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


jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Actually, it is not mud in the water- the bulls have just swum across.
> > > I was preparing a measured response to PD until I came across this gem
> > > of avoidance and obfuscation, so *** him and his aspersions.
> >
> > I'm awaiting your measured response.
>
> This from the master obfuscator, who starts whaffling about flying east
> vs west?????????

Avoidance of the question noted. Note that Androcles cannot answer the
question either.

> >
> > >
> > > Did you notice how PD blithely disregards the lie he made?
> > > (PD): "2.5E5J which is exactly what it started with" NOT SO
>
> Even YOU should notice something is not correct, when you have an
> equation with
> (224)^2 = 2.5

Er, no. Look again. Have you missed a factor of (1/2)? Did you even try
whipping out a calculator to see if it was right?

> .or would you rather tuff it out, and be served up in Dinky's fumbles?
> (OTH: NOTHING a DHR says goes in there, right? So after awhile, they
> ALL begin to think they are genius material--------after all, they are
> NEVER WRONG)
> >
> > Really, and what's the real answer?
>
> "The energy is in the bullet" (and the FoR doesn't matter a F*)

Really? Then what are the real values of the energy of the bomb as
viewed in those two reference frames?

> >
> > >
> > > Q: Would not a BB suggest an origin, from which a FoR could be
> > > constructed?
> > > (My facetious comment: "Why not use the origin of BB?)
> > > PD: "Exactly. Not that there was one".
> > > (I could have sworn I have seen PD subscribe to BB as a life member!)
> >
> > Allow me to refine my statement: "Exactly. Not that there was a spatial
> > origin of the BB."
>
> No! Because expansion "everywhere" means that the "everywhere" WAS
> "everywhere" BEFORE said fart, and expansion indicates an origin no
> matter how you pack it.

Not so. Draw a little sketch of two moments in time I'll now describe.
Suppose you have a ruler with marks on it A, B, C, D and so on. Your
friend is sitting at B and notices that A and C are both 20 clicks away
from B, in opposite directions. You are sitting at C and you confirm
that B is 20 clicks away, and you look in the other direction and see
that D is 20 clicks away. Some years later, your friend at B looks
again and notices that A is now 25 clicks away, and then looks in the
other direction and notices that C is also 25 clicks away. You're still
sitting at C and you look and confirm that B is now 25 clicks away and
you look in the other direction and D is 25 clicks away.

One day: ...====A====B====C====D====...

Some years later: ....=====A=====B=====C=====D=====....

Both you and your friend accurately conclude that the ruler is
expanding, and it is expanding uniformly, as far as you can tell. Both
of you also accurately conclude that, assuming that the rate is
constant, some time ago, the whole ruler -- regardless of the length --
had zero length. In fact, if the time between these two observations
was T, then you both now this happened 4T before the first measurement.

However, B sees himself to be the center of the expansion. You, at C,
see yourself as the center of explansion. This would no doubt be true
for a friend sitting at any mark on the ruler. And since there are no
observable ends to the ruler, the ruler might well be infinite in
length. Either way, it's impossible to determine a center of the
expansion, nor does there need to be one.

If you think otherwise, where is it, and how do you know?

> >
> > >
> > > What a wonderland to live in!
> > > PD: "My -chosen- reference frame" ie whenever challenged on an
> > > observation or measurement/result, he claims immunity through jumping
> > > to any of HIS FoR's! lol
> > >
> > > Does this imply loss of energy?
> > > If c(energy) + c(energy) = <2c (energy) has a two photon system
> > > lost energy compared to them singly?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Then by putting your bullet in another FoR, you alter its energy.

Be careful. I'm not "putting" the bullet in any FoR. I'm *observing*
the *same* bullet from a different FoR. I can arrange for a whole slew
of simultaneous observations of the *same* bullet during the *same*
interval of time. So how could all of these be "putting" different
amounts of energy into the bullet at the same time? What would be the
"real" energy of the bullet?

> >
> > >
> > > Could PD be SO ignorant, as to be unaware that adding velocities in SR
> > > involves formula describing "slopes" (speed) ??
> >
> > I've asked you for a specific reference for that. You apparently can't
> > find it.
>
> Sent to me by George D. who was a bit condescending in my not knowing
> it previously.

Ah, that explains it. So you took the word of a physics charlatan to be
the truth about SR that "everyone" should know.

That, Jim, reveals the problem with trying to learn a subject from the
internet. No quality filter.

> So how ignorant does that leave you, in not knowing (of)
> the fundamental cornerstone for the postulate for c (constant)

It doesn't leave me ignorant. It leaves me with a better grip on
quality control.

> >
> > >
> > > ...and grab his final comment for your quote bag that suggests that
> > > even he realises SR v add is crap
> > >
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Which? SR is crap, or the relativistic formula for adding speeds?

That he realizes anything of the kind.

PD

.

Quantcast