Replies

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.

"No where have I stated that inertia is energy."

Allow me to quote you once again...
"Momentum is merely inertia, stored energy."

In addition to saying momentum is inertia or stored energy (potential energy) you have also said it is kinetic energy. Wrong, wrong and wrong. And if your flawed calculations concerning TWA800 were legitimate, than they could be applied to any object that starts with upward and forward momentum but has no lift or thrust. We've all seen motorcycles accomplish what you say is impossible (which is why I chose it as an example). As I said before, you have proved nothing other than a less than accurate understanding of the physics involved, and that despite being wrong, you cannot admit it. But I'll give you an A+ for effort, and for clintonian level talent in attempting to deny the undeniable.