A new theoretical argument why E=0.5mv^2 for kinetic energy has problems

[Dave]

Maths is important for physics. The nature of number shows that
E=0.5mv^2 for kinetic energy can't be true, because arbitrarily changing
the definition of length (human) changes the innate energy. Square 8,
get 64. Square 0.8, get 0.64. Think about it.

This is regarding inflection points in increasing the velocity above and
decreasing the value below 1. In fact it's all nonsense even with m/s,
the energy falls faster as a percentage because of the definition using
v^2.

I'm not interested in a consistent SI model over the real world. Save
the models for computer games, and move physics to the arts faculty.

Meanwhile the real physicists will be reinterpreting relativity and
getting something useful built.

[Dave]

Post by Dave
Maths is important for physics. The nature of number shows that
E=0.5mv^2 for kinetic energy can't be true, because arbitrarily changing
the definition of length (human) changes the innate energy. Square 8,
get 64. Square 0.8, get 0.64. Think about it.
This is regarding inflection points in increasing the velocity above and
decreasing the value below 1.  In fact it's all nonsense even with m/s,
the energy falls faster as a percentage because of the definition using
v^2.
I'm not interested in a consistent SI model over the real world.  Save
the models for computer games, and move physics to the arts faculty.
Meanwhile the real physicists will be reinterpreting relativity and
getting something useful built.

Sorry, after thinking about this more, this particular argument has no
validity. Need to get out and check on an airtrack, not the sums. The
E=0.5mv^2 generally accepted claim is self consistent in maths, except
for the rocket sled thought experiment. (add same energy from different
starting velocities.)

Need two concrete pieces of evidence to make a cast iron case.
1- air track
2- free fall drop measurement to check is gravity is m/s^2, or m/s per
meter of descent. (needs to be 10's of meters).

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave

Post by Dave
Maths is important for physics. The nature of number shows that
E=0.5mv^2 for kinetic energy can't be true, because arbitrarily changing
the definition of length (human) changes the innate energy. Square 8,
get 64. Square 0.8, get 0.64. Think about it.
This is regarding inflection points in increasing the velocity above and
decreasing the value below 1.  In fact it's all nonsense even with m/s,
the energy falls faster as a percentage because of the definition using
v^2.
I'm not interested in a consistent SI model over the real world.  Save
the models for computer games, and move physics to the arts faculty.
Meanwhile the real physicists will be reinterpreting relativity and
getting something useful built.

Sorry, after thinking about this more, this particular argument has no
validity. Need to get out and check on an airtrack, not the sums. The
E=0.5mv^2 generally accepted claim is self consistent in maths, except
for the rocket sled thought experiment. (add same energy from different
starting velocities.)
Need two concrete pieces of evidence to make a cast iron case.
1- air track
2- free fall drop measurement to check is gravity is m/s^2, or m/s per
meter of descent. (needs to be 10's of meters).

Crackpot babble.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave
Maths is important for physics. The nature of number shows that
E=0.5mv^2 for kinetic energy can't be true, because arbitrarily changing
the definition of length (human) changes the innate energy. Square 8,
get 64. Square 0.8, get 0.64. Think about it.

Crackpot babble.

Post by Dave
This is regarding inflection points in increasing the velocity above and
decreasing the value below 1. In fact it's all nonsense even with m/s,
the energy falls faster as a percentage because of the definition using
v^2.

You haven't a clue what an inflection point is or what it means.

Post by Dave
I'm not interested in a consistent SI model over the real world. Save
the models for computer games, and move physics to the arts faculty.
Meanwhile the real physicists will be reinterpreting relativity and
getting something useful built.

More crackpot babble.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dave
Maths is important for physics. The nature of number shows that
E=0.5mv^2 for kinetic energy can't be true, because arbitrarily changing
the definition of length (human) changes the innate energy. Square 8,
get 64. Square 0.8, get 0.64. Think about it.

All this means is that our physical units are linked. Change the unit of
length, and some other units also have to change to keep things consistent.

Sylvia.

[Jim Pennino]

Post by Dave
Maths is important for physics. The nature of number shows that
E=0.5mv^2 for kinetic energy can't be true, because arbitrarily changing
the definition of length (human) changes the innate energy. Square 8,
get 64. Square 0.8, get 0.64. Think about it.

Two cars are driving down the road. One is going 10 meters/second and
the other is going 60,120.8848 furlongs/fortnight.

Which one is going faster?

Two balls are dropped. One hits the ground with an energy of 100 J, the
other with an energy of 569,340,380 stone*furlong^2*fortnight^-2.

Which one has the most energy?

Dave is arguing math and physics with a retarded chimpanzee.

Which one makes the better arguement?