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: kado on 13 Jan 2010 05:41 On Jan 10, 10:40 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > In Principia Mathematica (not "Mathematical"), motion = dp/dt. > > If you deny it, you deny the second law, which is against the supposition. > > As a wise old sage said: "Engage brain before opening mouth". > > This time it means, What IS Newton's 2nd Law and HOW is it > different than present physics states it? > > glird Yes, I did error by adding the l on the end of the word Mathematica. Nevertheless, no one picked up that I stated "nick pick" in my response to Uncle Al, rather than the usual 'nit pick'. This was on purpose, to use as a sort of leadin for a point I might have to make about one of my future posts. A nit is the egg or young of a louse. A nick in the vernacular of the printing industry in the old tintype days, i.e., before linotype, and during the time of the handset individual text letters, a nick was a small nick or defect in the face of the type. So the phrase: "Don't be a nick picker," was an admonishment by the editor to the typesetter that looked only for nicks, and overlooked that he use a letter d instead of b, a q instead of p, or a 6 instead of 9, or visa versa. In other words; don't get so concerned with the small stuff of little consequence that you miss the big important mistakes you made. Now, I'm not implying that this applies to you in this particular case, but this is just a bit of advice to all posting on this thread. D.Y.K.
From: glird on 13 Jan 2010 09:27 On Jan 13, 3:28 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 12, 8:13 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:> D. Y. K. > > You said that light is a force, which I understand and agree with, but > > you also said that light is not wave, nor particle, nor energy, nor > > physical. I am curious, why? > >------------------- > > if you see the 'tree' of posts > you can see that you responed to someone else not to me Porat > anyway i willtry to answer sosome of your interesting questions > see folowing > -------------- > > > I also found your mass post interesting, I never really believed that > > rest mass increases as an object moves and that this is only > > noticeable at speeds close to c but I do know that relative (mass = > > kinetic energy), increases by the square of the velocity same as > > photons. In other words just as a photons relative mass = kinetic > > energy increases at (E=hf/c^2 = E=m/c^2), so too rest mass increases > > it is not because of the photon mass > there are in those equations OTHER VARIABLES!! > ----------------> at (F=mv^2), in other words, as evident by the foot pound energy of > > bullets, and other projectiles, energy increases 4x each time velocity > > doubles, and this is noticeable way below light speeds just ask a gun > > ----- > right > there is there a whole system involved in it > notonly the mass of the bullet > now i as well asked myself > why is it the energy is not increasing linearly with > velocity > my ansewr to myself is > may be it is because > if you MEASURE ***velocity** > IN ANOTHER FRAME THAN YOURS -- > IT IS THAT **MEASURED LENGTH** > IS DECREASING !!! (measured !!) > it is only a problem of **measurements** > in different frames {{{YES!!!}}} and > confused interpretations > of **attaching** unjustified and prejudiced > **the wrong cause to the wrong entity** !!! > How about that ?? As in WEIGHING an object to find its "mass" (in grams) and then, when it turns out that its weight (in kilograms)is a function of its relative velocity, claiming that "mass and energy" are interconvertiblah!! glird
From: cjcountess on 13 Jan 2010 17:04 Thank you glird, I am very interested I like the way you reason and have reasons for what you say. That is how any subject should be taught and conclusions explained. Physics is indeed a story, a story of how we become conscious of the natural laws of the universe. We talk to it, it talks to us, we talk to each other. Porat I am still reading your post and following you logic, as to how you arrive at your conclusions. Don't let people rattle you to much. Sound reason is stronger than heated emotion in physics. D.Y.K. Still waiting for an explanation of why you say that photons are not wave or even anything physica.l Uncle Al, I read your paper on, PURSUING THE LIMITS OF FAILED SYMMETRY. Very good, see I am not mad at you. I agree with you that there is a preferred direction in the universe and we want to know it which way is up so to speak. But I still think that quantum theory and general relativity, come together as quantum gravity, in my theory. I also think that my theory shows that there is a preferred direction which is why -1 charged electrons, are the basic particle and that their counter directory spin is preferred over positrons and therefore anti-matter. I do not think that this will violate general relativities principle, that they fall at same rate through quantum space though. But of course you did not consider electrons as you preferred compound complex particles. I would like to know the outcome of your experiment because you are right, someone should look. Conrad J Countess
From: Inertial on 13 Jan 2010 18:03 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2f65eb91-bb3a-4a64-8595-1001757a1e72(a)f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...[snip] > my ansewr to myself is > may be it is becuse > if you MEASURE ***velocity** > IN ANOTHER FRAME THAN YOURS -- > IT IS THAT **MEASURED LENGTH** > IS DECREASING !!! (measured !!) > it is only a problem of** measurements** in differnt frames and > confused interpretations > of** attaching unjustified and prejudiced **- So you are happy with relativistic mass, in the same way as you are with length contraction. ie where in another frame than yours, it is the *measured inertial mass* that is increasing !!! (measured !!)
From: Y.Porat on 14 Jan 2010 03:36
On Jan 14, 12:04 am, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Thank you glird, > I am very interested > > I like the way you reason and have reasons for what you say. That is > how any subject should be taught and conclusions explained. > > Physics is indeed a story, a story of how we become conscious of the > natural laws of the universe. We talk to it, it talks to us, we talk > to each other. > > Porat > I am still reading your post and following you logic, as to how you > arrive at your conclusions. Don't let people rattle you to much. Sound > reason is stronger than heated emotion in physics. > > D.Y.K. > Still waiting for an explanation of why you say that photons are not > wave or even anything physica.l > ---------------------------------------- i never in my life said that the photon is not a wave!! i dont know from were you took it to relate it to me anyway i start to understand why you ask it: probably you think that a wave cannot have mass?? rigth? is that what you think ?? (do you think that the waves of the sea dont have mass (:-)) if so you are wrong there is no contradication between being a wave and having mass !!! youforgot my golden new rule of physics : NO MASS - NO REAL PHYSICS-- EVEN IN MICROCOSM !! btw i think that even newtonj saw th e photrons ans both 1 as a wave 2 as little particles even Planck and Einstein beleived in that **duality ' **!!! (the planck constant among the others --has mass in it it is if i remember correct with my old (:-)memory**by hearth: 6.6 10 -exp''''' times kilogram meter^2/second note those 'Kilograms' !! ATB Y.Porat ----------------------- |