Kinetic to heat (building a spaceship)
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Big Bang is a amorphous, a nonentity, process whereas Atom Totality is a "something that is building" Chapt 3 #153; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Serpent Mound. Ohio. Part 2.
From: nuny on 16 Jun 2010 07:22 On Jun 15, 12:53 pm, gb <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Heat is not kinetic energy. > > I looked up kinetic energy, you confused me on that. I defined it > properly originally as I started this thread, kinetic to heat. What definition did you find that denies that heat is kinetic energy? Mark L. Fergerson
From: nuny on 16 Jun 2010 07:27 On Jun 15, 11:31 am, gb <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Do you think momentum is mysteriously lost every time the cops test > > a gun this way? > > Well, I have a theory here... Yes, I already know that. I asked you a specific question about a situation it predicts will have a specific result, the "mysterious loss" of momentum. Do you have an answer? > One can see covered water bubbles in space... Please stick with one illustrative example at a time. I ask again; do you think momentum is mysteriously lost every time the cops test a gun as I described, yes or no? Mark L. Fergerson
From: JT on 16 Jun 2010 15:42 On 16 Juni, 13:27, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 11:31 am, gb <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Do you think momentum is mysteriously lost every time the cops test > > > a gun this way? > > > Well, I have a theory here... > > Yes, I already know that. I asked you a specific question about a > situation it predicts will have a specific result, the "mysterious > loss" of momentum. Do you have an answer? > > > One can see covered water bubbles in space... > > Please stick with one illustrative example at a time. > > I ask again; do you think momentum is mysteriously lost every time > the cops test a gun as I described, yes or no? > > Mark L. Fergerson There is a very simple answer to all this, randomly vibrate a low mass glass bulb filled of sand or salt crystals stop shake it when the system crystal sytem taken on momentum and behave truly chatoic respective the reference glass bulb. Now let it free float the bulb will not move only oscillate and finally come to stop just like the sandcrystals. Now you boneheads where did the momentum go, even a bot could figure it out. Same goes for a glass bulb filled with water that is boiling in space the water molecules have momentum but after a while, the water will settle down, now did not the boiling water have momentum in the first place. Start to think bot brains. JT
From: gb on 17 Jun 2010 13:58 On Jun 15, 4:27 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 2:21 pm, gb <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Now I take away momentum, in that sense of 'internally lost energy of > > > > momentum'. > > > > You have missed a very fundamental finding in physics. Momentum > > > is always conserved! There is no "internally lost energy of momentum" > > > > You appear not to know the differences between the concepts of > > > momentum, energy and thermodynamics. Easily remedied with a freshman > > > level physics textbook. Google is your friend. > > > Can impact momentum (from an object) into a sandbag evaporate energy > > by scattering that energy in all direction between resonating sand > > crystals? > > > Never mind. > > Kinetic energy can change to heat energy, but there no way to lose > momentum in a sandbag free to move on impact of a bullrt. So sand crystals don't swallow up energy by vibrating. The way I see it is punching a sandbag in the gym. It does not swing much because maybe it absorbs a lot of the energy. Is there a good absorbant better than sand? (asking it in general from others, if somebody knows it)
From: gb on 17 Jun 2010 14:04
On Jun 15, 1:12 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 2:24 pm, gb <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 6:18 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 6/13/10 5:01 PM, gb wrote: > > > > > Can impact into a bag filled with > > > > sand absorb the impact into vibrations, where the sandbag itself would > > > > move with less energy after the hit because some energy is lost, > > > > absorbed? Do water bags colliding absorb energy of impact? My only > > > > experiment revolves around five pool table balls hanging in line and > > > > hitting the first one moves the last one. Can we make energy absorbed > > > > so the last one moves just a little, then place these absorbing balls > > > > to the bottom of the spaceship? > > > > Get some water balloons, go to the sandy beach, do some experiments, > > > write down the experimental setup, record the data and experimental > > > error and draw conclusions. Apply mathematical analysis. Write this > > > all down in a lab notebook and get back to us. > > > It should be interesting that hanging five pool table balls and > > hitting the first one in the line sends the last one up. Yet this > > momentum transferred through the balls does not apply with sand balls > > where sand crystal vibrations remove this momentum of impact. > > > The problem belongs to physicists to solve. > > Where are the experimental results, the error analysis and the lab > notebooks? In the absence of data, there is no problem to solve. > > In particular, what was the total momentum of the sand balls > before and after impact? We don't want idle speculation about > sand crystal vibrations. We want a reproducible experiment > showing a failure of momentum conservation in an appropriately > closed system. > > If you have one, we've got a Nobel prize nomination waiting. This idea was more understood by most than I expected when I came here. |