On Aug 23, 8:38 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 11:01 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 12:58 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Jerry:
> 
>> A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The latter statement
>> certainly applies to you. “Derivations” of anything, by
>> mathematicians, are suspect. I’ve already explained that to you.
> 
> Nevertheless, your "definition" of kinetic energy
>       KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m)
> fails basic consistency checks. The first term has units of M,
> while the second term has units of ML/T so the addition of the
> two is rather like the addition of apples and oranges. This is
> in contrast to all other accepted measures of energy, which
> have units of ML^2/T^2
> 
> Dimensional inconsistency is a basic indicator that a formula
> is incorrect.

Dear Jerry:  You are an in-the-mold DUNCE who thinks that UNITS must
be reflected in every operation of equations.  Sometimes units are
just proportionality factors, and those do NOT have to be expressed in
the "units" of the result!  For your edification (hopeless, I'm sure):
Force, Momentum, PE, KE and Power all have just one unit—pounds (or
the metric equivalent).  Only Work is correctly written in existing
textbooks as "foot pounds".

I won't be wasting my time replying to you any more, that is, unless
you can show that you have something in your belfry besides feathers
and dung.  — NoEinstein —