1/2vmv Is nonsense ...Argument #4

email: [e-mail]
Wikipedia Sucks Art: www.efilism.com...
Wikipedia Sucks and science says Shorts:: www.efilism.com...
DraftPhysics.com: www.efilism.com...
debatephysics.com: www.efilism.com...
Profiles in Cowardice: www.efilism.com...
1/2 vmv
Was willfully created to Force reality to match religious daydreams. The history of its creation, defense, and eventual acceptance is a mockery of the scientific method. Truth was forsaken for agenda, evidence was exaggerated distorted and quote mined to support a plainly silly notion of reality...
""If I'm in space and I throw a 2 L bottle of coke (2 kg) away from me at 1mph., do I received the same thrust if I shoot a dime (2 grams) away from me at 1000mph.? If so isn't this proof against the kinetic energy formula?""
""Is there any physical evidence defending the kinetic energy theorem? The theory says an 8 lb bowling ball will produce twice as much "energy" as a 16 pound ball thrown with the same effort. No pro bowler can make A lighter ball work. Why? ""
""If I shoot two objects with inverse velocity to Mass ratios (for exp. 10m 5v vs 5m 10v) into gravity your formula says one object will have twice as much energy as the other at liftoff. If I let the objects fall, on an identical spring they will be recorded to impose the same pressure, the same joules of energy. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory? or Do you dispute the fact?""
""Your theory says a 5-ton train going 10 miles an hour has twice as much energy--ability to do work as a 10 ton going 5 miles an hour. I claim you will never prove that to be true, and that if you actually collected the energy of the moving objects in a scientifically sensible manor it will be clearly demonstrated that they have the same capacity to do work.
Do you think a 5-ton 10 miles an hour train can do twice as much work has a 10 ton train going 5 miles an hour? Do you think you can create heat or deformation and transfer 100% of your momentum to another object?
1/2 vmv
Was willfully created to Force reality to match religious daydreams. The history of its creation, defense, and eventual acceptance is a mockery of the scientific method. Truth was forsaken for agenda, evidence was exaggerated distorted and quote mined to support a plainly silly notion of reality...
""If I'm in space and I throw a 2 L bottle of coke (2 kg) away from me at 1mph., do I received the same thrust if I shoot a dime (2 grams) away from me at 1000mph.? If so isn't this proof against the kinetic energy formula?""
""Is there any physical evidence defending the kinetic energy theorem? The theory says an 8 lb bowling ball will produce twice as much "energy" as a 16 pound ball thrown with the same effort. No pro bowler can make A lighter ball work. Why? ""
""If I shoot two objects with inverse velocity to Mass ratios (for exp. 10m 5v vs 5m 10v) into gravity your formula says one object will have twice as much energy as the other at liftoff. If I let the objects fall, on an identical spring they will be recorded to impose the same pressure, the same joules of energy. How do you reconcile that fact with your theory? or Do you dispute the fact?""
""Your theory says a 5-ton train going 10 miles an hour has twice as much energy--ability to do work as a 10 ton going 5 miles an hour. I claim you will never prove that to be true, and that if you actually collected the energy of the moving objects in a scientifically sensible manor it will be clearly demonstrated that they have the same capacity to do work.
Do you think a 5-ton 10 miles an hour train can do twice as much work has a 10 ton train going 5 miles an hour? Do you think you can create heat or deformation and transfer 100% of your momentum to another object?
subjects: • Playlist
All Playlists: / draftscience
Start here: • Start Here
Questions Playlist: • Playlist
draftphysics.com/
donotgo.com/in/...
#KineticEnergy #theoreticalphysics #Wikipedia

[@TheZzpop]

p = momentum F = dp/dt , rate of change of momentum over time from p = mv you also find that F = dK/dx, rate of change of kinetic energy over distance where K = 1/2 m v^2 You can derive the formula K=1/2 m v^2 by finding the quantity which fits the relation dK/dx = dp/dt where p=mv

[@SuperiorMind]

We keep seeing ppl putting up unfinished bits of math (to be persuasive) and the whole point of this is to challenge ppl to actually show the work, evidence, and proof. So show the proof - that's what the challenge is - show the work - derive it so ppl who may not be as math savy can see that what you claim is the truth. Show how it's derived. It's quite easy, right, so: Show the work: ... And then show the evidence to back-up the formula's accuracy of application in real life - or even describe where to find that evidence: .. Maybe start with (as stated above): (K2 - K1) / (dist2 - dist1) = (m*v2 - m*v1) / (t2 - t1) Now how to get that to K = 1/2mv^2?

[@TheZzpop]

@@SuperiorMind Basic Derivation: At an initial time t1 a particle has initial position x1 and initial velocity v1. At a later time time t2 the particle is at a new position x2 with a new velocity v2. For conveneince: The change in time is dt = t2 - t1 The change in position is dx = x2 -x1 The change in velocity is dv = v2 - v1 If the aceleration is constant then the cnage in velcoity is dv=a*dt and the change in position is dx=v1*dt+1/2*a*dt^2 = v1*dt+1/2*dv*dt = (v1+1/2 * (v2 - v1) ) *dt = 1/2 *(v1+v2)*dt note that 1/2*(v1+v2) is the average velocity over the time dt. Now if we take F=ma and multiply it by dx we get F*dx = m*a*dx = m*dv/dt*dx = 1/2*m*(v2-v1)*(v2+v1) = 1/2*m*v2^2 - 1/2*m*v1^2 A force F times a distance dx (a distance the force pushes an object) = a change in kinetic energy 1/2 mv^2

[@SuperiorMind]

@@TheZzpop The distance is questionable because the velocity is not linear (an average won't be accurate). Also if you multiply F = ma by dx... it just cancels dx on both sides when you simplify unless you're trying to show: Continuous_Force * questionable_distance = mass * acceleration * questionable_distance... Like, what's the point? The proportions haven't changed. It seems like quite a stretch and a reach - to bend both math and reason. How is this kinetic energy then a real thing that exists in reality as a distinguishable thing from momentum on the elemental scale?

[@TheZzpop]

@@SuperiorMind the velocity is linear because the acceleration is constant. And there is nothing for the dx to cancel out with when I multiply F=ma by dx. acceleration is given by a=dv/dt

[@anthonyBosSoCal]

@@TheZzpop Why bother responding to the TROLLS they just want to enjoy being entertained by Crackpots and Pseudoscientists. There are 100s of 1st year Physics texts that provide 1000s of examples and associated definitions, of WORK and Energy. But these fools don't want to learn anything, especially the MORON who posted this video, sadly he not alone! Physics is hard, most of which cannot be understood by the layman (I have a PhD in Plasma Physics, and specialize in about 4 fields (Atmospheric Physics, Adaptive Optics, Laser& Remote Sensing, along with Geoengineering) MANY fields are difficult for me to get my hands around (that is why I consult with Experts when required) That Reality NEVER seems to occur to these fools!

[@stonksguy420]

What is your definition of force? mass x velocity = momentum? Because then of course the energy equation based on force = mass x acceleration won't hold.

[@ruehl3853]

I didn’t know inmendham was a math genius, how many channels does this guy have?

[@Gunnerty85]

Your voice is similar to Willem Dafoe.