Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s physics 
Sujet : Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)
De : bertietaylor (at) *nospam* myyahoo.com (bertietaylor)
Groupes : sci.physics
Date : 16. Jul 2024, 02:31:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : novaBBS
Message-ID : <14b4e41dccb31dfc4699ef71e5ce1a57@www.novabbs.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Rocksolid Light
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 18:20:16 +0000, David Canzi wrote:

On 7/14/24 19:25, bertietaylor wrote:
Search and ye shall find.
Arindam has explained them hundreds of times in his online posts on
sci.physics.
Use Google groups for searching.
>
With your extensive knowledge of everything that happens inside
Arindam's head, you must surely know what N and k represent.  It
would take you less effort to tell us than it would take for me
to hunt for it.  It would take you less effort to tell us than
you have already spent rationalizing and evading in this thread.
Ah, well, as you say it nicely unlike the Penisnino.  Arindam Banerjee
is a very nice man, and so here goes...
Assume that you can somehow with internal energy leading to internal
force without reaction give with that internal energy a closed mass m an
acceleration leading to a gain of velocity v.
Now this is impossible with our existing notions about physics for it
will violate Newton's first law.
Again, suppose it can be done.
Then with no friction (as in outer space) with N hits the body will gain
the velocity Nv.
Energy is required for each hit, that energy coming from sources in the
closed mass.
Let kE be the internal energy required for each hit, where E is the
energy required for accelerating the mass and k is a factor which is
greater than unity, being a measure of the energy loss in the process of
accelerating the mass. In other words, a loss factor relating to heat
generation, that is dissipated.
Right so far? (Apart from the assumption, about which, later.)
Now, for N hits the internal energy expended will be NkE.
E=0.5mv^2 - always for every reference frame with velocity reference Nv.
So the internal energy expended will be Nk0.5mv^2. (1)
The mass will take a velocity of Nv with a kinetic energy of 0.5m(Nv)^2
(2)
As per the law of conservation of energy they should be the same, but
that is not the case with large N and  a fixed k.
So there is a gain of energy e for the mass m which is the difference
between (2) and (1)
or e=0.5mvvN(N-k)
Now, about going to the stars.
Go to speed Nv after N hits. (Gain heaps of energy)
Cruise.
Then turn around.
Reach speed -Nv after N hits. (Lose heaps of energy)
Thus showing energy is eternally created and destroyed in the universe.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
woof-woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's ghostly cyberpooches)

Date Sujet#  Auteur
1 Jul 24 * Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)69bertietaylor
1 Jul 24 `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)68Jim Pennino
2 Jul 24  `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)67bertietaylor
2 Jul 24   `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)66Jim Pennino
2 Jul 24    `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)65bertietaylor
2 Jul 24     `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)64Athel Cornish-Bowden
2 Jul 24      `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)63bertietaylor
3 Jul 24       `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)62Jim Pennino
3 Jul 24        `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)61bertietaylor
3 Jul 24         +* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)18bertietaylor
3 Jul 24         i+- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1Jim Pennino
3 Jul 24         i`* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)16David Canzi
3 Jul 24         i `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)15Jim Pennino
4 Jul 24         i  +* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)12bertietaylor
4 Jul 24         i  i+* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)10bertietaylor
4 Jul 24         i  ii`* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)9Jim Pennino
4 Jul 24         i  ii `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)8bertietaylor
4 Jul 24         i  ii  `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)7Jim Pennino
5 Jul 24         i  ii   `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)6bertietaylor
5 Jul 24         i  ii    `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)5Jim Pennino
6 Jul 24         i  ii     `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)4bertietaylor
6 Jul 24         i  ii      `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)3Jim Pennino
10 Jul 24         i  ii       `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)2bertietaylor
10 Jul 24         i  ii        `- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1Jim Pennino
4 Jul 24         i  i`- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1Jim Pennino
12 Jul 24         i  `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)2Volney
12 Jul 24         i   `- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1bertietaylor
3 Jul 24         `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)42Jim Pennino
4 Jul 24          `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)41bertietaylor
4 Jul 24           +- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1Jim Pennino
9 Jul 24           `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)39David Canzi
9 Jul 24            `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)38Jim Pennino
9 Jul 24             `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)37David Canzi
10 Jul 24              `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)36Jim Pennino
10 Jul 24               +* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)4bertietaylor
10 Jul 24               i`* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)3Jim Pennino
10 Jul 24               i `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)2bertietaylor
10 Jul 24               i  `- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1Jim Pennino
10 Jul 24               `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)31David Canzi
10 Jul 24                +- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1Jim Pennino
11 Jul 24                `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)29bertietaylor
11 Jul 24                 +* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)11Jim Pennino
11 Jul 24                 i`* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)10bertietaylor
11 Jul 24                 i `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)9Jim Pennino
12 Jul 24                 i  `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)8bertietaylor
12 Jul 24                 i   `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)7Jim Pennino
12 Jul 24                 i    `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)6bertietaylor
12 Jul 24                 i     `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)5Jim Pennino
13 Jul 24                 i      `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)4bertietaylor
13 Jul 24                 i       `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)3Jim Pennino
13 Jul 24                 i        `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)2bertietaylor
13 Jul 24                 i         `- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1Jim Pennino
12 Jul 24                 `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)17David Canzi
13 Jul 24                  `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)16bertietaylor
13 Jul 24                   +* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)11Jim Pennino
13 Jul 24                   i`* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)10bertietaylor
13 Jul 24                   i `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)9Jim Pennino
14 Jul 24                   i  `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)8bertietaylor
14 Jul 24                   i   `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)7Jim Pennino
15 Jul 24                   i    `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)6bertietaylor
15 Jul 24                   i     `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)5Jim Pennino
15 Jul 24                   i      `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)4bertietaylor
15 Jul 24                   i       +- Newton's Laws of Motion as revised by Arindam1bertietaylor
15 Jul 24                   i       `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)2Jim Pennino
16 Jul 24                   i        `- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1bertietaylor
14 Jul 24                   `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)4David Canzi
15 Jul 24                    `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)3bertietaylor
15 Jul 24                     `* Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)2David Canzi
16 Jul 24                      `- Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)1bertietaylor

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal