Oh the lengths you will go to avoid admiting you are wrong. If this statement were correct:
"Momentum is merely inertia, stored energy" you could have just answered "zero", and "yes" to my very straightforward and simple questions. Instead, you offer a long explaination about how everything is moving, nothing is at rest, and my monitor has a momentum similar to a small asteroid. I guess we should start to call Newton's First Law of Motion the Law of Momentum, and his Third Law the Law of Inertia since the two are interchangeable, and he obviously didn't have your grasp of physics. Interestingly, the "authoritative source" you sent me to has this to say about momentum and inertia:
Inertia is a quantity which depends solely upon mass. The more mass, the more inertia. Momentum is a quantity in Physics which depends on both mass and speed.
So even your own "authoritative source" identifies them as different. Now strap on one half of a testical and admit you are wrong.
With regard to the rest of your blathering, I offer you some quotes from your "authoritative source":
Kinetic Energy: "Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity; it does not have a direction. Unlike velocity, acceleration, force, and momentum, the kinetic energy of an object is completely described by magnitude alone."
Here is another good website for you to go to Kinetic Energy is NOT Momentum
Potential Energy: potential energy is the energy which an object has stored due to its position relative to some zero position. An object possesses gravitational potential energy if it is positioned at a height above (or below) the zero height position. An object possesses elastic potential energy if it is at a position on an elastic medium other than the equilibrium position.
"I again suggest you do a little studying... you may learn something."
I did. I learned you have an inability to admit you are wrong. Now about that motorcycle jump....
Rokke... exactly where do you get the velocity portion of Momentum???? Is it imparted to the mass by the blue fairy?
No, of course not. Inertia IS a property of mass. No where have I stated that inertia is energy. In classical physics it remains the same regardless of the forces applied to the mass or to the velocity (at the speeds we are talking about) of that mass. For this reason it takes exactly the same amount force to accelerate a frictionless mass from rest to a speed of 1 m/s as it takes to accelerate the same mass from 1000 m/s to 1001 m/s... or to 999 m/s... or or to apply the same force at 90 degrees perpendicular to the trajectory to change the vector of that mass so that is moving 1 m/s away from its original trajectory while still maintaining its original momentum. Momentum is inertia plus kinetic energy. The mass doesn't care whether it is moving or at rest... it resists changing its motion with the same reluctance in either state.
If I push (apply a force) to a frictionless 1 kg ball (a mass) and accellerate it from relative rest to a relative 1 m/s (a velocity) in a hypothetical force free vacuum, it will continue moving (being displaced) at the same 1 m/s for eternity. The mass now has Momentum equal to 1 kg*m/s.
WHAT DID I ADD TO IT???
I did not change its inertia... that is still the same. I added motion... velocity... kinetic energy.
Five years from now I encounter this 1 kg ball still moving at 1 m/s (it still has the same Momentum) and I place a lever in front of it which is attached to a device that converts a depression of the lever into a rotation which spins a small generator that is attached to a lightbulb. The 1 kg mass COLLIDES with the lever, transfers its 1 m/s velocity to the lever, spinning the generator and lighting the lightbulb for one second. The 1 kg mass is now at rest, its relative momentum is 0 kg*m/s as its velocity is now 0 m/s.
WHERE DID THE ENERGY THAT LIT THE LIGHT BULB COME FROM????
WHERE WAS IT STORED???
The rest of your post is more nitpicking. So what that Kinetic energy can be described without a vector??? Even expecting energy to be described with a vector is like expecting milk to have a direction.
So you can copy a definition of potential energy? It has no bearing on the issue at hand.
Nor does Evel's motorcycle.