Hahahahahahahahahahaha and OP will have no idea what it means when it's not constant and why it sometimes is constant or what it means to be constant when there's more than one object
It’s basic maf if OP can’t figure it out maybe he should drop PHYS 101
2 years ago
Anonymous
But so is Angular momentum and that isn't conserved
2 years ago
Anonymous
>conservation of momentum states that a body retains its total momentum unless acted upon by an external force
So yes, linear momentum is conserved, as is all momentum. Now, go take a dynamics class and realize there's typically dozens of external forces acting on every body in motion at every moment it is in motion. Once you start thinking about this level of interaction, it will completely change how you view the world.
Angular momentum is conserved. All momentum of a body is conserved unless the body is acted upon by an outside force - this is a law of physics.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Angular momentum is conserved. All momentum of a body is conserved unless the body is acted upon by an outside force - this is a law of physics.
Have you not read Dr. J. Mandlbaur's groundbreaking thesis on the subject, were you in a coma for the last week?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Huh?
Something something schizo post something something cranking it?
Sorry, the only physicist's work on momentum I need is Isaac Newton.
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to read it. I'm sorry, I know, but I'm just not. Isaac Newton is good enough for me!
2 years ago
Anonymous
just have a look at pic then, Dr. J Mandlbaur is arguably on the level of Newton if not past him
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm sorry, I won't. I know, it's very disheartening, but really, I'm so sorry, but I just won't read it. Isaac Newton is just fine, thank. So sorry!
2 years ago
Anonymous
Do you trust Newton's papers on alchemy too?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm so sorry, but I just won't read it! Isaac Newton's model of momentum is 100% correct and has been proven so. I'm sorry, but I just won't read anyone else about it! So sorry, truly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Great, I'm just asking if you also trust in his models of alchemy and his statement of the world ending no later than by 2060?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I trust his model of momentum, which is what we're discussing. I'm so sorry, but I just won't let you pull me off the topic at hand to something else entirely! So sorry, really and truly, but I just won't do that lol I know, it's quite frustrating, but I won't discuss those other things and I won't read anyone but Isaac Newton about momentum! So sorry, indeed, very sorry haha but it's just the way it is!
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's very odd how dogmatic you are.
Do you mind telling me your gender?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm sorry, but we're discussing angular momentum and the conservation thereof! Again - and I know, it's quite frustrating - but I won't discuss any other thing! So sorry, I know, quite frustrating I understand, but I just won't do it haha
2 years ago
Anonymous
bump
2 years ago
Anonymous
Newton's equations wrongfully assign light a momentum of zero, which is clearly false.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>and his statement of the world ending no later than by 2060?
...how'd he do it... Succesfully predict the singularity,..
2 years ago
Anonymous
Angular momentum is conserved in the rotational analog of the cases where linear momentum is conversed
if linear momentum is conserved, then the average momentum of everything in the universe is exactly 0.
But it's not 0 for two reasons:
1, precisely 0 momentum is a vastly unlikely value and it'll be somewhere around 0 but not 0 exactly
2, Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that if momentum is 0 to infinite precision, then the measurement of the location of the matter is of infinite IMPRECISION. If the location of matter is undefined (infinitely imprecise), then you can't calculate the total momentum of all the matter since you don't have their distances to calculate their speeds.
>precisely 0 momentum is a vastly unlikely value and it'll be somewhere around 0 but not 0 exactly
That's not a reason Black person, it's just a restatement.
Wow, you are dumb. >sum of all must be zero
nope, could be conserved with a non-zero starting value, furthermore, good luck with finding a reference frame >uncertainty in pure theory
you should go back. if the momentum were zero, it does not matter if i can or cannot measure it. it remains is zero regardless.
but please, continue posting. I'd love to see you vainly struggle to break out of this mess you've made.
>if linear momentum is conserved, then the average momentum of everything in the universe is exactly 0.
This is what watching Rick and Morty does to your ego
>the wall is not linear
It's literally equal and opposite. If you threw the ball exactly perpendicular to the wall, the momentum is conserved by the ball coming to a stop against the wall with an equal force in an exactly opposite direction of impact perpendicular to the wall.
Take a dynamics class instead of thinking the world is a 2-D point-particle extrapolation to make these things easier to understand.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But the momentum from the ball into the wall transfers to the wall non linearally, because there are reverberations and shockwaves, linear momentum is converted into non linear momentum, linear momentum is not conserved as linear momentum
The universe does not have translational symmetry. You cannot translate the universe because there is no space outside the universe into which you could translate it. Therefore by Noether's theorem linear momentum is not conserved.
No. The only way to get 0 would be if only forever absolsolutly nothing exists.
So you start from 0 and start counting every quanta of energy;
1 photon, 2 photon, 3 photon... 999999999999 photon... 999999999999999999999999999 photon.....
The sum of all energy is sum number positively very distant from 0.
There is no fake human tricks here over crossing and carrying and mixing and matching. There's no canceling out anything, it's all ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ....
2 years ago
Anonymous
A 5kg steel ball is 9m from the surface of the Earth. Hope much gravitational potential energy does it have?
2 years ago
Anonymous
a kilogram of steel is actually heavier than a kilogram of feathers, because the steel is closer to the earth's center due to being more dense
You can look at a system and say they'd 10J and I say 100J. We can both be right at long as the change of potential is the same for both definitions from our respective 0s. Go read Morrin classical mechanics on potential energies
to be fair, if you want to prove a universal statement about Reality, then it follows rationally that you need universal empirical proof.
all life on Earth (past, present or future) will never provide that proof.
all science is anecdotal. just roll with it
I feel like I'm getting crazy. Every so often I see some schizo post about conservation of momentum and how it is wrong and how it's a big deal, either on IQfy, IQfy and I am certain I saw the same on /x/ too, but everytime my mind just ignores it.
Is it constant?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha and OP will have no idea what it means when it's not constant and why it sometimes is constant or what it means to be constant when there's more than one object
>I-It's conserved bro
>except when it isn't
It’s basic maf if OP can’t figure it out maybe he should drop PHYS 101
But so is Angular momentum and that isn't conserved
>conservation of momentum states that a body retains its total momentum unless acted upon by an external force
So yes, linear momentum is conserved, as is all momentum. Now, go take a dynamics class and realize there's typically dozens of external forces acting on every body in motion at every moment it is in motion. Once you start thinking about this level of interaction, it will completely change how you view the world.
Angular momentum is conserved. All momentum of a body is conserved unless the body is acted upon by an outside force - this is a law of physics.
>Angular momentum is conserved. All momentum of a body is conserved unless the body is acted upon by an outside force - this is a law of physics.
Have you not read Dr. J. Mandlbaur's groundbreaking thesis on the subject, were you in a coma for the last week?
Huh?
Something something schizo post something something cranking it?
Sorry, the only physicist's work on momentum I need is Isaac Newton.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356786155_A_flaw_in_the_law_of_conservation_of_angular_momentum
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to read it. I'm sorry, I know, but I'm just not. Isaac Newton is good enough for me!
just have a look at pic then, Dr. J Mandlbaur is arguably on the level of Newton if not past him
I'm sorry, I won't. I know, it's very disheartening, but really, I'm so sorry, but I just won't read it. Isaac Newton is just fine, thank. So sorry!
Do you trust Newton's papers on alchemy too?
I'm so sorry, but I just won't read it! Isaac Newton's model of momentum is 100% correct and has been proven so. I'm sorry, but I just won't read anyone else about it! So sorry, truly.
Great, I'm just asking if you also trust in his models of alchemy and his statement of the world ending no later than by 2060?
I trust his model of momentum, which is what we're discussing. I'm so sorry, but I just won't let you pull me off the topic at hand to something else entirely! So sorry, really and truly, but I just won't do that lol I know, it's quite frustrating, but I won't discuss those other things and I won't read anyone but Isaac Newton about momentum! So sorry, indeed, very sorry haha but it's just the way it is!
It's very odd how dogmatic you are.
Do you mind telling me your gender?
I'm sorry, but we're discussing angular momentum and the conservation thereof! Again - and I know, it's quite frustrating - but I won't discuss any other thing! So sorry, I know, quite frustrating I understand, but I just won't do it haha
bump
Newton's equations wrongfully assign light a momentum of zero, which is clearly false.
>and his statement of the world ending no later than by 2060?
...how'd he do it... Succesfully predict the singularity,..
Angular momentum is conserved in the rotational analog of the cases where linear momentum is conversed
if linear momentum is conserved, then the average momentum of everything in the universe is exactly 0.
But it's not 0 for two reasons:
1, precisely 0 momentum is a vastly unlikely value and it'll be somewhere around 0 but not 0 exactly
2, Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that if momentum is 0 to infinite precision, then the measurement of the location of the matter is of infinite IMPRECISION. If the location of matter is undefined (infinitely imprecise), then you can't calculate the total momentum of all the matter since you don't have their distances to calculate their speeds.
>precisely 0 momentum is a vastly unlikely value and it'll be somewhere around 0 but not 0 exactly
That's not a reason Black person, it's just a restatement.
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to macroscopic objects
Kys you fricking Black person.
you are moronic
Wow, you are dumb.
>sum of all must be zero
nope, could be conserved with a non-zero starting value, furthermore, good luck with finding a reference frame
>uncertainty in pure theory
you should go back. if the momentum were zero, it does not matter if i can or cannot measure it. it remains is zero regardless.
but please, continue posting. I'd love to see you vainly struggle to break out of this mess you've made.
>if linear momentum is conserved, then the average momentum of everything in the universe is exactly 0.
This is what watching Rick and Morty does to your ego
I'm pretty sure i have never observed something move in a completely linear fashion, not having any sway in z axis
This problem doesn't feel very realistic
I throw a ball linearly at a brick wall. Where does the linear momentum go?
it was conserved away
But the wall is not linear to the direction of the linearly thrown ball.
The linear momentum dissipates into the wall and earth nonlinearly
>the wall is not linear
It's literally equal and opposite. If you threw the ball exactly perpendicular to the wall, the momentum is conserved by the ball coming to a stop against the wall with an equal force in an exactly opposite direction of impact perpendicular to the wall.
Take a dynamics class instead of thinking the world is a 2-D point-particle extrapolation to make these things easier to understand.
But the momentum from the ball into the wall transfers to the wall non linearally, because there are reverberations and shockwaves, linear momentum is converted into non linear momentum, linear momentum is not conserved as linear momentum
Into the wall and everything it's connected to, so usually the Earth.
with a perfectly elastic ball the wall receives twice the momentum of the incoming ball.
Frictional losses
If it can be lost, then it is not conserved.
The atoms of the brick wall recieve the momentum and disperse it linearly among them
>unfalsifiable pseud claim
as expected
>but please, continue posting. I'd love to see you vainly struggle to break out of this mess you've made.
bro my frickin' ROUTER does 12000 RPM
where's your gay schizo theory now huh homosexual?
The universe does not have translational symmetry. You cannot translate the universe because there is no space outside the universe into which you could translate it. Therefore by Noether's theorem linear momentum is not conserved.
well you have to define 0 somewhere
Nope.
An amount of energy exists.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Therefore the amount of energy that exists has always existed and will always exist
and somewhere it averages out 🙂
No. The only way to get 0 would be if only forever absolsolutly nothing exists.
So you start from 0 and start counting every quanta of energy;
1 photon, 2 photon, 3 photon... 999999999999 photon... 999999999999999999999999999 photon.....
1 electron, 2 electron, 3 electron........ 9999999999 electron...... 99999999999999999999999 electron.........
The sum of all energy is sum number positively very distant from 0.
There is no fake human tricks here over crossing and carrying and mixing and matching. There's no canceling out anything, it's all ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ....
A 5kg steel ball is 9m from the surface of the Earth. Hope much gravitational potential energy does it have?
a kilogram of steel is actually heavier than a kilogram of feathers, because the steel is closer to the earth's center due to being more dense
You can look at a system and say they'd 10J and I say 100J. We can both be right at long as the change of potential is the same for both definitions from our respective 0s. Go read Morrin classical mechanics on potential energies
to be fair, if you want to prove a universal statement about Reality, then it follows rationally that you need universal empirical proof.
all life on Earth (past, present or future) will never provide that proof.
all science is anecdotal. just roll with it
12,000 m/s disproves COLM
who is colm and why are you angry at him
Amazing it took this long to get the right answer.
I feel like I'm getting crazy. Every so often I see some schizo post about conservation of momentum and how it is wrong and how it's a big deal, either on IQfy, IQfy and I am certain I saw the same on /x/ too, but everytime my mind just ignores it.
That's because it is a single schizo troll who get kicked from /x/ for being too much of a wackjob.
It's one guy and maybe a few copycats. He is legitimately mentally ill.
yes obviously
>yes obviously
see