Derivation of e=0,5MvvN(N-k)
in [Basics]
|
From: Arindam Banerjee on 26 Jul 2010 09:01 On Jul 26, 10:43 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > <deletia impletum> > > I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and > I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order; > unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs. > > thus: > 3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-) > yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but > why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ?? > > thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say, > Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner! > > > Iff ... then ... > > --les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net > > --Stop BP's cap&trade looting!http://wlym.com Let us say a body is capable of moving with internal force. With respect to a reference frame R0 he accelerates for a time t to reach a velocity v. With respect to R0, the energy he has gained (kinetic) is 0.5Mvv. Let us say that the reference frame he is now is R1. With respect to R1, he accelerates for a time t to reach a velocity v, which is v+v=2v with respect to R0. With respect to R0, his kinetic energy is 0.5M(2v.2v). With N such "hits" his energy with respect to R0 will be 0.5MNvNv. Let us say that for each hit, energy E is expended and this energy comes from an internal source in the body. It *has* to be the same for each hit, for all it does is spend it constantly over the same time period t and is totally independent of the distance covered by the body. This energy is related to the energy gain per "hit" 0.5Mvv by a factor k, or 0.5kMvv. In N hits, the internal energy spent is 0.5NkMvv. The net difference in energy, or free energy, based upon the initial reference frame R0 is 0.5MNNvv - 0.5MNkvv or as I wrote, e=0.5MNvv(N-k). I derived this equation in 1999, and published it in Usenet in 2000. In that year I elaborated it in my book "To the Stars!" which was available freely from my website. This equation and its derivation was published in print by Outlook India Science Section in 2003. I have discussed it extensively for the last ten years in Usenet. This equation is a "missing equation" in physics, as important as say f=ma, vv= uu+2as, s=vt, etc. With this equation, the universe is understood much better. In my unpublished book "The Principles of Motion" I have shown how this equation can be used to explain the dynamics underlying all explosions, the energy of the heavenly bodies, etc. Once properly grasped, it will engender a revolution in theoretical physics. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Zinnic on 26 Jul 2010 13:49 On Jul 26, 8:01 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 10:43 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > <deletia impletum> > > > I have no idea what (N-k) is supposed to do, and > > I don't googol ****, partly because of a restraining order; > > unfortunately, I'm using their front-end for these NGs. > > > thus: > > 3 choices, 2 choices, 1 choices (3?, or "three summorial" .-) > > yeah, direction cosines are nice & homogenous, but > > why not stay with vectors (quaternions' inner & outer products) ?? > > > thus: IFF probably is "if & only if," that is to say, > > Liebniz's neccesity & sufficiency, used in literate manner! > > > > Iff ... then ... > > > --les ducs d'oil!http://tarpley.net > > > --Stop BP's cap&trade looting!http://wlym.com > > Let us say a body is capable of moving with internal force. With > respect to a reference frame R0 he accelerates for a time t to reach a > velocity v. With respect to R0, the energy he has gained (kinetic) is > 0.5Mvv. Let us say that the reference frame he is now is R1. With > respect to R1, he accelerates for a time t to reach a velocity v, > which is v+v=2v with respect to R0. With respect to R0, his kinetic > energy is 0.5M(2v.2v). With N such "hits" his energy with respect to > R0 will be 0.5MNvNv. Let us say that for each hit, energy E is > expended and this energy comes from an internal source in the body. > It *has* to be the same for each hit, for all it does is spend it > constantly over the same time period t and is totally independent of > the distance covered by the body. This energy is related to the > energy gain per "hit" 0.5Mvv by a factor k, or 0.5kMvv. In N hits, > the internal energy spent is 0.5NkMvv. The net difference in energy, > or free energy, based upon the initial reference frame R0 is 0.5MNNvv > - 0.5MNkvv or as I wrote, > e=0.5MNvv(N-k). > > I derived this equation in 1999, and published it in Usenet in 2000. > In that year I elaborated it in my book "To the Stars!" which was > available freely from my website. This equation and its derivation > was published in print by Outlook India Science Section in 2003. I > have discussed it extensively for the last ten years in Usenet. This > equation is a "missing equation" in physics, as important as say f=ma, > vv= uu+2as, s=vt, etc. With this equation, the universe is understood > much better. In my unpublished book "The Principles of Motion" I have > shown how this equation can be used to explain the dynamics underlying > all explosions, the energy of the heavenly bodies, etc. Once properly > grasped, it will engender a revolution in theoretical physics. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - " Let us say that for each hit, energy E isexpended and this energy comes from an internal source in the body.It *has* to be the same for each hit, for all it does is spend it constantly over the same time period t and is totallyindependent ofthe distance covered by the body.
From: spudnik on 26 Jul 2010 15:43 can't say I get what you mean by "hit" w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative? thus: the first footnote shows the problem with Newton's "theory" of emmission. > http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf > Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson detected > the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s. thus: and, of course, disenfranchizing past felons was also against the law, and Gore didn't do anything about that; did he? --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net --Stop BP's cap&trade looting & toss them out of USA waters! http://wlym.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 26 Jul 2010 21:30 On Jul 27, 5:43 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > can't say I get what you mean by "hit" > w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative? By hit I mean the energy it takes to move from 0 to v, v to 2v and so on. This is done by internal force, with an energy source contained in the body and the body is totally detached from anything else. If we take E to move from 0 to v, then it will be E to move from (N-1)v to Nv. So summing up N "hits" the KE is NE with a K factor for inefficiencies. This is the quality of motion using internal force, not a force grounded to a R0 frame of reference. All natural phenomena and explosions can be more beautifully and clearly analysed with this new formula, e=0.5MVVN(N-k) where k>=1. Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force. I think I can do it next year. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
From: Arindam Banerjee on 26 Jul 2010 21:38
On Jul 27, 11:30 am, Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 5:43 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > can't say I get what you mean by "hit" > > w.r.t. "internal energy, but why is KE multiplicative? > > By hit I mean the energy it takes to move from 0 to v, v to 2v and so > on. This is done by internal force, with an energy source contained > in the body and the body is totally detached from anything else. If > we take E to move from 0 to v, then it will be E to move from (N-1)v > to Nv. So summing up N "hits" the KE is NE with a K factor for > inefficiencies. > > This is the quality of motion using internal force, not a force > grounded to a R0 frame of reference. All natural phenomena and > explosions can be more beautifully and clearly analysed with this new > formula, e=0.5MVVN(N-k) where k>=1. > > Only proper engineering which I would very much like to do, can show > conclusively that you can move from 0 to v with internal force. I > think I can do it next year. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee To make matters a bit clearer, a car accelerating on a road always needs the road for it to go forward. The road is the R0 reference, and it is providing the external force upon the car via the friction upon the wheels. But an internal force engine does not need a road, nor air to push back, nor water to push back. It works best in outer space, where there is no opposing force, nor friction. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee |