Re: My definition of force!!!
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/02/05
- Next message: Apocalypso Now: "Re: GOD=G_uv versus JOHN ANKERBERG"
- Previous message: Keith F. Lynch: "Re: Jar of neutrons"
- In reply to: Geraldine Hobba: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Next in thread: Geraldine Hobba: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Reply: Geraldine Hobba: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Mar 2005 20:56:56 -0800
Geraldine Hobba wrote:
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109718918.946975.264110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > [begin TomGee]
> > But momentum is a quantity that expresses the motion of a body and
> its
> > resistance to slowing down. Here you are again referring to
> properties
> > while my claim refers to the physical evidence of energy. As you
> > correctly point out, relating velocity to momentum offers no
physical
> > insight, but that's because velocity is a vector comprised of more
> > quantities.
> > [end TomGee]
> >
> >
SNIP
>
> Tom Gee
> I don't claim to know all there is about it, but the fact that it is
a
> quantity makes it a property and that is my point, that properties
are
> not physical evidence of energy.
>
> Bill Hobba
> Energy is a defined quantity
>
>
Yes, Bill, if you had read the previous posts in this thread you would
have better known what has already been discussed. To come in midway
and rehash stuff already covered shows a selfish side not many would
want to show in public.
>
>
that naturally results form Noethers famous theorem - it is the
conserved charge related to time symmetry. It conservation is
logically equivalent to time invariance of the lagrangian.
>
>
This issue cares not where it naturally resulted from, Hobbit, nor what
it is related to nor logically equivalent to whatever of whatever.
Energy has already been defined as a quantity in this thread.
>
>
> Tom Gee
> An amount of force is also a
> quantity; thus, I am not saying that a quantity of force is physical
> evidence of energy, but that any observed exercise of power as a
force
> is indeed.
>
> Bill Hobba
> Both force and energy are defined quantities.
>
>
No, you're wrong again, Bill, force has already been defined previous
to your entrance into this thread as 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.
>
>
> The utility of force is derived from conservation of momentum in an
inertial frame which is logically equivalent to Newton's famous third
law.
>
> >
Yes, and so what?
> >
> >
SNIP
> >
>
> Tom Gee
> Again, resistance is a force that opposes or slows down another
force.
> Inertia is the property of a body by which it remains at rest or
> continues moving in a straight line unless acted upon by a
directional
> force. [Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
> Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved]
>
> Bill Hobba
> Yes that is the definition of inertia.
>
>
Therefore, inertia is a property and as a property it cannot also be an
exercise of the power of the energy which is inherent in the said body.
>
>
SNIP non-relevant statements
>
>
> Tom Gee
> Thus, resistance is not a property but a force. Inertia is a
property
> of an oject by which it wants to stay as is. As a property, it
cannot
> be physical evidence of energy at work.
>
> Bill Hobba
> Semantic quibbling is is little value in physics.
>
> >
Then why do you do it?
>
> >
> > Also, this
> > property (inertia) applies to attempts to increase velocity (or
> momentum)
> > as well as decrease.
> >
> >
> Yes, but what is your point?
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > [begin TomGee]
> I don't claim to have brilliant ideas, only ideas born from straight
> thinking which questions certain claims from emperors who roam the
> streets naked. My ideas are difficult to understand, but I think
> that's due at least as much to the inability of many to react well to
> change as they are difficult to explain. At what point do you say,
> "let us suppose he is right about that, how can it be defended?",
> instead of the usual, "you must conform to my idea of what a good
idea
> is or you will fail to impress anyone with your wild ramblings."
>
> For anyone to believe that good ideas must be shown by or must
contain
> math constructs is conformist to the nth degree simply because and
> especially since math is the way of Theoretical Physics and not
> empirical research.
>
> Tom Gee
>
> AE taught us that math can be manipulated toward
> any end, true or false, and we know that logical reasoning can also
be
> manipulative, but many seem to forget that and they accept math as
> Truth and Fact when presented by those whom they admire as their
> mentors or teachers.
>
> Bill Hobba
> That is the exact opposite of what AE thought
http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/SecretsGenius.pdf
>
>
That may be the opposite of what he thought, but it is what he taught
the world when he used math to prove his static universe. Also, you
imply that the quote below is from AE hisself - shame shame shame! It
is only an opinion by others who are motivated to publish or perish.
>
>
> 'This case illustrates an important difference between mathematical
and physical thinking which goes a long way toward explaining why so
few mathematicians have made important contributions to physics in the
20th century. Pure mathematicians do not think about the equations of
physics in the same way as a physicist does. They are concerned only
with the structure of the equations and the formal rules for
manipulating them.
>
>
That is precisely the definition of the science of Theoretical Physics
which I gave previously in this thread, which you obviously did not
read.
>
>
> But physicists regard the equations as representations of real things
or processes; they are only partial representations of the physicists'
knowledge, so to improve a representation they may alter the equations
in ways that violate mathematical rules. Both Einstein and Heisenberg
were masters at this.
>
>
So how is the above exactly opposite to what I said?
>
>
> Neither was a mathematical virtuoso. Indeed, in the period when
Einstein was developing his general relativity theory, the
mathematician Hilbert expressed the opinion that Einstein was
mathematically naive. I have heard a similar opinion about Heisenberg
expressed by one of his students in later years. Mathematics played an
essential role in Einstein's thinking, but, as mathematical physics
goes, the mathematics in all his great papers is comparatively simple.
His forte was in analyzing the physical meaning of the mathematics.
Indeed, such analysis is generally characteristic of the best work in
theoretical physics. I have heard the Nobel laureate Richard Feynman,
himself a true mathematical virtuoso, express this opinion forcefully,
asserting that the value of a paper on theoretical physics is inversely
proportional to the density of mathematics in it.'
>
>
Again, isn't that what I was saying?
>
>
> It is the abilty to trasnslate from the mathematics to the physics
that makes a great physicst. What is happening was also expressed
elequontly by Cleick in a famous remark about Feynman, Eisntein and
Landau
>
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Feynman.html
>
> 'This was Richard Feynman nearing the crest of his powers. At
twenty-three ... there was no physicist on earth who could match his
exuberant command over the native materials of theoretical science. It
was not just a facility at mathematics (though it had become clear ...
that the mathematical machinery emerging from the Wheeler-Feynman
collaboration was beyond Wheeler's own ability). Feynman seemed to
possess a frightening ease with the substance behind the equations,
like Einstein at the same age, like the Soviet physicist Lev Landau -
but few others.'
>
>
This is apparently the opposite of what I said, but it's just opinion
that Wheeler was limited while Feynman was beyond greatness with his
overwhelming math and substance. So why did he need Wheeler if he was
so great? Opinions are subjective beyond belief when they voice
admiration for someone the author considers god-like.
>
>
> It is the 'frightening ease with the substance behind the equations'
that makes a great physicist - not the arbitrary manipulation of
mathematics.
>
>
Ah Ha Ha! That is pure opinion from you using someone else's words!
How crass of you.
>
>
> Think how many trudged off with their heads bowed when their hero AE
admitted his errors.
>
> Bill Hobba
> What errors? He made a few but let us be specific.
>
>
All of them. Every single one of them, none of which are specifically
germane to this discussion.
>
>
> What made them think he could
> do no wrong? How could they be so gullible when the word is not even
> in the dictionary?
>
> Bill Hobba
> What word? Many technical words do not appear in dictionaries.
>
>
"Gullible" is the word I referred to which does not appear in
dictionaries nor in reference works.
>
>
> Straight thinkers will take an idea - any idea - and review it to the
> end of the trail it leads to which ends at either that point where it
> can be deemed invalid or that point where it must be defended against
> detractors.
>
> Straight thinkers will do something you have not shown any
inclination to - understand something before criticizing it.
>
> Bill
>
>
But that is exactly what you did when you wrote the above without
bothering to read what had been discussed before you entered the fray!
You barged right in with the utmost misunderstanding of the issues and
you proceeded to criticize everything of which you had no undertanding!
One thing I can always count on from you, Hobble, is a good laugh.
TomGee
- Next message: Apocalypso Now: "Re: GOD=G_uv versus JOHN ANKERBERG"
- Previous message: Keith F. Lynch: "Re: Jar of neutrons"
- In reply to: Geraldine Hobba: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Next in thread: Geraldine Hobba: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Reply: Geraldine Hobba: "Re: My definition of force!!!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
