Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 20:04:16 +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>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 13:04:21 -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: <79qcnSfIffhX_m37nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <t72dnUjHGp9d8Wn7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 151
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5IUH7Dt3Lk/PRj2BAP7LfxbJo5uxOoXvD2AEFM9Mhu18H8PaBUWVsGtjq9B+z3KUZLR/NHSCGWa69Uf!50w1+rYtJDvzvcnxfAat/XqKvH93J+GmzXoxFX/HC4/XHClPLEFEid+Dy5OkiJLHhj2FXV81oXZQ
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: 8270

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.