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: PD on 21 Mar 2010 14:41 On Mar 20, 8:45 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 7:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 11:00 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 1:44 am, 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).- > > > > Let us see it with an example. Exiting of an electron by application > > > of energy & its decaying back on emitting photons. Are both of these > > > are motions & acceleration or just exiting is acceleration but its > > > decaying back not? > > > When an electron is emitted, the momentum transferred to the electron > > is equal and opposite to the momentum transferred to the atom. > > Likewise, when a photon is emitted, the same thing happens. > > Do you mean to say that applied energy/momentum to atom which caused > excitation of its electrons is equal & opposite to energy released+ > energy required for travelling of electrons/photons? Yes, though it may happen in more than one step. > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 21 Mar 2010 14:43 On Mar 20, 8:46 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 20, 7:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 11:22 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 20, 9:11 am, Saimhain Moose <samhainmo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 19, 12:29 am, 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? > > > > > How about you learn some basic physics, like the MEANINGS of the > > > > words, before you try to figure out WHY things behave as they do? > > > > You really can't discuss things until you've got the vocabulary > > > > and are using words to have the same meanings as everybody else > > > > does.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > It it wrong if I try to understand in common/logical language? > > > Yes, it can be. Ordinary language is vague and imprecise, which is why > > physics attaches very specific meanings to some words. The lack of > > sloppiness will prevent you from making statements that are wrong. > > > > Can we say, energy/force applications causing deviations from natural > > > position of any substance are actions/acceleration whereas its coming > > > back to natural position are reactions? eg. exciting of electrons on > > > energy applications and their decaying back on leaving photons or > > > contractions & relaxations in our body. Whereas motions are both way > > > till its settle.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > But on the other it can also add few new things by brain-storming. That depends on how much time you're willing to waste. If you've got nothing but time to waste, then burning a lot of it on misconceptions due to poor language won't bother you, especially if you just like "brain-storming" as an idle activity. You'll find that, among the people you engage with, the brighter ones will be less cavalier about their time.
From: Y.Porat on 21 Mar 2010 15:30 On Mar 21, 1:51 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? ---------------- may be actually no one now knows exactly what is going on there we can know it only abstractly !!! just remember that most people think about the electron as a point particle (:- th e nuc as a sphere eelctrons orbiting in 3 4 5 6 shells etc etc etc ie playing chess with themselves Y.P ---------------------- Y.P ---------------------
From: Y.Porat on 21 Mar 2010 15:33 On Mar 21, 1:46 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? ---------------- not only photons it is electron and positrons Betta emission or elctron capture Y.P ----------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 21 Mar 2010 21:40
On Mar 22, 12:52 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:10a93758-a2ab-4e55-9c51-fa23d4c76d97(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 21, 11:59 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(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 > > > ---------------------- > > now you sat that 5.38 exp-44 is instantaneous???!!! > > If time is quantised .. yes . ----------------------------------- Bravo donkey crook !!! (BTW quantized or not did i ever said it i snot quantized ??!!) ------------- please answer the* two* following questions : 1 is the Planck time is say 5.38 exp-44 SECOND (AGAIN SECONDS) !!!!!!!!! ---- -- IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? 2 who was **the first** one to suggest the *Planck time* as the time duration of ***A SINGLE*** photon ***energy EMISSION*** ??? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------------- |