What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Capizzi on 8 Apr 2005 05:10 "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1112671806.558395.135670(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... a lot of nonsense 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 > > Encyclopýdia 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. | Wrong again. Just look up 2 lines. That is your comment comparing "any" | and "every". That was not my point. My point was you clipped the qualifying | clause off the sentence (that referred to rotation or acceleration). > > > 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. | Bull. You wouldn't accept the definition of inertial forces as belonging | to rotating or accelerating frames of reference until I spoon fed you | the Britannica article. But Brittanica doesn't say what you think it says, as I explained in my previous post. | Where you repeated the same mistake. > > > 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. | The Law of Inertia does not mention inertial forces. Second, your | alternative is not the only one. In any case your interpretation of it | is truly nonsense. > > > 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. > | This argument is becoming pointless. Read the text from the Britannica. > > 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 | What book? 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. | If you believe what you just wrote, you are an imbecile. If not, you're just | a nasty little troll. 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. > | You are guilty of making up your own definitions. You even start your | own threads about it. I just reject your poor choices for definitions. > > 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, I might point out, occurs in a non-accelerated frame. 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. > | Hey stupid, try whirling a mass on a string in empty space, free of | gravity. There is still plenty of centripetal force coming from the | tension in the string. > > > 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? > > > | How much clearer does it have to be? A body in motion tends to stay | in motion and a body at rest rends to stay at rest. In the frame of the | wagon, a ball at rest spontaneously moves to the back of the wagon. > > > > > > 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. > | I make a statement. You make a lame reply. I correct you and you say | so what? and then resort to insults. > > > > 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 | Inertial force is not momentum. 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. > > | If it's not accelerating, there is simply no total force of any kind. > > 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" > Microsoftý Encartaý Reference Library 2005. ý 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" > Microsoftý Encartaý Reference Library 2005. ý 1993-2004 Microsoft > Corporation. All rights reserved. > > | As above, your Encarta dishes out pop interpretations, playing fast and | loose with the actual meanings. > > > > Resistance to change of motion is inertia, > > > > > Which is not the same as "resistance to force" as you claimed above, is > it? | Change of motion is acceleration. In the context of an actual mass, the | product is force. > > > > > 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. > | But what it looks like to the observer is the whole point of inertial | forces. In any case, you just shot down your own straw man. I posed | the question about how an object moving in a straight line in free | space looks to an observer in a rotating coordinate system. > > > > 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? | Incorrect. | You put the word "direction" in his mouth. What he said was "velocity" | which everybody knows is a vector with both magnitude and direction. | He used it in the context of being tangent to the path, which is a direction | reference. I can't even guess how you came to the last conclusion above. TomGee
From: TomGee on 8 Apr 2005 12:24 Tom Capizzi wrote: > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1112671806.558395.135670(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > a lot of nonsense > > 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. > > | Wrong again. Just look up 2 lines. That is your comment comparing "any" > | and "every". That was not my point. My point was you clipped the > qualifying > | clause off the sentence (that referred to rotation or acceleration). > > > No. You made it a point by putting underlines before and after "every" which puts your emphasis on it. > > > > > 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. > > | Bull. You wouldn't accept the definition of inertial forces as belonging > | to rotating or accelerating frames of reference until I spoon fed you > | the Britannica article. > > Bull. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I do not agree with you or Brittanica that inertial force occurs only in an accelerating frame. My reference is to centrifugal force and not to other inertial forces. > But Brittanica doesn't say what you think it says, as I explained in my > previous post. > > | Where you repeated the same mistake. > > No. That is your mistake. > > > > > > 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. > > | The Law of Inertia does not mention inertial forces. > > Um, if you're referring to Law 1, the title of it is "inertial forces" in my reference, and your Brittanica ids them as "inertial forces", so how can you deny it? And if you still refuse to accept that, tell us what force keeps the object in its state of motion? To say that no force is needed for that is to swallow whole the implication which has ever been pushed as fact that Newton actually claimed that. I claim that he said otherwise and that it was obviously lost in translation or deliberately left out. Your Brittanica refers to the second law specifically, but the 2nd law applies to and explains the centripetal force, and that is not fictional in a non-rotating frame, so Brittanica is obviously wrong in its information about inertial forces, since it calls the centripetal force fictional. However, from my POV, it is correct because I claim that it is indeed fictional in a frame free of the gravitational force. > > > Second, your > | alternative is not the only one. > > An alternative cannot be the only one, obviously, by definition. Besides, I did not say it was, I said it is an alternative explanation to the one all of us have been taught. > > > In any case your interpretation of it > | is truly nonsense. > > That is your opinion and you're welcome to it, but your opinion is truly nonsensical in view of the fact that my claim being true is a possibility. > > > > > > 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. > > > > | This argument is becoming pointless. Read the text from the Britannica. > > I did. See below: > > > > > 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 > > | What book? > > I meant to say in the book you cited. > > > 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. > > | If you believe what you just wrote, you are an imbecile. If not, you're > just > | a nasty little troll. > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > > 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. > > > > | You are guilty of making up your own definitions. You even start your > | own threads about it. I just reject your poor choices for definitions. > > No, I have never made up a definition. I have supported every definition with a supporting reference. My choices are not poor and you do not reject them because you think that but because you have a psychological barrier beyond normal which delays unnecessarily your final acceptance of new ideas, especially when they conflict with what you have been taught. > > > > > 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, I might point out, occurs in a non-accelerated frame. > > 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. > > > > | Hey stupid, try whirling a mass on a string in empty space, free of > | gravity. There is still plenty of centripetal force coming from the > | tension in the string. > > No, I don't think so, fool, as you and the string are part of the mass, like when whirling a baton there is no center-seeking force. And isn't whirling a mass on a string in an area free of gravitation a rotating frame? And wouldn't it be centrifugal force keeping the mass out in orbit? > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > | How much clearer does it have to be? A body in motion tends to stay > | in motion and a body at rest rends to stay at rest. In the frame of the > | wagon, a ball at rest spontaneously moves to the back of the wagon. > > > > > Oh, stop! I'm ROTFL, you're so hilarious! > > > > > > 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. > > > > | I make a statement. You make a lame reply. I correct you and you say > | so what? and then resort to insults. > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > > > > 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. > > > > No, that's false. Such a body experiences zero net _external_ force. You keep trying to leave out essential words just to win your argument, but that won't work with me. > > > The Inertial Force, or, momentum, as implied in the 1st law and as > > | Inertial force is not momentum. > > 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. > > > > > | If it's not accelerating, there is simply no total force of any kind. > > > > That's what you've been taught, but fortunately I'm here to teach you the truth. > > 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. > > > > > > > > > | 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. > > > > > | As above, your Encarta dishes out pop interpretations, playing fast and > | loose with the actual meanings. > > Pot. Kettle. Black. [In defense of all encyclopedias] > > > > > > > Resistance to change of motion is inertia, > > > > > > > > Which is not the same as "resistance to force" as you claimed above, > is > > it? > > | Change of motion is acceleration. In the context of an actual mass, the > | product is force. > > Which is still 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. > > > > | But what it looks like to the observer is the whole point of inertial > | forces. > > Not just of inertial forces but of all observed effects. So what? > > > In any case, you just shot down your own straw man. > > I did? How? > > > I posed > | the question about how an object moving in a straight line in free > | space looks to an observer in a rotating coordinate system. > > Does that statement have anything to do with what we're talking about? > > > > > > 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? > > | Incorrect. > | You put the word "direction" in his mouth. What he said was "velocity" > | which everybody knows is a vector with both magnitude and direction. > | He used it in the context of being tangent to the path, which is a > direction > | reference. > > That's what I said: direction. TomGee
From: Tom Capizzi on 8 Apr 2005 17:47 "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1112977474.723204.3880(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... Tom Capizzi wrote: > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1112671806.558395.135670(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > a lot of nonsense > > 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 > > > Encyclopýdia 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. > > | Wrong again. Just look up 2 lines. That is your comment comparing "any" > | and "every". That was not my point. My point was you clipped the > qualifying > | clause off the sentence (that referred to rotation or acceleration). > > > No. You made it a point by putting underlines before and after "every" which puts your emphasis on it. | I didn't realize that a couple of underscores would confuse you that much. > > > > > 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. > > | Bull. You wouldn't accept the definition of inertial forces as belonging > | to rotating or accelerating frames of reference until I spoon fed you > | the Britannica article. > > Bull. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I do not agree with you or Brittanica that inertial force occurs only in an accelerating frame. My reference is to centrifugal force and not to other inertial forces. | What's your point? Centrifugal force is just another inertial force, and like | the others, it is fictional. > But Brittanica doesn't say what you think it says, as I explained in my > previous post. > > | Where you repeated the same mistake. > > No. That is your mistake. > > > > > > 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. > > | The Law of Inertia does not mention inertial forces. > > Um, if you're referring to Law 1, the title of it is "inertial forces" in my reference, and your Brittanica ids them as "inertial forces", so how can you deny it? And if you still refuse to accept that, tell us what force keeps the object in its state of motion? To say that no force is needed for that is to swallow whole the implication which has ever been pushed as fact that Newton actually claimed that. I claim that he said otherwise and that it was obviously lost in translation or deliberately left out. Your Brittanica refers to the second law specifically, but the 2nd law applies to and explains the centripetal force, and that is not fictional in a non-rotating frame, so Brittanica is obviously wrong in its information about inertial forces, since it calls the centripetal force fictional. However, from my POV, it is correct because I claim that it is indeed fictional in a frame free of the gravitational force. > > > Second, your > | alternative is not the only one. > > An alternative cannot be the only one, obviously, by definition. Besides, I did not say it was, I said it is an alternative explanation to the one all of us have been taught. > > > In any case your interpretation of it > | is truly nonsense. > > That is your opinion and you're welcome to it, but your opinion is truly nonsensical in view of the fact that my claim being true is a possibility. > > > > > > 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. > > > > | This argument is becoming pointless. Read the text from the Britannica. > > I did. See below: > > > > > 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 > > | What book? > > I meant to say in the book you cited. > > > 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. > > | If you believe what you just wrote, you are an imbecile. If not, you're > just > | a nasty little troll. > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > > 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. > > > > | You are guilty of making up your own definitions. You even start your > | own threads about it. I just reject your poor choices for definitions. > > No, I have never made up a definition. I have supported every | Are you or are you not the same Tom Gee who posted on February 28: > TomGee wrote: > > Well, then, Wormy, if energy is not force, what is it? > > TomGee | in a thread "My definition of force!!"? And then proceeded to argue for | your own unconventional definition? definition with a supporting reference. My choices are not poor and you do not reject them because you think that but because you have a psychological barrier beyond normal which delays unnecessarily your final acceptance of new ideas, especially when they conflict with what you have been taught. | Since what I have been taught is by and large correct, I require more than | your opinion to replace accepted science with some flaky new idea. > > > > > 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, I might point out, occurs in a non-accelerated frame. > > 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. > > > > | Hey stupid, try whirling a mass on a string in empty space, free of > | gravity. There is still plenty of centripetal force coming from the > | tension in the string. > > No, I don't think so, fool, as you and the string are part of the mass, like when whirling a baton there is no center-seeking force. And isn't whirling a mass on a string in an area free of gravitation a rotating frame? And wouldn't it be centrifugal force keeping the mass out in orbit? | I agree that you don't think. The baton is a red herring because it is a rigid | body. However, should it fatigue and fracture, linear momentum would | carry the broken end away in a straight line. You also confuse 'rotational | motion in a stationary frame' with 'rotating frame', which applies to the mass | at the end of the string, not to the origin of the string. And it is never | fictional centrifugal force doing anything. The mass wants to travel in a | straight line, tangent to its instantaneous direction.It is the centripetal | acceleration resulting from the centripetal force provided by the tension | in the string which prevents the mass from moving away, giving the illusion | that it is kept 'out in orbit'. In any case in free space it is a frame without | gravity, as opposed to your prediction above: | >the only reason that the centripetal force exists is | > because it is a function of gravitation, > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > | How much clearer does it have to be? A body in motion tends to stay > | in motion and a body at rest rends to stay at rest. In the frame of the > | wagon, a ball at rest spontaneously moves to the back of the wagon. > > > > > Oh, stop! I'm ROTFL, you're so hilarious! | Some people do giggle when they are embarrassed. > > > > > > 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. > > > > | I make a statement. You make a lame reply. I correct you and you say > | so what? and then resort to insults. > > > > Pot. Kettle. Black. > > > > > 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. > > > > No, that's false. Such a body experiences zero net _external_ force. You keep trying to leave out essential words just to win your argument, but that won't work with me. > > > The Inertial Force, or, momentum, as implied in the 1st law and as > > | Inertial force is not momentum. > > 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. > > > > > | If it's not accelerating, there is simply no total force of any kind. > > > > That's what you've been taught, but fortunately I'm here to teach you the truth. | Your version of 'truth' I can live without. > > 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" > > Microsoftý Encartaý Reference Library 2005. ý 1993-2004 Microsoft > > Corporation. All rights reserved. | Extremely sloppy definition. Momentum has units of 'mass*length/time'. | Speed has units of 'length/time', and force has units of 'mass*length/time^2'. | Force is the derivative of momentum. It is not the same thing. > > > > > > > > > | 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" > > Microsoftý Encartaý Reference Library 2005. ý 1993-2004 Microsoft > > Corporation. All rights reserved. | Another sloppy definition. In the first place, there are two different kinds of | friction, static and moving. They are characterized by distinctly different | coefficients. For most materials static friction is higher than moving friction. | In any case, this definition does not prove that friction is not a force. > > > > > | As above, your Encarta dishes out pop interpretations, playing fast and > | loose with the actual meanings. > > Pot. Kettle. Black. [In defense of all encyclopedias] | All encyclopedias are not created equal. > > > > > > > Resistance to change of motion is inertia, > > > > > > > > Which is not the same as "resistance to force" as you claimed above, > is > > it? > > | Change of motion is acceleration. In the context of an actual mass, the > | product is force. > > Which is still 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. > > > > | But what it looks like to the observer is the whole point of inertial > | forces. > > Not just of inertial forces but of all observed effects. So what? | Inertial forces do not exist for all observers. > > > In any case, you just shot down your own straw man. > > I did? How? > > > I posed > | the question about how an object moving in a straight line in free > | space looks to an observer in a rotating coordinate system. > > Does that statement have anything to do with what we're talking about? > > > > > > 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? > > | Incorrect. > | You put the word "direction" in his mouth. What he said was "velocity" > | which everybody knows is a vector with both magnitude and direction. > | He used it in the context of being tangent to the path, which is a > direction > | reference. > > That's what I said: direction. TomGee | We've been around and around and I conclude that you have no interest | in correcting your flawed ideas. Someone willing to take on the entire | body of established physics is too stubborn for me. I resign.
From: TomGee on 8 Apr 2005 20:49 Tom Capizzi wrote: > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1112977474.723204.3880(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Tom Capizzi wrote: > > "TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1112671806.558395.135670(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > a lot of nonsense > > > > 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." > > > > SNIP > > > > > > No. You made it a point by putting underlines before and after "every" > which puts your emphasis on it. > > | I didn't realize that a couple of underscores would confuse you that much. > > I was not confused. Why did you put in the underscores if not to emphasize your point? There is no other reason for you to have done that, so you had to have intended to emphasize the word, unless you became confused while writing your response. > > > > > SNIP > > > Your argument then is that you interpret Brittanica as saying it only > > happens in an accelerating frame? I said that at the very beginning. > > > > | Bull. You wouldn't accept the definition of inertial forces as > belonging > > | to rotating or accelerating frames of reference until I spoon fed > you > > | the Britannica article. > > > > > Bull. Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I do not agree with > you or Brittanica that inertial force occurs only in an accelerating > frame. My reference is to centrifugal force and not to other inertial > forces. > > | What's your point? Centrifugal force is just another inertial force, and > like > | the others, it is fictional. > > My point is that I agree with you et al that centrifugal force is a fictional force occurring only to the observer in a rotating frame, but that is not the only inertial force id'd by Newton. Also, the centripetal force is fictional as well since it cannot occur where there is no gravitational force. Finally, my point is that the inertial force id'd by Newton in his 1st law exists inherent in the single object referred to in the law, as Newton said. > > > > But Brittanica doesn't say what you think it says, as I explained in > my > > previous post. > > > > | Where you repeated the same mistake. > > > > > No. That is your mistake. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > | The Law of Inertia does not mention inertial forces. > > > > > Um, if you're referring to Law 1, the title of it is "inertial forces" > in my reference, and your Brittanica ids them as "inertial forces", so > how can you deny it? And if you still refuse to accept that, tell us > what force keeps the object in its state of motion? To say that no > force is needed for that is to swallow whole the implication which has > ever been pushed as fact that Newton actually claimed that. I claim > that he said otherwise and that it was obviously lost in translation or > deliberately left out. > > Your Brittanica refers to the second law specifically, but the 2nd law > applies to and explains the centripetal force, and that is not > fictional in a non-rotating frame, so Brittanica is obviously wrong in > its information about inertial forces, since it calls the centripetal > force fictional. However, from my POV, it is correct because I claim > that it is indeed fictional in a frame free of the gravitational force. > > > > > > Second, your > > | alternative is not the only one. > > > > > An alternative cannot be the only one, obviously, by definition. > Besides, I did not say it was, I said it is an alternative explanation > to the one all of us have been taught. > > > > SNIP > > > > | You are guilty of making up your own definitions. You even start > your > > | own threads about it. I just reject your poor choices for > definitions. > > > > > No, I have never made up a definition. I have supported every > > | Are you or are you not the same Tom Gee who posted on February 28: > > TomGee wrote: > > > Well, then, Wormy, if energy is not force, what is it? > > > TomGee > | in a thread "My definition of force!!"? And then proceeded to argue for > | your own unconventional definition? > > Yes, indeedy, that's me, you make my case for me by claiming that I "proceeded to argue" for my explanation of why I said that. Exactly what I said, that I have never without proper support for it. I gave a number of examples why I defined energy as a force, and neither you nor anyone else could give one single valid reason why they were wrong. All you could say was, "Duhhh, that ain't what I was taught." Well, that ain't a valid reason. > > > definition with a supporting reference. My choices are not poor and > you do not reject them because you think that but because you have a > psychological barrier beyond normal which delays unnecessarily your > final acceptance of new ideas, especially when they conflict with what > you have been taught. > > | Since what I have been taught is by and large correct, I require more than > | your opinion to replace accepted science with some flaky new idea. > > > > So everyone says, but why did you accept and defend what you have been taught as the truth, even when you have learned that much of what we're taught later turns out to be false? Because we are better rewarded when we conform than when we question our teachers. The easy way is to "get along" and not make any waves. The problem with that comes later when you are asked to think independently but you cannot since you were brainwashed into never doing your own thinking. when someone comes along with new ideas, what do you do? Well, you force them to recant, or you torture and burn them at the stake, or you crucify them. I have posted my opinions here, but not without support for them each and every time. To overthow them, you have only to show how or why they cannot be true. But yet, even in the case above, notwithstanding my laborious work in trying to show you how my ideas are valid, and even though you can come up with no reasonable explanations for your positions, you still "...require more than [my] opinion" to have you think I could be right in what I say. > > > SNIP > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > | Hey stupid, try whirling a mass on a string in empty space, free of > > | gravity. There is still plenty of centripetal force coming from the > > | tension in the string. > > > > > No, I don't think so, fool, as you and the string are part of the mass, > like when whirling a baton there is no center-seeking force. And isn't > whirling a mass on a string in an area free of gravitation a rotating > frame? And wouldn't it be centrifugal force keeping the mass out in > orbit? > > | I agree that you don't think. The baton is a red herring because it is a > rigid > | body. However, should it fatigue and fracture, linear momentum would > | carry the broken end away in a straight line. > > Right, and when the string breaks, the same thing happens. But that is because the string and the "rigid body" are the same thing since the ball is tied to the string. > > > You also confuse 'rotational > | motion in a stationary frame' with 'rotating frame', which applies to the > mass > | at the end of the string, not to the origin of the string. > > No, I don't. You have made another wild claim with no support for it. > > > And it is never > | fictional centrifugal force doing anything. The mass wants to travel in a > | straight line, tangent to its instantaneous direction.It is the > centripetal > | acceleration resulting from the centripetal force provided by the tension > | in the string which prevents the mass from moving away, giving the > illusion > | that it is kept 'out in orbit'. In any case in free space it is a frame > without > | gravity, as opposed to your prediction above: > | >the only reason that the centripetal force exists is > | > because it is a function of gravitation, > > > In your example above, you claim that the centripetal force is provided by the string, but the string provides no such force as it constitutes and acts, as you said, like a "rigid body" when it is tied to the ball at one end and to you at the other. The centrifugal force is called a fictional force because it only occurs in rotating frames and not in inertial frames. But since it does occur, it is not a fake force, and it is not any more fictional than centipetal force is in an inertial frame lacking gravitational forces. Thus, if there is no centrifugal force, there is no centripetal force either. Just as the centripetal force is a function of the fundamental gravitational force, so is the centrifugal force a function of the fundamental inertial force. There is no need for you to resign. Simply look for ways to overthrow my ideas which leaves no room for doubt that you are right and I am wrong. That is all I ask. Nitpicking my ideas to death is not the way to fault them. Review the other thread like this one and also the one I started, "Newton's First The Fifth Force?", and try to imagine that there is a way to trap me and keep me from continuing to narrowly escape through some loophole. Use the same strategies we use in Chess, the game: Mount a general offensive to try to survive, but always look for a wrong move from your opponent. If you make less errors than he, you have a chance to trap him. There is no doubt in a checkmate, only in a stalemate. What does it matter in the larger scheme whether inertial forces are called fictional forces? Those arguments are already well-debated, and they are a waste of time for us to do that again. What has not been debated is my contention that the inertial force of the 1st law identifies a fifth fundamental force. Would that not be a revelation if it turns out to be so? Now that is worth debating! What has not been debated is my contention that Newton never really said that no force is needed for the object of his 1st law to continue in its state of motion when external forces are not imposed upon it. That is apparently what the whole wide world believes because they believe that physicists are not corruptible like politicians are. And they believe, contrary to many historical lessons, that scientists are quite bright and able to think rationally at all times. And they forget that great discoveries have occurred because of some Doubting Thomas or some child who could not see any cloths on the emperor when everyone else saw them plain as day. Have you not wondered why if I am so stupid that it is so difficult to overthrow my ideas? TomGee
From: Tom Capizzi on 8 Apr 2005 22:21
"TomGee" <lvlus(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1113007770.873992.38320(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... [snip] Have you not wondered why if I am so stupid that it is so difficult to overthrow my ideas? TomGee | You refuse to acknowledge when your ideas have been overthrown. | When you are boxed into a corner you change the subject, and ignore | arguments which are too difficult to counter. Physics is not a chess | game, the outcome of which depends on who wins the argument. Just | because someone is skilled at conniving and avoiding facts doesn't | make them correct, even if they win (or think so). I didn't say you were | stupid, just stubborn. You have so much invested in your own ideas | you won't recognize it when they contradict over a century of well | established science. There is no point to arguing with you. I quit. |