Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / March 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Where Is The Kinetic Energy of a Bullet Stored?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Einsteinhoax - 15 Mar 2005 15:21 GMT
Where Is The Kinetic Energy of a Bullet Stored?

    When a bullet is fired, an explosive charge imparts kinetic energy to
the bullet. That kinetic energy travels with the bullet and is transferred
to the target when the bullet strikes. The question to be answered is where
that kinetic energy resides while the bullet is in flight. It obviously
travels with the bullet as is shown by the fact that stopping the bullet
anywhere along its flight path will impart that energy to the stopping
means. Where that energy is stored is revealed by the corrected Lorentz
Transformations for Velocity using the more rational F,L,T system of units.
To accomplish this it is first necessary to correct an error made in the
derivation of the Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force. Apparently,
for some hare-brained reason, this transformation was apparently derived
using Maxwell's Equations instead of making use of the basic Lorentz
Transformations and E=M*C^2 alone. The use of this approach led to the
conclusion that the Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force was the
reciprocal of its correct value. The fact that an error existed in that
derivation was revealed by the classic "Right Angle Lever Paradox" which
those familiar with undergraduate level physics and/or mechanics should be
able to demolish in a few minutes.

    Let us consider that an idealized bullet which, when at rest consists
of three ideal "mass less" springs at right angles to each other and aligned
with one of the springs parallel to the bullets of the path. The "rest mass"
of the bullet is then inserted in the springs by compressing them equally.
The energy stored in each of the springs is half of the product of the
distance of the their compression and their stiffness. When kinetic energy
is added to the bullet, the force compressing the parallel spring is
increased by the Lorentz Transformation for Parallel Force, which is unity,
while the distance of compression is reduced by the Lorentz Transformation
for Length and energy must LEAVE the parallel spring. WE can conclude, as a
result, that energy must leave the parallel spring and travel in the space
around it (presumably in a disk oriented perpendularly to the velocity
vector).

    In the transverse axes, however, a different situation exists. The
distance which these springs are compressed is unchanged by the velocity but
the force required to compress the spring is INCREASED by the Lorentz
Transformation for Transverse Force. As result, the energy of compression
stored in the transverse springs is increased proportionally. The energy of
compression in these springs is increased in direct proportion to the
increase of kinetic energy of the object. It would appear, therefore, that
kinetic energy is stored within the moving object and in a disk like
(perpendicular to its velocity vector) region of space around the object.

    The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

    All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://members.isp.com/einsteinhoax@isp.com/einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm

    Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

    E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
akalaniz@hotmail.com - 15 Mar 2005 17:15 GMT
Eiensteinhoax," Apparently, for some hare-brained reason, this
transformation was apparently derived using Maxwell's Equations instead
of making use of the basic Lorentz Transformations and E=M*C^2 alone. "

Uh...Maxwell's equations imply the Lorentz transformations in that
Maxwell's equations under invariant under Lorentz transformations.  Is
this enough of a harebrained reason for you?

Einsteinhoax, "The energy stored in each of the springs is half of the
product of the distance of the their compression and their stiffness."

Uh...Stored potential energy = (1/2)kx^2, k=spring constant, x
=compression from the uncompressed configuration.  Please go back and
consult your junior high physical science book for the correct formula.

AA PhD
ajiko - 16 Mar 2005 15:13 GMT
I have read his papers.  He clearly deserves more respect.
As for that simple spring, he often refers to Hooke's formula: energy =
(1/2)* f * l.  The force is your k*x. the l (length) is your x.

Your writing reads like this: "consult your junior high physical science
book for the correct formula".

Ned

> Eiensteinhoax," Apparently, for some hare-brained reason, this
> transformation was apparently derived using Maxwell's Equations instead
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> AA PhD
akalaniz@hotmail.com - 16 Mar 2005 21:57 GMT
Einsteinhoax needs to realize that before sh.tting on current physics,
that current physics is thoroughly tested in the lab.  I'm pretty sure
he gets his science reading from CNN, not from researching the piles of
careful, peer reviewed work.  For instance, he is certain quantum
mechanics has shown relativity to be wrong because of popular reports
that EPR-like teleportation have demonstrated faster than light
phenomenology.  WRONG.  A look in the literature will show that Bell's
inequalities have been shown to be too restrictive to constrain
reality.  Hence hidden variable theories are back in the game, and
hidden variable theories based on Brownian motion have been shown to
lead to quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum mechanics since the
1960s.  The, jury, at best, is still out, and may remain so forever as
some work is showing that we may never be able to distinguish between
whether hidden variable theories can be valid or not.  I cited the
literature in another post if you are interested.

Eienstein hoax musn't have any math skills of substance.  He is
dumbfounded that one derives the Lorentz transformations from Maxwell's
equations, apparently unaware that the Lorentz transformations are
"built in" to Maxwell's equations.  Maxwell's equations are invariant
under Lorentz transformations.  Not understanding any of this, he
proposes using an alternate route including E=mc^2 as if this is a more
fundamental approach?!*?  What can be more fundamental than Maxwell's
equations, both in their classical form, or in their second quantized
form?  From classical electrondynamics to QED, Maxwell's equations jive
with data from the lab to many, many decimal places.

Einsteinhoax needs to understand that new physical theories need to
make testable predictions.  Based on reading his crap, he is convinced
physicists are completely faithful in their belief of string theory.
Physicists are building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to determine
whether many theories are true or false, eg., the Higgs boson or
bosons, supersymmetry, string theory, large extra dimensions, and so
forth.  If the LHC is too wimpy to answer all questions, then
physicists must build a larger collider.  If the LHC opens up new
phenomenology, then new, competing theories will have to be created,
and, ULTIMATELY, test in the lab.  All Einsteinhoax does is crap on old
theories of physics.  Well then, where in hell is his theory?  Can he
tell me if there are more than three generations of leptons?   Is SUSY
bullshit?  Does the speed of light, or other physical constants, change
with time?

>From a different point of view, given that there are error bars in
physics, I would be able to entertain Einsteinhoax's theories.
Physical constants, for example, are known only to so many decimal
places, and only with so much certainty in terms of the standard error
statistic.  There may (or not) be new physics lurking within these
uncertaintly/error bars.   How does one distinguish, say, one
post-Newtonian theory of gravity from another when, say, radar echo
data from Venus doesn't have enough statistical certainty to
distinguish the two theories?  One does so by improving technology.
Again, where is a single Einsteinhoax theory?

The bottom line is that Einsteinhoax knows no physics.  On his webpage
he has a design (a real, honest to goodness design) of a machine that
violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Well then, as this machine
separates fast, energetic molecules from slower, less energetic
molecules without any net work put into the system, once the molecules
are separated, his machine can be used to push a piston, and then, once
again for free, reset itself for a new cycle.  WOW!!!  Why isn't this
machine on the market!!!  In light of free flow of information on the
internet, I don't want to hear any conspiracy theories about the
government squashing his machine.  His design is on the net!  Instead,
I would rather hear his rebuttle of why, as I pointed out to him, the
machine will fail.  I'm waiting.

AA
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.