/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3607036]

Does a pendulum contradict the conservation of momentum?

[Anonymous No.3607044]

0/10

[Anonymous No.3607042]

No.

[Anonymous No.3607046]

>>3607036
Of course it does, OP. Science doesn't actually work, and simple demonstrations are sufficient to bring down the whole political house of cards.

[Anonymous No.3607045]

yeah sure, why not?

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3607048]

no lol

theres energy lost to friction. hurdur derp herp

[Anonymous No.3607059]

build a pendulum and set it into motion, now what hapended to the momentum when the ball stands still? the whole fucking earth moves with thsat momentum in order to make sure it is conserved.

[Anonymous No.3607072]

not OP but in typical /sci/ fashion none of you faggots has actually answered the problem properly.

the question isn't about the pendulum slowing down and stopping, it's about the fact that the momentum reverses every half-period.

[Anonymous No.3607078]

>>3607072
see
>>3607059

[Anonymous No.3607088]

>>3607072
> The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects, the momentum of the closed system remains constant.
> and it states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects
> no external force
gravity

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3607091]

>>3607072
conservation of energy, how does it work?

[Anonymous No.3607105]

>>3607091
>>3607048
>>3607048
what the hell are you talking about? im sure OP means a frictionless pendulum.

[Anonymous No.3607116]

>>3607072
> none of you faggots has actually answered the problem properly

There wasn't a problem posed. The OP asked a question, which was answered in the first response. If the OP had asked "Does a pendulum contradict the conversation of momentum?" then explained how he thought it might, we could have explained why it doesn't. The OP didn't even give a remote area in which a pendulum might contradict the conservation of momentum.

[Anonymous No.3607119]

>>3607091
not being a dumbass, how does it work?

you clearly are not educated in this area so why the fuck are you here being a conceited moron?

[Anonymous No.3607127]

>>3607116
autistic much?

a perfect pendulum is continuously switching directions. obviously this is what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.3607131]

>>3607091
It's a combination of kinetic energy and potential energy and the sum of both is always the same, so energy is always constant.

When the pendulum is at it's highest point, it only has potential energy, and at it's lowest, only kinetic.

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3607169]

>>3607119
wait what? do come back when you learn basic mechanics.

basically this: >>3607131

[Anonymous No.3607174]

if you look just at the pendulum then it has an external force, gravity. so conservation of momentum does not aply. if you look at the earth and the pendulum, then it does apply, but to both the earth and the pendulum together. so if the pendulum is moving toi the right, the earth is moving to the left, and vicefersa sothat the total momentum is always the same..

[Anonymous No.3607182]

>>3607169
and how the fuck does that explain how momentum is conserved?

you might as well have said '2 + 2 = 4 hence momentum is conserved'.

christ, you are so unbelievably thick.

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3607229]

>>3607182
calling me thick, tim?

notice this:>>3607088

if the pendulum wouldnt be on a string(not a pendulum then) and no force acted on it, it would continue at its velocity if no other force acted on it

but as you know, the pendulum is affected by the string. the kinetic energy in the x direction is converted into gravitational potential energy when the pendulum is going up, and the reverse when it is going down. delta E = delta KE. total energy of the system is conserved given frictionless pendulum. kinetic energy is converted to GPE and vice versa. it does not violate law of conservation of linear momentum, because it does not have linear momentum. it is accelerating at any given time. if you still dont understand this, you a retarded

[Anonymous No.3607236]

>lul at the dumbasses who think conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are the same thing
No, it doesn't contradict the conservation of momentum. The part the string is attached to does move, its just the mass of it is so much bigger than than the pendulum ball that it's movement goes unnoticed. If you want to experiment, hold a book up with a string, then tie a pendulum to the book, and work the pendulum and watch the book sway back and forth.

[Anonymous No.3607240]

>>3607229
>if the pendulum was not a pendulum it would not violate conservation of momentum
>thus a pendulum does not violate conservation of momentum

wat

[Anonymous No.3607247]

>>3607240
HEY GUISE DOES ICE VIOLATE THE IDEAL GAS LAW LOOOOOL

[Anonymous No.3607256]

>>3607229
> it does not violate law of conservation of linear momentum, because it does not have linear momentum. it is accelerating at any given time. if you still dont understand this, you a retarded

WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HERE LECTURING PEOPLE? you have zero understanding of basic mechanics or even how to have discourse in a non-retarded manner, why the fuck have you been blathering on about energy when that isn't the question? why do you think a pendulum doesn't have linear momentum 'because it's accelerating'? holy crap what an insufferable retard. by the way, >>3607174 finally got the correct answer and you were nowhere near it.

[Anonymous No.3607260]

>>3607182
Kinetic energy = mv^2/2
Derive = mv = momentum

So the rate of change of the kinetic energy the momentum, and because the kinetic energy is between 0 and m*v^2/2 and back to 0 (v at the lowest point) the momentum isnt a constant either.

Also, if one was to derive the momentum, one would have force, and if the momentum was to remain constant, there would be no force that acts on the pendulum.

But the fact that there is a force acting on it, explains why the momentum doens't remain constant.

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3607265]

>>3607229
>delta E = delta KE
went full retard, sorry

>>3607240
read the last paragraph, gravity acts on the pendulum, and the fact it is tied on a string and cant go straight is also a factor

im sorry, but this thread goes something like this:
>im going in a car at 10ms^-1
>i hit a wall
>i stop, wall doesnt move
>WHERE IS YOUR CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM NOW!!!

[Anonymous No.3607271]

>>3607229
>>3607229
>does not have linear momentum because it is accelerating

lol, thats a good one. even if you are a troll, 8/10. would rage again.

[Anonymous No.3607274]

>>3607265
the irony is that you have shown yourself completely unable to answer that question, either.

[mtp !EKFQOBEsKo No.3607277]

>>3607271
missing the word "constant" :)

fuck this thread, back to concentrating on game

[Anonymous No.3607279]

>>3607265
>i hit a wall
>i stop, wall doesnt move

>wall doesnt move
thats impossible, it will move.

[Anonymous No.3607286]

>>3607277
> get shown up as both pompous and utterly retarded
> fuck this thread i'm 'busy'

[Anonymous No.3607298]

Proof that tripfags are retarded

[Anonymous No.3607326]

>>3607279
> he thinks momentum is conserved by the wall moving

[Anonymous No.3607332]

>>3607326
>he thinks he is good at trolling
>0/10

[Anonymous No.3607337]

>>3607326
yes, i do think that. you have a problem with it?

[Anonymous No.3607341]

>>3607332
> he also thinks the wall will move with the same momentum that you had

i'm not trolling and you're a fucking idiot.

okay, riddle me this: you're running. then you stop running. where's the momentum gone?

inb4 he says it's the air molecules.

[Anonymous No.3607355]

>>3607341
assuming g you used the friction between your feet and the ground to stop, the earths momentum changes. when you start running again the momentum goes from the earth into your feet and into you again.

[Anonymous No.3607373]

>>3607355
> he thinks this isn't what happens with the wall

[Anonymous No.3607375]

>>3607355
> he thinks this is different from what happens with the wall