Re: The opposing rockets and the box

On Jul 23, 11:27 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:39 am, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Jul 23, 12:11 am, "Spaceman"
<space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:
Is this another one of your trolls where you know
that what you are saying is nonsense, or are you
genuinely wrong? Inquiring minds want to know...

Greg, please do show us why Kinetic Energy is not conserved
Can you give an example?

Sure. Toss a ball vertically upward. Over the next few seconds, it's
going to lose all of its kinetic energy, to the point where it is
momentarily *stopped*, having no kinetic energy left at all. Where
did all that kinetic energy of the ball go on the way up? Well, it
goes *somewhere* because it gets it all back on the way down. But
where was it in the meantime? Just hiding? Saying, "you can't see
me!"?

So wait, you can stop in the middle of a motion and
just say the energy is now zero?
Wow!
That is amazing.
Oh wait.
The kinetic energy returns to it?
Hmm? where id it come from?
The magical gravity that "did not take it away" to begin with
or maybe gravity that did take it away to begin with.

Yes, quite possibly gravity that took it away. And while it took it
away, it was no longer kinetic energy, was it?

You tell me,
What storage device kept it "stored"

I already told you. There are many forms of energy, kinetic being only
one of them. The *sum* of all those forms of energy is what is
conserved. Kinetic energy is not conserved. In this case, kinetic
energy is gradually converted into a different form of energy:
gravitational potential energy. When that energy is converted into
grav PE, it is no longer kinetic energy. However, the SUM of kinetic
energy and gravitational potential energy in the case of the rising
and falling ball is conserved and has the same value throughout the
flight.

Since this notion seems to be new to you, here are a few places where
you can look at what conservation of energy means:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/work/node9.html
http://www2.biglobe.ne.jp/~norimari/science/JavaApp/energy1/e-energy1.html
http://www.mtbaker.wednet.edu/mbhs/science/Physics/Dynamics/conservation_of_mechanical_energy.htm
http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm
http://cnx.org/content/m14106/latest/



Can you prove it is not there at all?
If you prove it is not there at all, why does it start to fall again.
And then gain the same amount back?
If it is not "conservered" shouldn't  it not have the same amount
when it comes back?

Energy conservation says the amount stays *constant*. That means the
same number all all instants, not just at the beginning and the end.

The number don't stay "constant" when a battery goes dead.

And there's a reason for that. That energy has been converted to
another form. Do you know where? The total amount of energy stays the
same.

"the amount" is never in fact "constant.
It charges by gaining "numbers" and then gets released
by losing "numbers" with the end result beign the sames.
So you thought of energy "staying constant" is flawed.

Well, I see that you are making things up as you go along, and I see
that you don't believe in the law of conservation of energy, which is
one of the fundamental basics in classical physics. So when you say
you understand classical physics, what is it exactly that you think
that means?


Energy conservation says that you can take *any* two moments of your
choosing and the amount will be the same in both. I chose two moments
where the amount of kinetic energy is different, and *kinetic* energy
is not conserved.

2 minutes into the charge of the battery and 10 minutes charge time
are not the same, again your "any" two moment thoughts are also
flawed.
I chose 2 "moments" when the energy was different.

The *total* energy is conserved, however, because
some of that *kinetic* energy is converted to *gravitational
potential* energy, which is not kinetic energy at all. Would you like
a link where you can read up on energy conservation and what it means?

You should read the links a bit more or look for different links than
you have now..

Oh, I rely on much more than links. The question is what can I
spoonfeed you, because you have no interest in looking at anything
that requires any effort on your part.

It has nothing to do with "two" different points.
It is beginning and end that are the two "points" to compare
to prove the "conservation of the system".

Sorry, Spaceman, that's just plain wrong, and you have no idea what
you're talking about. But I know you're just making stuff up to see
how much time you can get me to waste. Looking at what you wrote
below, I see that you are willing to waste a whole lot of time just
making stuff up. I'm not willing to do that and am going to quit right
n




Hmm?
Seems you are ignoring the "total" system.

Here's another. Two Toyotas traveling at the speed limit hit each
other in a head-on collision. Broken glass, bent metal, blown
airbags ensue. But just five seconds after the collision, there
seems to be much less kinetic energy than there was just six
seconds ago. Where did it go?

It was turned into heat

Yes.

and spread out parts

That are now stationary, and so their energy is not kinetic.

It is simply back to the zero kinetic energy all over again.
The "battery" has gone dead.
The charge is gone.
The energy put in "equaled" the energy take out.
Seems it works fine for conservation.
It works just like a battery would that "stores" energy.

and gravity soaked
it all up.
That gravity is magical.
How is it able to have so much energy and still not increase
or decrease in energy?

There *is* energy in the gravitational field. Just not *kinetic*
energy. There is *gravitational potential* energy, which is not
kinetic energy. The total amount of energy is conserved, but that
energy comes in many forms other than kinetic and is converted from
one form to another. Kinetic energy, however, is not conserved because
some of the kinetic energy gets turned into other forms and is no
longer kinetic.

That is just silly PD,
regular energy can be transformed to all sorts of energy, mechanical, heat,
light, and even kinetic energy.
So why do you not allow kinetic energy to do the same?
Why do you "not find the totals that do start at  0 and end
at 0.
Kinetic energy is just the other side of the "energy" coin.



It must be the magic of "spacetime".
LOL

Here's another. You light a firecracker on the desk. Twenty
milliseconds before the detonation, there's a teeny bit of kinetic
energy in the lit fuse. Twenty milliseconds after the detonation,
there's a whole bunch more kinetic energy in the flying shards. Now
where did all that kinetic energy come from? Was it hiding before?
Was it stored in a black hole just under the desk?

Silly PD,
the kinetic energy was stored in the gun powder.

Absolutely! Just not as kinetic energy. As chemical potential energy,
yes, but not kinetic energy. The *kinetic* energy is not conserved,
but the *total* energy, counting the sum of all forms of energy in the
firecracker, is conserved.

And again,
You simply give it different names and then say it is not kinetic.
That is again the same thing. You are a kinetic energy bigot.
It is ok for you to say energy from the battery turns the motor
and becomes kinetic energy when the car is moving but
it is not ok to lose that kinetic energy just like you would lose
"energy" itself.
That is not right PD.
It is taking away kinetic energy's natural rights to change
into other forms and then lose all the energy it was given
in the end.
Again 0 at start and 0 at end.
No violation in a conservation of kinetic energy..
:)

It was just "stable and balanced" until you broke it's perfect spin
and balance.
:)

Now, in considering these, are you still SURE that kinetic energy is
conserved? Do you need to look up what conservation of energy means?
Would you like a handy link you can click on and read?

Would you like to say gravity is also not conserved then?
Gravity must be kinetic energy right since it can move things
and smash things and make the kinetic energy just
"dissapear".

Uh, no. It is a *different* form of energy. Kinetic energy is very
specific.

What a bunch of crap.
It seems you allow kinetic energy be turned into energy but
won't let the opposite occur.
That is sad PD.
You have kicked kinetic energy out of the energy family
and told it that it is no longer part of the family.
You are a mean jerk and should be kicked out of science
for doing that to the energy family..
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Energy conservation in an expanding universe
    ... but not globally (in the universe as a whole) in an expanding universe? ... Start with Newtonian gravity. ... energy -- otherwise, the increasing kinetic energy of, say, a falling ... apple would violate conservation. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Is gravity relative?
    ... and gravity would vanish at the same moment. ... The historic derivation of the field equations is based on the ... then the energy is not conserved. ... Despite static solutions are shown to obey the conservation of energy, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: conservation of energy in GR?
    ... > ?But in Einstein?s general theory of relativity, ... > gravity, the proof of local energy conservation no longer worked. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Dark matter/energy - is it real?
    ... Nobody has ever made money betting against basic conservation laws. ... Well, if you want to bet against conservation of momentum and energy, I ... call that "having gravity", then you're just playing silly word games. ... to exclude photons is silly. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE
    ... >GRAVITATION IS NOT A FORCE BUT AN ILLUSION ... I agree with you that gravity is due to energy conservation. ...
    (sci.physics)