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


PD wrote:
> jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > He would just shake his head and not bother over the same DHR
> > quickstep.
> > However the fish aren't biting so............
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> >
> > Didn't have to! The quickest glance shows NO relationship; divided,
> > multiplied, decimal pointed or otherwise.

Non response noted
> > >
> > > > .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?
> >
> > ARoRM, there is only ONE reference frame in the universe.
> > That some wish to think otherwise, and by "choosing another" FoR ignore
> > the history behind a physical event, is their mistake.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Bull***! A sees B increase in distance by 5, and C by 10, D by 15 etc.
> > C sees C-B increase by only 5, and B-A by 10
> > They are not ALL correct. They are MISTAKEN.
>
> We are talking about observations here. And this is precisely what we
> see, by the way.
>
> > (I suggest that you, Lil'Eric, and a few DHR mates try this in the
> > schoolyard; stand shoulder to shoulder, and then all decide to be at
> > arm's length. There is always one who doesn't have to move, and when
> > expansion occurs, THAT is the center.)
>
> And so, how do you propose that the observers at A, B, C, or D tell
> which one of them is not moving? What experimental test do you propose
> to determine whether our Sun, or the one in the next galaxy, is the one
> that is *really* moving?

Run the expanding chequerboard; now run it backwards.
Is it collapsing to a POINT?????????????????????????????
>
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > George and I spent quite awhile on this:
> > He suggested a chequerboard, with all squares moving away from each
> > other.
> > So I did it on the computer, and no matter how the squares moved, they
> > always went on a line pointing back to a common origin. OK, so he says
> > we'll look only at one square, and expand that, but we CANNOT ignore
> > that this (group of dots) as a unit are STILL moving away from that
> > initial common origin.
> > Expansion DEMANDS a point of origin/center; it is always there
> > (although studiously ignored/disclaimed by bigbangers)
>
> What makes you think the origin is common?
> Why can't the center of each square on the chequerboard insist that it
> is the one with the stationary origin? What experimental test do they
> do to determine which one is the *real* stationary square?

see above--run an epansion backwards!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?
> >
> > The "real" energy of the bullet would be that due to the gunpowder,
> > referenced to absolute zero motion of the universe.
>
> If the gun is moving 1000 mph due to the rotation of the earth about
> its axis, what did the energy of the gunpowder have to do with that?

That kinetic energy would have to be factored into the absolute zero
framework (sigh)
>
> WHAT EXPERIMENTAL TEST DO YOU PROPOSE TO MEASURE THE ABSOLUTE MOTION
> WITH RESPECT TO THE UNIVERSE?

I haven't GOT ONE! Does that mean I have to accept utter crap as a
substitute.
I'd much rather be an unknowing seeker, than a deluded sycophant.
(At this stage, my tentative guess is the average velocities of
galactic clusters is zero, but the portion of the visible universe may
be also moving relative to a larger identity)
>
> > That we thus cannot
> > deduce it means bugger-all to the universe. To think that we can by
> > arrogantly claiming rights to "select" a FoR, know the true value, is a
> > combination of human ego and ignorance.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > > > 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.
> >
> > I'm sure George Dishman, with whom I have conducted a very civil
> > private dialogue for a couple of years, will be very hurt by that
> > comment :-)
>
> Which comment was that?

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

Jim G
c'=c+v

.

Quantcast