Prev: Preferred Frame Theory supported by Hafele-Keating experiment
Next: point particle vs particle with structure
From: colp on 18 Jul 2010 20:11
On Jul 19, 11:47 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 10:58 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 3:42 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 10:49 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 18, 3:53 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 17, 5:54 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 18, 4:29 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 16, 11:39 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 2:07 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid
> > > > > > > > > theory.  There is no concept of absolutes there.
>
> > > > > > > > Nope. For example, take two molecules, each with mass m, and separated
> > > > > > > > by distance d. Give the molecules velocities such that they will
> > > > > > > > approach each others center of mass and collide at time t. The
> > > > > > > > calculated energy of the collision will depend on how you measure your
> > > > > > > > velocities.
>
> > > > > > > > For either molecule, the relative velocity of the other molecule will
> > > > > > > > be d/t or -d/t.
> > > > > > > > The calculated energy of collision is 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 m.d^2/t^2, since
> > > > > > > > one molecule is deemed to be stationary.
>
> > > > > > > > If, instead, we say that each molecule is moving toward a stationary
> > > > > > > > collision point, then v = d/2t or -d/2t
> > > > > > > > The calculated energy of collision is now 2 * 1/2 mv^2 = m.d^2/4t^2 =
> > > > > > > > 1/2 m.d^2/2t^2
>
> > > > > > > > The two calculations disagree by a factor of two.
>
> > > > > > > So?  What's your point.  
>
> > > > > > That the concept of absolute motion is inherent to kinetic theory.
>
> > > > > > > Instead of two molecules use you and the
> > > > > > > Earth...  From your perspective it's the Earth is hurling towards you
> > > > > > > with a momentum of Mv and you're motionless.  OTOH, from the Earth
> > > > > > > perspective it is motionless and you are hurling towards it at mv...
>
> > > > > > You have addressed the issue of momentum, not kinetic energy.
>
> > > > > You have GOT to be kidding?
>
> > > > Not at all. You said:
>
> > > > "Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid
> > > > theory.  There is no concept of absolutes there."
>
> > > > The gas laws are part of fluid theory, and one of the gas laws
> > > > describes pressure in terms of average kinetic energy. The calculation
> > > > of kinetic energy depends on how you measure velocity; i.e. the
> > > > velocity relative to a co-ordinate system which is deemed to be
> > > > absolute. If your coordinate system doesn't agree with the actual
> > > > absolute coordinate system, then your calculations don't work, just
> > > > the same as for the relativistic case of the H-K experiment.
>
> > > Momentum and Energy have a directly proportional relationship.
>
> > Not it terms of velocity they don't, and velocity is dependent upon
> > the coordinate system that is chosen to represent, i.e. the nominally
> > 'absolute' reference system.
>
> I'm sorry but, in our universe, momentum and energy is, by definition,
> are alway directly proportional by the speed relative TO the measuring
> system.

So are you saying that kinetic energy does not equal 1/2 mv^2?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html

The point is that you are wrong when you assert that there is no
concept of absolutes in the kinetic theory which underpins fluid
theory. The math which proves you wrong is included within the context
of this post.
From: eric gisse on 18 Jul 2010 22:02
colp wrote:

[...]

>> I'm sorry but, in our universe, momentum and energy is, by definition,
>> are alway directly proportional by the speed relative TO the measuring
>> system.
>
> So are you saying that kinetic energy does not equal 1/2 mv^2?

Paul is wrong about many things but not about this.

>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html
>
> The point is that you are wrong when you assert that there is no
> concept of absolutes in the kinetic theory which underpins fluid
> theory. The math which proves you wrong is included within the context
> of this post.

You don't understand fluid mechanics either, stupid. What a goddamn shocker.

From: colp on 18 Jul 2010 23:01
On Jul 19, 2:02 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> colp wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I'm sorry but, in our universe, momentum and energy is, by definition,
> >> are alway directly proportional by the speed relative TO the measuring
> >> system.
>
> > So are you saying that kinetic energy does not equal 1/2 mv^2?
>
> Paul is wrong about many things but not about this.

So you are saying that kinetic energy does not equal 1/2 mv^2?

(original context reposted)

Paul:
> Just look at the aspects of kinetic theory which underpins ALL! fluid
> theory. There is no concept of absolutes there.

Nope. For example, take two molecules, each with mass m, and separated
by distance d. Give the molecules velocities such that they will
approach each others center of mass and collide at time t. The
calculated energy of the collision will depend on how you measure your
velocities.

For either molecule, the relative velocity of the other molecule will
be d/t or -d/t.
The calculated energy of collision is 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 m.d^2/t^2, since
one molecule is deemed to be stationary.

If, instead, we say that each molecule is moving toward a stationary
collision point, then v = d/2t or -d/2t
The calculated energy of collision is now 2 * 1/2 mv^2 = m.d^2/4t^2 =
1/2 m.d^2/2t^2

The two calculations disagree by a factor of two.
From: colp on 19 Jul 2010 00:39
On Jul 19, 3:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> colp wrote:
> > On Jul 19, 2:02 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> colp wrote:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> >> I'm sorry but, in our universe, momentum and energy is, by definition,
> >> >> are alway directly proportional by the speed relative TO the measuring
> >> >> system.
>
> >> > So are you saying that kinetic energy does not equal 1/2 mv^2?
>
> >> Paul is wrong about many things but not about this.
>
> > So you are saying that kinetic energy does not equal 1/2 mv^2?
>
> No, but momentum is.

Then Paul is wrong for saying that energy is always directly
proportional to speed, and you are wrong for endorsing him.

But, getting back you your accusation, you said:

"You've already been caught once fabricating quotes about what papers
say"

Again, why don't you quote what I said?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Preferred Frame Theory supported by Hafele-Keating experiment
Next: point particle vs particle with structure