An immortal fumble by Marcel Luttgens (22-Dec-2006)
"You found that total kinetic energy is frame dependent, which is false"
Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > <mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message > news:1166798723.330981.91300@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote: > >> <mluttgens@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message > >> news:1166783736.920732.127760@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> [snip Valev rant] > >> > >> > Imagine a car 1 of mass m1 moving at v1 and a car 2 of mass m2 > >> > moving at -v2 wrt a tree situated along the road, hence when they > >> > collide, their total kinetic energy is (m1v1^2 + m2v2^2)/2. > >> > According to Einsteinian relativity, one can consider that car 1 is > >> > at rest, and that car 2 is moving at about V = -(v1 + v2) wrt car 1 > >> > (as v1 << c and v2 << c). > >> > Then, their total kinetic energy is m2V^2/2, which is of course > >> > different from (m1v1^2 + m2v2^2)/2, unless m1=0 and m2=0. > >> > Conclusively, Einsteinian relativity only applies to massless bodies, > >> > i.e. to mathematical points. > >> > >> You Total Imbecile, this is according to *Galilean* relativity: > >> So conclusively, "Galilelan relativity only applies to massless bodies, > >> i.e. to mathematical points." > >> 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 = 1/2 m2 V^2 > >> From the point of view of car2, the total kinetic energy is > >> 1/2 m1 (v1+v2)^2 = 1/2 m1 V^2 > > > > Exactly, Galilean relativity is wrong in such cases. > > Galilean relativity is wrong because it does not support > Marcel Imbecile Luttgens' Law of Invariance of Energy, > right :-) > > > > >> > >> According to *special* relativity: > > > > You forgot the 'relativistic' addition of velocities. > > No, I did not forget it, blind imbecile. > I added > v12 = ( v1 + v2 ) / (1 + v1/c v2/c ) > at the end. > > > > But OK, as v1<<c and v2<<c. > > But then, also, 1/sqrt(1-v1^2/c^2) or 1/sqrt(1-v2^2/c^2) ~ 1 ! > > And 1/sqrt(1-v1^2/c^2) - 1 or 1/sqrt(1-v2^2/c^2) - 1 ~ 0 > > No, demented imbecile, as v1 << c and v2 << c > ( 1/sqrt(1-v1^2/c^2) -1 ) c^2 ~ 1/2 v1^2 > ( 1/sqrt(1-v2^2/c^2) -1 ) c^2 ~ 1/2 v2^2 > It's called a Mclaurin series. > Work it out, stronzo ;-) > > > > >> From the point of view of the tree, the total kinetic energy is > >> m1 ( 1/sqrt(1-v1^2/c^2) - 1 ) c^2 + m2 ( 1/sqrt(1-v2^2/c^2) - 1) c^2 > > > > Thus, moron, the total kinetic energy ~ 0, according to > > *special* relativity ! > > No, demented imbecile, as v1 << c and v2 << c > m1 ( 1/sqrt(1-v1^2/c^2) -1 ) c^2 + m2 ( 1/sqrt(1-v2^2/c^2) -1 ) c^2 > ~ 1/2 m1 v2^2 + 1/2 m2 v2^2 > It's called a Mclaurin series. > > > > >> From the point of view of car1, the total kinetic energy is > >> m2 ( 1/sqrt(1-v12^2/c^2 - 1 ) c^2 > > > > Again, ~ 0 ! > > No, demented imbecile, as v1 << c and v2 << c > ~ 1/2 m2 (v1+v2)^2 > It's called a Mclaurin series. > > > > >> From the point of view of car2, the total kinetic energy is > >> m1 ( 1/sqrt(1-v12^2/c^2 - 1) c^2 > > > > Again, ~ 0 ! > > No, demented imbecile, as v1 << c and v2 << c > ~ 1/2 m1 (v1+v2)^2 > It's called a Mclaurin series. > > > > > Happy New Year, Dirk. > > > >> where > >> v12 = ( v1 + v2 ) / (1 + v1/c v2/c ) > >> > >> Merry Christmas, Marcel: > >> https://home.deds.nl/~dvdm/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LuttgensAgain.html > >> Way to go! > >> > >> Dirk Vdm > > > > Happy Alzheimer's, Marcel. > I surely hope you'll remain as cluelessly ignorant and utterly > stupid in 2007 as you have been in 2006. > > Dirk Vdm 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. You have perhaps some notions of SR, but your SR brainwashing inhibits any sense of physical reality. Iow, you are a true crackpot. Marcel Luttgens |
|
| Fumble Index | Original post & context: 1166802694.254589.32200@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com |
|
See also |
|