[Kryptid]

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.

Then we will have to make our predictions in advance.

I see this is starting to turn into a debate again, which needs to be avoided. Don't make me lock this thread too.

On the other hand, I am willing to let there be a thread about an experimental construction to test the standard kinetic energy equation (as long as it doesn't become a repeat of the first thread). I think that has the potential to be instructive to other viewers, and as such it gets my seal of approval. Do any of the other moderators object to that?

[Bored chemist]

Effectively the same experiment was done with two conflicting results.

Please post the times at which the contradictory results  are obtained.

[Bored chemist]

arbor scientific

At about 3:15 you says it's a complete contradiction because the momentum doesn't change.
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.
What would anyone expect?

[Bored chemist]

Clearly you don't understand what the video shows.

One of of us doesn't; and I say it shows what the guy who made it says that it shows.

[TeachPossible? (OP)]

On the other hand, I am willing to let there be a thread about an experimental construction to test the standard kinetic energy equation (as long as it doesn't become a repeat of the first thread). I think that has the potential to be instructive to other viewers, and as such it gets my seal of approval. Do any of the other moderators object to that?

Want to thank you -- and the others -- who offered some great explanations. IF you could do the experiments you mentioned, that would be great. I would really look forward to the results.

[DebatePhysics]

Please post the times at which the contradictory results  are obtained.

Walter Lewin: https://youtu.be/-q-WiX-KVXo?t=1268 [nofollow]
Walter Lewin: https://youtu.be/-q-WiX-KVXo?t=2679 [nofollow]
Arbor Scientific: https://youtu.be/bbRe2_EOmks?t=172 [nofollow]

At about 3:15 you says it's a complete contradiction because the momentum doesn't change.
But momentum is a conserved  property. We wouldn't expect it to change.
What point did you think you were making?

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.

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.

One of of us doesn't; and I say it shows what the guy who made it says that it shows.

When experiments don't produce the same results just pretend they did? That certainly  isn't out of any good "science" book.

[Maxxy]

I'm trying to say this as respectfully as possible: his misunderstandings are *psychotic.* His only modus operandi is to BS his way by appealing to Newton when in fact he has quite literally *zero* knowledge of any of the stuff he's talking about. He has no logic, he only reasons by appeals to the connotations of words rather than any actual content. He is a pretender and nothing more.

I say this, because there have been tons of people trying to explain basic mechanics to him for over a year, and all he has done is label them as liars, trolls, and molesters (yes even that). People have already given NASA pages that mentioned kinetic energy as 1/2*mv^2, tried to show him how harmonic oscillators work, etc, etc. I think everyone here has been far, far too generous already with his ideas.

[DebatePhysics]

NASA pages that mentioned kinetic energy as 1/2*mv^2, tried to show him how harmonic oscillators work

Document was about jet engines and had absolutely nothing to do with navigating a spaceship in empty space.

mods...In fairness you should require Maxxy to make post relevant to the subject

[Kryptid]

mods...In fairness you should require Maxxy to make post relevant to the subject

I'll do one better than that. Since this thread has turned into a debate, I'm gonna have to close it like the other one.

If you want to discuss the possibility of doing an actual experiment, send me a personal message.

And, here we are again (profanity warning):

I do have to own up to what he is saying about the ball: I was wrong about the height the ball flies upward being a method for determining who would be right: the same altitude would be predicted by either us or debatephysics because it's determined by the energy and not the ball's velocity. The actual velocity itself would have to be measured.

[Kryptid]

I apologize for resurrecting this locked thread yet again, but I just want to say a couple of things:

(1) The video I posted earlier made by Steven Brough may not have been appropriate for these forums due to sexual content that was more suggestive than I realized at first. For that reason, I have removed it.

(2) I found a different video that clearly demonstrates that kinetic energy does not increase linearly with velocity using a simple experiment that was very much like the one I wanted to do. This is the video in question (the relevant part starts at about 1:56). What this experiment demonstrates is the relationship between the velocity of the ball and how high above the ground it is released:

To open this, I need to reiterate that the amount of energy required to raise an object up against gravity (given a constant acceleration of gravity, which is true enough for practical purposes near the Earth's surface) is linearly proportional to the distance it is raised. Lifting a ball two meters above the ground requires twice as much energy as lifting a ball one meter above the ground. The amount of energy that I expend lifting a ball from one meter to two meters is equal to the amount I expended lifting the ball from the ground to one meter because I'm moving it by the same distance each time.

The inverse of this is also true: the energy gained by the ball when it falls is linearly proportional to how far it falls. We know that this must be true irrespective of how fast the ball falls because of conservation of energy. If different amounts of energy were required to lift a ball up the same distance quickly or slowly, or if different amounts of energy were gained by letting a ball fall quickly or slowly over the same distance, then that could be exploited to produce a free energy machine (since it would allow you to use less energy to lift a ball than you would get back from letting it fall by controlling the velocity via drag or friction). That would violate conservation of energy. So we know, from the law of conservation of energy alone, that the energy gained from a fall is distance-dependent only and not velocity-dependent at all.

With that fact established, we take a look at the experiment in the video. The ball is released on the ramp at four different heights: 20 centimeters, 40 centimeters, 60 centimeters and 80 centimeters. The resulting velocities for each height were then measured (anyone with the right software can measure it from the video as well, just in case they have doubts about the stated velocities). Now we have the prediction of contemporary science, which states that velocity is proportional to energy squared.

So the first measured velocity (at a height of 20 centimeters) is 1.21 meters per second. According to contemporary  science, a doubling of the dropped height should double the energy, but less than double the velocity (√2, or 1.414 times the velocity, to be more precise). So the velocities, as predicted by the standard kinetic energy equation, would be:

20 centimeters (baseline): 1.21 meters per second (baseline)
40 centimeters (x 2 height): 1.21 x √2 = ~1.711 meters per second
60 centimeters (x 3 height): 1.21 x √3 = ~2.096 meters per second
80 centimeters (x 4 height): 1.21 x √4 (2) = ~2.42 meters per second

Now these are the results of the experiment:

20 centimeters: 1.21 meters per second
40 centimeters: 1.70 meters per second
60 centimeters: 2.10 meters per second
80 centimeters: 2.52 meters per second

So, as we can see, the results are pretty much consistent with our predictions.