Reaction-Action-Activities relationship?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
Next: Band GAP energy
From: Y.Porat on 21 Mar 2010 06:08 On Mar 21, 3:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 11:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 20, 5:46 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 19, 5:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Are activities not dependant on applied forces? > > > > > > > > > > Exactly what do you mean by "activities"? > > > > > > > > > Something done as an action or a movement. > > > > > > > > They're not the same. A movement (specifically a change in movement) > > > > > > > is the *response* to a force. The force is the cause, the acceleration > > > > > > > is the effect. Motion is not a cause. > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > mass is motion- is a cause.-- > > > > > > while it collides with something > > > > > > > momentum as well is mass in motion > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > Can it be there that application of energy to atoms causing > > > > > excitation as action then they are decaying back releasing photons as > > > > > reaction? > > > > > ------------- > > > > yes i t could be > > > > but the problem is to make some > > > > reasonable 'mechanism' > > > > that will show it all along the way > > > > > but in generally and abstractly i think you are right !! > > > > Does it justify equal & opposite reaction to any action at basic or > > > atleast atomic level level? Rest we can look thereafter. > > > ----------------------- > > yes > > i think that at he bottom line > > it is always > > action = reaction > > that is one of the basics of the physical world !! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------- > > > > > btw have you ever heard about > > > > the Bootstrap theory ?? > > > > > it is in generally compared to the zoological world !! > > > > in which each creature is eating the other one > > > > and uses its flesh material to build its > > > > ]own body !! > > > > sorry the nasty comparison > > > > I have not heard about it but it looks to be natural theory rather > > > than social theory. > > > > > but it i s not **my* invention > > > > but in generally it is very compatible to my > > > > world of mater and particle and EVEN ENERGY > > > > world understanding > > > > and that is why i always say > > > > > ''No mass no real physics'' > > > > even for energy and photons !!! > > > > > what you suggested above > > > > fits in a general way --that theory !!! > > > > Thanks we can try to look it as a basic thought than we can try > > > linking it at gross level. How this theory can be linked at > > > complex( molecular, substances, things & beings) levels?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What about the involvement of gravitation force in equal & opposite > consideration? ------------------ i told you i am a structural engineer and i could not do a single step in my profession without that weight == reaction from the foundation!! and not only in the foundation part any single part of that what ever complicated structure with a certain weight must be balanced by exact opposite* reactions**(with an upwards component * !! from the other parts that are holding it in rest ATB Y.Porat -------------------------------
From: Inertial on 21 Mar 2010 05:59 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4b2cfc64-958c-4309-ba6b-b4a4d8247eb9(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 20, 7:00 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 20, 5:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 20, 10:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Mar 20, 4:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Mar 20, 1:08 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Mar 19, 10:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Mar 18, 11:29 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > On Mar 18, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:28 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 9:49 am, Saimhain Moose >> > > > > > > > > <samhainmo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 12:21 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Are activities not dependant on applied forces? >> >> > > > > > > > > > Exactly what do you mean by "activities"? >> >> > > > > > > > > Something done as an action or a movement. >> >> > > > > > > > They're not the same. A movement (specifically a change in >> > > > > > > > movement) >> > > > > > > > is the *response* to a force. The force is the cause, the >> > > > > > > > acceleration >> > > > > > > > is the effect. Motion is not a cause. >> >> > > > > > > What is the differance between acceleration & motion? >> >> > > > > > Motion includes any change in position, which can be done at >> > > > > > constant >> > > > > > velocity (for which the acceleration is zero) or with changing >> > > > > > velocity (for which the acceleration is nonzero). >> >> > > > > ------------------- >> > > > > and that is exactly why by definition >> > > > > photon energy emission is not >> > > > > INSTANTANEOUS (:-) >> >> > > > Nope. Photons are not accelerated. They are traveling at c when >> > > > they >> > > > are created. >> >> > > ------------------ >> > > you must be joking!! >> >> > > we dont deal with the traveling of photons >> > > we deal with >> > > THE TIME THEY ARE CREATED !! >> > > OR ABSORBED !! >> >> > Yes, exactly. When they are created, they are not accelerated. The >> > instant they are created, they are going at c. >> > No, I'm not joking. Not everything behaves like little red wagons. >> >> > > didi you see and understood the >> > > experiment i introduced >> >> > > th e enimssion of ELECTRONS of the photoelectric cell was >> > > linearly proportional to time duration of the >> > > lead torch >> > > AND IT WAS LESS THAN A SECOND !!! >> >> > > the distance between the torch and the >> > > photoelectric cell was 40 Cm !!! >> >> > > so what is your talking about >> > > the time travel of the photons ?? >> > > (i try my best not to be rude ..) >> >> > > it was not from the sun >> > > it was from the torch >> > > and even so >> > > the energy emission took time - >> > > not all the *electrons* were emitted instantaneously !!! >> > > they came out of the cells -- one after the other in some interval >> > > of >> > > time >> > > and during less than a second !!! >> > > so >> > > time absorption of photon energy is >> > > TIMW DEOENDENT OR NOT >> >> > > do you have a shorter time than the Planck time >> > > ****that can be proven experimentally ??*** >> >> > > iow >> > > is there any experiment that can be **done** >> > > **or followed *** a physical event that is shorter than >> > > Plank time ?? >> > > ie >> > > 5.38 exp-44 second !!! ??? >> >> > > was it not you that was preaching that >> > > if something cannot be proven by experiment >> > > it is .......?.... >> > > even theoretically nothing can be** done** >> > > literally instantaneous >> > > because to do is to change something >> > > to change is to move something >> > > and to move is by definition a time user !! >> >> > > please answer all my above climes >> > > and not just one of them !! >> >> > > TIA >> > > Y.Porat >> > > ------------- >> >> ------------- >> you certainly are joking: >> >> 1 >> because you ddint answer all my questions >> as i asked you ... >> 2 >> you was hand waiving >> based on no experimental data >> >> while i based my climes on the experimental >> facts by Plank and othrs >> ie >> they were to difficult to digest for you >> 3 >> your 'instantaneous' emitting of energy is >> against the H U P >> it gives you >> infinite error for energy emission !!! >> >> ATB >> Y.Porat >> --------------------- > > actually to be honest !! > > the HUP test occurred to me just yesterday > > and it is clear to me that it tells us that > instantaneous emission of photon energy > is clearly against the HUP Nope > but still > i dont know how i manage or what does it mean to my Planck time > emission of photon energy > ie > during 5.38 exp-44 second !!!... Which is instantaneous .. that means in a single instant. One instant it doesn't exist, the next it does. That's what we've been telling you > (my more abstarct time definition of it was > bigger than zero but MUCH smaller than 1.0000) > > so lets examine it together in this ng!! > or may be better in my original thread about it > > 'A better new definition of the real single photon > energy emission ') You don't have a better definition, and we don't need one
From: Y.Porat on 21 Mar 2010 06:26 On Mar 21, 10:57 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 16, 9:34 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 7:35 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > Newton's third law is frequently stated > > > > "Action and reaction are equal and opposite > > > To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" > > > > Law is defined as; > > > > The term law is often used to refer to universal principles that > > > describe the fundamental nature of something, to universal properties > > > and relationships between things, or to descriptions that purport to > > > explain these principles and relationships.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(principle) > > > > I have some questions:- > > > > 1. Is it also true that "to every reaction there is equal and opposite > > > action"? > > > > 2. Can we consider action or reaction as activities or motions and as > > > law hold universal application, whether above action reaction > > > relationship will apply to all our activities? > > > > Best wishes. > > > It applies to forces. Almost nothing else.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Will you tell how equal & opposte effect relates to fundamental > forces. I have discussed about EM. What about other three? > > "The interaction of radiation with matter involves the absorption, > scattering, and emission of photons". Does it not suggest that > excitation of electrons related to just absorption & emission to their > decaying back? --------------------- for me the answer is very simple!! 1 it seesm to me that most people here still didnt got it that nothing is done instantaneously iot means that even that time is very short it has its beginning its all the middle points and its end!! each of the above is different !!! just immagine that you strech that tiny time to a whole hour !! (:-) so an ypoint on that one hour is a different story: the start point can be either start of the process or the end of it !!! so that **start point ** can be either the start of excitation or the end of excitation!! -- that leads to decay metaphorically you can START climbing a mountain (excitation) and you can as well **start **descending a mountain !!!...(decay process ) or vice versa ?? !! ATB Y.Porat ------------------------------
From: Kumar on 21 Mar 2010 07:46 On Mar 21, 3:26 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 10:57 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 9:34 pm, Igor <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 16, 7:35 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > Newton's third law is frequently stated > > > > > "Action and reaction are equal and opposite > > > > To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" > > > > > Law is defined as; > > > > > The term law is often used to refer to universal principles that > > > > describe the fundamental nature of something, to universal properties > > > > and relationships between things, or to descriptions that purport to > > > > explain these principles and relationships.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(principle) > > > > > I have some questions:- > > > > > 1. Is it also true that "to every reaction there is equal and opposite > > > > action"? > > > > > 2. Can we consider action or reaction as activities or motions and as > > > > law hold universal application, whether above action reaction > > > > relationship will apply to all our activities? > > > > > Best wishes. > > > > It applies to forces. Almost nothing else.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Will you tell how equal & opposte effect relates to fundamental > > forces. I have discussed about EM. What about other three? > > > "The interaction of radiation with matter involves the absorption, > > scattering, and emission of photons". Does it not suggest that > > excitation of electrons related to just absorption & emission to their > > decaying back? > > --------------------- > for me the answer is very simple!! > 1 > it seesm to me that most people here still didnt got it that nothing > is done instantaneously > iot means that > even that time is very short > it has > its beginning > its all the middle points > and its end!! > each of the above is different !!! > just immagine that you strech that tiny time > to a whole hour !! (:-) > so > an ypoint on that one hour is a different story: > the start point can be > either start of the process > or the end of it !!! > so that **start point ** can be > either the start of excitation > or the end of excitation!! -- > that leads to decay > > metaphorically > > you can START climbing a mountain (excitation) > and you can as well > > **start **descending a mountain !!!...(decay process ) > or vice versa ?? !! > ATB > Y.Porat > ------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes but decay process only emit photons. Not so?
From: Kumar on 21 Mar 2010 07:51
On Mar 21, 3:08 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 3:37 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 11:17 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 5:46 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 5:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Are activities not dependant on applied forces? > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly what do you mean by "activities"? > > > > > > > > > > Something done as an action or a movement. > > > > > > > > > They're not the same. A movement (specifically a change in movement) > > > > > > > > is the *response* to a force. The force is the cause, the acceleration > > > > > > > > is the effect. Motion is not a cause. > > > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > mass is motion- is a cause.-- > > > > > > > while it collides with something > > > > > > > > momentum as well is mass in motion > > > > > > > Y.P > > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > Can it be there that application of energy to atoms causing > > > > > > excitation as action then they are decaying back releasing photons as > > > > > > reaction? > > > > > > ------------- > > > > > yes i t could be > > > > > but the problem is to make some > > > > > reasonable 'mechanism' > > > > > that will show it all along the way > > > > > > but in generally and abstractly i think you are right !! > > > > > Does it justify equal & opposite reaction to any action at basic or > > > > atleast atomic level level? Rest we can look thereafter. > > > > ----------------------- > > > yes > > > i think that at he bottom line > > > it is always > > > action = reaction > > > that is one of the basics of the physical world !! > > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > btw have you ever heard about > > > > > the Bootstrap theory ?? > > > > > > it is in generally compared to the zoological world !! > > > > > in which each creature is eating the other one > > > > > and uses its flesh material to build its > > > > > ]own body !! > > > > > sorry the nasty comparison > > > > > I have not heard about it but it looks to be natural theory rather > > > > than social theory. > > > > > > but it i s not **my* invention > > > > > but in generally it is very compatible to my > > > > > world of mater and particle and EVEN ENERGY > > > > > world understanding > > > > > and that is why i always say > > > > > > ''No mass no real physics'' > > > > > even for energy and photons !!! > > > > > > what you suggested above > > > > > fits in a general way --that theory !!! > > > > > Thanks we can try to look it as a basic thought than we can try > > > > linking it at gross level. How this theory can be linked at > > > > complex( molecular, substances, things & beings) levels?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What about the involvement of gravitation force in equal & opposite > > consideration? > > ------------------ > i told you > i am a structural engineer > and i could not do a single step in my profession without that > weight == reaction from the foundation!! > > and not only in the foundation part > any single part of that what ever complicated structure > with a certain weight > must be balanced by exact > opposite* reactions**(with an upwards component * !! > from the other parts that are holding it in rest > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If we climb up high on a hill, we can either fall or descend down to plains. Is it not equal & opposite due to gravitational force? |