New Relativity

[cwes99_03]

Maybe this will clear things up for arkain101.

 

You are using some nonsensical process of adding all the values from every reference frame together to get some multiple of the true value.

 

You are saying that the more observers that are present, the greater the velocity of the object and the distance that it covers.

 

Let me illustrate.

 

I say I'm standing still, friend 1 is moving toward me at 10 m/s and friend 2 is moving toward me at 20 m/s. Friend 1 says they are standing still and i'm moving at them at 10 m/s and friend 2 is also moving at them at 10 m/s. Friend 2 says I am moving 20 m/s and friend 1 is moving at 10 m/s all towards him.

 

Now I add all these up and I get myself moving at 30 m/s friend 1 moving at 20 m/s and friend 2 moving at 30 m/s. Wow we are all moving faster than any one of us believes. Oh wait another observer says I'm moving toward friend 1 at 10 m/s and friend 2 is moving also at 10 m/s toward friend 1. Well then I must be going 40 m/s and friend 2 must also be going 40 m/s.

 

Do you see the idiocy of the statement?

[arkain101]

Yes I see the idiocy of the statement.

 

I do agree I had made alot of mistakes, but I was not processing that concept in my mind that you add everyones total together. Different reference frames may have differenct measurements but the time it takes for the system in each reference frame is the same.

 

I may have explained it like you stated, but I if I have it wasnt on purpose and that isnt he logic I use. Ive just had a weird time in life recently and I guess I have been feeling rushed to share ideas. Anyways.. no worries about my rubbish.

I have learned alot in the process.

[arkain101]

I have decided to redirect my focus back into the design of a new clean self propelled car that I have been in the progess of working on.

It is powered by a new engine I have inevented which as of now is called a Hydrogen Internal Combustion Spontanious Operation, Flash Curve Cam-Crank Photodetonation Engine. I am an experienced engine builder and mechanical designer. This new engine is more efficient and powerful than any internal combustion engine existing today, of displacement to power ratio. The car is estimated to have over 100% efficiency under cirtain circumstances. I thought I would share a little about this vehicle, it is my greatest invention achievement to this date.

 

I will leave relativity alone for now.. lol

[cwes99_03]

I never know whether to laugh at this, or feel sympathy for the lad. I hope the padded walls are thick enough for you.

[GAHD]

post the designs and make it public domain; if it works you just saved humanity, and I'm shure you'll qualify for a Nobel...

[arkain101]

I am in the middle of patenting it. Its my first time actually getting a patent (im only 22) so it will probably be awhile before that happens. When it does I will be glad to share the details and designs. Although I will be very busy if things pull through building prototypes.

 

Save humanity? yah it sure would make a big difference, but a person would have to dodge alot of bullets to get anywhere. I mean literally too.

[GAHD]

thus public domain, but everybody's too greedy to release it free to all.

[arkain101]

Aww I see.

 

Well I do plan to... If I can make a few bucks off the engine first. The car will be a publicised prototype. That is the entire reason for inventing it. To help and make change.

[Tormod]

Why hasn't this thread been moved to the Strange Claims forum?

[Qfwfq]

Because I've been very busy!

[cwes99_03]

HAHAHA, ty tormod.

[Boerseun]

Great idea on the engine, Arkain.

But why include an engine at all? All you have to do is give the car a little push (maybe have some sort of pedal device) and your destination will come at you at TWICE the speed you're going! It all adds up! I just don't know how you're going to stop!

[cwes99_03]

deleted, by cwes

[arkain101]

If everyone is so confident that everything I have said is incorrect. Will someone please explain to me why velocity must be squared to determine the kinetic energy of an object?

It would seem to me that the velocity must be squared in the equation because the velocity of the interacting object hits at the same speed or because you have consider its velocity and velocity it can apply to the object it interacts with. hmm.

[CraigD]

If everyone is so confident that everything I have said is incorrect.

Please don’t have the impression that everyone thinks you wrong about everything. It’s just that you’ve shown some deficiencies in understanding the application of some basic Physics, things that should be understood well before going on to the more advanced topics.

Will someone please explain to me why velocity must be squared to determine the kinetic energy of an object?

Yes, gladly. Rather than natural language, I’ll use the language most efficient and least confusing for physics, Math, with attached natural language explanations.

 

Consider an object with mass M experiencing a force F, ignoring friction and other outside influences:

V=A*T [1]: fundamental definition of Velocity and Acceleration with respect to Time

D=.5*A*T^2 [2]: formula for distance at constant acceleration (1st integral of [1])

F=M*A [3]: fundamental definition of Force in terms of Mass and Acceleration

W=F*D [4]: fundamental definition of Work

W=.5*M*A*A*T^2 [5]: algebraic substitution of [3] into [4]

W=.5*M*(A*T)^2 [6]: algebraic rearrangement & re-representation of terms of [5]

W=.5*M*V^2 [7]: algebraic substitution of [1] into [6]

E=W [8] fundamental definition of Energy as equivalent to Work, or, more precisely, the potential to do Work. In this frictionless system, they are equal.

E=.5*M*V^2 [9]: algebraic substitution of [8] into [7]

 

The only step I’m asking you to “take my word on” is [2], the “1st integral of [1]”. This step requires some very simple Calculus. If you’re skeptical of its validity, you should be able to confirm it in any number of introductory Physics or Calculus texts, or ask, and someone here at scienceforums can provide a simple explanation.

 

So, you see, there’s nothing mysterious or philosophically deep about the equation E=.5*M*V^2. If follows from the fundamental definitions of mechanics, which are just a collection of conventions to assure that everybody means the same thing by the same words when talking about Physics – that is, that we’re all speaking the same language – and the basic rules of algebra, which are just a means of writing statements in a compact and error-resistant way.

[cwes99_03]

Thanks so much Craig, I myself was just going to do that. I thought I could help Arkain out by telling him to read a book, as I believe that this stuff is fairly evident to a person with a math background as Arkain seems to have and yet lack (the whole if i move halfway across the floor i've moved a distance equal to the length of the wall i'm moving parallel to) because he somehow believes that 2+2=8 because 4+4=8 and 4=2+2.

[arkain101]

All I have been doing wit these theories is trying on new thoughts. I did not say I beleive them.. They may have flaws and I agree some of them are completely incorrect.

 

I understand how things REALLY are in the science world and understand that most of it stands correct. Although the REAL outlook still does not answer everything so therefore I beleive it must have flaws or needs to be looked at from very new perspectives. How else can you answer something you do not understand? You must try new things untill one works, and that is your answer. eh?

 

All of those numbers and stuff I understand. It still does explain why we need to make the numbers like that to get the correct answers.

 

I just wonder because you always have 4times the energy of half your velocity. Although you can never stop by going half way slower everytime. Eventually it comes down to Reference frame A and B in contact and the first motion that is made is the same for each and gives you 4times the energy of half the speeds motion.