A simple Q. but not a simple A,,
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FLIGHT RESERVATIONS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next: superlatives of Volcano-Electricity #47 Volcano-Electricity: Earth's Energy Future
From: Inertial on 6 Jan 2010 04:21 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:23decbb5-dff4-4cf7-bb15-9e489fdca8a7(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > 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. Sorry .. true .. in that we do not know what it is and how it works, only how to calculate it > 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. That's just how to calculate it. Not what it is or how it works. You say it as thought you are saying something new > 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. What error? > So Isaac Newton did not write the Three Laws of Motion, but > formulated the Three Laws of Momentum. What they are called doesn't really matter. Its the laws themselves that matter > 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. You've not shown it to be invalidated. Especially as it was right (unless you get to relativistic speeds) > 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. But we know that is correct from experiment. > 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. The three laws it has are just fine (at non-relativistic words) > 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: kado on 6 Jan 2010 23:21 On Jan 6, 1:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > That's just how to calculate it. Not what it is or how it works. > > You say it as thought you are saying something new The original question was whether momentum was defined or not, not how it works. > > > 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. > > What error? If you can't accept that that the current idea and definition of motion differs from the notion and definition of momentum differ, then there is not much more to discuss. > > > So Isaac Newton did not write the Three Laws of Motion, but > > formulated the Three Laws of Momentum. > > What they are called doesn't really matter. Its the laws themselves that > matter It does matter, for all the ideas, concepts, and understanding of phenomena, entities, events, things, etc. are fixed by what it or these are called. Try explaining the capabilities of an elephant to another if you keep calling it a flea. >> > 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. > > You've not shown it to be invalidated. Especially as it was right (unless > you get to relativistic speeds) > > > 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. > > But we know that is correct from experiment. > > > 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. > > The three laws it has are just fine (at non-relativistic words) > This can readily be resolved if you will just state your rendition of Newton's Second and Third Laws. So I challenge you to do so! D.Y.K.
From: Inertial on 7 Jan 2010 00:17 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:d7fc87b0-5ac7-46ff-b3cc-eaa16e2f960d(a)g18g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 6, 1:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message >> > >> That's just how to calculate it. Not what it is or how it works. >> >> You say it as thought you are saying something new > > The original question was whether momentum was defined or not, > not how it works. It doesn't define what it is .. just how to calculate it >> > 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. >> >> What error? > > If you can't accept that that the current idea and definition of > motion differs from the notion and definition of momentum differ, Of course motion and momentum are different .. what is the problem with that? > then there is not much more to discuss. >> >> > So Isaac Newton did not write the Three Laws of Motion, but >> > formulated the Three Laws of Momentum. >> >> What they are called doesn't really matter. Its the laws themselves that >> matter > > It does matter, Nope > for all the ideas, concepts, and understanding of > phenomena, entities, events, things, etc. are fixed by what it or > these are called. A rose by any other name > Try explaining the capabilities of an elephant > to another if you keep calling it a flea. As long as you both understand what is meant by the word 'flea' its fine. And the point is, the title you place on the group of laws has NO BEARING AT ALL on what the laws apply to and how they are formulated. >>> > 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. >> >> You've not shown it to be invalidated. Especially as it was right (unless >> you get to relativistic speeds) >> >> > 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. >> >> But we know that is correct from experiment. >> >> > 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. >> >> The three laws it has are just fine (at non-relativistic words) >> > This can readily be resolved if you will just state your rendition of > Newton's Second and Third Laws. So I challenge you to do so! What needs to be resolved? The laws work ( at non relativistic speeds). Wikipedia has: 1 In the absence of force, a body either is at rest or moves in a straight line with constant speed. 2 A body experiencing a force F experiences an acceleration a related to F by F = ma, where m is the mass of the body. Alternatively, force is equal to the time derivative of momentum. 3 Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force ?F on the first body. F and ?F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. And also 1 An object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force or A body persists in a state of uniform motion or of rest unless acted upon by an external force 2 Force equals mass times acceleration" or "F = ma." 3 To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And also 1 There exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which all particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their velocity. -- law of inertia 2 Observed from an inertial reference frame, the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of its linear momentum: F = d(mv)/dt. Since by definition the mass of a particle is constant, this law is often stated as, "Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma): the net force on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by its acceleration." 3 Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. --action-reaction law Another site has 1 Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon. Projectiles persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. 2 The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. 3 To every action there is always opposed an equal and opposite reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, towards the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made towards contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies. This law takes place also in attractions. Another site has 1 An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. 2 Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object) 3 For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. Another site has 1 Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. 2 The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector. 3 For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Its the same concept in all cases .. the difference is in how one chooses to word it (as english, like most languages, is now very precise, and things can be expressed in numerous ways). Fortunately, expressing the formulas mathematically helps resolve any ambiguities of language. That's why 'laws' in physics are expressed mathematically.
From: cjcountess on 7 Jan 2010 14:11 I agree we should keep all debates civil. I also agree that there are a lot of preconceived notions in physics that inhibit its progression, and I addressed some myself, also encountering opposition along the way. See: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c870c7aa57237800/2af0e50be255e608?hl=en&q=cjcountess&lnk=ol& As a specific example that I overlooked in the thread mentioned above: When I first mentioned that (c^2), geometrically could be interpreted as c in linear direction x c in 90 degree angular direction, to create a balance of equal and 90 degree angular, centrifugal and centripetal forces, that creates circular motion I was told that sense there was no such thing as centrifugal force the idea itself was wrong. Now I dont remember the exact flow of the conversation, but from reading your last post concerning the people handing back and forth objects, I can see that you understand the meaning of centrifugal force even though you yourself may not be totally comfortable with it. To me the idea of centrifugal force is as valid as centripetal force. But I dont necessarily need it to make my argument, although I believe it makes my argument smoother, except when people get stuck on the centrifugal force debate. I am not here to argue that point though unless someone thinks that it is necessary. But I dont mine, because my case is strong and the evidence so extensive, I enjoy arguing it. But it is annoying when some people want to turn the Google dialogs on Physics to the goo-goo-ga-ga childish dialogs of name calling and the like. Oh well I guess you got to take the good with the bad to a certain extent. Conrad J Countess
From: cjcountess on 7 Jan 2010 14:37
I also remember someone telling me that cxc could not be as I described because velocity's are added not multiplied. As an example I was shown (sqrt(a^2+b^2). I wondered why not just, a + b, because the very fact that you first square them as, a^2 and b^2, before you divide that answer into its sqrt, makes it not purely vector addition, but some mathematical fudging scheme. See: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8c5227a80122e187?hl=en I did not argue that point at that place and time because I was not prepared for such debates, and this guy tried to find every way he could to defeat my argument, but only made it stronger. Wonder what happened to him. Anyway I soon found reference for vector multiplication, and was prompted to state on another site that c^2, may not only express a quantum leap in the energy to matter and wave to a particle, but also a quantum leap in the mathematics that govern it as one goes from vector addition to vector multiplication as soon as vectors are equal and at 90 degrees to each other. If that is the case, it might itself be a new mathematical discovery, but if not it may be just something that sounds good for my argument. Conrad J Countess |