Groups > sci.physics > #867814 > unrolled thread

Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

Started by	Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com>
First post	2023-01-08 09:36 +0000
Last post	2023-01-30 05:57 -0800
Articles	20 on this page of 32 — 15 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

#867814 — Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com>
Date	2023-01-08 09:36 +0000
Subject	Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tpe2q8$3qef8$1@dont-email.me>

Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see 
how the velocity adds up.

Is it v or v^2?

Is this formula E=0.5mv^2 correct, or is it more like E= mv?

Also can calculate the kinetic energy before and after each stage - 
check velocity from the experimental apparatus.

Ideally use an airtrack - no rotational inertia to be concerned with. 
Needs good design so each rocket burn adds the same energy.

Remember this correction is for basic, military and professional 
education - nothing to do with university.

This is bread and butter basic physics.

Copyright release on the above in exact and equivalent:
(and rights and patents) all public domain - attribution annon.:

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#867815

From	Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com>
Date	2023-01-08 10:13 +0000
Message-ID	<tpe50p$3qm7j$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#867814

On 23 08, Dave wrote:
> Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see 
> how the velocity adds up.
> 
> Is it v or v^2?
> 
> Is this formula E=0.5mv^2 correct, or is it more like E= mv?
> 
> Also can calculate the kinetic energy before and after each stage - 
> check velocity from the experimental apparatus.
> 
> Ideally use an airtrack - no rotational inertia to be concerned with. 
> Needs good design so each rocket burn adds the same energy.
> 
> Remember this correction is for basic, military and professional 
> education - nothing to do with university.
> 
> This is bread and butter basic physics.
> 
> Copyright release on the above in exact and equivalent:
> (and rights and patents) all public domain - attribution annon.:
Is this one of the reasons why France split between Engineering Schools 
and universities?  Likely universities are constituted to teach whatever 
they like. Let the students deal with this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#867826

From	Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
Date	2023-01-08 08:16 -0800
Message-ID	<tr6r8j-6m2d.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
In reply to	#867814

In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see 
> how the velocity adds up.
> 
> Is it v or v^2?
> 
> Is this formula E=0.5mv^2 correct, or is it more like E= mv?

Read:

https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics/motion/equations-of-motion/

and learn how the derivation of the equations of motion is done using
the algebraic method, the graphical method, and the calculus method.

No vacuum chambers or precision timers required, just the basic
assumptions that distances are meters, acceleration is constant and in
units of m/s^2 and time is in seconds.

<snip crackpot babble>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#867889 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-09 09:07 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k220anFsac9U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#867814

Am 08.01.2023 um 10:36 schrieb Dave:
> Is it v or v^2?
>
> Is this formula E=0.5mv^2 correct, or is it more like E= mv?


That should depend on the used units for E, m and v.

As unit systems have different degrees of internal consistency, you 
should certainly be able to find an example for both factors.


I usually use SI units only and would get 0.5 as factor, but have not 
verified the exponent 2 myself.

In general I would prefer the quantity momentum over energy, because v 
is frame dependent, hence also kinetic energy.

Then I would like to compare conservation of momentum and conservation 
of energy, but suggest choosing conservation of momentum over 
conservation of energy.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#867909 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Joe <joe@jretrading.com>
Date	2023-01-09 14:13 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<20230109141313.4df58ffe@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>
In reply to	#867889

On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 09:07:50 +0100
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

> Am 08.01.2023 um 10:36 schrieb Dave:
> > Is it v or v^2?
> >
> > Is this formula E=0.5mv^2 correct, or is it more like E= mv?  
> 
> 
> That should depend on the used units for E, m and v.
> 
> As unit systems have different degrees of internal consistency, you 
> should certainly be able to find an example for both factors.
> 
> 
> I usually use SI units only and would get 0.5 as factor, but have not 
> verified the exponent 2 myself.
> 
> In general I would prefer the quantity momentum over energy, because
> v is frame dependent, hence also kinetic energy.
> 
> Then I would like to compare conservation of momentum and
> conservation of energy, but suggest choosing conservation of momentum
> over conservation of energy.
> 
> TH

The whole question revolves around kinetic energy being a different
thing from momentum, not just being a different word for it. To begin
with, we have no idea of the absolute kinetic energy or the absolute
momentum of an object, because we have no idea how fast an object is
moving, and according Einstein, we never can know it. So we work on
relative quantities, generally relative to 'stationary with respect to
the bit of Earth's surface where the action takes place'.

The kinetic energy of an object of mass m moving at velocity v is the
amount of energy required to raise the mass from a stationary position
to the velocity v, or to slow it down to stationary. You can start from
first principles with length and time, going through force,
acceleration and work, or you can work directly with velocity as the
independent variable.

The integral of momentum mv from zero to v with respect to v is 0.5 * m
* v^2. It's a definite integral, over a particular range, so there is no
constant of integration.

The same principle applies to other forms of 'moving', such as the
current in an inductor and the voltage change across a capacitor. The
energy stored in the former is 0.5 * L * i^2, in the latter is 0.5 * C
* V^2. Both arise from the same kinds of integral, calculating the
total energy required to achieve a particular voltage or current
value. In the latter case, there is a quantity called 'charge', which
is equal to C * V and is analogous to mechanical momentum.

Momentum is useful in particular situations, for example solving
problems involving snooker balls. Anything involving resonance is best
understood in terms of energy, as resonance is the repeated conversion
of one type of energy to another, and back again.

Almost all mechanical, electric or electronic engineering would simply
not work if engineers did not know how to calculate energy, as the OP
suggests.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868048 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-11 10:42 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k27ejmFng84U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#867909

Am 09.01.2023 um 15:13 schrieb Joe:
...

> Momentum is useful in particular situations, for example solving
> problems involving snooker balls. Anything involving resonance is best
> understood in terms of energy, as resonance is the repeated conversion
> of one type of energy to another, and back again.

My problem with momentum and energy is, that momentum is known to be a 
conserved quantity and energy assumed to be.

But momentum is m*v, while kinetic energy is 1/2 *m *v².

How could both quantities possibly be both conserved for the same 
object, with same mass m and same velocity v, if one curve of that 
quantity over v is linear with v and one quadratic ????

If v gets smaller a little, than both curves cannot possibly coincide 
with their respective conservation curve, hence one quantity is not 
conserved, if v is altered. But we can easily alter v, because v is 
frame dependent. And choosing a different coordinate system should not 
alter the state of an object, hence neither energy nor momentum.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868049 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-11 11:22 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k27gu9Fns7mU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#868048

Am 11.01.2023 um 10:42 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 09.01.2023 um 15:13 schrieb Joe:
> ...
>
>> Momentum is useful in particular situations, for example solving
>> problems involving snooker balls. Anything involving resonance is best
>> understood in terms of energy, as resonance is the repeated conversion
>> of one type of energy to another, and back again.
>
> My problem with momentum and energy is, that momentum is known to be a
> conserved quantity and energy assumed to be.
>
> But momentum is m*v, while kinetic energy is 1/2 *m *v².
>
> How could both quantities possibly be both conserved for the same
> object, with same mass m and same velocity v, if one curve of that
> quantity over v is linear with v and one quadratic ????
>
> If v gets smaller a little, than both curves cannot possibly coincide
> with their respective conservation curve, hence one quantity is not
> conserved, if v is altered. But we can easily alter v, because v is
> frame dependent. And choosing a different coordinate system should not
> alter the state of an object, hence neither energy nor momentum.
>

This is actually wrong, because momentum is not independent of the state 
of an object, against which a flying object hits. The velocity v is 
therefore not arbitrary and should be relative to the stationary object, 
which serves as target.

This is also the case for kinetic energy, which is also depending on the 
state of motion of a possible target.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868084 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-12 08:31 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k29ra7F4a40U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#867909

Am 09.01.2023 um 15:13 schrieb Joe:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 09:07:50 +0100
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 08.01.2023 um 10:36 schrieb Dave:
>>> Is it v or v^2?
>>>
>>> Is this formula E=0.5mv^2 correct, or is it more like E= mv?
>>
>>
>> That should depend on the used units for E, m and v.
>>
>> As unit systems have different degrees of internal consistency, you
>> should certainly be able to find an example for both factors.
>>
>>
>> I usually use SI units only and would get 0.5 as factor, but have not
>> verified the exponent 2 myself.
>>
>> In general I would prefer the quantity momentum over energy, because
>> v is frame dependent, hence also kinetic energy.
>>
>> Then I would like to compare conservation of momentum and
>> conservation of energy, but suggest choosing conservation of momentum
>> over conservation of energy.
>>
>> TH
>
> The whole question revolves around kinetic energy being a different
> thing from momentum, not just being a different word for it. To begin
> with, we have no idea of the absolute kinetic energy or the absolute
> momentum of an object, because we have no idea how fast an object is
> moving, and according Einstein, we never can know it. So we work on
> relative quantities, generally relative to 'stationary with respect to
> the bit of Earth's surface where the action takes place'.

Momentum and kinetic energy adress different things, but are closely 
related.

I chose as example a cannon ball flying through an empty 
gravitation-free SRT like space.

Now we don't know the velocity of the cannon ball, because we have no 
'anchor' to measure velocity against.

But that cannon ball shall hit a spaceship, which drifts around that 
void, too.

Now we have an anchor point, which is that spaceship and the point of 
its hull that the cannonball hits.

Now we see, that we need to take the relative velocity between ball and 
spaceship as velocity v and cannot use any other velocity.

In the case of collision between ball and ship the momentum of the ball 
is transferred to the ships armourment, as is also the kinetic energy of 
the ball.

But obviously relative velocity is the thing which matters, while 
absolute velocity wouldn't.

If we would use the SRT setting and would allow arbitrary velocities and 
arbitrary frames of references, then we would not have proportional 
relations between momentum and kinetic energy, because one behaves 
quatratic and one linear, if v is altered.

So, a different velocity caused by external changes of the position of 
observation would alter the relation between inertia and energy inside 
that cannon ball, what cannot possibly be the case. Therefore velocity v 
has to be the velocity in respect to the target, which is not arbitrary 
and not subject to decisions of an external observer.

> The kinetic energy of an object of mass m moving at velocity v is the
> amount of energy required to raise the mass from a stationary position
> to the velocity v, or to slow it down to stationary. You can start from
> first principles with length and time, going through force,
> acceleration and work, or you can work directly with velocity as the
> independent variable.

SRT does not know any 'stationary positions', because positions are 
always relative to something.

That somethings is also relative to something and so forth.

In the end we have a final point and still don't know, whether or not 
that point moves.

...

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868096 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Evangelista Barzetti <magm@hyojmkib.vi>
Date	2023-01-12 16:45 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tppdfj$1aks5$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#868084

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Momentum and kinetic energy adress different things, but are closely
> related. I chose as example a cannon ball flying through an empty
> gravitation-free SRT like space.

not sure, but here's how Relativity is to be pictured as "science". When 
you talk to Einstine, you talk to science.

＂Coincidences are the leading cause of deaths＂ Coincidence theory. 
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/4onY7JdMkUC8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868097 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Otto Fiscella <tfit@tiselelc.it>
Date	2023-01-12 16:51 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tppdqs$1aks5$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#868084

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Momentum and kinetic energy adress different things, but are closely
> related. I chose as example a cannon ball flying through an empty
> gravitation-free SRT like space.

wow, forgot the other _deep_scientist_ in Relativity. Corruption all 
levels, in capitalism, my friend.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Doesn't Want You Asking Questions About The Vaccine 
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/CzT9zJfvafVK

＂Coincidences are the leading cause of deaths＂ Coincidence theory.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/4onY7JdMkUC8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868122 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-13 08:23 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k2cf81Fglm9U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#868097

Am 12.01.2023 um 17:51 schrieb Otto Fiscella:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Momentum and kinetic energy adress different things, but are closely
>> related. I chose as example a cannon ball flying through an empty
>> gravitation-free SRT like space.
>
> wow, forgot the other _deep_scientist_ in Relativity. Corruption all
> levels, in capitalism, my friend.
>

In SRT Einstein used the velocity v, but meant velocity of an object 
relative to space.

But that definition would violate the very idea of SRT itself.

I meant, that SRT-like movements would require to different 'anchors' to 
measure velocity against like the relation to a target, which a 
cannon-ball hits.

The setting of SRT would actually allow to use other frames of 
references as 'achors'. But in this case velocity v would become a 
variable. But that could (for different v) alter the relation between 
inertia and kinetic energy of a connon-ball in flight, just by choosing 
a different coordinate system, what cannot possibly be the case.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868149

From	Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net>
Date	2023-01-13 20:24 -0600
Message-ID	<pcCcnVIlQen-j1_-nZ2dnZfqlJ9h4p2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#868122

On 1/13/23 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> In SRT Einstein used the velocity v, but meant velocity of an object 
> relative to space.

You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true. This is
BLATANTLY WRONG. If you had actually read Einstein's 1905 paper on SR,
you would know that every velocity he mentioned was relative to a
specified set of inertial coordinates.

> [.... more nonsensical, made-up stuff]

His paper is quite clear: no "anchors" or "targets" are ever used to
measure velocities; each and every time he used a set of inertial
coordinates.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868156

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-14 10:00 +0100
Message-ID	<k2f99sFttscU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#868149

Am 14.01.2023 um 03:24 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 1/13/23 1:23 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> In SRT Einstein used the velocity v, but meant velocity of an object
>> relative to space.
>
> You just keep making stuff up and pretending it is true. This is
> BLATANTLY WRONG. If you had actually read Einstein's 1905 paper on SR,
> you would know that every velocity he mentioned was relative to a
> specified set of inertial coordinates.

This 'specified set of coordinates' needs to be specidied, too. 
Therefore, we need another set of specified coordinates to specify the 
previous ones.

And so on and on, with infinite regress.

>
>> [.... more nonsensical, made-up stuff]
>
> His paper is quite clear: no "anchors" or "targets" are ever used to
> measure velocities; each and every time he used a set of inertial
> coordinates.
>

He could have used 'mumble' also (instead of 'inertial coordinates').

Contrary to your view, you need a starting point for a position vector. 
And that starting point needs also a vector, which defines, where that 
point is located. (and so forth...)

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868728

From	Faustino Biondo <uinn@bfotboia.nt>
Date	2023-01-25 19:19 +0000
Message-ID	<tqrvb4$pbsa$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#868156

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> N̶o̶ m̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶, a̶s̶ S̶R̶ c̶a̶n̶ b̶e̶ E̶X̶T̶R̶E̶M̶E̶L̶Y̶ u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ -- i̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶ o̶f̶ G̶R̶
>> (w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶). So SR is used to accurately model
>> experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
>> approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
>> planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.

idiot. SR has nothing to do with GR. Different domains and everything. You 
don't understand the math behind.

> I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.
> It is also not the local limit to GR, but was based on wrong
> cosmological concepts and bad math.
> Whether GR is much better, I cannot say, but assume it is.

fascist cacamerica putted again at war gearmony with Russia. One more 
time. For the reason Russia gave then energy for industry too cheap. The 
gearmons don't masticate energy sold too cheap.

Germany */_‘at_war’_/* with Russia – FM 
https://%72%74.com/news/570469-germany-war-russia-baerbock/
Annalena Baerbock made the admission in a debate with EU colleagues, 
pushing for the delivery of tanks to Kiev 

this is what happens letting *_an_ugly_braindead_bitch_* representing a 
country. This kind of bitches thinks the world goes through their vagina.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868759 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-26 09:53 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k3etc4F95rbU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#868728

Am 25.01.2023 um 20:19 schrieb Faustino Biondo:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Am 23.01.2023 um 22:43 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>>> N̶o̶ m̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶, a̶s̶ S̶R̶ c̶a̶n̶ b̶e̶ E̶X̶T̶R̶E̶M̶E̶L̶Y̶ u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ -- i̶t̶ i̶s̶ t̶h̶e̶ l̶o̶c̶a̶l̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶ o̶f̶ G̶R̶
>>> (w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ l̶i̶m̶i̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶). So SR is used to accurately model
>>> experiments and physical situation in which its assumptions are
>>> approximately valid. This includes every particle accelerator on the
>>> planet, and every experiment in particle physics, etc.
>
> idiot. SR has nothing to do with GR. Different domains and everything. You
> don't understand the math behind.
>
>> I would say, that SR is simply wrong and based on faulty concepts.
>> It is also not the local limit to GR, but was based on wrong
>> cosmological concepts and bad math.
>> Whether GR is much better, I cannot say, but assume it is.
>
> fascist cacamerica putted again at war gearmony with Russia. One more
> time. For the reason Russia gave then energy for industry too cheap. The
> gearmons don't masticate energy sold too cheap.

Germans don't like the conflict and are totally against a war with Russia.

It's not really a question about energy sources and not even about the 
Ukraine.

Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all turned out to be 
extremely desasterous.

We Germans had the hope of good neighborhood with Russia and possible 
cooperations in fields, where that is possible.

Russians and Germans are also relatively close 'relatives' in ethnicity 
and culture.

Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation in Europe and ranks 
somewhat below Albania in respect to political culture and safety of the 
population.

We Germans also don't want any part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources.

It's simply not our war and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868798

From	Baldomero De filippis <ppbo@ibsldimp.sn>
Date	2023-01-26 21:36 +0000
Message-ID	<tqurpd$1bij0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#868759

Maciej Wozniak wrote: 
> On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 09:53:28 UTC+1, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation in Europe and ranks
>> somewhat below Albania in respect to political culture and safety of
>> the population.
> 
> T̶h̶e̶ s̶a̶f̶e̶t̶y̶ o̶f̶ t̶h̶e̶ U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶i̶a̶n̶ p̶o̶p̶u̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ i̶s̶ r̶a̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ l̶o̶w̶ n̶o̶w̶, u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶
> b̶o̶m̶b̶s̶, i̶n̶d̶e̶e̶d̶. B̶u̶t̶ I̶ s̶t̶i̶l̶l̶ e̶s̶t̶e̶e̶m̶  t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ c̶u̶l̶t̶u̶r̶e̶ m̶u̶c̶h̶,
> m̶u̶c̶h̶ m̶o̶r̶e̶  t̶h̶a̶n̶ P̶u̶t̶i̶n̶'s̶.

what population, you fucking idiot. The nazi uKraine is a big business for 
the */_khazar_zelenske__/*and khazar *_bidan_clan_family_*. It's all about 
the business. The fools cannon fodder are dying for the stinking braindead 
khazar cocaine zelenske, you disgusting subhuman excrement. Siberia is 
waiting for you, the rest of your stinking polak life.

Zelensky Admits: “Ukraine War Is Good For Business!”
https://youtu.be/NtEglfF8030

Arestovich Admits Russia's First Phase Was Deliberately ＂Soft＂ - Didn't 
Want To Hurt Many People
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/jWHYHthzz1AI

Now Fired - Arestovich Says He Can ＂Speak The Truth＂ - Ukraine Can't Win 
(LOL) 
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Wr8g4vdXgiwA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868807 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Baldomero De filippis <ppbo@ibsldimp.sn>
Date	2023-01-26 22:20 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tquuc3$1c2c2$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#868759

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Germans don't like the conflict and are t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ a̶ w̶a̶r̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶
> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶. It's n̶o̶t̶ r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ and not even
> about the Ukraine. Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all
> turned out to be extremely desasterous. We Germans had the hope of good
> neighborhood with Russia and possible cooperations in fields, where that
> is possible. R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶n̶d̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ 'r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶'
> in ethnicity and culture. Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation
> in Europe and ranks somewhat below Albania in respect to political
> culture and safety of the population. We Germans also don't want any
> part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources. It's simply not our war
> and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.

how come "close relative" to Russians, when gearmons are anglo-saxon 
*_pigs_*, which just *_declared war to russia_*. You don't read the 
fucking news, idiot. Go read the news. And regime change your corrupt 
government. */_Now_/*.

Germany */_‘at_war’_/* with Russia – FM 
https://%72%74.com/news/570469-germany-war-russia-baerbock/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868829 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2023-01-27 08:08 +0100
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<k3hbk3FkkpoU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#868807

Am 26.01.2023 um 23:20 schrieb Baldomero De filippis:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> Germans don't like the conflict and are t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ a̶ w̶a̶r̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶
>> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶. It's n̶o̶t̶ r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ and not even
>> about the Ukraine. Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all
>> turned out to be extremely desasterous. We Germans had the hope of good
>> neighborhood with Russia and possible cooperations in fields, where that
>> is possible. R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶n̶d̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ 'r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶'
>> in ethnicity and culture. Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation
>> in Europe and ranks somewhat below Albania in respect to political
>> culture and safety of the population. We Germans also don't want any
>> part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources. It's simply not our war
>> and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.
>
> how come "close relative" to Russians, when gearmons are anglo-saxon
> *_pigs_*, which just *_declared war to russia_*. You don't read the
> fucking news, idiot. Go read the news. And regime change your corrupt
> government. */_Now_/*.
>
German is actually a language which was very widely spoken in former time.

The tribes called 'Germanes' by the Romans were actually Cimbern, 
Teutons and Anglo-Saxons, who all lived in what is today Denmark.

'Angeln' is a region in northern Germany, which belonged to Denmark 
until the so called 'Nordic War', when Prussia captured Schleswig from 
Denmark.

Saxons lived in a region called 'Niedersachsen' today (which belongs to 
current Germany).

But the former 'Germanes' of the Romans lived predominately in Denmark

Anhow: the poluplation of Germany is not particularily Germanic, but to 
a great extend Slavic.

(Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make 
you wonder.)

Other tribes in Germany were Kelts , Allemans, Frisians and several others.

So: the German population is a mixture of several different ethnic 
groups and not predominately blond or Germanic.

The language German was and is also spoken in several other countries 
(other than Germany) like in Austria, Swizerland, Russia, Rumania, Italy 
and so forth.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868849

From	Volney <volney@invalid.invalid>
Date	2023-01-27 20:23 -0500
Message-ID	<tr1te5$1uadg$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#868829

On 1/27/2023 2:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 26.01.2023 um 23:20 schrieb Baldomero De filippis:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>>> Germans don't like the conflict and are t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ a̶ w̶a̶r̶ w̶i̶t̶h̶
>>> R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶. It's n̶o̶t̶ r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ q̶u̶e̶s̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ e̶n̶e̶r̶g̶y̶ s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶ and not even
>>> about the Ukraine. Germans had several conflicts with Russia which all
>>> turned out to be extremely desasterous. We Germans had the hope of good
>>> neighborhood with Russia and possible cooperations in fields, where that
>>> is possible. R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶n̶d̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶r̶e̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶ c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ 'r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶s̶'
>>> in ethnicity and culture. Ukraine in contrast has rather low reputation
>>> in Europe and ranks somewhat below Albania in respect to political
>>> culture and safety of the population. We Germans also don't want any
>>> part of Ukraine and nothing of its resources. It's simply not our war
>>> and we hope the best this madness will stop soon.
>>
>> how come "close relative" to Russians, when gearmons are anglo-saxon
>> *_pigs_*, which just *_declared war to russia_*. You don't read the
>> fucking news, idiot. Go read the news. And regime change your corrupt
>> government. */_Now_/*.
>>
> German is actually a language which was very widely spoken in former time.

Well the base language (which is not German) in the region eventually 
evolved into Norwegian, Swedish and some extinct ones, and into a branch 
which became the base for Low German and High German. Dutch and Old 
English are related to Low German. Modern German from High German. 
Slavic languages? No. Except both groups came from Indo-European. 
Ukrainian and Russian are East Slavic languages, Polish West Slavic, and 
I believe the former Yugoslavia area languages are called South Slavic.

> Anhow: the poluplation of Germany is not particularily Germanic, but to 
> a great extend Slavic.

Maybe in the east. Western Germans are substantially related to the 
French, and to a lesser extent, the English, as the Western European 
ethnic group.  There have been wars and population migration for 
centuries, so yes lots of mixing.
> 
> (Already the similarity of the words 'Prussia' and 'Russia' should make 
> you wonder.)

The words are not as close in most other languages. "Russia" came from 
the Kievan Rus, a people in what is now Ukraine and south Belarus, also 
called the Ruthenians. The Kievan Rus eventually spread into Muscovy (in 
western Russia). and founded Moscow. Muscovy eventually became very 
powerful while Kievan Rus declined, largely due to the Mongol invasion.

Prussia came from Pruss, the name the Lithuanian related people in that 
area called themselves. The Germans (Teutonic Knights) converted them to 
Christianity and largely wiped them out, so the area became German. (why 
does that sound familiar :-( ). I guess the Soviet-forced eviction of 
Germans from the area to be replaced by Polish and (in half of East 
Prussia) the Russians is "payback" not just for WW2 but that earlier period.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#868809 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

From	Baldomero De filippis <ppbo@ibsldimp.sn>
Date	2023-01-26 22:34 +0000
Subject	Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.
Message-ID	<tquv5n$1c2c2$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#868759

Thomas Heger wrote:

> W̶e̶ G̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶s̶ a̶l̶s̶o̶ d̶o̶n̶'t̶ w̶a̶n̶t̶ a̶n̶y̶ p̶a̶r̶t̶ o̶f̶ U̶k̶r̶a̶i̶n̶e̶ a̶n̶d̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ o̶f̶ i̶t̶s̶
> r̶e̶s̶o̶u̶r̶c̶e̶s̶. I̶t̶'s̶ s̶i̶m̶p̶l̶y̶ n̶o̶t̶ o̶u̶r̶ w̶a̶r̶ a̶n̶d̶ w̶e̶ h̶o̶p̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶ b̶e̶s̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ m̶a̶d̶n̶e̶s̶s̶
> w̶i̶l̶l̶ s̶t̶o̶p̶ s̶o̶o̶n̶.

that's why you tanks and military shit to kill for free?? Other countries pays in billions for rusted crap, your nazi brothers "uKrainia" gets it for free.

German Government Just Officially *_Declared_War_on_Russia_*
https://%6e%65%77%73%70%75%6e%63%68.com/german-government-just-officially-declared-war-on-russia/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →

csiph-web

Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

Contents

#867814 — Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#867815

#867826

#867889 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#867909 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868048 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868049 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868084 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868096 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868097 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868122 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868149

#868156

#868728

#868759 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868798

#868807 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868829 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.

#868849

#868809 — Re: Kinetic Energy formula check - a series of short burn rockets, and see how the velocity adds up.