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 19 Mar 2010 16:47 On Mar 18, 11:27 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 18, 6:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 18, 5:30 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 17, 7:33 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 16, 6:35 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. > > > > > The better way to say the third law is thus: > > > > Interactions between bodies are always pairwise, so that what A exerts > > > > on B, B exerts on A, in equal amount but in the opposite direction. > > > > > "Exert" here is taken to mean either a force or a momentum transfer.. > > > > It does NOT mean the response to that exertion, which is seen as > > > > motion of the body. > > > > > As an example of this last distinction, consider the collision of a > > > > mosquito with the windshield of a speeding truck. The force the > > > > mosquito exerts on the truck is just as big as the force the truck > > > > exerts on the mosquito. The momentum transferred from the mosquito to > > > > the truck is just as big as the momentum transferred from the truck to > > > > the mosquito. But the change in motion of the mosquito (the response > > > > to the truck's interaction with it) is much larger than the change of > > > > motion of the truck. > > > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > When a rubber ball hit to a wall it came back to us but not an iron > > > ball? How it is justified in newtons 3rd law? > > > The transfer of momentum to the rubber ball is twice what it is to the > > iron ball. But the momentum transferred to the rubber ball is equal > > and opposite the momentum transferred to the wall in that collision. > > And the momentum transferred to the iron ball is equal and opposite > > the momentum transferred to the wall in that collision.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > If iron ball is thrown towards wall with equal momentum to rubber > ball, will iron ball return similar to rubber ball? No. This has to do with how elastic the interaction is, and that depends on the nature of the objects colliding and the nature of the interaction between them.
From: Kumar on 19 Mar 2010 23:46 On Mar 19, 5:06 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 1:03 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 1:09 pm, "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 > > > > 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. > 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? > > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------- > > ATB > Y.Porat > -------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Kumar on 19 Mar 2010 23:56 On Mar 19, 5:07 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Crimes are action making crimnal act is reaction. > 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. At natural & spritual level, so indicated angels & devils can be equal & opposite entities bring balance or nature's balance. It is said nature balances itself & that can be possible by usin equal & opposing forces. Yes, positive & negative feedbacks exists to bring balance or homeostasis. I think childeren use this mechanism to survive.
From: Kumar on 20 Mar 2010 00:00 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? Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Saimhain Moose on 20 Mar 2010 00:11
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. |