There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
Next: Question about energy eigenvalues of a Hamiltonian, in general
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:20 On May 14, 8:12 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD, the STONEHEAD: WORK IS NEVER NONE WITHOUT THERE BEING A RESISTING > FORCE. That isn't so. Putting it in caps doesn't make it any less wrong. There is no resistance for an object in free-fall, for example. Nor is there resistance for an object on a hockey rink while it is being pushed by a hockey stick. > HAIL THAT IS COASTING (or has large components of coasting) > DOESN"T HAVE A SEMI-PARABOLICALLY INCREASING RESISTANCE. So your > theory is patently wrong!. Oh, you never have quoted the text, nor > shown the formulas that you claim consider that COASTING objects are > increasing in either KE or work potential. Ha, ha, HA! NE Things that don't have any resistance are not necessarily coasting, John. Consider something in free-fall. Any bozo should be able to see that. > > > > > On May 14, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD hasn't quoted any authoritative source showing that WORK is in any > > > way involved in calculating KE. > > > Oh, yes, I have, John. You don't seem to remember anything that was > > told to you the day before. > > Do you like easy to read pages? Here's one for students at West > > Virginia University:http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/WorkEngergyTheor... > > "The energy associated with the work done by the net force does not > > disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), it is > > transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this the Work- > > Energy Theorem." > > > > And he hasn't quoted any > > > authoritative source saying that "work" can be done simply by > > > COASTING, against no resistance! > > > The definition of work is in high school books, John. > > > > And he certainly can't explain how > > > 'gravity' could possibly 'know' the velocities of every falling object > > > (like hail from varying heights) and add the exact semi-parabolic KE > > > increase to each. > > > Doesn't have to, John. The force is not solely responsible for the > > increase in energy. The work is. The work is the product of both the > > force and the displacement. That's how the work increases in each > > second. It's simple, John. Seventh graders can understand it. I don't > > know why you're so much slower than the average 7th grader. > > > > In short, PD is a total, sidestepping FRAUD! And > > > 95% of the readers know that he's a fraud! NoEinstein > > > > > On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 > > > > > isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until > > > > > you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- > > > > > head FRAUD! NoEinstein > > > > > Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask > > > > you this time to print it out. > > > > > The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy > > > > of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. > > > > > The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of > > > > the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely > > > > to this work. > > > > > In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the > > > > increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by > > > > the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of > > > > kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work > > > > that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law > > > > of conservation of energy has been respected. > > > > > In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it > > > > will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an > > > > additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has > > > > remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the > > > > second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that > > > > it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the > > > > second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. > > > > > Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, > > > > after the first second, is the force of gravity times the > > > > displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic > > > > energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, > > > > we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's > > > > the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic > > > > energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 > > > > ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger > > > > than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll > > > > add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the > > > > displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this > > > > added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it > > > > now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 > > > > ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first > > > > second. > > > > > Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since > > > > the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in > > > > subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which > > > > gravity added. The energy is conserved. > > > > > It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in > > > > the ratios 1:4:9. > > > > Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios > > > > 1:2:3. > > > > > Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, > > > > losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as > > > > the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. > > > > > There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is > > > > proportional to v^2. > > > > > Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of > > > > this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > > > On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > > > > > > > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > > > > > > > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not > > > > > > remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your > > > > > > newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times > > > > > > when it has been explained to you. > > > > > > > I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins > > > > > > anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. > > > > > > > I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to > > > > > > you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by > > > > > > morning, do you? > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:27 On May 14, 7:15 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Thanks for copying... "something". You > pasted: "The energy associated with the work done by the net force > does not disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), > it is transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this > the Work- > Energy Theorem." > > For starters: The most common KE is for dropped objects. That simply isn't true. Every time you drive somewhere, your car (and you in it) have KE, and that has nothing to do with being dropped, I hope. Same thing with walking from your chair to the toilet, John -- hopefully you drop nothing on the way. > There is no > "work done" by the net force. Of course there is. There is an increase in kinetic energy, and this increase has to come from work. That's the work-energy theorem. If you'd like me to quote a textbook, I'll quote the same high school text I used elsewhere: Holt Physics (2009), pg 166: "The equation W_net = (1/2)mv_f^2 - (1/2)mv_i^2 derived at the beginning of this section says that the net work done by a net force acting on an object is equal to the change in the kinetic energy of the object. This important relation [is] known as the work-kinetic energy theorem..." > There is only the uniform force acting > to cause a linear increase in the KE from second ZERO. If the force > (such as a rocket engine) is cut off, the KE at the last instant > before the cut-off will continue as a constant KE. Your supposed Work- > Energy Theorem is NOT the same as the Law of the Conservation of > Energy. Oh, but it is. > If you can, find any place that says that WORK can increase > without there being a reaction LOAD. Zero LOAD = ZERO work done. I'm sorry, but that isn't so. Look at Chapter 5, section 2 of the book above, and you will see several examples. > Ha, > ha, HA! NoEinstein > > > > > On May 14, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > PD hasn't quoted any authoritative source showing that WORK is in any > > > way involved in calculating KE. > > > Oh, yes, I have, John. You don't seem to remember anything that was > > told to you the day before. > > Do you like easy to read pages? Here's one for students at West > > Virginia University:http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/WorkEngergyTheor... > > "The energy associated with the work done by the net force does not > > disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), it is > > transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this the Work- > > Energy Theorem." > > > > And he hasn't quoted any > > > authoritative source saying that "work" can be done simply by > > > COASTING, against no resistance! > > > The definition of work is in high school books, John. > > > > And he certainly can't explain how > > > 'gravity' could possibly 'know' the velocities of every falling object > > > (like hail from varying heights) and add the exact semi-parabolic KE > > > increase to each. > > > Doesn't have to, John. The force is not solely responsible for the > > increase in energy. The work is. The work is the product of both the > > force and the displacement. That's how the work increases in each > > second. It's simple, John. Seventh graders can understand it. I don't > > know why you're so much slower than the average 7th grader. > > > > In short, PD is a total, sidestepping FRAUD! And > > > 95% of the readers know that he's a fraud! NoEinstein > > > > > On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 > > > > > isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until > > > > > you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- > > > > > head FRAUD! NoEinstein > > > > > Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask > > > > you this time to print it out. > > > > > The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy > > > > of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. > > > > > The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of > > > > the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely > > > > to this work. > > > > > In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the > > > > increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by > > > > the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of > > > > kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work > > > > that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law > > > > of conservation of energy has been respected. > > > > > In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it > > > > will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an > > > > additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has > > > > remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the > > > > second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that > > > > it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the > > > > second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. > > > > > Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, > > > > after the first second, is the force of gravity times the > > > > displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic > > > > energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, > > > > we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's > > > > the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic > > > > energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 > > > > ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger > > > > than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll > > > > add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the > > > > displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this > > > > added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it > > > > now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 > > > > ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first > > > > second. > > > > > Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since > > > > the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in > > > > subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which > > > > gravity added. The energy is conserved. > > > > > It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in > > > > the ratios 1:4:9. > > > > Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios > > > > 1:2:3. > > > > > Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, > > > > losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as > > > > the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. > > > > > There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is > > > > proportional to v^2. > > > > > Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of > > > > this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > > > On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > > > > > > > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > > > > > > > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not > > > > > > remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your > > > > > > newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times > > > > > > when it has been explained to you. > > > > > > > I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins > > > > > > anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. > > > > > > > I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to > > > > > > you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by > > > > > > morning, do you? > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:29 On May 14, 7:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD: Answer this: What the hell is your definition of MOMENTUM? I already told you. You forgot. Go look up where I told you. I will not repeat myself. > Quote that from the text which says that WORK is involved in > calculating the Law of the Conservation of ENERGY. I did that today, John, can you find that? > That law says: > ENERY in must = ENERGY out. Is that too difficult for you, PD? NE > > > > > > On May 14, 2:54 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 7, 12:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: ... and what does THAT have to do with > > > the price-of-eggs in China? NE > > > You made this claim: the longer a theory is debated, the less its > > validity. The roundness of the earth has been debated five times > > longer than relativity has been debated. According to YOU, then, the > > theory that the earth is round is five times more invalid than > > relativity. > > > That's what it has to do with the price of eggs in China, John. > > > > > On May 6, 9:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On May 5, 12:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Consider this, PD: The validity of any science theory is inversely > > > > > proportional to the time spend debating it. Einstein's 'relativity' > > > > > has been debated for over a century, and such is patently WRONG! > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > There is ongoing debate about whether the Earth is flat, John.http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm > > > > Since this debate has been going on for 500 years, by your argument, > > > > the claim that the earth is round is 5x as wrong as relativity is. > > > > > > > On May 5, 2:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 4, 11:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > PD: And the point of your 'addition' extrapolation is? Your science > > > > > > > notions are shallow enough without implying that I have disavowed > > > > > > > common math. If Einstein had known how to do simple mathnowhere in > > > > > > > evidence in his (mindless) equation physicsperhaps the dark ages of > > > > > > > Einstein wouldn't have lasted so long. NoEinstein > > > > > > > You made a general statement that if something is generally accepted, > > > > > > then that is a sign that it is nearly certainly WRONG. > > > > > > > Now you don't seem so sure. > > > > > > > You don't want to disavow common math, but you are certainly willing > > > > > > to disavow common, grade school mechanics like Newton's 2nd law.. And I > > > > > > want to point out again that this has nothing to do with the "dark > > > > > > ages of Einstein", since Newton's 2nd law has been around for 323 > > > > > > years! You've decided that all of physics since Galileo and Newton are > > > > > > the dark ages! Einstein has nothing to do with your complaint. > > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 17 May 2010 14:59 On May 15, 5:46 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On May 14, 10:49 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > PD: Like I've explained, it is the head-on ether pressure inside the > ring that holds the muons together, longer. Calculate how much longer the muon should live due to head-on ether pressure. Relativity allows you to calculate this and it gets the answer right. If you have an explanation but no calculation, then you have nothing worthwhile for science. It's much like architecture: If you can draw a pretty building but you cannot calculate loads on beams, then you have nothing worthwhile for architecture either. > Lorentz was a drunken > fool. His rubber-ruler explanation for M-M violates all principles of > engineering. What principle of engineering do you think Lorentz time dilation violates? You do know, don't you, that hundreds of engineers make use of time dilation in their designs as they need to? Who do you think designed the Tevatron? That's right: engineers. > Ether pressure, not space-time and rubber rulers, is why > the decay of the muons is slower when traveling at high speed. Prove it. The success of a physical explanation is ALWAYS based on how well the model's predictions match measurements quantitatively. > > NoEinstein > > > > > On May 14, 3:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 2:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Where is your evidence, PD? You only CLAIM that you showed evidence. > > > PARAPHRASE everything! NE > > > I did exactly what you asked for. I paraphrased the evidence that you > > will not look up yourself. That paraphrased evidence is below. If you > > do not believe the paraphrasing, then you will have to look at the > > evidence yourself. I'd be happy to provide you the reference for where > > you can do that. > > > > > On May 7, 5:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 7, 3:02 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 7, 9:08 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: No. Since you are a fraud, I would be > > > > > > happy if you could find, and paraphrase, even one bit of evidence > > > > > > supporting, Lorentz. He and Einstein (ha!) were meant for each other! > > > > > > NE > > > > > > Oh, this is easy. There is a circular track that circulates muons at a > > > > > lab called g-2. > > > > > > Here is a picture of it, in case you doubt it's real:http://www.g-2.bnl.gov/pictures/g2magnet2.jpg > > > > > > The ring is about 30 feet across and about 90 feet around. Muons at > > > > > rest live for 2.2 microseconds, which is easily observed with a Navy > > > > > surplus oscilloscope. If the muons lived that long in the ring, they > > > > > would go around the ring about 24 times before decaying. Instead, they > > > > > go around 37 times. That is, they live longer when they are traveling > > > > > fast around the ring. But the extra time they have before decaying is > > > > > exactly what Lorentz time dilation says they will have. Perfect > > > > > example of just one bit of evidence that time dilation is real. There > > > > > is of course scads and scads of further evidence. > > > > > > There. Short and sweet, and indisputable. > > > > > I hope you see, John, that the Lorentz equations are fully consistent > > > > with experimental measurements.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: NoEinstein on 17 May 2010 18:47
On May 14, 10:33 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: In physics there is no requirement that "work" (force x distance moved) be done before a force can be replied. A two year old kid pushing on a square marble block as tall as the kid, is applying a FORCE to the block, even though there is ZERO displacement. Objects which are being held in some high place prior to being dropped in an experiment, are actually already being acted upon by the steady force of gravity that's = the object's weight. The latter static weight is my contribution to understanding momentum-variant kinetic energy. My correct formula, which replaces KE = 1/2mv^2, and E = mc^2 / beta, is: KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). An object falling for one second will have a KE (force in pounds) of two weight units; two seconds, three weight units; three seconds, four weight units; four seconds 5 weight units. Those values were confirmed in TWO KE experiments, including that $40.00 one which you could easily do yourself. But since your motive is to disagree, you'll never accept any science truth. NoEinstein KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q= > > On May 14, 3:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On May 7, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > PD hasn't quoted any authoritative source showing that WORK is in any > > way involved in calculating KE. > > Oh, yes, I have, John. You don't seem to remember anything that was > told to you the day before. > Do you like easy to read pages? Here's one for students at West > Virginia University:http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Work/WorkEngergyTheor... > "The energy associated with the work done by the net force does not > disappear after the net force is removed (or becomes zero), it is > transformed into the Kinetic Energy of the body. We call this the Work- > Energy Theorem." > > > And he hasn't quoted any > > authoritative source saying that "work" can be done simply by > > COASTING, against no resistance! > > The definition of work is in high school books, John. > > > And he certainly can't explain how > > 'gravity' could possibly 'know' the velocities of every falling object > > (like hail from varying heights) and add the exact semi-parabolic KE > > increase to each. > > Doesn't have to, John. The force is not solely responsible for the > increase in energy. The work is. The work is the product of both the > force and the displacement. That's how the work increases in each > second. It's simple, John. Seventh graders can understand it. I don't > know why you're so much slower than the average 7th grader. > > > > > In short, PD is a total, sidestepping FRAUD! And > > 95% of the readers know that he's a fraud! NoEinstein > > > > On May 7, 3:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On May 7, 9:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > PD, you are a LIAR! Never ONCE have you explained why KE = 1/2mv^2 > > > > isn't in violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Until > > > > you do (and you CAN'T) everyone will know that you are just an air- > > > > head FRAUD! NoEinstein > > > > Oh, but I have. If you really need to have it explained again, I ask > > > you this time to print it out. > > > > The law of conservation of energy says that any change in the energy > > > of a system must be due solely to the work done on the system. > > > > The work is the force acting on the object times the displacement of > > > the object. So any change in energy of the object must be due solely > > > to this work. > > > > In the case of a falling body released from rest, we'll look at the > > > increase in the kinetic energy, which must be due to the work done by > > > the only force acting on the body -- gravity. If the increase of > > > kinetic energy the body has at any time is accounted for by the work > > > that was done on the body during that time, then we know that the law > > > of conservation of energy has been respected. > > > > In the first second, the body will fall 16 ft. In the next second, it > > > will fall an additional 48 feet. In the third second, it will fall an > > > additional 80 feet. During these first three seconds, the force has > > > remained constant, so that it is the same in the first second, the > > > second second, the third second. The speed increases linearly, so that > > > it is falling at 32 ft/s after the first second, 64 ft/s after the > > > second second, and 96 ft/s after the third second. > > > > Now, let's take a look at the work. The work done since the drop, > > > after the first second, is the force of gravity times the > > > displacement. This is mass x g x (16 ft). So this is how much kinetic > > > energy the object has after one second. Now, in the second second, > > > we'll add more work, in the amount mass x g x (48 ft), since that's > > > the displacement for the next second. This increases the kinetic > > > energy of the body, so that it now has kinetic energy mass x g x (16 > > > ft + 48 ft) = mass x g x (64 ft), and that number is four times bigger > > > than it was after the first second. Now, in the third second, we'll > > > add more work, in the amount mass x g x (80 ft), since that's the > > > displacement for the next sentence. Since energy is conserved, this > > > added energy must add to the kinetic energy of the body, so that it > > > now has kinetic energy mass x g x (64 ft + 80 ft) = mass x g x (144 > > > ft), and that number is nine times bigger than it was after the first > > > second. > > > > Now, it should be plain that the kinetic energy is conserved, since > > > the only thing that has been contributing to it is the work done in > > > subsequent seconds. We lost nothing, and we added only that which > > > gravity added. The energy is conserved. > > > > It should also be apparent that the kinetic energy is increasing in > > > the ratios 1:4:9. > > > Meanwhile, the velocities are increasing linearly, in the ratios > > > 1:2:3. > > > > Now, any fourth grader can see that we've completely conserved energy, > > > losing track of nothing, and yet the kinetic energy is increasing as > > > the square of the velocity. 1:4:9 are the squares of 1:2:3. > > > > There is no violation of conservation of kinetic energy, and yet KE is > > > proportional to v^2. > > > > Now, don't you feel silly that a 4th grader can understand all of > > > this, but you've never understood it? > > > > > > On May 6, 8:54 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 5, 11:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > OH? Then please explain, PD, how a UNIFORM force inputthe static > > > > > > weight of the falling objectcan cause a semi-parabolic increase in > > > > > > the KE. Haven't you heard?: Energy IN must = energy OUT! > > > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > > I have explained this to you dozens of times. I gather that you do not > > > > > remember any of those posts, and you do not know how to use your > > > > > newsreader or Google to go back and find any of those dozens of times > > > > > when it has been explained to you. > > > > > > I surmise that you are slipping into dementia, where each day begins > > > > > anew, with any lessons learned the previous day forgotten. > > > > > > I don't think it's a good use of my time to explain the same thing to > > > > > you each day, only to have you retire at night and forget it by > > > > > morning, do you? > > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |