The Paradox Engine

[CANGAS]

The question was answered prior to you asking it, and can be found in the reference links of the papers I have already provided.  Maybe you should read those papers and learn something!

Gravock

My question was a very simple question, easily answered by YES or NO. I asked if you seriously believe that the "squared" and the "1/2" in the Newton Kinetic Energy Equation are not adequately explained by Newtonian physics.

Instead of simply saying YES or NO, you have fancy-danced and double talked.

Maybe you should answer a simple question with an even simpler answer.


CANGAS 72

[CANGAS]

Gentlemen, please; may I suggest pistols at dawn...... spring powered ball bearing type I think, with the following specifications:

Pistol A: 1kg force spring (at max compression) effective force 500g over 10cm (from full compression) loaded with 1 x 50g shot

Pistol B: The same type spring loaded with 1 x 200g shot

No paces, just turn and shoot, point blank range; choose your weapon....... no perhaps not. How about points for best range and most damage (dummy target) ? We might all learn something useful.

Choose my weapon? OK, my 44 revolver.

But what for? Kill a man because he won't answer my simple question? My best friend Jesus would not like that....

What is so volatile about my question? I simply want to know if he does, or, does not, believe that the Newton formula for kinetic energy is internally self consistent. If you have been noticing alertly, you will alertly recognize that I have not stated a pro or con belief, but have simply asked for his belief. I have asked if he understands how the Kinetic Energy Equation was derived and therefore if he understands how the specific terms came to be, and if he understands whether it is all self consistent or not. And he will bend over backwards and whistle Dixie instead of saying YES or NO!!

One to beam up, Scotty.


CANGAS 72

[Tusk]

Choose my weapon? OK, my 44 revolver.

Hmmmm. You have gone beyond the boundaries of the proposed experimental parameters CANGAS. If I may borrow a relevant term from the sporting realm, 'foul!' (blows whistle).

Since your question was aimed specifically at gravock there seems little point in engaging with it. With some relief, bearing in mind the obvious challenge it represents, a clear 'calling out' much like the ornery gunfighter in the saloon scene of an old western. So I guess there's no suprise you went straight for that 44 stuffed down your breeches. And I thought you were just pleased to see me.

But staying with the metaphor, I suppose the job of barkeep in this little drama is down to me. I'm simply trying to keep the peace and help maintain some focus on the main topic. We don't want no trouble around here stranger. This is a quiet town. So quiet there's days you couldn't snuff your cigar in the spittoon.

The raison d'etre for this thread is the PE device and associated concepts, which may well call for a discussion of v² and the "1/2" in the energy equation but would probably be best served by an absence of gunfights. I can either pour you another glass of rotgut or fetch the big double out from under the bar.

So; you skin that smoke wagon and we'll see what happens.   

[telecom]

Just a couple of points:

Kinetic energy was introduced not by Newton, but by Leibniz and a Hertz later, who was writing a book on it,
but passed away before finishing.

The conservation of energy doesn't hold - funny, just last week was reading a book in the library about
conservation of the momentum, where they have an example of the elastic collision between two bodies.
When they make a balance of the energy before and after, they find a huge gap - they conclude that the collision was unelastic,
since they can't find any other explanation for the gap...

[gravityblock]

Just a couple of points:

Kinetic energy was introduced not by Newton, but by Leibniz and a Hertz later, who was writing a book on it,
but passed away before finishing.

The conservation of energy doesn't hold - funny, just last week was reading a book in the library about
conservation of the momentum, where they have an example of the elastic collision between two bodies.
When they make a balance of the energy before and after, they find a huge gap - they conclude that the collision was unelastic,
since they can't find any other explanation for the gap...

Yes, good point!  It is shown by experiment the conservation of mass doesn't hold either!  So, how can the kinetic energy equation be internally self-consistent when we have a conservation of mass violation, and mass itself is inside the kinetic energy equation?

Gravock