3 ms·
I understand French. I looked through the document. I could not find any place where Coriolis derived kinetic energy. He was apparently using someone else's der
by SirIsaac 5y ago
I understand French. I looked through the document. I could not find any place where Coriolis derived kinetic energy. He was apparently using someone else's derivation.
By simple substitution, anyone can easily derive E = mv² from Newtonian equations. One starts with W = Fd = mad, and go from there. There is no need to integrate the difference in initial and final velocities (as is currently being done) because this is already assumed in the definition of acceleration. The 1/2 is a mistake and I stand by it.
- eesmith 5y agoI pointed out you likely need to look to du Châtelet to discover the derivation of what Coriolis refers to as the "old usage". As to the "1/2 is a mistake", one question in physics is, is gravitational mass exactly equivalent to inertial mass? You can omit the 1/2 and continue with the old definition. If you do so, then your system of physics will have an inertial mass which is half the gravitational mass. As such, it's a difference only of philosophy. The main advantage to the 1/2 is the math is cleaner if we assume inertial mass = gravitational mass.
- SirIsaac 5y agoI don't yet see how inertial mass would differ from gravitational mass if the K.E. equation is changed. I'll need to think about it some more. We are currently preparing an experiment to test the prediction of our theory that will leave no doubt. If we are right, textbooks everywhere will have to change, at the very least.