Capiert

It does NOT have to be a car. Surely simpler contraptions exist to test. Confirmation. Yes (& reliability). I'm interested in at least 1 formula I could rely on. From there I could adapt & fine_tune to a general formula if possible. How many things did Newton (have to) go thru til he could (finally) settle on F=m*a? "The proof is in the pudding." I'm surprised this non_linear acceleration (formula, stuff) is so rare (for something (that is) (supposed to be) so universal). Do you tell students to learn (useless) linear_acceleration in your universities because it's NOT universal? (Surely) I hope NOT. But that's what's taught. Free_fall's ("linear" acceleration) is pretty common throughout the whole universe. So linear acceleration is NOT so uncommon. Even if you don't dare to call it universal. I'm just curious about how non_linear (acceleration) is proportioned to linear_acceleration, & the methods of confirmation. Is my curiousity justified, in a dark energy dilemma?

I want a reliable formula that I can equate to for comparisons. I can make up anything I want, but it doesn't mean it's accurate. Your team surely has better experience there, for real measurements. (I'm just guessing.)

(Yes) but please give me a formula example so I can get feel for the number_values.

Then I suppose your syntax v is my syntax vf. Is that true? Please elaborate, if not. Just attempting to be thorough(ly defined), which is NOT what I could claim everybody does. Capiert: I thought that (linear acceleration) was understood, that everybody knows that. It's clearly stated in the 3rd line (at the intro). Surely you have overseen my definition.? I gave you a specific example: the linear acceleration. But now you have made me curious. Please tell me more, e.g. an example (or more), for further (kinds of acceleration).

Hi Swansont I'm sorry but I can't follow you there. Isn't speed (always) relative (to another speed), thus a difference (in speed)? Or are you insisting on the (non_linear, complicated) Fitzgerald_Lorentz transform (e.g. to watch cars' speed, v=100 m/s (wrt) on earth))? E.g. 2 cars each with the same speed as the other (wrt earth), appear at rest (=0 speed) (wrt each other (car)). Or are you suggesting I should multiply the basic (speed) unit [1 m/s] by the number (value, e.g. 100) as a product (instead of (subtract for a) difference). Which I don't find such a bad idea, to get rid of (some of) the math problems (complexity). I'd just have to get used to it (=the multiplication technique), instead. I don't (really) want complexity, I want simplicity (& solutions), instead (but NOT at the cost of precision, as (severe) errors). I thought that was understood, that everybody knows that. But I guess some things must be said anyway (just to be sure). The equation is simply derived from the (linear) 1st order of acceleration. High school physics. (Non_linear acceleration does make me curious, though.) I doubt that I would stubble into as many (of your physics) pitfalls if I used identical syntax. My alternative syntax allows me to compare your results. But (I suspect) you don't recognize the drawbacks. I don't prefer the (foreign) greek alphabet. "It's all greek to me!?" (Not English.) (The cool thing about physics is how it simplifies, but the nasty thing is how it encrypts (into only 1 possibility, when others are possible). Physics can be done in any language, with or without another language. So those languages, or rules, conventions are NOT physics. They are something else instead. I think the biggest confusion you physicists must (eventually) deal with is (dark) energy because it is NOT Newtonian. You ignore the initial_speed vi too much, setting it to zero. Relativity clearly indicates motion wrt other frames. Could it be an (invisible) common initial_speed vi=(KE/mom)-(v/2) (which you deny) is at least partly responsible for your (unknown) dark energy (ERROR)? (Not to mention speed's (incorrect) exponential (=non_linear) proportionality to mass. Something KE (definitely) defies. How can you possibly brush_off that (severe) incompatibility so lightly? I thought you were reasonable people. To do things right you would need mass_squared (instead of only mass), in energy equations. But that would be momentum_squared, instead of your (errorful) energy=non_sense.) I don't know what else to call it (energy as error) because it (dark energy) makes no_sense according to your (standard) college educations. Or does it? Astronomers are complaining to you on a cosmic scale, while little old me attempts to deal with (your energy math (incompatibility) problems) on a small earthly scale.

Period versus 1/(vc), frequency versus vc ? I find it very confusing that rotation_speed vc=2*Pi*r/t looks (very similar, &) proportional to frequency f (cycles per second; or (1) cycle (e.g. circle) per time (in units of seconds, or less than a second)); & inverted_rotation_speed 1/(vc)=t/(2*Pi*r) (the time "per" cycle_or_circle_(circumference)) looks proportional to Period T=1/f which is inverted_frequency! (Thus units are suppose to be inverted.) So (confusing) that I must start with what we know. In fact I am so confused, that I know nothing except the rotation_speed vc=2*Pi*r/t (which is obvious), & the frequency f=1/T inverse_period relation (definition). The rest seems (to me) like non_sense! Thus I can derive everything (I need) from what we know: The circumferential_speed vc=cir(cle)/t(ime) vc=2*Pi*r/t. ~f. That looks like cycles (=circles) "per" second =[cps]=[c/s]. (Units in square brackets.) I.e. That looks (very much) like frequency! (Although you guys are only interested in the inverse(=1_divided_by)_time 1/t for the "number" value of f (without units, =excluding units [c/s]). We also know the "inverse" circumferential_speed 1/(vc)=t(ime)/cir(cle) 1/(vc)=t/(2*Pi*r). ~T. That looks like the time_(in seconds)_"per"_cycle(=circle) =[spc]=[s/c]. I.e. That looks (very much) like the Period! (Although you guys are only interested in time t for the "number" value of T (without units, =excluding units [s/c]), because you have defined frequency f=1/T as inverse_period. So the time ("for" a cycle) is t=(2*Pi*r)/(vc) time=(circle (or cycle)) "per" rotation_speed). That is the (number) value for what you guys call period (T). Your units are seconds (because all circles cancel). It's inverse 1/t=vc/(2*Pi*r) inverted_time=rotation_speed "per" (1) circle (or cycle), gives the number (value) for what you (guys & gals) call frequency (f). In other words, stripped of the cycle(s). You now have units [Hz] Herz (=hurts! Ouch!)

study & discuss their (great?) work, energy WE=m*a*d using linear_acceleration a (=v/t, =2*((vi/t)+(d/(t*t)), =F/m) & the force(d) distance d (=va*t) of a mass m (=F/a). That (linear accelerated) force is F=m*a, where the average (accelerated) speed (velocity) va (=(vi+vf)/2), & speed (velocity, difference) is v=vf-vi, for final_speed vf, minus initial_speed vi. ((Even) although it would also be possible to use factoring (an initial unit_speed of 1 m/s), instead). The (moving) kinetic_energy is KE=m*v*va, (pronounced key), or KE=m*((v^2)/2)+v*vi) using initial_speed vi, or KE=m*((v^2)/2)-v*vf) with (respect to) final_speed vf. The potential_energy PE=m*g*h (pronounced pea, as in pee) is a mass m g accelerated (fallen, multiplied by) height h=d distance. PE=Wt*h is (the force F=) weight Wt (=m*g) multiplied by height h. (No distance fallen_able, is no potential_energy.) Equating (both energies) PE=KE (pronounced peek) m*g*h=m*v*va without mass (divided from both sides) is g*h=v*va is only linear_acceleration a*d=v*va a*d=(vf-vi)*((vi+vf)/2) of the distance d, a*d=((vf^2)-(vi^2))/2, *2 a*d*2=(vf^2)-(vi^2), (pronounced add too). That's standard mechanics. (Anything wrong there?) Swapped sides (vf^2)-(vi^2)=a*d*2, +(vi^2) (vf^2)=(vi^2)+a*d*2, ^0.5 vf=((vi^2)+a*d*2)^0.5 is the final_speed (velocity) (of linear_acceleration). The speed difference (velocity) v=vf-vi, vf=((a*d*2+(vi^2))^0.5) v=((a*d*2+(vi^2))^0.5)-vi is final_speed (velocity) vf, minus the initial_speed (velocity) vi. Momentum('s impulse) mom=m*v is mass m multiplied by (the accelerated) speed difference (velocity) v. mom=m*(((a*d*2+(vi^2))^0.5)-vi) mom=m*((a*d*2+(vi^2))^0.5)-m*vi is the final_momentum momf=m*vf (pronounced mumf, as in eating fast), minus the the initial_momentum momi=m*vi (pronounced mommy). The average momentum moma=m*va (pronounced mama) is the mass m multiplied by the average (accelerated) speed (velocity) va=(vi+va)/2. Any questions? Since KE & mom only use mass & speeds, & all energy can be equated to KE, then it seems imaginable to equate all energies into impulse(s) of mom=F*t. Mom=E/va. Mother nature (pronounce Eva (the German Eve); or else Elva from James Cameron's Avatar).

I'm sorry, I did not make myself clear enough. I hope you do not make random answers when you answer. (=wide) (which they were) 'any' speed except c, but its true Michelson's sketch is an exageration. Was it v=c/10? I thought the point was (for) the M&M experiment of 1888, fig 2. Yes, so why aren't we (still) talking about the real experiment? Yes, any reasonable speed. Does that mean trial & error? (E.g. decide (=arbitrate) from random values.) E.g. It's (=the mirror has) got to be wide (=big) enough.? They were 5 cm wide (& made of metal). Quite the contrary, (I'm interested in specific details). If the mirror is made too small, wouldn't a small (& coherent enough) light beam get cutoff? E.g. Wouldn't a (vertically) 90 degree incident ray (either) partially (or never) hit a too small mirror b that (mirror b) is moving away (to the right) at v? How can you change 90 degree x,y,z orthogonality, by changing reference systems? E.g. Formula?

I'm sorry that did not answer my questions, e.g. y/n's.

In which case, wasn't that angle decided by the draftsperson (that was) sketching? (because in that case a new angle would be needed for every different speed v ?); or else if the upper mirror is long enough to be hit at 90 degrees, & reflection occurs in a wavefront, wouldn't the diagonal beam, where it's twice Michealson's (drafted) reflected angle, hit the semi_mirror in perfect sync with the horizontal path? i.e. identical delays for both (vertical & horizontal) paths? (I mean the (reflected) angle in question is <1 degree (difference, wrt incidence at 90 degrees) for the intended speed v (~c/1000). Surely a slur distortion, or front might account for that interception (fringe intensity) at the semi_mirror.?)

"optimism" denied. Because I had not recognized you were impling WE=F*d is elastic; instead of stored momentum might be the (2*a*d)^0.5 part of the momentum mom=m*(((vi^2)+2*d*a)^0.5)-vi.? Sorry, (it's vague, general) typo, reminder. That comment is (awkwardly) in the wrong place. Is that a bit better? So momentum is the unlieing (basis) principle for collision.? For all collisions (non_elastic, partialy elastic, & totally elastic)? Which means we need to integrate then? But does that work well for (all) non_linear accelerations? I think it is zero wrt to my (immediate) surroundings (on earth), but I know I'm moving fast (eastwards) as the earth rotates thru the day. Yes, but our (so_called static) immediate surroundings are a deception. You know the earth is rotating, with no motion you are claiming identical speed, an inherent motion (i.e. speed) must exist (if we automatically imply (identical) speed). The real question is which (moving) reference to choose, to quantify (how fast). No motion is (truely) absurd. All things are moving (in the universe. Thus inherent motion exists.) Or isn't it? (I doubt that you can convince me otherwise. If you're clever enough you might. I don't know the outcome. But as the wording stands, it makes no sense otherwise (to me). & it's Newtonian.) Then nothing is moving.? That's not a conceptual failure, it's a fact; or else bad wording.? Everything in this universe moves although we can not say an independent speed wrt no reference. Wrt light we are moving at -c. I do not see an error. Einstein said there is no preferred reference, they all work well. You're right, they do not produce a difference, so that is the marvelous advantage when studying (=observing) collisions; until we get down to atoms & sub_atomic particles where the music changes (becoming significant). Then it is a non_elastic collision; or else a partially elastic collision. Yes. I did not convert after deriving (probably assuming (the momentum energy relation mom=E/va is so obvious) I could, later; & forgot that it (the existing work_energy formula) still was energy). It would matter for your challenge, if I had a momentum equivalent for your (physicist's) WE. Or wouldn't?

I guess you mean work energy WE=F*d, so I'm stuck with (the fact) that the defomational distance d done by an applied force F is (defined by you physicists) as an energy concept (instead of a momentum concept). Would you please give me a hint what could go wrong? That might help me change my ways for the improvement. Thanks. I would hope so. I search for confirmation, from several aspects, even though I can not deal with all aspects, that are beyond me. The origin, of the big bang, seems to me the most relevant (for an underlieing inherent momentum). Other than that, the speed of light. Those 2, & the earth's are most relevant to me. I'll assume though, that the big bang had an origin (x,y,z=0,0,0) position. ? Everything moves in the universe, was my statement. Choosing the BBT origin, was my attempt at prescribing a simple reference, to describe that motion easily. e.g. generally. Quite right, & the discussion was about momentum storage (instead of KE=elastic). I.e. 1st, (so_called) static momentum must be established in order to discuss momentum storage. To do that we need motion, but if we see no motion then we must deny momentum. A terrible dilemma. But if we know everything moves anyway, (& static is only identical speed, wrt the (same) reference) then the problem is solved. What is the inherent speed of matter? Is it light's speed c? Ignorance is a continuing process. It repeatedly pops up. But you are right, we can approximate, for what is significant in most cases. Ok. But my question was (really more like) is the earth moving? I.e. apparent static (=at rest) is really moving. There is not (really) such a thing as not moving. The earth's rotation is 1 thing, but our speed thru the milkyway galaxy is another! & even there you will say that galatic_speed is not significant, till something happens. Ok. It's a simple explaination (analogy), to say it briefly. But they will deform. Or won't they (even though that deformation might be too small to measure)? Work energy WE=F*d. Now I recognize, that you have been using that WE formula, as your premise, because it is (previously) defined in physics (as your rights, to catalog so). I had no idea (how you were thinking) before that. Don't you mean KE=WE elastic, instead? E.g. KE=WE=KE'. Prime ' is for after the collision. Yes, it seems so. I did not recognize that the WE equation('s distance d) was (strictly, only in) an energy equation, after I had used it for my derivations. Mistakes happen. Please forgive. (Humble, humble). Momentum wise I would need (some kind of) a rooted_distance, instead. (Or am I still wrong, on that 1, too?)

Then center of the big bang explosion as the reference instead. Well then I guess we can give up. You knew it (excluding your assumption of James Watt's horsepower history).

Your 1st sentence saying "It depends" gave an inkling of hope, that neither yes nor no were completely right. Thus I concluded a yes possibility also exists. I hope now you do. Ok. What I usually write as F=mom/t (so I can make the connection for myself, & don't forget.) F=m*v/t. Is my notation wrong? Force will change a mass's speed (velocity). But I still see the acceleration a=F/m of a mass m as the observable. Momentum changed is like a bank account. What goes into the mass m (as a speed change differencee v=vf-vi) can come out. If the speed was increased, then decreasing the speed can return the mass to its original speed. How we invoke & do the (speed) change is another story. But I think I'm off topic there, momentum_squared is the better concept instead of momentum & kinetic energy, there. We have no momentum wrt to each other, true. But I don't think we can say that for any other reference, because we are moving thru the universe (no doubt). I mean surely there is an underlieing inherent momentum for every mass, based on let us say the universe's center (from where you (=physicists) say the big bang happened). Ok. That makes things easier. i.e. less to think about. I guess according to the big bang (hypothesis, since I doubt we'll ever have a time machine or viewer to the past to prove it), everything is suppose to be flying away from the universe's center & being also gravitationally attracted (according to you physicists). That looks like a radial acceleration to me, e.g. a non_balanced force (setup) in ruffly 1 direction out from the core (center). Does that mean the earth on which the balance is fixed is not turning. Surely not.? Stationary is a static (d)illusion. No motion does not exist in the universe, everything is moving. Stationary (or static, at rest) only means both (the object (e.g. mass), & its reference sytem) are moving at the "same" speed. To say they do not move (at all) is absurd. Or do you disagree? Math or instrument machine? Ok. I said the balls deform like a spring, in order to decellerate (elastically, during the collision). That deformation needs time, (even if it's very quick, & the 2 balls are very hard, like steel or glass. Both materials still have (hard) elastic properties). I hope you understand me now.? (It seems you (also) did not register squared_momentum.? Have I said something wrong? Are you still trying to figure out what that means (because you have not commented on it so I assumed you are not sure). Please ask that I can try to fill in the blanks. Sometimes the mind automatically blocks things out too fast to notice.)

Yes, til you (helped improve that situation). Can I say it so?: I can trust energy when it is properly (isolated, &) incorporated in the momentum_squared equations. I guess I didn't recognize what you really wanted. In fact I know. That sounds like a possibility although you end up saying no. What example do you have in mind? That's so (=too) elegantly said that I'll need an example to picture it. I have to accept that. (But have difficulty & can't (quite).) But isn't every moving thing a storage of momentum? Non_recognizable (as static), when our surroundings are moving at our same speed.? When is that ever possible? (According to you, net gravity is from the universe's core.) But drop that example, & try, e.g. 2 weights balanced on a balance. Is potential momentum possible? (Similar to the potential energy PE=m*g*h=Wt*h.) mom=m*v v=((vi^2)+2*h*g)^0.5-vi where we have initial_speed vi height h free_fall acceleration g. I.e. The mass multiplied by the rooted 2*h*g (part). ? I'd be more than happy to to agree with you there. But you did not answer all of my post, leaving things: mom^2 (instead of KE), & Hooke's law. So it's difficult to orientate. Indirectly then, I have to assume they mean nothing for you here, & are thus an inadequate basis. You have brought me so far that (thru) the various threads I could incorporate Energy correctly into my momentum formulas. Thanks for helping me correct them. But if you do not comment on points (which I've based) adequately enough, then they are left in my head to rumble around, causing further disturbance. At present I can trust the momentum_squared formula, & in that (equation) is where I find (accurate) energy relations. If I have a seamless formula, then I will not hesitate (& be more than happy) to use it. e.g. mom_squared. I've been wrong on (so) many things. But that's not the important thing for me, getting it fixed=corrected is. If I have to make the effort to just believe (like christians often demand) (then that naive belief) is simply not enough. It won't stay (in), & that's valid for my technical mind. I must address the issues that make it (=my mind) tick so. (Me) evading those issues won't help me.

I thought linear_acceleration is a physics concept dealing with speed, distance, per time; & has the advantage that we can predict them well (when linear). I don't see how we can know the real exact speeds while colliding. That's the reason why I chose to use a linear acceleration (equivalent). So I attempted to convert what we know (physically) into a (virtual) linear format (called equivalent) for the surety. Are you saying there is (absolutely) no physics there? (Maybe you're right.?) Not even the initial & final conditions? (It's back_engineering, & I want answers (so I apply math).) Well, I did NOT get it out of a physics book if that's what you mean, because they did NOT have it. So I sat down & tried to figure out how I could solve it (a momentum conversion). So that led me to the elasticity of Hooke's law of the 2 balls & that their (motional) energy (or also momentum) could be (temporarily) stored into their elastic deformation displacement similar to springs. I must admit: that perspective, led me to question whether Hooke's law was a kind of energy (or also momentum) storage or not; & the whole perspective (development) began wrt energy (instead of momentum). But my intention was to put (=convert) things from an energy perspective to a momentum perspective. How they are (or can be correctly) proportioned (to each other) seems long obvious to me now. Energy is a well known concept in physics, but you say I am not allowed to use it. As far as I know, your physics does not use a spring_loaded momentum storage. Does it? Is such an equivalent possible, or conceivable? Strangely we both get similar answers (with 2 different methods: yours & mine). How is that possible? Yes, it's true I want the correct momentum answer (Ewert's impulse experiment baffles me the most); it would be foolish to want a wrong answer. Or do you think otherwise? So I guess you mean momentum is conserved for both (=either elastic or non_elastic collisions).? You mean, how much KE is conserved? That sounds similar to my concept as to how much momentum_squared can be saved. Yes, I said I didn't like energy (in its naked format, with single masses; instead of squared masses); but when as 2*m*E (e.g. ruffly the momentum_squared format) I know where to place energy in the equation for correct proportions (or proportioning). Yes, I squared the (before after collision) momentum equation. That eliminated the polarity (sign) problem, because some vector_speeds get squared. That's why I believe com can be used for both; but that an elastic collision undergoes a temporary non_elastic collision, briefly; & it has a time_point, even although we cannot know it. Is that the wrong way to look at it? I think you are trying to say KE determines elasticity (elastic_collision).? Yes but I must get from 1 system (KE) to the other (mom), securely. I do not know how to proceed (otherwise) if those are your restrictions. (We know the conditions when KE works; & we can know the conditions when momentum functions correctly too. I'm looking for a seamless bridge between them both, & believe I have found it.) I was interested in delivering a conversion (equality) (e.g. using Hooke's law Fs=-x*ks); but you want me to do it without using an existing (energy) physics. But to get there (to wrt mom_squared) I had to (or did), use your energy observations. It was an end to a means (if that's what you mean?). On the way, I became discouraged with energy('s reliability), (so much) that I wanted to leave it, in favor of momentum. Is Hooke's law not acceptable enough?

P.S. When distinguishing between mechanical (watt) & (ridiculous) electrical watt. From what I see (experimentally), (obviously, & intuitively) current's [Ampere] multiplied by rooted_resistance's [rooted_ohm] should give (the) force [Newton(s)]. That has "nothing" to do with your math finesse. (You guys have fixed it so it won't!). So.. How was the electrical watt "derived" (by the Committee)?

How do we know what units R has exactly? George Ohm used R as a(n arbitrary) proportionality constant, just to "fit" his observations, V=I*(R). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm's_law#History In other words, didn't you guys just make it (=R's units) up, to fit best? (E.g. without knowing exactly what a volt is, from the jolts Cavendish got.) I mean, I could do the same non_sense (to pacify your needs) & multiply by a(n arbritrary) proportionality constant k3=kiv=1 [N/((V*A)^0.5] (NOT [N/(W^0.5)] in which the mechanical watt W is) giving Fiv=I*(R^0.5)*k3 to explain the jolts Cavendish received on himself from electrification when touching the charged Leyden jar capacitors(' salted tube water). But that still does NOT tell us what rooted_resistance is (aside from [(V/A)^0.5]). Why do you write "amps" small case with the units having their short form as large (capital A); but force (is written with the 1st letter) large "Force" (although also large acronymn F)? Is there any consistency in what you do (there)? I mean sometimes you (would) write current (1st letter not captialized) in the middle of a sentence. (If I'm not mistaken.?) If the concepts are not people's names, then they are 1st letter capital (exactly opposite of what is taught in school); & a person's name (place or thing) is 1st character capital. Is there any method to (all) that madness? The fact that my proportionality constant's value is exactly 1 (with above mentioned units), does NOT indicate I am (now) wrong.

I mean, (to narrow in) are you suggesting the (repelling) magnetic force field (which I assume is repelling, something like a Lenz's law (inductive effect) on an atomic scale) is (kind of) caused by (something like) the inductive (current) reactance (part) of the coil? I.e. Not the resistive (heating) part of the coil('s impedance equation, circuit. E.g. The inductance L). I could have asked so (as 3 possibilities, which is closer=nearer?): Are you suggesting the (electro)magnetic force is purely inductive? repulsive? or Reactive? E.g. Whatever is needed to picture this thing (=effect) better, without resistance. Otherwise I would have had to consider John's virtual (superconductor, zero (instead of minimal) resistance) galvanometer as the strawman (highjack) evading the copper (resistance) D'Arsenval (meter) question. But I don't want to do that (because his proposal is so interesting, now).

I have to admire you at sidetracking this thread to the real cause, skipping all the intermediates. Are you suggesting the (electro)magnetic force is purely inductive (repulsion)? E.g. Reactive. Electromagnetism (closed circuit (circle) integral of B*dl=uo*I, Oersted's law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oersted's_law) is the magnetic field B produced around a wire (of length l, by electron current flow I, magnetic permeability in free space uo). (Although, the length element's dl integral, looks like it's on the wrong side of the formula for me; otherwise B is already unitized as a per "standard something?"; we'd have to state how B is defined.) Exclusively: The mechanical force on the D'Arsenval meter's spring (from the torque's radius) Fiv=I*(R^0.5) depends on the current I flowing thru the coil, & the circuit's (e.g. coil's) rooted_resistance (R^0.5). We would have to insert Oersted law as current I=closed integral of B*dl/uo & use the light bulbs rooted_resistance to obtain the meter's deflection force Fiv, correctly. E.g. Super conductor galvanometer. As the NPL National Physics Lab stated (way back when), voltage is not trackable, instead current is. I have used Piv=I*V because it's most commonly recognized, as easy, although its voltage V is not quite the real truth. A D'Arsenval voltmeter uses an ampmeter with extra resistance to display what we call voltage. (High impedance (voltage) measurements are a no_no=distortion (of the truth), only implying the real current. Although I do NOT doubt their accuracy.)

Fine. Descartes also thought, that therefore he was; or was that is? I can see irregularities sooner. I often don't write like you, starting with 1, 2 or 3 words & fill up the sentence from a very abstract vague impression. I often don't know how to say things, & have to program the sentence. Is that better? Yes the laptop overheats & hangs, sometimes loosing info so I have to be faster. It's a little chaotic. My laptop doesn't like it (getting hot). Trying to correct (typing) errors to make it easier for others to read including me? If you didn't notice, I also corrected your nonsense here.

Errata: it sounds like chaos. Rethinking that sentence's 2nd half I'm not (completely) happy with that word "never" & "equivalent", e.g. the statement's structure. Please help me state that correctly. I.e. Help me say what I want, in view of what I am aiming at. P.S. I'm: "stuck" (but not together, =scattered!), on that idea. "Getting lost in the sauce." & can't say it right. (So I guessed "never"; but I'm NOT sure if you can say that (so), & (then) depend on it.) Is it safe to say: An elastic collision is temporarily like a non_elastic collision, thus never permanently. But a non_elastic collision is never like a completed elastic_collision.? That also sounds wrong because they both can begin similarly, but end up differently. How should I say it?

I don't want line wraps. This website('s software) & my PC have too many bugs (to fix). I want to see (small) phrases so I can correct faster. Let's try again please (for your next comment), against what was my wrong choice of words (Assuming vs set) (e.g. instead of trying to be diplomatic, (now) I have to boss around, telling what to do). Capiert: (Do NOT assume; but instead) set a virtual (linear acceleration) equivalent, so each phase (of (elastic) compression & decompression) have the same amount of speed change vd1, as (only) a (math) construct. (vd1 is my variable because I created it, so I can say what I want to do with it. Basta.) If you don't like that setup, then set mass1's total speed difference to 2*vd1=v1'-v1, & then divide by 2 (to get vd1). That's all I'm doing. Now I (still) don't see where that (setup) involves coe conservation of energy.? I've only stated the initial & final speeds of mass1. Swansont: Which stems from conservation of energy, which you are not allowed to assume. Capiert: Ok, so I've now stopped assuming (that); & started defining with "set" (verb) instead. Swansont: It (=Capiert: the (virtual) linear acceleration?) certainly doesn't come from conservation of momentum. Capiert: in your mind (maybe?). (It does NOT come from COE (now) either.) I.e. Which (now) does NOT stem from either conservation of energy, nor momentum. (Instead of: could also (stem from coe).) I hope that now improves the situation better, for your comment: Please explain (now what you mean, by linked to (?). Can you still disagree, if yes then with what? (E.g. It's doubtful (now) that the vd1construct (definition) stems from either coe or com, at all! So which are you linking? Do you mean linear_acceleration &/or speed_difference (vd1) are exclusively derived from coe? I'd be happy to, but I can't always see my mistakes, until you help make me aware of what you do NOT understand. I've attempted (stating) so often that I can not always remember whether you've got it, or not. Nor neither from coe. Those virtual_speeds (& their linear change(s)) are a(n abstract) math construct (tool), for a virtual equivalent. The equivalent_speeds are set to be linear (even though the real speeds are (probably) not. That's why I originally (but apparently wrongly_)requested, to assume (=imagine): because it (is virtual, &) does NOT really exist. It only assists, to help (understand). If my statement is for: to set a variable, then the underlying principle is strictly mathematical, instead of physical. Only you would imply, if you (tried) to jump the gun. E.g. jump to a conclusion, that is NOT validated. Elasticity. Have you never seen a ball elastically deform as it bounces from a (hard wall or ground) surface? Does not the ball's contact surface deform inward while ramming? Does not the deformation begin to recompensate & undeform, upon (beginning) reversing direction? Are you saying (=implying) bouncing takes no time? I hope not. ? Hooke's law F=-x*k. Capiert: Do you mean that linear acceleration (also) is not possible with (just only, some) Newton's force F=m*a & some speed_difference v=vf-vi? (a=v/t). Or do you mean Hooke's law F=-x*k? Surely not, & neither did I. I said that although we do NOT know the exact force (amount), we do know a point in time exists, when the 2 repelling forces are equal (as construct), even though we do NOT know exactly when. Yes, & they are (called) a non_elastic collision. But this thread is (only) about elastic collisions (& how to use the non_elastic collision (theory) for them (elastic collisions). It's NOT just any collision, but instead (aimed at) a collision which does NOT stick together, finally. If we are dealing with (finally) only elastic collisions, then I do NOT see how they will end up staying (=sticking) together permanently. Do you? Yes. Reading through the lines (i.e. interpreting what I suspect you are trying to say): we know non_elastic collisions do NOT have the decompression of elastic_collisions. Decompression takes place for sure in elastic collisions (as a bounce, bouncing). But I think that is obvious. Isn't it? & you got mixed up a bit.? E.g. Elastic collisions can be equivalent to: non_elastic collision, (only) for an instant in time (=point in time); but non_elastic collisions can never really be equivalent to: elastic collision, because they (=the 2 balls) do NOT stay together, permanently, after. =? I'll assume you're referring to decompression, & its (elastic collision) math but you inappropriately (=wrongly) tried to use that on non_elastic collision.? It's possible to hi_speed photograph partially decompressed non_elastic collisions, if that's what you mean, instead? I didn't you did. I didn't, I assumed non_elastic (briefly, that) continued to elastic. Otherwise, I'm sorry I can't follow you there, that (=your false accusation) sounds like non_sense, to breed non_sense. A collision is finally, either: elastic; or it is NOT. A non_elastic collision can be made up of a mixture of both; but it is still finally (only) non_elastic. Your elastic elastic, unfortunately: Which had nothing to do with me. Or have I missed you? Because you obviously mixed things up a bit. If that's because of my sentence structure by saying something wrong, then I'm sorry. It wasn't intended to go stray. Thanks.

The meaning is also non_sense for typewriters.? How old do you think I am? At least 5. For me it looks neater, to help me correct my (text) errors. I I capt'n

Resistance is the limiting factor (against), it hinders current flow thus decreasing current. Yes, I find it difficult to imagine infinite flow in a circuit too, not to mention in super conductors as well. Yes so I can't see how John will get his super galvanometer to work properly the way he expects. The devil is in the details, e.g. connectors. Resistance is the only thing that would limit a(n applied) voltage to accelerate electrons. Voltage_drop (=electric_potential_difference) is the driving force (so to speak). But constant force, with no opposition means constantly accelerating (although that acceleration diminishes (=decreases)). Fiv is electromagnetic. (& mechanical too, if I may say). If you get it right, (then) that will work down to atoms (size). I doubt that you are wrong about everything, but I have noticed a few things need corrections & improvements. I think I've given you enough hints, to doubt (e.g g_factor, cosmologist's dark energy). Your accuracy at research & experimental precision far surpasses my ability & resources. But I'm NOT the only 1 that complains. Surely, you must be able to recognize from the sheer number of complaints that something is NOT completely in order, even if they can NOT describe things adequately, at all. I'm trying to explain things the way I see them, in an attempt to get "near" to the problems. I'm NOT perfect. Trial & error. BBC documentaries (unveiling the errors). The bits & pieces add up. Finding out what (does &) does not work well (for me). If it doesn't work the way you say then I have to try it on my own. (From) mom, =m*v. Algebra. A bit of psychology, how people react & behave. Attempting (alternative) perspectives, til they fail. P.S. My chutzpah requested a D'Arsenval meter's "angle versus electrical power" formula (&/or values) from your team (to improve my way of thinking), which still has NOT been delivered yet. My chutzpah comes from the search for trying to find something reliable to depend on, because I've been disappointed, mislead & deceived too often.