This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Michael C
Indeed. I was wondering why semper put that word in the plural form. Certainly it would be more interesting if there was a whole crowd of DDWFTTW deniers, but it seems that they are harder to come by than flat-earthers.Definitely without a doubt true. Although I think we are down to a singular denier now.Would the deniers ever accept...Let me stop you right there. NO - the deniers will not accept *anything* if it implies the vehicle went DDWFTTW - not even if they accepted it before. Not even if they themselves used it to prove it can't go DDWFTTW.
By the way, I contacted Siminac. He does NOT support your frames dependency lunacy.Who is Siminac and why should his views on inertial frames interest us?
Maybe you intended to contact professor Donald Simanek. If you do, his reply might look something like what he wrote on his Glossary of Frequently Misused and Misunderstood Physics Terms and Concepts
Quote from: Donald E. Simanek
The statement "Energy is a property of a body" needs clarification. As with many things in physics, the size of the energy depends on the coordinate system. A body moving with velocity V in one coordinate system has kinetic energy ½mV2. The same body has zero kinetic energy in a coordinate system moving along with it at velocity V. Since no inertial coordinate system can be considered "special" or "absolute", we shouldn't say, "The kinetic energy of the body is ..." but should say, "The kinetic energy of the body moving in this reference frame is ..."
Jim, if you are really sure that kinetic energy is not frame dependent, maybe you should try to change the Wikipedia article on the subject:
The speed, and thus the kinetic energy of a single object is frame-dependent (relative): it can take any non-negative value, by choosing a suitable inertial frame of reference.