Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Free fall
Next: 50% OF POPULATION BELOW AVG IQ!
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Sep 2005 19:47 Don1 wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote: > >>Don1 wrote: >> >>>Sam Wormley wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Newton is much more precise >>> >>>Snip< >>> >>>> "Newton's [second] law completely describes all the phenomena >>>> of classical mechanics...." >>> >>> >>>I don't think so. >>> >>>Don >>> >> >> How so? > > > A simple question, but a book would be required to answer it. > > Don > Suggested books Symon Marion Goldstein Fowles
From: Don1 on 18 Sep 2005 19:49 Herman Trivilino wrote: > "Don1" <dcshead(a)charter.net> wrote ... > > >> > 3) Resultant motion is the algebraic sum of inertial motion and forced > >> > displacement, and can be written mathematically as d/t=l/t + s/t; or as > >> > d/t=l/t + (a/2)t^2: > > Do you not see that d/t and l/t are terms that have units of velocity, and > (a/2)t^2 is a term that has units of distance?! > > >> I thought my example of the motion of the Plymouth Prowler made it clear > >> to > >> you that this formulation gives results that don't match the way cars > >> really > >> move. > > > These motions are just the basic premises, or postulates. > > I don't understand the relevance of this statement. Are you saying that, > since they are just basic premises or postulates, they don't need to match > what's observed? > > > All actual > > motion is affected by various forces such as the power source and all > > kinds of friction. > > That's why a formulation such as yours is not relevant to these cases. > > > Not to mention that the Prowler is a unique automobile. > > But, you did mention it, didn't you? > > And, in regards to the context in which I brought it up, it is in fact not > at all unique. Most, if not all, automobiles speed up with an acceleration > that is larger in the beginning of the time interval in which they speed up, > and smaller towards the end. > > Therefore, anyone who attempted to use your formulation to describe their > motion would get results that are, to a very large extent, wrong. Wrong, > that is, in the sense that the distance travelled by them would be, to a > very large extent, larger than the distance calculated using your formula. > Did you see the example problems that I gave for a car starting from rest. and the same car starting from 15 mi/hr; where both traveled for 20 seconds? > Apart from fixing the mistakes I mentioned above with the units, you might > consider adding a third order term. It would get you closer to agreement > with what's observed, assuming that's your goal. > >
From: Herman Trivilino on 19 Sep 2005 00:13 "Don1" <dcshead(a)charter.net> wrote ... >> >> "Newton's [second] law completely describes all the phenomena >> >> of classical mechanics...." >> > I don't think so. >> How so? > A simple question, but a book would be required to answer it. No. All you'd need to do would be to point out a since counterexample. Give us a single example of a phenomenon of classical mechanics that can't be completely described by Newton's Second Law. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: Herman Trivilino on 19 Sep 2005 00:17 "Don1" <dcshead(a)charter.net> wrote ... >> That's why a formulation such as yours is not relevant to these cases. >> >> > Not to mention that the Prowler is a unique automobile. >> >> But, you did mention it, didn't you? >> >> And, in regards to the context in which I brought it up, it is in fact >> not >> at all unique. Most, if not all, automobiles speed up with an >> acceleration >> that is larger in the beginning of the time interval in which they speed >> up, >> and smaller towards the end. >> >> Therefore, anyone who attempted to use your formulation to describe their >> motion would get results that are, to a very large extent, wrong. Wrong, >> that is, in the sense that the distance travelled by them would be, to a >> very large extent, larger than the distance calculated using your >> formula. >> > Did you see the example problems that I gave for a car starting from > rest. and the same car starting from 15 mi/hr; where both traveled for > 20 seconds? I not only saw them, I quoted the first one back to you when I explained, at length using the example of the Plymouth Prowler, its flaw. And, as I said, you could improve on your formula, apart from fixing it so that each term has the same units, by adding a third order term. Would like me to do that for you? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
From: jowr.pi on 19 Sep 2005 00:35
Don1 wrote: > Eric Gisse wrote: > > Don1 wrote: > > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > Don1 wrote: > > > > > Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>Newton is much more precise > > > > > > > > > > Snip< > > > > > > > > > >> "Newton's [second] law completely describes all the phenomena > > > > >> of classical mechanics...." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > > > > > Don > > > > > > > > > > > > > How so? > > > > > > A simple question, but a book would be required to answer it. > > > > Since when do you read books? > > > I've read a lot of them; probably more than you ever will. Reading is not the same as understanding, if you are any indication. [snip] > > > You probably did this in all honesty, but I have questions: It would > take a book to ask them all, so I think I'll just stick with my "first > derivitives"; that f=(f/a)a, and w=(w/g)g. Thanks anyways. See? You have no idea. None at all. You are incapable of learning, my exercise was one of futility - you learned nothing. The sad part is you don't even realise it. > > Don |