I've asked the same question regarding KE on this forum and got basically the same response. Do a search for "KE Puzzle" for fun.
It seems as though no one can get "outside" of the dogmatic definitions and explain the results of the equations intuitively. I'm leaning towards regarding...
Eyesaw was correct; the point of this thread was not to simply balance equations - that has been done for 300+ years. If I were to present a hypothesis that another form of energy transfer had a similar multiplicative effect, eye brows would certainly be raised. If I had supporting equations...
There may be a simpler explanation; perhaps we have mis-defined Energy. As long as KE = Force x Distance we do indeed have to square Velocity. If instead we use KE = Force x Time we would arrive at more intuitive results for adding Energy to an object in motion. We would then have Energy =...
I'm aware of the KE formula,
that's how I got the numbers. What's not clear is why the pellet has 4 times the energy content from a different point of reference. Intuitively since each pellet rifle added 4.44 ft-lbs of energy, you would think you could sum up the amounts. The KE formula...
A man in space fires a CO2 pellet rifle, the pellet accelerates to 500 fps. The KE is calculated to be 4.44 ft-lbs. His buddy happens to fly by his position at 500 fps with perfect timing and trajectory so that he is flying parallel to the pellet. He reaches out, grabs the pellet, places it...