It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But a rocket accelerating the masses to those velocities requires twice as much energy as fuel for the large mass as for the small one.
unb3k44n7
Kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v2
Ever increase in speed is *2 K will be *4
And for a V of 4, KE will than factor to 9
So on and so forth
It's a proven science that also can be extended to display quantities.edit on 2/2/2014 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
When a rocket produces a definable amount of force times time, in proportion to fuel use, but does not produce a definable amount of force time distance, which has no relation to fuel use, this shows that energy is transformed in proportion to force times time, not force times distance.
but the author is saying we don't need velocity squared as this doesn't happen in nature
Phage
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus
but the author is saying we don't need velocity squared as this doesn't happen in nature
What doesn't happen in nature?
Did you consider that the author could be wrong? Like, really wrong?
Momentum and kinetic energy are two different things and are expressed in different units. Energy performs work. Momentum does not. Energy can accelerate mass. Momentum cannot.edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
You don't have to take anyone's word....you can test this if you have a car.
UxoriousMagnus
I hear you...that is what I learned as well but the author is saying we don't need velocity squared as this doesn't happen in nature and that kinetic energy is simply momentum.
Phage
Momentum and kinetic energy are two different things and are expressed in different units. Energy performs work. Momentum does not. Energy can accelerate mass. Momentum cannot.
edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Phage
reply to post by mbkennel
Sorry, I can't really follow what you said but the point is, energy is expressed in units of work. You cannot do energy calculations without work being involved.
Momentum is not energy.
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Is the reason for the squaring the relevance of 2 planes, horizontal and vertical? Basically the existence of gravity (up and down) and would it be friction or the energy needed to accelerate in general straight way? Would the author then have hopes of being correct when considering a rocket not under the influence of a nearby massive gravitating body?
ImaFungi
Phage
reply to post by mbkennel
Sorry, I can't really follow what you said but the point is, energy is expressed in units of work. You cannot do energy calculations without work being involved.
Momentum is not energy.
Momentum is kinetic energy. Earlier you said momentum can not accelerate a mass, I dont see how that statement can be true; Imagine rolling a bowling ball (giving it momentum) towards a still bowling ball, when they collide will the bowling ball with momentum not have accelerated a mass? Or your point is that the momentum ceases upon contact so it was not momentum that accelerates the mass, but the kinetic energy?
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Is the reason for the squaring the relevance of 2 planes, horizontal and vertical? Basically the existence of gravity (up and down) and would it be friction or the energy needed to accelerate in general straight way? Would the author then have hopes of being correct when considering a rocket not under the influence of a nearby massive gravitating body?
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Is the reason for the squaring the relevance of 2 planes, horizontal and vertical? Basically the existence of gravity (up and down)
I agree with FBB's answer, and as I said I did my own observations, so I have independent verification. The two planes doesn't make sense. Maybe this math will help a little, that kinetic energy the product of velocity times momentum, divided by two. Since velocity is also a component of momentum, that's why velocity is squared.
FriedBabelBroccoli
It is squaring essentially because that is the function which best represents what was observed.
UxoriousMagnus
exactly....and the author stated this in the article:
The result of this mathematical proof is totally predictable, because force times time (Ft) does not equal ½mv² for an accelerating mass, and Ft is the only product of a rocket. The rocket produces a constant force, which means unchanging through time, while it has no relation to distance.
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
In open space free from any gravitationally attracting bodies, a rocket will not be under the same conditions as say your car braking example. I was wondering if the reason for the squaring of the term in the equation has to do with the force of gravity aiding in momentum upon acceleration. Or if we imagine a car (rocket) in space without the influence of gravity, your 30 mph and 60 mph acceleration and braking experiment would be equal in magnitude to on earth (in terms of the necessity of squaring)?
We already have a universe with momentum, where the velocity is not squared.
ImaFungi
what physical manifestation of the universe would have to be different then the current one ( in which v is squared) in order for v to not be squared?