Path: ...!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: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 07:20:42 +0200
Lines: 396
Message-ID: <lluqp8F93kcU1@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>
 <llpuokFgheaU9@mid.individual.net>
 <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 <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 ==========