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: Kumar on 20 Mar 2010 00:22 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? 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.
From: Y.Porat on 20 Mar 2010 02:08 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 (:-) now you contradicted yourself unless you got my new finding that photon emission is done in Planck s time ! 5.38 exp-44 second i cant see anything **done**! in less than the above Planck unit time certainly not your zero time (can we agree once in a life time about anything? or by principle ('because it is Porat' ) - not ...) ATB Y.Porat ------------------- Y.P -------------
From: Y.Porat on 20 Mar 2010 02:12 On Mar 20, 6:00 am, 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? > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - ------------------ IMHO photon emission can be in both cases (if your car collides with another car a lot of 'thunder and lightnings' are created !!(:-) Y.Porat -------------------
From: Y.Porat on 20 Mar 2010 02:17 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? > > >
From: PD on 20 Mar 2010 10:49
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. > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > |