Then they are right. That object will be carried forward by its momentum. If ti looses no energy, then it will continue at the same velocity. If not, and it looses energy to friction, then it will slow, and come to a stop when all of the KE is dissipated.
It was difficult to phrase that, but you missed the second part of the statement. What you are proposing is that in one scenario, momentum (you've been corrected on it being KE) carries an object forward
in a way that makes the translation from one frame of reference to another, or one scenario to another, unequal, and hence the kites or whatever they are land at different times or at different distances from the person. OTOH, as usual, you seem to have been vague and not answered the two questions specifically or clearly.
It has momentum. That is all that it needs to know. If you always need to add 'relative to' before accepting that it can be moving, then you are denying that object's independent existence.
No. I am denying it's independent velocity, AGAIN.
Then that object can't exist.
Fiction. A story about an imaginary object.
Like I said, your imagination is weak. In order to understand mechanics, we consider simplified systems, in which many forces and conditions are ignored. As we isolate the forces we are studying, we learn how those components affect a more complex system. Then we can add the complications together, combine forces that we studied separately, and understand the complex equations that describe everything happening in a real-life situation. Unless you have the imagination to suppose that something has no mass, or arbitrary mass, or no drag, or infinite this 'n that, you have no chance. In fact what
you do is confuse simple issues before you've understood them, because you add any old complication you can find in the hope that you'll get your favourite answer.
E.g. of another thought experiment: If the object is considered
weightless as well as dragless, we can still predict the result from orthodox mechanics. A person holding the object motionless on a windy day will let go to find that it does not move, but sits there in mid-air next to their hand; the person on a bike or treadmill or whatever will find that the kite, balloon or rabbit with no mass or drag will also remain motionless after they let go, w.r.t. their hand. This is isolating the component that you seem to say will cause the "moving" object to move differently - momentum or KE - to kind of outpace the other when they both respond to the drag of the air.
By removing the drag, we can see what happens. With respect to the person, there is no difference in velocity, momentum or KE of such a body. Now, when you put the drag back, or the gravity, those still cause the same effect on the same body. The drag is not linearly proportional to velocity, but it is the velocity relative to the air, and that is identical. Gravitational acceleration of the masses, well I hope even you can see that they won't be different, for identical masses.
It is a mistake to think of momentum as something altogether different from inertia. Inertia is just momentum when the velocity of something is zero, and,
as usual,
velocity is relative. Hence the stationary object w.r.t. the earth is doing just the same as the one that continues to travel along with the bike rider after he lets go. If we take one velocity as our datum, then one object has non-zero velocity and momentum, the other zero velocity and inertia, if we take the other velocity as our datum, the opposite is true, or we can choose any other datum, in which both must have velocity and momentum.
In order to make your argument work, it seems to me you have to explain why there is a special velocity (which always seems to be that of the surface of the earth where you are doing your 'experiments') that is the correct datum, because that is all that gives the "motion" and the "momentum" and the "kinetic energy" to objects moving with respect to it. You haven't done so yet. With your usual grasp of logic, you have turned this round to demand that your Earth frame is equal to others and therefore adequate, so ner, you're not changing it, and demanded we tell you what's wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with it except it keeps you stuck in one frame, (and the 1650s), and missing the more Enlightened and predictively useful view. The Earth frame keeps making you make intuitive and mathematical errors, as you demonstrate every single day here. You could do it all from that frame if you like, but you have to get it right.
What is so pathetic is that your arguments are almost exactly like those people must have made hundreds of years ago when these principles - these REALITIES - were discovered. They said, "No, it can't be. Do I
look like I'm racing through space at fantastic speeds?!". They stamped on the ground to demonstrate how motionless it is.
