Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #888673

Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 18:20:16 +0000, David Canzi wrote:

> On 7/14/24 19:25, bertietaylor wrote:
>> Search and ye shall find.
>> Arindam has explained them hundreds of times in his online posts on
>> sci.physics.
>> Use Google groups for searching.
>
> With your extensive knowledge of everything that happens inside
> Arindam's head, you must surely know what N and k represent.  It
> would take you less effort to tell us than it would take for me
> to hunt for it.  It would take you less effort to tell us than
> you have already spent rationalizing and evading in this thread.

Ah, well, as you say it nicely unlike the Penisnino.  Arindam Banerjee
is a very nice man, and so here goes...

Assume that you can somehow with internal energy leading to internal
force without reaction give with that internal energy a closed mass m an
acceleration leading to a gain of velocity v.
Now this is impossible with our existing notions about physics for it
will violate Newton's first law.
Again, suppose it can be done.
Then with no friction (as in outer space) with N hits the body will gain
the velocity Nv.
Energy is required for each hit, that energy coming from sources in the
closed mass.
Let kE be the internal energy required for each hit, where E is the
energy required for accelerating the mass and k is a factor which is
greater than unity, being a measure of the energy loss in the process of
accelerating the mass. In other words, a loss factor relating to heat
generation, that is dissipated.

Right so far? (Apart from the assumption, about which, later.)

Now, for N hits the internal energy expended will be NkE.

E=0.5mv^2 - always for every reference frame with velocity reference Nv.
So the internal energy expended will be Nk0.5mv^2. (1)

The mass will take a velocity of Nv with a kinetic energy of 0.5m(Nv)^2
(2)

As per the law of conservation of energy they should be the same, but
that is not the case with large N and  a fixed k.

So there is a gain of energy e for the mass m which is the difference
between (2) and (1)

or e=0.5mvvN(N-k)

Now, about going to the stars.
Go to speed Nv after N hits. (Gain heaps of energy)
Cruise.
Then turn around.
Reach speed -Nv after N hits. (Lose heaps of energy)

Thus showing energy is eternally created and destroyed in the universe.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

woof-woof

Bertietaylor (Arindam's ghostly cyberpooches)

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-01 02:04 +0000
  Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-06-30 20:46 -0700
    Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com.invalid (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-02 01:02 +0000
      Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-01 21:01 -0700
        Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-02 13:52 +0000
          Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-02 17:53 +0200
            Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-02 21:59 +0000
              Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-02 20:29 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-03 04:43 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-03 08:44 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-03 07:47 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-07-03 15:51 -0400
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-03 13:08 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-03 23:52 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-03 23:58 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-03 17:41 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-04 02:00 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-04 07:28 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-04 23:21 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-04 17:23 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-06 00:17 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-05 18:52 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-09 23:37 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-09 17:22 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-03 17:39 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2024-07-12 00:47 -0400
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-12 08:46 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-03 07:46 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-04 00:38 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-04 07:29 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-07-09 14:39 -0400
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-09 11:58 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-07-09 16:54 -0400
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-09 15:05 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-09 23:40 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-09 17:22 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-10 01:44 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-10 07:10 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-07-10 12:27 -0400
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-10 09:40 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-10 22:59 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-10 17:47 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-11 07:00 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-11 06:07 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-12 00:47 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-12 06:46 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-12 14:03 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-12 07:36 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-12 22:36 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-12 16:34 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-13 08:14 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-13 07:52 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-07-12 17:02 -0400
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-12 22:35 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-12 16:35 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-13 08:16 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-13 07:53 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor @novabbs.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-13 23:16 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-13 17:13 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-15 00:43 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-14 20:22 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-15 07:13 +0000
                Newton's Laws of Motion as revised by Arindam bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-15 07:27 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2024-07-15 06:58 -0700
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-16 00:33 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-07-14 14:25 -0400
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-14 23:25 +0000
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> - 2024-07-15 14:20 -0400
                Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k) bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) - 2024-07-16 00:31 +0000

csiph-web