Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[fletcher]

Good luck in your very own special alternate reality omnibus - in my reality Ke is a 'slice in time' energy of motion - it can not be accumulated however it can be stored in a flywheel for example as Pe, after losses - if you think it can be accumulated over distance then do some experiments to prove it - while you're at it why don't you show how momentum can be an energy source as well since your theory & the view that momentum can also be accumulated ties in closely.

Keep taking those meds & stay away from chocolate.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Someone deleted my reply to you asking you to immediately correct point 2) and 3). Velocity is physically traveled distance (the entire distance from the beginning to to the end of the journey) over the physical time that distance is traveled for. You must not ignore that elementary definition of velocity when attempting to give arguments. Ignoring basic definitions such as this and inventing your own is nothing but finagling. @Fletcher does the same thing, proposing Fletcherphysics where kinetic energy also involves usefulness, collisions, transfer and what not instead of physics where kinetic energy is simply a quantity function of mass and velocity.

Here's mondrasekphysics:

The only point that can be compared using the PE at the beginning, is the KE at the end.

That weird kind of physics is obviously incorrect because the initial PE isn't only responsible for the KE at the end but is also responsible for the traversing of the entire distance form the beginning to the end. That is so obvious that need not even be commented.

PE being responsible for the travel of one ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 10m for 5s makes it responsible for that ball having velocity = 10m/5s. Same PE however is responsible for the travel of another ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 7m for 8s, say, and therefore makes it responsible for that ball having velocity = 7m/8s.

Thus, same PE is responsible for two balls of mass m to have two different velocities when traveling from the same beginning to the same end. However, two balls of equal masses traveling from the same beginning to the same end with different velocities have different kinetic energies. Therefore the same PE gives rise to two different kinetic energies.

Like I said, finagling, as you're attempting, won't cut the mustard. Try to be logical and stick to what physics definitions are not the definitions of mondrasekphysics.

[Omnibus]

Good luck in your very own special alternate reality omnibus - in my reality Ke is a 'slice in time' energy of motion - it can not be accumulated however it can be stored in a flywheel for example as Pe, after losses - if you think it can be accumulated over distance then do some experiments to prove it - while you're at it why don't you show how momentum can be an energy source as well since your theory & the view that momentum can also be accumulated ties in closely.

Keep taking those meds & stay away from chocolate.

Not at all. KE cannot be accumulated and I never said it could. Your understanding of kinetic energy is wrong and, as I said, that's the basis for your overall confusion about the discussion at hand. Read again what I told you about the definition of kinetic energy, try to understand it and don't invent your own. It makes no sense to repeat what I already told you.

[fletcher]

*smile followed by a long yawn*

[mondrasek]

PE being responsible for the travel of one ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 10m for 5s makes it responsible for that ball having velocity = 10m/5s. Same PE however is responsible for the travel of another ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 7m for 8s, say, and therefore makes it responsible for that ball having velocity = 7m/8s.

I'll correct this for you:

PE being responsible for the travel of one ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 10m for 5s makes it responsible for that ball having AVERAGE velocity = 10m/5s. Same PE however is responsible for the travel of another ball from the beginning to the end of a track of 7m for 8s, say, and therefore makes it responsible for that ball having AVERAGE velocity = 7m/8s.

And here is a gross example to show how that average velocity is meanignless with respect to the KE of the balls at the end of the tracks.

I will make my long track very, very long.  It will drop one hundred meters, but then come back up to end at only the same relatively small drop of the short straight track.  So my ball on that track will accelerate to velocities/KE of incredible magnitudes on the drop as compared to that of the ball on the short track.  But who cares?  It will lose the vast majority of that velocity/KE as it rises back up to the final end height.  Now it might get to the end before or after the ball on the short straight track does.  But, again, who cares?  At the end, it is going the exact same speed and has the exact same KE as the ball that simply rolled down the short straight track.  So those average velocities you have in your example are, in effect, meaningless as far as showing any relationship with the KE gained by the balls while traveling the whole distance.

The PE available at the beginning is the difference of only the height at the beginning and the height at the end of the tracks.

You say the ball on my long track gained the super fast speeds at the bottom of the 100 meter drop due to that initial PE?  No.  It gained it from the PE of a 100 meter drop.  That 100 meter PE is NOT the same as the PE due to the difference in the height of the start and end of the tracks.  That 100 meter PE is being confused by Omniphysics.  No finagling needed.