Experimental Proof That Energy Is Not A Conserved Quantity.

[DelburtPhend]

what image extension

 

 

I was not allowed to post because of an image extension.

Edited January 14, 2017 by DelburtPhend

[DelburtPhend]

Ballistic pendulums and other inelastic collisions are the most quantitatively analyzed experiments we have. And we have tens of thousands of them done every year. Linear momentum conservation tells you how much (alleged) heat was lost.

 

Angular momentum conservation only works when gravity changes the linear momentum for the different radii. Applying angular momentum conservation to the lab may be the most embarrassing mathematical error in history.

 

Question of paragraph 4: No. Can you sight the source?

[exchemist]

Ballistic pendulums and other inelastic collisions are the most quantitatively analyzed experiments we have. And we have tens of thousands of them done every year. Linear momentum conservation tells you how much (alleged) heat was lost.

 

Angular momentum conservation only works when gravity changes the linear momentum for the different radii. Applying angular momentum conservation to the lab may be the most embarrassing mathematical error in history.

 

Question of paragraph 4: No. Can you sight the source?

How about  an answer to my question in bold, in my previous post? What do you think happens and why? 

 

By the way, by "sight" do you mean "cite"? 

Edited January 14, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

I told him the exact same things in my first two posts in this thread:

 

 

 

 

And in Post 49 I gave him the solution for the Dawn satellite:

 

The information just bounces off him, like an elastic collision!

He isn’t stupid; he can do the correct math if he wants to. He doesn’t want to!

This has all the aspects of a troll and I predict you will get nowhere with him, but I do admire your patience!

Yes I know and I will eventually have had enough and the ban will presumably be reinstated. But there may somewhere be a young person reading this and a bit of teaching of basic mechanics never does any harm.

Edited January 14, 2017 by exchemist

[DelburtPhend]

Yes: cite, thank you.

 

 

Perhaps that young person will build a cylinder and spheres.

 

Your bold question:  I looked for such an experiment; and found none.

[exchemist]

Yes: cite, thank you.

 

 

Perhaps that young person will build a cylinder and spheres.

 

Your bold question:  I looked for such an experiment; and found none.

So you have no idea what happens, huh? 

Edited January 14, 2017 by exchemist

[DelburtPhend]

Are there perfectly elastic experiments?

[DelburtPhend]

I should say; are there perfectly elastic collision experiments of objects with different masses. Because there is the one with the same mass experiment.

 

I also know that experimenters can change the direction of an object without loss of magnitude; I can catch the mass on a string and send it back in its original direction. That would give you 166% the original momentum. Looks fishy to me.

 

If the experiment were inelastic (clay in between the two masses) the maximum speed of the combo would be 1/3 m/sec. I see that you double that for the two kilograms. I do not believe that would occur. So I request a real experiment.

[exchemist]

Are there perfectly elastic experiments?

You are still evading my question to you: what do you think happens in the simple scenario I have outlined of the 2 balls colliding?

 

Either offer a view or admit you have no idea how to work out what happens.  Your ability to do calculations is clear. You are not stupid. So deflecting attention by asking questions of your own about experiments does not cut it.

 

If you won't answer this I shall conclude you are simply a timewaster and not serious.

[DelburtPhend]

Neither the Atwood's nor the 'cylinder and spheres' have a surface to surface collision. So elastic collisions are off topic.

[exchemist]

Neither the Atwood's nor the 'cylinder and spheres' have a surface to surface collision. So elastic collisions are off topic.

You really are trying hard to avoid my question, aren't you? I don't understand why: it's perfectly simple to someone of your intellect.

 

And it is far from off-topic, because your claim that energy is not conserved is the core of this thread and my example is a very simple way of finding out from you how you think mechanics can work without the principle of energy conservation.  

 

Once we have bottomed that out, we can move on to analysing more complex scenarios.  

 

So, stop dodging, and answer!  

[DelburtPhend]

I am beginning to suspect that we has two classes of motion experiments.

 

One class of motion experiments are those that can't or haven’t been done; and those conserve energy.

 

The other class of motion experiments are those that can and have been done and they conserve linear Newtonian momentum.

 

There might be a temptation to let imaginary experiments make real experiments illegitimate.

 

Lets take an example of an elastic and inelastic collision.

 

Lets place a 400 kilogram block on dry ice; and then throw a 1 kilograms mass moving 20 m/sec so that it collides with the block in a horizontal plane. Now we know what velocity we are going to get if we use a real inelastic collision: .05 m/sec. There is an overabundance of real experimental evidence for this .05 m/sec.

 

I suppose that you are saying that if the collision were perfectly elastic the velocity of the 400 kilograms would be just under 1 m/sec. Well: you tried to convince your readers that a 166% increase in momentum was okay; then now can you convince your readers that a 2000% increase is also acceptable? There is no experimental evidence that this could happen.

 

Now lets go back to the cylinder and spheres; or the Dawn Mission.

 

A 400 kilogram cylinder can throw one kilogram of spheres in such a manner so as to make the cylinder itself stop. Lets give the cylinder an arc motion of one meter per second.

 

It is all pretense to claim that the spheres can have a velocity that conserves both kinetic energy and Newtonian momentum. Both formulas cannot simultaneously be conserved: linear Newtonian momentum is conserved with a velocity of 400 m/sec for the spheres; kinetic energy conservation can only occur with a velocity of 20 m/sec; 20 does not equal 400. 

 

Real experiments will not fit into your simulation equations.

 

Real experiments show that only linear Newtonian momentum can be transferred from small objects, such and bullets and spheres, into large objects such as blocks and cylinders.

 

The cylinder and spheres clearly shows that a massive object can give all of its motion to a very small mass and the very small mass can give all that motion right back. This can only be done by linear Newtonian momentum.

[exchemist]

I am beginning to suspect that we has two classes of motion experiments.

 

One class of motion experiments are those that can't or haven’t been done; and those conserve energy.

 

The other class of motion experiments are those that can and have been done and they conserve linear Newtonian momentum.

 

There might be a temptation to let imaginary experiments make real experiments illegitimate.

 

Lets take an example of an elastic and inelastic collision.

 

Lets place a 400 kilogram block on dry ice; and then throw a 1 kilograms mass moving 20 m/sec so that it collides with the block in a horizontal plane. Now we know what velocity we are going to get if we use a real inelastic collision: .05 m/sec. There is an overabundance of real experimental evidence for this .05 m/sec.

 

I suppose that you are saying that if the collision were perfectly elastic the velocity of the 400 kilograms would be just under 1 m/sec. Well: you tried to convince your readers that a 166% increase in momentum was okay; then now can you convince your readers that a 2000% increase is also acceptable? There is no experimental evidence that this could happen.

 

Now lets go back to the cylinder and spheres; or the Dawn Mission.

 

A 400 kilogram cylinder can throw one kilogram of spheres in such a manner so as to make the cylinder itself stop. Lets give the cylinder an arc motion of one meter per second.

 

It is all pretense to claim that the spheres can have a velocity that conserves both kinetic energy and Newtonian momentum. Both formulas cannot simultaneously be conserved: linear Newtonian momentum is conserved with a velocity of 400 m/sec for the spheres; kinetic energy conservation can only occur with a velocity of 20 m/sec; 20 does not equal 400. 

 

Real experiments will not fit into your simulation equations.

 

Real experiments show that only linear Newtonian momentum can be transferred from small objects, such and bullets and spheres, into large objects such as blocks and cylinders.

 

The cylinder and spheres clearly shows that a massive object can give all of its motion to a very small mass and the very small mass can give all that motion right back. This can only be done by linear Newtonian momentum.

I never tried to convince readers that an increase of 166% in momentum is OK. On the contrary, I have consistently pointed out that BOTH momentum and energy are conserved.  

 

And you are still evading my very simple question to you about the two balls.

 

You are determined to adhere to a manifestly preposterous position, by ignoring examples that show how untenable it is.

 

My patience is now exhausted.  

[OceanBreeze]

I never tried to convince readers that an increase of 166% in momentum is OK. On the contrary, I have consistently pointed out that BOTH momentum and energy are conserved.  

 

And you are still evading my very simple question to you about the two balls.

 

You are determined to adhere to a manifestly preposterous position, by ignoring examples that show how untenable it is.

 

My patience is now exhausted.  

 

Don’t give up now! I can tell that he is just on the verge of confessing to being wrong! :hammer: 

[exchemist]

Don’t give up now! I can tell that he is just on the verge of confessing to being wrong! :hammer: 

No, I'm tired of his prevarications for now - and I need to finish my tax return by the end of the month or HMRC will have my balls in a sling - elastic collisions or otherwise.

 

Why don't you have a go? - and maybe I'll come back to it when I have more energy (or should that be momentum?). But we need to keep him on linear examples first, I think, as he has shown lack of comprehension of angular momentum, which compounds the problem. He basically won't admit that BOTH energy AND momentum are simultaneously conserved in interactions in a closed system.  

 

I think that's why he likes inelastic collisions, since some of the energy goes into heat and can't easily be measured, so he can convince himself it has vanished. He's read enough about the history of science to know that energy conservation was not a fully formulated concept at the time of Newton. He's trying to make himself believe that he, like Newton, can analyse everything without invoking energy at all. (You can,of course, but it often gets very messy.) He then makes the further, ludicrous jump to claiming he has shown that energy is not conserved. Well, if he sticks to inelastic collisions I can see how that delusion can just about be sustained, provided he puts his blind eye to the telescope from time to time when things get awkward. His reaction to my very simple elastic collision example shows this strategy at work. 

[OceanBreeze]

No, I'm tired of his prevarications for now - and I need to finish my tax return by the end of the month or HMRC will have my balls in a sling - elastic collisions or otherwise.

 

 

 

I am guessing that would be inelastic, unless you are Donald Trump.

 

 

Why don't you have a go? - and maybe I'll come back to it when I have more energy (or should that be momentum?). But we need to keep him on linear examples first, I think, as he has shown lack of comprehension of angular momentum, which compounds the problem. He basically won't admit that BOTH energy AND momentum are simultaneously conserved in interactions in a closed system.  

 

 

I agree. I made the mistake of hitting him over the head with rotational dynamics before getting him sorted out on linear systems.

He won't admit to the simultaneous solution of energy and momentum as that will expose his nonsense. I may come back to addressing him directly, but I am convinced this is some kind of troll.

 

I think that's why he likes inelastic collisions, since some of the energy goes into heat and can't easily be measured, so he can convince himself it has vanished. He's read enough about the history of science to know that energy conservation was not a fully formulated concept at the time of Newton. He's trying to make himself believe that he, like Newton, can analyse everything without invoking energy at all. (You can,of course, but it often gets very messy.) He then makes the further, ludicrous jump to claiming he has shown that energy is not conserved. Well, if he sticks to inelastic collisions I can see how that delusion can just about be sustained, provided he puts his blind eye to the telescope from time to time when things get awkward. His reaction to my very simple elastic collision example shows this strategy at work. 

 

 

Exactly. He has a strategy and he is not stupid. He has picked his examples very carefully.....more evidence he is trolling. He would have been kicked off of any other science forum long ago. But, as you said, there may be someone who will benefit from seeing his nonsense refuted, so maybe I will go back to doing that.

[OceanBreeze]

I am beginning to suspect that we has two classes of motion experiments.

 

One class of motion experiments are those that can't or haven’t been done; and those conserve energy.

 

The other class of motion experiments are those that can and have been done and they conserve linear Newtonian momentum.

 

There might be a temptation to let imaginary experiments make real experiments illegitimate.

 

 

Absolutely total rubbish.

 

 

Lets take an example of an elastic and inelastic collision.

 

Lets place a 400 kilogram block on dry ice; and then throw a 1 kilograms mass moving 20 m/sec so that it collides with the block in a horizontal plane. Now we know what velocity we are going to get if we use a real inelastic collision: .05 m/sec. There is an overabundance of real experimental evidence for this .05 m/sec.

 

I suppose that you are saying that if the collision were perfectly elastic the velocity of the 400 kilograms would be just under 1 m/sec. Well: you tried to convince your readers that a 166% increase in momentum was okay; then now can you convince your readers that a 2000% increase is also acceptable? There is no experimental evidence that this could happen.

 

 

Oh, you “suppose” so? Well, you supposed incorrectly.

 

In an elastic collision, the velocity of the 400 kg mass will be just under 0.1 m/s or more accurately, 0.09975 m/s. The final velocity of the 1 kg mass will be -19.9 m/s. where the minus sign indicates a reversal in direction (the 1 kg mass bounces off the 400 kg mass)

 

There is no “166 % increase in momentum” and certainly no 2000%! Nobody, except you has ever said there was.

 

In this elastic collision, both momentum and energy are conserved:

 

Initial momentum is:

(1 kg) (20 m/s) = 20 kg m/s

 

Initial energy is:

(1 kg) (20 m/s)^2 = 400 Joules

 

Final momentum is:

(1 kg) (-19.9 m/s) + 400 kg (0.09975 m/s) = 20 kg m/s 

 

Final energy is:

(1 kg) (-19.9 m/s)^2 + (400 kg) (0.09975 m/s)^2 = 400 Joules

 

My advice to you is do not suppose anything when you can do the math!

 

 

Now lets go back to the cylinder and spheres; or the Dawn Mission.

 

 

No, let’s not even discuss rotational dynamics until you can demonstrate an understanding of simple problems involving linear velocities.

 

(Note: my primary objective is to show conservation; that the before and after energy is the same, and to make the energy equations appear less cluttered, I omitted the 1/2 multiplier. The actual value in both equations is 200 Joules, not 400.)

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by OceanBreeze