| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<aSidnQ0zvNRkW2j7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:41:29 +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> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 13:41:25 -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: <66F59C62.58E2@ix.netcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <aSidnQ0zvNRkW2j7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 251 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-oDFfviv/COR+q/nNVplah3n9VrtL1fyX+8uqut1NM7mkv1XYKO2ZF2JWrNp5i0+bWv9puosBaXx0xID!omAQvkmEK7SIN+XxQm8qkzRWcx3WiBonBxjsQ57drGfiB+Y/MMFBVcgWnVl293YNQgF1x4aPpQ== 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: 11795 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"???? >>> >>> Do you guys even have any idea whats yous talkings abouts? >>> >>> >>> 'infinity' has no time and cannot be measured. So, that means there are >>> no 'seconds' in "infinity", and no meter/meters/inches in "infinity'! >>> >>> >>> In "infinity" there are no meters or seconds. >>> >>> >>> Where do you guys get your information from? Albert Einstein?? ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========