0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Interestingly, it's what the police mostly talk about in road safety lectures. If Mr Plod understands it, and can somehow transfer that understanding to speeding teenage halfwits, it seems strange that anyone who contributes to this forum has a problem with it.

It may be abstract but it certainly isn't meaningless.

Do falling objects regardless of their mass have the same terminal velocity?

I clearly understand it but like to dig deep for a deeper understanding

Quote from: Thebox on 30/03/2016 08:21:05 I clearly understand it but like to dig deep for a deeper understandingThere's nothing deeper to understand. The kinetic energy of a mass m moving at velocity v is ½mv^{2}. It's a useful concept because (by experiment) energy is conserved in classical physics, so we can use it to predict what happens when our moving object interacts with something else.

Except that kinetic energy that is constant has no acceleration.

I am sure there is another present piece of maths that gives the exact same answer, something involving the equivalance principle.

p_{0}=F_{n} etc

Quote from: TheBoxI am sure there is another present piece of maths that gives the exact same answer, something involving the equivalance principle. This thread is discussing conservation of Energy (of which Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy are two forms), under the influence of a gravitational field.Emmy Noether came up with a very general concept which links conservation laws to symmetries in nature.The Conservation of Energy (and its component Kinetic Energy) is proved in the following example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Example_1:_Conservation_of_energy Occasionally, conservation of momentum comes up in this thread - this is another principle which can be proved by Noether's theorem.Quote from: TheBoxDo falling objects regardless of their mass have the same terminal velocity?"raindrops falling through air to reach terminal velocity" is a complex system in which it is extremely hard to add up all the tiny contributions of kinetic energy which are distributed amongst all the individual air molecules. So if you wish to understand kinetic energy, look at objects falling in a vacuum (or the proverbial cannonballs falling from the leaning tower of Pisa) - it is so much easier to analyze. You can see something real, without being diverted into fractal flurries of turbulence which dissipate lots of energy and get you nowhere.Quotep_{0}=F_{n} etcThe mathematical notation used in Noether's Theorem may look superficially similar to some equations previous posted in this thread. It is not.

I am sure there is another present piece of maths that gives the exact same answer, something involving the equivalance principle. Is it F=ma?