Capiert Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 (edited) I tend to think, we do NOT need (kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s (redundant) syntax. Let’( u)s face it. Energy is NONSENSE! E.g. 1 Astronomer’s have been complaining for a long time. Now(adays, or a_daze) you (also) have “dark” (=unknown) Energy to cover up that problem. E.g. 2 The output of a NON_elastic collision is always less than the input. I.e. NO matter how (much) you (want to) “guess” explaining its (NON_elastic) loss (e.g. with deformation (dents), acoustic noise (produced), & heat (warmed)); instead of knowing & measuring. Mathematically that loss is calculate_able (accountable, into a reduced_mass (construct)).) E.g. 3. That (NON_elastic collision, Energy loss) is NOT energy conservation but instead a math ERROR (caused by) incompatibility with (average_)momentum. But my question is, do we (really) need the Energy (math) construct, at all? I mean we already have (average_)momentum & it (=that (average_)momentum) does NOT seem to lie at us like Energy (sometimes) does. With the (kinetic_)Energy (construct) we “loose” information. I.e. It (=KEd=delta_KE) is NOT completely “reversible” math (without using the original( parameter)s again); which hinders a (bidirectional math) reverse_ability. E.g. (For linear_acceleration) the kinetic_Energy(_difference) KEd=m*v(d)*va is composed (=made) of: a (=1, single) scalar (mass m); & “2” (speed) vectors (the speed_difference vd=v(d)=v=vf-vi as final_speed vf minus initial_speed vi; & multiplied by the average_speed va=(vf+vi)/2=d/t as added final_speed vf & initial_speed vi divided by 2) . Th(os)e (2) speeds are vectors because they have “direction”, (also) meaning (each) in simplest form e.g. if in 1D, (the) travel can be either: positive (forward(s)); or (else) negative (backward). Mass (is a scalar, &) can NOT do that (bidirectionality). --- Disclaimer 1: I have NOT seen a “negative” mass -m (for that) coefficient (factor m); even if you rave about anti_matter; simply because it (=anti_matter) is (let us say) opposite_charge of (perhaps) a spin. The rule is, every charged (sub_atomic) particle, has its own oppositely charged (so_called aunty_) particle. (Does that include neutral (uncles)?) But during annihilation, at such a subatomic size, how can you prove your guess_work (=assumptions)? That (tracking) seems (to me) impossible to follow; & only a careless (misleading) idea. --- A vector (e.g. such as a(n average) speed v(a)) multiplied by a scalar (e.g. mass m) remains a vector (e.g. (average_)momentum mom(a)=m*v(a)) . But 2 (negative) vectors (e.g. speeds vd & va) loose their (negative) polarity -1=j^2 when multiplied together to become (& always stay, only) positive (scalar); (no matter) whether they were originally positive or negative. That is a loss of (the +/-) polarity information, which is NOT retrievable (=recoverable, salvageable) without using the (original) polarity (again). E.g. Using a factor *v/((v^2)^0.5), where the (linear_accelerated) speed_difference vd=v & visa versa (is the truncated_symbol syntax) v=vd, because they are identical. (I simply truncated the d.) The (vectorized) kinetic_energy(_difference) (e.g. as a) vector KEd=m*v*va*v/((v^2)^0.5) is the (scalar) KEd=m*v*va multiplied by its speed_difference’s polarity v/((v^2)^0.5). If that speed_difference v=vf-vi was negative then its KEd will also become negative. That is why I say (=question) do we really need (e.g. kinetic_)Energy? if we have to (re)modify so much; (because) it(s Energy_math alone) is inferior (NONSENSE). Why DON’T we (just) kick out the concept of Energy (all together)? & throw it away in(to) the garbage. Why do we perpetuate the error_making problems, (called) Energy? Why do we bother, at all, with (the concept, approximation) Energy? (E.g. I have proposed bending (=modifying) Newton’s motion laws (as detour) to get around the Energy error problems; (but that (detour) is) instead of dealing with the real (guilty) culprit (i.e. Energy).) It (=Energy) is way too complicated for what is needed. Energy (syntax, (an) approximation) was invented ((ruffly ~2*KE) by Leibniz; it’( i)s NOT Newtonian) to help describe linear_acceleration(’s work). But Leibniz originally confused mass m=Wt/g with weight Wt=m*g. It’( i)s the gravitational acceleration g=Wt/m that (had) caused that (confusion) problem for him (=Leibniz). Edited October 14, 2023 by Capiert typo -2
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 (edited) Basically, I tend to think, you are, unable to, write posts... and, unable to, learn, how to, use, LaTeX.. So.. any communication, is very cumbersome.. Edited October 14, 2023 by Sensei 1
Capiert Posted October 14, 2023 Author Posted October 14, 2023 I agree with you Sensei. I am unable to learn LaTex & your programmers were unable convert text formats correctly. Thus they created a 1 directional conversion you call Latex. But I must say my post looks (a little) better than yours.
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 2 minutes ago, Capiert said: I am unable to learn LaTex Inability to, learn, so simple, thing, causes, that, your, other posts, are unreliable..
Capiert Posted October 14, 2023 Author Posted October 14, 2023 3 minutes ago, Sensei said: Inability to, learn, so simple, thing, causes, that, your, other posts, are unreliable.. Please let me help you. Inability to learn so (=such) simple things causes that your other posts to be unreliable. Are you sure you mean unreliable? How?
studiot Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Capiert said: Let’( u)s face it. Energy is NONSENSE! This is neither a speculation nor a question it is a tirade so it belongs in the trash. A real question would be something like Are there any circumstance where energy methods are easier and or more efficient than other methods of analysis ? To which the answer is a resounding yes.
Capiert Posted October 14, 2023 Author Posted October 14, 2023 5 minutes ago, studiot said: This is neither a speculation nor a question it is a tirade I do NOT see anger in my statement, ONLY (resignment &) reassurement that Energy does NOT always add thus it is (in that sense) unaccountable ("NONSENSE!"). If things do add up as they are (expectedly) supposed to then they are behaving illogically. Denying the problem is NOT going to cure it. Unlike most (people) I am (at least) recognizing a problem & (then) attempting a solution. As long as that takes (me). It is NOT an easy task. Especially in only 1 shot. 5 minutes ago, studiot said: so it belongs in the trash. I disagree. I was only summarizing so you can recognize the direction. You have NOT addressed the major question. I.e. Title. 5 minutes ago, studiot said: A real question would be something like Are there any circumstance where energy methods are easier and or more efficient than other methods of analysis ? That is NOT my question. Especially because I know Energy is an approximation & thus relative. I (already) know you guys (& gals) already use math_Energy for many things, because it compares. 5 minutes ago, studiot said: To which the answer is a resounding yes. You are trying to change my question in order to avoid it.
Ghideon Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Capiert said: tend to think, we do NOT need (kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s (redundant) syntax. I tried using a language model; Input prompt: "Can you help me make sense of the following post I found on a science forum. I want you to reformat the text so I can analyse it" (followed by OP). An extract from my first attempt: Quote The member suggests discarding the energy concept altogether in favour of other physical quantities, like momentum, believing that energy complicates understanding rather than facilitating it. They propose modifying established laws of motion to circumvent issues they attribute to the energy concept. Maybe you should try one of these tools @Capiert to see of the output better communicates your ideas? Edited October 14, 2023 by Ghideon clarifying 1
Capiert Posted October 14, 2023 Author Posted October 14, 2023 Ghideon, that is excellent. Exactly what I want to say.
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Capiert said: Energy is NONSENSE! The word "energy" (in one form or another) existed before physics and chemistry. We used to say "young people have a lot of energy", "old people don't have the energy to ...", "sick people don't have energy", etc. Energy is the ability to do something. Solid CO2 does not have the ability to do something, while liquid O2 has the ability to do something (burn with something and release "stored energy"). Basically, energy is like mass, energy before reaction is equal to energy after reaction. The mass before the reaction is equal to the mass after the reaction (in chemistry). A+B=C+D. So whatever you want to solve is equal. At the beginning of science, the equation was at the level of mass, which is true to some level of certainity. Then at energy level, which a way way more precise. Energy is stored in various ways. The potential energy of a nucleus (which can be released during fusion, fission, spontaneous decay, etc. ), the energy bound between atoms or molecules, the potential energy of an object at a certain height above the ground, etc., etc., or the kinetic energy of an object or the rotational energy of an object..
Killtech Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Sensei said: how to, use, LaTeX.. Off topic, but you rise an very important point: how do i use LaTeX on this forums?
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 21 minutes ago, Capiert said: I do NOT see anger in my statement, ONLY (resignment &) reassurement that Energy does NOT always add thus it is (in that sense) unaccountable ("NONSENSE!"). Energy is a physical thing, that is, you can certainly feel the difference between hot coffee/tea and cold coffee/tea. The question should be "how much leakage" of this energy, if any, instead of this crap: "Energy is NONSENSE". If it's 0.00000000001 then you should show it. We would have at least had some scientific discussion on your part. But you are not able to. You are not able to, because physics and chemistry are experimental. Theoretical physics is something new in the 20th century. To become a theoretical physicist, you have to learn everything about experimental physics, chemistry, etc. Laymen on the Internet tend to skip the whole learning process and just post their useless drivel on science forums without bothering to acquire everything that real scientists took years of study. 6 minutes ago, Killtech said: Off topic, but you rise an very important point: how do i use LaTeX on this forums? Check sandbox: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/99-the-sandbox/ There, even well-known members practiced.. 1
Capiert Posted October 14, 2023 Author Posted October 14, 2023 1 minute ago, Sensei said: The word "energy" (in one form or another) existed before physics and chemistry. We used to say "young people have a lot of energy", "old people don't have the energy to ...", "sick people don't have energy", etc. Most probably a (bio)chemical energy (reserve). 1 minute ago, Sensei said: Energy is the ability to do something. Solid CO2 does not have the ability to do something, I disagree, at STP solid CO2 is very cold & that temperature difference (while) melting can change pressure which can do work. 1 minute ago, Sensei said: while liquid O2 has the ability to do something (burn with something and release "stored energy"). Yes, but that is (chemical) bonding energy (exchange). 1 minute ago, Sensei said: Basically, energy is like mass, energy before reaction is equal to energy after reaction. The mass before the reaction is equal to the mass after the reaction (in chemistry). A+B=C+D. So whatever you want to solve is equal. At the beginning of science, the equation was at the level of mass, which is true to some level of certainity. Then at energy level, which a way way more precise. Energy is stored in various ways. The potential energy of a nucleus (which can be released during fusion, fission, spontaneous decay, etc. ), the energy bound between atoms or molecules, the potential energy of an object at a certain height above the ground, etc., etc., or the kinetic energy of an object or the rotational energy of an object.. Yes Sensei, (I agree, we have all those (Energy) concepts with their (own) math); but can't we use e.g. (average_)momentum; instead of Energy_math? Why "must" we use ONLY energy? I see more disadvantages with Energy; than advantages.
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Capiert said: Yes Sensei, (I agree, we have all those (Energy) concepts with their (own) math); but can't we use e.g. (average_)momentum; instead of Energy_math? Laptop battery, cell phone battery certainly have no momentum.. They have a capacity expressed on the label as, for example, 10000 mAh. mA = 0.001 A h = 3600s Q=I*t I = 10000 mA = 10 A Q=10A * 3600s = 36000 C i.e. the device will work for 1h at 10A, or 10h at 1A (assuming no losses and lower voltage, which is unreliable) E= Q*U U is typically 3.6 V for Li-on battery.. 1 hour ago, Ghideon said: I tried using a language model; Input prompt: "Can you help me make sense of the following post I found on a science forum. I want you to reformat the text so I can analyse it" (followed by OP). An extract from my first attempt: Maybe you should try one of these tools @Capiert to see of the output better communicates your ideas? @Ghideon Do you want to become a billionaire? You'll be the second administrator.. You gave me an idea.. 46 minutes ago, Capiert said: I disagree, at STP solid CO2 is very cold & that temperature difference (while) melting can change pressure which can do work. Objects which have melting point at lower T than STP "attracts" energy in any form from the world. Every object takes energy and releases it into the world. In "ambient temperature," what goes out, is what comes in, and we have an equilibrium. Transition from solid state to liquid state takes additional energy. Transition from liquid state to gaseous state takes additional energy. Transition from gaseous state to plasma state takes additional energy. (This is called ionization energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy ) There are others for the high energy regime in quantum physics. Edited October 14, 2023 by Sensei
studiot Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Capiert said: Denying the problem is NOT going to cure it. Unlike most (people) I am (at least) recognizing a problem & (then) attempting a solution. So you can perform the following simple calculation, without using energy. Please show me how. I have a 1kg bar of lead that I wish to melt. I have a bunsen burner and a suitable steel pot to melt the bar in. How much gas to I need to fully melt the bar ? Please ignore losses for this calculation. 1
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 @studiot nice try, that's the point. How many things with energy (potential energy, usually in chemical bonds) are needed for things we need..
Ghideon Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Sensei said: @Ghideon Do you want to become a billionaire? You'll be the second administrator.. You gave me an idea.. Sure!
exchemist Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 4 hours ago, Capiert said: I tend to think, we do NOT need (kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s (redundant) syntax. Let’( u)s face it. Energy is NONSENSE! E.g. 1 Astronomer’s have been complaining for a long time. Now(adays, or a_daze) you (also) have “dark” (=unknown) Energy to cover up that problem. E.g. 2 The output of a NON_elastic collision is always less than the input. I.e. NO matter how (much) you (want to) “guess” explaining its (NON_elastic) loss (e.g. with deformation (dents), acoustic noise (produced), & heat (warmed)); instead of knowing & measuring. Mathematically that loss is calculate_able (accountable, into a reduced_mass (construct)).) E.g. 3. That (NON_elastic collision, Energy loss) is NOT energy conservation but instead a math ERROR (caused by) incompatibility with (average_)momentum. But my question is, do we (really) need the Energy (math) construct, at all? I mean we already have (average_)momentum & it (=that (average_)momentum) does NOT seem to lie at us like Energy (sometimes) does. With the (kinetic_)Energy (construct) we “loose” information. I.e. It (=KEd=delta_KE) is NOT completely “reversible” math (without using the original( parameter)s again); which hinders a (bidirectional math) reverse_ability. E.g. (For linear_acceleration) the kinetic_Energy(_difference) KEd=m*v(d)*va is composed (=made) of: a (=1, single) scalar (mass m); & “2” (speed) vectors (the speed_difference vd=v(d)=v=vf-vi as final_speed vf minus initial_speed vi; & multiplied by the average_speed va=(vf+vi)/2=d/t as added final_speed vf & initial_speed vi divided by 2) . Th(os)e (2) speeds are vectors because they have “direction”, (also) meaning (each) in simplest form e.g. if in 1D, (the) travel can be either: positive (forward(s)); or (else) negative (backward). Mass (is a scalar, &) can NOT do that (bidirectionality). --- Disclaimer 1: I have NOT seen a “negative” mass -m (for that) coefficient (factor m); even if you rave about anti_matter; simply because it (=anti_matter) is (let us say) opposite_charge of (perhaps) a spin. The rule is, every charged (sub_atomic) particle, has its own oppositely charged (so_called aunty_) particle. (Does that include neutral (uncles)?) But during annihilation, at such a subatomic size, how can you prove your guess_work (=assumptions)? That (tracking) seems (to me) impossible to follow; & only a careless (misleading) idea. --- A vector (e.g. such as a(n average) speed v(a)) multiplied by a scalar (e.g. mass m) remains a vector (e.g. (average_)momentum mom(a)=m*v(a)) . But 2 (negative) vectors (e.g. speeds vd & va) loose their (negative) polarity -1=j^2 when multiplied together to become (& always stay, only) positive (scalar); (no matter) whether they were originally positive or negative. That is a loss of (the +/-) polarity information, which is NOT retrievable (=recoverable, salvageable) without using the (original) polarity (again). E.g. Using a factor *v/((v^2)^0.5), where the (linear_accelerated) speed_difference vd=v & visa versa (is the truncated_symbol syntax) v=vd, because they are identical. (I simply truncated the d.) The (vectorized) kinetic_energy(_difference) (e.g. as a) vector KEd=m*v*va*v/((v^2)^0.5) is the (scalar) KEd=m*v*va multiplied by its speed_difference’s polarity v/((v^2)^0.5). If that speed_difference v=vf-vi was negative then its KEd will also become negative. That is why I say (=question) do we really need (e.g. kinetic_)Energy? if we have to (re)modify so much; (because) it(s Energy_math alone) is inferior (NONSENSE). Why DON’T we (just) kick out the concept of Energy (all together)? & throw it away in(to) the garbage. Why do we perpetuate the error_making problems, (called) Energy? Why do we bother, at all, with (the concept, approximation) Energy? (E.g. I have proposed bending (=modifying) Newton’s motion laws (as detour) to get around the Energy error problems; (but that (detour) is) instead of dealing with the real (guilty) culprit (i.e. Energy).) It (=Energy) is way too complicated for what is needed. Energy (syntax, (an) approximation) was invented ((ruffly ~2*KE) by Leibniz; it’( i)s NOT Newtonian) to help describe linear_acceleration(’s work). But Leibniz originally confused mass m=Wt/g with weight Wt=m*g. It’( i)s the gravitational acceleration g=Wt/m that (had) caused that (confusion) problem for him (=Leibniz). Considering energy in analysing problems in physics is particularly simple and powerful, because it is a conserved property. Momentum likewise. It can often be useful to consider both. Depriving yourself of one of these is going to just make everything a lot harder.
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 4 hours ago, Capiert said: I agree with you Sensei. I am unable to learn LaTex Two true sentences in the forum-life.. 4 hours ago, Capiert said: & your programmers were unable My programmers do what I want.. 4 hours ago, Capiert said: & your programmers were unable convert text formats correctly. Thus they created a 1 directional conversion you call Latex. Even though I dislike LaTeX, I disagree. Equations can be very cumbersome and complex. The problem is forum software which does not preview in real-time what you write. For me, writing equation in LaTeX is easy, just as easy is writing in Python, or C/C++. Learn something and come back to us.. 4 hours ago, Capiert said: But I must say my post looks (a little) better than yours. ..it depends on the device.. On PC ("desktop computer"/"laptop") not really..
Capiert Posted October 14, 2023 Author Posted October 14, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sensei said: Energy is a physical thing, That (shockingly) seems like a noun (thing); but I got your drift, meaning concept. 4 hours ago, Sensei said: that is, you can certainly feel the difference between hot coffee/tea and cold coffee/tea. The question should be "how much leakage" of this energy, if any, instead of this crap: "Energy is NONSENSE". I think Swansont gave you (=us) your best (=simplest) so_called "crap" Energy example with a head on head collision of 2 masses each 1 [kg] at speed(s) v=(+/-)1 [m/s]. That'( i)s at sub_light speed(s); & the Energy does NOT agree with the momentum! (Need I say more?) 4 hours ago, Sensei said: If it's 0.00000000001 then you should show it. We would have at least had some scientific discussion on your part. E.g. Mass 1's mass m1=1 [kg] & (accelerated) speed_difference vd1=1 [m/s]; mass 2's mass m2=1 [kg] & (accelerated) speed_difference vd2=-1 [m/s]. 4 hours ago, Sensei said: But you are not able to. Really? The average_momentum (of each mass) is moma1=m1*va1=1 [kg]*1 [m/s]=1 [N*s] moma2=m1*va2=1 [kg]*(-1) [m/s]=-1 [N*s] momat=moma1+moma2=1 [N*s]-1 [N*s]=0. The total (average_)momentum is zero! However, the(ir) kinetic_energy(differences) are each 0.5 [J]; so, their, total input (Energy) is 1 [J]; but their NON_elastic (collision) result is zero Joule. KEd1=m1*vd1*va1=1 [kg]*1 [m/s]*0.5 [m/s]=0.5 [J] KEd2=m2*vd2*va2=1 [kg]*(-1) [m/s]*(-0.5) [m/s]=0.5 [J] KEdt=KEd1+KEd2=0.5 [J]+0.5 [J]=1 [J] total kinetic_Energy(_difference) input but the KEd_output=0 because all speeds are (gone to) zero meaning -1 [J] lost, abracadabra! What a bunch of JUNK! When assuming the speed_difference vd=vf-vi; & each initial_speed is zero vi=vi1=vi2=0 then their speed_differences vd1=vf1-vi1=0-1=-1 [m/s], & vd2=vf2-vi2=0-(-1) [m/s]=1 [m/s]) (for masses 1 & 2, are); where their (linearly_accelerated) final_speeds vf1=vi1+vd1=va1-vd1/2 vf2=vi2+vd2=va2-vd2/2 are the initial_speed vi plus the speed_speed(_difference) vd; &/or vf1=va1-vd1/2 vf2=va2-vd2/2 the average_speed va minus half the(ir) (accelerated) speed_difference vd/2. 4 hours ago, Sensei said: You are not able to, because physics and chemistry are experimental. That (sure) sounds like a false claim on your part. I'm quite sure the experiments (will) show the discrepancy (ERORR) between (average_)momentum versus (kinetic_)Energy(_difference) results. Kinetic_Energy is a looser & you guys are trying to cover up that (fact). E.g. With "dark" (=unknown) energy on a galactic scale. But I understand you (all) HAVEN'T a (faintest) CLUE because it is in your natural character to deny things you do NOT understand because of your education. Scientists can be typically the "LAST" person to learn what is new, because their education (brainwashing) interferes with what is obvious. (I.e. Common sense. Who has it? Every healthy person!). Typically, instead of saying they (scientists) have made a mistake; they (scientists, I DON'T want to mention any names) say, (=mildly admit) they (scientists) have discovered other than they ((have) wrongly) expected. WOAH! If the mistakes (=ERRORS) are NOT going to be admitted (& recognized); then how are "we" going to progress (e.g. in Physics) (& eliminate those errors). E.g. Recognition is the 1st step to improvement. 4 hours ago, Sensei said: Theoretical physics is something new in the 20th century. To become a theoretical physicist, you have to learn everything about experimental physics, chemistry, etc. Laymen on the Internet tend to skip the whole learning process and just post their useless drivel on science forums without bothering to acquire everything that real scientists took years of study. By the look of it some of their study was in vain. They forgot something (very important) like (e.g.) the initial_speed vi=vf-vd (especially if that is light's_speed c) which they love to eliminate in their (linearly accelerated) speed_difference vd=vf-vi. I'm NOT telling you something NEW; (but instead) just reminding you. Your calculations are full of holes if you have forgotten missing (initial) terms (which are prove_able with simple algebra (math)). You (=your colleagues & predecessors) have built up an unreliable empire ready to crumble; if you rely on ONLY those incomplete equations (with missing terms) that you (so) carelessly ignore & (even) reject. 4 hours ago, Sensei said: Check sandbox: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/99-the-sandbox/ There, even well-known members practiced.. Still a good tip, I'( a)m convinced. LaTex is (a spastic) over_kill because the programmers could NOT correctly convert all the(ir) .pdf or whatever formats. They did NOT know enough about the different text formats; so they invented their own (NON uni_directional) format to make things work (somewhat) correctly. Why the overhead (just because they could NOT do their task)? Now you are demanding everybody follow "their" mistake('s remedy). There exists (more than) a (=1) NEW text editor every (10) year(s). How many have I learned? & then NEVER need (it) again because something better comes (along), to overtake the situation; because the last (editor) was inferior. This 1 (LaTex) does NOT go backwards, e.g. it does NOT convert backwards into e.g. a Winword or .pdf file, because the programmers do NOT know how to do that (conversion) correctly (originally), so what have they learned? Here today, (but) gone tomorrow. Is that (programming), (called) science (Physics)? NO(! way (my friend)) that is NONSENSE, e.g. NOT understandable. You have peculiar "demands" because you CAN'T get your own act together. I'm only making (improvement) suggestions (to try & get out of the problems). You want to avoid your (existing) problems (& say they do NOT exist). E.g. Ohhh there are limitations! (..but because the formulas DON'T always work). Let us (both) say, there is room for improvements. It'( i)s NOT easy to change mainstream (opinions!). Einstein & Michelson both stood "against" mainstream; & look at where we are NOW. They (both) changed it (=mainstream) (instead of (completely) correcting it). What a mess! To summarize (this thread), I have made 2 suggestions: either: to kick_out (the scalar) Energy as NONSENSE; or else (if you want to keep Energy, although I do NOT know why) to vectorize it (=Energy) (as needed) (& eventually factor it (=Energy) with the scalar (called) mass (again) (as a distortion) mentioned in another thread: acceleration note) as an improvement. Disclaimer2: I do NOT find those (2) suggestions (either): rude; NOR (as) arrogant constrictions; but instead as liberal alternatives for improvement. E.g. You may choose either way; if you want to choose at all. I have only tried to state my observations & conclusions for that (part) of the development. Take it or leave it. Your past scientists did NOT like Galileo either; NOT to mention Ohm, Einstein, Michelson, Wilson (plate tectonics), ... You are all typically (mostly) of a rejecting attitude (tendency). It takes (much effort &) a very long time to convince you otherwise. But history repeats itself. For sure. Edited October 14, 2023 by Capiert typo -1
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 9 minutes ago, Capiert said: That (shockingly) seems like a noun (thing); Shocking only to the layman.... Everyone else can see the difference between a "full battery" and an "empty battery".... 11 minutes ago, Capiert said: I think Swansont gave you (=us) your best (=simplest) so_called "crap" Energy example with a head on head collision Collisions between two bodies should be calculated in the center-of-mass regime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass From CoM frame-of-reference, you should go to lab-frame-of-reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_reference_frame At non-relativistic speeds, i.e. in ordinary life situations, this is simplified to Newton's equations.
Capiert Posted October 14, 2023 Author Posted October 14, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sensei said: Laptop battery, cell phone battery certainly have no momentum.. They have a capacity expressed on the label as, for example, 10000 mAh. mA = 0.001 A h = 3600s Q=I*t I = 10000 mA = 10 A Q=10A * 3600s = 36000 C i.e. the device will work for 1h at 10A, or 10h at 1A (assuming no losses and lower voltage, which is unreliable) E= Q*U U is typically 3.6 V for Li-on battery.. Thanks Sensei. That's a good example. I will have to give it some thought (time). 4 hours ago, Sensei said: @Ghideon Do you want to become a billionaire? You'll be the second administrator.. You gave me an idea.. Objects which have melting point at lower T than STP "attracts" energy in any form from the world. Every object takes energy and releases it into the world. In "ambient temperature," what goes out, is what comes in, and we have an equilibrium. Transition from solid state to liquid state takes additional energy. Transition from liquid state to gaseous state takes additional energy. Transition from gaseous state to plasma state takes additional energy. (This is called ionization energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy ) There are others for the high energy regime in quantum physics. NO arguments there (with those Temperature Energy concepts commonly used). E.g. Those approximations work (often). (But I have to remind you that I am looking for an alternative (Newtonian math) concept; instead of (Leibniz's) Energy that will work just as well; if NOT better with fewer ERRORs.) (I envision) Temperature T=k*va/m is a quotient (proportional to) the particle's average_speed va "per" mass m (instead of "factor" "multiplied by" for the product of (average_)momentum moma=va*m); (&) where k is simply some sort of (correction) proportionality_constant. That is simply 2 different math methods: e.g. T (quotient) versus KEd (product); using 2 similar parameters: e.g. the average_speed va & which is then either: divided by or (else) multiplied by the mass m. 3 hours ago, studiot said: So you can perform the following simple calculation, without using energy. Please show me how. I have a 1kg bar of lead that I wish to melt. I have a bunsen burner and a suitable steel pot to melt the bar in. How much gas do I need to fully melt the bar ? Please ignore losses for this calculation. 2 methods (alternatives) occur to my mind. E.g. I can convert existing energy values into some kind of momentum; or else (I can abandon that method completely) & concentrate on the average_momentum squared concept as a mass*Energy substitute. I will need too much time to (accurately) prepare that (details); & hinder errors (stumbling blocks). Please (excuse me, but) would you (please) prepare th(os)e Energy calculations (for me) & I would attempt to convert that (in)to (some kind of) momentum. I would then know what (numbers) to expect & whatever format you desire (if I wish to copy it). I consider I might be a better editor than author. Edited October 14, 2023 by Capiert typo
Sensei Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 21 minutes ago, Capiert said: Thanks Sensei. That's a good example. I will have to give it some thought (time). Don't think. Buy a powerbank. Power it up. And verify its capacity..
swansont Posted October 14, 2023 Posted October 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Capiert said: I think Swansont gave you (=us) your best (=simplest) so_called "crap" Energy example with a head on head collision of 2 masses each 1 [kg] at speed(s) v=(+/-)1 [m/s]. That'( i)s at sub_light speed(s); & the Energy does NOT agree with the momentum! ! Moderator Note As I recall, I was rebutting your ludicrous assertion that kinetic energy is a conserved quantity. Momentum and energy are different concepts and are used in different circumstances. As studiot’s example shows, there are situations where conservation of momentum does not help you in arriving at an answer. There are kinematic example where using momentum is the wrong approach, too (probably ones involving circular motion, or a force acting through a distance) But the thing is, you’re not really offering an alternative; your insistence on new terminology and formatting make it hard to follow your tortured presentation, and I don’t recall you having actually solved any problems. Your dissatisfaction with energy is yours. That’s fine, as long as that’s as far as it goes. But it’s not shared by the vast majority of people doing physics, and not liking a concept doesn’t make it wrong. You’re just ranting, and have to misrepresent physics to make your point. This might not be deliberate, you give off strong indications of simply not understanding, but you show no indication that you want to learn anything. Rule 2.12 prohibits “advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic” because such arguments are not in good faith. Which is why this is being locked. Don’t start any new threads along these lines. Enough is enough. 1
Recommended Posts