Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Aetherist <TheAetherist@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:12:39 GMT
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:34:35 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <rubbish@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Aetherist" <TheAetherist@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:vt6pq19nc8ru3ji42rc977c3og0itktst1@xxxxxxxxxx
[Snip...]
>>> F=MA describes the physical process ...
>>
>> Quantifies the magnitude that results from certain 'physical'
>> processes yes. But F = MA has no meaning except that which
>> we give it. How does F=MA?
>
> Why is F=MA a good defintion to make?
Indeed, it really isn't. It's a sloppy abbrevation of the
differention of momentum. It is actually,
F = M·(dv/dt) + v·(dM/dt)
and since,
A = dv/dt
if we assume that dM/dt = 0 then, and only then,
F = MA
> I know you have the Feynman Lecvtures - see the chapter on the
> charteristics of force.
The characteristics of force isn't 'the' physical force. No more
that a description, or picture, of an object 'is' the physical
object. That's the WHOLE POINT HERE! Harry was trying to lead
you there. It is simply ascine to claim that a person looks
like x 'because' his picture looks like x. That is precisely WHAT
you sound like when you write such rubbish...
>>> ... just like Euclid's axioms describe how points and lines
>>> behave.
>>
>> Perhaps, but they aren't points or lines either... They are
>> concepts
>>
>
> Exactly - any description contains concepts. Concepts don't make
> anything happen - however when included in a desperation
^??? did you mean description
> they may describe what is going on.
Then actually answer Harry's question about action at a distance
and don't 'blame' the equations.
Paul Stowe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- References:
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Harry
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Harry
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Aetherist
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Aetherist
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Aetherist
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Prev by Date: Re: Falling Objects, How They Fall
- Next by Date: Re: Sci Am proposes SR wrong and Aether exists
- Previous by thread: Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Next by thread: Re: Hobba's misconceptions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|