Because he was a coward and deleted his own thread, I'm continuing it here:

Kinetic energy (Ek = (1/2)mv^2) is an expression of Work, not an expression of Force. Work is also force applied over a distance. Instantaneous Force is useful to determine the rate that energy is applied to an object, but it is most certainly not energy.

Kinetic Energy is the amount of Work that was applied to a specific mass to cause it to move at a specific velocity.

No, that is momentum. p=mv.
E[sub]k[/sub] = (1/2)mv^2.

Force is the rate that kinetic energy is applied to a mass.

F = ma. Mass does not change significantly enough for the equation to matter. Additionally, as mass increases momentum increases. I believe these terms cancel cout but I'm not going to waste my time writing a proof for it.

Are we talking about a rocket or are we talking about your perpetual motion machine?

Tehee, jonc's been coding too much.

And I'm sick of these threads. I wish you'd have left it deleted. He's never going to realize SIMPLE physics, so why bother?

The fact that he's deleting his threads means he knows his logic is absolute nonsense. He knows. He just doesn't want to admit it.

The scary thing is that all his stuff can be disproven simply by doing dimensional analysis.

[QUOTE=- Tony -]:v:[/QUOTE]

I can't stop laughing!

I'm really considering taking away the option to allow users to delete their own threads. Any reasonable forum do that?

no, Massassi is the only forum I visit that gives their users that option.

If people want threads deleted they should have to ask an admin.

Quite true. I don't think users should be able to delete posts or threads.

What about closing?

Edit: Jon'C: We should get kyle90, DSettahr, GoY, Stinkywrix, and do a porno! (assuming you read that thread).

No to that too. It's not a problem on most forums because the people who would use these features - idiots, cowards - usually get banned quickly.

swap.avi :saddowns:

I will never ever ever ever watch that.



Unlike kyle90.

That is exactly what I said.

edit: Oh yeah, Kyle saw it. I sure feel sorry for him.

[QUOTE=- Tony -]:v:[/QUOTE]

WIN

I didn't even know we could delete our own threads

Deleting threads and posts is very useful. Don't do away with it.

How about just banning the people who misuse it?

That's an option..

Oh god you guys had to go remind me of swap.avi

Hey, you're the one here whos actually watched it!

STFU

I thought it was more hilarious than anything...

One word...

Metis


I'm evil.

Every forum I've been to does this. At a pretty large forum where I am a mod, however, they cannot permanently delete (mods can still see deleted threads, as I think is the case here). There, mods can't permanently delete threads of anyone either.

Ok. Can delete posts but can't delete threads. Tacked on with ban clause for abuse.

I deleted the thread because it was off-topic and was being trolled. I stated in the thread for someone to start a new topic if they wanted to discuss physics, but again, people don't know how to act maturely and the mods/admins are not doing their job.



Mr. Novak does a very fine job of explain the intricacies in great detail.

http://nov55.com/anerr.html

Excerpt:

"The formula is KE = ½mv². It indicates that the energy of motion is in proportion to mass times velocity squared. Squaring the velocity is the problem, because no mass can move at velocity squared. As a result, the formula is an abstraction apart from the motion of the mass. explanation

A similar contradiction in logic shows up in the force-distance form of the analysis. Supposedly, kinetic energy is proportional to force times distance for an accelerating mass. However, the force does not move through any distance relative to the mass it acts upon. Distance relates to the starting point, which the force does not act upon.

As indicated elsewhere (including collision analysis) transformations of kinetic energy need to be analyzed relative to the point where the energy acts (impact points), while force times distance creates a reference frame relative to the starting point. Errors result from the incorrect reference frame."



see above and link.



see above and link. As it turns out, many of the concepts of physics are related in a much more concise way then originally thought.



see link. Force is the measure of kinetic energy at any moment of t.




Off hand (Relativity aside) I can't think of any way for the sum of mass to increase significantly. Typically the sum of mass would decrease, such as in the case of a Rocket (hull + fuel). In the case of a projectile, the mass wouldn't change at all (Relativity aside). At any rate, that's why I wrote it as (m1-m2) instead of (m2-m1) even though it's semantical in concept.



A rocket, to give an example of the ussage of the sum of masses. As a rocket uses the fuel, the total mass of the rocket will decrease for each unit of t. How would a perpetual motion machine lose mass????

Something I learned a long, long time ago--never ever try to do an admin's job for him, or dictate what is and isn't his job.

Because they're admins for a reason, and you're not for a reason.

Get your head out of your ***.

Also, a rocket is an inefficient model of an object in motion, as most objects don't lose mass as they go, but a rocket must to maintain its constant speed (it doesn't accelerate except at the beginning and negative acceleration at the end of its flight path). Think more of a ball being thrown, it loses and gains no mass (except the negligible mass differences added by energy--it takes an enormous amount of energy to make mass, and a small amount of mass to make energy--thus why humongous amounts of energy are released in the splitting of one atom.)

omg

*head explodes*

I got about this far before multiple s invaded my brain. We need the big psyduck that's vomiting psyducks.

What the Jesus frack?? This person hasn't picked up a physics textbook as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#More_simple_examples

CaptBevvil: I cannot police this site day and night. MBeggar cannot police this site day and night. Nor can Wolfy, GoY, Detty or every other sodding admin. We'll catch the perpetrators when we can, aight. Chill.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Also, a rocket is an inefficient model of an object in motion, as most objects don't lose mass as they go, but a rocket must to maintain its constant speed (it doesn't accelerate except at the beginning and negative acceleration at the end of its flight path).[/QUOTE]

Actually (if you had read the site) the rocket is used to compare the amount of energy in proportion the amount of fuel used to create the motion and energy. That is why it is a perfect model for examining energy (not just motion). A rocket is actually a perfect model for a lot of conceptual applications. At least read the site before you respond.



Except THAT is the problem. The text books are wrong. Check his work out. It's solid PLUS he explains why the text books are wrong. He's done his research (as you can see from reading his site).



It's one thing to be too busy (or having your own life)...it's another thing to turn your head the other way...

Personally, I didn't want to delete the other thread because there were some interesting inputs to the discussion, but Emon and the others insisted on derailing it.

You know what we need to do; is come up with some simple experiment that can be performed without leaving one's room, that proves that the original theories are correct. It shouldn't be too hard; if you have stuff like a stopwatch, some weights, a bathroom scale, etc. to work with, I'm sure one could devise an experiment that would prove some basic relationships like Ek=1/2mv^2

Afhdfhsafhf My head is exploding AGAIN!!1

What !

But what if one were to become, how shall we say, tipsy with indiscreet libation of the firewater, and wish to rapidly post and delete the woman of the tub? To deny them is a shame.

Ah Obie so random yat so fullfiling. No pointless thread is complete without you.

:downs:

:saddowns:
.

There is no feasable way that kinetic ENERGY can equal momentum. Look at the units.

E[sub]k[/sub] = 1/2mv[sup]2[/sup]

kg*m[sup]2[/sup]/s[sup]2[/sup] = N * m = J(oule)

mv = kg*(m/s)

Friend14... just... stop...........

KE = momentum ! I swear!

Also, :downs:

So your professor is right because he's right and it seems like he's right.

Man, your logic is astounding.

I guess he's singlehandedly proven EVERY SINGLE PHYSICS THEORY ON THE PLANET wrong.

The man deserves a medal.

Sidenote: Sarcasm is not in my vocabulary.