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:
> > > > > > 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
>
> Why should I respond to your refusal to punch numbers into a calculator
> to check them. Do you deny that (1/2)(10 kg)(224 m/s)^2 = 2.5E5 J?

My calculator must be fucked! It keeps coming up with sequence 25588
NOT 25000
>
BtW: Is the (10kg) as measured (weight) in the plane, or on the
ground?

> > > > > > .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?????????????????????????????
>
> Yes, but you can't declare one point to be *stationary* without
> reference to a space (the table) *outside* the checkerboard, and
> thereby require that there must be some observable connection between
> the checkerboard and this external space.

Passing strange!?
The expanding ruler you claim as evidence/model for BB, the SHRINKING
one, NOT!
(the chequerboard only being an extra dimension)
>
> The customary thing to do here is to once again point to a spherical
> *surface* which is expanding. To make this easier for novices to grasp
> this, the spherical surface is often envisioned as being embedded in a
> 3D space, where a center of the sphere that lies *outside* the surface
> is apparent. However, where most novices stop short (and I guess I
> would include you in this) is recognizing that the properties of
> curvature can be determined entirely from the surface itself *without
> reference* to the embedding space. Once this is realized, then the
> embedding space and all features in it, including that "center" that
> does not belong to the surface, can be dispensed with entirely.

The whole scenario is nothing but imaginary, magical, mentally morphed,
CRAP!
I remember when Al S talked this rubbish re Mobius strips, and asked
him to produce one which occupied 2D. Being a cowardly, indocrinated
idoliser, he disappeared.
FYI, without "reference" to the "imbedding space", the curvature cannot
be determined. There are NO 3D in 2D
>
> Then the question is, if this surface is expanding, is there any point
> *on the surface* that can be said to be the center of the expansion?
> Though we can clearly determine that the surface is expanding (even
> without invoking an embedding space), we cannot determine a center of
> expansion in the center space.

If you believe that the universe "curves back on itself", then every
stellar object could be seen in more than one direction, appear to be
at a different location, and at a different time. Is _that_ what you
really believe?
>
> Similarly, we live in a curved 4D space, which we can ascertain is
> expanding and which is curved, without any reference whatsoever to an
> embedding space of higher dimension. And similarly, there is no point
> *in this 4D space* that is the center of the expansion. One *could*
> imagine a higher-dimension embedding space, and the center of the
> expansion in this embedding space would be a point *outside* our 4D
> space. However, this embedding space is by no means necessary, and the
> physical reality of a center *outside* our 4D space is by no means
> required. In any event, such a supposed center does not lie in our 4D
> space, which is precisely the point I was making and which you fail to
> grasp.

What I "grasp" is that there are 3 dimensions for distance/direction,
and a finite velocity of light with respect to time and its (light)
origin.
Time is NOT a dimension.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Exactly. *Each square* would see all the other squares collapse toward
> it. There would be no way to tell if all the other squares are
> collapsing toward you or whether you are collapsing toward another
> square.

Who cares if they have the same brick mentality as DHRs? Observers (and
squares ) ARE MISLEAD/mistaken because things happen WHILE light is
bringing information about PRIOR events/positions.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
>
> If you imagine something that is completely unobservable, then it is a
> useless concept. If it is a useful concept, then it has observable
> consequences. Fact of life in physics.

This is bizarre! Above you use the concept of not only out of sight,
but "out of mind".
(regarding points off the surface of your "curved" universe).
Here is a useful concept:
Because frequency = wavelength x velocity when a change in f is
noted, and the source of the wavelength is unlikely to have undergone a
local physical/chemical change, the VERY HIGH likelihood is, that the
relative velocity of the source and observer has altered.
FACT, rather than MAGIC
>
> > 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.
> > > > >
>
> I already recanted that statement.

Yes , and with no other explanation so it shows your inbuilt bias.
Don't snip relevent material without indication........it is merely
gutless.

Jim G
c'=c+v

.

Quantcast