Recent content by ataskaita

Thank you!

Is it is true that all elastic collision are like rubber balls, then how does indivisible particles collide if they can't change their shape, that is store the energy inside like rubber balls and then release it?

For me it is ok with conservation and maybe i would like momentum, it is that just dv/dt is just maths and introducing new quantity by just explaining it as dv/dt or da/dt is just too unexplanatory. I would really apreciate simple life like explanation of momentum and not dv/dt...

And by the way speed of light has distance in it... so again distance, not just time

Ok, it is my decision so far to accept only energy (but of course i would be using momentum, as i did before) at least till i read or someone would answer me what hapens when particles, which are indivisible collide... ;)

If you square the magnitude of momentum you do not get energy unless maybe you use that momentum-energy relation, in that case it is kinda funny to teach momentum in school if you need special relativity to get it. Plus square is a very things changing stuff if you square something - you really...

Maybe because momentum doesn't incorporate distance into it... and if we think that distance does exist how can it be that two particles colliding bring with them their momentum, shouldn't they bring energy with them instead? Energy does include distance. It's like using momentum and adding two...

If that is right, are there indivisible particles in nature and if they collide what happens? They stick? Because if they are not like rubber balls then they can't compress or maybe they just disappear and not stick to each other?

Why, momentum is "created" from force multiplied by time, let's use not time, let's use distance - then what would we get? The idea why would we create artificial quantity momentum by using time and not distance? It's not so simple if you think that bullet stays stationary and and the gun is...

I've got another brilliant idea- we should model elastic interactions with rubber balls and not billiard that way we could see the interaction, but how to model a gun and a bullet -with a spring of course.I believe that's an answer to my own question. And i must point out that momentum and all...

I copy paste it: Hmm, well i thought I figured it out, but then I got another idea. The way i sort of figured it out was that if a bullet is shoot out of pistol, so by the Newtons 3 law recoil and a force on a bullet are equal and if we think that a time let's say it takes to fire is 1...

No it's not the end position it's the interaction... with momentum and wrongly with energy still the distance after the interaction (the throw) wouldn't be equal... masses differ

I agree only with one thing that people say - that good things are simple and good doesn't mean a good guy who just created Linux for free I mean good means powerful and strong.. plus i don't reject math I just hate it :D Yet so how about that distance and duration>??

You can draw logical conclusions only if you know that you have accounted for all the variables, that's one thing and another is to know how the variables interact...and only then you can draw a conclusion... for example it is strange to me that let's say MIT course OCW 8.01 about angular...

Yea, but you can't draw conclusions from math if things are new to you... math is just a rule... and to use the rule you first have to know the basis and the reason for that rule... i.e. direction of angular velocity vector - it's nonsense it doesn't have a physical meaning...