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 22 Mar 2010 17:49 On Mar 22, 4:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:52d3e9bf-3c99-421a-9ff1-064bb17652d4(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 22, 11:58 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 5:34 pm, PD > > and not just one of them !! > > >> > > TIA > >> > > Y.Porat > >> > > ------------- > > >> since i started my discussion here with > >> PD > >> and not with the psychopath Inertial > > >> i would like to ask ****PD** > >> just two simple questions: > >> as follows and expect > >> Very very short answers !! > >> --- > > >> 1 > > >> > > is > >> > > the Planck time is say 5.38 exp-44 SECOND > >> > > (AGAIN SECONDS) !!!!!!!!! ---- > > >> (that is how it is defined !!) > > >> -- IS IT TIME DEPENDENT OR NOT ??? > > >> 2> > who was **the first** one to suggest the *Planck time*-- > > >> --- as the time duration of the smallest *** SINGLE*** photon > >> ***energy > >> ** EMISSION*** ??? > > In which of the many threads you started or hijacked ? > > > > >> TIA > >> Y.Porat > >> ------------------------ > > > and i am still waiting > > Perhaps he has just given up on you as a lost cause and can't be bothered > reading your posts. You got it.
From: Kumar on 22 Mar 2010 23:10 On Mar 22, 9:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 10:04 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 11:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Btw, Do any energy need any external aid for traveling or it is just > > its property? > > No, it does not need any external aid for traveling. > > Heck, a baseball does not need any external aid for traveling. > > You'll notice most satellites have been in orbit for years, and they > don't consume any fuel to keep moving. This means that photons don't need external aid for traveling into universe spped of light. So calculation will be; Applied energy/ momentum to atom which caused excitation of its electrons is equal & opposite to energy released ( not energy required for travelling of electrons/photons)? > > > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Y.Porat on 23 Mar 2010 01:23 On Mar 22, 5:16 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 12:30 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Electron orbiting is one basis of most understandings. Do you mean no > one knows or sure about this basic understanding? -------------------- quite the contrary!!! it was at the beginning of 20 th century to day most scientist understand that it is not orbiting btw mind you th e formula of an orbiting object is quite the same as a vibrating object !!! ATB Y.Porat --------------------
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 09:41 On Mar 22, 10:10 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 9:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 21, 10:04 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 11:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Btw, Do any energy need any external aid for traveling or it is just > > > its property? > > > No, it does not need any external aid for traveling. > > > Heck, a baseball does not need any external aid for traveling. > > > You'll notice most satellites have been in orbit for years, and they > > don't consume any fuel to keep moving. > > This means that photons don't need external aid for traveling into > universe spped of light. Nothing needs external aid for traveling at a constant speed. Nothing. Look up Newton's First Law, which was actually discovered by Galileo, in the 1600's. Perhaps you need to catch up a little. > So calculation will be; Applied energy/ > momentum to atom which caused excitation of its electrons is equal & > opposite to energy released ( not energy required for travelling of > electrons/photons)? > > > > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Kumar on 23 Mar 2010 23:17
On Mar 23, 10:23 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 5:16 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 22, 12:30 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > ---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Electron orbiting is one basis of most understandings. Do you mean no > > one knows or sure about this basic understanding? > > -------------------- > quite the contrary!!! > it was at the beginning of 20 th century > to day > most scientist understand that it is not orbiting > btw > mind you > th e formula of an orbiting object > is quite the same as > a vibrating object !!! > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Common languge is used. Anyway, what will be the basis of equal & opposte at basic level? |