
Below is a modified, for continuity and readability, transcript of the interaction I had with the naked emperors who are trying to dress the world in the burka of their ignorance. DraftPhysics vs The Naked Science Forum part 1 [1/4/22] DraftPhysics vs The Naked Science Forum part 2 [1/6/22] DraftPhysics vs The Naked Science Forum part 3 [1/5/22] The Naked Science Forum... No science just thought policing fascism [1/5/22] DraftPhysics vs The Naked Science Scum [1/11/22] My opening statement: 1/2 vmv Was willfully created to Force reality to match religious daydreams. The history of its creation, defense, and eventual acceptance is a mockery of the scientific method. Truth was forsaken for agenda, evidence was exaggerated, distorted, and quote mined to support a plainly silly notion of reality. The simple truth is the kinetic energy formula can't be defended as good science because there is NO good physical experimental evidence proving its predictions. For example: Show me it taking 4 times as much fuel to go twice as fast. Here are links to some short videos on the subject: [I made two short YouTube videos for the purpose of supporting the argument I would post here... Very disappointing you don't allow external links] DraftScience vs KE ...the lever argument: DraftScience vs KE ...The bowling ball Argument: DraftScience vs KE ...the bad history of the Living Force: DraftPhysics vs KE ...The truck example [12/31/21] DraftScience vs The Walter Lewin Experiment: DraftScience re: Arbor Scientific vs Walter Lewin: Here are some simple thought experiments illustrating the logical paradoxes the formula creates. If I'm in space and I throw a 2 L bottle of coke (2 kg) away from me at 1mph., do I received the same thrust if I shoot a dime (2 grams) away from me at 1000mph.? If so isn't this proof against the kinetic energy formula? Is there any physical evidence defending the kinetic energy theorem? The theory says an 8 lb bowling ball will produce twice as much "energy" as a 16 pound ball thrown with the same effort. No pro bowler can make A lighter ball work. Why? If I shoot two objects with inverse velocity to Mass ratios (for exp. 10m 5v vs 5m 10v) into gravity your formula says one object will have twice as much energy as the other at liftoff. If I let the objects fall, on an identical spring they will be recorded to impose the same pressure, the same joules of energy. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory? or Do you dispute the fact? Your theory says a 5ton train going 10 miles an hour has twice as much energyability to do work as a 10 ton going 5 miles an hour. I claim you will never prove that to be true, and that if you actually collected the energy of the moving objects in a scientifically sensible manor it will be clearly demonstrated that they have the same capacity to do work. Do you think a 5ton 10 miles an hour train can do twice as much work has a 10 ton train going 5 miles an hour? Do you think you can create heat or deformation and transfer 100% of your momentum to another object? Kryptid Quote from: DebatePhysics If I'm in space and I throw a 2 L bottle of coke (2 kg) away from me at 1mph., do I received the same thrust if I shoot a dime (2 grams) away from me at 1000mph.? Momentum is defined as mass times velocity, so the two different cases should indeed have the same momentum. >>>>Two joules of energy One Way, 2000 Jewels the other way. And you think the spaceship keeps going straight? >>>>>Yes, because the momentum on both sides of the ships is equal. If the ship were not to go straight, that would violate conservation of momentum. >>>>>>So 2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules of thrust? <<<<<Joules are a unit of energy, not thrust (force).)))))>>>>Trust is clearly understood by NASA to be energy. I will just repeat the point you evaded "So 2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules of thrust?"))))>>>>>You have said "2000 joules of thrust causes the same effect as 2 joules" a couple of times. What are you talking about? Maybe if we hash that out we could find the source of your misunderstanding.))))>>>>Well I actually stated it in the form of a question... If we agree that a joule can be converted into other units like Watts or thermal units.. Then it should be agreed it would be impossible for a spaceship to go straight if it is leaking 2000 units of heat out one side of the ship and only 2 units out the other side.)))) Can you provide any physical evidence of this working? The theory says an 8 lb bowling ball will produce twice as much "energy" as a 16 pound ball thrown with the same effort. I don't follow you. What physics term are you using when you say "effort"? Do you mean force? >>>> As I believe the same force will produce both effects I certainly mean Force... At issue is the kinetic energy formulas assertion that we will require twice as much force to move the 8 lb 16 miles an hour... Can you produce any physical evidence demonstrating that it requires twice as much energy to move the lighter ball the faster speed? The kinetic energy equation says nothing about force. >>>>The unit joules can be easily converted into weight pressure watts thermal units Etc.>>>>>Okay, so how many joules are in a newton?)))>>>>a newton is 1/10 of a joule))))>>>>No That's like saying a kilometre is half a second.))))<<<<<No That is gibberish.<<<<Yes, saying a kilometre is half a second is stupid, because they are different things. and saying a newton is 1/10 of a jouleis just as stupid, and for the same reason. You need to recognise that.))))<<<<Saying it's stupid and proving it aren't the same thing. Doing it your way let's look at the math...<<<<That's not doing it my way; it's doing it wrong.))))>>>>Wrong how?)))) A joule is a Newton falling 1 m ...as has been pointed out at impact the velocity will be 4.8m/s... If we were to drop that on a spring scale what would you guess the maximum deflection/reading would be?>>>> A newton is the sitting weight of 100g in standard Earth gravity. Even while sitting, gravity clearly moves us into the Earth... That's why we feel the Earth pushing back. The effective velocity is 1 m per second.>>>>No. A 100 gm object that is not moving has no velocity.))))>>>>It's kind of a change of subject... But I think it can be logically proven that you never stop moving in gravity. Parts of you right now are pushing into the Earth.. they must be moving to push in. The earth pushes you back up... It moves pieces of you back up. If you're not falling in gravity... you are in fact oscillating in gravity. )))) If you allow the 100 g to fall one meter it will move at 9.8 m/s>>>>>Nope. It will be accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 but the velocity after falling 1 meter will not be 9.8 m/s, it will be moving at about 4.5 m/s.))))>>>>Good point... So a unit of momentum would be 1/2 a joule.))))>>>>>You do realize that you are saying that: 2dd18161f150ebc922465b14757eda51.gif, which is impossible?......that gibberish isn't quoting me... Why would I divide a square second (whatever that is) into a square meter when trying to determine a linear velocity? Collisions aren't gravity Against Gravity... There are no constant forces applied at a constant rate.))))>>>>>>Actual what I wrote is exactly what you said. The fact that you don't realize it is kind of like the definition of, "you don't know what you are talking about".))))>>>>>Look up the word Preposterous and the word strawman..))))>>>>>Really? Well let's see if what I wrote is a strawman. You said:So a unit of momentum would be 1/2 a joule.That means if 1 [unit of momentum] equals 1/2 joule then another way of writing that is Where is the strawman?))))>>>>>Obviously I'm "exactly" opposing everything on the right side of that equation. I think that's all fairy tale baby slobber (Except for the mv part)... I obviously didn't say it or defend it.))))>>>>>OK, well isn't it interesting that if you use those units for a joule in you calculations,>>>>>>Having common agreeable units is a good thing... I think it would be sensible to call the weight of 100 grams a newton and the weight of a kilogram a jewel.>>>>>Why would it be helpful to muddle up units like that?))))>>>>>I care not as the units are redundant. But until it is accepted that weight/pressure is a unit of heat then there's little hope of creating a universal energy unit. I think "momentum's" should be understood as a quantity of energy...>>>>And... that's strike three. Now is the time to lock your thread. Don't complain about it. You were warned more than once.))))) A number of energy units.)))) Unfortunately 100 g falling 1 m would only be one half a joule... So maybe we should just agree that a kilogram has a weight of 2 joules?)))) you can build a nuclear power plant; probably just a lucky coincidence right?>>>>So there wouldn't be radioactive isotopes without the invention of the kinetic energy Theory?)))) So in your new physics what are the units of a joule?)))))>>>>1j=1/2kg)))) It is difficult to discuss physics with you when you seem to not even understand the absolute basics.)))<<<<<I would agree that we agree on too few basic facts. I like physical evidence you apparently don't. I don't think leibnitz made a single rational argument in defense of vmv. I don't think the clay experiments of the 1700s should have fooled anyone with meager scientific literacy. I don't think it's nice to say Newton said things he didn't say. ...etc.)))>>>> Origin Oh for crying out loud now momentum is in the units of joules too?!?>>>>>Ironic that you love doing mathematical this equals that stuff... But hate doing it to physical reality))))I don't see how this conversation can go any where else but continue on a death spiral...>))))>>>>300 years ago the argument ended in a propaganda spiral... The fact is the subject is shrouded in a black void of absent evidence.... If Newton were alive he would want this fight fought.)))) and create a impact "weight" of 1 kg Or one joule)))))<<<<No matter how many times you say weight is energy you will still be wrong.)))) If you don't think Force has something to do with kinetic energy why are you citing f=ma.>>>>>Just because it's a part of the derivation doesn't mean it's a part of the final equation.))))>>>>>An equal sign isn't just a mathematical gimmick)))) To the real point you claim it takes more energy to move the lighter ball the faster speed yet you have no physical evidence supporting that belief. If I shoot two objects with inverse velocity to Mass ratios (for exp. 10m 5v vs 5m 10v) into gravity your formula says one object will have twice as much energy as the other at liftoff. If I let the objects fall, on an identical spring they will be recorded to impose the same pressure, the same joules of energy. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory? or Do you dispute the fact? If we ignore air friction, then the lighter of the two objects will have more total kinetic energy and will therefore fly higher before reaching maximum altitude. This act of flying upwards converts kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy. When the objects start to fall, they will convert all of that potential energy back into kinetic energy. So you would indeed expect the faster, lighter object to have more total kinetic energy when it falls back to the ground. There is no contradiction here. >>>>You're saying the same spring compression can produce different amounts of energy. I can compress the spring with 100 jewels from a heavy object. And then release the spring with a lighter object and gain an extra 100 free joules of energy. How do you explain this paradox? >>>>>No, I never said such a thing. >>>>>>>It is the direct implication of what you are asserting>>>>No, it isn't.))))>>>>Yes it is))) >>>>>There is no paradox. The spring will not be compressed by the same amount by the two objects. >>>>>>>And yet in 350 years you haven't produced one physical experiment demonstrating that to be true. And you have no physical evidence defending Your assertion of twice as much energy... Your theory says a 5ton train going 10 miles an hour has twice as much energyability to do work as a 10 ton going 5 miles an hour. I claim you will never prove that to be true, and that if you actually collected the energy of the moving objects in a scientifically sensible manor it will be clearly demonstrated that they have the same capacity to do work. It doesn't seem like you actually have an argument here and are simply calling it wrong because it defies your intuition. >>>>And you have no physical evidence defending Your assertion of twice as much energy... If there was a tug of war between the two trains do you really think the lighter one would win? >>>>>The depends. What is the pulling force of the two trains? >>>>>>>>The pulling force is established by the momentum that variable was provided.>>>>The problem with using trains is that there is friction and drag to take into account......The universally adopted practice is to assume perfect environments to isolate the relevant variables.)))) If we used an idealized scenario where there is no drag and no friction, then neither train requires any force at all to keep moving at a constant velocity.)))>>>>The variables of mass and velocity were provided... Momentum is a known quantity... This isn't about how far they travel... It is about their Force at impact.)))) If I bang them into the same spring do you think the lighter one would compress it twice as much? >>>>>It depends on the specifics. >>>>>>>All the needed specifics were provided in the thought experiment. If we hook them up to a joule water tank do you think the lighter train will heat more water? >>>>>What is a "joule water tank"?>>>>>>Well you could Google it... But it is why the unit of energy is named after joule. It's a way of converting motion directly into heat and is intern a reliable way to measure something's energy.))))>>>>>If that's the case, then the lighter, slower moving train will indeed heat the water more.))))>>>>It is lighter and faster.... Regardless I'm quite certain you're wrong for the same reason I know half size wrecking balls don't knock down twice as many buildings. Too bad you can't provide any physical evidence... Even though you've had 350 years to collect it)))) How are you hooking it up? All of this still feels like you are arguing intuition over math. If you can find something wrong with the derivation of the kinetic energy formula, you could well end up being famous: >>>>Newton never said f= ma... What he actually said is that the total Force will equal the total change in momentum. The derivations are free energy nonsense. >>>>>So which part of the video is wrong and can you show how? >>>>>>>Hate to point out the obvious... But a derivation isn't physical experimental evidence>>>>>It is when the derivation is based on experimentally verified equations. It's easy to demonstrate that F=ma is accurate.)))>>>>I will point out again Newton didn't say F=ma. And you will not be able to show me any experiment where you collect different amounts of energy from objects with the same momentum)))) >>>>>>>As pointed out newton never said f=ma.>>>>>Whether or not Newton said something doesn't make it right or wrong.>>>>>I think it's a pretty big deal when people put words in someone else's mouth... Why is conventional physics doing that?))))>>>>> Newton wouldn't be silly enough to attempt to multiply a mass x a rate of acceleration.)))) And how do you explain that we've been able to successfully get spacecraft to other planets? >>>>>>>NASA clearly states it uses newtonian mechanics to navigate space...>>>>And that involves the standard kinetic energy equation.)))))>>>>There you go again...the standard kinetic energy equation is not Newtonian mechanics)))) Regardless you're evading the question, how can 2000 joules of trust produce the same effect as 2?>>>>>Because joules are a unit of energy, not thrust.))))>>>>If I can show a NASA engineer saying thrust is energy<<< It would be rather odd for you to claim that that an object with nonzero momentum has zero kinetic energy... The whole history of kinetic energy is odd... And unscientific. Newton believed in momentum and got correct answers... Because I believe in momentum does not mean I do not believe in energy. Show me it taking 4 times as much fuel to go twice as fast.... I'm afraid it's worse than that: It takes around 7 times as much fuel for a rocket to go twice as fast. The amount of fuel required to each a certain speed is governed by the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, which can be expressed as:.... >>>>>Just a case of garbage in garbage out. Too bad science has lost all orientation to physical evidence. Analyzing rocket thrust just provides another example of the paradox. Heavy objects make the gasoline week lite objects make the gasoline strong. Really bad logic. Do you think you can create heat or deformation and transfer 100% of your momentum to another object?  You can transfer 100% of your momentum to another object without permanent deformation  this is shown by the classic "Newton's Balls" toy. Mechanical energy is also conserved in this case.>>>>>A Newton's Cradle losses small fractions of energy with each swing. These other experimental examples lose one half the total energy in an instant yet transfer 99% of the momentum. Paradoxical impossibility. ))))  When there is permanent deformation (eg if the two objects stick together after the collision), the momentum is conserved, but the initial object does not transfer all of its momentum to the other object  it transfers all of its momentum to the combined object. Mechanical energy is not conserved in this case, since some is transformed into heat. >>>>>>>In 350 years you have no experimental evidence... You cannot show half the energies worth of deformation and Heat. And you certainly can't show the paradoxical reverse where I step on one end of a lever with 100 joules and create up to many hundreds of jewels on the other side of lever. .....Origin>>>>>>>>>>.That is a misconception of yours. If I apply 100N on one side of the lever and lift 1000N on the other side of the lever that does not mean more energy is expended on one side than the other, The work (energy) done is force x distance >>>>In gravity it's force x time))))>>>> Wrong, force x time does not equal energy.))))>>>>>Gravity is a very simple Force and your mass simply collects it... More mass, more collected per second. You are wrong.)))) and the distance the 100N moves is much larger than the distance the 1000N moved (10 times actually) >>>>>A lighter object placed on the other side of the leaver will move more distance in the same time. By your theory it's higher velocity will create a disproportionate increase in the joules of energy produced)))),>>>>>You really need to learn some basic physics, this is getting worse and worse.))))>>>>The evasion of my points certainly is getting worse))) so the number of joules is the same on both sides of the lever.>>>>>Clearly 1 kg going 10 miles an hour isn't by your theory the same energy as 1/2 kg going 20 miles an hour. The momentum is the same You are the one claiming the energies are different))))>>>>>Yes, that is correct. Good job!!))))))>>>>Proving the kinetic energy formula to be free energy nonsense)))) >>>>>>There is no misconception... The theory you are defending clearly claims that all you have to do to create more joules of energy is reduced Mass and increase velocity. Clearly your theory states things with the same momentum can deliver different amounts of energy.>>>>>levers are not about velocity.>>>>>On the contrary leavers are entirely about velocity... Small movements on one side produce large movements on the other side in the exact same time.))))) If you want to include the velocity you can add that complication but you will still find that the conservation of energy holds.))))>>>>Energy from momentum will be conserved...KE will not be conserved)))) Kinetic energy is in the units of joules why are you using Newton's? >>>>>Because levers are based on force.)))>>>>Force = energy =work =weight = heat ..a joule is the weight of 1 kg))))<<<<<The weight or force of 1 kg due to gravity on the surface of the earth is about 10 Newtons.>>>>>>A rare perfect agreement)))) 10 Newtons is 10 1 Joule is 1 is not the units of weight.>>>>Mathematical derivatives are fun... But let's try a physically real one. If I dropped one newton 1 m what would you guess its weight would be in the first milliseconds of hitting a scale? Fact is a Newton moving a velocity of 9.8 has a momentum equal to 1 kg moving 1 meter per second.))) I think you are either trolling or a "lost ball in high weeds".>>>>>These kind of opinions aren't very helpful...not exactly persuasive science edited for a silly mistake.)))))>>>>I don't think you got them all)))) If I drop one kilogram one meter (10 joules) on one side of the liver your theory says I can place lighter objects on the other side of the lever and produce Mass to Velocity relationships that will produce many times that 10 joules.>>>>>False. Do the math you will discover you are wrong.>>>>>By placing objects different distances from the fulcrum levers allow you to convert heavy slow things into fast lite things. You are wrong. Do some research or watch the video you won't let me post a link to. youtube watch?v=dPx2Srrqsg4)))) As I understand it, Relativity >>>>> 1 nonsense subject a time please)))says that the outcome of experiments is unchanged when you view them from any inertial frame of reference.  So the concept of "initial" and "final" momentum is purely in the eye of the beholder>>>>>Actual events are not changed by viewing prospective.))))  But momentum is conserved in all frames of reference>>>>>>Yes momentum works very good... kinetic energy is religious junk ))))  And energy is conserved in all frames of reference (if you include things like heat and sound as forms of energy)>>>>>Momentum is the only energy there ever was or ever will be. )))) Bored chemist 1/2 vmv Was willfully created to Force reality to match religious daydreams.... No, it wasn't. >>>>>Obviously you haven't read the actual history. Leibnitz created the "living Force" which was then just mvv, no moderating half in front... As an opposition to the "too atheist" science of Newton and Descarte. The simple truth is the kinetic energy formula can't be defended as good science because there is NO good physical experimental evidence proving its predictions. >>>>>This is probably the best known data on the subject https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/answers/whatisthestoppingandbrakingdistanceofacar))))>>>>>Like the clay experiments of the 1700 this is more poor reasoning, and bad science. The faster your velocity the less weight per square inch on the road surface. ie. Less friction. Your data also does not show the 4x prediction of your mathematics. far short in fact. ))))<<<<<The data shows it's a quadratic. That's enough to show that you are wrong.))))So when your kind says it takes "four times as much fuel to go twice as fast" you really mean three times? And I guess you're just going to ignore the sensible argument at higher speeds reduce friction.)))) Yes there is. Practically the whole of engineering etc relies on it. If it was wrong, engineering design wouldn't work. >>>>>>>Clearly your assertion is not physical experimental evidence. You have had 350 years and yet have found no credible real physical examples? ....If you want to talk about a lack of evidence, let's consider your idea that 1/2 mv^2 is wrong. What evidence do you have? >>>>>I can go outside and videotape me stepping on a lever and breaking the kinetic energy Theory. Unfortunately you won't let me post a link to the video. You still have not given any evidence for the KE formula being wrong.>>>>>and you have still produced no physical experimental evidence in defense of your 350 year old religious idea))))>>>>Yes I have. Designs work.))))>>>>Experimental evidence is a Cornerstone of good science...>>>> The fact that science works is experimental evidence.>>>>>That's like saying religion is working because everyone isn't a mass murderer))))>>>>No, it's saying that the designers of equipment these days rely on physics. If physics did not work, the designs would fail.<<<<<I think it's safe to say most Engineers don't use any theoretical physics and Historically trial and error is the greater success story.)))) You are saying that physics is wrong. I realise you think you are only saying that one small bit of it is wrong, but you fail to understand that the whole of physics fits together.<<<<Surveys say most physicists believe there's a fundamentally incompatibility between the theories of relativity and those of quantum mechanics. What I don't understand is your hysterical fear.)))).....That is because the "hysterical fear" only exists in your imagination.))))>>>>When this board is shut down for no good reason it won't be an imaginary event. It will just be more inquisitional censorship.>>>>> So you can't just change one little bit of it.)))>>>>>So if I was to reduce that to a meme it would be "leave it broken stupid")))) You have provided none. Whenever I point this out you repeat the lie that I have not given any evidence.))))>>>>In every case I have requested "physical" experimental evidence. I have perpetrated no lies.)))Math without physical evidence is just a fable.. an abstract analogy)))) You have, on the other hand proved comprehensively that you do not understand basic physics.>>>>And my opinion of your logical competence is likewise unflattering Kryptid Seriously? Momentum is only carried by moving objects. Moving objects must have kinetic energy.>>>>>No better than saying horses must have unicorn wings)))) If they didn't, you could use that to break conservation of energy. And if I did watch your videos, would you watch mine? Sure I will watch just about anything... Simple fact is I've seen all the math... It's just scalar and Vector dot product word games. You start with a false premise that f=ma is Newton...and add it to the silly w=fd Doesn't change the fact that the treatment is brutally unfair... Why solicit people with new theories to post if they aren't going to be allowed to defend the post? ....You started out saying that standard science is "silly nonsense" and "nonscience".>>>>>That's not exactly what I said... If I said conventional science has plus and minus wrong would you convert that into I said all science is wrong? I clearly believe physics has made a lot of what will be proven to be mistakes... Space isn't bent nothing is entangled and I think kinetic energy is mush. I don't think I was aggressively rude and making any of my arguments against kinetic energy.>>>>>You have not actually made any arguments against it. You just made mistakes.))))>>>>I'm rubber you're glue blah blah blah... Can you quote a single good argument leibnitz Made in defense of the "living Force"))))) May I inquire, have you actually read the history of the formula?)))) Maybe if you didn't come in here with a chip on your shoulder you wouldn't get this type of response?....Disagreement isn't Pleasant... We should agree to try not to make it any more unpleasant than is necessary.))) Kryptid... The other moderators and I were just having a conversation about what constitutes a reason for locking threads. One of things that we hit on was that repetition of something that is firmly known to be false despite continual correction could be grounds for locking a thread.>>>>I invite the mods to consider including that here https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0#lastPost with a view to curtailing this sort of nonsense more readily in future. <<<<<<This kind of censorship is ugly... You're making intelligence look stupid... And cowardly))))>>>>You seem to define intelligence as saying the same wrong thing over and over again. Interestingly, Einstein is said to have made the opposite observation. He said that repeatedly doing the same thing, hoping for a different outcome is insanity.))))<<<Newton didn't say f=ma ... And it's an insult to Einstein to think he would approve of your censorship.))))<<<<It's not censorship; the only issue here is your impatience.))) )))) For that reason, I am going to advise you to:>>>>>Like the Inquisition to Galileo... Stop speaking your truth or else.)))) >>>>This is an amazing sham to be perpetrated by people who sell themselves as science lovers>>>>It is not a sham. No one is stopping you explaining a new scientific theory,>>>>You have overtly convicted me of crimes I have not committed and overtly threatened my ability to continue to make arguments.)))) but someone who posts the following â€œForce = energy =work =weight = heat ..a joule is the weight of 1 kgâ€ clearly has no understanding of science and maths and is just trolling pure misinformation. Your choice, not ours.)))))>>>>>On my website I am offering $2,000 for any wellknown physicist too debunk my claims ... I'm offering up to $100 an hour to any physicist capable of participating in a recorded conversation to debate me on these subjects. I'm not trolling you ...you're trolling me.)))))>>>> (1) Stop saying that force is energy>>>>Stop quoting Newton and descarte)))) (when you claimed that a newton is 1/10 of a joule). A stick of dynamite contains energy even if there is no force acting on it.<<<<I certainly never argued otherwise... But that energy has nothing to do with the energy its mass in motion would provide in a car accident.))))) (2) Stop saying that energy is momentum (when you claimed momentum is the only energy there ever was or ever will be).>>>>>Why don't you just ban everything written by the descarte and Newton))) A stick of dynamite contains energy even if itâ€™s sitting still (and therefore has no momentum).>>>>>If I throw a can of gas against a brick wall and it just spills out should I assume all the chemical energy in the gasoline added to the momentum that hit the wall?)))) If you do not cease with this, I am going to lock the thread to stop the spam.>>>>The Protectors of the faith have spoken ...bok Bok)))) If you want me to demonstrate that the standard kinetic energy equation is correct, then I will do so.>>>>>I'm interested in physical experimental evidence... Like most of the great scientists in history.)))) Letâ€™s start with something that, hopefully, isnâ€™t too much of a stretch for you to agree on: if an elevator goes up 1 floor,<<<<I haven't received any reasonable reply to the thought experiments I provided... And now you want to change the subject)))) then a certain amount of energy has to be expended in order to raise it up against the force of gravity. The amount of energy expended will be the same whether it is going from ground level up to floor 1 or whether it is going from floor 1 to floor 2. This is because the elevator is moving the same distance against gravity in both cases*. (*Yes, Iâ€™m aware that gravity becomes weaker with distance, but on the scale of something so small as a building when compared to the Earth, that effect is negligible for all practical purposes here.) So we can conclude that it takes twice as much energy for the elevator to be raised against gravity when moving twice the distance.>>>>Only if the velocity remains constant... Gravity Falls like rain the longer you're in it the more you collect. A larger your mass the more you collect.)))) In order for energy to be conserved, the inverse must also be true. An object that falls twice the distance gains twice the kinetic energy. <<<<<in gravity it takes 4 times the distance to double the velocity... Twice the time))))) This leads to point number 1: (1) The amount of kinetic energy gained by an object when it falls is linearly proportional to the distance that it falls.>>>>None of my thought experiments have anything directly to do with gravity. How is this conversation relevant to you proving 8 lb bowling balls going 16 miles an hour have twice as much energy as 16 lb balls going eight.))))) Now we move on to acceleration due to gravity. When an object is released in a gravitational field with a force of 1G, that mass will accelerate at a rate of 9.81 meters per second per second (which is something that I hope you do not dispute, since this actually has been measured).>>>>>Yet in the first meter it only achieves a speed of 4.8 m/s So what we need to know is how fast it is travelling after some distance D and how fast it is travelling after some distance 2D (Iâ€™ll say 1 meter and 2 meters, to make this easier and we are going to ignore air resistance. We can say we perform this experiment in a vacuum chamber). We can do this using Torricelliâ€™s equation. The final velocity after falling one meter is: (vfinal)2 = (vinitial)2 + 2aÎ”x (vfinal)2 = 02 + 2(9.81)(1) (vfinal)2 = 19.62 vfinal = âˆš19.62 vfinal = 4.42945 m/s The final velocity after falling two meters is: (vfinal)2 = 02 + 2(9.81)(2) (vfinal)2 = 39.24 vfinal = âˆš39.24 vfinal = 6.2641839 m/s So how much faster is the object going after falling twice as far? That would be 6.2641839/4.42945 = 1.4141966 times faster. Despite falling twice as far (and therefore gaining twice as much kinetic energy, as per â€œpoint number 1â€), the object has not gained twice the speed, but less than twice the speed instead. This leads to point number 2:>>>>This has nothing to do with any of my arguments. If I drop a 1 Mass object 1 m from the fulcrum of a lever. And place a a 1/2 Mass object 2 meters from the fulcrum on the other side of the leaver... The half mass object will not be launched at only 1.4 the velocity of the dropped Mass))))) (2) Doubling an objectâ€™s kinetic energy results in only about a 1.4142fold increase in speed.>>>>The subject under contention is the existence of kinetic energy. Momentum is the only thing that ever needs to be conserved))))) Now the question arises, does this match what the standard kinetic energy equation predicts? When rearranged to solve for velocity when kinetic energy is known, the equation takes the form: v = âˆš(KE/(0.5)m). When kinetic energy is set to 1 joule for a mass of 1 kilogram, we get: v = âˆš(KE/(0.5)m) v = âˆš(1/(0.5)1) v = âˆš(2) v = 1.4142 m/s If we double the kinetic energy to 2 joules, we get; v = âˆš(KE/(0.5)m) v = âˆš(2/(0.5)1) v = âˆš(4) v = 2 m/s Since 2 divided by 1.4142 is equal to 1.4142, we see that the standard kinetic energy equation matches what was stated in point number 2. So there you have it, a stepbystep explanation for how we know that the kinetic energy equation is correct. So we can now come to one of three conclusions: (1) Point number 1 is wrong (that energy isnâ€™t gained linearly with distance fallen), (2) Point number 2 is wrong (which in turn either means that Torricelliâ€™s equation for acceleration is wrong or that I have done a miscalculation), or (3) The kinetic energy equation is correct. So which is it?>>>>>>Point 1 is certainly wrong as gravity is a time dependent Force. As Newton said force equals change in the momentum over unit of time... If you want to know the total Force you just find the total change in the momentum. point 2 is only relevant when analyzing force applied at a constant rate As to (3) I would point out that For the first 100 years the kinetic energy equation was vmv.)))) >>>>So you are saying that you are not going to comply. That's strike 2. 3 strikes and you're out. I'm giving you one more chance to fix that problem.)))>>>>>>If I could request immunity for this one post... I'm not exactly clear regarding my crimes... I believe momentum is energy... Descarte believed momentum was energy... Galileo believed momentum was energy.... Newton believed momentum was energy. You're saying I'm not allowed to use any of their arguments, or any arguments of my own in defense of that sincere belief? >>>>>We are saying you can not use things that were proven to be mistaken.>>>>Well I certainly disagree that you have proven anything... Beyond proving you don't like free speech.)))) The fact that the earliest scientists did not distinguish between momentum and energy is interesting, but only if you are studying "the history of science". Their misunderstanding are not part of modern science.))))>>>>your Modern science is apparently doing more stepping on the shoulders of giants... then standing on them.)))) ... So I'm supposed to argue why kinetic energy is wrong without arguing why momentum is right?))))>>>>Momentum is right; when you are talking about the thing you get by multiplying mass by velocity. And kinetic energy is right when you are talking about the thing you get by multiplying mass by half of the square of the velocity. They are different.<<<<<Do you have an Einstein quote regarding the sanity of having two different opposing definitions of the same thing? >>>> What two definitions of the same thing do you think you are talking about?)))>>>>>From 1650 to about 1812 there was extensive debate among scientists regarding the nature of "energy". Not unlike the debate regarding the existence of an aether. Some scientists believe momentum defines energy... Others believed in the "living Force". I will plainly argue that the trial of these facts only took place in kangaroo courts. And the issue needs fair and disciplined adjudication. Which it clearly won't receive here.))))For the first hundred years the subject was argued no one thought the concepts were compatible. Now you just say they are.))) They have different properties; both are conserved, but one can be converted to other forms.))))>>>>>I disagree with this entirely...<<<<<Every single experiment and observation has shown it to be true. If you disagree with it, you are a fantasist.))))>>>>So the entire paragraph Was Shakespearean perfection... And anyone who might disagree should be insulted and censored. Fun Club you have here.))))) But apparently I'm not able to argue it without risking my speaking rights.>>>>The problem is not so much what your beliefs are as the fact that you won't accept when they are shown to be wrong. That is a longstanding problem on this forum that started years and years ago. Energy is neither force nor momentum. These things are very well understood by the science community. We didn't just sit still during the time of Newton or Galileo. We have learned a lot since then. What they believed is irrelevant to what is actually true. You are also causing a problem by requiring us to show a physical experiment that confirms our statements while at the same time not requiring your own statements to be backed up by physical experiment. You have not actually thrown coke bottles or dimes out of a spaceship. You have not crashed trains into springs. That is the pot calling the kettle black. You are trying to use your own intuition about what you think should happen as some kind of refutation of modern science. Intuition isn't evidence. That isn't going to work.)))) I certainly disagree with most of this but out of fear of losing my speaking rights I will not respond. To narrow the issue, let's focus on one simple experiment using a very simple device, a lever: If I drop a 1 Mass object a distance of 1m from the fulcrum of a lever. And place a 1/2 Mass object 2 meters from the fulcrum on the other side of the lever... The half mass object will not be launched at only 1.4 the velocity of the dropped Mass. It will in fact leave the lever with twice the velocity.>>>>Prove it.)))>>>>>Think of a rigid pendulum, there are small movements at the top and very large movements at the bottom. The movements all must happen in the same time.>>>>No, they can not.)))))>>>>>The top of a pendulum doesn't have to move distance in the same time frame as the bottom of the pendulum?))))>>>>>You seem not to understand that the pendulum bends.))))))>>>>I'll agree I don't understand what you're talking about and how it's relevant to the basic function of a lever.)))) The movement at the bottom must travel more distance at a higher velocity.)))) If we engineer it to fall straight down it will land back on the lever with the same doubled velocity. Upon the 1/2 mass Landing the 1 Mass object on the other side will leave the leaver with 1/2 the velocity of the half mass object. On the one mass side of the lever a certain amount of kinetic energy will be oscillating up and down... On the other side of the lever twice as much kinetic energy will be oscillating up and down. How is this not a free energy paradox? >>>>>Did you actually perform this experiment in physical reality? If not, then you are still the pot calling the kettle black.)))<<<<<In starting this subject I intended to provide video links to clips of different experiments. I did not realize I would be prevented from doing so. Regardless I wish there were more "actual experiments" in the reservoir of data to be processed. I wish physics would repeat the Eddington experiment with the four hundred times better resolution from space. We should agree that it would be very nice if you could show an experiment where it takes four times more gas you go twice as fast. Regarding my thought experiment, levers have been used for tens of thousands of years by human beings. Essential to its function is its ability to conversationally convert different forms of momentum. The fact that a 10ton train dropped on one side of a lever can produce a 5ton train going 2x as fast on the other side should not be a possible dispute as the momentum is conserved.<<<<Conservation of momentum is not only about the magnitude of momentum, but also its direction. A 10ton train falling downwards and a 5ton train moving upwards at twice the speed do not, in fact, have the same momentum (as they are moving in opposite directions).<<<<<Momentum is mass times velocity.>>>>>Yes, that tells you its magnitude, but that doesn't tell you its direction.)))) I can't possibly understand the word game you are playing here.))))>>>> So you didn't know that momentum was a vector quantity (in that it has both magnitude and direction)? It's necessary to take the direction into account when talking about conservation of momentum. Failure to do that can lead to ideas like reactionless drives (which violate physics).)))) If we have a very rusty lever that is stuck in place, we can drop the 10ton train on one side and the 5ton train won't move at all. <<< 
