Kinetic energy So if here was a one giant mass and a bunch or

>>7681844
Im sorry but you fail at physics.

The giant mass is still a constituent of smaller masses. It works both ways. Just sum them up or derive there parts and ull be wherr you started.

>>7681844
you fail, and will not be allowed to pass on to the next class

>>7681865
>>7681881
Cool

Serious question. Do you understand multiplication can be expressed as repeated addition?

>>7681924
umm Yeah

>cultural marxism

>>7681844
>kinetic energy reduces since it's measurement is more dependent on speed
>since it is derived from work equation in which it uses acceleration mass and displacement
wat teh fvck

>>7681865
>>7681881
>>7682700
Wow, you're stupid anon.

What a stupid OP picture

OP is clinically insane

>>7681865
That's only true if all the small masses have the same velocity.
If the distributions of velocities is not a dirac then it is possible to have :
M*V = sum(mi*vi)
and
M*V^2 < sum(mi*vi^2)

Where mi is the masse of the small object i and vi its speed.

>>7681844
You're partially right. It all depends on wether the sum of the small masses is equal to the big mass or not.
if the total mass of the small objects is still smaller than the mass of the big object, their average velocity needs to be bigger than the velocitiy of the big object. Since E=(1/2)*m*v^2 =(1/2)*(p^2)/m, the kinetic energy of the small objects would be higher.
If their total mass would be bigger than the big mass, their total kinetic energy would be lower and if their total mass would be equal to the big mass, they would have the same total kinetic energy.

>>7682858
Wow, it took only 12 hours for someone not to call OP stupid and give the right solution instead.