I forgot my momentum equations?
gu...@hotmail.com
equation for an elastic collision between two objects (where v is the
velocity):
v1 + v2 = v2_final - v1_final
Now if a tiny ball at rest (v2 = 0) gets hit by a huge planetary ball
with high velocity....won't they both have "almost" the same high
velocity after the collision?
Yet if you put it in the equation above......
It will probably take me ten years to figure out what I did
wrong....So what did I forget to do?
Poutnik
@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
> Looking in my mechanics book for momentum, there's the popular
> equation for an elastic collision between two objects (where v is the
> velocity):
>
> v1 + v2 = v2_final - v1_final
Correct would be
m1v1 + m2v2 = (final) m1v1 + m2v2
but remember is is vector equation, because momentum is vector.
>
> Now if a tiny ball at rest (v2 = 0) gets hit by a huge planetary ball
> with high velocity....won't they both have "almost" the same high
> velocity after the collision?
Roughly said yes.
For elastic colission are valid both
universal law of momentum conservation
and conditional law of kinetic energy conservation.
Let m is ball mass
and n . m is big ball mass.
momentum: n . m . v = n . m . v1 + m * v2
kin. energy: 1/2 * n . m * v^2 = 1/2 * n . m * v1^2 + 1/2 * m * v2^2
n . v = n . v1 + v2
n * v^2 = n * v1^2 + v2^2
--
Poutnik
eric gisse
news:MPG.287b823b7...@news.eternal-september.org:
[snip all]
to the surprise of nobody, guskz can't handle conservation of momentum
without handholding.
micro...@hotmail.com
> Poutnik <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote innews:MPG.287b823b7...@news.eternal-september.org:
> [snip all]
>
> to the surprise of nobody, guskz can't handle conservation of momentum
> without handholding.
What about Quantum Mechanics conjugare attributes?
They are wrong as demonstrated by "momentums" need to be defined by
"changing position."
There is changing position in momentum iteself.
guskz
Actually I made an over-confidence mistake without double checking,
the equation is not v1 + v2 but
v1-v2 = v2_final-v1_final
now if v2=0 and v1 =100m/s and m1=100 000kg, m2 = .001kg
momentum equation: m1v1+ 0 = m1v1_final + m2v2_final
therefore: 100 000(100) + 0 = 100 000 v1_final + .001
(100+v1_final)
(10 000 000 - .1)/(100 000 + .001) = v1_final
thus v1_final = 100m/s (actually 99.99999999)
v2_final = 100 + 100 = 200m/s
------------------
I guess I forgot that a larger ball could make something smaller go
faster than its own speed upon collision (I presumed both speeds would
be the same after collision)......I still find it a strange phenomena.
.
m1(100 000 - v1_final) +
forget the equations for 1 sec, LOGICALLY after a humongous ball hits
a tiny ball, shouldn't they BOTH have almost 100km/s...yet I will
admit I'm blind cause it doesn't seem to workout in the equation?
guskz
> Poutnik <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote innews:MPG.287b823b7...@news.eternal-september.org:
> [snip all]
>
> to the surprise of nobody, guskz can't handle conservation of momentum
> without handholding.
And I me the hand holder thought fat Erica Gisse (seriously do some
exercise even if your from frosty Alaska) about Proper Time....To
which he started making "x" number of excuses about his error, as he
will again to cover his big fat heinous heiny....oh no another rip
bending down for the candy-bar.
{you can't snip a heiny that big, no way}
Poutnik
781dff...@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Jul 4, 2:55�am, Poutnik <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <1b826127-c485-4edd-b336-4f4650390000
> > @p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Looking in my mechanics book for momentum, there's the popular
> > > equation for an elastic collision between two objects (where v is the
> > > velocity):
> >
> > > v1 + v2 = v2_final - v1_final
> >
> > Correct would be
> >
> >
> > but remember is is vector equation, because momentum is vector.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Now if a tiny ball at rest (v2 = 0) gets hit by a huge planetary ball
> > > with high velocity....won't they both have "almost" the same high
> > > velocity after the collision?
> >
> > Roughly said yes.
> >
> > For elastic colission are valid both
> > universal law of momentum conservation
> > and conditional law of kinetic energy conservation.
> >
> > Let m is ball mass
> > and n . m is big ball mass.
> >
> > kin. energy: �1/2 * n . m * v^2 = 1/2 * n . m * v1^2 �+ 1/2 * m * v2^2
> >
> > n . v ďż˝ = n . v1 ďż˝ + v2
> > n * v^2 = n * v1^2 + v2^2
> >
> > --
> > Poutnik
>
> Actually I made an over-confidence mistake without double checking,
> the equation is not v1 + v2 but
>
> v1-v2 = v2_final-v1_final
There is no law about conservation of sume or difference of the speed.
It would be valid in case of the same masses only.
>
> now if v2=0 and v1 =100m/s and m1=100 000kg, m2 = .001kg
>
> momentum equation: m1v1+ 0 = m1v1_final + m2v2_final
>
> therefore: 100 000(100) + 0 = 100 000 v1_final + .001
> (100+v1_final)
Why do you a priori assume v2 final
is exactly 100 larger than v1 final ?
--
Poutnik
PD
What is true for an elastic collision is that
|v2_initial - v1_initial| = |v2_final - v1_final|
This is regardless of the masses involved.
This, by the way, explains how a batter can hit a baseball into the
upper bleachers while neither the batter nor the pitcher could throw it
that far. Do you see why?
guskz
> In article <c5809014-2f14-414b-9c0c-
> 781dffb9d...@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 4, 2:55 am, Poutnik <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <1b826127-c485-4edd-b336-4f4650390000
> > > @p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > Looking in my mechanics book for momentum, there's the popular
> > > > equation for an elastic collision between two objects (where v is the
> > > > velocity):
>
> > > > v1 + v2 = v2_final - v1_final
>
> > > Correct would be
>
>
> > > but remember is is vector equation, because momentum is vector.
>
> > > > Now if a tiny ball at rest (v2 = 0) gets hit by a huge planetary ball
> > > > with high velocity....won't they both have "almost" the same high
> > > > velocity after the collision?
>
> > > Roughly said yes.
>
> > > For elastic colission are valid both
> > > universal law of momentum conservation
> > > and conditional law of kinetic energy conservation.
>
> > > Let m is ball mass
> > > and n . m is big ball mass.
>
> > > kin. energy: 1/2 * n . m * v^2 = 1/2 * n . m * v1^2 + 1/2 * m * v2^2
>
> > > n . v = n . v1 + v2
> > > n * v^2 = n * v1^2 + v2^2
>
> > > --
> > > Poutnik
>
> > Actually I made an over-confidence mistake without double checking,
> > the equation is not v1 + v2 but
>
> > v1-v2 = v2_final-v1_final
>
> There is no law about conservation of sume or difference of the speed.
> It would be valid in case of the same masses only.
>
>
>
> > now if v2=0 and v1 =100m/s and m1=100 000kg, m2 = .001kg
>
> > momentum equation: m1v1+ 0 = m1v1_final + m2v2_final
>
> > therefore: 100 000(100) + 0 = 100 000 v1_final + .001
> > (100+v1_final)
>
> is exactly 100 larger than v1 final ?
>
> --
> Poutnik
I never wrote that, you delete the part where I said I rounded-out the
numbers for simplification.
guskz
yes, two ingredients: momentum and leverage
PD
No, relative velocity stays the same.
When the pitcher throws at 90mph and the batter swings the bat forward
at 60 mph, the relative velocity is 150 mph.
When the bat makes contact, it continues going forward on the
follow-through, slowing only a little. If it is still going forward at
55 mph, then the ball takes off with a speed of 205 mph, quite a bit
faster than the ball was pitched.
Poutnik
@q1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Jul 6, 12:49�am, Poutnik <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <c5809014-2f14-414b-9c0c-
> > 781dffb9d...@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 4, 2:55�am, Poutnik <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article <1b826127-c485-4edd-b336-4f4650390000
> > > > @p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > > > Looking in my mechanics book for momentum, there's the popular
> > > > > equation for an elastic collision between two objects (where v is the
> > > > > velocity):
> >
> > > > > v1 + v2 = v2_final - v1_final
> >
> > > > Correct would be
> >
> >
> > > > but remember is is vector equation, because momentum is vector.
> >
> > > > > Now if a tiny ball at rest (v2 = 0) gets hit by a huge planetary ball
> > > > > with high velocity....won't they both have "almost" the same high
> > > > > velocity after the collision?
> >
> > > > Roughly said yes.
> >
> > > > For elastic colission are valid both
> > > > universal law of momentum conservation
> > > > and conditional law of kinetic energy conservation.
> >
> > > > Let m is ball mass
> > > > and n . m is big ball mass.
> >
> > > > kin. energy: �1/2 * n . m * v^2 = 1/2 * n . m * v1^2 �+ 1/2 * m * v2^2
> >
> > > > n * v^2 = n * v1^2 + v2^2
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Poutnik
> >
> > > Actually I made an over-confidence mistake without double checking,
> > > the equation is not v1 + v2 but
> >
> > > v1-v2 = v2_final-v1_final
> >
> > There is no law about conservation of sume or difference of the speed.
> > It would be valid in case of the same masses only.
> >
> >
> >
> > > now if v2=0 and v1 =100m/s and m1=100 000kg, m2 = .001kg
> >
> >
> > > therefore: � � �100 000(100) + 0 = 100 000 v1_final + .001
> > > (100+v1_final)
> >
> > Why do you a prioriassume v2 final
> > is exactly 100 larger than v1 final ?
> >
> > --
> > Poutnik
>
> I never wrote that, you delete the part where I said I rounded-out the
> numbers for simplification.
Well, It is supposted poster are making quoting.
I may did some agressive quoting, but I did not add anything
pretending it was in post I was replied to.
--
Poutnik
micro...@hotmail.com
> In article <5e293ac1-27b8-43ea-a994-ff9aadb5e784
> @q1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 12:49 am, Poutnik <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <c5809014-2f14-414b-9c0c-
> > > 781dffb9d...@v11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > > In article <1b826127-c485-4edd-b336-4f4650390000
> > > > > @p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, gu...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > > > Looking in my mechanics book for momentum, there's the popular
> > > > > > equation for an elastic collision between two objects (where v is the
> > > > > > velocity):
>
> > > > > > v1 + v2 = v2_final - v1_final
>
> > > > > Correct would be
>
>
> > > > > but remember is is vector equation, because momentum is vector.
>
> > > > > > Now if a tiny ball at rest (v2 = 0) gets hit by a huge planetary ball
> > > > > > with high velocity....won't they both have "almost" the same high
> > > > > > velocity after the collision?
>
> > > > > Roughly said yes.
>
> > > > > For elastic colission are valid both
> > > > > universal law of momentum conservation
> > > > > and conditional law of kinetic energy conservation.
>
> > > > > Let m is ball mass
> > > > > and n . m is big ball mass.
>
> > > > > kin. energy: 1/2 * n . m * v^2 = 1/2 * n . m * v1^2 + 1/2 * m * v2^2
>
> > > > > n . v = n . v1 + v2
> > > > > n * v^2 = n * v1^2 + v2^2
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Poutnik
>
> > > > Actually I made an over-confidence mistake without double checking,
> > > > the equation is not v1 + v2 but
>
> > > > v1-v2 = v2_final-v1_final
>
> > > There is no law about conservation of sume or difference of the speed.
> > > It would be valid in case of the same masses only.
>
> > > > now if v2=0 and v1 =100m/s and m1=100 000kg, m2 = .001kg
>
>
> > > > therefore: 100 000(100) + 0 = 100 000 v1_final + .001
> > > > (100+v1_final)
>
> > > Why do you a prioriassume v2 final
> > > is exactly 100 larger than v1 final ?
>
> > > --
> > > Poutnik
>
> > I never wrote that, you delete the part where I said I rounded-out the
> > numbers for simplification.
>
> Well, It is supposted poster are making quoting.
> I may did some agressive quoting, but I did not add anything
> pretending it was in post I was replied to.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
Momentum and position are not conjugate attributes.
Momentum does not exclude position in that it is in part a changing
Position Rate.
This destroys part of what I call the old quantum mechanics.
The conjugates of energy and time produce infinite energy everywhere
in free space over shortest interval of time is also a stupid result
that doesn't belong in QM theory anymore.
The Quantum Club is and has been a bunch of liars about their smartest
theories.
Even the black hole club has been caught red handed lying about black
hole physics.
So the physics club is a bunch of liars about GR and QM. Even
Einstein's lost time concept no longer applies. The example would be
two objects passling each other in space where one is very fast. There
is no lost time and both see the same reality: the fast moving object
has the slowest time and the slow object the fastest clock rate. It is
as simple as that. It is as simple as no lost time.
Everything we have needs to go on; not be held on to. Everythng needs
correction by an objective scientist like Albert Einstein. Every
theory needs to become complete or more complete.
guskz
How do you go from 150 to 205mph?
Or did you mean 150+55 = 195mph (or are you using the momentum
equation (m1v1 + m2v2 =...)?
Y.Porat
------------------
you have to add the momentum of the
human player (his mass his moving hands etc
to the initial momentum of the artifact tools !!
(and that is the difference that i always talk about-- between a
mathematicians and physicists (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.Porat
--------------------
guskz
did you ever plaid Volleyball ??
i did
and i was quite good ...ABOUT IT ..
because even **then**at much less than 30 years -- i was
THINKING !!...
and that is (among the others ) why it makes me a better
physicist ...
an armchair physicist will never understand it !!! (:-)
unless someone will explain it to him in details
and even that i doubt .it ..
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
PD
If you look carefully, you will note that 150+55=205.
And no, I'm not using the momentum equation. The relative velocity
before and after the collision is 150 mph. Draw a sketch. You'll see it.
Y.Porat
--------------
but you overlook what halfpence in reality
in reality
the player adds a lot of momentum
that was not in the ball and the bat
and that makes the big difference in end result
of the ball flight !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
PD
The only difference the ball player makes is how little the bat slows
down upon contact. Other than that, the statement that in elastic
collisions the relative velocity is what is the same before and after
the collision stands, and that is all that is needed to see why the ball
takes off the way it does.
micro...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Momentum by its definition contains position and its change.
Change of position is required for momentum.
Therefore there are no conjugate attributes.
There is just a quantum lie and the quantum liars club.
guskz
OMG I can't even add.
Though adding 55mph seems very strange since the impact is at 60pmh
and instantaneous, so it seems strange that any other vector going in
the same direction and slower than 60 could reach it in order to give
it the additional boost?
Example a ball going at -60mph gets hit by a car going at -80mph....in
their relative world the car is hitting the ball with an additional
20mph and not 80mph? .....Where as +60mph and -80mph would give
140mph?
Likewise if a ball is going at -60mph and a car (or bat) starts to
move just before the ball passes it at -55mph...then no rear-end
impact would ever occur?
guskz
Ok I get it know the 55mph is not the acting velocity but the final
velocity...which is why it's added to the others.
Tks PD
guskz
(Repeat)
Y.Porat
------------------
no
you are an armchair idiot parrot
while the oplayer is hitting the ball
his body mass
the muscle strength the momentum of his moving hands etc
all of those is taking part in that action
an armchair parrot mathematician
that never in his lige did even
a semi professional sport
will never understand it
as usual
you are a fucking
pompous expert """for everything"""
with the mask of a 'nice guy'' !!
while behid that nice guy
a harmful crook is hidden
Y.Porat
-------------------------