| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<llpuokFgheaU9@mid.individual.net> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: vis-viva and vis-motrix Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 10:57:56 +0200 Lines: 269 Message-ID: <llpuokFgheaU9@mid.individual.net> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net yRfuDELr19fV7Ut++pFlFQoQhQjOFLSMy9fPlYM416ruCJ+m// Cancel-Lock: sha1:knBiphP7mg4FilvSv0Gep5PfNT0= sha256:9PXsUIXzosECmI6Bc8LLY5s7Rgn48rw8G14EUNH/gfE= User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: de-DE In-Reply-To: <aSidnQ0zvNRkW2j7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> Bytes: 11941 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"???? >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========