Jump to content

Capiert

Senior Members
  • Posts

    552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Capiert

  1. If anybody can travel backward in time, please tell me how cause they DIDN’T tell me either & I want to know. Time is a scalar (amount) in which the direction is determined ONLY by its amount. Thus, time is NOT bidirectional like a dimension is. Time ONLY goes forward. We can ONLY measure time going forward; NOT in reverse. Instead, time is a parameter (= something other than a dimension, thus) NOT a dimension. Disclaimer: Sometimes I have to say some of the simplest most obvious things (against ridiculous mainstream, NONSENSE opinions).
  2. Proposal: If I could bend (=modify) Newton’s (3) laws ((in)to) the way I want for a consistent continuum, I would deal (mostly) with averages e.g. for (inverse_)time, distance, speed, momentum (& its squared) & mass*Force. Disclaimer: (0. (Some people might think,) What goes up must come down. It’s called the 0th(=zero_th) law because he(=Newton) didN’T invent it. Joke aside. ..But (otherwise) here..) (To be consistent, & thus rebose.) Preparation: The (average_)distance da divided by the (average_)time ta is the average_speed va=da/ta. (I have to (repeatedly) say that “average_” so often, (because (I try)) NOT to be misunderstood, if I were to (simply) say, (the average_) speed is d/t.) 1. The average_momentum moma=ma*va is a(n average_)mass ma (coefficient, factor) multiplied by its average_speed va. 2. To be consistent((ly) based) on the same basis, (then) the (average_)mass*(average_)Force ma*Fa=moma2/da is (simply?) the average_momentum squared moma2=ma2*va2/da (then) divided by the (average (accelerated) traveled) distance da. (That would be my substitute for mass*Vis_viva &/or (what seems to me) the (ERRORFUL=misguiding=misleeding, (interactive) work_)energy (concept WE=F*d which is wrongly (proportioned, to only) force F multiplied by distance d & (thus) needing an extra mass m factor as Ewert proposed 1996.) Or the kinetic_energy_(difference, concept) KEd=m*vd*va which uses the speed(_difference) vd=vf-vi for the final_speed vf minus the initial_speed vi. moma2/da=ma*(ma*aa) is the (average_)mass ma multiplied by the average_Force Fa= ma*aa of a(n average_)mass ma multiplied by the average_(linear_)acceleration aa=va2/da. moma2/da=ma*Fa which I would love to simply call mass*Force(_average). 3. [Newton’s 3rd law of] repulsion (of((=for) the average) mass*Force) explains how colliding (accelerating) masses are equally proportioned. (moma12/da1=ma1*Fa1)+(moma22/da2=ma2*Fa2)=0. Again (ma1*Fa1)+(ma2*Fa2)=0, ma*Fa=ma2*aa (ma12*aa1)+(ma22*aa2)=0 (moma12/da1)+(moma22/da2)=0. Note: 2b. (=To_be) A general average_acceleration aan=van/dan-1 could be based (up)on the “exponential” average_speed van= aan*dan-1 (for any n>1, e.g. beyond 1) which is an(y) average_acceleration (even NON_linear kinds=types), where “a” is just a symbol ((only) meaning (a=the) motion; NOT necessarily acceleration!). “n” is just (for) the order of motion where 0 does NOT move? 1 is the (average_)speed (=NO_acceleration) 2 is the average_linear_acceleration 3 is the average_NON linear_acceleration of the 1st order 4 is the average_NON linear_acceleration of the 2nd order etc. n<1 Exponent n values below(=less_than) 1, decelerate.
  3. Capiert: Is NOT a (=1) cycle=360°? Answer: NOT always. But am I confusing vocabulary? "cycle" instinctively tells me "circular". E.g. Bicycle. 2 circular wheels; NOT 720°. ..Even though we can make=force the pendulum to (circulate=)revolve around 360° (at least once) with a strong enough push (or swing), like (a) Newton's bucket. But I guess it would NOT have the same Period T, then. The piston itself does NOT, but it is connected to the circulating crank_shaft. I guess we extrapolate that ((crank_shaft's) motion), there (onto the piston). Factors of the Radian is surely NOT the only way to measure angle. So I guess there is hope (for me) for progress there. Yes, but didN'T I call it angle_speed f? using the same or similar syntax? I'm attempting to draw parallels=similarities from existing (or similar) syntax. Slight modifications (simplifications?) that might be useful (to me). Is there any reason why to use (the archaic? outdated?) radian (any more)? Irrational numbers, like Pi=3.14.., unnecessarily cost more computing time, depending on their complexity for their accuracy. Very messy. We'( a)re lucky enough when we can use just (only) a (=1) symbol, instead of the (irrational) number in full. Why both at all, getting that messy, when other (alternative) methods will do? I used to think omega was cool=neat till I understood it (a bit) better. E.g. I (once) thought it was neat (but only) because I did NOT understand it enough. Mysterious. Now I'd like to forget it. (Which sometimes happens, most of the time.) (I) DON'T need so (I) DON'T want it. It's a waste of time figuring it out, everytime. The decimal part of (2 identical, but 1 delayed) frequencies, multiplied by time, will give the phase shift (angle), as a fraction of a cycle. What more could you ask for? It's decimal (cycle, angle). It's consistent, with the metric_system based on tenths, etc; instead 1/60ths. & guess what? "I" made it up. Disclaimer: Instead of just complaining, I want to see improvements (being made). Simplicity is the way; NOT unnecessary=superfluous complexity. But unfortunately some things (have to) get more complicated to get there.
  4. Is NOT a (=1) cycle=360°? Is NOT ? I see 2 different angles (360° & ~57°) but both per second. & as you said they differ by the factor 2*Pi. I guess, maybe you mean, using a "cycle" is a bit more complicated statement if for an angle.? E.g. If ruffly intuitively 1 degree#cycle/360°? That clashs. There is something missing in the conversion (constant)? If 1 cycle=360°, /360° then 1°=1 cycle/360, *360 [cycle/°] 1°*360 [cycle/°]=1 cycle. That seems right=correct to me (now). (Please) let me put it another way. Is 1° an angle? y/n Is 360° an angle? y/n If you say no, then why? E.g. If units can be correctly converted then why should they be wrong? Factors of the Radian is surely NOT the only way to measure angle. Or is it?
  5. Why the adjective "linear"? Is NOT frequency (just) frequency? You are implying a NON_linear frequency (also) exists but I see NO need for it if the frequency is constant(ly the same, or varying linear(ly))? I suppose you are making the analogy to straight_line speed(s), which can be either linear &/or NON_linear. Which is also possible (for angle_speeds, I guess).? Perhaps (yes), but I was NOT aware until I posted this (speculation) thread that I could (=might) also use frequency f (which simply uses other (so_called, NON_standard) convertable units) to represent angle_speed. That's new to me! I guess you guys & gals are NOT yet so far as to recognize that. (It took me at least a few days, to say the least.) A radian (unitless radius/circumference=r/cir=r/(r*2*Pi)=1/(2*Pi)=0.1591549 ratio for the ~1/6.28.. fraction of a "cycle", as angle; 57.2957795°) & does seem (to me) to be an encrypted other alternative (for angle) 57.2957795°/360°=0.1591549 (of a [cycle]); instead of the (more) common [degree], (f)or circle, or e.g. cycle=360°. The advantage of using the cycle directly is "1"=360°. It (=1 [cycle]) is less complicated. Cycles (=360° multiples) are a very common unit, e.g. cycles_per_second cps=[Hz]. (If you had to explain a [Hz] to someone, how else would you do it than with that definition?) I see NO advantage for the invention of the radian other than to make things more obscure with irrational numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radian The radian is defined in the SI as being a dimensionless value, and its symbol is accordingly often omitted, especially in mathematical writing. One radian is defined as the angle subtended from the center of a "circle" which intercepts an arc equal in length to the radius of the circle. I doubt that you all recognized the radian is a (circle's) circumference fraction; & what that implies. E.g. An angle as "part" of a cycle, e.g. part of a circle. Sorry! I'm sorry if you can NOT digest it (=my ideas) fast enough. I doubt that it (f as angle_speed) is wrong; because it is convertable to other formats, such as degrees/sec or radians/sec or RPM & is perhaps too new for you, yet. I mean somebody had to have invented the degree (definition); & somebody else the radian (definition) with its questionable syntax. The cycle (as unit) is NOTHING new. --- Very many people use Rich text it is very common. Disclaimer: Winword's copy paste into this sfn website deletes the formulas. I DON'T need those stupid surprises with your incompatible software. (I suspect the solution would be to convert to .pdf & then copy paste that.) I'm NO pro(fessional) with LaTex for that little that I do with it; & I constantly=repeatly forget its details. (I am NOT gifted with the patience to use such a rare software, found on (mostly only) this website. I DON'T speak Chinese either.) I also would like my threads to look nicer than they are. But the ERROR possibility is NOT worth the risk yet. I'm already making too many errors (as I (have to) scramble to correct them). & I know some of you would like me to bumble.
  6. (Please) take a look at the math. If I reduce (=decrease) the eccentricity to almost zero (then) Kepler's_orbit_Period (3rd law) is (still) TKepler=ra1.5; but (however) at zero eccentricity e=0 (then) both the semi_major_axis ra & the semi_minor_axis rb are equal to the same (=identical), radius r=ra=rb if e=0 (but) having the circular orbit_Period Tcircle=2*Pi*((r/g)^0.5). Surely, for an Earth's satellite, both Orbit_Periods TKepler_(e=0)#Tcircle r1.5#2*Pi*((r/g)0.5), ^2 are NOT the same &/or can NOT be the same. Squaring both sides r3#4*Pi2*r/g, /r r2#4*Pi2/g, ^0.5 r#2*Pi/g, *g g*r#2*Pi, let the centrifugal_acceleration ac=g equal the gravitational free_fall (for an orbit) ac*r#2*Pi, because the centrifugal_acceleration ac=vc2/r multiplied by the common radius r as ac*r=vc2 is the (circular) orbit_speed squared vc2; & (that vc2) is (definitely) NOT 2*Pi. vc2= ac*r=2*Pi*(2*Pi*r2/T2) is a factor of *(2*Pi*r2/T2) larger than 2*Pi. Thus, (as far as I can see) Kepler's math is NONSENSE! (=it makes NO SENSE to me in its existing form); it has NO consistency with regular (Newtonian) Physics; & must have a different meaning. I hope that explains my problem (with Kepler('s laws)) well enough. 2 different (circular Orbit_period) formulas, which 1 is correct? (Kepler's or Newton's?) Please DON'T tell me Newton('s centrifugal_acceleration) is WRONG! ..because that is from where I derived my circular Orbit_Period from.
  7. Periside (e.g. perihelion, is the nearest distance to the sun, &) has the slowest orbit_speed, but fastest angle_speed (angular_velocity); & Apside (e.g. Aphelion is the farthest distance (away) from the sun) has the fastest orbit_speed, & slowest angle_speed (angular_velocity). I distinguish between orbit_speed (vc=Cir/T=2*Pi*r/T); versus the angle_speed f=(theta/t)*(1 [cycle]/360°) =1/T called frequency, for the angle theta in (units) [degree(s)]=[°]; t is an amount of time (duration, e.g. difference in time) in (units) [second(s)]; & period T is the (amount of) time (duration), per cycle. (Disclaimer: otherwise Kepler's 3rd law is NONSENSE (for me), from who I pity). Tycho (Brahe) (only) measured planets'(_position): angles & time (dates); so we can calculate the(ir orbits) angular_speeds, e.g. how fast arcs (=angles). are swept. To summarize (my interpretation): 1. Kepler found that (planets') obits were NOT perfect circles (& (he simply) approximated that (orbit) to an ellipse (math)). 2. Instead, an egg (shaped orbit) has only 1 focus (center), found near the smaller end. (The conic_section was done (algebraically) from a cone (with its circular base sitting on the ground (y=0), & its apex (x,y=0,H=0,1) up at the top) having the same radius R=H=1 equal to its height H (which seems to be the key to the results); & then normalizing by dividing by the egg's total (diagonal_)length L which starts at the cone's base_circumference (left_side, x,y=-1,0) going (diagonally up, to the right) thru the center axis (focus x,y=0,h) where the (partial) height (fraction) h is the eccentricity (Epsilon); (& continues till it pierces (out, thru) the cone's right side). Your mathematicians should be capable of similar results. If you DON'T believe me you can form bread dough & cut it, appropriately.) Equal arcs (=angles) are swept [out] in equal times. 3. A circular orbit_period T=2*Pi*((r/g)^0.5), g=ac (has a formula similar to a Pendulum's_period) which is similar to Newton's centifugal_acceleration ac=vc2/r if ac=g. Why should an orbit_speed vc increase with smaller radius? E.g. For very small eccentricities? (It does NOT, because..) There is NO consistency, when extrapolating to large(r) eccentricities. Nature does NOT abruptly change her laws; (but) men do. Especially when they did NOT understand. Edited Tuesday at 08:18 AM by Capiert Corrected.
  8. KEf=KEi+KEd That looks like 2 others to me. Yours is KEd=KEf-KEi, you let KEi=0. That's a good (interesting, simple) perspective. But what about KE transfer between (accelerating) masses that have acquired KE in similar times? Or is that what you mean (already)? I will assume the syntax could get a bit hairy. In other words you are saying, KE applies to only 1 accelerated mass. How do we know (if) the initial_kinetic_energy KEi is zero or NOT? It (=KE) is always wrt the initial_speed of the reference_frame; but does that say or mean zero KE? If the reference frame is moving (which it surely is) then we can NOT say a static mass wrt to that reference_frame has absolutely NO KE.
  9. Sensei Thanks for the links but (I suspect) you missed my point (=speculation). I'm saying Kepler's 3rd law is wrong for an Orbit_speed; & (=but instead) it should (=might) apply to an angular_speed. Btw. Is there any (Foto) evidence that orbits are (suppose to be) elliptical? I know he empirically determined T~Ra1.5. Yes. No. Did I say it was? (The pendulum(s) I saw was NOT orbiting around the Earth.) The (pendulum_)Period formula T does NOT mention height; & I am NOT discussing Pendulums (anyway); but instead Orbits which use the same (similar) formula. I just wanted to point out their math similarity so you can quickly understand. (Perhaps I said things wrong, in my haste?) Thanks for the correction. I could NOT find the vocabulary quick enough, on the fly. I wanted to use something like Periside & Apside but forgot the (exact) spelling. (So (unsure) I backed down, & (I) had to rush for something else ((&) that did NOT work).) ERRATA: Typo. My angle_speed example was a ruff quick random (hash) mixture (example); NOT a (formal) formula. Just to give a (vague) ruff idea (comparison). I had originally intended something like ~theta/t, ~360°/T but I found a general formula getting too complicated, for the application I wanted. So I wrongly settled for a condensation theta[/t, ~360°]/T -> theta/T (when theta=360°), where that (particular) T was any kind of time NOT intended to be (just only) a period, but as a quick comparison to what a (real) Period should hint at. Sorry. (Trying to pack too much info, into too little space, to keep things short.) My angle_speed (formula, of choice) should be called "frequency" f=(theta/t)*(1 [cycle]/360°) =1/T for the angle theta in (units) [degree(s)]=[°]; t is an amount of time (duration, e.g. difference in time) in (units) [second(s)]; & period T is the (amount of) time (duration), per cycle. There are several ways to express angle & (thus, also) angle_speed. More info in that thread "Angle_speed f(?)" if you need it.
  10. Yes. No. Did I say it was? The (pendulum_)Period formula T does NOT mention height; & I am NOT discussing Pendulums (anyway); but instead Orbits which use the same (similar) formula. I just wanted to point out their math similarity so you can quickly understand. (Perhaps I said things wrong, in my haste?) Thanks for the correction. I could NOT find the vocabulary quick enough, on the fly. I wanted to use something like Periside & Apside but forgot the (exact) spelling. (So (unsure) I backed down, & (I) had to rush for something else ((&) that did NOT work).) ERRATA: Typo. My angle_speed example was a ruff quick random (hash) mixture (example); NOT a (formal) formula. Just to give a (vague) ruff idea (comparison). I had originally intended something like ~theta/t, ~360°/T but I found a general formula getting too complicated, for the application I wanted. So I wrongly settled for a condensation theta[/t, ~360°]/T -> theta/T (when theta=360°), where that (particular) T was any kind of time NOT intended to be (just only) a period, but as a quick comparison to what a (real) Period should hint at. Sorry. (Trying to pack too much info, into too little space, to keep things short.) My angle_speed (formula, of choice) should be called "frequency" f=(theta/t)*(1 [cycle]/360°) =1/T for the angle theta in (units) [degree(s)]=[°]; t is an amount of time (duration, e.g. difference in time) in (units) [second(s)]; & period T is the (amount of) time (duration), per cycle. There are several ways to express angle & (thus, also) angle_speed. More info in that thread "Angle_speed f(?)" if you need it.
  11. is called "frequency" f=(theta/t)*(1 [cycle]/360°) =1/T for the angle theta in (units) [degree(s)]=[°]; t is an amount of time (duration, e.g. difference in time) in (units) [second(s)]; & period T is the (amount of) time (duration), per cycle. There are several ways to express angle & (thus, also) angle_speed. But I prefer to express angles in cycles(' fractions, &/or multiples), e.g. as fractions, &/or multiples of a cycle. 1=100%. E.g. 1 [cycle]=360°. That is(=means), a degree 1°=[cycle]*(1/360) is 1/360th part of a(=1, complete=whole, single) cycle. E.g. 90°=0.25*[cycle]=[cycle]/4. 1 [cycle]=(t/T)*(360°/theta), or (rearranged) 1 [cycle]=(t/theta)*(360°/T). Or regrouping the angles together as a ratio f=(theta/360°)*(1 [cycle]/t) =1/T. A few other variations for the angle_per_time ratio, are theta/t=(360°/T)*(1/(1 [cycle])), or swapping (Rt side) denominators theta/t=(360°/(1 [cycle]))*(1/T), is also theta/t=(360°/(T*[cycle])), 1/T=f theta/t=f*360°/[cycle]. The period, is T=t/(1 [cycle]))*(360°/theta), or T=(t/theta)*(360°/(1 [cycle])). The angle (in degrees), is theta=(t/(1 [cycle]))*(360°/T), or theta=(360°/(1 [cycle]))*(t/T). The angle (in cycles), is f*[seconds]. (Even) although I'( a)m in the habit of using degrees. I hope that clears any confusion. Motivation: I noticed a general formula for angle_speed was a little bit more involved, & (so) I was searching for an appropriate syntax (symbol, hieroglyphics). I hope that will (simply) do with an (already) existing symbol f. ?
  12. Perigee (e.g. perihelion, is the nearest distance to the sun, &) has the slowest orbit_speed, but fastest angle_speed (angular_velocity); & Apogee (e.g. Aphelion is the farthest distance (away) from the sun) has the fastest orbit_speed, & slowest angle_speed (angular_velocity). I distinguish between orbit_speed (vc=Cir/T=2*Pi*r/T); versus the angular_speed (theta/T); (Disclaimer: otherwise Kepler's 3rd law is NONSENSE (for me), who(m) I pity). Tycho (Brahe) (only) measured planets'(_position): angles & time (dates); so we can calculate the(ir orbits) angular_speeds, e.g. how fast arcs (=angles). are swept. To summarize (my interpretation): 1. Kepler found that (planets') obits were NOT perfect circles (& (he simply) approximated that (orbit) to an ellipse (math)). 2. Instead, an egg (shaped orbit) has only 1 focus (center), found near the smaller end. (The conic_section was done (algebraically) from a cone (with its circular base sitting on the ground (y=0), & its apex (x,y=0,H=0,1) up at the top) having the same radius R=H=1 equal to its height H (which seems to be the key to the results); & then normalizing by dividing by the egg's total (diagonal_)length L which starts at the cone's base_circumference (left_side, x,y=-1,0) going (diagonally up, to the right) thru the center axis (focus x,y=0,h) where the (partial) height (fraction) h is the eccentricity (Epsilon); (& continues till it pierces (out, thru) the cone's right side). Your mathematicians should be capable of similar results. If you DON'T believe me you can form bread dough & cut it, appropriately.) Equal arcs (=angles) are swept [out] in equal times. 3. A circular orbit uses (=has) the pendulum_period T=2*Pi*((r/g)^0.5), g=ac which is similar to Newton's centifugal_acceleration ac=vc2/r if ac=g. Why should an orbit_speed vc increase with smaller radius? E.g. For very small eccentricities? (It does NOT, because..) There is NO consistency, when extrapolating to large(r) eccentricities. Nature does NOT abruptly change her laws; (but) men do. Especially when they did NOT understand.
  13. I find that a good answer. It implies admitting ~1/2 the problem. But DON'T you think that (reference frame) need has been created artificially, by negating the initial_speed vi to zero? Now you have to suffer the consequences & are happy with it(s complexity). This style helps me reduce my errors, which otherwise would then be "more" confusing to you. It helps me find subtle problems. Sorry, (1st draft, needs maybe a 5th re_edit?) that's my handicap. It's a construct, e.g. programmed. Intended to read with natural pauses almost automatically; but sometimes it has to be broken down more (e.g. bracketed, (is (superfluous &) put) to the right end, (thus) ignorable) but gets messy. Me (when) against many (must be perfect, but isn't). It takes a lot of backbone to go "against" mainstream (errors?). (Sometimes) It's difficult to (get=) crystalize the ideas in order to (quickly?) pinpoint the problems; instead of make new 1's. I write more naturally when I feel uninhibited. Swansont will say there are NO errors in physics; only me, but sorry I DON'T believe him on some things (yet). It's pointing at a serious problem. Prejudice (bias), & ignorance of it. Please DON'T bother. It's intended to hedge (=prevent) future problems (conflicts). It'( ha)s obviously failed for now. I DON'T like it either. Stressy bad weather.
  14. This (thread) is (about) a (syntax(_bias)) complaint. There are several kinds of KE; but only 1 is acknowledged. What does it mean to set the Kinetic_Energy(_difference)'s (KEd=m*(vf2-vi2)/2) initial_speed vi=0 to zero? KEd=m*(vf2-0)/2. (?) (I mean..) If the Kinetic_Energy(_difference) KEd=(m*vf2/2)-(m*vi2/2) is the 1st term, the final_kinetic_energy KEf=m*vf2/2 minus the 2nd term, the initial_kinetic_energy KEi=m*vi2/2 as, KEd=KEf-KEi & the initial_kinetic_energy KEi=m*02/2=0 is (assumed) zero, then we can only have the final_Kinetic_Energy KEf=KEi+KEd KEf=0+KEd or (when swapping, the sequence order) KEf=KEd+0 which "might" appear as (the_same=) identical (when it is NOT always (identical) e.g. when initial_speed vi#0 & initial_kinetic_Energy KEi#0 are NOT zero). Thus (we or) I must ask (what they ((term_names) really) are (representing)) e.g. what is the final_Kinetic_Energy KEf?; & what is the initial_Kinetic_Energy KEi?; & what is the Kinetic_Energy(_difference) KEd? It seems (to me, (that)) physicists are (absolutely) completely (=100%) confident that the Kinetic_Energy_"difference" KEd=KEf-KEi is NOT "The(e)" (=their) Kinetic_Energy KEf-0 because (perhaps (the) subscripts are (or were) missing?) although both are (a kind of) (kinetic_)Energy. (But differentiation, is a "difference" method (adding the series (of differences).) (Why the restriction to only 1 kind of KE when there are several (kinds)?) (E.g. (Oh) "KE"(?), we worship (only) "Thee"! (?) :-) (But which 1?) (Kinetic is (=implies) "motion", thus KE is motion_energy.) Why do they (physicists) bother splitting hairs** (just to be different)? (**E.g. Tending to ONLY 1 kind, of=from several. Preferring ONLY the KE_difference, (when=)with its initial_speed vi (is) set to zero.) (I mean) (Because..(it seems to me, that)) the Kinetic_Energy "difference" KEd is "the" most "general"*** definition of Kinetic_Energy; & setting its initial_speed vi=0 is (but) "only 1" (specific) example (of Kinetic_energies, =motion_energies) from many (examples). (*** I'( ha)ve stated that, in other threads before; 1. Energy is suppose to (be accountable, &) add if it can NOT be created, NOR destroyed; 2. but it does NOT always (add (up)), 3. although KEd is (already) relative. Now including the subscript d=difference (syntax).) Thus, how can (you or) those physicists (possibly) suppose that: the final_Kinetic_Energy KEf (but) minus the initial_Kinetic_Energy KEi (by letting vi=0) is (suppose to be) "the(e)" ONLY Kinetic_Energy KE? (=KEd)= KEf- (KEi=0) ((possible) that exists, & is correct (only) so)? [That seems to me rather "narrow_minded", or misled. E.g. 1 Person's (restriction_)ERROR, & then everybody jumps on the (same) bandwagon (without thinking). E.g. NOT quite knowing what you are talking about. =] DON'T you think that'( i)s a little bit narrow_minded? Or misled? E.g. NOT (quite) the full story. Or am I wrong? & if so why?, etc. E.g. Science confirms itself. There are many ways (to Rome=roam). Disclaimer: That was (more, or less) my complaint about (an) inconsistent syntax (bias) in physics. I DON'T claim to be perfect (either), & (I (also) have to make (syntax) compromises (e.g. preferences) (in order, for them (compromises)) to remain recognizable (at least a bit). Physics is a straight jacket, as Feynman would say. For those who DON'T know: "Straight" actually (is) implying, too rigid (e.g. &/"or") (for the lunatics). Take it (=&/"or", leave it) either way you want. It's crazy. I hope I'm NOT being too impolite; & can drop the wool from your (biased) eyes. (I'm biased too, but differently.) (This is the time=Period of revolution, & we (=fat Victor & Co) are revolting.-Victor Buno. :-) Why prefer initial_speed zero? Einstein said NO (reference_)frame is preferred; but that is NOT true. There are advantages to some; or at least that is what you are implying=inferring. E.g. (A mass m, on Earth, with) vi=0 seems static but it is really (moving) at the same(=identical) speed (as the reference_frame, i.e. wrt Earth). (& we know the Earth is rotating, e.g. moving.) Thus (initial_)speed vi is "inherent". It (=vi) (when zero) is invisible to the (reference_)frame. (E.g. Zero is =NOTHING, 0 [m/s]. But) I can NOT imagine anything that is NOT moving (wrt the universe). & even the universe must be moving wrt some_thing.
  15. Capiert

    Power?

    If you are NOT doing the math right=correctly then how can you expect "your" physics to turn out right? Apparently, NO math?; then NO physics. The simplest of algebra should indicate your (=anyone's) folly. Good! (That's a) good challenge. True. ISBN 3-89478-119-x pg28 If I remember correctly. That'( i)s what I got out of it. Quite right. mom=KEd/va KEd=mom*va KEd=mom*va They depend on each other (in_spite of their distinction). KE is NOT lost; "the values (simply) do NOT match" because you are doing the algebra WRONG! There is a RIGHT=CORRECT way to add KE & there is a (simpleton's) WRONG way which hinders match(ing), that EVERYBODY has fallen for.
  16. Capiert

    Power?

    Well done! But if the proportionality to distance is a (correct) mass_squared; instead of (only mass) NOT squared, then you have a definite difference that can NOT be pushed_away (=denied!) (& hid under the carpet). The numbers (resulting) for mass_squared versus only mass (NOT squared). Btw. That ("squared" versus NOT_squared (mass)) is math; NOT physics. Math_Physics at the most. Quite right. But with what (=which?) method you choose, to describe, determines your outccome. Choose momentum & then you are probably (quite) right. Choose Energy & then it can go wrong when mass changes in the collision. Choose mass*Energy & then you might get it right (again), when dealing with changing mass. The choice is (really) yours (NOT mine). (I'( woul)d call that bias.) ..What? (Please explain yourself. "NOT" what?) Quite right. Mass_squared does NOT exist in either of those (mom or Energy) equations, (& because they are inferior, e.g. limited). Mass_squared is a new concept from Ewert (1996) & it does seem to work right=correctly, e.g. better, such as in problems where the mass changes. & the cool (=neat) thing about it (=mass_squared) is m*E, mass*Energy (m*E) is VERY similar to (only) Energy so you hardly (=barely) need to change a thing. It'( i)s very easy. Simply multiply mass by Energy & you might (=should) get the correct answers. That'( i)s over_simplified of course. What sort of problem am I making up? I see definite problems with Energy that can NOT be over_come (otherwise). Dark_Energy is a real eye_sore. But the so_called energy loss in an inelastic (=NON_elastic) collision is most prevalent (=obvious). & I am NOT making that 1 up. YOU are! The Energy NEVER left the system. & I can tell you where it is. I (wrongly) said that you "lost" -1 [J]; but that is wrong only because you guys condition me into your same bad habits. (& I fell for it, as naive as I am.) You haveN'T lost a thing! Take a look at (conservation of momentum, COM) mom1+mom2=mom3. That'( i)s a perfectly balanced equation. Left_side (is mom1+mom2) is "before" the collision & right_side (is mom3) is "after" the collision. Square both sides & it is still balanced (=perfect)! (mom1+mom2)2=mom32. But that produces mom12+mom22+2*mom1*mom2=mom32. That +2*mom1*mom2 belongs to "before" the collision (=left_side of the equation); NOT "after" the collision (right_side of the equation). Again: That +2*mom1*mom2 belongs to the "before"_ side of the collision equation; NOT the "after"_side of the collision equation. Putting the 2*mom1*mom2 on the "after" side of the collision equation means it "needs" to be NEGATIVE. I.e. -2*mom1*mom2. NON_elastic collisions might seem to have lost energy on the (heavier) result; but they have NOT lost a thing (in that sense); you need only observe the math to correctly determine what has happened. & (thus) you physicists (have) preach(ed) an untrue gospel (=NONSENSE!) Sorry! But more SORRY for your (misled) followers.
  17. Capiert

    Power?

    (amount (of mass)) But it (that mass) is distributed differently (into the (mass) terms) so that it is only (1 mass, now e.g.) together. & that ((different) togetherness) (now) has a different affect on the math answer. are now 1 total mass m3=m1+m2 which is now larger than either 1 of its initial components (e.g. either: m1; or m2) & If mass is squared, then its parts produce different (math, number, value) results compared to its (=the total mass) sum squared. m32=(m1+m2)2 m32=m12+m22+2*m1*m2 <---But look at that! m32#m12+m22 Mass squared does NOT simply add only the squared terms; because the (NON_squared term) +2*m1*m2 is missing! I hope you get my drift. (What I am "trying" to tell you.) Such naive math (just) can NOT work, (sometimes).
  18. Capiert

    Power?

    Yes, True. Sorry for my (sudden, shocked) reaction. (Anything to do with Newton 3?) It's difficult (for me) to accept that you will ignore & deny the syntax, & thus undermine any (further) argument; making all rationality attempts seem pointless. (That takes more than a few aspirin, with the feet up (to recover from).) It'( i)s similar, to (suddenly) declaring that the Earth's North Pole (which is known & documented for centuries, as found in the northern hemisphere, near, side by side, to the north (geographical) rotational_"axis") is suddenly (now, renamed to) a south (magnetic) pole because your compass needle is pointing to it (=the Earth's North Pole). & everybody else's compass is (now) doing the same thing (too=also)! They are (all) "pointing to" (the North Pole). (Which is NOTHING new!) I mean, why was the North "Pole" named so in the 1st place (instead of axis)? Obviously because magnetic loadstone orientated towards the Earth's 2 magnetic poles. Nobody then knew what kind of magnetic pole each end of the loadstone had; other than to follow its (end's) orientation to the Earth (as reference). There was NO other reason for naming it "pole" (instead of axis) other than that it was (& still is) a "magnetic"_pole! Clear cut! Now some (so_called) genius comes around with his (own) compass in his hands (seeing is believing) (ignoring that it (=the compass's_needle) is only "pointing" to the north(ern) direction, & (=but) says "his" needle('s end) must be North (magnetism) (when it is NOT!), because its pointing "to" the Earth's north (magnetic) pole. I mean how far does narrow_minded egoism have to get. You get 1 (raving) idiot (ignoring the consistency=continuum with the rest of the concept, &) messing (=mixing) things up; & then every other (stupid) idiot jumps on the bandwagon, too (as ja_sayers); instead of saying NO!. (Stunned with astonishment, which boardered upon stupification (..they left the forest).-Jules Verne. NOT seeing the forest for (=because of) the trees.) That is only an example of inconsistent logic. In my book the Earth's magnetic pole is in the Northern hemisphere (as it should be) (NOT the southern); & I have seen maps so, too. I see NO reason to change that, for the crackpot idea that it should be south, just so some egoist can (hi_jack the show, &) gain all the attention as a "new" breakthru just to be different=elite. I mean which came 1st the chicken or the egg? Obviously, "its" egg: the proprietary owner('s right(s)). I.e. Historical sequence, squatter's rights. Credit where it belongs. But getting back to tracking KEd. You must (surely) know, (at least by now), that: KE does NOT work for NON_elastic collisions because KE's mass m is NOT correctly proportioned to the speed vf. The mass will change (amount) (becoming larger) (instead of stay(ing) the same). That is a strictly=pure(ly) math error (of WRONG proportioning). Mass*Energy m*E helps correct that error (of WRONG proportions); but (it seems) you wish to ignore that (proportioning error; & m*E, altogether). Kinetic_Energy on its own is (inferior) NON_SENSE! (because it'( i)s only (an intermediate, a) part of a term of m*E); that's why it (=KE) will NOT work generally for (exchanging to) different (sized) masses (such as (in) e.g. NON_elastic collisions). Oh yes it does matter, because you ignore COE is fake by (still=continuing) declaring energy is a conserved quantity (although NOT completely). It either is, or it is NOT. Energy has a flaw, & breaks down sometimes in some cases, e.g. NON_elastic collisions; & you refuse to admit that weakness is a (math) ERROR! Your general (conservation) laws rely completely on only COM (conservation of momentum); & NEVER COE (conservation of energy), because COE is corrupt! (an incomplete distortion)! You misleed people (like me) into believing conservation of energy (is general) when it can NOT be (e.g. completely), inspite of your limitation warnings. It's like saying, I'm a bit pregnant; but NOT completely. I'm NOT (pregnant) when my mass has increased e.g. in an inelastic collision. (Partially (conserved) is NO excuse for the real McCoy!, COM.) m*E is a unified form(ula) of both COE & COM. Why need to choose anything else? 1 formula will now finally do. I think that is the reason why I am probing (=e.g. asking) what kind of energy KEd is. I'( a)m asking for that additional info. I suspect we have something (new?) to learn with the correct answers. At least from that endeavour we might develop more ability e.g. simpler formulas, e.g. shortcuts. (Why hinder the progress?) OK. Good advice. NOT true. v1i=(1000-1=~999) m/s v2i=(1000+1=~1001) m/s v3f=~1000 m/s To make things simple, let'( u)s put your example in a car (or train, frame) (that is) moving (at only e.g.) +2 [m/s] (eastwards; instead of 1 [km/s]); & watch the (masses') speeds from (wrt) the (Earth's surface) ground. Mass 1 (initial): m1i=1 [kg] v1i=3 [m/s] mom1i=m1*v1=1 [kg]*3 [m/s]=3 [kg*m/s] KE1i=m1*(v12-0)/2=1 [kg]*(3 [m/s])2/2=4.5 [kg*m2/s2]=4.5 [J]. Mass 2 (initial): m2i=1 [kg] v2i=1 [m/s] mom2i=m2*v2=1 [kg]*1 [m/s]=1 [kg*m/s] KE2i=m2*(v22-0)/2=1 [kg]*(1 [m/s])2/2=0.5 [kg*m2/s2]=0.5 [J]. Mass 3 (final): m3=m1+m2=1 [kg]+1 [kg]=2 [kg] v3=? [m/s] mom3=mom1+mom2=3 [kg*m/s]+1 [kg*m/s]=4 [kg*m/s] v3=mom3/m3=4 [kg*m/s]/2 [kg]=2 [m/s] KE3=m3*(v32-0)/2=2 [kg]*(2 [m/s])2/2=4 [kg*m2/s2]=4 [J]. The total final kinetic_energy KETf=KE3=4 [J]. The total initial kinetic_energy KETi=KE1i+KE2i=4.5 [J]+0.5 [J]=5 [J]. The Energy defect (e.g. neutrino=(math_)error! KEd4) is the initial_total energy minus the final_total energy KEerror=KETf-KETi=4 [J]-5 [J]=-1 [J] lost! =-20% of (the total) initial(_energy) (for that (NON_elastic) example). Things look different(ly) with mass*Energy m*E, because the defect is m4*KE4=~-2*mom1*mom2. But there is a big difference between m*E=mom*moma=mom2*(va/v) versus mom2=mom*mom=m*E*(v/va). The catch there is the average_speed va=(vi+vf)/2 needs the initial_speed vi; which is a speed you ignore by subtracting it out. E.g. By (typically) setting the initial_speed vi to be your reference_frame's speed. Thus it (vi) is gone from the picture. Anything that has the same speed as vi is declared as "at rest" (when it's NOT really when wrt any other speed than vi). "At rest" is the deceiving(_speed) exception, of really being (=having) the "same speed". But you (already) know that. I'm NOT telling you anything new. What bugs me is the partial truth. (The biggest lie, is only half the truth.-A banker.) E.g. The exceptions. Ok, I can acknowledge, that KE is only 1 kind of energy (among [m]any); (but it's (=KE is) NOT the big cheese(y principle)!) Energy (in general) is that (general concept) (even if it has its weaknesses). IOW: It means, you can find individual examples where KE does NOT change. (E.g. identical masses?) I.e. “not conserved” means “might change”; but does NOT have to change. I sure hope that will sink in(to my head). Maybe you could (please) give me an example of that, (so I can remember better, instead of (me) falling into the same old hole)? I'( woul)d like to present you the m*E example; but (can NOT do it properly yet, because) you'( ha)ve gotten me off track by (=into) zeroing my KEf & KEi away from (my original concept) KEd=m*v*va. E.g. Versus mom2=m*(m*v*v). v#va. Which means I (still) have to give it some thought, as to the consequences. (=I need some time.)
  19. Capiert

    Power?

    That'( i)s how you (would) do it. E.g. Just so you do NOT have to bother. But why should I (try to) believe you. You have given me NO proof, with your inability NOT to bother (attitude). Are all scientists so lazy (like Minkowski hinted about Physicists)? (Surely NOT!) Why should (some of the kinetic) energy leave that system? (& I DON'T accept warm, acoustic, excuses either.) (I'd like to see (simple) tangible measurements.) Oh! Abracadabra (then). (It's a mystery!) That sounds like a boring disinterest in science e.g. trying to know. A half hearted attempt to throw a few things together. You either: know; or (else) you DON'T, & you obviously DON'T, because you give me useless excuses. Sorry, other people can try to be more thorough. You DON'T even give the effort. If you (were to) say: those answers can NOT be found; then there must be a reason why. (Oh we are too feeble, (at) attempting, (to) zero_speed, =zero results. It's more difficult that c.) Disinterest is NO excuse. You also avoid commenting (up)on the (=my) initial_kinetic_energy KEi (perhaps because you habitually evade it by subtracting it away). My syntax includes KEi. (What is your syntax, if mine is NOT an extended (syntax)?) All 3 (named KEs) KEf=KEi+KEd are "kinetic_energies" ((meaning) NOT your "the"(what? _unknown), NOT mentioned f form) syntax). You can clearly see that (they are kinetic_energies) in my syntax "KE" with a subscript. There is NO difference: meaning a KE is a KE, whatever its subscript is. The KEd can (equally) accelerate a(ny) mass from zero (speed) to a (new) final_speed vf, which would finally have its own KEf(new)=KEd equal to that kinetic_energy_difference KEd. I DON'T see why you try to sell a KEd distinction (away) from any other KEsubscripted just because you do NOT know what (else) KEd is (or could be). E.g. Even though you only want KEf to be "the" (only) kind of KE (possible). It is absurd to say: KEd is NOT a kinetic_energy simply because it is NOT "the" final_KE KEf=m*(vf2-0)/2 which uses the mass m multiplied by half the final_speed squared vf2 but "subtracted by zero(_squared)"! The initial_kinetic_energy KEi=m*(vi2-0)/2 is also a kinetic_energy (just like KEf is) because its half the initial_speed squared vi2 but is also "subtracted by zero(_squared)"! The universal KE_difference formula KEd=m*(vf2-vi2)/2 is the most universal KE "definition"! There you can (=may) use any reference(_frame) speed vref=vi (below c, that) you want to be your reference speed (e.g. at rest, when identical to the initial_speed vi). If I have 7 oranges (analogy KEf) & subtract 4 (oranges, analogy KEi), then I would expect out, 3 (oranges, analogy KEd) like any reasonable thinking person. NOT grapefruits or "lemons"! (or other hogwash). That's only common sense, which seems to be missing here (in (what some people call) science). You DON'T (even) have a clue where the energy has gone, you DON'T know what it is (e.g. called, other than "difference") & yet want to be called scientists. (& you want me to believe you?) Modern physics is like modern art, anything goes, even junk. All that matters is who (e.g. what ego) has the say. I suspect you mean, the initial_speed terms (e.g. KEi) are subtracted anyway; (&) so why bother. ? Taken from a different perspective, of: if the 2 masses are on Earth & the Earth is rotating let'( u)s say vi=~1 [km/s] eastwards ((just) to keep things simple, at where they are on the Earth's surface); then they are still moving ~1 [km/s] although they appear to you as at rest. (& that KEd did NOT leave the system.) What seems (as) "at rest" is an optical delusion (of) for both: observer; & an object, having the same (=identical) speed. (E.g. Even though they are separated by a distance d.) In reality (e.g. the universe), (we know) everything is moving. Meaning NOTHING is (really) static (=at rest, with zero speed). (Everything has a speed difference wrt some other (moving) object (reference, frame).) Your "choice" of reference(_frame) (e.g. of same speed as the observed object) (help) determines whether you want to be: deceived ((in)to think(ing): ) an object is at rest (when it has the same speed as the reference_frame); or NOT! **(Sorry! (Yes) "I") Modified. (Or do you mean your quote is dishonest? Which I (rather) doubt, in preference for the former.) How else should I add (extra) comments of mine into your text? I bracketed it, to distinguish it from your original text. Dishonesty was NOT intended; only clearness of the discussion (was intended), (before getting lost again in(to) confusion between syntaxes). Should I use different brackets?
  20. Capiert

    Power?

    (Our) Confusion arises from different syntax: mine; versus yours. I agree. & they do speak English. Yes, I think we can assume so. (& It's nice to hear it is fine.) You still have NOT commented on KEi. (final_) KEf What kind of Energy? It's NOT chemical, thermal, NOR potential etc. So what KIND of energy is that? & also, only a particle could have had that energy when it was by=with the particle. If a particle had lost that KEd then that particle has decelerated & is now moving slower, than it was (before the loss). But it was lost to another particle (forced to accelerate, E.g. Newton's 2nd Law). KEd can only be had by a particle (or object) e.g. mass. The KEd formula can discuss (either): the same mass m; or (else) it can discuss 2 different masses. But (the) K(inetic )E(nergy) d(ifference) can NOT be transferred without a mass (as mediator, or transporter). So what you said, e.g. that KEd does NOT belong to a particle, (simply) does NOT (seem to) make sense (to me). KEd can only be transferred by (a) mass, (instead). But: The bigger, more important, question (to ask) is: to which mass does KEd belong to; & when? (before versus after, a(n elastic) collision). E.g. Which mass lost the -KEd? & which mass gained the +KEd? NO mass? Then NO energy! You can NOT describe (e.g. formulate) energy without mass. (& charge is intimately related to the inverse "mass", as in charge to mass ratio.) motion_ final_ I think we can fictively equate KEd to various other masses & speeds just to get equivalents (or equivalence). (But that'( i)s modelling, e.g. NOT physical.) I find your next example (description) (non_elastic collision) rather interesting. Let (their masses, be) m1=1 [kg], & m2=1 [kg]. Let their initial_speeds, be vi1=1 [m/s], & =j0*1 [m/s], j0=1 (0°) vi2=-1 [m/s]=j2*1 [m/s], j2=-1 (180°) with initial_KE's KEi1=m1*(vi12-02)/2=1 [kg]*((1 [m/s])2-0)/2=0.5 [kg*m2/s2]=j0*0.5 [J] (0°) KEi2=m1*(vi22-02)/2=1 [kg]*((-1 [m/s])2-0)/2=1 [kg]*((j2*1 [m/s])2-0)/2=j4*0.5 [kg*m2/s2]=j4*0.5 [J] (360°) Their final_speeds, are vf1= 0 [m/s], & vf2= 0 [m/s] with final_KE's KEf1=m1*(vf12-02)/2=1 [kg]*((0 [m/s])2-0)/2=0.5 [kg*m2/s2]=j0*0 [J] (0°) KEf2=m1*(vf12-02)/2=1 [kg]*((0 [m/s])2-0)/2=0.5 [kg*m2/s2]=j0*0 [J] (0°) with KE_differences KEd1=m1*(vf12-vi12)/2=1 [kg]*((0 [m/s])2-(1 [m/s])2)/2=-0.5 [kg*m2/s2]=j2*0.5 [J] (180°) KEd2=m1*(vf22-vi22)/2=1 [kg]*((0 [m/s])2-(-1 [m/s])2)/2=1 [kg]*(-(j2*1 [m/s])2)/2=-j4*0.5 [kg*m2/s2]=j6*0.5 [J] (540°). Both (Energy) losses (together) are -1 [J], each -0.5 [J]. KEd1=KEf1-KEi1=-0.5 [J] KEd2=KEf2-KEi2=(-)3*0.5 [J] KEd3=KEd1+KEd2=-0.5 [J]+(-)3*0.5 [J], ~-1 [J]. How then can you claim that their (kinetic) Energy was NOT destroyed (=annihilated)? Are you claiming out of (good) "belief"? (E.g. Scientific religion. E.g. Hoping the theory will justify every "odd" detail in the end?) A reasonable person could NOT claim that, (when) seeing the facts. (Seeing is believing.) (You must (=most probably, surely) have good faith, (brother)!) kind (=type) of (moving (=motion) energy) Although we can loose energy (by using the minus sign symbol "-"), ((but) into NOTHING!). Because the math (e.g. (final_speed) "squaring") does NOT allow negative( value)s. I have (seen the inelastic example above), & it looks convincing (& puzzling, at the same time). It does NOT fit, like indefinite integrals (do). I DON'T want to argue with you there (not a value associated with any one particle, or even anything having motion.) But I suspect a closer examination (in detail) will allow associating to particles, & of motion. 3 indefinite integrals begin to stand (=argue) against (a) calculus working regardlessly. Serious mathematicians know calculus does NOT "always" work right. they have been successful at isolating those few quirks; but they CAN'T quite put their thumb on why to eliminate them completely. They simply set up warnings, DON'T do. With those Jack in the boxes, I'm curious what else (for problems) could be found awaiting us for: in the future. Btw. What is half of infinity? Calculus works with infinitesimal limits, hoping to make the problem so small so it disappears. The problem is the proportioning should stay the same, instead of approximating that it is gone. Yes, with your help we have identified a problem that could be cleared. Thank you. That'( i)s the way we learned it in school. & looking at it (now) it seems like a (more/most) general description: dealing on a macroscopic level/perspective; rather than a microscopic infinitesimal view. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. That is how you interpreted my text's syntax. You assumed I was talking about KEf; but I was always talking about KEd, instead. I DIDN'T use the d subscript as is typical for many variables in Physics. E.g. (duration) time t=tf-ti Eg. distance d=df-di E.g. speed v=vf-vi. When you measure a distance you rarely say it is a distance_"difference" of e.g. 100 [km] from 1 big city to another. You just say the distance is ..; & forget about the fact that it is a difference, too=also. Why the (complexity &) inconsistency in your syntax? Answer: Because normal people DON'T talk that way. You guys have to turn everything into a unique exception rather than talk like normal human beings. I mean "sometimes" there are advantages to the (few extra) details; but NOT always. The equation is KEd (NOT your (agreed upon) KEf); & as KEd=m*(vf2-vi2)/2 that equation is NOT wrong but instead absolutely correct. ∆KE=KEd It should have been obvious (excluding typo errors), that KEf#m*(vf2-vi2)/2 could NOT possibly be (correct) as KEf because it was missing (the term) -m*(vi2)/2; instead of being exclusively KEf~m*(vf2)/2 using vf2; without -m*(vi2)/2 losses. That is, unless you have found some(thing else) new, breath_taking news that we should (all) be cautious (about), for. Btw. I must comment that I was rather enthusiast at Bufofrog's original comment, (but unfortunately wrongly) assuming he might have found an interesting (new) problem that we could work on, e.g. he was thinking outside of the box. But instead, it only turned out to be (boring) syntax misunderstandings. But at least we got that cleared too. Thanks gang (=team)!
  21. Capiert

    Power?

    I suspect the confusion arises (between us) from the difference between my syntax versus your syntax. I have extended the syntax description details beyond yours. Your "the" (what?) KE, is my "final"_KE KEf. My KEd is the (KE_)difference of 2 ((perhaps) different) Kinetic Energies. In this case (final_KE minus initial_KE) KEf-KEi. (We can thank Swansont for helping us point out that 1.) I (would) find it (quite) peculiar if you would deny that the difference between 2 (different) KE's is NOT a KE (itself), because of: (1.) conservation of Energy COE: i.e. energy can NEITHER be created; NOR destroyed, & so the parts must add (up, together); & (2.) per definition_name kinetic_energy is (=means) the energy of "motion". There speed &/or acceleration apply. Delta_KE=KEd must be a KE (even if it is NOT your "the" KE, whatever "the" is suppose to be. Disclaimer: I am only trying to be thorough, with the(=my, algebra_)syntax.) If a mass object maintains a constant_speed (for that brief_time that "you" measure (it); instead of (versus, compared to) following its complete history as to how it (ever) acquired its (constant_)speed in the 1st place=originally), then, its initial_KE KEi (which is NOT ZERO, (&) which you seem to want to ignore (maybe) just to makes things difficult(?), but which I have already taken into account (of)) will be equal to its final_KE KEf & (but, thus) its KE_difference KEd=KEf-KEi will be (exactly) zero. (The analogy is taken directly from my speeds(_syntax) for the speed_difference vd=vf-vi. That is NOTHING new! (Except for (now) adding d subscripts (for "difference"), where they were NOT before.) Swansont should know that for linear acceleration the average_speed, is va=vi+vd/2 & his final_(instantaineous)_speed (equivalent), is vf=va+vd/2. E.g. vf=vi+vd I have NOT yet recognized that that algebra will NOT do. Meaning it (=the algebra) is still valid (as far as I can see). Really? Yes! Jerks are also accelerations, (similar to collision accelerations). Whether they (accelerations) are linear(?), I doubt it(!). Unfortunately there I suspect you assume too much for what is actually happening instead of measuring. Am I right? And yet you use average speed, which makes assumptions as well. Quite right. (NO bout a_doubt_it.) No, really, that's not how it's pronounced. They are pronounced "Kinetic Energy" and "Potential Energy" and they are sometimes equal to each other. "keep" & "peek" are (only) how I have nicknamed the formulas (acronymns if you will) as an easy reminder. NOT intended to offend anyone('s physics, indeed). Nothing theoretical about it. It's the value of the speed at a particular time. How then do you "measure" it (=instananeous_speed) exactly, especially for collisions? Relying on math (e.g. calculus) sounds pretty theoretical to me. But it's how the example worked that you gave. When you solve a problem, you use the appropriate physics for the problem, so if the speed is constant, you can use an equation for constant speed. And there are lots of problems where speed is constant, or that's a reasonable approximation of a situation. Please recognize (=acknowledge) my initial_KE Ki syntax into the problem. That'( i)s what it is there for, i.e. (it was designed) for such problems with (initial) constant_speed. If you can show that math is inconsistent that's a purely mathematical issue and has nothing to do with physics. If physics is using such math, then DON'T expect it (=physics) to hold itself together. I would (rather) say, then it (=that purely mathematical issue) should NOT have to do with physics (but unfortunately (does &) is messing it (=physics) up). Universities live & breathe calculus. (They love it!) I choke on it. In the example given they were the same, because speed was constant. Changing the parameters of someone else's example and then complaining about a problem that arises is not an argument made in good faith. Sorry (I was so slow), I must 1st grasp the problem before I can understand (what is happening) in order to tackle it (later). Stating what (examples) I know helps get me nearer e.g. Later then excluded. Stated otherwise: I had (wrongly) assumed you could follow me or my syntax, thus I could NOT understand where a problem was, if any. They can be, but the point was that if they aren't your equation quite obviously fails. It's wrong. But you're ignoring that. Nobody else is fooled by the distraction. Again, (when using my KEi, which I had thought you were already aware of) my 02:40 comment described what else my equation could also do. If you see that (extra) as ignorance, well then I'm sorry (for the misunderstanding). (But) I still do NOT see that my equation has failed. Simply take the (=my) KEi because it equals the (=my) KEf (which has (=is) your KE). The KEd has (=is) NOTHING! That has obviously succeeded, don't you think? To summarize the syntaxes: Mine: Yours: KEd delta_KE KEf "the" KE KEi ? I hope I have answered that sufficiently to your satisfaction(s).
  22. Capiert

    Power?

    Constant speed is NOT how the universe is working. & I am looking for a more general, (but) simpler description. Constant speed is the exception. (E.g. "Special" Relativity.) Interaction is the (higher, more dominating) rule. (Actually more basic=fundamental.) & there is NOTHING which says acceleration must always be linear. I get the idea "average" speed is an eye_sore for you because you prefer your instantaneous speed, instead. But that (instantaneous speed) is theoretical, & I suspect sometimes misleading. (I DON'T want to be lulled (or else tempted) into a false security. A(n unexpected surprise) jack_in_the_box (e.g. delayed) time bomb is NOT my idea of fun (for accuracy in extrapolation).) Calculus works "perfectly" (=flawlessly, NO errors) for "linear" acceleration because it is based on an (exact) "average"; (e.g. 2 triangles making a rectangle using a diagonal (line)) but I have my doubts for NON_linear (line) examples & irregular curves. E.g. Sigma_summing & (versus) the integrals (integrating, integration) should give the same (=identical) answers; but DON'T always. I would prefer to develop something more simple(?) & experimental, (e.g. averages), based on algebra, instead. But I also notice(d) that algebra has its limits (& errors) too. (So I can NOT trust algebra completely, either.) But I have NOT had enough chance to pinpoint exactly what those flaws=weaknesses are. (It happens so rarely, like a flipped coin standing on its edge.) I suspect it(s (math) flaws, or errors) has to do with (math) syntax compromises when dealing with negative exponents for totally=completely (symmetrically) reversible (e.g. recoverable?) math. E.g. A "negative" exponent should mean "rooting" as the reverse (operation) of exponentiation; (instead of a divided exponentiation). (Not to mention the meaning of the exponent zero, then.) & then there is the theme of sequence (history). (Math is a language & its sentences are equations (the phrases formulas).) But that'( i)s (all) too speculative right now. Too early to say (anything useful). -- You are content with that you have learned some (of th(os)e complexity's) math rules, & use them. I am NOT. I am more interested in finding the reasons why some (math) things (fail) do NOT work sometimes (as we (would) wish); & (then) try to fix=repair them. Experimenting with equations of motion & (so_called) mass are a good place=way to start, at seeing & discovering how this universe works. Geometry as well. (E.g. The "basis". Real proof!) NOT for me. I CAN'T follow you there, because "getting" (e.g. interacting) from initial_speed to final_speed (when they (speeds) do NOT equal) is acceleration. Making them (2 speeds) equal is an exception, because (that is why) they have different names so that they do NOT have to be the same. The (2 speeds) "can" be quite different. I'm aimed (=intended) at collisions, or jerks! (E.g. Unifying) the changes. Maybe you can tell me what I "should" be saying (or have NOT said) in my syntax description for initial (versus final) speeds? Because what I say (just) does NOT seem to land to you (all) as intended. Energy is (all) about (linear) acceleration (i.e. gravity). That was the reason for the vis_viva (living force, ~2*KE) controversy; & why Gravesande "abandoned" Descartes & Newton's momentum. (& that is the reason why we live with that mess NOW. i.e. Dark Energy ERRORS.) The speed is NOT constant for acceleration(s), such as (for, in) collisions where m*E is transferred. KE=PE (pronounced "keep", versus PE=KE pronounce "peek") (e.g. Conservation of Energy COE) might work (well) for (accelerating) a single (moving) mass that stays the same (sized mass); but (it, KE=PE) does NOT (always) work well when that mass interacts (& is accelerated) by other various sized masses (&) of different speeds. For them (collisions, interactions), m*E works better, because it is more general, universal, uniting conservation of momentum COM, & Energy COE together into 1 formula. I guess I am an early bird. (DON'T forget the worm.) What then is KE? Forced distance? I guess you mean I can NOT rely on gravity's force as constant. So its a poor example. ? Because we are talking about a constant velocity. That would be the reference frame that measures the objects velocity at 10 m/s. That seems like an indirect answer by trying to be (more) general. E.g. The Earth, ground or surface that you are standing on. Isn't a "reference frame" rather fictive imaginary. I'm talking about a real (physical) world.
  23. Capiert

    Power?

    Undoubtably average_power. I was NOT aware that James Watt used instantaneous power. He used how fast a (180 lb (force) ~82 kg (mass)) "horse" walking (continuously) a circle, using yards (=3 feet=0.9144 m) & seconds (time), could wheel up water from a well against (the horse's) gravity's weight (806 N). ~737 Watt (rounded to 740 W for 75 kg). 746 W would have needed 75.59 kg (~167 lb) at 1m/s. I question that math was any great deed of calculus. Watt determined that a horse could turn a mill wheel 144 times in an hour (or 2.4 times a minute).[6] The wheel was 12 feet (3.7 m) in radius; therefore, the horse travelled 2.4 × 2π × 12 feet in one minute. Watt judged that the horse could pull with a force of 180 pounds-force (800 N). So: Watt defined and calculated the horsepower as 32,572 ft⋅lbf/min, which was rounded to an even 33,000 ft⋅lbf/min.[7] Watt determined that a pony could lift an average 220 lbf (0.98 kN) 100 ft (30 m) per minute over a four-hour working shift.[8] Watt then judged a horse was 50% more powerful than a pony and thus arrived at the 33,000 ft⋅lbf/min figure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower Then the "speed" should be constant. But the real (more probing) question is from where or what "speed" (reference) are you using to measure the "speed" you are observing. (Obviously, your own speed is the reference, there.)
  24. Capiert

    Power?

    Continued, (from my previous) That speed_change is the acceleration e.g. to or from a collision, but once that collision (duration e.g. t<1 , stops=) finishes the(n that) acceleration stops; so that friction decelerates the ball (further) to a (slow, much longer duration, e.g. t>1) stop. But, an Earthquake (e.g. an abrupt change in the Earth_plates' (rotational) speed) could shake the (table &) balls (in)to motion. Done. How would you describe (your) KE? (..without problems). That was mine (=my description). Identical speeds does NOT mean zero KE. It only means zero KE between the 2 objects that have the same speed. Constant speed does NOT mean zero KE. In fact any speed (helps) indicate a KE. (E.g. If you (also) know the mass(es), too.) But any (observed) speed(_difference) v is a (speed_)difference v, i.e. that uses a reference (initial_)speed vi (as basis), to observe the (final_)speed vf=vi+v. (But) we do NOT see the (final_)speed vf because it has the (initial_)speed vi in it, which we exclude. E.g. The Earth's_rotation_speed vi~1000 [m/s] eastwards remains invisible (to us) because everything (static) around us is (also) moving at (approx.) that same speed. How can we solve your problem? P.S. When Earthquakes happen 1 of the problems is the ((tectonic) plates') rotation slows down & then continues to speed up; repeatedly. That kind of (kinetic) Energy can bring down skyscrapers (crashing), (it's so powerful!) (m*PE=m*KE) m*m*a*d=m*m*(vf2-vi2) only equates the accelerated distance with the speed change of a mass; NOTHING more. a*d=((vf2)-(vi2)).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.