A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: float..my farts
Next: LHC Math gives a Doomsday.
From: kado on 4 Jan 2010 19:21 On Jan 4, 10:55 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... > Even if you could travel at c, alongside light, it still would not be > massless except in linear direction, just as a car moving at 30 mph > would not have enough relative mass to hurt you if you were driving > alongside it at the same speed and touched the front of it. That is > why people can pass things back and forth through the window if they > are driving at same speed next to each other. > > Conrad J Countess You are confusing mass with momentum and/or inertia. The reason people can pass things back and forth under these specific conditions is that the uniform speed of both vehicles do not cause a change of momentum of all the bodies of interest, and the only change of momentum of the things passed back and forth are caused by the people doing the passing back and forth. Should both the vehicles not be moving uniformly, i.e., turning or changing speed (that is, accelerating), the change of momentum of both vehicles will also change the state inertia of both vehicles and all within these vehicles. The conservation of inertia (i.e., the colloquial, and really screwed up prevailing idea of centrifugal force) of the things passed from the inside of the turn (if turning) vehicle will make it easier for the people in this inside of the turn vehicle to pass the things to the other, whereas the people in the outside of the turn vehicle must not only apply the force to pass the things to the other vehicle, but must also overcome the inertia of the things to continue to move in a straight line. All this is just plain Newtonian mechanics as explained in Newton's Principia. The empirical applied scientists and engineers have long accepted that the Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science does not always explain and/or does not seem to apply on the everyday dynamics of how the phenomena/events/things occur on Earth and near space (i.e., within the scale of the human). Science has also long known that Einstein's Relativity is not compatible with modern quantum mechanics. That is; Special and General does not work in the ream of the very small (particle physics), and that quantum mechanics fail in the worlds of the very large (cosmology). Furthermore, both Relativity and quantum mechanics seem really bizarre in respect to Classical Newtonian Mechanics. The photon is a concept of the particle nature of light. The rest mass is a concept of mass within Relativity. As the concepts within quantum mechanics do not apply within Relativity, and visa versa, you cannot ever logically use the rest, or gravitational, or inertial mass (wherein mass increases as a function of gamma and tensor mechanics apply) of Einstein to explain the photon. In fact; Einstein was a staunch opponent of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, exemplified by his statement that: "God does not play dice." All this is more comprhensively explained in the copyrighted treatise "The Search for Reality and the Truths". D. Y. Kadoshima
From: cjcountess on 5 Jan 2010 09:58 I appriciate your responce. It is logical, but not intirely complete. Just becaues mainstream scientist have not yet united quantum, special and general relitivity, does not mean that it has not been done. Some of us non mainstream researchers have done it. If you look at the equation (E=mc^2) geometricaly, it can be interpreted as (E=mc^2circled), thereby unifying special relativity, with general relativity as it reveals that c^2 is a frequency/ wavelength, at high end of EM spectrum, which can also be called the energy/matter, as well as electromagnetic spectrum where energy turns to matter because it takes on a circular and or spherical mode thereby aquiring rest mass. Just as deBroglie discovered,(E=hf=mc^2), the (hf), which is frequency measurement, = (mc^2) which is also frequency measurment, in that (c^2) geometricaly can be interpreted as, (c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular diection), creating 90 degree arc trejectory, which if constant creates a circle of energy. This is how energy turns to matter at c^2, unifying special and general relativity and is = to (cx2pi) which = (hx2pi,) with momentum inversely proportional = h/2pi, thereby also uniting quantum theory with these. G, the gravity constant in Newton's and general relativity, as (L/T^2) = (c^2) which is the ultamate (L/T^2) on quantum level, and also = (h/ 2pi) as energy in circular motion, as I stated earlier. And so (G = c^2 = h/2pi), and (c = h). (E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and (E=hf/c^2) = (F=mv/ r^2) on quantum level, concerning 1 quantum particle directly, not just analogously. Just as (h/2pi) and its inverse (hx2pi) represents energy in circlar motion, it is easy to see that (r = h = c). The quantum gravity problem has been solved, but mainstream physicist do not seem ready to accept it yet, but that is ok because the geometrical evidence is so clear and even corresponds to the equations and it is not hard to prove. Your book seems interesting and I will look at it. I have so much evidence to back my proposition that I can argue it from many angles which is what it might take because such a revolutionary idea and discovery is bound to provoke oposition. But as I said, I do not mind because the evidence is overwelming and there is realy no way around it. Conrad J Countess
From: kado on 6 Jan 2010 03:35 On Jan 5, 6:58 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I appriciate your responce. It is logical, but not intirely complete. I in turn, appreciate that you seem to respect my ideas. I hope we can keep this debate of the truths on the intellectual level, rather than letting it degenerate into the personal level of trading insults as others are so wont to do. You are kind to mainline science by inferring that it "has not yet caught up to your concepts." I am less kind, and maintain that mainline science has what Isaac Newton presented in Principia so screwed up that it will not ever 'catch up'. In other words; the Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science contains so many canards, dogmas and misleading and/or false statements/ propositions/suppositions that it will not ever lead to, or be a part of the path to the true understanding of the workings of the universe. A wise old sage said: 1. To find the truths, one must verify the ones you have. 2. The first step to knowledge is understanding the meaning of the words. 3. The truth that you can put into words and pictures is not the absolute truth. So I postulate (i.e., state without further justification in the vernacular of physics) that there are: 1. The Conditional truths, that are true under a specific set of conditions and/or during a specific event at a particular point in time, but false under others. 2. The Relative truths, that are true from a particular point of view and/or a specific frame of reference, but untrue from others. 3. The Generalized truths, that are statistically (mathematically) more probable to be true than not (i.e., 'educated guesses'). 4. The Fundamental truths, that are the underlying truths upon which all the other truths are based, and that are true all of the time, under all conditions, and within or from any and all perspectives, points of view, and/or frames of reference. There is one more category that applies to this philosophical task. The is the human subjective notion wherein an approximation is qualified with the phrase "for all practical purposes" (i.e., FAPP, an acronym coined by John S. Bell) and this approximation is assumed so close to the truth that this can be supposed a fact, thus accepted as a truth. Mainline science often applies this reasoning to its suppositions, conclusions and hypothesis without the qualifying FAPP. Furthermore, a lot of mainline science's suppositions are violations of the principle of the integration of approximations due to omitting the qualifying FAPP. Isaac Newton wrote Philosopiae Naturalis Principia Mathematical (usually shortened to Principia) in Latin. So almost all who study Principia read translations. These translations commonly just translate the words Newton wrote, and do not correctly interpret the then, and still new and novel ideas and concepts presented in Principia. Therefore much as been lost in the translations. A prior post in this thread stated that momentum has not yet been defined. NOT TRUE. Newton defined momentum in DEFINITION II of the first section of Principia that he called the Definitions. He wrote (with all the Latin words translated into English except the Latin word motu): The quantity of motu is the measure of the same, arising from the velocity and quantity of matter conjointly. In other words; motu is velocity times mass. It is momentum (p) that is mass (m) times velocity (v), or p = mv. Motion (i.e., a change of position) is not, and cannot be connoted mv. Ever since Alexander Motte mistranslated the Latin word motu and all tenses and derivations (i.e., motus, motum, etc.) as synonymous with the Latin word movendi, all subsequent translators continue this error. So Isaac Newton did not write the Three Laws of Motion, but formulated the Three Laws of Momentum. Nevertheless, it may be clearer to think of these Laws as The Three Laws of the Change or Changes of Momentum. However, one cannot just replace all the words of motion within Principia into momentum, because Newton also employed the Latin word movendi (that is correctly translated as motion) throughout Principia. This is not the only mistranslation that invalidates the current Classical Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science. Newton's very significant Third Law of Momentum is also severely twisted and misconstrued due to a simple mistranslation and the fuzzy logic James C. Maxwell. Furthermore, Newton's Second Law is not F = ma. Newton's Definitions are his postulates. Mainline science derives the definitions the words in Newton's Definitions from its incorrect ideas of the three laws motion. In other words, mainline science wonts to work backwards. This is significant because the Classical Newtonian Mechanics does not have the Three Laws of Momentum right. It's really hard to explain if a particular idea is true or not, except in a case by case manner, because many are conditional/relative truths tied to other conditional or relative truths. The only truths that humans can accept as undeniably true are those empirically demonstrated as natural phenomenon by Nature. Nevertheless these are almost always conditional and/or relative truths. D. Y. K.
From: Androcles on 6 Jan 2010 04:27 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:23decbb5-dff4-4cf7-bb15-9e489fdca8a7(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... He wrote (with all the Latin words translated into English except the Latin word motu): The quantity of motu is the measure of the same, arising from the velocity and quantity of matter conjointly. In other words; motu is velocity times mass. It is momentum (p) that is mass (m) times velocity (v), or p = mv. Motion (i.e., a change of position) is not, and cannot be connoted mv. ============================================= Newton: Si vis aliqua motum quemvis generat; dupla duplum, tripla triplum generabit, Motte: If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, Hence n(F) = n(dp/dt), motion = dp/dt. In other words; motion is a change of momentum, not a change of position as you claim. A wise old sage said: 1. To find the truths, one must verify the ones you have. Your words are not verified.
From: kado on 6 Jan 2010 19:24
On Jan 6, 1:27 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > news:23decbb5-dff4-4cf7-bb15-9e489fdca8a7(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > He > wrote (with all the Latin words translated into English except the > Latin word motu): > > The quantity of motu is the measure of the same, arising from the > velocity and quantity of matter conjointly. > > In other words; motu is velocity times mass. It is momentum (p) > that is mass (m) times velocity (v), or p = mv. Motion (i.e., a > change of position) is not, and cannot be connoted mv. > ============================================= > > Newton: Si vis aliqua motum quemvis generat; dupla duplum, tripla triplum > generabit, > > Motte: If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double > the motion, a triple force triple the motion, > > Hence n(F) = n(dp/dt), > > motion = dp/dt. > > In other words; motion is a change of momentum, not a change of position as > you claim. > > A wise old sage said: > 1. To find the truths, one must verify the ones you have. > > Your words are not verified. Your quote is from the elaboration of Law II, not that in the first 'chapter' titled Definitions.You do not seem to realize that the definitions of Newton are his postulates, and that his Laws of Momentum are based on his postulates. (So if you deviate from Newton's Definitions, you are in truth, deviating from the mechanics presented in Principia.) In both Cajori's 1934 translation and the latest translation of Principia by Cohen and Whitman, Newton's definitions are in italics. (I can't find my copy of Motte's translation right now to verify if Motte also italicized the definition.) Moreover, elaboration in Cajori's translation within the 'chapter' titled Definitions is: The motion of the whole is the sum of the motions (read momentum) of all the parts; and therefore in a body double in quantity, with equal velocity, the motion (read momentum) is double; with twice the velocity, it is quadruple. This elaboration in the latest translation of Principia by Cohen and Whitman titled 'The Principia' is slightly different in wording, but the substance is basically the same. D. Y. K. |