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: jbriggs444 on 19 Mar 2010 08:07 On Mar 19, 12:35 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Repeating; > > Whether somewhat equal & opposite reaction (decreased by resistances > or increased by any aid, > in any) is not seen in many other activities? Are you talking about, for instance, Megan's law where a criminal act produced, in reaction, an anti-criminal law? If so then Newton's third law is irrelevant. Let me suggest a different way of understanding the big picture... We live in a diverse world populated by various societies and factions. It is a complex system. One which has not (yet) flown apart and eliminated all life as we know it. It follows that within this system there are negative feedback mechanisms. [By inspection, there are a WHOLE LOT of negative feedback mechanisms]. Pick a negative feedback mechanism, fudge it quantitatively by clauses such as "(decreased by resistance and increased by any aid)" and *voila*, you have an action and an opposite reaction. No deep secrets of the universe to be found here. Just banal trivialities.
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Mar 2010 15:19 On 3/19/10 3:23 AM, JT wrote: > Gravitation is photons preparing for jump ;D Try not to be so stooopid, JT. > Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html > Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison > Wesley (2003) > "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when > gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law > F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2 > o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and, > since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy. > o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel > positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational > interaction. Gravity is always attractive. > o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2 > interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational > interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions. > o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between > individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of > the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two > protons separated by a distance r is > F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2 > -------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36 > F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0) > where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge. > These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical > phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force, > gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance > scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond > the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic > interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net > electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic > forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net > charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the > universe on the largest scales. > Background: > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsLaws.html > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html > The theory of general relativity describes the phenomenon of gravity very differently: > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html
From: JT on 19 Mar 2010 15:23 On 19 mar, 20:19, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/19/10 3:23 AM, JT wrote: > > > Gravitation is photons preparing for jump ;D > > Try not to be so stooopid, JT. > > > > > Ref:http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html > > Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison > > Wesley (2003) > > "A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when > > gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law > > F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2 > > o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and, > > since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy. > > o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel > > positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational > > interaction. Gravity is always attractive. > > o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2 > > interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational > > interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions. > > o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between > > individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of > > the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two > > protons separated by a distance r is > > F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2 > > -------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36 > > F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0) > > where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge. > > These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical > > phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force, > > gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance > > scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond > > the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic > > interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net > > electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic > > forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net > > charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the > > universe on the largest scales. > > Background: > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsLaws.html > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Newton.html > > The theory of general relativity describes the phenomenon of gravity very differently: > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - I can only try ;D
From: PD on 19 Mar 2010 16:44 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).
From: PD on 19 Mar 2010 16:46
On Mar 19, 3:09 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 3:36 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. > > ------------------ > mass is motion- is a cause.-- > while it collides with something No, it is not. If there is no interaction between the two somethings, then there is no momentum transfer. The interaction is the cause of the change in motion. This is basic, freshman physics, Porat. You need to review. > > momentum as well is mass in motion > Y.P > --------------------- |