Re: "Where Is The Kinetic Energy of a Bullet Stored?"


jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > franklinhu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > IF there is no net energy change/requirement to a moving bullet, WHY
> > > > would I meet resistance (read have to do work), in order to maintain
> > > > the motion of a heavy body?????????????
> > > > Your "direct answer" is bull***.
> > > >
> > > > Jim G
> > > > c'=c+v
> > > > >
> > > The kinetic energy of the flying bullet has to be stored somewhere, so
> > > it can take it from one place and deliver it to another.
> >
> > The same critique can be applied here. "One place" and "another" and in
> > particular the separation between those, is an arbitrary accident of
> > choice of reference frame. Hence, so is the velocity. Hence, so is the
> > kinetic energy.
> >
> > There is no way to *absolutely* determine if an object has moved from
> > "one place" and gone to "another".
>
> So if A separates from B, are they STILL in the SAME place; or which
> has moved?
> (or are we back on this magical AE crap, where things alter to suit?)
> .........(...ponder....).....how DID AE determine light speed constant
> c, if the "genius" couldn't even decide whether the photon had changed
> position??
>

This has nothing to do with "magical AE crap". This is classical
*Galilean* relativity we're talking about here.

If A and B separate, then you don't know if A is in the same place and
B has moved, or B is in the same place and A has moved, or if both A
and B have moved. So if A and B separate, which one gets the kinetic
energy? What's the share? What's the law that governs the share? You
don't know. It is a matter of *accident* of choice of reference frame
that determines how much KE each one has, and this little observation
should tell you all by itself that KE is not stored in either object A
or B.

PD

.

Quantcast