Capiert

If it feels like a push,

why isn't it?

Sorry.

 

I deleted it for you.

Is that ok?

 

Or should the clutter remain for the record?

Can we feel gravity?

I doubt it!

 

Only pressure

& that's always

on a surface,

not gravity.

I think what everyone forgets is

gravity is an acceleration

g=-(Pi^2) m/(s^2).

Acceleration is the only observable,

the rest is a math construct

with mass constants

to taper

& balance the equations.

Einstein never said it

in his equivalence,

but if you ask me,

the pressure under my feet (or seat)

sure feels like a push.

Newton also mentioned the centrifugal "acceleration"

made the orbits a balance (linear motion tangentially, so to speak).

(Escape "speed" is only possible tangentially=horizontal,

against the vertical "acceleration".)

Let's face, in an expanding universe,

why aren't the matter waves expanding too?

That's big news for some.

(It's also low a pressure, vaccum out there.

What do we know about osmosis (high to low pressure transport),

& how pressure (or the lack of it) affects matter?

Even if that doesn't apply,

is everything static, or what?)

Gravity can't be shielded.

I've got nothing against an inertial concept

(I'm not so old fashion or outdated, that)

the tides can't rock & swap over,

with the earth's rotation (direction change)

twice a day.

I sure don't need action at a distance for gravity.

Light falls,

sound doesn't.

Fall in a falling elevator,

& you won't notice anything (=weightless)

till the collision.

Work abstract

 

Coe & com seem unreliable,

(algebraically) they can NOT be confirmed;

& a (new) cow seems to be the culprit

(for explaining the milky way's problems).

 

Mon 2016 05 08 06:51 PS Wi 12.1 C clouds & mist clearing

 

Conservation of energy coe

is often taken for granted

but some math (algebra) derivations

from momentum to kinetic energy

(via binomial squaring)

have not allowed confirmation.

Results were such

that simple (energy) addition was impossible sometimes,

due to explicid complexer solutions,

indicating the more basic momentum mechanics

might be prefered

as fundamental.

 

To my amazement, momentum (conservation com)

could "not always" be confirmed either,

in preferance for simple energy addition.

Facit: momentum failed to add (correctly) sometimes,

while energy succeded;

& visa versa

for different (peculiar) circumstances.

 

Unprepared, that neither (energy nor momentum)

were always entirely reliable (100% of the time, for all examples),

speeds were analyzed & corrected,

but even that brought no guarantee.

It occured to me then,

that a severe (subtle) fundamental error existed

(or must exist),

& that made neither (E nor mom) acceptable

for a 100% conservation law (title).

Analyzing the physics framework further

on such trival (math) peculiarities,

led me to conclude

that the basic definitions (stated)

(e.g. for work, power & force..?)

were not being followed (strictly) mathematically

& could leed to such a disaster

(collapse of physic's, momentum & particularly energy,

concerning the (unknown=) dark energy (problem, dilemma)

vs the 25% real ratio when compared to quadratic binomial results.)

 

Convinced (to some extent),

 

(& that my time was better used

dealing with finding a solution directly (first),

because the problem details could be found again later,

it was)

 

that the solution required a better basis for mechanics

than the (unreliable) com & coe; (unstatisfied, as unsatisfactory)

a compromise was made for the cow.-Muhh!

 

Here is that (new) framework (derivation) solution,

& perhaps (if allowed) with insight as to why the other 2 failed.

 

Here are NOT examples, of the failures mentioned above.

 

 

Are you interested?

 

 

Dedication:

 

May the goods be invoked

for memory purposes only

(games if you will),

& (your) deficit of greek culture

(hints of vocabulary),

among others.

 

Otherwise it doesn't look

like you'll have a clue.

 

-SheerLuck Homes.

 

(Unlock my heart('s core). See my ideas, not my words.

I won't always say it right. What's left is also an alternative.

& visa versa.)

 

P.S.

Maybe we can write this as science fiction,

a least you won't be disappointed, then.

The initial confusion was over the fact that the description of when momentum is conserved is not identical to the description of when energy is conserved. Swansont provided an example of a system that is defined in such a way that it conserves one but not the other.

Obviously any lost energy/momentum must go somewhere, but that isn't what the question was about.

That question is now placed.

Please answer: where did the lost e.g. momentum go?

[quote name="albertlee" post="130097" timestamp="1108547800

Why we cant express Work in terms of Momentum???

 

One is F*d and another F*t.....

 

Albert

Hi Albert

 

You have stepped into 1 of the biggest holes in Physics

due to the missing term (2*v0/t)

in the (free_fall acceleration) gravity equation g=(2*v0/t)+2*h/(t^2)

derived from the fallen height's (h=h1-h0),

final (height) position

h1=h0 + V0*t + (1/2)*g*(t^2).

(That's simply linear acceleration results/observations. Nothing complicated.)

 

(I use different syntax,

(to reduce errors),

please let your initial speed u=v0

& your final speed v=v1, instead

so I can use symbol v as my: )

 

Speed difference v=v1-v0

Average speed va=(v0+v1)/2

Speed sum v2=v1+v0.

 

It's interesting that energy is defined purely mathematically

from linear acceleration, KEPE or PEKE (pronounced "keep" & "peek")

PE=KE

m*g*h=m*v*va, /m

Dividing by the mass, leaves only the motion (of a virtual point, so to say)

g*h=v*va.

The height (difference) is

h=v*va/g,

& the gravitational (linear) acceleration is

g=v*va/h.

That (motion) needs no mass; (but)

we multiply (the equation)

by mass to get mom(entum)

m*v=m*g*h/va

& (kinetic) energy (pronounced "key")

KE=m*v*va.

 

So momentum

 

mom=E/va

 

is our good=god

she is female,

mother nature,

 

the energy E,

per average_speed va.

(It's very important which speed to use,

otherwise the equations will error.)

 

(Although few will agree at first:)

 

Work is not energy! (Textbooks are wrong!)

Work & energy are NOT the same.

 

Everyone knows:

energy & momentum

are not the same.

 

But..

 

By definition,

work=m*h/t

is simply

moving a mass m

to a specific (height) distance h

in a specific amount of time t.

That is the calculation

Tesla used for Niagra falls,

to calculate the efficiency

of fallen water

vs pumped back up again.

That is a momentum formula(!)

that (=which) textbooks' formulas have not complied to,

in other words they (=the textbooks) have got it (=the work formula, all) wrong!

They don't have the right fomula.

They may have formulas right for energy,

but not for work.

 

Work's_energy (pronounced "we", please notice it's possesive " 's ")

WE=F*d

is force F

multiplied by

distance d.

(If we let distance d=h height fallen,

then we call that (energy, instead) potential energy PE (pronounced "pee")

before it has fallen.)

 

However

Work=m*va

is average_momentum

moma=m*va

because

the average speed

va=h/t

is the travelled distace d(=h height fallen)

per time t.

(Obeying the work concept, stated.)

 

So, to correct the textbooks formula (work's_energy, WE=) W=F*d,

 

Work=W/v

 

Work (on the left side) is momentum;

& (work's_)energy (divided by speed difference v=v1-v0)

is on the right side

(in 1 equation).

 

(That might have been the 1st time,

you've ever seen that,

correction.)

 

It looks similar to

mom=E/va

m*v=KE/va

m*v=(m*v*va)/va.

 

Energy (as problem, paradox) is the reason why Einstein did relativity, at all.

KE uses non_linear speeds, with exponent ^2,

then divides that by half.

((I don't know about you, but) that's (just) not logical (=linear), for our brains to think with, compared to distance d);

while momentum mom=m*v, =F*t

uses only linear speeds, logical (=very reasonable, =linear) wrt time t.

(E.g. Thinking straight, clear minded, not given a curve, nor round about. No corruption, no distortion away from straight. Say it the way you want, all those cliches mean about=aprox the same thing. Think straight!)

That's all because energy is calculated wrt distance;

instead of wrt time (our (absolute) god, chronus).

Many physicists "say" time is NOT an absolute,

but (deep inside their heads) they use it so

(as a bird's eye view of the universe, from above).

 

Einstein's relativistic_mass

is (suppose to be) momentum (mom=m*v).

Speed (v) is the variable,

not mass (m). COM=Conservation of mass.

 

Energy

is an inferior (intermediate) calculation

(it's not the complete story, for (our brains) tracking anything, like work);

instead momentum is superior.

 

I don't know why Newton's original concepts:

 

mom=F*t (1st law, tendancy, applied force F, duration time t; conservation of motion (momentum); unless acted upon)

F=m*a (2nd law, the change "works"; using)

0=F2+F1 (3rd law, an equal (repelling=) opposing pressure P=F2/A, A=Area, F=F1)

 

were abandoned,

in favour of energy.

 

Maybe because the (energy) numbers were bigger (inflated, with less affect)

(than the momentum number values)

so they could bill more money?

 

By NOT doing those calculations, as above stated,

physics has gone astray, & misguided

for centurys.

All because a simple term was ignored & forgotten, the initial speed v0.

 

Consider the importance, if that initial_speed v0

were relativity's light_speed c.

Then you could calculate (=derive) the E=m*(c^2) formula,

which came from an italian (in Tirol)

before Einstein.

(Einstein probably guessed which (alternating polarity) math series, for the total energy,

& identified what should be rest mass energy, because he never showed a derivation, only a conclusion.)

 

Cheers

 

P.S. Electricity (so_called power)

is really force squared

or (momentum work's) power_squared,

because (by definition)

"power is the rate of doing work" (not energy),

(the textbook formulas are wrong again, not complying)

& the spring loaded (D'Arsenval) meters

are showing force.

Many electrical symbols are missing their squared syntax. E.g.

should be

P(^2)=(I^2)*R,

because each

current I (Fmax)

& voltage V (Fmin)

are displaying (spring_loaded) force.

So F^2=I*V, =P(^2).

Rooted power(^2)

(P(^2)=I*V)^0.5

is some sort of average mean

(real mechanical),

force=mom/t.

 

Notes:

 

fallen height is (h=h1-h0),

not the other way around.

0=initial

1=final.

But I think you know what I mean. It's obvious.

Polarity plays an important part, even for g=-9.8=-(Pi^2) [m/(s^2)].

Get it wrong for g, & you'll get "quarks" (wrong 1/3rd & 2/3rds relations).

I.e. "Something went wrong with the milk". -Farmer.

Barns are uses for nuclear cross_sections, "as big as a barn's door" =to make it obvious.

 

Please notice:

 

Energy

 

E=Work*va

 

is work

multiplied by

average speed va.

Textbooks wrongly say

a similar structured formula

(& it's a (real) nasty!);

but (kinetic)

energy

E#F*v

is NOT

force F

multiplied by

speed_difference v

for reasons above.

Work is not force;

but instead

average_momentum moma

(pronounced "momma" like "mama").

 

So again the textbooks are wrong!

 

Said differently, how can you tell people,

it's futile to expect linear behaviour

from energy wrt distance?

 

KE shows speeds will be squared, & halved (instead)!

As if 1 of those, was not bad enough, (non_linear) contorsion with the 2nd peculiarity also happens.