Prev: The Black Knight Satelite
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
From: kado on 24 Jun 2010 18:09
On Jun 23, 3:35 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
snip
>
> I'm going to partially disagree with your statement here Noein. Down at
> momentum, velocity, and energy things seem so fundamental that we should
> not challenge the laws. Still, maybe there is some new way of looking at
> things, and if that new way does exist then it could possibly involve
> some reinterpretation. Long ago we have memorized
> p = m v
> E = m v v / 2
> as fundamental equations of classical physics. Yet which one is
> fundamental? They appear to be informationally redundant, in that their
> components are redundant.

You are correct that p = mv

However the rest is somewhat muddled.

> The derivative relationship is clearly present but in terms of v so that
> dE/dv = p

Your reasoning here is not correct. Momentum is just
mass times velocity, (mv) and any change of E divided
by any change of velocity does not have a thing to do
(i.e., just does not apply to) with momentum. Also
realize that velocity (the 1st derivative of the time
rate change of position) is restricted to uniform
motion, i.e., in a straight line at a constant speed
by definition.

> Another trouble is that this E is limited to kinetic energy, and we know
> that other energy forms exist. Somehow the momentum does too. This is
> the point that Timo was making, though modified slightly by me here.
> Momentum does not necessarily just mean
> m v .
>

Energy does comes in many forms as you state: there are
those that are purely mechanical (i.e., those addressed
by true Newtonian mechanics, not the screwed up Classical
Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science) electrical
and/or magnetic, and/or heat, and/or nuclear, and those
that most responders on this thread do not consider;

Potential Energy.

There currently is AFAIK, no true, valid mathematical
equation for just energy, or potential energy.

So, the equation you stated that:

E = m v v / 2

is all wrong, and I don't know where you picked it up.
Leibniz wrongly maintained that:

energy = mv^2.

This is what Einstein used to formulate:

E = mc^2.

(Actually, Einstein did not come up with this. This
notion precedes SR. Einstein was just given credit for
verifying it, primarily due to his formulation of SR.)

Anyway

> A photon has no mass and so from a naive perspective its momentum must
> be zero by this line above. What we are grappling with is the question
> of what is fundamental because so many concepts have arisen.

True, and many are based on ignorance and/or pure BS.

> If we accept conservation of energy then we are discussing change in
> energy, as in the change in energy is zero. Well, dE/dv is a change in
> energy figure. To me part of what is open is that there are many energy
> types. This may mean that momentum, as a word, takes on new meaning to
> someone like me who thinks that momentum is strictly
>     m v .

Momentum is still = mv. If either mass or velocity are
zero, the notion of momentum just does not apply.
Don't do what many in this newsgroup do. That is,
try to force a concept that does not apply to the study
of interest into that which it does not apply.

Any change of momentum (any change to the straight line
or constant speed dictates of momentum) of a constant
mass is due to an interaction (commonly an outside force)
and is explained in the second part of Newton's First
Law, not the Second Law. Furthermore Newton's 2nd Law is
NOT f = ma as maintained by mainline science.

> There is a bifurcation here that I do not believe is properly discussed
> yet. I would rather attempt a replacement theory that will not have
> these problems. By the lines above mass and velocity are more
> fundamental than energy and momentum, and yet mass remains mysterious.

Correct. In fact, while fundamental to the study of
physics, mainline science still does not yet truly
understand mass.

Furthermore, science still does not truly understand
those that are called time and force.
>
> I am not done with this analysis. I'm happy to leave it open. I can see
> how some would see this approach as foolhardy, yet I have witnessed
> fundamentals overlooked in mathematics. I feel certain that physics is
> capable of the same behavior.
>
I hope what I disclosed will help in your scholarly
endeavor. Just be sure that you correctly separate
the truths from the bullshit.

D.Y. Kadoshima


From: PD on 24 Jun 2010 18:20
On Jun 24, 5:09 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote:

>
> You are correct that p = mv
>
>

This turns out to be incorrect. It only applies to massive objects,
and at that it is only an approximation that works reasonably well at
low speeds. For fast objects of any description, and for nonmassive
objects, other expressions for the momentum are more appropriate.
From: NoEinstein on 25 Jun 2010 01:55
On Jun 24, 11:44 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
CORRECTION! Make that VIOLATES (rather than invalidates)! — NE —
>
> On Jun 23, 6:35 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Tim:  From reading some of your daily ‘back-and-forth’ with Timo,
> I can generalize that you like conversations about ‘science’ that
> isn’t yet firmly and correctly explained.  In your reply to me, you
> continue to discuss p (or F) = mv (true!) and KE = 1/2mv^2 (wrong!) as
> though these things haven’t yet been determined.  Please Note: I
> easily disproved the latter kinetic energy equation upon realizing
> that the KE was accruing exponentially (semi-parabolically), while the
> input energy—the uniform force of gravity, that’s equal to every
> object’s static weight—increases uniformly.  Can’t a smart fellow like
> you see that the energy OUT is exceeding the energy IN?  *** No energy
> equation can EVER be exponential without violating the LCE!  And that
> includes Einstein’s SR, E = mc^2 / beta!
>
> Your problem, Tim, is that you are so used to discussing things that
> haven’t been figured out, that you treat my daily explanations of my
> New (true) Science as if that hasn’t been figured out, either.  A high
> percentage of those making ‘+new posts’ on sci,physics ask some
> question.  Asking questions means the person either doesn’t know, or
> the person wishes to start an open-ended conversation on some subject
> that is ’vague’ and not yet firmed-up as science.  *** None of my +new
> posts ask a question, because I already know the correct science!
> For too many in this group, they love vagueness because they get to
> pontificate, knowing the other side can’t win.  All they have to do is
> to continue to… disagree.  Have you ever succeeded in getting someone
> to change their mind about science, Tim?
>
> Like I told Sue, if she doesn’t understand why the Coriolis KE
> equation AND Einstein’s SR equation invalidates the LCE, to please
> explain.  If I could get you to realize simple truths in science, one-
> by-one, and if you would let that modify your… too vague overall
> notions about science, you could become a leader in science—rather
> than just another “recreational”, armchair physicist who likes to
> converse just for the sake of conversing.  If you understand the Law
> of the Conservation of Energy, say so.  If you don’t understand it,
> then, there isn’t much purpose in my replying to you, again.  —
> NoEinstein —
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >  > On Jun 20, 9:54 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >  >
> >  > Dear Sue:  KE = 1/2mv^2 has the "KE" varying, exponentially, while the
> >  > input energy, the velocity, is varying linearly.  That's a clear
> >  > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, just like SR is.
> >  > You are a "slow learner", Sue.  If you don't understand this reply,
> >  > please explain your problem.  — NoEinstein —
> >  >
>
> > I'm going to partially disagree with your statement here Noein. Down at
> > momentum, velocity, and energy things seem so fundamental that we should
> > not challenge the laws. Still, maybe there is some new way of looking at
> > things, and if that new way does exist then it could possibly involve
> > some reinterpretation. Long ago we have memorized
> >     p = m v
> >     E = m v v / 2
> > as fundamental equations of classical physics. Yet which one is
> > fundamental? They appear to be informationally redundant, in that their
> > components are redundant.
>
> > The derivative relationship is clearly present but in terms of v so that
> >     dE/dv = p
> > Another trouble is that this E is limited to kinetic energy, and we know
> > that other energy forms exist. Somehow the momentum does too. This is
> > the point that Timo was making, though modified slightly by me here.
> > Momentum does not necessarily just mean
> >     m v .
> > A photon has no mass and so from a naive perspective its momentum must
> > be zero by this line above. What we are grappling with is the question
> > of what is fundamental because so many concepts have arisen.
>
> > If we accept conservation of energy then we are discussing change in
> > energy, as in the change in energy is zero. Well, dE/dv is a change in
> > energy figure. To me part of what is open is that there are many energy
> > types. This may mean that momentum, as a word, takes on new meaning to
> > someone like me who thinks that momentum is strictly
> >     m v .
> > There is a bifurcation here that I do not believe is properly discussed
> > yet. I would rather attempt a replacement theory that will not have
> > these problems. By the lines above mass and velocity are more
> > fundamental than energy and momentum, and yet mass remains mysterious.
>
> > I am not done with this analysis. I'm happy to leave it open. I can see
> > how some would see this approach as foolhardy, yet I have witnessed
> > fundamentals overlooked in mathematics. I feel certain that physics is
> > capable of the same behavior.
>
> > - Tim
>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > > On Jun 20, 8:34 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
> >  > > [...]
> >  >
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > > Hey Sue.
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > > Yes, I did browse that page awhile back, and there is a
> > reference to
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  >
> >  >http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EM/pfiefer_rmp_79_119...
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > > Timo et al do claim to resolve the issue, as does another
> > paper I
> >  > > > linked
> >  > > >  > > to somewhere in this thread. I don't know what to believe. If
> >  > > > propulsion
> >  > > >  > > takes place, then the perfect reflector does not exist
> > within that
> >  > > >  > > situation, since work was done on the reflector.
> > Characterizing how
> >  > > > this
> >  > > >  > > transfer works is troubling, and I would just as soon deny that
> >  > > >  > > propulsion takes place. Still, the radiometer experiments turned
> >  > > >  > > radiation pressure experiments(e.g. Nichols in strong
> > vacuum) are
> >  > > >  > > supposedly upheld, though I have not gotten decent access to
> > some of
> >  > > >  > > these. I can see how to an etherist the odor would be strong
> > here.
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > This paper also claims both are
> >  > > > correct.
> >  >
> >  > >http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i7/e070401
> >  >
> >  > > >  > ~a matter of preference~
> >  > > >  >
> >  >
> >  > > > Too bad I can't access it. As you suggest, or at least your
> > crypic way
> >  > > > makes me think, that like the trousers with an extra leg this
> >  > > > informational problem does suggest that a collapsed form could
> > exist, so
> >  > > > that these two theories would not be able to arise.
> >  >
> >  > > Nature always has the ultimate collapsed version.
> >  > > It would be easier to see her cards if we had experiments
> >  > > that could distinguish changes of less than 10^40.
> >  >
> >  > > Consider the U.S. census. A statistical method would far
> >  > > more accurate than present counting methods.  Physics
> >  > > is not that different. Obberknockey tunes but once and
> >  > > Avogadro counts but once.
> >  >
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > > This topic is very interesting, especially for the many
> > interpretations
> >  > > >  > > that can be offered up, starting within the imperfect vacuum and
> >  > > > the gas
> >  > > >  > > effects, but then supposedly eliminating those on into the
> >  > > > fundamentals.
> >  > > >  > > I accept that parallel theories can exist, but these should
> > be cleanly
> >  > > >  > > isolated, almost as a curricular activity, so that within
> > one of these
> >  > > >  > > theories the fundamentals are clearly stated, and then the
> >  > > > parallels can
> >  > > >  > > be identified, rather than mashing them up homogeneously and
> > calling it
> >  > > >  > > one consistent theory.
> >  > > >  > > I believe that I have accurately identified this as a
> > mechanism of
> >  > > >  > > confusion, where radiation pressure is an EM wave concept whose
> >  > > > parallel
> >  > > >  > > within the photon theory is momentum.
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > If the supply of one and one half child's trousers per family
> > keeps
> >  > > >  > all the children clothed, do we know all there is to know about
> >  > > >  > trousers and anatomy?  Probably not.
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > I expect there is more to learn about momentum in dielectrics
> >  > > >  > from from faster better simulations. Tweezers and trousers are
> >  > > >  > both useful so their implementation need not wait while we
> >  > > >  > debate if and where to divide them.
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > > We already accept the electromagnetic basis when discussing
> > light. In
> >  > > >  > > that these are physical forces then we already have multiple
> > force
> >  > > >  > > fields imposed in an isotropic space, since electricity and
> > magnetism
> >  > > >  > > are treated as unique, and thus allowing the
> > characterization. Beyond
> >  > > >  > > here things get murky, and the original expressions presumed
> > that raw
> >  > > >  > > charges exist free of magnetism, which has been disproven by the
> >  > > >  > > observance of electron spin. We might call this Maxwell's
> > Snake; eating
> >  > > >  > > its own tail in the ultimate Maxwellian feedback.
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > There is probably something like magnetic force that allows
> >  > > >  > the   e+ e- to exist separately so tail eating might be expected
> >  > > >  > behavior.
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > > The claim that these forces(E&M) exist uniquely, though
> >  > > > interrelated, is
> >  > > >  > > consistent with isotropic theories of spacetime. Still, it
> > is easy to
> >  > > >  > > see that spacetime itself is not isotropic, particularly
> > under any
> >  > > >  > > unification implementing unidirectional time.
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > Ohhh... Don't get too hung up on that. All Porsches don't
> >  > > >  > move at the same speed.  That is sufficient to consider an
> >  > > >  > anisotropic  space-time.
> >  >
> >  > > > I am willing to go so simple as looking left and seeing a boot,
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: NoEinstein on 25 Jun 2010 02:54
On Jun 24, 3:55 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
Dear Tim: Happy to oblige! The 1830 Coriolis equation, KE = 1/2 mv2
has only one variable for a unit mass of 1 (anything). That variable
is the velocity, v, of the falling object. The distance of fall is
given by the equation d = t^2, and forms a parabola. At t = one
second, the distance of fall is 16.087 feet; two seconds it's four
times that; three seconds, nine times; and four seconds, 16 x 16.087
feet. Supposedly "smart people" see the second power increase in
distance and wrongly assume that that distance is proportional to the
work done, and thus to the kinetic energy as well. They fail to
realize that the entire curved (vs. a straight line) part of the
distance of fall is due to the COASTING carry-over distances from the
previous seconds! In a four second fall, 75% of the fall distance is
due to COASTING. And since zero effort is required to coast, then
there is no work associated with the curved portion of the parabola,
and there is no KE being caused by COASTING!

As with MOMENTUM, the energy variable is the VELOCITY relative to the
standard, 'g', velocity of 32.174 feet per second EACH second. That
means that doubling the velocity to 2g will double the MOMENTUM. But
it won’t double the kinetic energy. Here's why: All objects just
sitting there without moving, have the force of gravity already acting
upon the object before it is even dropped. So... the correct formulas
for kinetic energy is my own KE = a/g (m) + v / 32.174 (m). Such
includes the object’s static weight. If the velocity is 2g, then the
KE will be 3 weight units of force. That's right KE is a force!

Using Coriolis’s (wrong) KE equation I calculated the height of drop
of a small metal clovis pin such that its KE should match the INERTIA
of a larger clovis pin. I recorded the sounds caused by the impacts
from various heights. That confirmed that the KE-to-inertia match
occurred in agreement with MY KE equation, not Coriolis‘s! This is an
extremely accurate experiment, because the ’ringing’ sound of the
metal to metal impact turns to a dull CLUNK when the inertia of the
larger clovis pin is matched. The reason it turns to a dull CLUNK is
because the smaller pin will stay in contact with the larger pin so
long, that the ringing sound immediately gets dampened, as though you
had touched your finger to the small ringing pin. In order to make a
ringing sound, the object must bounce off faster than the sound
frequency of the pin. I have a copyrighted paper explaining these
things. This is just a spontaneous summary of such.

Hope this helps! — NoEinstein —

>
> NoEinstein wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 6:35 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > Dear Tim:  From reading some of your daily ‘back-and-forth’ with Timo,
> > I can generalize that you like conversations about ‘science’ that
> > isn’t yet firmly and correctly explained.  In your reply to me, you
> > continue to discuss p (or F) = mv (true!) and KE = 1/2mv^2 (wrong!) as
> > though these things haven’t yet been determined.  Please Note: I
> > easily disproved the latter kinetic energy equation upon realizing
> > that the KE was accruing exponentially (semi-parabolically), while the
>
> I haven't seen this developed so I'd appreciate a stronger explanation.
>   In this way we are in the same camp.You say KE accrues exponentially,
> but exponential to what? As I understand kinetic energy objects can gain
> of lose kinetic energy over time, especially with interactions with
> other objects, and the reference frame does matter. I'd appreciate a
> more careful explanation from you. I am interested and do enjoy
> reviewing and encourage alternative theories. Still, from a skeptical
> position we should challenge each other's views to help refine them.
>
>   - Tim
>
>
>
> > input energy—the uniform force of gravity, that’s equal to every
> > object’s static weight—increases uniformly.  Can’t a smart fellow like
> > you see that the energy OUT is exceeding the energy IN?  *** No energy
> > equation can EVER be exponential without violating the LCE!  And that
> > includes Einstein’s SR, E = mc^2 / beta!
>
> > Your problem, Tim, is that you are so used to discussing things that
> > haven’t been figured out, that you treat my daily explanations of my
> > New (true) Science as if that hasn’t been figured out, either.  A high
> > percentage of those making ‘+new posts’ on sci,physics ask some
> > question.  Asking questions means the person either doesn’t know, or
> > the person wishes to start an open-ended conversation on some subject
> > that is ’vague’ and not yet firmed-up as science.  *** None of my +new
> > posts ask a question, because I already know the correct science!
> > For too many in this group, they love vagueness because they get to
> > pontificate, knowing the other side can’t win.  All they have to do is
> > to continue to… disagree.  Have you ever succeeded in getting someone
> > to change their mind about science, Tim?
>
> > Like I told Sue, if she doesn’t understand why the Coriolis KE
> > equation AND Einstein’s SR equation invalidates the LCE, to please
> > explain.  If I could get you to realize simple truths in science, one-
> > by-one, and if you would let that modify your… too vague overall
> > notions about science, you could become a leader in science—rather
> > than just another “recreational”, armchair physicist who likes to
> > converse just for the sake of conversing.  If you understand the Law
> > of the Conservation of Energy, say so.  If you don’t understand it,
> > then, there isn’t much purpose in my replying to you, again.  —
> > NoEinstein —
>
> >> On Jun 23, 1:40 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>  > On Jun 20, 9:54 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>  > Dear Sue:  KE = 1/2mv^2 has the "KE" varying, exponentially, while the
> >>  > input energy, the velocity, is varying linearly.  That's a clear
> >>  > violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy, just like SR is.
> >>  > You are a "slow learner", Sue.  If you don't understand this reply,
> >>  > please explain your problem.  — NoEinstein —
>
> >> I'm going to partially disagree with your statement here Noein. Down at
> >> momentum, velocity, and energy things seem so fundamental that we should
> >> not challenge the laws. Still, maybe there is some new way of looking at
> >> things, and if that new way does exist then it could possibly involve
> >> some reinterpretation. Long ago we have memorized
> >>     p = m v
> >>     E = m v v / 2
> >> as fundamental equations of classical physics. Yet which one is
> >> fundamental? They appear to be informationally redundant, in that their
> >> components are redundant.
>
> >> The derivative relationship is clearly present but in terms of v so that
> >>     dE/dv = p
> >> Another trouble is that this E is limited to kinetic energy, and we know
> >> that other energy forms exist. Somehow the momentum does too. This is
> >> the point that Timo was making, though modified slightly by me here.
> >> Momentum does not necessarily just mean
> >>     m v .
> >> A photon has no mass and so from a naive perspective its momentum must
> >> be zero by this line above. What we are grappling with is the question
> >> of what is fundamental because so many concepts have arisen.
>
> >> If we accept conservation of energy then we are discussing change in
> >> energy, as in the change in energy is zero. Well, dE/dv is a change in
> >> energy figure. To me part of what is open is that there are many energy
> >> types. This may mean that momentum, as a word, takes on new meaning to
> >> someone like me who thinks that momentum is strictly
> >>     m v .
> >> There is a bifurcation here that I do not believe is properly discussed
> >> yet. I would rather attempt a replacement theory that will not have
> >> these problems. By the lines above mass and velocity are more
> >> fundamental than energy and momentum, and yet mass remains mysterious.
>
> >> I am not done with this analysis. I'm happy to leave it open. I can see
> >> how some would see this approach as foolhardy, yet I have witnessed
> >> fundamentals overlooked in mathematics. I feel certain that physics is
> >> capable of the same behavior.
>
> >> - Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: NoEinstein on 25 Jun 2010 03:05
On Jun 24, 6:09 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote:
>
Dear kado: Well done! Skimming over your reply to Tim, I don't find
any disagreement with your reasoning. I really like that you disagree
with Newton's Second Law of Motion, F = ma. That "equation" yields
nothing. He just proposes that forces and accelerations be put into
corresponding columns of a table—enter the force or the acceleration,
and find the other from the table. — NoEinstein —
>
> On Jun 23, 3:35 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> snip
>
> > I'm going to partially disagree with your statement here Noein. Down at
> > momentum, velocity, and energy things seem so fundamental that we should
> > not challenge the laws. Still, maybe there is some new way of looking at
> > things, and if that new way does exist then it could possibly involve
> > some reinterpretation. Long ago we have memorized
> >     p = m v
> >     E = m v v / 2
> > as fundamental equations of classical physics. Yet which one is
> > fundamental? They appear to be informationally redundant, in that their
> > components are redundant.
>
> You are correct that p = mv
>
> However the rest is somewhat muddled.
>
> > The derivative relationship is clearly present but in terms of v so that
> >     dE/dv = p
>
> Your reasoning here is not correct. Momentum is just
> mass times velocity, (mv) and any change of E divided
> by any change of velocity does not have a thing to do
> (i.e., just does not apply to) with momentum. Also
> realize that velocity (the 1st derivative of the time
> rate change of position) is restricted to uniform
> motion, i.e., in a straight line at a constant speed
> by definition.
>
> > Another trouble is that this E is limited to kinetic energy, and we know
> > that other energy forms exist. Somehow the momentum does too. This is
> > the point that Timo was making, though modified slightly by me here.
> > Momentum does not necessarily just mean
> >     m v .
>
> Energy does comes in many forms as you state: there are
> those that are purely mechanical (i.e., those addressed
> by true Newtonian mechanics, not the screwed up Classical
> Newtonian Mechanics of mainline science) electrical
> and/or magnetic, and/or heat, and/or nuclear, and those
> that most responders on this thread do not consider;
>
> Potential Energy.
>
> There currently is AFAIK, no true, valid mathematical
> equation for just energy, or potential energy.
>
> So, the equation you stated that:
>
> E = m v v / 2
>
> is all wrong, and I don't know where you picked it up.
> Leibniz wrongly maintained that:
>
> energy = mv^2.
>
> This is what Einstein used to formulate:
>
> E = mc^2.
>
> (Actually, Einstein did not come up with this. This
> notion precedes SR. Einstein was just given credit for
> verifying it, primarily due to his formulation of SR.)
>
> Anyway
>
> > A photon has no mass and so from a naive perspective its momentum must
> > be zero by this line above. What we are grappling with is the question
> > of what is fundamental because so many concepts have arisen.
>
> True, and many are based on ignorance and/or pure BS.
>
> > If we accept conservation of energy then we are discussing change in
> > energy, as in the change in energy is zero. Well, dE/dv is a change in
> > energy figure. To me part of what is open is that there are many energy
> > types. This may mean that momentum, as a word, takes on new meaning to
> > someone like me who thinks that momentum is strictly
> >     m v .
>
> Momentum is still = mv. If either mass or velocity are
> zero, the notion of momentum just does not apply.
> Don't do what many in this newsgroup do. That is,
> try to force a concept that does not apply to the study
> of interest into that which it does not apply.
>
> Any change of momentum (any change to the straight line
> or constant speed dictates of momentum) of a constant
> mass is due to an interaction (commonly an outside force)
> and is explained in the second part of Newton's First
> Law, not the Second Law. Furthermore Newton's 2nd Law is
> NOT f = ma as maintained by mainline science.
>
> > There is a bifurcation here that I do not believe is properly discussed
> > yet. I would rather attempt a replacement theory that will not have
> > these problems. By the lines above mass and velocity are more
> > fundamental than energy and momentum, and yet mass remains mysterious.
>
> Correct. In fact, while fundamental to the study of
> physics, mainline science still does not yet truly
> understand mass.
>
> Furthermore, science still does not truly understand
> those that are called time and force.
>
> > I am not done with this analysis. I'm happy to leave it open. I can see
> > how some would see this approach as foolhardy, yet I have witnessed
> > fundamentals overlooked in mathematics. I feel certain that physics is
> > capable of the same behavior.
>
> I hope what I disclosed will help in your scholarly
> endeavor. Just be sure that you correctly separate
> the truths from the bullshit.
>
> D.Y. Kadoshima

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The Black Knight Satelite
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete