Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2024 00:51:55 +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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:52:03 -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: <aSidnQ0zvNRkW2j7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <rbqdnd0R6YS2zmr7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 475
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-0QyUIV9ASaToFh42HINrngmnz8hjp7cFqZiUTXioTrkXTErkNiymxjPfalzRNuKfpAufchXZ7Nmywl8!HTBqcteCg2GQ/9xl1mVCyXcdoZngmMzBMw1yyZyTaXI2afnIEgMiCh7GVPiTcb9u2LxvIokv3zg=
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: 20557

On 09/26/2024 01:41 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 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?
>>>>
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========