dcbwhaley wrote:
Ask Steve. Tell Steve. I find his sneering tone - comments such as "How utterly stooopid!" - to be unhelpful.
It was no less unhelpful as your prior sarcastic opening line
here, and even earlier
here.
And it was clear that it was indeed daft; it was
rebutted without acknowledgement, but then this is painfully obvious to anyone who has done any advanced course in physics, let alone a degree.
dcbwhaley wrote:
My attempt to widen the discussion and entertain the audience with a digression in Relativistic and Quantum effects, without suggesting that they were relevant to the substantive argument, was used by him as a weapon against me. That is not "open honest debate"
So why on earth did you widen it when it wasn't relevant? What is honest about what is obviously a
diversion, instead of simply answering the questions posed to you?
No, it was an attempt by you to find a solution for your original claim: "
In that one nano second the momentum of the two particles don't add up. ", and "
you have to modify the definition of momentum to allow for relativistic effects.".
So how did these two anything but "without suggesting that they were relevant to the substantive argument?"
I fully addressed every and all of your questions; you utterly blank all of mine - not honest debate indeed.
Why do you ask all these examples Dave? What was the point? And why haven't you even acknowledged the majority of them being addressed?
dcbwhaley wrote:
By arguing that momentum is always conserves Steve either doesn't accept that definition or insists on only discussing closed systems
Good bit of trolling there! Let me explain why that was never relevant and show how you keep evading:
dcbwhaley wrote:
Of course I know how to close the system in order to conserve the momentum. But I was demonstrating that in a non closed system momentum is not conserved. That the rate of change of momentum is equal to the applied force. Right or wrong? And please don' t shout
I have already
answered this –
twice - and
thrice.
However, as I have repeatedly pointed out: that doesn’t matter …
By the same token, I can show that in a non-closed system, energy also isn't conserved (external power source, or even the same external force you keep referring to (power=force*velocity)).
I can apply an external power into a system (analogous to an external force for momentum), so can I now make the umbrella claim, in just the same way that you had, that "energy isn't conserved"? Right or wrong? And please don' t shout - or evade - again.
Remember Dave, it was you, and only you, who made the distinction between 'conservation of energy' and 'conservation of momentum' by quite equivocally saying "is" and "isn't" respectively. Critically,
there was no open or closed clause in your original claim: "Energy is always conserved. Momentum isn't." and that's it, with no reference to how or what either system is.
Of course you could have rightly said that
energy is conserved in a closed system and momentum not conserved in a non-closed system. However, it would have been just as correct to say that
energy is not conserved in a non-closed system and momentum conserved in a closed system (I remember saying something like this before – twice in fact) but it is somewhat pointless, unless with that I can equally say, without any further qualification: "Momentum is always conserved. Energy isn't."?
Yes or no?So yet again for what must be the fifth time:
"
...how does one fail where the other succeeds?" , or "
the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is", or "
Can you provide your description of the circumstances where momentum isn't conserved whilst energy is"
Answer this please!Thus it doesn't matter how you defined 'closed', so long as it is applied equally to both concepts. Then your argument, whatever you are twisting it as, inherently fails.
True or false?dcbwhaley wrote:
I didn't rely on Quantum Mechanics or relativity to bolster my argument. I introduced them as an interesting discussion point. Unfortunately you seem to engrossed in massaging your own ego to be interested in them.
That's an interesting troll regarding all my unrebutted responses to them. Also, I believe I also said "fields", Dave. So where did that concept conveniently disappear to?
Your selectivity aside, as well as your obvious reliance upon them (shown above): you admit they don't forward the discussion at hand (so it was merely a distraction).
And how is answering all the questions and your
gedanken experiments posed to me, 'massaging my ego'? What else was I meant to do with them?!
Oh and did I tell you my salary? Did I even ask for yours?
Moreover, did I ever PM you with a link showing a high-res photo of myself, especially one as petty as holding a slide-rule to prove I had one?
(in a dressing gown
)
As for me being clever: this is
fundamental physics, not something that requires Einsteinesque abilities.
dcbwhaley wrote:
I am not, as Steve thinks, denying that one can always close the system. Just that it is sometimes more convenient not to.
Yeah, especially when disingenuously coving up a really embarrassing mistake!
That's right folks, DCB can disprove a fundamental law of physics, simply by saying it is "convenient" to ignore the details of it. And that is the basis of his claim and his subsequent posts. Could you possibly get any more disingenuous than that!