Scientific Forums


 

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> Chemical Energy, Mechanical Energy, Cartesian vectors and Polar Vectors
Quantum_Conundrum
Posted: Dec 16 2012, 07:13 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1943
Joined: 30-April 07

Positive Feedback: 30.43%
Feedback Score: -123


IN the past I discovered a possible problem in the way we define momentum and energy in some (possibly too simplified,) textbook situations.

It is possible the flaw is caused by oversimplification or by the model being too arbitrary (not enough concrete information to define variables, etc,).


At any rate, in a cartesian coordinate system, an explosion can conceivable produce what appears to be totally different results.

Two one kilogram masses are exploded away from one another, and obtain a relative velocity of 10m/s, as seen from a reference frame co-moving with mass A.

Thus an ant, "a," on the back of A observes ant "b," on the back of B moving away at 10m/s, and having kinetic energy of 50 Joules, and a momentum of 10kg*m/s^2.

But as seen from a reference frame co-moving with the mid-point of the two objects, where ant "c," resides, ants "a" and "b" appear to be moving in opposite directions at plus 5m/s and minus 5m/s. This gives each a kinetic energy of plus and minus 12.5 Joules respectively, as seen by ant "c," and momentum 5kg*m/s^2 in opposite directions.


Now in chemistry we know there is a limit to the energy in the fuel, and we also know that the number of molecules in the fuel does not change just because we changed reference frames. So how could there be more total "energy" in the fuel source in one reference frame than the other?! Even as the total "momentum" remains conserved?!

Actually, the example does not conserve momentum, because in one reference frame one kilogram shoots off while the opposite kilogram does not. therefore the conservation of momentum of the universe is not maintained if the ant on the back of the mass B considers himself to be at rest.


Thus it is a logical and mathematical fallacy for either of the two ants to consider themselves at rest after the explosion, because "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," therefore the assumptions of Einstein's relativity are invalidated, BECAUSE he starts with no shared knowledge between reference frame observers, (even though there's no conceivable way his twin could fail to share knowledge, such as his own height or waist size which allegedly "shrinks" during the thought experiment). It is not required to shrink in reality, but the thought experiment is flawed because it leaves an objective fact, waist size, unmeasured before the travel phase of the experiment started, and therefore leaves the "variable" of the lenght of his wast open to arbitrary interpretions in both reference frames. If both Einstein's know their pant size before the travel begins, they are no longer able to interpret deviations in their measurements as "actual" length contractions.


So the "fictitious" reference frame in which one kilogram remains at rest while the other flies off at 10m/s after the explosion is a violation of conservation laws, because in that fictitious reference frame an explosion produced an assymetric change in momentum which was not offset by an "equal and opposite" change in the same reference frame.


this proves that either:

1, the laws of physics are not the same for every observer.

2, or if the laws of physics are the same for every observer, then different observers do NOT necessarily have the right to consider themselves at rest or to consider some co-moving reference frame.


When you consider the chemical energy in the explosives, and consider the energy propagates spherically, then we can put things in a polar coordinate system, and if we start in the reference frame "c" we find that the energy should exist approximately on the surface of an expanding sphere, and the total surface area of this sphere (or possible the volume of an expanding shell near it's surface,) is directly proportional to the REAL "energy" of the chemistry, and this value is a polar coordinate value. Since the number of molecules in the chemicals does not magically change from one reference frame to another, then the chemical bonds between the atoms are the same, and therefore this "energy" must be the same in every reference frame...unless you're claiming the strength of a hydrogen bond changes with reference frame, but if that is true then the speed of light would be changing anyway, since the strength of the bonds are supposedly proportional to the speed of light....



there's even more going on here than that, but we see that both Einstein and Newton's systems are vulnerable to the "unrealistic little information produces an absurd interpretation" paradoxes, which leave certain laws or certain initially shared knowledge out of the experiment, and then draw an absurd conclusion because of it.


The real world is not 2 masses and 3 ants in the middle of a void with no shared information.

The real world is lots of things going on, and everyone having shared information, like a real astronaut and a real controller, with real engineers and real clocks are all starting out the same size and synchronized...

That is what is wrong with both Newton and especially Einstein's "thought experiments," no shared knowledge plus abstraction equals absurdities.
Top
Undeterminable
Posted: Dec 23 2012, 06:43 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 23-December 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


You problem is simple, you have an accelerating refrence frame. The math will work out if you know how to handle an accelerating refrence frame.
Good luck, it is very complex.
Top
Quantum_Conundrum
Posted: Dec 24 2012, 05:34 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1943
Joined: 30-April 07

Positive Feedback: 30.43%
Feedback Score: -123


QUOTE (Undeterminable @ Dec 23 2012, 01:43 PM)
You problem is simple, you have an accelerating refrence frame. The math will work out if you know how to handle an accelerating refrence frame.
Good luck, it is very complex.

It doesn't work because one frame is required to break conservation laws anyway.

All textbook or encyclopedic equations are over-simplifications which typically ignore 1 or 2 dimensions.


Consider this:

"Energy" is paradoxically measured in the same units, whether it is the "energy" of one-dimensional motion, or whether it is the "energy" of blowing up a balloon, or whether it's the energy of turning a corner on a race track, or whether it's an explosion.

"energy" can even be in the "kinetic energy" of two rogue planets colliding from "flat space time" to impact, and this is supposedly built up by "gravity" which in Newton's theory is a "force" while in Einstein's theory is the mere warping of space-time.

It doesn't make sense that the units Joule (kg*m^2/s^2) describes the same thing in all cases, particularly since Einstein's theory claims its' just a warp in the world line of the object, because space time is warping.


As usual, the problem arises from a common false premise ALL mathematical theories make, which is excluding well known facts in order to over-simply everything.

In reality, there is no such place where an experiment can be conducted in isolation to even bother testing whether the equation is 100% correct anyway.

Just for example, measuring the gravitational constant is very hard because the Sun, Moon, and Planets actually have a larger influence on it than the precision of the measurement. If it is 12a.m. the Sun's gravity is adding constructively to the Earth for the observer. If it is 12p.m.(noon) the Sun's gravity is adding destructively to the Earth.

Now while that's well known, what isn't known is the position of every comet and asteroid in space screwing up measurements.


Nobody does galactic gravity calculations correctly, not even in a super-computer. First of all they don't even know how many stars in in the galaxies; estimates have a margin of error of plus or minus 50%, so they can't even populate the position and mass of every object. We still don't even have a super computer that could actually populate each Star's mass and position, in a true 3-d model, even if we knew them with 100% certainty. Averaging to the center does not work, and is definitely at least one source of the Dark Matter error.


This is what I find faulty with science today.

They are proposing new theories all the time when they don't even have a way to do the calculations CORRECTLY for the old theory. It makes no sense.
Top
brucep
Posted: Dec 24 2012, 08:34 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3940
Joined: 3-October 09

Positive Feedback: 88.37%
Feedback Score: 146


QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum @ Dec 16 2012, 07:13 PM)
IN the past I discovered a possible problem in the way we define momentum and energy in some (possibly too simplified,) textbook situations.

It is possible the flaw is caused by oversimplification or by the model being too arbitrary (not enough concrete information to define variables, etc,).


At any rate, in a cartesian coordinate system, an explosion can conceivable produce what appears to be totally different results.

Two one kilogram masses are exploded away from one another, and obtain a relative velocity of 10m/s, as seen from a reference frame co-moving with mass A.

Thus an ant, "a," on the back of A observes ant "b," on the back of B moving away at 10m/s, and having kinetic energy of 50 Joules, and a momentum of 10kg*m/s^2.

But as seen from a reference frame co-moving with the mid-point of the two objects, where ant "c," resides, ants "a" and "b" appear to be moving in opposite directions at plus 5m/s and minus 5m/s. This gives each a kinetic energy of plus and minus 12.5 Joules respectively, as seen by ant "c," and momentum 5kg*m/s^2 in opposite directions.


Now in chemistry we know there is a limit to the energy in the fuel, and we also know that the number of molecules in the fuel does not change just because we changed reference frames. So how could there be more total "energy" in the fuel source in one reference frame than the other?! Even as the total "momentum" remains conserved?!

Actually, the example does not conserve momentum, because in one reference frame one kilogram shoots off while the opposite kilogram does not. therefore the conservation of momentum of the universe is not maintained if the ant on the back of the mass B considers himself to be at rest.


Thus it is a logical and mathematical fallacy for either of the two ants to consider themselves at rest after the explosion, because "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," therefore the assumptions of Einstein's relativity are invalidated, BECAUSE he starts with no shared knowledge between reference frame observers, (even though there's no conceivable way his twin could fail to share knowledge, such as his own height or waist size which allegedly "shrinks" during the thought experiment). It is not required to shrink in reality, but the thought experiment is flawed because it leaves an objective fact, waist size, unmeasured before the travel phase of the experiment started, and therefore leaves the "variable" of the lenght of his wast open to arbitrary interpretions in both reference frames. If both Einstein's know their pant size before the travel begins, they are no longer able to interpret deviations in their measurements as "actual" length contractions.


So the "fictitious" reference frame in which one kilogram remains at rest while the other flies off at 10m/s after the explosion is a violation of conservation laws, because in that fictitious reference frame an explosion produced an assymetric change in momentum which was not offset by an "equal and opposite" change in the same reference frame.


this proves that either:

1, the laws of physics are not the same for every observer.

2, or if the laws of physics are the same for every observer, then different observers do NOT necessarily have the right to consider themselves at rest or to consider some co-moving reference frame.


When you consider the chemical energy in the explosives, and consider the energy propagates spherically, then we can put things in a polar coordinate system, and if we start in the reference frame "c" we find that the energy should exist approximately on the surface of an expanding sphere, and the total surface area of this sphere (or possible the volume of an expanding shell near it's surface,) is directly proportional to the REAL "energy" of the chemistry, and this value is a polar coordinate value. Since the number of molecules in the chemicals does not magically change from one reference frame to another, then the chemical bonds between the atoms are the same, and therefore this "energy" must be the same in every reference frame...unless you're claiming the strength of a hydrogen bond changes with reference frame, but if that is true then the speed of light would be changing anyway, since the strength of the bonds are supposedly proportional to the speed of light....



there's even more going on here than that, but we see that both Einstein and Newton's systems are vulnerable to the "unrealistic little information produces an absurd interpretation" paradoxes, which leave certain laws or certain initially shared knowledge out of the experiment, and then draw an absurd conclusion because of it.


The real world is not 2 masses and 3 ants in the middle of a void with no shared information.

The real world is lots of things going on, and everyone having shared information, like a real astronaut and a real controller, with real engineers and real clocks are all starting out the same size and synchronized...

That is what is wrong with both Newton and especially Einstein's "thought experiments," no shared knowledge plus abstraction equals absurdities.

You couldn't find your a*ss with either hand. I'm considering nominating your 'GPS is false' post for the most illiterate 'abused arithmetic' post of the year. Maybe your dumbsh*it dimensional analysis post. What makes you think you can do an analysis of derivations for momentum and energy when you don't even understand dimensional analysis. You're a self delusional scientific and mathematical illiterate. The key word being self delusional. Go away until you learn some physics.
Top
Robittybob1
  Posted: Dec 24 2012, 08:39 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Bruce's Christmas spirit is showing through!
Top
brucep
Posted: Dec 24 2012, 08:41 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3940
Joined: 3-October 09

Positive Feedback: 88.37%
Feedback Score: 146


QUOTE (Robittybob1 @ Dec 24 2012, 08:39 PM)
Bruce's Christmas spirit is showing through!

I don't suffer idiots even during the Christmas season. That includes you. I could nominate your entire set of pulsar posts but I'm probably going to give you a break. Tis the season to be jolly.

This post has been edited by brucep on Dec 24 2012, 08:46 PM
Top
Robittybob1
  Posted: Dec 24 2012, 09:26 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (brucep @ Dec 24 2012, 08:41 PM)
I don't suffer idiots even during the Christmas season. That includes you. I could nominate your entire set of pulsar posts but I'm probably going to give you a break. Tis the season to be jolly.

Thank you Bruce - you won't regret that random act of kindness.
Top

Topic Options

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use