Could some people help to solve an arguement?

[MooMansun]

F = dp/dt = d(m·v)/dt = m·a (in the case where m does not depend on t)
where

F is the force (a vector quantity),
p is the momentum,
t is the time,
v is the velocity,
m is the mass, and
a=d²x/dt² is the acceleration, the second derivative with respect to t of the position vector x.

If we examine the above formula and apply it to a real-world scenerio, such as a collision we begin to see clearly that the variables will change during an impact. In a simplistic scenario, velocity, momentum and acceleration would decrease in the colliding object, and increase in the object that it was in collision with.

This would result in a loss of force over the duration of the event by application of the conservation of momentum, which is a conservation of energy.

In essence, f=F-e.

 

[ZapperZ]

If we examine the above formula and apply it to a real-world scenerio, such as a collision we begin to see clearly that the variables will change during an impact. In a simplistic scenario, velocity, momentum and acceleration would decrease in the colliding object, and increase in the object that it was in collision with.
This would result in a loss of force over the duration of the event by application of the conservation of momentum, which is a conservation of energy.
In essense, f=F-e.

This is bogus, because it is NOT universal. An object that is stationary at t=0, then then you have an explosive framentation where, for simplicity, you have two particles going in opposite directions. What was the energy of mechanics before? Zero. What was the momentum before? Zero. Yet, AFTER the fragmentation, you have a positive kinetic energy (where none was there before), and yet from conservation of momentum, it is STILL zero momentum for the whole system.

Conservation of momentum is NOT equal to conservation of energy. The energy generated here did NOT come out of mechanics. Any student in intro physics are painfully aware of this. So how can you argue that they are equal when one quantity is conserved while the other is not?

P.S. I still see you refuse to read the guidelines that you have agreed to. Be warned that you participation in here will end soon if you do not pay attention.

Zz.

 

[Ba]

Read Wikipedeia's article it says that force is associated with the potential Energy field. That the potential energy's gradient is equal and opposite to the force defined at each point. Since as you might know Potential Energy is not the only type of Energy.

 

[MooMansun]

Conservation of momentum is NOT equal to conservation of energy.

Momentum is another manifestation of energy. If momentum is being conserved, energy is being conserved. Period. Also, consider the point I make later very carefully.

P.S. I still see you refuse to read the guidelines that you have agreed to. Be warned that you participation in here will end soon if you do not pay attention.

I did agree to the terms several times.

Speculative posts containing personal opinions that are contrary to those currently held by the scientific community are against the Posting Guidelines of Physics Forums.

I'm not promoting a theory. I am asking can anyone prove that Force is not lost? I have heard a lot of claims that it is not, however, no proof or reference has been provided. As far as I am aware, you are only expressing a 'personal opinion' as well.

Also, I feel the fact that everything is a manifestion of Energy means that ALL results are subject to the conservation of energy.

I am not asking that you agree with it, only that it be considered with an open view.

Whilst in classical physics, or engineering, this may not present a problem, it would with quantum and numerous other disciplines.

 

[ZapperZ]

Momentum is another manifestation of energy. If momentum is being conserved, energy is being conserved. Period. Also, consider the point I make later very carefully.
I did agree to the terms several times.
I'm not promoting a theory. I am asking can anyone prove that Force is not lost? I have heard a lot of claims that it is not, however, no proof or reference has been provided. As far as I am aware, you are only expressing a 'personal opinion' as well.
Also, I feel the fact that everything is a manifestion of Energy means that ALL results are subject to the conservation of energy.
I am not asking that you agree with it, only that it be considered with an open view.
Whilst in classical physics, or engineering, this may not present a problem, it would with quantum and numerous other disciplines.

It appears as if you are completely ignoring inelastic collision. Explain THAT!

And you ARE promoting a "theory". You are promoting an idea in which energy is force. Where in a physics text is that ever mentioned? All you did was cite of Wikipedia and then make an erroneous interpretation.

And what other proof did you want? I just GAVE you an example of something that is done even in an undergraduate physics lab! Take two object connected by a compressed spring, originally at rest, and then release the two things! The energy in the MECHANICS of the situation isn't conserved, but momentum is!

In all of this, NOT ONCE have you ever mentioned of your awareness that

F = - \nabla U

Why is that?

Zz.