Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)

Liste des GroupesRevenir à sp research 
Sujet : Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)
De : dr.j.thornburg (at) *nospam* gmail-pink.com (Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply])
Groupes : sci.physics.research
Date : 01. Mar 2025, 10:18:54
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <m2g1nuF6gbtU1@mid.dfncis.de>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
In article <m28047FughsU1@mid.dfncis.de>, I wrote
the momentum transfer during the collision is actually
*two-way*, i.e., *each* body transfers some momentum to the other body.
That is, during the collision A's momentum changes (because B transfers
some momentum to A), AND B's momentum changes (because A transfers some
momentum to B).
>
[[...]]

In other words, during the collison B transfers momentum -3.75 to A,
so that A's momentum changes by Delta_p_A=-3.75.  AND, during the
collision A transfers momentum +3.75 to B, so that B's momentum changes
by Delta_p_B=+3.75.

In article <vps7vq$3laqc$1@dont-email.me>, Luigi Fortunati replied
Body B has a momentum -3 and, therefore, cannot transfer -3.75 to body
A because it does not have it.

This is mistaken.  (Linear) momentum doesn't have an inherent zero point,
so there's never a case where one body doesn't have enough momentum to
transfer some to another body.  Rather, momentum is analogous to position
on a number line, where being at position -3 doesn't prevent you from moving
a distance 3.75 either to the right or to the left.

One way to "see this in action" is to consider what the collision would
look like if analyzed in a different inertial reference frame (IRF).  For
example, let's consider an IRF which is moving to with a velocity v=-10
(i.e., moving the left at a speed of 10) with respect to Luigi's original
IRF.  In this new IRF, each velocity is the velocity in Luigi's original
IRF + 10.

In this new IRF, the speeds and momenta before the collision are
   v_A_before = +11 --> p_A_before = +55
   v_B_before =  +9 --> p_B_before = +27
   p_total_before = p_A_before+p_B_before = +82
so that after the collision, the total momentum must also be p=+82.  Hence
the common body of mass 8 must be moving at a speed of p/m = +10.25 after
the collision, and A and B's speeds and momenta after the collision must be
   v_A_after = +10.25 --> p_A_after = +51.25
   v_B_after = +10.25 --> p_B_after = +30.75
   p_total_after = p_A_after+p_B_after = +82
The velocity changes during the collision are thyus
   Delta_v_A = v_A_after - v_A_before = +10.25 - +11 = -0.75
   Delta_v_B = v_B_after - v_B_before = +10.25 -  +9 = +1.25
and the momentum changes during the collision are
   Delta_p_A = p_A_after-p_A_before = +51.25 - +55 = -3.75
   Delta_p_B = p_B_after-p_B_before = +30.75 - +27 = +3.75

Notice how the velocity changes during the collision, AND the momentum
changes and A <--> B transfers during the collision, are exactly the same
as when we analyzed the collision in Luigi's original IRF.

--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]" <dr.j.thornburg@gmail-pink.com>
   (he/him; currently on the west coast of Canada)
   "[I'm] Sick of people calling everything in crypto a Ponzi scheme.
    Some crypto projects are pump and dump schemes, while others are pyramid
    schemes.  Others are just standard issue fraud.  Others are just middlemen
    skimming off the top.  Stop glossing over the diversity in the industry."
                                                 -- Pat Dennis, 2022-04-25

Date Sujet#  Auteur
26 Jan 25 * Newton e Hooke24Luigi Fortunati
30 Jan 25 +* Re: Newton e Hooke3Luigi Fortunati
5 Feb 25 i`* Re: Newton e Hooke2Luigi Fortunati
10 Feb 25 i `- Re: Newton e Hooke1Luigi Fortunati
12 Feb 25 `* Re: Newton e Hooke20Jonathan Thornburg [remove color- to reply]
14 Feb 25  `* Re: Newton e Hooke19Luigi Fortunati
16 Feb 25   +* Re: Newton e Hooke5Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]
16 Feb 25   i`* Re: Newton e Hooke4Luigi Fortunati
17 Feb 25   i +* Re: Newton e Hooke2Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]
17 Feb 25   i i`- Re: Newton e Hooke1Luigi Fortunati
18 Feb 25   i `- Re: Newton e Hooke1Tom Roberts
16 Feb 25   `* Re: Newton e Hooke13Luigi Fortunati
17 Feb 25    `* Re: Newton e Hooke12Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]
18 Feb 25     `* Re: Newton e Hooke11Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]
20 Feb 25      `* Re: Newton e Hooke10Luigi Fortunati
22 Feb 25       `* Re: Newton e Hooke9Luigi Fortunati
26 Feb 25        `* inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)8Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]
28 Feb 25         `* Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)7Luigi Fortunati
1 Mar 25          +* Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)5Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]
3 Mar 25          i`* Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)4Luigi Fortunati
12 Mar 25          i `* Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)3Luigi Fortunati
16 Mar 25          i  `* Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)2Luigi Fortunati
16 Mar 25          i   `- Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)1Luigi Fortunati
2 Mar 25          `- Re: inelastic collision (was: Re: Newton e Hooke)1Jonathan Thornburg [remove -color to reply]

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal