Mechanical Energy and Frames of Reference

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion, a scenario is presented involving a spaceship observed by two individuals, each perceiving different energy consumption during acceleration due to their frames of reference. Observer 1 sees a greater energy usage than Observer 2, leading to confusion about the apparent inconsistency. The resolution lies in accounting for the energy of the ejected fuel, which conserves momentum and reconciles the differing observations. A similar example with a ball rolling down a hill illustrates how relative motion affects energy perception. Ultimately, understanding the role of momentum and energy conservation clarifies these apparent discrepancies.
CharlesEster6
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I've come up with a simple, imaginary situation that bugs me. Could someone help resolve my confusion?

Let's say that a spaceship is traveling through space, and two people- observer 1 and observer 2- are watching it. Both observers can monitor the ship's speed and the amount of fuel in its "gas tank." Initially, the ship is moving at speed v with respect to observer 1, and is at rest with respect to observer 2.

Now the spaceship accelerates, so it is moving at speed v with respect to observer 2 and speed 2*v with respect to observer 1. Observer 2 notes that 0.5*m*v2 (m is the mass of the ship) joules of energy are withdrawn from the fuel during this period of acceleration, but to observer 1 it appears that 0.5*m*((2v)2 - v2), or 0.5*m*3v2 joules of energy are consumed. It can't be true that observer 1 records three times more fuel used than observer 2; what accounts for this "inconsistency?"

Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to take into account the energy of the burnt fuel ejected. The energy from burning the fuel goes into ejecting hot gases in one direction and moving the spaceship forward in the other direction in such a way that the total momentum is conserved. If you are careful about taking into account the energy of the gases, there is no inconsistency.

A similar problem is the following:
A ball is stationary at the top of a hill, and someone gives it an infintesimal knock and it rolls down the hill losing potential energy, and gaining kinetic energy until it has final velocity v. (No friction). This sounds sensible.

Now imagine the situation from an observer moving at velocity v. He sees the ball moving away from him, then it rolls down the hill losing potential energy, and eventually comes to rest, losing kinetic energy too! This sounds crazy.

The resolution is along the same lines as your spaceship.
Peter
 
Hi CharlesEster6 and peteratcam, Welcome to PF,

This is a good question, and peter is correct about the resolution. There is a https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=199087" thread about this same subject where the math in the tutorial was discussed in detail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top