Re: My definition of force!!!
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Ron Atkinson: "Re: Bring back the empire"
- In reply to: Dobri Karagorgov: "My definition of force!!!"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 27 Feb 2005 13:41:57 -0800
Dobri Karagorgov wrote:
> How would you distinguish between the fundamental forces?
>
>
The fundamental forces are already distinguished. The fundamental
force is energy, which is common to all the forces.
>
>
> What makes
> one force electric and other nuclear? Your problem is in your
> definition of force. My definition is pure: "force is geometric
> potential of the body". Just like you say potential energy, I can say
> force is sort of potential distance. How much force the body has that
> much further away from the equilibrium point it will get.
>
> "Unified Psycho Physics"
> www.geocities.com/dedaNoe
>
>
You seem to have left something out in your last statement above. If
you could say that force is "sort of potential distance", that would be
valid only as it refers to the distance an object could be moved by a
certain amount of force applied to it, and not to the actual moving of
the object. Then, since force is applied, it is not a potential force,
but an exercise of force where energy is used to move the object.
"9. physics influence that moves something: a physical influence that
tends to change the position of an object with mass, equal to the rate
of change in momentum of the object. Symbol F"
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
Here is an excerpt from my model of the universe regarding my
definition of force:
" The next question for us, then, should be: How and when does such
transfer of energy occur? The answer to that is not really as
difficult as it may seem. Energy is commonly de-fined as the capacity
of matter to perform work, as a consequence of its motion or position
in relation to forces acting upon it. Yet, energy is also defined as
usable power, as a vigorous exertion of power, and as a synonym for
power. Other synonyms for energy are force, strength, and might.
Power is ordinarily defined as the time rate at which work is done, but
it is also defined as the ability to act or produce an effect, and it
implies possession of the ability to wield force. Therefore, energy is
a force having the power to overcome resistance to it.
A force is ordinarily defined as any action or influence that when
applied to a free body results sometimes in an acceleration of the body
and sometimes in elastic deformation and/or other effects. Newton's
second law of motion states that the amount of acceleration imposed on
an object times the mass of the object is equal to the net force acting
on the object. We may argue that particular law refers only to
objects, but a force is also described as the influ-ence of a field,
such as electrical and gravitational fields. A force acting at an
atomic level is known in high-energy physics as an interaction.
So-called elementary particles exert forces on each other and the
imposition of such forces are called interactions. In spite of all the
defini-tions above that lead to the conclusion that energy is a force,
I have met with solid opposition against such a claim from some
knowledgeable Internet users who post on physics news-groups. They
seem unwilling to accept the obvious, probably because there already
exist four other well-explained "forces of nature."
I have heard no one seriously suggest that energy could be a fifth
force. That could be because all four forces use energy as their
motive power. They use it in different ways, but it is energy they
use, nevertheless. Even the so-called messenger, or "signal" particles
must ac-complish their "work," or, "interactions," through the use of
energy. One would think that the concept of energy as a force could
easily be accepted on the basis alone that it is the one force which is
common to all the other forces and if so, it may be that it is also the
central factor of the GUT of the universe and essential to the TOE.
Clifford E. Swartz writes in "Mechanics," in an article for Microsoft
Encarta Encyclopedia 99: "The quantity called energy ties together all
branches of physics. In...mechanics, energy must be provided to do
work;.... Many other forms of energy exist: electric and magnetic
potential energy; kinetic energy; energy stored in compressed springs,
compressed gases, or molecular bonds; thermal energy; and mass itself."
(The Time And Motion Relationship, by Thomas Garcia, copyright 1996,
tyropress@yahoo.com)
TomGee
- Next message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Ron Atkinson: "Re: Bring back the empire"
- In reply to: Dobri Karagorgov: "My definition of force!!!"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|