Abstract
The results of renowned experimental works of Giovanni Poleni in 1718 and of Jakob W. ‘sGravesande in 1722 suggest that the ‘energy of motion’ or ‘kinetic energy’ of a material body which is moved in a vacuum in a reference frame by a gravitational process is proportional to the ’mass’ of the body and to the velocity of the body in the reference frame, and not to the mass and to the square of the velocity. Consequently, the amount of mechanical energy which is expended by gravitation in moving a body in a vacuum over a vertical distance z is not, as is currently believed, proportional to this distance, but it is proportional to the time-span of action of the process. The product between the mass of the body and the square of the velocity of the body is not proportional only to the amount of mechanical energy of motion of the body moved by the gravitational process, but it is proportional also to the power with which such an amount of ‘kinetic energy’ is consumed by collision with a plastic target at rest in the reference frame.
Highlights
A long time ago, a heated debate arose among scholars on how the „energy of motion‟ of a material body should have been formulated (Caverni, 1898; Costabel, 1973; Engels, 1883; Grillenzoni, 1995; Iltis, 1971; Reichenberger, 2012; Suter, 1904)
We have proposed an interpretive analysis of the deformation data obtained by Giovanni Poleni and by Jakob W. „sGravesande in their respective experimental works
If this interpretive view is close to be correct for the conditions of the experiments of Poleni and of „sGravesande, the amount of „energy of motion‟ of a body which is moved by a gravitational process in a reference frame is not proportional to the mass of the body and to the square of the velocity of the body in the reference frame, but it is proportional to the mass of the body and to the velocity of the body in the reference frame
Summary
A long time ago, a heated debate arose among scholars on how the „energy of motion‟ of a material body should have been formulated (Caverni, 1898; Costabel, 1973; Engels, 1883; Grillenzoni, 1995; Iltis, 1971; Reichenberger, 2012; Suter, 1904). This debate mainly ranged between the viewpoint of R. We hope that the following considerations about the physical meaning of the product mv contribute to the discussion, and be of interest in improving the understanding of the physics of the gravitational process
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
