Capiert

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Why would I have data on car acceleration?

It does NOT have to be a car.
Surely simpler contraptions exist
 to test.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

What would be the point of deriving a formula for each instance?

Confirmation.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

I thought your goal was simplicity.

Yes (& reliability).

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Having dozens (or more) of formulas isn’t simplifying anything.

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?

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

You should be able to come up with values on your own.

There may not be a formula, or it might be complicated, which are reasons to find/use a solution that doesn’t depend on the details of the acceleration.

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.)

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

yes.

Linear acceleration is not understood for KE = 1/2mv^2, since it is not assumed.

Your equation only works under that very specific scenario. 

Any acceleration that isn’t constant (a better description than linear). Which is probably most cases. A car, for example. Either speeding up or slowing down. Engine performance depends on the engine rate. Air resistance is a function of speed.

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

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

You defined v as a speed difference (vf-vi) and I was pointing out that that’s not what goes into the KE equation. 

Then I suppose your syntax v
 is my syntax vf.

Is that true?
Please elaborate, if not.

Quote

Then don’t make up new definitions for terminology, or extraneous terminology.

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).

Quote

Your set of equations are not widely used, so that’s not a reasonable conclusion.

Surely you have overseen my definition.?

Quote

The accepted equation for KE does not suffer from the limitation of only working for constant acceleration 

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).

On ‎2018‎ ‎09‎ ‎30 at 3:13 PM, swansont said:

..
v is not a speed difference. It is the speed of the object.

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.
 

Quote

if you want to use a speed difference, the proper terminology would be ∆v.

 

Quote

But why you would want such an equation, with more terms in it, is beyond me.

I don't (really) want complexity,
 I want simplicity (& solutions), instead
 (but NOT at the cost of precision, as (severe) errors).

Quote

Furthermore, your equation was derived for something that has undergone a constant acceleration.

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.)

Quote

It does not universally apply. 

Making up your own terminology and using symbols that already have a meaning in physics only adds to the confusion you create.

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),

 study & discuss their (great?) work, energy

On 12 September 2018 at 12:37 PM, swansont said:

I don't really understand your questions,

I'm sorry, I did not make myself clear enough.

I hope you do not make random answers when you answer.

Quote

but it seems like you are trying to find a way for your idea to work if you make the mirrors big

 (=wide)

Quote

enough

 (which they were)

Quote

, or the speed small enough,

'any' speed except c,

 but its true Michelson's sketch is an exageration. Was it v=c/10?

Quote

and that's missing the point.

I thought the point was (for) the M&M experiment of 1888, fig 2. 

Quote

The apparatus in the thought experiment can't rely on such factors.

Yes, so why aren't we (still) talking about the real experiment?

Quote

The concept has to work for any speed

Yes, any reasonable speed.

Quote

and an arbitrarily

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.?

Quote

small mirror size.

They were 5 cm wide (& made of metal).

Quote

So anything along the lines of "if the mirror is long enough" means you are trying to get around the physics being discussed.  

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?

20 hours ago, swansont said:

The angle depends on the speed. That's not up to the person making the drawing, it's up to the conditions of the example.

We're trying to capture what is actually happening, instead of trying to find a loophole that obscures the physics.

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

On 17 December 2017 at 1:59 PM, swansont said:

We know the light hits the mirror. If the mirror is moving to the right, the light must also be moving to the right, in order to hit the mirror.

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.?)

11 hours ago, swansont said:

We were talking about your phrase "stored momentum" and all I've done is ask you what you meant by that, so how did we get from me asking you for clarification to what I mean? I want YOU to explain what YOU mean by that phrase.

"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?

Quote

Yes. Because in a typical collision, momentum will be conserved, as there is no net external force. It tells you nothing about whether KE is conserved. 

So momentum is the unlieing (basis) principle for collision.?

For all collisions (non_elastic, partialy elastic, & totally elastic)?

Quote

You are not using differentials, which means you are basically using average values. That's fine if the force is constant in time. If the force is changing with time, the equations will not be accurate.

Which means we need to integrate then?

But does that work well for (all) non_linear accelerations?

Quote

What is your speed right now?

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.

Quote

Motion is relative.

Yes, but our (so_called static) immediate surroundings are a deception.

Quote

Only if you want to advance the notion of stored momentum and inherent motion; the latter was discarded more than 100 years ago. I don't know if the former was ever a thing. 

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.)

Quote

There is no such thing as an inherent speed of matter.

Then nothing is moving.?

Quote

That's one conceptual failure.

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.

Quote

And conjecture that it's c brings another conceptual failure to the table, since matter can never move at c.

Wrt light we are moving at -c.

I do not see an error. Einstein said there is no preferred reference, they all work well.

Quote

Does the earth's rotation, revolution about the sun or the solar systems orbit about the galactic center affect how you approach a problem of two balls colliding on a billiards table?

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).

Quote

And what if the deformation remains?

Then it is a non_elastic collision; or else a partially elastic collision.

Quote

The E stands for energy, does it not?

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).

Quote

I don't see how it's going to matter, since conservation of momentum will still hold regardless of whether mechanical energy is.

It would matter for your challenge, if I had a momentum equivalent for your (physicist's) WE.

Or wouldn't?

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I don't see any explanation from you, so your optimism is unwarranted.

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).

Quote

Yes, in a subtle way that will cause issues in some problems.

Would you please give me a hint what could go wrong?

That might help me change my ways for the improvement.

Quote

But acceptable for most cases.

Thanks.

Quote

That's trivially true.

I would hope so.

Quote

That would depend on the circumstance. You seem to be focused on there being one concept to apply, and that's simply shortsighted. There are a number of concepts that might apply in a physics problem. 

I search for confirmation, from several aspects,

 even though I can not deal with all aspects, that are beyond me.

Quote

No, in fact that opposite is true. There is no inherent motion. You are free to choose any inertial reference frame,

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.

Quote

and physics will work in that frame. IOW, you are free to choose a frame where you are at rest, and you are free to choose a frame in which you are moving at some constant velocity.

We generally choose the frame where the solutions are the simplest to come by.

The universe doesn't have a center.

I'll assume though, that the big bang had an origin (x,y,z=0,0,0) position.

?

Quote

That's an incorrect summary of the big bang, but then, how did the big bang enter the conversation?

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.

Quote

We were talking about collisions.

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?

Quote

The salient question is how big is it? If it's imperceptibly small, it can be ignored.

Ignorance is a continuing process.

It repeatedly pops up.

But you are right,

 we can approximate,

 for what is significant in most cases.

Quote

In most cases, the rotation of the earth will not have any effect that you can measure.

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.

Quote

Math

Ok.

Quote

But not all balls deform like a spring, so this is a bad assumption.

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)?

Quote

To assume deformation like that is to assume that energy is conserved, because an ideal spring is a device that conserves mechanical energy.

Work energy WE=F*d.

Quote

Yes. You want to assume mechanical energy is conserved but do it in a way that doesn't directly invoke the conservation. But that doesn't mean you aren't using the concept.

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. 

Quote

IOW, you can't assume the collision is elastic, because "elastic" and "conservation of KE" are equivalent statements,

Don't you mean KE=WE elastic, instead?

E.g. KE=WE=KE'. Prime ' is for after the collision.

Quote

and you said you could do this without invoking energy concepts, as you don't trust them.

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?)

 

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no centre of the universe in the Big Bang model.

Then center of the big bang explosion as the reference instead.

Quote

Nope.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for this Big Bang theory (which is why it is a theory and not a hypothesis). It will never be "proved" because science doesn't really "prove" anything.

Well then I guess we can give up.

Quote

Nope.

Nope.

But I am not at all surprised to find out that you don't know what you are talking about.

You knew it (excluding your assumption of James Watt's horsepower history).

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't have an example in mind. Why would I?

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.

Quote

 It's your claim! I don't know what you mean by the phrase.

I hope now you do.

Quote

F = dP/dt

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?

Quote

i.e. Newton's second law of motion

Force will change a mass's speed (velocity).

But I still see the acceleration

a=F/m

of a mass m as the observable.

Quote

It depends on what you mean by storage, which is something you still haven't clarified.

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.

Quote

Then we are at rest with respect to our surroundings, and have no momentum.

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).

Quote

Collisions are one example. Neglecting external forces acting during collisions is usually a reasonable assumption.

Ok. That makes things easier. i.e. less to think about.

Quote

Whenever you try and summarize what I have told you, it invariably comes out as wrong. I have no idea where this bit about net gravity came from, or what it means. 

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).

Quote

If they are balance(d), they are not moving.

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?

Quote

There is no momentum. if they are falling, then you can find the motion either by an energy balance,

Math or instrument machine?

Quote

or with Newton's second law and the definition of acceleration (depending on what information you have and what you want to know).

Ok.

Quote

You keep mentioning Hooke's law, and I see no connection with any of our discussion. Hooke's law apples to springs. 

 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.)

12 hours ago, swansont said:

You said you didn't trust it.

Yes, til you (helped improve that situation).

Quote

So don't blame me. I challenged you to solve certain problems without it, and rely on momentum, which you "trust completely"

Can I say it so?: I can trust energy when it is properly (isolated, &) incorporated in the momentum_squared equations.

Quote

You could have agreed with me, but you didn't — you accepted the challenge.  

I guess I didn't recognize what you really wanted. In fact I know.

Quote

That depends on what you mean by spring-loaded momentum storage. 

That sounds like a possibility although you end up saying no.

What example do you have in mind?

Quote

Momentum is conserved when there is no net external force on a system.

That's so (=too) elegantly said that I'll need an example to picture it.

Quote

One does not "store" momentum.

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.?

Quote

Yes. As long as the net external force is zero,

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).

?

Quote

momentum will be conserved.

Elasticity determines whether KE is conserved, because KE is, in general, not a conserved quantity.

Yes, you do. You need to apply conservation of KE. So isn't it rather silly to have accepted a challenge where you claim you don't?

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.

Quote

I don't want you to. I want you to drop your silly notion that energy is "corrupt"

At present I can trust the momentum_squared formula,

 & in that (equation) is where I find (accurate) energy relations.

Quote

Stop pretending that this limitation comes from me. You are the one claiming that you don't want to use the concept.

If I have a seamless formula, then I will not hesitate (& be more than happy) to use it.

e.g. mom_squared.

Quote

All you have to do is realize you were wrong.

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.

On ‎2018‎ ‎08‎ ‎27 at 6:15 PM, swansont said:

No, the wording is not the problem. You have to justify why you would "set" things this way. It has to depend on some physics.

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).)

Quote

No. You're still making this up out of thin air,

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?

Quote

in order to get the answer you want.

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?

Quote

Not all objects will return to their original state. But in the context of collision (since that's what we're discussing), whether or not the objects deform does not affect the conservation of momentum.

So I guess you mean momentum is conserved for both (=either elastic or non_elastic collisions).?

Quote

What does affect the behavior is to the extent that KE is conserved.

You mean, how much KE is conserved?
That sounds similar to my concept as to how much momentum_squared can be saved.

Quote

But you claimed that you did not like conservation of energy.

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).

Quote

And I challenged you to solve various problems using momentum.

Yes, I squared the (before after collision) momentum equation.
That eliminated the polarity (sign) problem,
  because some vector_speeds get squared.

Quote

Conservation of momentum does not distinguish between elastic and inelastic collisions.

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?

Quote

No, not mixed up. Elastic vs inelastic is a determination based on conservation of KE.

I think you are trying to say KE determines elasticity (elastic_collision).?

Quote

To make assumptions based on it is to invoke circular logic, which is invalid. The tool you get to use, based on your stated preference, is conservation of momentum.  

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)?
 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

THAT IS NOT THE FORCE

R has units of kg m ² s ^-3 · A ^-2

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]).

Quote

I has units of amps, so in your equation that will cancel, leaving you with units of (kg m²/s³)^(0.5)

Force has units of kg m/s² 

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?

Quote

You have the wrong units, thus, the equation must be incorrect.

The fact that my proportionality constant's value is exactly 1 (with above mentioned units),

 does NOT indicate I am (now) wrong.

 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

The words inductive, repulsive and reactive are not synonyms so this question is meaningless.

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.

5 hours ago, Strange said:

(Apart from being a strawman.)

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).

On 24 August 2018 at 9:45 PM, John Cuthber said:

As I said earlier, in principle, I can make a current meter out of superconducting materials.

If I put it in a circuit with a battery and a bulb then a current will flow through it and the meter will turn through some angle.

But the voltage across the meter will be zero- because it has zero resistance.

So the power dissipated in the meter will be zero.

 

If I use two bulbs in parallel then there will be twice the current.

And the voltage across the meter will be zero and the power dissipated in the meter will still be zero- even though the deflection will be twice what it was.

You need to distinguish the power lost in the meter from the power delivered to the load.

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.)

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I think it is entirely due to your incompetence.

Fine. Descartes also thought, that therefore he was; or was that is?

Quote

Why are short lines easier to correct?

I can see irregularities sooner.

Quote

That is an idiotic excuse.

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?

Quote

But you admit you are deliberately writing in an annoying and hard to read manner just to make your life a little bit easier.

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).

Quote

That is a pretty offensive level of arrogance.

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.

6 hours ago, Capiert said:

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.

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?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

On any modern electronic device you only need to hit CR at the end of a paragraph. The software does the line wraps for you.

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:

10 hours ago, swansont said:

No, in physics. They are linked. 

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?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Then come up with your own self-consistent theory.

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.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Otherwise, learn mainstream physics.

The changes you propose do not come from conservation of momentum.

Nor neither from coe.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

So how do you justify the speed changes that you propose?

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).

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Just because you didn't say it does not mean it's not the underlying principle.

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.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

You gave certain speed changes in "compression" and "decompression". Where does the justification for that come from?

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. ?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

What is the physics?

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?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I didn't mention any specific force.

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.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

But we know that a collision can end up with the two objects sticking together,

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?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

in which case your assumption about this decompression, and the associated math, does not hold.

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.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

If you can't justify it

=?
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?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

, you can't use it.

I didn't you did.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

But you can't assume it is elastic in order to show that it's elastic.

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:

10 hours ago, swansont said:

That's circular reasoning, i.e. invalid logic.

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.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

To everyone else, it makes it look like the text is written by a four year old. 

P.s. your pathetic attempts to justify your immature writing style is much more interesting than your delusional ideas about physics. 

Thanks.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

I had the impression you were old enough to remember typewriters.

The meaning is also non_sense for typewriters.?

How old do you think I am? At least 5.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

Possibly even their invention. But apparently not. 

How about not doing either. Why the bizarre need to break your text into short unreadable lines?

For me it looks neater,
 to help me correct my (text) errors.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

Just stop it. 

I I capt'n

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why would the flow in a circuit be non-limited?

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.

Quote

The ammeter isn't the only component of the circuit.

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.

Quote

I hesitate to ask, but why would it (Will it go (=flow) near or at the speed of light?)?

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)).

Quote

Yes QM was a surprise. How is this relevant?

Fiv is electromagnetic. (& mechanical too, if I may say).
If you get it right, (then) that will work down to atoms (size).

Quote

or is  it just the fallacious reasoning of "scientists were wrong about one thing, therefore they are wrong about everything"?

I doubt that you are wrong about everything,
 but I have noticed a few things need corrections & improvements.

Quote

I mean, if you had some actual physics to point to in your complaint, that would be one thing.

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.

Quote

But instead you are making physics up, and then complaining that it's wrong.

I'm trying to explain things the way I see them,
 in an attempt to get "near" to the problems.
I'm NOT perfect.

Quote

Most people who are unfamiliar with a topic, find that their intuition doesn't match accepted physics, assume their understanding is at fault. Some small fraction, which apparently includes you, has the chutzpah to assume that physics is at fault. Where does such confidence come from? 

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.