| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<81WdnRHj5_sE5mX7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 21:56:41 +0000 Subject: Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity References: <Q3udnQ_BXvnebXX7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <66e96931$0$3271$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <Uj6dnY-qhbLyUHT7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <7RycnbrrTfx70W37nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com> <79qcnSfIffhX_m37nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <t72dnUjHGp9d8Wn7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <66F478BF.7DAE@ix.netcom.com> <uWOdnegwverCXWn7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> <66F59C62.58E2@ix.netcom.com> <aSidnQ0zvNRkW2j7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> <llpuokFgheaU9@mid.individual.net> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 14:57:21 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <llpuokFgheaU9@mid.individual.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <81WdnRHj5_sE5mX7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 343 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-2h6jvGadLYuCamN6W2EisDr4noBswZu0/JJLECI4KH5owMgNoTWsVFGEykRN/CeW6M/cgO/xyuBJqb9!4GN1SOQthznByWiPQWG4Tlto6FXdtntKC5/SIZRzgFL6TKhGvtSVkJgqWxT8KcuLwAxdQhdwEY8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 14481 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 <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> 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 ==========