What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bilge on 1 Apr 2005 18:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com: >In article <d2jm4r09or(a)drn.newsguy.com>, > stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: >>You know, guys, whining about unions isn't very relevant to the >>theory of relativity. > >It's very relavent or do you enjoy having the cranks repeat >themselves ad nauseum? How is that different from this thread?
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2005 08:03 In article <slrnd4rkn9.pt0.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com: > > > >Of course. That what unions do; socialism and anarchism > >stirred by zealots. > > That has to be one of most self-inconsistent statements ever posted. So, instead of shooting your mouth off, think about it. Explains the flavors of mess out there. >I don't suppose it has occured to you that anarchism is essentially >libertarianism with a vengence while socialism is about as diametrically >opposed to that as possible? Now, combine the two. Anarchism's goal is to destroy the economic system; socialism's goal is to destroy self-determination. Now add leaders who are zealots. > ..What happened, did everyone but the >knee-jerk phony conservatives gang up on the corporate handout scheme >by employing the rather capitalist concept of negotiating a contract for >a service (i.e., labor) by leveraging some assets (i.e., the labor >pool)? I find it rather bizarre that anyone could claim to favor >free enterprise, but only when the contracts are beneficial to the >officers of a corporation. Personally, I think people deserve more >consideration than copyright on a dvd. My, but you leaped a skyscraper with that conclusion based on what I wrote. > .. A union is nothing but a >business whose services are employees and which negotiates contracts >at the rates and terms th market will bear. Nope. That's what it is supposed to be. It is not what happens in real life. > .. Socialism only enters >the picture when the government artificially limits the scope of >those contracts. When the government gets involved then you have some flavor of communism. Socialism's goal is to "share" profits among all. It elminates competition trying to ensure that every thing in life is "fair". > ...To paraphrase the usual trite phrase, ``if enough >people didn't become union members, they unions would go out of >business,'' just like if enough people didn't want hazardous chemicals >in their rivers, they stop buying products from companies that dump >toxic wastes into rivers.'' I don't know what that means other than you think I'm wrong but have no idea what it is. In other words, I've stepped on your union bunion. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2005 08:16 In article <slrnd4rrje.pt0.dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, dubious(a)radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com: > >In article <d2jm4r09or(a)drn.newsguy.com>, > > stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >>You know, guys, whining about unions isn't very relevant to the > >>theory of relativity. > > > >It's very relavent or do you enjoy having the cranks repeat > >themselves ad nauseum? > > > How is that different from this thread? > None, since you stepped in it. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Apr 2005 08:19 In article <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504011113080.4144(a)clivia.hep.wisc.edu>, Creighton Hogg <wchogg(a)clivia.hep.wisc.edu> wrote: >On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: <snip> >> The only reason I got to read Einstein's book _Theory of >> Relativity_ is because the public library classified it >> as fiction and I'd already fought and won the battle to >> be allowed outside the children's section (I was 12). >> Somebody goofed. :-) > >That's very strange, but again I think this an example of >the "kids are stupid" mentality. Twelve year olds don't >need to read books from the children's section. Twelve year >olds can handle alot. It was a wonderful summer. That was also the first time I ever read a scifi book. It caused nightmares :-). I tried to hunt for more of the same genre. They were not in a special section of the library but interspersed with general fiction. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
From: TomGee on 4 Apr 2005 23:30
Tom Capizzi wrote: > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1112609487.289302.178500(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Tom Capizzi wrote: > > For some reason Outlook Express has failed to add attribution carets > to this > > reply. > > I will identify my comments with a "|". > > > > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1112441660.303903.312490(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > > > Tom Capizzi wrote: > > > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:1112333545.391306.145070(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > Tom Capizzi wrote: > > > >> "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> news:1112308130.498530.137080(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > > > > >> > Tom Capizzi wrote: > > > >> >> "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> news:1112244079.328719.15960(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... SNIP > > > > "inertial force > > Encyclopædia Britannica Article > > > > Page 1 of 1 > > > > also called Fictitious Force, any force invoked by an observer to > > maintain the validity of Isaac Newton's second law of motion in a > > reference frame that is rotating or otherwise accelerating at a > > constant rate. For specific inertial forces, see centrifugal force; > > Coriolis force; d'Alembert's principle." > > > > I can see why you picked that one, since none of the ones before that > > one make the same claim. I did not go beyond that page, but I wonder > if > > any others make the same claim. > > > > The funny thing is, Brittanica identifies the "Fictitious Force" as > > _any_ force used to defend the second law, but the second law does > not > > identify any particular forces since it is a simple equation to > > determine the amount of force in an accelerated mass (F=ma). Which > > would mean that any force which accelerates a mass is a fictitious > > force! Of course, that cannot be correct, can it? It seems that > > Brittanica is somewhat confused about this issue. > > > > | You parsed the sentence incorrectly. It does not mean _every_ force > used > > to > > | defend the second law, but the second law in a reference frame that > is > > rotating > > | or otherwise accelerating at a constant rate > > > > > But "any" can mean "every" depending on how it is used. Weren't you > > | You miss the point. The issue is not whether to use "any" or "every". > > Well, you're the one who made it an issue, not me. > > > The > | issue is whether you crop the sentence so that the qualifying phrase "in a > | reference frame that is rotating or otherwise accelerating at a constant > rate" > | is not included. That changes the meaning of the statement unacceptably. > > Your argument then is that you interpret Brittanica as saying it only happens in an accelerating frame? I said that at the very beginning. But Brittanica doesn't say what you think it says, as I explained in my previous post. > > > the one arguing in favor of synonyms? Above, you also made the > statement that inertial forces only exist in accelerating frames, then > immediately contradicted that by saying, "Inertia causing a body to > > | No contradiction. Your mistake is thinking inertia is a force or that > inertia is > | the same thing as inertial force. Since they are not, they don't have to > have > | similar properties. > > But how can you think otherwise in view of the fact that they have the name and exist as part of the same law, and the alternative is to believe the nonsensical notion that Law 1 states no force is needed for it to be valid. > > > move in a straight line is a property of a non-rotating frame." Now, > Brittanica did not say inertial forces exist only in accelerating > frames, did it? In fact, it did not even say they exist at all nor > > | Yes, it did. > > No, it didn't. > > > that they do not exist. It simply dodges the issue in saying they are > "called" fictitious forces (not that they _are_ fictitious forces) and > used to "invoke" - which means, "to cite" - Newton's 2nd when talking > > | I don't accept your definition of "invoke". The closest it comes to "cite" > | is "to incite". It is more like beg or implore. In context, it means that > the > | Second Law would break down in accelerated frames without these > | fictitious forces being conjured up out of nothing. > > No, that is not my definition - I read it in the book I cited just below it. I have all along suspected you had no idea what a reference work is and how to cite from it, or even what cite means. Now you have proven true my suspicions with your silly refusal to accept proper definitions which we all must accept. Making up your own definitions to replace well-accepted ones in order to support your bankrupt claims does not work cannot be taken as valid argument. > > > about accelerated frames. That does not mean what you claim it means - > that inertial forces only exist in accelerating frames. > > In fact, Newton's 2nd says nothing about any other force except the one > pertaining to the particular object to which it refers. Quote: "The > relationship between _an_ (my emphasis - which means _one_uno_1_ ) > object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F." He may > not claim in his 1st law that there exists in every object a force > which we call inertia, but that is inferred from the fact that objects > are accelerated when external forces overcome their inertial force. > > | You are mixing apples and oranges again. Inertia is resistance to force > | and is meaningful in unaccelerated frames. Inertial force is fake and > | applies to accelerated frames. > > > > That is your problem, thinking that in physics the term "fictional force" means fake force. It doesn't, as the force exists in one frame but not in another, but neither frame is a preferred frame, so the existence of it is not in question. Your mistaken idea of what is a "fictional force" is what causes you to think that a non-existent, or "fake" force, as you put it, can physically apply to accelerated frames. You are perfectly willing to accept the time dilation effect, which is at least as strange as this particular force which appears to exist only in accelerating frames, but because you cannot think on your own, you find it impossible to believe that inertial force exists, even when you can find no reason to argue that it doesn't. I also claim that the only reason that the centripetal force exists is because it is a function of gravitation, and I predict that in ref. frames free of any gravitation, it will not exist, just like the centrifugal force cannot exist in inertial frames. > > > > In an inertial frame (which > > is not > > | rotating or accelerating, simply moving at constant velocity in a > straight > > line) > > | the so-called inertial forces disappear. > > > > > No. That's nonsense. > > | Nonsense is trying to invent your own dictionary. > > > > Yes, that's what I said above about you making up your own definitions. > > > > I used > > > > http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/centrifugal/ > > > > for a refresher reference to inertial forces. I found I had > forgotten > > more than I thought. > > > > > > > > > Go > > > to > > > www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocld=9000908 and see for yourself. > > Inertial > > > forces are also called fictitious forces, and they exist only in > > accelerated > > > frames > > > of reference. > > > > > > > > I take exception to that in view of my claim that law 1 applies to > any > > frame of reference. > > > > | One of the examples given was a ball in a wagon. If they are both > > stationary and > > | the wagon gets pulled, the ball seems to move to the back of the > wagon. > > From > > | the external, stationary frame we can see that the ball has not > moved at > > all, but > > | the wagon has shifted under it. First Law is ok. But in the frame > of the > > wagon > > | itself, the ball has spontaneously moved from the front to the back > of the > > wagon. > > | This is a violation of the 1st Law in the frame of the wagon. > > > > > Oh? And just how is that a violation? > > | Are you really that dense? In the frame of the wagon, the ball > spontaneously > | moves from the front to the rear of the wagon. Since there is no rotation, > you > | can't even invoke centrifugal or Coriolis "forces". In the frame of the > wagon, > | what causes the ball to move? > > So, you cannot show how that is a violation. Why make claims you can't even debate logically? Let me ask you once more: How does that violate the 1st? > > > > > > > > > Inertia, which causes bodies to keep moving in a straight > > > line, > > > applies to non-rotating frames, because the trajectory does not > > appear to be > > > a > > > straight line to an observer in a rotating frame. > > > > > > > > No, Brittanica did not say that, that is the basis of your argument > > that law 1 applies only to inertial frames. I have explained that > the > > trajectory is curved in a rotating frame due to the strength of the > > "pulling" or frictional force(s) involved being sufficient to capture > > the object by overcoming the object's inertial force described in Law > > 1. > > > > | I tried to find Newton's exact words, but I could only find > restatements > > | by various authorities. In any case, although it is known as the > Law of > > | Inertia, there was no reference to inertial forces in any of them. > > > > > Not so. Your own source Brittanica uses the term "inertial force". > > | But not in the statement of the 1st Law itself. > > > Well, so what? If you can't find the term right under your nose, obviously it will not exist for you anywhere at all no matter who says it. > > > > > My > > point > > | was that a straight line appears curved in a rotating frame of > reference > > | for no obvious reason at all. Suppose you are in a region of space > which > > | is empty except for you and an object moving in a straight line. > Further > > | assume that you are spinning in place, making the view from your > eyes > > | the origin of a rotating frame of reference. Depending on the > actual > > direction > > | of the path it will appear to you to be a different type of spiral. > You > > are > > | required to invent a variety of fictional forces to explain this > > situation, in > > | spite of the fact that there are no forces at work at all. > > > > > Of course there forces at work. You think that reality is modeled > after geometry when it is really the other way round. > > | What force is involved when a body is moving in a straight line at > | constant velocity? According to the 1st Law, such a body experiences > | zero net force. > > The Inertial Force, or, momentum, as implied in the 1st law and as Hobble agrees with me. No, such a body does not experiment 0 net force, it only experiences that 0 net force from _external_ forces. That does not mean it has no force of its own, since the law refers only to external forces. > > > > SNIP > > > > > Neither, I am trying to get back to using synonyms, which you seem to > prefer. Momentum: "forward movement: the speed or force of forward > movement of an object > the momentum gained on the downhill stretches of the course" > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft > Corporation. All rights reserved. > > > > > > external forces are imposed upon it which cause the object to > > accelerate. > > > > > > > > > That's why I said you were > > > mixing > > > frames. > > > > > > Come again? Can you rephrase that to make sense? > > > > > > > > gave you the idea that I am mixing frames? The idea that the 1st > > law's > > > > inertial force is a fundamental force because it exists in all > > frames > > > > is an original idea that came to me in our discussion here, so I > > wonder > > > > who else pondered it before now? I wonder how the author you > read > > came > > > > to the same conclusion that you describe above that the inertial > > force > > > > of the 1st law only applies to a rotating frame? > > > > > > I'm guessing that your usage of the term inertial force is not > > actually > > > consistent > > > with the actual definition of the term. Inertia itself is not a > > force. It is > > > resistance > > > to force, and is proportional to mass > > > > > > > > Proportional to mass??? Inertia is not resistance to force. That is > > friction. You can guess about my use of terms all you want, but > > guessing don't make it so. Support your claims, don't just say, "I'm > > guessing...." > > > > | Again I refer to standard definitions. Friction is not resistance > to > > force, > > | it is a force. > > > > > No it isn't. Friction: "physics resistance encountered by moving > object: the resistance encountered by an object moving relative to > another object with which it is in contact" > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft > Corporation. All rights reserved. > > > > > > Resistance to change of motion is inertia, > > > > > Which is not the same as "resistance to force" as you claimed above, is > it? > > > > > SNIP > > > > > > > > Newton explicitly mentions moving in a straight line. That excludes > > rotating > > > frames of reference. "Straight lines" in a rotating reference frame > > are > > > actually > > > complex spirals in the non-rotating frame. > > > > > > > > But the object would move in a straight line if it was not captured > in > > the rotating frame. > > > > | Here you are mixing frames again. The object does not have to be > captured > > | in the rotating frame to be observed from it. > > > > > I did not say that it did. Even if it appears to curve to the observer > on the rotating frame, it is still moving out of its orbit due to its > own inertial force overcoming the lack of external forces. > > > > | You really don't get it. There is no orbit for a body moving in a straight > line > | in empty space. But to an observer in a rotating frame the straight line > looks > | like a curve - it is purely an illusion. > > You are the one who doesn't get it. If the forces which have captured a body into an orbit are suddenly removed, the object will leave its orbit and begin to travel in a straight line. It does not matter what that looks like to any observer as far as we are concerned here. > > > > > The only way you can see > > that > > | it is moving in a straight line is to observe it from the > non-rotating > > frame. > > > > > Of course, since it really is to the observers in the inertial frame. > So what's your point? > > > > > No, not true. The thing which makes velocity a vector is the rate of > > change in position of something with respect to time, involving speed > > and direction. Direction is only one of the elements involved. As I > > > > | But direction is what makes the difference between just speed and > > | velocity. Speed is a scalar. When you add direction it becomes the > > | vector, velocity. You actually wrote that the poster was "using it > to > > | mean 'direction'". He also used the term tangent which is another > clue > > | that he was speaking of direction. > > > > > Yes, he was, and I pointed out that he meant "direction" instead of > "velocity", with which you now agree. But you cannot maintain the same > > | I do not agree. He said the velocity was parallel to the tangent which > also > | changes direction constantly as you change position on the path. > > You just said that direction is what makes the vector, meaning that he meant to say "vector" and not "direction", I take it. Thus, you believe that it is possible for a vector to remain constant even though it's variables change, correct? TomGee |