeed have the same momentum.

Two joules of energy One Way, 2000 Jewels the other way. And you think the spaceship keeps going straight?

No, it isn't. All it means is that a lighter object has to have a disproportionately larger amount of kinetic energy in order to conserve the momentum of the system.

Momentum doesn't need kinetic energy to conserve energy... Can you provide physical evidence where kinetic energy is needed to conserve momentum?

I don't follow you. What physics term are you using when you say "effort"? Do you mean force?

As I believe the same force will produce both effects I certainly mean Force... At issue is the kinetic energy formulas assertion that we will require twice as much force to move the 8 lb 16 miles an hour... Can you produce any physical evidence demonstrating that it requires twice as much energy to move the lighter ball the faster speed?
   

If we ignore air friction, then the lighter of the two objects will have more total kinetic energy and will therefore fly higher before reaching maximum altitude. This act of flying upwards converts kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy. When the objects start to fall, they will convert all of that potential energy back into kinetic energy. So you would indeed expect the faster, lighter object to have more total kinetic energy when it falls back to the ground. There is no contradiction here.

You're saying the same spring compression can produce different amounts of energy. I can compress the spring with 100 jewels from a heavy object. And then release the spring with a lighter object and gain an extra 100 free joules of energy. How do you explain this paradox?

It doesn't seem like you actually have an argument here and are simply calling it wrong because it defies your intuition.

And you have no physical evidence defending Your assertion of twice as much energy... If there was a tug of war between the two trains do you really think the lighter one would win? If I bang them into the same spring do you think the lighter one would compress it twice as much? If we hook them up to a joule water tank do you think the lighter train will heat more water?

If you can find something wrong with the derivation of the kinetic energy formula, you could well end up being famous:

Newton never said f= ma... What he actually said is that the total Force will equal the total change in momentum. The derivations are free energy nonsense.

Seems a huge unfairness for you to be able to post to external links yet I am prohibited.

[Kryptid]

Two joules of energy One Way, 2000 Jewels the other way. And you think the spaceship keeps going straight?

Yes, because the momentum on both sides of the ships is equal. If the ship were not to go straight, that would violate conservation of momentum.

Momentum doesn't need kinetic energy to conserve energy

It would be rather odd for you to claim that that an object with non-zero momentum has zero kinetic energy...

Can you provide physical evidence where kinetic energy is needed to conserve momentum?

Because objects that have momentum have kinetic energy.

At issue is the kinetic energy formulas assertion that we will require twice as much force

The kinetic energy equation says nothing about force.

You're saying the same spring compression can produce different amounts of energy.

No, I never said such a thing.

100 jewels

It's "joules".

And then release the spring with a lighter object and gain an extra 100 free joules of energy. How do you explain this paradox?

There is no paradox. The spring will not be compressed by the same amount by the two objects.

And you have no physical evidence defending Your assertion of twice as much energy...

There is a derivation that shows it is correct. Did you watch the video?

If there was a tug of war between the two trains do you really think the lighter one would win?

The depends. What is the pulling force of the two trains?

If I bang them into the same spring do you think the lighter one would compress it twice as much?

It depends on the specifics.

If we hook them up to a joule water tank do you think the lighter train will heat more water?

What is a "joule water tank"? How are you hooking it up? All of this still feels like you are arguing intuition over math.

Newton never said f= ma... What he actually said is that the total Force will equal the total change in momentum. The derivations are free energy nonsense.

So which part of the video is wrong and can you show how?

And how do you explain that we've been able to successfully get spacecraft to other planets?

Seems a huge unfairness for you to be able to post to external links yet I am prohibited.

It's a restriction only placed on new accounts (likely to reduce spam).

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

Yes, because the momentum on both sides of the ships is equal. If the ship were not to go straight, that would violate conservation of momentum.

So 2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules of thrust? Can you provide any physical evidence of this working?

It would be rather odd for you to claim that that an object with non-zero momentum has zero kinetic energy...

The whole history of kinetic energy is odd... And unscientific. Newton believed in momentum and got correct answers... Because I believe in momentum does not mean I do not believe in energy.

Because objects that have momentum have kinetic energy.

Says you, with no physical evidence

The kinetic energy equation says nothing about force.

The unit joules can be easily converted into weight pressure watts thermal units Etc. If you don't think Force has something to do with kinetic energy why are you citing f=ma. To the real point you claim it takes more energy to move the lighter ball the faster speed yet you have no physical evidence supporting that belief.

No, I never said such a thing.

It is the direct implication of what you are asserting

It's "joules".

Correcting spelling... Your desperation is showing.

There is no paradox. The spring will not be compressed by the same amount by the two objects.

And yet in 350 years you haven't produced one physical experiment demonstrating that to be true.


    And you have no physical evidence defending Your assertion of twice as much energy...

There is a derivation that shows it is correct. Did you watch the video?

Hate to point out the obvious... But a derivation isn't physical experimental evidence

The depends. What is the pulling force of the two trains?

"The depends"?.... The pulling force is established by the momentum that variable was provided.

It depends on the specifics.

All the needed specifics were provided in the thought experiment.

What is a "joule water tank"? How are you hooking it up?

Well you could Google it... But it is why the unit of energy is named after joule. It's a way of converting motion directly into heat and is intern a reliable way to measure something's energy.

So which part of the video is wrong and can you show how?

If you won't watch my videos I won't watch yours... As pointed out newton never said f=ma. Newton wouldn't be silly enough to attempt to multiply a mass x a rate of acceleration.

And how do you explain that we've been able to successfully get spacecraft to other planets?

NASA clearly states it uses newtonian mechanics to navigate space... Regardless you're evading the question, how can 2000 joules of trust produce the same effect as 2?

It's a restriction only placed on new accounts (likely to reduce spam).

Doesn't change the overt unfairness... Not much use in arguing with my mouth tied behind my back;-)

[evan_au]

Show me it taking 4 times as much fuel to go twice as fast

I'm afraid it's worse than that: It takes around 7 times as much fuel for a rocket to go twice as fast.

The amount of fuel required to each a certain speed is governed by the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which can be expressed as:
Δv = v_e ln(m₀/m_f)
Where Δv is the change in velocity and ln is the natural logarithm (base e)
Assuming that:
- Exhaust velocity v_e is a constant (same fuel, same rocket design)
- Final Mass m_f is a constant (same final vehicle mass with an empty tank)
Then to double Δv, you need to increase the initial mass of fuel m₀ by a factor of e² = 7.4

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Do you think you can create heat or deformation and transfer 100% of your momentum to another object?

- You can transfer 100% of your momentum to another object without permanent deformation - this is shown by the classic "Newton's Balls" toy. Mechanical energy is also conserved in this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle
- When there is permanent deformation (eg if the two objects stick together after the collision), the momentum is conserved, but the initial object does not transfer all of its momentum to the other object - it transfers all of its momentum to the combined object. Mechanical energy is not conserved in this case, since some is transformed into heat.

As I understand it, Relativity says that the outcome of experiments is unchanged when you view them from any inertial frame of reference.
- So the concept of "initial" and "final" momentum is purely in the eye of the beholder
- But momentum is conserved in all frames of reference
- And energy is conserved in all frames of reference (if you include things like heat and sound as forms of energy)

[Bored chemist]

1/2 vmv Was willfully created to Force reality to match religious daydreams.

No, it wasn't.

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.

Yes there is.
Practically the whole of engineering etc relies on it. If it was wrong, engineering design wouldn't work.

If you want to talk about a lack of evidence, let's consider your idea that 1/2 mv^2 is wrong.

What evidence do you have?

[Bored chemist]

Doesn't change the overt unfairness

It's a condition imposed on everyone, so it is obviously "fair".
The problem seems to be that you don't like it.
Fine; other fora are available.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

I'm afraid it's worse than that: It takes around 7 times as much fuel for a rocket to go twice as fast.

The amount of fuel required to each a certain speed is governed by the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which can be expressed as:

Just a case of garbage in garbage out. Too bad science has lost all orientation to physical evidence. Analyzing rocket thrust just provides another example of the paradox. Heavy objects make the gasoline week lite objects make the gasoline strong. Really bad logic.

You can transfer 100% of your momentum to another object without permanent deformation - this is shown by the classic "Newton's Balls" toy. Mechanical energy is also conserved in this case.

A Newton's Cradle losses small fractions of energy with each swing. These other experimental examples lose one half the total energy in an instant yet transfer 99% of the momentum. Paradoxical impossibility.

- When there is permanent deformation (eg if the two objects stick together after the collision), the momentum is conserved, but the initial object does not transfer all of its momentum to the other object - it transfers all of its momentum to the combined object. Mechanical energy is not conserved in this case, since some is transformed into heat.

In 350 years you have no experimental evidence... You cannot show half the energies worth of deformation and Heat. And you certainly can't show the paradoxical reverse where I step on one end of a lever with 100 joules and create up to many hundreds of jewels on the other side of lever.

As I understand it, Relativity says that the outcome of experiments is unchanged when you view them from any inertial frame of reference.

1 nonsense subject a time please

So the concept of "initial" and "final" momentum is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Actual events are not changed by viewing prospective.

But momentum is conserved in all frames of reference

Yes momentum works very good... kinetic energy is religious junk

And energy is conserved in all frames of reference (if you include things like heat and sound as forms of energy)

Momentum is the only energy there ever was or ever will be.

No, it wasn't.

Obviously you haven't read the actual history. Leibnitz created the "living Force" which was then just mvv, no moderating half in front... As an opposition to the "too atheist" science of Newton and Descarte.

Yes there is.
Practically the whole of engineering etc relies on it. If it was wrong, engineering design wouldn't work.

Clearly your assertion is not physical experimental evidence. You have had 350 years and yet have found no credible real physical examples?

If you want to talk about a lack of evidence, let's consider your idea that 1/2 mv^2 is wrong.

What evidence do you have?

I can go outside and videotape me stepping on a lever and breaking the kinetic energy Theory. Unfortunately you won't let me post a link to the video.

It's a condition imposed on everyone, so it is obviously "fair".

No surprise you have a funny definition of everyone.

The problem seems to be that you don't like it.

Yeah I don't like unfairness and cheating.

Fine; other fora are available.

Guess you're one of those "dictatorship, like it or leave it" types.

I think I'll just point Out that the opportunity for conversation you provide is highly rigged to your advantage.

[Origin]

And you certainly can't show the paradoxical reverse where I step on one end of a lever with 100 joules and create up to many hundreds of jewels on the other side of lever.

That is a misconception of yours.
If I apply 100N on one side of the lever and lift 1000N on the other side of the lever that does not mean more energy is expended on one side than the other,  The work (energy) done is force x distance and the distance the 100N moves is much larger than the distance the 1000N moved (10 times actually), so the number of joules is the same on both sides of the lever.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

That is a misconception of yours.

There is no misconception... The theory you are defending clearly claims that all you have to do to create more joules of energy is reduced Mass and increase velocity. Clearly your theory states things with the same momentum can deliver different amounts of energy.

If I apply 100N on one side of the lever and lift 1000N on the other side of the lever that does not mean more energy is expended on one side than the other,

Kinetic energy is in the units of joules why are you using Newton's? If I drop one kilogram one meter (10 joules) on one side of the liver your theory says I can place lighter objects on the other side of the lever and produce Mass to Velocity relationships that will produce many times that 10 joules.

The work (energy) done is force x distance

In gravity it's force x time

and the distance the 100N moves is much larger than the distance the 1000N moved (10 times actually),

A lighter object placed on the other side of the leaver will move more distance in the same time. By your theory it's higher velocity will create a disproportionate increase in the joules of energy produced

so the number of joules is the same on both sides of the lever.

Clearly 1 kg going 10 miles an hour isn't by your theory the same energy as 1/2 kg going 20 miles an hour. The momentum is the same You are the one claiming the energies are different

[Origin]

There is no misconception... The theory you are defending clearly claims that all you have to do to create more joules of energy is reduced Mass and increase velocity. Clearly your theory states things with the same momentum can deliver different amounts of energy.

levers are not about velocity.  If you want to include the velocity you can add that complication but you will still find that the conservation of energy holds.

Kinetic energy is in the units of joules why are you using Newton's?

Because levers are based on force.

If I drop one kilogram one meter (10 joules) on one side of the liver your theory says I can place lighter objects on the other side of the lever and produce Mass to Velocity relationships that will produce many times that 10 joules.

False.  Do the math you will discover you are wrong.

In gravity it's force x time

Wrong, force x time does not equal energy.

A lighter object placed on the other side of the leaver will move more distance in the same time. By your theory it's higher velocity will create a disproportionate increase in the joules of energy produced

You really need to learn some basic physics, this is getting worse and worse.

Clearly 1 kg going 10 miles an hour isn't by your theory the same energy as 1/2 kg going 20 miles an hour. The momentum is the same You are the one claiming the energies are different

Yes, that is correct.  Good job!! 

[Kryptid]

So 2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules of thrust?

Joules are a unit of energy, not thrust (force).

Says you, with no physical evidence

Seriously? Momentum is only carried by moving objects. Moving objects must have kinetic energy. If they didn't, you could use that to break conservation of energy.

The unit joules can be easily converted into weight pressure watts thermal units Etc.

Okay, so how many joules are in a newton?

If you don't think Force has something to do with kinetic energy why are you citing f=ma.

Just because it's a part of the derivation doesn't mean it's a part of the final equation.

It is the direct implication of what you are asserting

No, it isn't.

Hate to point out the obvious... But a derivation isn't physical experimental evidence

It is when the derivation is based on experimentally verified equations. It's easy to demonstrate that F=ma is accurate.

"The depends"?.... The pulling force is established by the momentum that variable was provided.

The problem with using trains is that there is friction and drag to take into account. If we used an idealized scenario where there is no drag and no friction, then neither train requires any force at all to keep moving at a constant velocity.

Well you could Google it... But it is why the unit of energy is named after joule. It's a way of converting motion directly into heat and is intern a reliable way to measure something's energy.

If that's the case, then the lighter, slower moving train will indeed heat the water more.

If you won't watch my videos I won't watch yours...

And if I did watch your videos, would you watch mine?

As pointed out newton never said f=ma.

Whether or not Newton said something doesn't make it right or wrong.

NASA clearly states it uses newtonian mechanics to navigate space...

And that involves the standard kinetic energy equation.

Regardless you're evading the question, how can 2000 joules of trust produce the same effect as 2?

Because joules are a unit of energy, not thrust.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

levers are not about velocity

On the contrary leavers are entirely about velocity... Small movements on one side produce large movements on the other side in the exact same time.

If you want to include the velocity you can add that complication but you will still find that the conservation of energy holds.

Energy from momentum will be conserved...KE will not be conserved

Because levers are based on force.

Force = energy =work =weight = heat ..a joule is the weight of 1 kg

False.  Do the math you will discover you are wrong.

By placing objects different distances from the fulcrum levers allow you to convert heavy slow things into fast lite things. You are wrong. Do some research or watch the video you won't let me post a link to. <links to personal channel removed>

Wrong, force x time does not equal energy.

Gravity is a very simple Force and your mass simply collects it... More mass, more collected per second. You are wrong.

    A lighter object placed on the other side of the leaver will move more distance in the same time. By your theory it's higher velocity will create a disproportionate increase in the joules of energy produced

You really need to learn some basic physics, this is getting worse and worse.

The evasion of my points certainly is getting worse

Yes, that is correct.  Good job!!

Proving the kinetic energy formula to be free energy nonsense

Joules are a unit of energy, not thrust (force).

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?"

Moving objects must have kinetic energy.

No better than saying horses must have unicorn wings

Okay, so how many joules are in a newton?

a newton is 1/10 of a joule

Just because it's a part of the derivation doesn't mean it's a part of the final equation.

An equal sign isn't just a mathematical gimmick

No, it isn't.

Yes it is

It is when the derivation is based on experimentally verified equations. It's easy to demonstrate that F=ma is accurate.

I will point out again Newton didn't say F=ma. And you will not be able to show me any experiment where you collect different amounts of energy from objects with the same momentum

The problem with using trains is that there is friction and drag to take into account.

The universally adopted practice is to assume perfect environments to isolate the relevant variables.

then neither train requires any force at all to keep moving at a constant velocity.

The variables of mass and velocity were provided... Momentum is a known quantity... This isn't about how far they travel... It is about their Force at impact.

If that's the case, then the lighter, slower moving train will indeed heat the water more.

It is lighter and faster.... Regardless I'm quite certain you're wrong for the same reason I know half size wrecking balls don't knock down twice as many buildings. Too bad you can't provide any physical evidence... Even though you've had 350 years to collect it

And if I did watch your videos, would you watch mine?

Sure I will watch just about anything... Simple fact is I've seen all the math... It's just scalar and Vector dot product word games. You start with a false premise that f=ma is Newton...and add it to the silly w=fd

Whether or not Newton said something doesn't make it right or wrong.

I think it's a pretty big deal when people put words in someone else's mouth... Why is conventional physics doing that?

    NASA clearly states it uses newtonian mechanics to navigate space...


And that involves the standard kinetic energy equation.

There you go again...the standard kinetic energy equation is not Newtonian mechanics

    Regardless you're evading the question, how can 2000 joules of trust produce the same effect as 2?


Because joules are a unit of energy, not thrust.

If I can show a NASA engineer saying thrust is energy... Will you stop evading the simple question?

[Bored chemist]

No surprise you have a funny definition of everyone.

Everyone who joins gets the same treatment.
We were all newbies once.
You still have not given any evidence for  the KE formula being wrong.
You have, on the other hand proved comprehensively that you do not understand basic physics.

[Bored chemist]

If I can show a NASA engineer saying thrust is energy

then you will show an engineer making a mistake.
So?

[Bored chemist]

a newton is 1/10 of a joule

No
That's like saying a kilometre is half a second.

[Origin]

a joule is the weight of 1 kg

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

Please note that:  10 does not equal 1

And of course is not the units of weight.

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

edited for a silly mistake.

[DebatePhysics (OP)]

Everyone who joins gets the same treatment.

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?

We were all newbies once.

Clearly none of you were arguing against the tide

You still have not given any evidence for  the KE formula being wrong.

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

You have, on the other hand proved comprehensively that you do not understand basic physics.

And my opinion of your logical competence is likewise unflattering

    If I can show a NASA engineer saying thrust is energy

then you will show an engineer making a mistake.
So?

NASA Engineers know it takes energy/fuel/heat/force to move Mass. The thought experiment illustrates that the kinetic energy Theory violates Newton's third law: 2000 joules one way 2 joules the other way. 2000 joules of energy represents 2000 joules of fuel... If you used 2000 jewels of fuel pushing something one way and only 2 pushing the other... You have to create a thermodynamic imbalance.

    a newton is 1/10 of a joule

No
That's like saying a kilometre is half a second.

No That is gibberish. A newton is the sitting weight of 100g in standard Earth gravity. Even while sitting, gravity clearly moves us into the Earth... That's why we feel the Earth pushing back. The effective velocity is 1 m per second. If you allow the 100 g to fall one meter it will move at 9.8 m/s and create a impact "weight" of 1 kg Or one joule

[Origin]

A newton is the sitting weight of 100g in standard Earth gravity.

Correct.

The effective velocity is 1 m per second.

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

If you allow the 100 g to fall one meter it will move at 9.8 m/s

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.

and create a impact "weight" of 1 kg Or one joule

No matter how many times you say weight is energy you will still be wrong.