Re: Data types in physics
- From: helbig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply)
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 19:01:03 +0000 (UTC)
In article
<65445ccb-a4a7-499e-a938-ce4a70875efd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
pioneer1 <1pioneer1@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Apr 14, 5:35=A0pm, hel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In other words, the quantity of interest (F in the examples above) is
proportional to various things we can measure (like r, or m). In
general, to make the proportionality an equality, we need a constant.
Do I understand correctly that you are saying that F itself is not a
measurable quantity?
Define "measurable quantity".
since that computed value of F refers to force in F=ma and since m
cancels, our calculation amounts to computing acceleration. We then
call acceleration force. This suggests to me that orbits are
independent of force.
What you might be thinking is that, since m cancels, orbits are
independent of the mass of the orbiting object. This is a mystery in
Newtonian physics, but a natural consequence of General Relativity.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Data types in physics
- From: pioneer1
- Re: Data types in physics
- From: J. J. Lodder
- Re: Data types in physics
- Prev by Date: sci.physics.research, beware Operation Sudden Fall
- Next by Date: Several questions about Dirac's equation and Dirac Spinors and QFT
- Previous by thread: sci.physics.research, beware Operation Sudden Fall
- Next by thread: Re: Data types in physics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|