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: cjcountess on 7 Jan 2010 16:51 In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. Now I must admit that, if we were in a cold war, or pre-war stage, "and perhaps we are" we might want to opstruct other countries progress, especialy if one country is "Nazi Germany", and the other is the, "European Aliance". And I can see how Al might think this way, given his background. But if we are trying to cooporate in an international forum, "this google physics site" to discover universal truths, I do not want to be the one obstructing this path, unless it will reveal something that I am afraid of. Maybe Al knows something we don't Conrad j Countess
From: kado on 8 Jan 2010 05:30 On Jan 6, 9:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message > > news:d7fc87b0-5ac7-46ff-b3cc-eaa16e2f960d(a)g18g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > > Of course motion and momentum are different .. what is the problem with > that? > There is not problem with this statement, but there still is a problem when you insist on calling both with just the one word motion. > > >> > 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. Then how do you explain the capabilities, physical properties, etc., of the true little blood sucker correctly called the flea? > > 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. > Bullshit! (I am not reverting to the same sort of insult as Uncle Al. Dr Harry G. Frankfort legitimized the the word bullshit (i.e., BS) with his fine book titled 'On Bullshit', published by the Princeton University Press, 2005. I highly recommend the reading of this book. It's a quick read --- for most people. > > >>> > 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. > > > >> The three laws it has are just fine (at non-relativistic words) > 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. All the text about Newton's Second Law except for the 3rd state that the Second Law is connoted as F = ma. On the other hand, this 3rd one, which is a direct quote from the 1848 editorialized version of Motte's original translation, uses the incorrect word motion in place of the correct word momentum. So it cannot be denied that mainline science connotes Newton's second Law as F = ma. You also stated that words are ambiguous, whereas mathematics is very precise. Acceleration is the uniform change of velocity (i.e., the uniform change of speed in a straight line), OR a uniform change of direction at a constant speed, i.e., a true circle, and only a circle. It cannot be a uniform change of direction at a constant velocity, because velocity is limited to a straight line by definition.) Acceleration is the 2nd derivative of the time rate change of position (TiRCoP). True acceleration is a most uncommon motion within the Natural Universe. Almost all the bodies within the universe do not accelerate, but jerk, snap, crackle, or pop. Jerk, snap, etc., are the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th derivatives of the TiRCoP. In other words; the true concept of acceleration cannot address (i.e., does not apply to) true conic sections. Now to get back to Androcles, and his strange and fuzzy idea that motion is a change of momentum, but not a change of position. The notion of a change of position (as in my statement) does not deny the derivatives of the TiRCoP above acceleration. A change of momentum (as in the true rendition [translation] of Newton's Second Law) does not deny the derivatives of the TiRCoP above acceleration. The common notion of motion does not deny the derivatives of the TiRCoP above acceleration. On the other hand, Androcles' notion of n(F) = n(dp/dt) does deny all the derivatives of the TiRCoP above acceleration. So both you and Androcles are ignorant of all the higher derivatives of the TiRCoP above acceleration, or do fuzzy math to work out the conic section orbits of the planets and comets, or both. The true interpretation of Newton's Second Law of Momentum is: The change of momentum is proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the straight line in which that force is impressed. It's getting late, and I'm quite tired. I am well aware of the mistakes that I may make when I am tired and sleepy, and the consequences there of, especially when posting on this newsgroup. So I will address the errors within Classical Newtonian Mechanics about the Third Law and what Newton really addressed in Principia tomorrow. D.Y.K.
From: Inertial on 8 Jan 2010 05:43 <kado(a)nventure.com> wrote in message news:bf03fbe1-91fd-4490-b421-6c302d80565f(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 6, 9:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message >> >> news:d7fc87b0-5ac7-46ff-b3cc-eaa16e2f960d(a)g18g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... >> >> Of course motion and momentum are different .. what is the problem with >> that? >> > There is not problem with this statement, but there still is a problem > when > you insist on calling both with just the one word motion. I don't >> >> > 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. > > Then how do you explain the capabilities, physical properties, etc., > of > the true little blood sucker correctly called the flea? >> >> 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. >> > Bullshit! Yes .. your claim is bullshit > (I am not reverting to the same sort of insult as Uncle Al. Dr Harry > G. > Frankfort legitimized the the word bullshit (i.e., BS) with his fine > book > titled 'On Bullshit', published by the Princeton University Press, > 2005. > I highly recommend the reading of this book. It's a quick read --- for > most > people. >> >> >>> > 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. >> >> >> >> The three laws it has are just fine (at non-relativistic words) > >> 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. > > All the text about Newton's Second Law except for the 3rd state that > the > Second Law is connoted as F = ma. It is .. we know that is correct experimentally > On the other hand, this 3rd one, > which is > a direct quote from the 1848 editorialized version of Motte's original > translation, uses the incorrect word motion in place of the correct > word > momentum. > > So it cannot be denied that mainline science connotes Newton's second > Law as > F = ma. It is .. we know that is correct experimentally > You also stated that words are ambiguous, whereas mathematics is very > precise. > > Acceleration is the uniform change of velocity (i.e., the uniform > change of > speed in a straight line), It can be > OR a uniform change of direction at a > constant > speed, i.e., a true circle, and only a circle. It can be > It cannot be a uniform > change > of direction at a constant velocity, because velocity is limited to a > straight line by definition.) Who said it was? There is, however, a change FROM being a constant velocity TO being another velocity. That is acceleration > Acceleration is the 2nd derivative of the time rate change of position > (TiRCoP). I know what it is > True acceleration is a most uncommon motion within the Natural > Universe. Hardly > Almost all the bodies within the universe do not accelerate, but jerk, > snap, > crackle, or pop. Jerk, snap, etc., are the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th > derivatives > of the TiRCoP. In other words; the true concept of acceleration cannot > address (i.e., does not apply to) true conic sections. You're being rather silly > Now to get back to Androcles, and his strange and fuzzy idea that > motion > is a change of momentum, but not a change of position. He's an idiot .. we all know that. You can get a change of momentum with no change in velocity, of course. But without a change in position, there is no momentum. > The notion of a change of position (as in my statement) does not deny > the > derivatives of the TiRCoP above acceleration. > > A change of momentum (as in the true rendition [translation] of > Newton's > Second Law) does not deny the derivatives of the TiRCoP above > acceleration. > > The common notion of motion does not deny the derivatives of the > TiRCoP > above acceleration. > > On the other hand, Androcles' notion of n(F) = n(dp/dt) does deny all > the > derivatives of the TiRCoP above acceleration. > > So both you and Androcles are ignorant of all the higher derivatives > of the TiRCoP above acceleration, No .. I'm not > or do fuzzy math to work out the > conic > section orbits of the planets and comets, or both. > > The true interpretation of Newton's Second Law of Momentum is: > > The change of momentum is proportional to the motive force impressed; > and is made in the direction of the straight line in which that force > is > impressed. F = dp/dt .. also equivalently written as F = ma > It's getting late, and I'm quite tired. I am well aware of the > mistakes that I > may make when I am tired and sleepy, and the consequences there of, > especially when posting on this newsgroup. > > So I will address the errors within Classical Newtonian Mechanics > about the > Third Law and what Newton really addressed in Principia tomorrow. Whatever.
From: glird on 8 Jan 2010 11:46 On Jan 8, 5:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote in message [snip] > k wrote: The true interpretation of Newton's Second Law of Momentum is: The change of momentum is proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the straight line in which that force is impressed. Inertial: F = dp/dt .. also equivalently written as F = ma k: It's getting late, and I'm quite tired. I am well aware of the mistakes that I may make when I am tired and sleepy, and the consequences there of, especially when posting on this newsgroup. So I will address the errors within Classical Newtonian Mechanics about the Third Law and what Newton really addressed in Principia tomorrow. > It' still this morning, tofay. Why wait til tomorrow? :-( While you're at it, how bout discussing what Newton actually said versus what physics did with his Second Law! Here's why I am interested ___________ On Jan 5, 7:55 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote [snip] >> >> > > If you change the equation to read P1/gamma = m*v, then neither the left hand side nor the right hand side is momentum any longer. The left hand side is the ratio of momentum and gamma, and the right hand side is the product of mass and velocity, but neither side is momentum. > > > >> > i doubt it !! since gamma is just a scalar > > >> So is mass. PD: The momentum of the proton in slow motion is gamma*m*v. The momentum of the proton in fast motion is gamma*m*v. There is no difference. > Wrong!! There is a huge difference between the value of gamma = 1/ (c^2 - v^2)^.5 when v of the proton is slow, compared to the value of gamma when v is very fast. y.y: now comes the main point question for you, PD: Did the above growth of momentum 'inflate' the original mass of the Proton? > > No, the mass is the same.> >< BINGO !! THERE IS JUST ONE KIND OF MASS NO MATTER WHAT DO YOU CALL IT> > PD: < That does not alter the fact that for as long as there has been SR, 'm' has usually meant the invariant mass (sometimes m0 is used instead, and m for relativistic mass). Before SR, there was just mass for quite a while. So if anything the 'one kind of mass' is a very old concept. Note that there are at least two equivalent 'kinds' of mass .. there is inertial mass and gravitational mass. They both end up being equal (which is in itself interesting, as they are very different concepts). > 1. They are NOT equal. Look again at Aetvos's measured values. (The inertial mass is slightly less than the g-mass.) 2. How about the "mass" of "dark matter"? PD: < Have a read of ... http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html to find out what 'relativistic mass' and 'rest mass' and just 'mass' means in physics.> I looked and found this: "If we define mass in such a way that the object's mass does not increase as it heats up, then we will have to give up the idea that mass is proportional to weight." There, in a nutshell, is one of the main reasons for the ignorance of physicists as to the nature of reality. In his Principles of Natural Philosophy the philosopher Newton said: ____________ i couldn't find his exact words. I woke several times last night thinking, There is a HUGE difference between "proportional" and " = "! and Whereas Newton said the force (of gravity?) is PROPORTIONATE to the mass per object, physics changed that to F = ma. Nwewton was right. Regardless of which g-field the object(s) are in, their weight will be proportionate to their (newtonian) mass. (To him, and to me, "mass" denotes a quantity of matter, independently of its weight in various g-fields. In physics, mass is measured by weighing an object in EARTH'S g-field.) Physics is wrong! In the equations f = ma and m_v = beta(m), etc etc etc, the m denotes the WEIGHT of an object, NOT a quantity of matter!! When an atomic reaction occurs, some energy AND some matter is released. Non-particulate matter ("dark matter") has no weight in a g-field, although it does affect the local density which IS a g-field. Because they replaced Newton's "proportionate" with their " = ", though, our ignoranuses think that MATTER is a form of ENERGY; which is nonsense. glird
From: jbriggs444 on 8 Jan 2010 14:56
On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress. The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening is even more absurd. Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly. It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible. What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"? The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face. I don't feel any need to read mystical signifance to into 32 feet per second when working with an "incoherent" system like the English system of units. Why would someone feel a need to supply mystical significance for 9.0*10^16 meter^2/second^2 when working in an "unnatural" system such as MKS? Now people who favor civil discourse tend to be the same people who favor universal peace, love and brotherhood of man. Al apparently has a point of view on that. If I may try to express that point of view in my own words... Peace, love and the brotherhood of man only work as long as the other guy is looking out for your best interests. More often than not, the other guy is looking out for _his_ best interests. I rather enjoy the scene in "War of the Worlds" where the clergyman walks out to a Martian war machine holding a bible and mouthing something about how little fear he has when walking into the valley of the shadow of death. Go Martians, Go! Increase the average intelligence of the human race! Or to quote Clint: "deserve's got nothing to do with it". |