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 26 Mar 2010 08:55 On Mar 25, 10:12 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 24, 10:20 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 7:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:18 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > > Pls tell me about basis of equal & opposte at basic level. > > > > > That's too broad a question. Perhaps you need to start with Newton's > > > > first law. Please look that up and then ask questions about that, if > > > > you do not understand it.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Do you mean that things in action come to their natural/origional > > > position? > > > No, quite the opposite. The statement you made is the one that > > Aristotle made. > > Galileo made the claim (and it is borne out) that the OPPOSITE > > happens. That things in motion do NOT come to rest in their natural/ > > original position, but continue to move *forever*, unless acted on by > > an external force. > > Aristotle was proven wrong. The statement that objects in motion tend > > to arrive at their natural/original position on their own is WRONG. > > I think it is missing applicable natural forces. I think that > persistance of bodies either at rest or in motion as per ist law can > be valid if no forces are applicable & do not account applicable > natural forces. Look a how an electron decay back. It do not remain in > motion because atomic natural forces remains applicable on it? > > > > > > Newton's laws of motions: > > > First law: "Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of > > > moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled > > > to change its state by force impressed" > > > You see? This is Galileo's law above. > > I don't know whether it account applicable natural forces or not? Yes it does. An object does not need an applied force on it to keep moving. This has been known for 400 years. > > > > > > > > Second law:A body will accelerate with acceleration proportional to > > > the force and inversely proportional to the mass. > > > Third Law: Every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite > > > in direction." > > > > "The term intrinsic denotes a property of some thing or action which > > > is essential and specific to that thing or action, and which is wholly > > > independent of any other object, action or consequence. A > > > characteristic which is not essential or inherent is extrinsic." > > > > Whether first law suggest intrinsic and 2nd & 3rd law extrinsic > > > nehaviour?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > But natural forces
From: Kumar on 27 Mar 2010 01:52 On Mar 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1c8bb6cd-7803-4756-b179-dc542b0e2d28(a)a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 12:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> > wrote: > > > > > > > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:26dbb8cc-24f7-4023-8221-cbcb84f80b59(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com.... > > On Mar 25, 9:26 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 7:46 am, 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Kumar, decay processes can emit many things besides photons. > > > > You need to learn basic physics before trying to discus physics in > > > this newsgroup. Go to school!- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Pls tell me more about it or provide link. However we are discussing > > here about if decaying back can be considered as a reason to equal & > > opposite reaction. [Spritually, equal & opposte reaction can have some > > relavance to Causality-cause and effect or Karma theory] > > "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a > > second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence of > > the first.["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality > > > ============================================== > > Kumar, there is no problem with discussing physics here, that's a > > learning process too. Bonehead Green is a worthless bigot without any > > integrity and nobody's uncle. He doesn't have any integrity because he > > refuses to admit it when he's been proven wrong. He's no scientist, > > he's a dumb ex-schoolteacher. > > > You are correct that decay processes emit photons (packets of energy), > > although not "only" photons. > > Decaying "back" would require the photon returning and that doesn't > > happen too often in nuclear decay. However, in principle this is not as > > impossible as it may at first seem, many chemical reactions can be thought > > of as decay processes, with hydrogen and oxygen "emitting" water as well > > as heat. Some reactions are endothermic. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermic > > There are 118 (to date) elements and it is commonly thought that most > > of these were produced from hydrogen in the core of a star which later > > exploded. Whatever the process, they do exist and if they contain energy > > as uranium does then that energy must have gone into the process.- Hide > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Thanks. However I am taliking about decaying back of electrons after > excitation due to some applied energy to atoms. Whether this also emit > other things than photons? > =============================================== > Not really, although the atom as a whole can be knocked around a bit. > The easiest way to understand quantum theory is to think of it in terms > of money. Let coins represent quantities of energy, and you have no > coins that have fractional values. If I give you 10 you can spend 10 or > spend 5, 3, 2 or spend 1 ten times, but you can never spend 4 or 6 or 7 > or 8 or 9. If you want to spend 4 then you must spend 1 four times, 2 twice > or 3 and 1. Giving a photon to an atom (excitation) is like giving it a > coin. > Once it has the coin (energy) the only thing it can do is spend it or keep > it > for a rainy day, but it can spend part of the energy as long as it is an > allowed quantity. We know this from the spectrum, which is different > for each element. > http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys401/bedaque06/discrete_spectra....- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks. Good example. It also cover corresponding elergy levels. However pls tell how atoms keep energy or remain in excitation for prolonged time? Is there a tendancy to decay back after excitation & come to their natural/lowest level? Regards.
From: Kumar on 27 Mar 2010 01:55 On Mar 26, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 25, 10:12 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 10:20 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 10:18 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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)? > > > > > > > Pls tell me about basis of equal & opposte at basic level. > > > > > > That's too broad a question. Perhaps you need to start with Newton's > > > > > first law. Please look that up and then ask questions about that, if > > > > > you do not understand it.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Do you mean that things in action come to their natural/origional > > > > position? > > > > No, quite the opposite. The statement you made is the one that > > > Aristotle made. > > > Galileo made the claim (and it is borne out) that the OPPOSITE > > > happens. That things in motion do NOT come to rest in their natural/ > > > original position, but continue to move *forever*, unless acted on by > > > an external force. > > > Aristotle was proven wrong. The statement that objects in motion tend > > > to arrive at their natural/original position on their own is WRONG. > > > I think it is missing applicable natural forces. I think that > > persistance of bodies either at rest or in motion as per ist law can > > be valid if no forces are applicable & do not account applicable > > natural forces. Look a how an electron decay back. It do not remain in > > motion because atomic natural forces remains applicable on it? > > > > > Newton's laws of motions: > > > > First law: "Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of > > > > moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled > > > > to change its state by force impressed" > > > > You see? This is Galileo's law above. > > > I don't know whether it account applicable natural forces or not? > > Yes it does. An object does not need an applied force on it to keep > moving. This has been known for 400 years. > > > > > > > > > Second law:A body will accelerate with acceleration proportional to > > > > the force and inversely proportional to the mass. > > > > Third Law: Every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite > > > > in direction." > > > > > "The term intrinsic denotes a property of some thing or action which > > > > is essential and specific to that thing or action, and which is wholly > > > > independent of any other object, action or consequence. A > > > > characteristic which is not essential or inherent is extrinsic." > > > > > Whether first law suggest intrinsic and 2nd & 3rd law extrinsic > > > > nehaviour?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > But natural forces- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Will such motions(without applied forces) not be considered as natural motions? Eg. an electrons of an atom at lowest energy levels. Still motions are there in an atom.
From: Androcles on 27 Mar 2010 03:07 "Kumar" <lordshiva5753(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1a5325df-e2b4-411c-bfc9-cc0d06bdb883(a)k5g2000prg.googlegroups.com... On Mar 26, 2:14 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> wrote: > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1c8bb6cd-7803-4756-b179-dc542b0e2d28(a)a10g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 12:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_w> > wrote: > > > > > > > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:26dbb8cc-24f7-4023-8221-cbcb84f80b59(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > > On Mar 25, 9:26 pm, Uncle Ben <b...(a)greenba.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 21, 7:46 am, 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Kumar, decay processes can emit many things besides photons. > > > > You need to learn basic physics before trying to discus physics in > > > this newsgroup. Go to school!- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Pls tell me more about it or provide link. However we are discussing > > here about if decaying back can be considered as a reason to equal & > > opposite reaction. [Spritually, equal & opposte reaction can have some > > relavance to Causality-cause and effect or Karma theory] > > "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a > > second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence of > > the first.["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality > > > ============================================== > > Kumar, there is no problem with discussing physics here, that's a > > learning process too. Bonehead Green is a worthless bigot without any > > integrity and nobody's uncle. He doesn't have any integrity because he > > refuses to admit it when he's been proven wrong. He's no scientist, > > he's a dumb ex-schoolteacher. > > > You are correct that decay processes emit photons (packets of energy), > > although not "only" photons. > > Decaying "back" would require the photon returning and that doesn't > > happen too often in nuclear decay. However, in principle this is not as > > impossible as it may at first seem, many chemical reactions can be > > thought > > of as decay processes, with hydrogen and oxygen "emitting" water as well > > as heat. Some reactions are endothermic. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothermic > > There are 118 (to date) elements and it is commonly thought that most > > of these were produced from hydrogen in the core of a star which later > > exploded. Whatever the process, they do exist and if they contain energy > > as uranium does then that energy must have gone into the process.- Hide > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Thanks. However I am taliking about decaying back of electrons after > excitation due to some applied energy to atoms. Whether this also emit > other things than photons? > =============================================== > Not really, although the atom as a whole can be knocked around a bit. > The easiest way to understand quantum theory is to think of it in terms > of money. Let coins represent quantities of energy, and you have no > coins that have fractional values. If I give you 10 you can spend 10 or > spend 5, 3, 2 or spend 1 ten times, but you can never spend 4 or 6 or 7 > or 8 or 9. If you want to spend 4 then you must spend 1 four times, 2 > twice > or 3 and 1. Giving a photon to an atom (excitation) is like giving it a > coin. > Once it has the coin (energy) the only thing it can do is spend it or keep > it > for a rainy day, but it can spend part of the energy as long as it is an > allowed quantity. We know this from the spectrum, which is different > for each element. > http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys401/bedaque06/discrete_spectra...- > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks. Good example. It also cover corresponding elergy levels. However pls tell how atoms keep energy or remain in excitation for prolonged time? Is there a tendancy to decay back after excitation & come to their natural/lowest level? Regards. =============================================== Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of natural phenomena. Questions in the form of "how...?" or "why...?" based on your assumptions may have no answer, especially if your assumption is incorrect. How does the Moon stay in orbit around the Earth? Is there a tendency for it to fly off into space? Well, yes there is, and it stays in orbit because gravity keeps it there. So why doesn't it fall to Earth? Because it has a tendency to fly off into space! But we cannot say what gravity *is*, we can only say what it does. This is enough to enable us to launch artificial satellites into orbit, but not enough to say how gravity works. We have to accept that it does. So... what is a "prolonged time"? Why should there be a "natural/lowest" level? Perhaps the natural level is the highest level! Why should 2 be more than 1? How does a chicken lay eggs? Why do you get tears in your eyes when you are sad? Why do you laugh? (Think about it, it's a very silly thing to do, coughing up puffs of air to express pleasure.) Atoms keep energy for a prolonged time because they did NOT change. Tendencies are not certainties, they are instead a statistical measure of a change, there is no guarantee that tossing a coin will come up heads, but one expects it to happen for half of the number of trials IF it is tossed.
From: Y.Porat on 27 Mar 2010 05:34
On Mar 25, 5:23 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 8:02 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 5:18 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 6:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Pls tell me about basis of equal & opposte at basic level. > > > --------------------- > > i willtell you how i see it: > > according to my understanding of all > > forces > > forces are done by COLLISION OF PARTICLES > > even the attraction forces (see the Circlon idea) > > now > > if we have the conservation law of momentum > > the momentum that both th e coliding particle on each other is the > > same > > and the time dirtion that was on each one of them > > is the same (it cannot be otherwise ) > > so > > if dp dt = dm dv (momentum) > > then dp > > for both of them is the same > > > (btw > > i ddint bother to read all other messages > > if it was already said > > i apologize ) > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > --------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Sorry & thanks. Above is very deep. In simple language as I posted in > last post; > > Is it due to that things in action due to applied force tend to come > back to their natural/origional position? > > Newton's laws of motions: > First law: "Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of > moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled > to change its state by force impressed" > Second law:A body will accelerate with acceleration proportional to > the force and inversely proportional to the mass. > Third Law: Every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite > in direction." > > "The term intrinsic denotes a property of some thing or action which > is essential and specific to that thing or action, and which is wholly > independent of any other object, action or consequence. A > characteristic which is not essential or inherent is extrinsic." > > Whether first law suggest intrinsic and 2nd & 3rd law extrinsic > nehaviour? --------------------- the third law suggest extrinsic because ... an external actor cam in !!.. so in the third law case we have 2 actors one intrinsic and one extrinsic!! (simple isnt that simple ??!) ATB Y.Porat --------------------------- |