An immortal fumble by Ken Seto (23-Dec-2006)
Seto adds the cherry on the cake!
<mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1166807106.637245.3970@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > > <mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:1166802694.254589.32200@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > Wonderful, with the help of McLaurin, you found that > > > the total kinetic energy is frame dependent, which is > > > false, as when the cars collide, you get only *one* > > > solution, i.e. (m1v1^2 + m2v2^2)/2. > > > > Well, it is not false, and here is the hard proof. > > From the point of view of the tree, the total kinetic energy is > > 1/2 ( m1 v1^2 + m2 v2^2 ). > > From the point of view of car1, the total kinetic energy is > > 1/2 m2 (v1+v2)^2 > > From the point of view of car2, the total kinetic energy is > > 1/2 m1 (v1+v2)^2 > > You are utterly wrong, the only physical solution is > 1/2 ( m1 v1^2 + m2 v2^2 ). It is *absolute*, not relative. > Your 'hard' proof is not even soft. Vdm is an idiot runt of the SRians. From the point of view of car 1, the total kenietic energy is 1/2 m2 (V2)^2 where V2 is the measured relative velocity of car2 by car1. From the point of view of car 2, the total kenetic energy is 1/2 m1 (V1)^2 where V1 is the measured relative velocity of car1 by car2. You will find that 1/2 m2 (V2)^2 = 1/2 m1 (V1)^2 Why? Because V1 /= V2 and the reason is that a clock second in car1 has different absolute time content (duration content) than a clock second in car2 Ken Seto |
|
| Fumble Index | Original post & context: 458d304f$0$17157$4c368faf@roadrunner.com |
|
See also |
|