No, it does not have zero KE relative to you. It has zero velocity relative to you.
How does an arrow cause damage? It has kinetic energy. Compare different scenarios, such as:
1. Arrow fired backwards from a train going arrow-speed at you, standing still on the platform.
2. Arrow fired forwards at you, travelling at arrow-speed on a train, from a stationary platform.
3. Arrow held lightly at your height as you travel on an arrow-speed train, into which you come in contact, sharp end first.
...and hopefully, you'll overcome your delusion. Or, as suggested, just learn some basic physics. Michael posted some links.
Finally you have been completely clear on this. This is a serious misunderstanding. It's the same as taking speed measurements in different reference frames and asking "Where does the speed go?". We really need no more discussion until you read an intro physics text.
Yep. And since I see little chance that he'll do that, it looks like the discussion won't move on. We each have to decide whether it is worth continuing to flog a dead horse and perhaps show more and more of the errors of humber's arguments, or whether we've seen enough already. I'm getting pretty close to quitting the thread, since that is all we are doing now.
I'm beginning to believe humber believes he's right. How scary is that!?
It's still rather difficult to know. There are other possibilities, of course, but they get close to breaking forum rules to discuss in detail.
Yes, sorry Clive. I have not forgotten that I owe you a reply.
That comment seems utterly disingenuous, humber, considering the vast number of other replies you owe. There's the "arrow" or as I posted it before "bullet" question (I wondered if the idea of a bullet-speed train was a little too far fetched for you). If someone transfers loads of KE into an arrow from the tightened bow (from your absolute perspective of KE), and then someone travelling away from it is not harmed by it, or, a few degrees out of that line, it hits someone stationary with respect to the archer and kills them,
your question arises much more seriously: "Where did the kinetic energy go?" Indeed, the only way I can begin to make sense of it would be to suggest that the person on the train has equal negative kinetic energy, so that the arrow doesn't harm them. But that wouldn't make sense, because they're moving in the same direction as the arrow, and just have more mass, so their combined KE would be greater. ETA: ignnoring even the problem that negative KE doesn't exist.
You also still owe me a reply to the question: if velocities or KE are absolute, and should always be related to the earth, how do you deal with things at different latitudes? Do you consider something stationary w.r.t. the centre of the earth, and then something on the equator travelling with it is not stationary anymore, or do you always consider the ground velocity as zero m/s? If the air is moving Eastwards at the equator so as to maintain a geostationary 'orbit' (no wind), is that "no real wind"?
Furthermore, you might like to clarify whether you have changed your mind about relative velocities now. A while back you seemed to be arguing that velocities are absolute. Now you seem to have imperceptibly conceded that they are relative, but somehow kinetic energies are not.
You recently quoted Einstein. Newtonian physics is quite sufficient to describe and predict behaviours of human-scale objects moving on the surface of the planet. You keep failing to recognise that your version of physics breaks the rules.
Another possible source of your confusion may come from thinking that if innertial frames are to be equivalent, you should be able to pick and choose which frames you measure different conditions with reference to within the same calculation. You said as much recently. I thought I had quoted it, but seem to have lost it for now. This is ridiculous. You could not do any mathematics about anything if you could do half the sum in one frame and half the sum in another and not fix that somewhere. That, in essence, is the substance of your physical understanding
and your method of 'discussion': change position and hope it doesn't matter.
