Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 07:20:42 +0200 Lines: 396 Message-ID: References: <66e96931$0$3271$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <7RycnbrrTfx70W37nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com> <79qcnSfIffhX_m37nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <66F478BF.7DAE@ix.netcom.com> <66F59C62.58E2@ix.netcom.com> <81WdnRHj5_sE5mX7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net nGy7aX6rspn1S56RlX9wrQt8SXzq1O32Os+7RqyDJIRReiWlky Cancel-Lock: sha1:O7akQ6gfQay++yg+abelZh6JrME= sha256:oS9O/W5jszuzTx2/4DZno4QRfoDuYqGVN+vt/O9c/1U= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: <81WdnRHj5_sE5mX7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> Bytes: 16225 Am Samstag000028, 28.09.2024 um 23:57 schrieb Ross Finlayson: > On 09/28/2024 01:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am Donnerstag000026, 26.09.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Ross Finlayson: >>> On 09/26/2024 10:39 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 09/25/2024 01:55 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 11:37 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/22/2024 09:59 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 11:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 09/17/2024 04:34 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody even bother to think about vis-viva versus vis- >>>>>>>>>>>> motrix >>>>>>>>>>>> anymore, with regards to conservation, momentum, inertia, and >>>>>>>>>>>> energy, >>>>>>>>>>>> and potential and impulse energy? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. These are obsolete distinctions, >>>>>>>>>>> from a time when energy and momentum conservation was not >>>>>>>>>>> corectly >>>>>>>>>>> understood. >>>>>>>>>>> The matter was put to rest by Christiaan Huygens >>>>>>>>>>> by showing (for particle collisions) >>>>>>>>>>> that momentum conservation and energy conservation >>>>>>>>>>> are distinct conservation laws, that are both needed, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it usually considered at all that momentum and inertia >>>>>>>>>>>> change >>>>>>>>>>>> places with respect to resistance to change of motion and rest >>>>>>>>>>>> respectively sort of back and forth in the theory since >>>>>>>>>>>> antiquity? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Several times? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Au contraire, there is yet definition up, in the air, as it were. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Find any reference to fictitious forces and for a theory >>>>>>>>>> where the potential fields are what's real and the classical >>>>>>>>>> field's just a projection to a perspective in the middle, >>>>>>>>>> and anything at all to do with the plainly empirical or >>>>>>>>>> tribological with regards to our grandly theoretical, >>>>>>>>>> and one may find that the definitions of "inertia" and >>>>>>>>>> "momentum" with regards to resistance to changes in motion >>>>>>>>>> and resistance to changes in rest, as with regards to >>>>>>>>>> weight and as with regards to heft, have rotated each >>>>>>>>>> few hundred years, as with regards to the great schism >>>>>>>>>> whence Newton's vis-motrix, as with regards to the vis-insita >>>>>>>>>> and Leibnitz' vis-viva, as what for example can be read into >>>>>>>>>> from the Wikipedia on conservation of _energy_ and conservation >>>>>>>>>> of _momentum_ up to today, where for example, the "infinitely- >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>> higher orders of theoretical acceleration are both formally >>>>>>>>>> non-zero and vanishing" because "zero meters/second >>>>>>>>>> equals infinity seconds/meter". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, for a true centrifugal, and quite all about the derivative >>>>>>>>>> and anti-derivative as with regards to momentum, inertia, >>>>>>>>>> and kinetic energy, in a theory what's of course sum-of-histories >>>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials with least action and gradient, or sum-of- >>>>>>>>>> potentials, >>>>>>>>>> it is so that the various under-defined concepts of the plain >>>>>>>>>> laws >>>>>>>>>> of after Newton, are as yet un-defined, and there are a variety >>>>>>>>>> of considerations as with regards to the multiplicities, or >>>>>>>>>> these singularities, and the reciprocities, of these projections. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, some of these considerations as since "Mediaeval Times", >>>>>>>>>> help reflect that Einstein's not alone in his, 'attack on >>>>>>>>>> Newton'. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moment and Motion:  a story of momentum >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH-Gh- >>>>>>>>> bBb7M&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4eHy5vT61UYFR7_BIhwcOY >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Theories and principles, momentum and sum-of-histories >>>>>>>>> sum-of-potentials, conservation, momentum and inertia >>>>>>>>> and energy, fields and forces, Einstein's mechanics, >>>>>>>>> conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, >>>>>>>>> potential and fictitious and causal and virtual, mv, mv^2, >>>>>>>>> ordinary and extra-ordinary in the differential and inverses, >>>>>>>>> the standard curriculum and the super-standard, momentum >>>>>>>>> in definition, classical exposition, Bayes rule and a law of large >>>>>>>>> numbers, law(s) of large numbers and not-Bayesian expectations, >>>>>>>>> numerical methods in derivations, uniqueness results later >>>>>>>>> distinctness results, law(s) of large numbers and continuity, >>>>>>>>> complete and replete, induction and limits, partials and limits, >>>>>>>>> the paleo-classical, platforms and planks, mass and weight >>>>>>>>> and heft, gravitational force and g-forces, measure and >>>>>>>>> matching measure, relativity and a difference between >>>>>>>>> rest and motion, heft, resistance to gravity, ideals and >>>>>>>>> billiard mechanics, wider ideals, Wallis and Huygens, >>>>>>>>> Nayfeh's nonlinear oscillations, addition of vectors, >>>>>>>>> observables and ideals, DesCartes' and Kelvin's vortices, >>>>>>>>> black holes and white holes, waves and optics, Euler, both >>>>>>>>> vis-motrix and vis-viva, d'Alembert's principle, Lagrange, >>>>>>>>> potential as integral over space, Maupertuis and Gauss >>>>>>>>> and least action and least constraint, Hamilton, >>>>>>>>> Hamiltonians and Bayesians, Jacobi, Navier and Stokes >>>>>>>>> and Cauchy and Saint Venant and Maxwell, statistical >>>>>>>>> mechanics and entropy and least action, ideal and real, >>>>>>>>> mechanical reduction and severe abstraction, ions and >>>>>>>>> fields and field theory, wave mechanics and virtual particles, >>>>>>>>> ideals and the ideal, the classical and monistic holism, paleo- >>>>>>>>> nouveau. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Much like the theories of "fall", "shadow", or >>>>>>>> "push" gravity, or the "shadow" or "umbral" >>>>>>>> gravity and for theories of real supergravity, >>>>>>>> as after Fatio and LeSage, as of theories of >>>>>>>> "pull" or "suck" gravity of Newton and the >>>>>>>> "rubber-sheet" or "down" gravity of Einstein, >>>>>>>> then the theories of vortices like DesCartes >>>>>>>> and Kelvin, and others, help reflect on the >>>>>>>> rectilinear and curvilinear, and flat and round, >>>>>>>> as with regards to deconstructive accounts of >>>>>>>> usual unstated assumptions and the severe >>>>>>>> abstraction and mechanical reduction, in as >>>>>>>> with regards to modern theories of mechanics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You know, zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter, >>>>>>> and, any change of anything in motion has associated the >>>>>>> infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, and, >>>>>>> it's rather underdefined and even undefined yet very >>>>>>> obviously clearly is an aspect of the mathematical model, >>>>>>> that Galileo's and Newton's laws of motion, sort of are >>>>>>> only a "principal branch" as it were, and, don't quite suffice. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course anything that would add infinitely-many higher >>>>>>> orders of acceleration mathematically to the theory, >>>>>>> of mechanics, the theory, would have to result being >>>>>>> exactly being the same as Galilean and Newtonian, >>>>>>> "in the limit", and for example with regards to >>>>>>> Lorentzians and these kinds of things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's sort of similar with adding more and better >>>>>>> infinities and infinitesimals to mathematics. >>>>>>> The continuous dynamics of continuous motion >>>>>>> though and its mechanics, is a few layers above >>>>>>> a plain concept of the continuum, as with regards >>>>>>> to something like a strong mathematical platonism's >>>>>>> mathematical universe, being that making advances >>>>>>> in physics involves making advances in mathematics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which pretty much means digging up and revisiting >>>>>>> the "severe abstraction" the "mechanical reduction", >>>>>>> quite all along the way: paleo-classical, super-classical. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "zero meters per second is infinity seconds per meter"???? >>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========