Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 130 of 130

Thread: Is Momentum or Kinetic Energy Conserved?

  1. #101  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Since you lot have gone a bit silent I can only assume that at last you have admitted defeat.................!! :-D

    Sweet glory indeed.........!

    I can now retire from this thread knowing I have made my point.
    You made no point. It is flawed, and no one posts here because there is no science being discussed. You are an idiot. There is no reason to discuss matters of intelligence with an idiot of your stature. And btw, you never addressed my questions, so how have you won?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Quote Originally Posted by quackxander
    Since you lot have gone a bit silent I can only assume that at last you have admitted defeat.................!!
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    FYI, ignorantly posting about how wrong the established laws of physics are counts as fucktarded.
    Quote Originally Posted by trollboy
    Sweet glory indeed.........!
    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    Oh yes, Mightily Glorious King of all Fucktards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mightily Glorious King of all Fucktards
    I can now retire from this thread knowing I have made my point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    Please retire from the forum. Thanks.
    Well, if you insist on using abusive language like that then it is only a comment on the general level of your mentality.

    I don't know if you have noticed but society does not hold such behaviour in a high regard.

    It is also a comment on the administrators of this forum in not having banned you already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Since you lot have gone a bit silent I can only assume that at last you have admitted defeat.................!! :-D

    Sweet glory indeed.........!

    I can now retire from this thread knowing I have made my point.
    You made no point. It is flawed, and no one posts here because there is no science being discussed. You are an idiot. There is no reason to discuss matters of intelligence with an idiot of your stature. And btw, you never addressed my questions, so how have you won?
    Don't call me an idiot!

    Explain clearly for everyone's benefit (and your own!) exactly where I am wrong.

    You make such sweeping remarks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Since you lot have gone a bit silent I can only assume that at last you have admitted defeat.................!! :-D

    Sweet glory indeed.........!

    I can now retire from this thread knowing I have made my point.
    You made no point. It is flawed, and no one posts here because there is no science being discussed. You are an idiot. There is no reason to discuss matters of intelligence with an idiot of your stature. And btw, you never addressed my questions, so how have you won?
    Don't call me an idiot!

    Explain clearly for everyone's benefit (and your own!) exactly where I am wrong.

    You make such sweeping remarks.
    There is no direction to energy. It is a scalar quantity, not a vector quantity.

    My spinning top situation was never answered; In what direction is the kinetic energy of a spinning top? You still haven't answered that.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Oh, brilliant example of an experiment to prove Newton correct drowsey turtle, oh wise one!

    The only problem is this thread is about conservation of momentum and kinetic energy NOT the value of the acceleration due to gravity.
    Oh, that's even easier then. A collision on a low-friction surface and a couple of timing gates should work fine...

    BTW you will find that the kinetic energy is not conserved, because energy is lost as heat/light.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Well, if you insist on using abusive language like that then it is only a comment on the general level of your mentality.
    Actually, it's a comment on the level of your mentality.
    I don't know if you have noticed but society does not hold such behaviour in a high regard.
    I've noticed that troll's like you aren't normal members of society.
    It is also a comment on the administrators of this forum in not having banned you already.
    If you don't like it around here, then leave.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Oh, brilliant example of an experiment to prove Newton correct drowsey turtle, oh wise one!

    The only problem is this thread is about conservation of momentum and kinetic energy NOT the value of the acceleration due to gravity.
    Oh, that's even easier then. A collision on a low-friction surface and a couple of timing gates should work fine...

    BTW you will find that the kinetic energy is not conserved, because energy is lost as heat/light.
    Brilliant!

    So your timing gates would tell us the velocity of the balls after the collision.

    But how would that then tell us what the value of the kinetic energy was without the use of a calculator or mental arithmetic?

    I want an experiment where you can experimentally measure precisely and simultaneously both the kinetic energy and the momentum of the balls before and after the collision.

    And I am talking about absolute measurable values here and not something derived from an equation on a blackboard.

    Follow me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Gee, no reply from galexander for more than 24 hours.
    Perhaps he has retired from this particular forum in his infinite quest of absolute pointlessness?
    Do we dare hope so?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Galexander, why do you keep avoiding my question?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Gee, no reply from galexander for more than 24 hours.
    Perhaps he has retired from this particular forum in his infinite quest of absolute pointlessness?
    Do we dare hope so?
    I have been on holiday for the passed week and that fully explains my silence.

    Problem is I have very little to reply to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Galexander, why do you keep avoiding my question?
    What question?

    Please repeat.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Oh, brilliant example of an experiment to prove Newton correct drowsey turtle, oh wise one!

    The only problem is this thread is about conservation of momentum and kinetic energy NOT the value of the acceleration due to gravity.
    Oh, that's even easier then. A collision on a low-friction surface and a couple of timing gates should work fine...

    BTW you will find that the kinetic energy is not conserved, because energy is lost as heat/light.
    Brilliant!

    So your timing gates would tell us the velocity of the balls after the collision.

    But how would that then tell us what the value of the kinetic energy was without the use of a calculator or mental arithmetic?

    I want an experiment where you can experimentally measure precisely and simultaneously both the kinetic energy and the momentum of the balls before and after the collision.

    And I am talking about absolute measurable values here and not something derived from an equation on a blackboard.

    Follow me?
    That's probably not possible without specialised equipment. But you can first go about independantly proving that experimentally. Exactly how will depend on what form of energy you believe can be accurately measured - e.g. in a simple pendulum, you can calculate the change in potential energy and calculate the maximum velocity of the mass...

    Or you could use an electric motor to power a model car or something, on a surface with a known coefficient of friction, and measure the maximum velocity it reaches.

    Your "I don't believe accepted science, prove it to me!" appraoch isn't going to accomplish anything. If you think a piece of science is wrong, test it yourself. Create your own experiment to do this. Nobody here is going to go to a lot of effort to convince you that an equation that has been accepted for hundreds of years is correct.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Oh, brilliant example of an experiment to prove Newton correct drowsey turtle, oh wise one!

    The only problem is this thread is about conservation of momentum and kinetic energy NOT the value of the acceleration due to gravity.
    Oh, that's even easier then. A collision on a low-friction surface and a couple of timing gates should work fine...

    BTW you will find that the kinetic energy is not conserved, because energy is lost as heat/light.
    Brilliant!

    So your timing gates would tell us the velocity of the balls after the collision.

    But how would that then tell us what the value of the kinetic energy was without the use of a calculator or mental arithmetic?

    I want an experiment where you can experimentally measure precisely and simultaneously both the kinetic energy and the momentum of the balls before and after the collision.

    And I am talking about absolute measurable values here and not something derived from an equation on a blackboard.

    Follow me?
    That's probably not possible without specialised equipment. But you can first go about independantly proving that experimentally. Exactly how will depend on what form of energy you believe can be accurately measured - e.g. in a simple pendulum, you can calculate the change in potential energy and calculate the maximum velocity of the mass...

    Or you could use an electric motor to power a model car or something, on a surface with a known coefficient of friction, and measure the maximum velocity it reaches.

    Your "I don't believe accepted science, prove it to me!" appraoch isn't going to accomplish anything. If you think a piece of science is wrong, test it yourself. Create your own experiment to do this. Nobody here is going to go to a lot of effort to convince you that an equation that has been accepted for hundreds of years is correct.
    I asked drowsy turtle to show me an experiment that proved that K.E. = 1/2mv2 and he said the following:

    That's probably not possible without specialised equipment.
    Some answer indeed!

    Thanks drowsy turtle for filling us with confidence that......yes.......such a thing truly IS possible.........
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I asked drowsy turtle to show me an experiment that proved that K.E. = 1/2mv2 and he said the following:

    That's probably not possible without specialised equipment.
    Some answer indeed!

    Thanks drowsy turtle for filling us with confidence that......yes.......such a thing truly IS possible.........
    You apparently don't know how physics works. You don't "prove" anything in physics or science in general. You make a hypothesis and test it. So far, the formula for kinetic energy works very well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    That's probably not possible without specialised equipment.
    Some answer indeed!

    Thanks drowsy turtle for filling us with confidence that......yes.......such a thing truly IS possible.........
    You're blatantly cherry-picking my response. As i said, if you have a problem with the theoretical or experimental basis for basic mechanical formulae, then it is up to you to demonstrate that they do not hold true. Demanding they be absolutely proven is childish and unscientific.

    I would give a longer reply, btw, but i am currently using my phone rather than my computer (as it is unavailable), which is tedious.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    That's probably not possible without specialised equipment.
    Some answer indeed!

    Thanks drowsy turtle for filling us with confidence that......yes.......such a thing truly IS possible.........
    You're blatantly cherry-picking my response. As i said, if you have a problem with the theoretical or experimental basis for basic mechanical formulae, then it is up to you to demonstrate that they do not hold true. Demanding they be absolutely proven is childish and unscientific.

    I would give a longer reply, btw, but i am currently using my phone rather than my computer (as it is unavailable), which is tedious.
    Well in my opinion drowsy turtle you have just admitted that you CAN'T prove that K.E. does equal 1/2mv2.

    Well what a hoot!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    That's probably not possible without specialised equipment.
    Some answer indeed!

    Thanks drowsy turtle for filling us with confidence that......yes.......such a thing truly IS possible.........
    You're blatantly cherry-picking my response. As i said, if you have a problem with the theoretical or experimental basis for basic mechanical formulae, then it is up to you to demonstrate that they do not hold true. Demanding they be absolutely proven is childish and unscientific.

    I would give a longer reply, btw, but i am currently using my phone rather than my computer (as it is unavailable), which is tedious.
    Well in my opinion drowsy turtle you have just admitted that you CAN'T prove that K.E. does equal 1/2mv2.

    Well what a hoot!
    Likewise, you can't prove anything else about it either
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    So... basically you don't know how science works? Wow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    So... basically you don't know how science works? Wow.
    Please elaborate.................
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    So... basically you don't know how science works? Wow.
    Please elaborate.................
    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I don,t understand what this means : "believing official science".
    Science is not about believe. So how can science ask to be believed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    So... basically you don't know how science works? Wow.
    Please elaborate.................
    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    TheBiologista, what you said appears self-contradictory:

    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    I am beginning to sense some flagging resistance on the issue of experimental proof for K.E. = 1/2mv2.

    At the end of the day the burden of proof is on the scientists conetending that K.E. does equal 1/2mv2.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    So... basically you don't know how science works? Wow.
    Please elaborate.................
    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    TheBiologista, what you said appears self-contradictory:

    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    Elaborate on the contradiction. The scientific method is a system whereby we build explanatory and predictive models of the universe based upon the evidence we've collected from it. No amount of evidence constitutes proof that a model is fully correct. Instead, we test the predictions made by our models, seeking to falsify the models. Each time a model passes such a test, our confidence in it is enhanced but never reaches 100%. A falsified model is rejected in favor of a model which explains the both the evidence explained by the old model plus the new evidence which falsified it. Evidence in favour of a model is said to be supportive, not to be proof.

    There is proof in mathematics and there is proof in law. There is no proof in science, as the idea of certainty contradicts any philosophy concerned with progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I am beginning to sense some flagging resistance on the issue of experimental proof for K.E. = 1/2mv2.
    I suspect you're sensing waning interest in your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    At the end of the day the burden of proof is on the scientists conetending that K.E. does equal 1/2mv2.
    The burden of evidence is always on the proponent of a new idea, not on the supporters of the status quo. Otherwise those supporters would constantly be required to answer to an unending barrage of attacks of hugely varying quality and worth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    So... basically you don't know how science works? Wow.
    Please elaborate.................
    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    TheBiologista, what you said appears self-contradictory:

    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    Elaborate on the contradiction. The scientific method is a system whereby we build explanatory and predictive models of the universe based upon the evidence we've collected from it. No amount of evidence constitutes proof that a model is fully correct. Instead, we test the predictions made by our models, seeking to falsify the models. Each time a model passes such a test, our confidence in it is enhanced but never reaches 100%. A falsified model is rejected in favor of a model which explains the both the evidence explained by the old model plus the new evidence which falsified it. Evidence in favour of a model is said to be supportive, not to be proof.

    There is proof in mathematics and there is proof in law. There is no proof in science, as the idea of certainty contradicts any philosophy concerned with progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I am beginning to sense some flagging resistance on the issue of experimental proof for K.E. = 1/2mv2.
    I suspect you're sensing waning interest in your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    At the end of the day the burden of proof is on the scientists conetending that K.E. does equal 1/2mv2.
    The burden of evidence is always on the proponent of a new idea, not on the supporters of the status quo. Otherwise those supporters would constantly be required to answer to an unending barrage of attacks of hugely varying quality and worth.
    Well I have to admit my interest is beginning to wane as well. :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    So... basically you don't know how science works? Wow.
    Please elaborate.................
    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    TheBiologista, what you said appears self-contradictory:

    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    Elaborate on the contradiction. The scientific method is a system whereby we build explanatory and predictive models of the universe based upon the evidence we've collected from it. No amount of evidence constitutes proof that a model is fully correct. Instead, we test the predictions made by our models, seeking to falsify the models. Each time a model passes such a test, our confidence in it is enhanced but never reaches 100%. A falsified model is rejected in favor of a model which explains the both the evidence explained by the old model plus the new evidence which falsified it. Evidence in favour of a model is said to be supportive, not to be proof.

    There is proof in mathematics and there is proof in law. There is no proof in science, as the idea of certainty contradicts any philosophy concerned with progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I am beginning to sense some flagging resistance on the issue of experimental proof for K.E. = 1/2mv2.
    I suspect you're sensing waning interest in your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    At the end of the day the burden of proof is on the scientists conetending that K.E. does equal 1/2mv2.
    The burden of evidence is always on the proponent of a new idea, not on the supporters of the status quo. Otherwise those supporters would constantly be required to answer to an unending barrage of attacks of hugely varying quality and worth.
    Well I have to admit my interest is beginning to wane as well. :?
    understandable when you're as wrong as you are
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I will freely admit that i can't prove anything, as per harold's post.
    Well thank you.

    That means that both Harold14370 and Arcane_Mathematician admit that you can't prove it either.

    8)
    So... basically you don't know how science works? Wow.
    Please elaborate.................
    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    TheBiologista, what you said appears self-contradictory:

    Proof is not an element of the scientific method. Never has been.
    Elaborate on the contradiction. The scientific method is a system whereby we build explanatory and predictive models of the universe based upon the evidence we've collected from it. No amount of evidence constitutes proof that a model is fully correct. Instead, we test the predictions made by our models, seeking to falsify the models. Each time a model passes such a test, our confidence in it is enhanced but never reaches 100%. A falsified model is rejected in favor of a model which explains the both the evidence explained by the old model plus the new evidence which falsified it. Evidence in favour of a model is said to be supportive, not to be proof.

    There is proof in mathematics and there is proof in law. There is no proof in science, as the idea of certainty contradicts any philosophy concerned with progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I am beginning to sense some flagging resistance on the issue of experimental proof for K.E. = 1/2mv2.
    I suspect you're sensing waning interest in your arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    At the end of the day the burden of proof is on the scientists conetending that K.E. does equal 1/2mv2.
    The burden of evidence is always on the proponent of a new idea, not on the supporters of the status quo. Otherwise those supporters would constantly be required to answer to an unending barrage of attacks of hugely varying quality and worth.
    Well I have to admit my interest is beginning to wane as well. :?
    understandable when you're as wrong as you are
    That's your opinion Arcane_Mathematician.

    Not everyone has to share it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    That's your opinion Arcane_Mathematician.

    Not everyone has to share it.
    It's shared by all but you and the other crackpots. You don't have to agree with me, but the models and methods of science win. There's a mathematical model for kinetic energy that seems to work. Experimental data reflects to within a rather narrow margin of error the mathematical model that we have to represent the phenomena
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander

    That's your opinion Arcane_Mathematician.

    Not everyone has to share it.
    It's shared by all but you and the other crackpots. You don't have to agree with me, but the models and methods of science win. There's a mathematical model for kinetic energy that seems to work. Experimental data reflects to within a rather narrow margin of error the mathematical model that we have to represent the phenomena
    I have just noticed, after a week of absence I appear to have confused threads.

    On this thread we were discussing whether both momentum and kinetic energy can be conserved simultaneously AND NOT what the formula for kinetic energy should be.

    Apologies for the confusion if any was caused.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •