pequade wrote:

> It began with a debate between Isaac Newton and Gottfried

> Leibnitz, not about who invented calculus but about these two

> formulas: Newton's mv and Leibnitz's mvv. Both men knew that only

> one of these formulas could be used to describe the motion of

> objects. The debate was long and often bitter. Amazingly about fifty

> years after they were both deceased the science establishment

> declared that they were both correct. Also about that time the

> establishment added the ½ to Leibnitz's formula.

This is absolutely pure crap.

If you're talking about which is the correct equation for the kinetic

energy of a moving object, you can *immediately* dismiss 'mv' because it

doesn't even have the correct units for energy. The SI unit of energy is

the joule, expressed in terms of basic units as kilogram-meter^2/sec^2.

mvv (or mv^2) has the correct units, and is the correct formula except

for the missing dimensionless scale factor of 1/2, but 'mv' has units of

kilogram-meter/sec. 'mv' *is* the correct formula for linear momentum,

which has SI units of kg-m/sec, but momentum and energy are two entirely

different things.

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of calculus (which would

certainly include both Newton and Leibnitz) can derive KE = 1/2 mv^2 in

a matter of seconds or minutes, just as it is re-derived in high school

physics classes every day.

> So today's experimenter is forced to believe that the

> ballistic pendulum conserves both Momentum and Energy, even when he

> collects no data for the conservation of energy.

More crap. Countless of experiments, made to very high degrees of

accuracy, have confirmed the conservation of both momentum and energy

(and angular momentum), *including* the production of heat. None (that

have been done right) have *ever* found a discrepancy.