What... but... that's not why the equation has a velocity squared term in it.

Okay. Technically the application of work on a mass results in a change in energy. Therefore,

W = E[sub]kf[/sub] - E[sub]ki[/sub].

Given that Work is also equal to Force multiplied by the distance over which that force is applied (since the two have a linear relationship),

W = Fd,

and given Newton's second law, F= ma:

W = mad.

E[sub]kf[/sub] - E[sub]ki[/sub] = mad.

Given that,
a = Δv / Δt

a = (v[sub]f[/sub] - v[sub]i[/sub]) / Δt
aΔt = v[sub]f[/sub] - v[sub]i[/sub].
v[sub]f[/sub] = v[sub]i[/sub] + aΔt

and given that,
mean = (sum of elements) / (number of elements)
mean velocity = d / t

d / t = (1/2)(v[sub]f[/sub] + v[sub]i[/sub])
d = (1/2)(v[sub]f[/sub] + v[sub]i[/sub])t

d = (1/2)(v[sub]i[/sub] + v[sub]i[/sub] + at)t
d = (1/2)(2v[sub]i[/sub] + at)t
d = v[sub]i[/sub]t + (1/2)at^2

E[sub]kf[/sub] - E[sub]ki[/sub] = m * a * (v[sub]i[/sub]t + (1/2)at^2)

Assuming the object starts at rest,

E[sub]kf[/sub] = (1/2) * m * a^2 * t^2 = (1/2) * m * (at)^2

Given (see above)
at = v[sub]f[/sub] - v[sub]i[/sub]

and given that the object started at rest,

at = v[sub]f[/sub]

E[sub]kf[/sub] = (1/2) * m * v^2

E[sub]k[/sub] = (1/2)mv^2

Therefore, your degree came from a diploma mill. Q.E.D.

Friend14 is right. We're all the victims of an OMQ PHISICS CONSPIRICEY!

Look Cap'nFriend just give it up! Your pissing off alot of people by carring this stupid crap on! Maybe if you just give up and admit defeat this can all be ended peacefully

Like you get to talk about when other people piss everyone off.


No one likes you downs boy.

Holy crap, Zul needs to get in here and administer some stovetop metaphors.

Friend/Cap'n: What kind of physics course did you BS your way through? Your crackpot theory can easily be disproven by simple tests. Your basic comprehension is way off base as well.

http://nov55.com/spw.html

And your man is a nutbar.

Holy crap, I just started looking through that site.

Yeah it reads like a slightly less schizophrenic version of TimeCube. With better text formatting.

Anyone else here not understand any of the scientific stuff posted, and so just scroll through these threads looking for the insults?

*raises hand*

It's fun.

No, because most of us aren't idiots.





There you go.

Some of us learn about things other than sciences.

I'll be honest: I didn't even bother reading the site Friend14 linked to.

There are two reasons I didn't:

1. It was an article written by a self-titled physicist who attempts to disprove Newtonian kinematics and dynamics. You know what? No. Just no. Every single physicist in the world acknowledges classical physics as a useful and reasonably accurate approximation of the universe for the overwhelming majority of terrestrial phenomena. Physicists who do not accept Newton's laws as a reasonable approximation are foolish, because Newton's laws have been demonstrated in literally millions of experiments and I have yet to see a single one of these crackpot theories have similar results.
   In fact, Newton's laws are the benchmark for new theories in physics. Quantum physics and relativity both provide proofs of the basic laws of motion (which we are debating the accuracy of). Theories that cannot prove Newton's laws (and vice-versa) are generally considered to be incorrect.
   
2. It was written by, if I read Friend14's ramblings correctly, one of his professors. Consider what Friend14 knows about physics and you are left with one of three possibilities. First, the teacher is seriously off the deep end. Second, the teacher is actively working to discredit physics as a discipline. Third, the teacher got his degree from the same mill Friend14 did.

About Myself:
Geniuses like myself are too few in number to waste our precious time on trivia. You'll also notice that I'm an essayist. I'm attempting the salvage the halotropic system of analysis. This requires a reconstruction of the metamorphic intangibles of cognitive thought. There are displacements of quantum variables in holophoric derivatives creating bivalent algorithms as manifestations of mental dysfunctions. Getting that fixed is a real pain. That's why I don't have much time to spend on this site.

Aaahahahahahaa!!

What a fracking nutjob! Seriously, friend14. Where the hell do you come up with these people? He used Word's thesaurus for those big words to make himself sound somewhat smart.

I think I found my favourite page: http://nov55.com/art2.html

CaptBevvil, have you ever tried designing and making something that relied on using kinetic energy during the calculations for the design?
If you're so sure you're right, try it. At my uni, second year mechanical engineering students design and make an air piston motor (ie a simple piston motor that uses pressurised air). We had to make it meet specific power and speed outputs. Using your concept of kinetic energy, I would have failed.

Holy crap, I finally read the article energy and I can tell from the first paragraph he doesn't know what he's talking about.

You took that totally out of context from the rest of the page you pulled it from which was full of satire (which I'm sure you knew but decided to post anyway to support your previous claim.

1. Mr. Novak is/was not my proffesor but one of a handful of progressive theorist.

2. He lives in seclusion for reasons he states on his site. I don't personally agree with his person opinions on the spirtual world, but his conclusion on energy is solid and matches several other independant theorist. He's explaination is the most researched and detailed.

3. That being said, anyone who has seen 'A Beautiful Mind' (which was based off of a true story) demonstrates how even those that suffer from dillusions can even win the Nobel Prize. It's a logical fallacy to assume that just because someone suffers from a handicap of some sort that they are incapable of rational and logical thoughts.



You obviously overlooked the second paragraph:
"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."

There's also no logical reason to use a "Mean Velocity." This is all apart of the mathematical fiddle that was used 'to make the Math line up' as it were. Mr. Novak gives a historical analysis of Mr. Leibniz's work on deriving the classical deffinition of energy here.

Falling Objects
Complete Math
Math Explained
Concise Math
Details of Proof

Mr. Novak also addresses typical 'Debunker' respondses.

He was banned from a physics debate forum for posting nude pictures of children, advocating intercourse with children, and arguing his physics were right in the face of being disproven.

First paragraphs are introductory paragraphs that give a glimps of what is contained in the body. To judge his entire work by an introductory paragraph is using flawed logic.

Who? Proof?

Wait, Friend14 still thinks he knows what physics IS? I think you should just accept the fact that Physics is just way beyond your ability to understand and drop down to something easier to understand.... like basic arithmetic.

Fixd. lol!

Uh, the admin wrote:
"Since the whole concept of 'freedom of thought' rests on the freedom of the individual to believe whatever one thinks is best (freedom of belief), I refuse to delete or moderate an existing posts of Gary Novak, which many of you found offending and emailed me about."

"Sorry Gary, we are a very new forum and with your attitude on the board it wouldn't be what we envisioned it like. Also note, that this has nothing to do with your scientific posts and believes, but simply and only for creating a bad atmosphere at DebateScience.com."

Nothing about what you mentioned above. Nice attempt to poison the well, but I suggest finding somewhere else to troll.

Read it again:



It's an example of a ban-worthy offense, not an accusation against Novak.

The admin pretty clearly states that he was banned solely for being an antagonistic putz.

Friend14, you still have yet to disprove Jon`C's mathematically-sound proof of KE.

Mr. Novak does a good job of correcting the classical 'proof', including the (flawed) logic that was used to derrive it.

I posted that purely because it made me laugh. Out loud. It shows what a fool the man is, context or none. Seriously, find another role model and please stop posting his lies as your own attempts at 'individual thought'.

Just give it up.
You lost Cap'n friend now take a Dishonorable retreat.

How does it make him a fool when it's obvious satire? Your primary reason for posting it was a vein attempt to poison the well instead of address the direct issue at hand. You debate tactics are flawed.

How do you figure? No one has even attempted to debunk Mr. Novak's claim short of saying 'but that's not what my physics book says.' The arguement is flawed. It's like an athiest saying there's no God and a christian saying 'but that's not what my bible says.'

Actually when i [and dont know JACK about physics other then its awesome and quarks and singularities are cool]read that you'r mentor has posted freaking kiddie porn and calls himself a genius i get skepical. Also you've lost all of the arguements presented.

Just maybe leave for a while and let everything cool down.

How can you take a person who believes that alien abduction involves seperation of spirit and body seriously? I've read two seemingly random pages of his, and I seriously think he's off his rocker. >.>;;

If our understandings of physics are so horribly wrong, I honestly don't think we would've gotten to the moon. <.<;; Lest he also has a way of proving that that only succeeded by sheer dumb luck.

No. It was in stage 77 on lot 3 in universal studios....
>.>
<.<

Care to debunk it, then?

I debate tactics are flawed?

Seriously, I'm not debating you. You are wrong, we all know you're wrong, everyone here can see your Mr Novak is a ****ing loon and accusing me of poisoning a well, metaphorical or otherwise, will not change any of those facts.

End of discussion.

Hey hey hey! Loons are AWESOME! Don't you go dissing them loons by having them connected with that guy!
<3 Loons

LETS TRY A NEW POST!

Capt. Why is it seemingly your life's goal to (foolishly) try to disprove the fundamentals of physics? Newton's Second law (F=ma) has been subjected to countless trials and experiment. It holds every time. I did experiments in my physics classes both college and high school pertaining to work, kinetic energy, etc. They all fit the model of (1/2)mv[sup]2[/sup] with some error due to experiment flaws. All your arguments have been thoroughly flushed down. Jon'C provided a mathematical proof for (1/2)mv[sup]2[/sup]. You can't get more definitive than that. If you want to see REAL physics done. Pick up an issue of American Journal of Physics and read an article or paper. New ideas based on proven concepts in physics. That's how the field works.

You see, you fell for the poisoning of the well gimmicks by jEDIkIRBY and Martyn. If you'll read above, Argath and I both proved he never posted any type of kiddie porn. Martyn misquoted the "I am a genius" from a page full of satire.

[quote=Pedro T Hutt]How can you take a person who believes that alien abduction involves seperation of spirit and body seriously? I've read two seemingly random pages of his, and I seriously think he's off his rocker. >.>;;[/quote]

I've stated that I don't agree with his personal opinions on the spirtual world. To his credit, he did link to several books on the subject. But again, it has nothing to do with physics and it is irrational to judge one collection of thoughts by your opinion of another collection of thoughts that are independant of one another.



As previously stated, the error in conceptual understanding is more wrong then then the result of the math (of which there is a very very small degree of difference that goes undetected in most applications). What happens in a lot of casses is where researchers have a starting result and an end result and they just muddle through the stuff in between. In most cases, the end result is the only calculation carried over, the middle stuff was just a muddled explaination of how they got there. Extreme cases where the results were wrong are Relativity (which cannot be proven by design) and String Theory (which has been proven to be wrong). For instance, in string theory, the theorist knew where to start and knew where they were suppose to end up, but it didn't gain any recognition until they had the math to prove it. So they worked with it and worked with it and got to a point where they couldn't go any further. Then they followed a rational along the lines of "what if there was another dimension?" So they add another dimension to the math (without ever proving that such a dimension exists). They hit another road block, "well, there must be another dimension." The original theorist ended up assuming there were about 7 dimension in total (to make their math work). This was a great breakthrough for the scientific community. That is, until several other theorist worked on it and derrived that there were between 6-8 dimensions. Since logically all of the different string theories (7 of them IIRC) couldn't all be correct, String Theory suddenly became the largest embarrassment to the scientific community. Later, String Theory has be resurrect into M-Theory which combines all 7 of them in an attempt to unify them. I think their up to like 23 dimensions in the math. Of course, they can't prove that any of them actually exist beyond the first 3.

And that's one of the single most largest problems that exist in the scientific community today. It' the idea that a concept such a math can prove something exists. That is not science. Science (particuraily physics) should be giving logical approximation (math) for reality, which is what Jon'C stated earlier. The only problem is that this hasn't been the case for the pass 100 years, ever since Eistien elluded that observation is reality.

Quoted for provocation. And now with updated siggy goodness.

I'm going for a pint.