Do we need Energy(_Math)? NO!

[Capiert]

I tend
 to think,
 we do NOT need
 (kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s
 (redundant) syntax.

Let’( u)s face it.
Energy is NONSENSE!

E.g. 1
Astronomer’s have been complaining
 for a long time.

Now(adays, or a_daze)
 you (also) have “dark” (=unknown) Energy
 to cover up that problem.

E.g. 2
The output
 of a NON_elastic collision
 is always less
 than the input.

I.e.
NO matter how (much)
 you (want
 to) “guess” explaining its (NON_elastic) loss
 (e.g. with deformation (dents),
 acoustic noise (produced),
 & heat (warmed));
 instead of knowing
 & measuring.

Mathematically that loss
 is calculate_able (accountable,
 into a reduced_mass (construct)).)

E.g. 3.
That (NON_elastic collision, Energy loss)
 is NOT energy conservation
 but instead a math ERROR
 (caused by)
 incompatibility with (average_)momentum. 

But my question
 is, do we (really) need
 the Energy (math) construct,
 at all?

I mean
 we already have (average_)momentum
 & it (=that (average_)momentum)
 does NOT seem
 to lie at us
 like Energy
 (sometimes) does.

With
 the (kinetic_)Energy (construct)
 we “loose” information.

I.e.
It (=KEd=delta_KE)
 is NOT completely
 “reversible” math
 (without using the original( parameter)s again);
 which hinders
 a (bidirectional math) reverse_ability.

E.g.
 (For linear_acceleration)
 the kinetic_Energy(_difference)
 KE_d=m*v_(d)*v_a
 is composed (=made)
 of: a (=1, single)
 scalar (mass m);
 & “2” (speed) vectors
 (the speed_difference v_d=v_(d)=v=v_f-v_i
 as final_speed v_f minus initial_speed v_i;
 & multiplied
 by the average_speed v_a=(v_f+v_i)/2=d/t
 as added final_speed v_f & initial_speed v_i
 divided by 2)
 .

Th(os)e (2) speeds
 are vectors
 because they have “direction”,
 (also)
 meaning (each)
 in simplest form
 e.g.
 if in 1D,
 (the) travel can be either:
 positive (forward(s));
 or (else) negative (backward).

Mass (is a scalar, &)
 can NOT do that (bidirectionality).

---
Disclaimer 1:

I have NOT seen
 a “negative” mass -m
 (for that) coefficient (factor m);
 even if you rave
 about anti_matter;
 simply because
 it (=anti_matter)
 is
 (let us say)
 opposite_charge
 of (perhaps) a spin.

The rule
 is,
 every charged
 (sub_atomic)
 particle,
 has its own
 oppositely charged
 (so_called aunty_)
 particle.

(Does that include neutral (uncles)?)

But during annihilation,
 at such a subatomic size,
 how can you prove
 your guess_work (=assumptions)?

That (tracking)
 seems (to me) impossible
 to follow;
 & only a careless (misleading) idea.
---

A vector (e.g. such as a(n average) speed v_(a))
 multiplied
 by a scalar (e.g. mass m)
 remains a vector (e.g. (average_)momentum mom_(a)=m*v_(a))
 .

But 2 (negative) vectors (e.g. speeds v_d & v_a)
 loose their (negative) polarity -1=j^2
 when multiplied together
 to become
 (& always stay, only)
 positive (scalar);
 (no matter)
 whether they were originally positive or negative.

That is a loss
 of (the +/-)
 polarity information,
 which is NOT retrievable (=recoverable, salvageable)
 without using
 the (original)
 polarity (again).

E.g. Using a factor *v/((v^2)^0.5),
 where the (linear_accelerated) speed_difference v_d=v
 & visa versa
 (is the truncated_symbol syntax)
 v=v_d,
 because
 they are identical.
(I simply truncated the _d.)

 

The (vectorized) kinetic_energy(_difference) (e.g. as a) vector

 KE_d=m*v*v_a*v/((v^2)^0.5)
 is the (scalar) KE_d=m*v*v_a
 multiplied
 by its speed_difference’s polarity
 v/((v^2)^0.5).

If that speed_difference v=v_f-v_i was negative
 then its KE_d will also become negative.

That is why I say (=question)
 do we really need (e.g. kinetic_)Energy?
 if we have to (re)modify so much;
 (because)
 it(s Energy_math alone)
 is inferior (NONSENSE).

Why DON’T we (just) kick out
 the concept
 of Energy (all together)?
 & throw it away
 in(to) the garbage.

Why do we perpetuate
 the error_making problems,
 (called) Energy?

Why do we bother,
 at all,
 with
 (the concept, approximation)
 Energy?

(E.g.
I have proposed bending (=modifying)
 Newton’s motion laws
 (as detour)
 to get around
 the Energy error problems;
 (but that (detour) is)
 instead
 of dealing
 with the real (guilty) culprit (i.e. Energy).)

It (=Energy)
 is way too complicated
 for what is needed.

Energy (syntax, (an) approximation)
 was invented ((ruffly ~2*KE) by Leibniz;
 it’( i)s NOT Newtonian)
 to help describe
 linear_acceleration(’s work).

But Leibniz originally confused mass m=Wt/g
 with weight Wt=m*g.

It’( i)s the gravitational acceleration g=Wt/m
 that (had) caused that (confusion) problem
 for him (=Leibniz).

Edited October 14, 2023 by Capiert
typo

[Sensei]

Basically,

 

I tend
to think,

you are,

unable to,

write posts...

and,

unable to,

learn,

how to,

use,

LaTeX..

So..

any communication,

is

very cumbersome..

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Sensei

[Capiert]

I agree with you Sensei.
I am unable to learn LaTex
 & your programmers were unable
 convert text formats correctly.
Thus they created a 1 directional conversion
 you call Latex.

But I must say
 my post looks
 (a little) better
 than yours.

[Sensei]

2 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I am unable to learn LaTex

Inability to,

learn,

so simple,

thing,

causes,

that,

your,

other posts,

are unreliable..

 

[Capiert]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Inability to,

learn,

so simple,

thing,

causes,

that,

your,

other posts,

are unreliable..

 

Please let me help you.

Inability
 to learn
 so (=such) simple things
 causes that your other posts
 to be unreliable.

Are you sure you mean unreliable?

How?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

Let’( u)s face it.
Energy is NONSENSE!

This

is

neither

a

speculation

nor

a

question

it

is

a

tirade

so

it

belongs

in

the

trash.

 

A real question would be something like

Are there any circumstance where energy methods are easier and or more efficient than other methods of analysis ?

To which the answer is a resounding yes.

[Capiert]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

This

is

neither

a

speculation

nor

a

question

it

is

a

tirade

I do NOT see anger
 in my statement,
 ONLY (resignment &) reassurement
 that Energy does NOT always add
 thus it is (in that sense)
 unaccountable ("NONSENSE!").
If things do add up
 as they are (expectedly) supposed to
 then they are behaving illogically.

Denying the problem
 is NOT going to cure it.

Unlike most (people)
 I am (at least)
 recognizing a problem
 & (then) attempting
 a solution.

As long as that takes (me).
It is NOT an easy task.
Especially in only 1 shot.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

so

it

belongs

in

the

trash.

I disagree.
I was only summarizing
 so you can recognize
 the direction.

You have NOT addressed
 the major question.
I.e. Title.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

A real question would be something like

Are there any circumstance where energy methods are easier and or more efficient than other methods of analysis ?

That is NOT my question.
Especially because I know
 Energy is an approximation
 & thus relative.
I (already) know you guys (& gals)
 already use math_Energy
 for many things,
 because it compares.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

To which the answer is a resounding yes.

You are trying to change my question
 in order to avoid it.

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

tend
 to think,
 we do NOT need
 (kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s
 (redundant) syntax.

I tried using a language model; Input prompt: "Can you help me make sense of the following post I found on a science forum. I want you to reformat the text so I can analyse it" (followed by OP). An extract from my first attempt:

Quote

The member suggests discarding the energy concept altogether in favour of other physical quantities, like momentum, believing that energy complicates understanding rather than facilitating it. They propose modifying established laws of motion to circumvent issues they attribute to the energy concept.

Maybe you should try one of these tools @Capiert to see of the output better communicates your ideas?

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Ghideon
clarifying

[Capiert]

Ghideon, that is excellent.
Exactly what I want to say.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

Energy is NONSENSE!

 

The word "energy" (in one form or another) existed before physics and chemistry. We used to say "young people have a lot of energy", "old people don't have the energy to ...", "sick people don't have energy", etc.

Energy is the ability to do something.

Solid CO₂ does not have the ability to do something,

while liquid O₂ has the ability to do something (burn with something and release "stored energy").

Basically, energy is like mass, energy before reaction is equal to energy after reaction. The mass before the reaction is equal to the mass after the reaction (in chemistry). A+B=C+D. So whatever you want to solve is equal. At the beginning of science, the equation was at the level of mass, which is true to some level of certainity. Then at energy level, which a way way more precise.

Energy is stored in various ways. The potential energy of a nucleus (which can be released during fusion, fission, spontaneous decay, etc. ), the energy bound between atoms or molecules, the potential energy of an object at a certain height above the ground, etc., etc., or the kinetic energy of an object or the rotational energy of an object..

[Killtech]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

how to,

use,

LaTeX..

Off topic, but you rise an very important point: how do i use LaTeX on this forums?

[Sensei]

21 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I do NOT see anger
 in my statement,
 ONLY (resignment &) reassurement
 that Energy does NOT always add
 thus it is (in that sense)
 unaccountable ("NONSENSE!").

Energy is a physical thing, that is, you can certainly feel the difference between hot coffee/tea and cold coffee/tea.

The question should be "how much leakage" of this energy, if any, instead of this crap: "Energy is NONSENSE".

If it's 0.00000000001 then you should show it.

We would have at least had some scientific discussion on your part.

But you are not able to.

You are not able to, because physics and chemistry are experimental.

Theoretical physics is something new in the 20th century.

To become a theoretical physicist, you have to learn everything about experimental physics, chemistry, etc.

Laymen on the Internet tend to skip the whole learning process and just post their useless drivel on science forums without bothering to acquire everything that real scientists took years of study.

 

6 minutes ago, Killtech said:

Off topic, but you rise an very important point: how do i use LaTeX on this forums?

Check sandbox:

https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/99-the-sandbox/

There, even well-known members practiced..

 

[Capiert]

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

 

The word "energy" (in one form or another) existed before physics and chemistry. We used to say "young people have a lot of energy", "old people don't have the energy to ...", "sick people don't have energy", etc.

Most probably a (bio)chemical energy (reserve).

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Energy is the ability to do something.

Solid CO₂ does not have the ability to do something,

I disagree, at STP solid CO₂ is very cold
 & that temperature difference
 (while) melting
 can change pressure
 which can do work.

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

while liquid O₂ has the ability to do something (burn with something and release "stored energy").

Yes, but that is (chemical) bonding energy (exchange).

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Basically, energy is like mass, energy before reaction is equal to energy after reaction. The mass before the reaction is equal to the mass after the reaction (in chemistry). A+B=C+D. So whatever you want to solve is equal. At the beginning of science, the equation was at the level of mass, which is true to some level of certainity. Then at energy level, which a way way more precise.

Energy is stored in various ways. The potential energy of a nucleus (which can be released during fusion, fission, spontaneous decay, etc. ), the energy bound between atoms or molecules, the potential energy of an object at a certain height above the ground, etc., etc., or the kinetic energy of an object or the rotational energy of an object..

Yes Sensei,
 (I agree,
we have all those (Energy) concepts
 with their (own) math);
 but can't we use
 e.g. (average_)momentum;
 instead of Energy_math?

Why "must" we use ONLY energy?

I see more disadvantages
 with Energy;
 than advantages.

[Sensei]

46 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Yes Sensei,
 (I agree,
we have all those (Energy) concepts
 with their (own) math);
 but can't we use
 e.g. (average_)momentum;
 instead of Energy_math?

Laptop battery, cell phone battery certainly have no momentum..

They have a capacity expressed on the label as, for example, 10000 mAh.

mA = 0.001 A

h = 3600s

Q=I*t

I = 10000 mA = 10 A

Q=10A * 3600s = 36000 C

i.e. the device will work for 1h at 10A, or 10h at 1A (assuming no losses and lower voltage, which is unreliable)

E= Q*U

U is typically 3.6 V for Li-on battery..

 

 

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

I tried using a language model; Input prompt: "Can you help me make sense of the following post I found on a science forum. I want you to reformat the text so I can analyse it" (followed by OP). An extract from my first attempt:

Maybe you should try one of these tools @Capiert to see of the output better communicates your ideas?

 

@Ghideon Do you want to become a billionaire? You'll be the second administrator.. You gave me an idea..

 

46 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I disagree, at STP solid CO₂ is very cold
 & that temperature difference
 (while) melting
 can change pressure
 which can do work.

Objects which have melting point at lower T than STP "attracts" energy in any form from the world.

 

Every object takes energy and releases it into the world.

In "ambient temperature," what goes out, is what comes in, and we have an equilibrium.

 

Transition from solid state to liquid state takes additional energy.

Transition from liquid state to gaseous state takes additional energy.

Transition from gaseous state to plasma state takes additional energy.

(This is called ionization energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy )

 

There are others for the high energy regime in quantum physics.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Sensei

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

Denying the problem
 is NOT going to cure it.

Unlike most (people)
 I am (at least)
 recognizing a problem
 & (then) attempting
 a solution.

So you can perform the following simple calculation, without using energy.

 

Please show me how.

 

I have a 1kg bar of lead that I wish to melt.

I have a bunsen burner and a suitable steel pot to melt the bar in.

 

How much gas to I need to fully melt the bar ?

Please ignore losses for this calculation.

[Sensei]

@studiot nice try, that's the point. How many things with energy (potential energy, usually in chemical bonds) are needed for things we need..

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

@Ghideon Do you want to become a billionaire? You'll be the second administrator.. You gave me an idea..

Sure!

[Sensei]

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Sure!

U wish!

 

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, Capiert said:

I tend
 to think,
 we do NOT need
 (kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s
 (redundant) syntax.

Let’( u)s face it.
Energy is NONSENSE!

E.g. 1
Astronomer’s have been complaining
 for a long time.

Now(adays, or a_daze)
 you (also) have “dark” (=unknown) Energy
 to cover up that problem.

E.g. 2
The output
 of a NON_elastic collision
 is always less
 than the input.

I.e.
NO matter how (much)
 you (want
 to) “guess” explaining its (NON_elastic) loss
 (e.g. with deformation (dents),
 acoustic noise (produced),
 & heat (warmed));
 instead of knowing
 & measuring.

Mathematically that loss
 is calculate_able (accountable,
 into a reduced_mass (construct)).)

E.g. 3.
That (NON_elastic collision, Energy loss)
 is NOT energy conservation
 but instead a math ERROR
 (caused by)
 incompatibility with (average_)momentum. 

But my question
 is, do we (really) need
 the Energy (math) construct,
 at all?

I mean
 we already have (average_)momentum
 & it (=that (average_)momentum)
 does NOT seem
 to lie at us
 like Energy
 (sometimes) does.

With
 the (kinetic_)Energy (construct)
 we “loose” information.

I.e.
It (=KEd=delta_KE)
 is NOT completely
 “reversible” math
 (without using the original( parameter)s again);
 which hinders
 a (bidirectional math) reverse_ability.

E.g.
 (For linear_acceleration)
 the kinetic_Energy(_difference)
 KE_d=m*v_(d)*v_a
 is composed (=made)
 of: a (=1, single)
 scalar (mass m);
 & “2” (speed) vectors
 (the speed_difference v_d=v_(d)=v=v_f-v_i
 as final_speed v_f minus initial_speed v_i;
 & multiplied
 by the average_speed v_a=(v_f+v_i)/2=d/t
 as added final_speed v_f & initial_speed v_i
 divided by 2)
 .

Th(os)e (2) speeds
 are vectors
 because they have “direction”,
 (also)
 meaning (each)
 in simplest form
 e.g.
 if in 1D,
 (the) travel can be either:
 positive (forward(s));
 or (else) negative (backward).

Mass (is a scalar, &)
 can NOT do that (bidirectionality).

---
Disclaimer 1:

I have NOT seen
 a “negative” mass -m
 (for that) coefficient (factor m);
 even if you rave
 about anti_matter;
 simply because
 it (=anti_matter)
 is
 (let us say)
 opposite_charge
 of (perhaps) a spin.

The rule
 is,
 every charged
 (sub_atomic)
 particle,
 has its own
 oppositely charged
 (so_called aunty_)
 particle.

(Does that include neutral (uncles)?)

But during annihilation,
 at such a subatomic size,
 how can you prove
 your guess_work (=assumptions)?

That (tracking)
 seems (to me) impossible
 to follow;
 & only a careless (misleading) idea.
---

A vector (e.g. such as a(n average) speed v_(a))
 multiplied
 by a scalar (e.g. mass m)
 remains a vector (e.g. (average_)momentum mom_(a)=m*v_(a))
 .

But 2 (negative) vectors (e.g. speeds v_d & v_a)
 loose their (negative) polarity -1=j^2
 when multiplied together
 to become
 (& always stay, only)
 positive (scalar);
 (no matter)
 whether they were originally positive or negative.

That is a loss
 of (the +/-)
 polarity information,
 which is NOT retrievable (=recoverable, salvageable)
 without using
 the (original)
 polarity (again).

E.g. Using a factor *v/((v^2)^0.5),
 where the (linear_accelerated) speed_difference v_d=v
 & visa versa
 (is the truncated_symbol syntax)
 v=v_d,
 because
 they are identical.
(I simply truncated the _d.)

 

The (vectorized) kinetic_energy(_difference) (e.g. as a) vector

 KE_d=m*v*v_a*v/((v^2)^0.5)
 is the (scalar) KE_d=m*v*v_a
 multiplied
 by its speed_difference’s polarity
 v/((v^2)^0.5).

If that speed_difference v=v_f-v_i was negative
 then its KE_d will also become negative.

That is why I say (=question)
 do we really need (e.g. kinetic_)Energy?
 if we have to (re)modify so much;
 (because)
 it(s Energy_math alone)
 is inferior (NONSENSE).

Why DON’T we (just) kick out
 the concept
 of Energy (all together)?
 & throw it away
 in(to) the garbage.

Why do we perpetuate
 the error_making problems,
 (called) Energy?

Why do we bother,
 at all,
 with
 (the concept, approximation)
 Energy?

(E.g.
I have proposed bending (=modifying)
 Newton’s motion laws
 (as detour)
 to get around
 the Energy error problems;
 (but that (detour) is)
 instead
 of dealing
 with the real (guilty) culprit (i.e. Energy).)

It (=Energy)
 is way too complicated
 for what is needed.

Energy (syntax, (an) approximation)
 was invented ((ruffly ~2*KE) by Leibniz;
 it’( i)s NOT Newtonian)
 to help describe
 linear_acceleration(’s work).

But Leibniz originally confused mass m=Wt/g
 with weight Wt=m*g.

It’( i)s the gravitational acceleration g=Wt/m
 that (had) caused that (confusion) problem
 for him (=Leibniz).

Considering energy in analysing problems in physics is particularly simple and powerful, because it is a conserved property. Momentum likewise. It can often be useful to consider both. Depriving yourself of one of these is going to just make everything a lot harder.  

[Sensei]

4 hours ago, Capiert said:

I agree with you Sensei.
I am unable to learn LaTex

Two true sentences in the forum-life..

4 hours ago, Capiert said:

 & your programmers were unable

My programmers do what I want..

4 hours ago, Capiert said:

 & your programmers were unable
 convert text formats correctly.
Thus they created a 1 directional conversion
 you call Latex.

Even though I dislike LaTeX,

I disagree.

Equations can be very cumbersome and complex.

The problem is forum software which does not preview in real-time what you write.

For me, writing equation in LaTeX is easy, just as easy is writing in Python, or C/C++.

Learn something and come back to us..

4 hours ago, Capiert said:

But I must say
 my post looks
 (a little) better
 than yours.

..it depends on the device..

On PC ("desktop computer"/"laptop") not really..

 

[Capiert]

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

Energy is a physical thing,

That (shockingly) seems like a noun (thing);
 but I got your drift, meaning concept.

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

that is, you can certainly feel the difference between hot coffee/tea and cold coffee/tea.

The question should be "how much leakage" of this energy, if any, instead of this crap: "Energy is NONSENSE".

I think Swansont
 gave you (=us)
 your best (=simplest)
 so_called "crap"
 Energy example
 with a head on head collision
 of 2 masses
 each 1 [kg]
 at speed(s)
 v=(+/-)1 [m/s].

That'( i)s
 at sub_light speed(s);
 & the Energy
 does NOT agree
 with the momentum!

(Need I say more?) 

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

If it's 0.00000000001 then you should show it.

We would have at least had some scientific discussion on your part.

E.g.
Mass 1's
 mass
 m₁=1 [kg]
 & (accelerated) speed_difference
 v_d1=1 [m/s];
 mass 2's
 mass
 m₂=1 [kg]
 & (accelerated) speed_difference
 v_d2=-1 [m/s].

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

But you are not able to.

Really?

The average_momentum
 (of each mass)
 is
 mom_a1=m₁*v_a1=1 [kg]*1 [m/s]=1 [N*s]
 mom_a2=m₁*v_a2=1 [kg]*(-1) [m/s]=-1 [N*s]
 mom_at=mom_a1+mom_a2=1 [N*s]-1 [N*s]=0.
The total (average_)momentum
 is zero!

However,
 the(ir) kinetic_energy(differences) are each 0.5 [J];
 so, their, total input (Energy) is 1 [J];
 but their NON_elastic (collision) result
 is zero Joule.

 KE_d1=m₁*v_d1*v_a1=1 [kg]*1 [m/s]*0.5 [m/s]=0.5 [J]
 KE_d2=m₂*v_d2*v_a2=1 [kg]*(-1) [m/s]*(-0.5) [m/s]=0.5 [J]
 KE_dt=KE_d1+KE_d2=0.5 [J]+0.5 [J]=1 [J] total kinetic_Energy(_difference) input
 but the KEd_output=0
 because all speeds are (gone to) zero
 meaning -1 [J] lost, abracadabra!
What a bunch of JUNK!

When
 assuming
 the speed_difference v_d=v_f-v_i;
 & each initial_speed is zero
 v_i=v_i1=v_i2=0
 then their speed_differences
 v_d1=v_f1-v_i1=0-1=-1 [m/s], &
 v_d2=v_f2-v_i2=0-(-1) [m/s]=1 [m/s])
 (for masses 1 & 2, are);
 where
 their (linearly_accelerated)
 final_speeds
 v_f1=v_i1+v_d1=v_a1-v_d1/2
 v_f2=v_i2+v_d2=v_a2-v_d2/2
 are the initial_speed v_i
 plus the speed_speed(_difference) v_d;
 &/or
 v_f1=v_a1-v_d1/2
 v_f2=v_a2-v_d2/2
 the average_speed va
 minus half the(ir) (accelerated) speed_difference v_d/2.

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

You are not able to, because physics and chemistry are experimental.

That (sure) sounds like a false claim
 on your part.

I'm quite sure the experiments
 (will) show the discrepancy (ERORR)
 between (average_)momentum
 versus (kinetic_)Energy(_difference) results.

Kinetic_Energy is a looser
 & you guys are trying to cover up that (fact).

E.g. With "dark" (=unknown) energy
 on a galactic scale.

But I understand
 you (all) HAVEN'T
 a (faintest) CLUE
 because it is in your natural character
 to deny things
 you do NOT understand
 because of your education.

Scientists
 can be typically the "LAST" person
 to learn
 what is new,
 because their education (brainwashing)
 interferes
 with what is obvious.

(I.e. Common sense.

Who has it?
Every healthy person!).

Typically, instead of saying
 they (scientists) have made a mistake;
 they (scientists,
 I DON'T want to mention any names)
 say,
 (=mildly admit)
 they (scientists)
 have discovered
 other than they ((have) wrongly)
 expected.

WOAH!

If the mistakes (=ERRORS)
 are NOT going
 to be admitted (& recognized);
 then how are "we" going
 to progress (e.g. in Physics)
 (& eliminate those errors).

E.g.
Recognition
 is the 1st step
 to improvement.

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

Theoretical physics is something new in the 20th century.

To become a theoretical physicist, you have to learn everything about experimental physics, chemistry, etc.

Laymen on the Internet tend to skip the whole learning process and just post their useless drivel on science forums without bothering to acquire everything that real scientists took years of study.

By the look
 of it
 some of their study was in vain.

They forgot something
 (very important)
 like (e.g.) the initial_speed v_i=v_f-v_d
 (especially if that is light's_speed c)
 which they love to eliminate
 in their (linearly accelerated) speed_difference
 v_d=v_f-vi.

I'm NOT telling you
 something NEW;
 (but instead)
 just reminding you.

Your calculations
 are full of holes
 if you have forgotten missing (initial) terms
 (which are prove_able
 with simple algebra (math)).

You (=your colleagues & predecessors)
 have built up
 an unreliable empire
 ready to crumble;
 if you rely on ONLY
 those incomplete equations
 (with missing terms)
 that you (so) carelessly ignore
 & (even) reject.

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

Check sandbox:

https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/99-the-sandbox/

There, even well-known members practiced..

Still a good tip,
 I'( a)m convinced.

LaTex is (a spastic) over_kill
 because the programmers
 could NOT correctly convert
 all the(ir) .pdf or whatever formats.

They did NOT know enough
 about the different text formats;
 so they invented
 their own (NON uni_directional) format
 to make things work (somewhat) correctly.

Why the overhead
 (just because they could NOT do their task)?

Now you are demanding
 everybody follow
 "their" mistake('s remedy).

There exists
 (more than)
 a (=1) NEW text editor
 every (10) year(s).

How many
 have I learned?

& then NEVER need (it) again
 because something better comes (along),
 to overtake the situation;
 because the last (editor) was inferior.

This 1 (LaTex) does NOT go backwards,
 e.g. it does NOT convert backwards
 into e.g. a Winword or .pdf file,
 because the programmers
 do NOT know how
 to do that (conversion) correctly (originally),
 so what have they learned?

Here today,
 (but) gone tomorrow.

Is that (programming),
 (called) science (Physics)?

NO(! way (my friend))
 that is NONSENSE,
 e.g. NOT understandable.

You have peculiar "demands"
 because you CAN'T get your own act together.

I'm only making (improvement) suggestions
 (to try & get out of the problems).

You want to avoid your (existing) problems
 (& say they do NOT exist).

E.g.
Ohhh
 there are limitations!
 (..but because the formulas DON'T always work).

Let us (both) say,
 there is room
 for improvements.

It'( i)s
 NOT easy
 to change mainstream (opinions!).

Einstein & Michelson
 both stood "against" mainstream;
 & look at where we are NOW.

They (both) changed it (=mainstream)
 (instead of (completely) correcting it).

What a mess!

To summarize
 (this thread),
 I have made 2 suggestions:
 either: to kick_out (the scalar) Energy
 as NONSENSE;
 or else
 (if you want to keep Energy,
 although I do NOT know why)
 to vectorize it (=Energy)
 (as needed)
 (& eventually factor it (=Energy)
 with the scalar (called) mass (again)
 (as a distortion)
 mentioned in another thread:
 acceleration note)
 as an improvement.

Disclaimer2:

I do NOT find those (2) suggestions (either):
 rude;
 NOR (as) arrogant constrictions;
 but instead
 as liberal alternatives
 for improvement.

E.g. You may choose either way;
 if you want to choose at all.

I have only tried to state my observations
 & conclusions
 for that (part)
 of the development.

Take it or leave it.

Your past scientists
 did NOT like Galileo either;
 NOT to mention Ohm, Einstein, Michelson, Wilson (plate tectonics), ...

You are all typically (mostly) of a rejecting attitude (tendency).
It takes (much effort &) a very long time
 to convince you otherwise.

But history repeats itself.
For sure.

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Capiert
typo

[Sensei]

9 minutes ago, Capiert said:

That (shockingly) seems like a noun (thing);

Shocking only to the layman....

Everyone else can see the difference between a "full battery" and an "empty battery"....

11 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I think Swansont
 gave you (=us)
 your best (=simplest)
 so_called "crap"
 Energy example
 with a head on head collision

Collisions between two bodies should be calculated in the center-of-mass regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

From CoM frame-of-reference, you should go to lab-frame-of-reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_reference_frame

At non-relativistic speeds, i.e. in ordinary life situations, this is simplified to Newton's equations.

 

[Capiert]

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

Laptop battery, cell phone battery certainly have no momentum..

They have a capacity expressed on the label as, for example, 10000 mAh.

mA = 0.001 A

h = 3600s

Q=I*t

I = 10000 mA = 10 A

Q=10A * 3600s = 36000 C

i.e. the device will work for 1h at 10A, or 10h at 1A (assuming no losses and lower voltage, which is unreliable)

E= Q*U

U is typically 3.6 V for Li-on battery..

Thanks Sensei.
That's a good example.
I will have to give it some thought (time).

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

 

@Ghideon Do you want to become a billionaire? You'll be the second administrator.. You gave me an idea..

 

Objects which have melting point at lower T than STP "attracts" energy in any form from the world.

 

Every object takes energy and releases it into the world.

In "ambient temperature," what goes out, is what comes in, and we have an equilibrium.

 

Transition from solid state to liquid state takes additional energy.

Transition from liquid state to gaseous state takes additional energy.

Transition from gaseous state to plasma state takes additional energy.

(This is called ionization energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy )

 

There are others for the high energy regime in quantum physics.

NO arguments there
 (with those Temperature Energy concepts
 commonly used).

E.g. Those approximations work (often).

(But I have to remind you
 that I am looking
 for an alternative (Newtonian math) concept;
 instead of (Leibniz's) Energy
 that will work
 just as well;
 if NOT better
 with fewer ERRORs.)

(I envision)
 Temperature
 T=k*v_a/m
 is a quotient
 (proportional
 to) the particle's average_speed v_a
 "per" mass m
 (instead of "factor"
 "multiplied by"
 for the product
 of (average_)momentum
 mom_a=v_a*m);

 (&) where k
 is simply some sort
 of (correction)
 proportionality_constant.

That is simply
 2 different math methods:
 e.g.
 T (quotient)
 versus
 KEd (product);
 using 2 similar parameters:
 e.g.
 the average_speed v_a
 & which is then either:
 divided by
 or (else) multiplied by
 the mass m.
 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

So you can perform the following simple calculation, without using energy.

Please show me how.

I have a 1kg bar of lead that I wish to melt.

I have a bunsen burner and a suitable steel pot to melt the bar in.

 

How much gas do I need to fully melt the bar ?

Please ignore losses for this calculation.

2 methods (alternatives)
 occur
 to my mind.

E.g. I can convert existing energy values
 into some kind of momentum;
 or else
 (I can abandon that method completely)
 & concentrate
 on the average_momentum squared concept
 as a mass*Energy substitute.

I will need too much time
 to (accurately) prepare that (details);
 & hinder errors
 (stumbling blocks).

Please (excuse me, but)
 would you (please) prepare
 th(os)e Energy calculations
(for me)
 & I would attempt
 to convert that
 (in)to (some kind of)
 momentum.

I would then know what (numbers) to expect
 & whatever format
 you desire
 (if I wish to copy it).

I consider
 I might be
 a better editor
 than author.


 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Capiert
typo

[Sensei]

21 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Thanks Sensei.
That's a good example.
I will have to give it some thought (time).

Don't think. Buy a powerbank. Power it up. And verify its capacity..

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

I think Swansont
 gave you (=us)
 your best (=simplest)
 so_called "crap"
 Energy example
 with a head on head collision
 of 2 masses
 each 1 [kg]
 at speed(s)
 v=(+/-)1 [m/s].

That'( i)s
 at sub_light speed(s);
 & the Energy
 does NOT agree
 with the momentum!

!

Moderator Note

As I recall, I was rebutting your ludicrous assertion that kinetic energy is a conserved quantity.

Momentum and energy are different concepts and are used in different circumstances. As studiot’s example shows, there are situations where conservation of momentum does not help you in arriving at an answer. There are kinematic example where using momentum is the wrong approach, too (probably ones involving circular motion, or a force acting through a distance) 

But the thing is, you’re not really offering an alternative; your insistence on new terminology and formatting make it hard to follow your tortured presentation, and I don’t recall you having actually solved any problems.

Your dissatisfaction with energy is yours. That’s fine, as long as that’s as far as it goes. But it’s not shared by the vast majority of people doing physics, and not liking a concept doesn’t make it wrong. You’re just ranting, and have to misrepresent physics to make your point. This might not be deliberate, you give off strong indications of simply not understanding, but you show no indication that you want to learn anything.

Rule 2.12 prohibits “advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic” because such arguments are not in good faith.

Which is why this is being locked. Don’t start any new threads along these lines. Enough is enough.