0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 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.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.
This kind of censorship is ugly... You're making intelligence look stupid.
That's like saying religion is working because everyone isn't a mass murderer
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?
It will in fact leave the lever with twice the velocity
Quote from: Colin2B on 30/12/2021 00:22:48In 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. This is an amazing sham to be perpetrated by people who sell themselves as science lovers
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.
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.
You seem to define intelligence as saying the same wrong thing over and over again.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.If physics did not work, the designs would fail.
You are saying that physics is wrong.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.
We are saying you can not use things that were proven to be mistaken.
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".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.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.
It will in fact leave the lever with twice the velocityProve it.
It is not a sham. No one is stopping you explaining a new scientific theory
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.Your choice, not ours.
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.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".
To narrow the issue, let's focus on one simple experiment using a very simple device, a lever: If I drop a 1 Mass object a distance of 1m from the fulcrum of a lever. And place a 1/2 Mass object 2 meters from the fulcrum on the other side of the lever... The half mass object will not be launched at only 1.4 the velocity of the dropped Mass. It will in fact leave the lever with twice the velocity. If we engineer it to fall straight down it will land back on the lever with the same doubled velocity. Upon the 1/2 mass Landing the 1 Mass object on the other side will leave the leaver with 1/2 the velocity of the half mass object. On the one mass side of the lever a certain amount of kinetic energy will be oscillating up and down... On the other side of the lever twice as much kinetic energy will be oscillating up and down. How is this not a free energy paradox?
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.
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.
And it's an insult to Einstein to think he would approve of your censorship.
The movements all must happen in the same time.
What I don't understand is your hysterical fear.
I disagree with this entirely
Do you have an Einstein quote regarding the sanity of having two different opposing definitions of the same thing?
might have been as low as 10
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).
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.
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.
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.
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 never said that.
The movements all must happen in the same time. No, they can not.
What I don't understand is your hysterical fear.That is because the "hysterical fear" only exists in your imagination.
I disagree with this entirelyEvery 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?
Look up the word Preposterous and the word strawman.
So a unit of momentum would be 1/2 a joule.
That means if 1 [unit of momentum] equals 1/2 joule then another way of writing that is 2dd18161f150ebc922465b14757eda51.gif.Where is the strawman?
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.
OK, well isn't it interesting that if you use those units for a joule in you calculations
you can build a nuclear power plant; probably just a lucky coincidence right?
So in your new physics what are the units of a joule?
I think it would be sensible to call the weight of 100 grams a newton and the weight of a kilogram a jewel.