Re: My definition of force!!!

From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/03/05 

Date: 3 Mar 2005 14:29:20 -0800

TomGee wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > How do we include speed, time, and direction (explicitly) to find
the
> > velocity? The reason I'm asking is that this definition is not the
> same
> > as the clear-cut, careful definition used by physicists. Since you
> are
> > using a different definition, you have to be more explicit about
the
> > definition other than a vague "includes" statement.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Following the same TomGee-speak, momentum "contains" mass,
> > > > displacement, time, and direction. What the heck is your point?
> > > >
> > > I defined momentum in an earlier post, but evidently you still do
> not
> > > know what it is. The quantity momentum uses mass, speed and
> > direction
> > > wrt time, in order to express the motion of a body and its
> resistance
> > > to slowing. It does not include displacement and it does include
> > > speed, which you left out above.
> > > Momentum
> > > 3. physics measure of movement: a quantity that expresses the
> motion
> > > of a body and its resistance to slowing down. It is equal to the
> > > product of the body's mass and velocity. Symbol p
> > > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
> Microsoft
> > > Corporation. All rights reserved.
> >
> > Ah, so YOU didn't define it. You let Microsoft define it. Very
well.
> > I don't see "direction" included in Microsoft's definition, yet you
> say
> > it must be "included". How do you define momentum?
> >
> > >
> You don't see direction in the definition because it's hidden from
you
> in the velocity vector.

Ah, then displacement is also "included" in momentum because that's
hidden in the velocity vector, right?

> I define momentum the same as does Encarta,
> which hires the most-accepted authorities to write their reference
> works.
> >

And you know this how? You work for them, or you just take their word
for gospel? Moreover, you think that three lines in a dictionary is
sufficient to capture the concept?

> >
> > > My point, then, is that you are confused about what terms in
> physics
> > > mean, and you have yet to state where you get all those wrong
> > > definitions. It seems, too, that some of them are correct but of
> > > something different than that to which you apply them.
> >
> > Would you like a reference for my definition?
> > OK, try books from the following authors:
> > Giancoli, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 3rd edition
> > Halliday, Resnick, Walker, 6th edition
> > Knight, 1st edition
> > Fishbane, Gasiorowicz, Thornton, 3rd edition
> > Walker, 2nd edition
> > Cutnell & Johnson, 5th edition
> > You'll find they all agree in their definitions and are quite clear
> > what they mean.
> >
> >
> Heh, heh, sorry, no. That is not a reference. How about this one:
Go
> read all the science books in the library and when you're done, read
> all of them in all the world's libraries, and that is a lot more
> "references" than your few puny ones.
>
> How is it that a "professional physicist" doesn't know what is a
> reference? Not only that, but how is it that you seem to know no
more
> than what hs students learn? Show me where any of your so-called
> "references" above disagree with my definitions. You can't, because
> they don't.

Fishbane et al., Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd edition, page
153. (Hereafter FGT3)
That's a specific reference to a page that explains the work-energy
theorem and also explains the problem with your definitions. If you're
interested, you'll read it. If you're only interested in holding your
position, you won't bother and you'll continue to deny that Encarta
might not be the best source of physics knowledge.

> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > I see. So if I heat a gas up at constant volume and raise its
> > > > temperature, where is the force that is being applied to that
gas
> > to
> > > > raise its energy? Where is the "expression" of the energy in
this
> > > case?
> > >
> > > The force, PD, is the heat you use to raise the temperature. AE
> said
> > > that energy can easily be supplied to a mass by heating it.
> >
> > Heat is a force?
> >
> >
> Yes, heat is energy and energy is a force when it is "performing
work".

Where is the work being done in this case? Be careful to define work.

> >
> > So if I put heat into Newton's 2nd law, F=ma, then I
> > expect heat to accelerate a body, causing it to change its motion?
> >
> >
> It changes a body's state of motion but not necessarily its velocity.
> >

The "a" in "F=ma" is acceleration, *defined* to be the rate of change
of velocity. So you say I can have F, but not a change in velocity?
What does Encarta say about Newton's second law?

> >
> > What's the direction of the heat? (Forces are vector quantities.)
> >
> > > >
> No, wrong again. It is the _measure_ of force which is a vector
> quantity, but force itself is not a quantity.

FGT3: page 88: "A force is a vector, so that it has a direction as
well as a magnitude."

> Heat always moves from a
> hotter area to cooler areas in a substance and radiates into space
when
> an object is warmer than its surrounding space.
> >

[snip]

> > > > Let's try a little experiment.
> > > > Build a little metal ramp, inclined.
> > > > - 1) put a sandpaper-coated puck on the ramp. It does not
slide.
> > > > - 2) put a Teflon-coated puck on the ramp. It slides.
> > > > What is the force that keeps the puck from sliding in the first
> > > > experiment?
> > > >
> > > The force of friction.
> >
> > Exactly! And that's a force. And yet there is no energy expended.
No
> > motion, no heating, no change in potential energy.
> >
> > > >
> Energy is always being expended within a gravity well.
> Gravitation is
> constant and continuous, or did you think it turns on and off?

Not so. The force is there, yes, but energy expended, no. Would you
like a reference? FGT3: pg 154.

> >
> >
> > > > Repeating earlier example:
> > > > You park your car on a hill. It does not slide down the hill.
Why
> > > not?
> > > > (However, in early March you park your car on the same hill
when
> > it's
> > > > covered in ice. It slides down the hill. Why?)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The force of friction.
> >
> > Exactly! So friction IS present in static cases as well as in
sliding
> > cases.
> >
> Of course, if the cases are located within a gravity well.
> >
> >
[snip]
> >
> > > If it is a 1966 GTO convertible with a 389 motor in it, it would
be
> > the
> > > friction created by the engine against the clutch which is geared
> to
> > > the tranny which is geared to the rear end which is geared to the
> > rear
> > > wheels which makes them turn to propel the vehicle.
> >
> > First of all, those are all forces internal to the car, not a force
> > acting ON the car.
> >
> >
> Same as pressing the gas pedal as in your example. As long as the
> wheels are driven, the friction created when the wheels are on the
> ground is the force which propels the car.

Exactly! It is friction which make the car go forward! Accelerate,
even! Note that the statement that friction acts to *oppose* or
*resist* motion must be an inaccurate or incomplete description. What
does Encarta say about friction again?

[snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > A sign suspended from a beam by cable is under the
> influence
> > of
> > > > the force of gravity on Earth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But it is not moving. There is no expenditure of energy! If
> so,
> > > > what is it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > The force of gravity is pulling on it continuously.
> > > >
> > > > I see. And where does that energy go? Does it heat up the sign?
> > > >
> > > It is conserved, that's where it goes.
> >
> > Wow! You really believe that, and it doesn't bother you? The longer
> the
> > sign just hangs there, the warmer it gets?
> >
> If the sun is shining on it....

Oh, come on. The sign's in a shaded alley.
I thought you said it was gravity that was heating it up, not the sun.

[snip]
> >
> >
> > > > Look up the Work-Energy Theorem in your Encarta encyclopedia.
> Then
> > > > explain again what conditions must be met for the presence of a
> > force
> > > > to indicate an expenditure of energy.
> > > >
> > > "4. physics power supply or source: a supply or source of
> > electrical,
> > > mechanical, or other form of power
> > > 5. physics capacity to do work: the capacity of a body or system
> to
> > do
> > > work. Symbol E"
> > > Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004
> Microsoft
> > > Corporation. All rights reserved.
> > >
> > > Well, that did not give the conditions you ask about, so why not
> > > illumine us?
> >
> > Note the power of Encarta. Time to pick up a physics book that
spends
> a
> > few pages describing the work-energy theorem. Or try Google.
> >
> >
> Google? Google? Encarta is a physics reference work

PHYSICS reference??? Do they advertise it as such?

> which pays highly
> respected physicists to write for them.

And you know this how? Is there an author credit for that article?

> Its time for you to pick a
> physics book describing anything about physics, to start.

FGT3: pages 152-159. All about forces, energy, and the work-energy
theorem. Have fun.

> >
> > [snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > The force holding the particles together can only do that
> through
> > > the
> > > > > use of energy, whether or not you believe that. The
stability
> of
> > > an
> > > > > electron is threatened by temperature which can elevate it to
> > > higher
> > > > > energy levels and also send it to a ground state and beyond
> that
> > > > allow
> > > > > it's transformation into dark matter.
> > > >
> > > > Oh my. And so where is this source of energy that has kept each
> > > > hydrogen atom stable for billions of years? And if I cool
> hydrogen
> > > down
> > > > to absolute zero, it will turn into dark matter? Really? At
what
> > > > temperature will this transition happen?
> > > >
> > > I don't know about hydrogen atoms, but according to Pauli, Dirac,
> and
> > > Gamow, the electron is transformed into dark matter when it
> achieves
> > > near zero energy levels.
> >
> > Reference, please. And where is the source of the energy that keeps
> > hydrogen from collapsing into dark matter?

No answer?

> >
> > > I would guess temperture-wise that would
> > > happen at just before it reaches Abs.0, but that's just a guess.
> >
> > Obviously. In fact the whole business about cold atoms going to
dark
> > matter is a guess on your part.
> >
> >
> No, only some of it. The authoritative parts came from, as I said
> before, Pauli, Dirac, and Gamow. Here's an excerpt from my essay,
"The
> Time And Motion Relationship" by Thomas Garcia, copyright 1996:
>

[snip] Inappropriate reference. I'm not interested in reading what YOU
think they said, I want you to point to what they ACTUALLY said. Do a
proper reference, please.

> >
> >
> > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry, I'm not following. So you're saying that physics
books
> > and
> > > > physics teachers *deliberately* misinform and obfuscate truths
> that
> > > are
> > > > much more readily found in consumer dictionaries and popular
> > science
> > > > books? And that's done for the sake of greed?
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > No. Competition is for the sake of greed. That's the way of our
> > > Capitalist Democracy. Teachers are just dumb for the most part
as
> > they
> > > fall away from science to teach,
> >
> > You do know that most university teachers are, and are required to
> be,
> > active researchers, don't you?
> >
> >
> They are to publish or perish, and to do that they must be actively
> involved in research, yes.

Some of them actually do it because they like it.

> >
> > > but some brainwash the innocent as
> > > they themselves were brainwashed by teaching Theoretical Physics
or
> > > metaphysics as real physics, as they lack the restrictions which
> > > accountability imposes on those who serve the public.
> > >
> > [snip rant]
> > >
> > > But nothing like that exists in the schools. Tenured teachers
are
> > > there for the duration - of their lives, that is, barring any
> > > unforeseen disasters. The culture of education prevents any real
> > > accountibility of teaching work except perhaps in the competition
> for
> > > celibrity teachers to make their system appear better than
others.
> > > >
> >
> > OK, so you say that tenured teachers DO misinform and obfuscate,
> though
> > not for greed. What's the motivation, then?

No answer?

> >
> > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > Well, I for one object to you defining Theoretical Physics to
be
> > > > whatever you think it should be, rather than how it is defined
by
> > > > practicing theoretical physicists. If you did the same thing
> with
> > > > medicine, saying that your definition of a licensed
practitioner
> of
> > > > medicine is the true one, and that the medical profession's
> > > definition
> > > > is an erroneous one that is ruining the careers of young,
> > prospective
> > > > doctors -- I daresay you would be brought up on charges for
> > > practicing
> > > > without a license.
> > > >
> > > You seem to think I made up those definitions. I did not, but
you
> > did.
> > > Cite one physicist, theoretical or physical, who agrees with you
> in
> > > print. You're all alone out there on that limb, PD.
> >
> > Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. That's still in print. Read
> it.
> > If you want more citations, I'll be happy to provide more.
> > Hatton, Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing. That's in print.
> Read
> > it. If you want more citations, I'll be happy to provide more.
> >
> >
> Read the whole book? AH HA! HA! HA! Sorry; I fell on the floor
> laughing so much! Tell you what, you read it and provide me the
quote
> where he agrees with you and I'll look that up.

Sorry, if you're only looking for three-line explanations to buttress
your understanding, then I'm not going to provide it to you.
YES OF COURSE READ THE WHOLE DAMN BOOK! HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO LEARN
ANYTHING IF YOU WON'T READ ANYTHING LONGER THAN A DICTIONARY BLURB?

> >
> > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > I see. How am I wrong? Is it wrong that straight thinking has
to
> be
> > > > confronted with empirical facts, or is it wrong that straight
> > > thinking
> > > > can lead to erroneous conclusions?
> > > > > >
> > > You are wrong in saying that straight thinking often leads to
> > > conclusions which have nothing to do wih the way nature works.
> >
> > And so any theoretical paper that turns out to be wrong must have
> been
> > not-so-straight thinking? (I'm pretty sure that the theorist was
> > confident of their straight thinking at the time.)
> >
> >
> Usually, yes.
> >
> >
> > And how would one
> > know at the time of thinking whether your thinking is straight, or
> > not-so-straight? What is the tool that you use to check whether
your
> > thinking is straight?
> >
> >
> There are several guidelines to follow when reviewing ideas. First,
I
> will look for consistency with physical reality.

And what does "consistency with physical reality" mean to you?

> Could it have
> happened? Next, I review it to see if it is falsifiable.

And what does "falsifiable" mean to you?

> If it
> cannot, it is still in the metaphysical stage, where everything is
> possible. If it can, I find the premises and conclusions and review
> them under logical rules, not just to see if they pass, but whether
or
> not they provide unambiguous answers through correct premises.
> >

[snip]

> > > >
> > > Well, fine, but all that math has already been done; my models
> simply
> > > proposes alternatives to the conclusions drawn from that math.
> >
> > I think you have it backward. The conclusions of a theory are
> supposed
> > to be the experimental predictions, not the model. The order is
> > Model --(leads to)-> mathematical representation --(gives)->
> > predictions.
> >
> >
> Wherever did you get that idea? You made it up, of course.

FGT3: page 2 (that's page TWO. I hope you're up to reading two pages.
The first page is a half-page, by the way, with a big picture on it.)

> >
> >
> > You seem to be questioning the underlying model, not the
conclusions.
> >
> > What issues do you have with the current model (what you call
> > "conclusions of the current model")
> >
> >
> 1. Energy can be observed only through the use of force.

Is this something you have issues with or something you attest to?

> 2. The silly idea that a singularity exploded into every point of
> space.

And it's silly because...?

> 3. The silly idea of an Inflationary Period.

And it's silly because...?

> 4. The silly ideas of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Well, here I tend to agree with you, but in your mind, it's silly
because...?

> 5. The silly explanations of the dual nature of light.

And it's silly because...?

> 6. The silly ideas that photons are massless and travel along with
the
> lightwave.

And the first part is silly because...? The last part I agree is silly
because that's not what physics says about photons.

> 7. On and on ad infinitum.
> > > >
> > > >
[snip]
> > > >
> > > > I see. So special relativity and quantum mechanics and the rest
> > work
> > > > just fine, but they must be wrong anyway?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > None of those work just fine where they conflict with each other.
> >
> > First of all, cite an example of where SR and QM conflct with each
> > other.
> >
> > Secondly, suppose you *do* have an area where SR and QM conflict,
and
> > your model does NOT conflict. This is *precisely* the thing you
must
> > develop. You must show that your model predicts the behavior of
> nature
> > where SR and QM do NOT. I cannot stress this enough. This is
EXACTLY
> > where you would become famous because your idea would be shown to
be
> > right. If you show
> > 1) the place where SR and QM do not work;
> > 2) how your theory is consistent in that place;
> > 3) how to test the validity of your idea with a quantitative
> prediction
> > of a measurable quantity in that same place;
> > then I will be your most ardent supporter.
> >
> >
> I don't disagree with your list except for no 3. Why do I have to
come
> up with a test for my theory when many scientists agree with the
> untestable metaphysical proposition that God exists.

Just because a scientists says that does not make it a scientific
assertion. The fact that it is untestable makes it very much a
*non*scientific assertion. Scientific assertions are indeed testable
and in so tested are *distinguishable* from other theories.

> AE did not say
> how to confirm his ideas.

On the contrary! Every one of his papers has a quantifiable
experimental prediction. Would you like a reference for a sample?

> Confirmation usually comes long after the
> theory and it comes from others than the author of the theory.

True, but the quantifiable prediction is there IN THE THEORY, even if
it takes a while for an experimentalist to assemble the equipment
needed to test it. Note that the perihelion of Mercury was measured
within six months of Einstein's prediction of its value.

> In
> cases where the theory is accompanied by an experiment which can be
> duplicated for confirmation, well and good (the photo-electric
effect,
> e.g.). But what about those that must wait for technology to evolve
in
> order for tests to be made?

Nevertheless, the theoretical paper has the quantitative predictions in
it, even if it takes a while to measure the predicted quantity well.

> And, finally, what about those ideas like
> mine that accept the research but provide alternative conclusions?

Precisely my point. Ideas like yours are not scientific theories.
Theorists do not produce what you are producing.

>
> That is the precise reason why I post my ideas here, to try to find
> valid refutations of them the only way I can, in an open forum. I
had
> hoped to find objections to them here which centered on the ideas
> themselves and not on their presentations and not on semantical or
> other silly arguments.

It's not about semantics or silly arguments. It's about science, and
what makes good science and what makes bad science. The ideas, no
matter how good they might be, are NOT DEFENSIBLE unless they are
developed scientifically.

> >
> >
> > > They
> > > are theories developed from observed effects and supported by
math
> > > constructs, but they cannot all be correct whenever they conflict
> > with
> > > each other or when their conclusions are either inconsistent with
> > what
> > > would be expected
> >
> > Expected, or observedd? What happens if they predict something
other
> > than what you expect, but sure enough, it's verified in an
> experiment?
> >
> >
> I try to check out the experiment itself to satisfy myself that it
was
> a valid one which tested what it was supposed to test. Until I can
do
> that, I hold off on any final acceptance but I try to keep up with
any
> future developments or confirmations. I usually accept research
> reports if they are extensive enough to include sufficient details to
> help me believe they were well-done.
>
> For example, take the MMX experiment. I am convinced at this time
that
> it failed to detect the ether simply because the ether is invisible
to
> us and the experiment was set up to reveal a visible ether. Thus, it
> failed to prove the ether does not exist.

If a thing is undetectable, by any means possible or conceivable, what
good is it? What place does it have in physics?

Note that the MMX also failed to rule out angels, because it was set up
to reveal a visible ether.

Note, too, that special relativity makes a point to deny the existence
of a visible ether. That is precisely what the MMX verified.

[snip]
> > > >
> > > > I see. Suppose I have a theory that says: "The universe is
simple
> > and
> > > > is explained by one physical law: There is at least one of
> > > everything."
> > > > This certainly withstands the rules of logic, and it is
> consistent
> > > with
> > > > every experimental result known to man. Now, would you say that
> > this
> > > > theory is worthwhile, considering that it took me two seconds
to
> > come
> > > > up with it? Now, if it had consumed my attention for the last
> > > eighteen
> > > > years, with me continuing to test it and develop it
conceptually,
> > > would
> > > > it be more worthwhile?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Logically, your first premise is false, since the universe is not
> > > simple but complex and comprised of numerous complications.
> >
> > And you know this how?
> >
> Well, it's fairly obvious to anyone, but, for one thing, look at the
> definitions of simple and complex and that should explain it to you
how
> every person in the world should know this to be a fact.

There's a definition of simple, too, but you are denying that the
universe is simple. How do you do that?

> >
> > > Thus, your
> > > first premise is mere opinion, and thus, debatable (moot).
> >
> > And so how would we settle the debate? What becomes the arbiter?
> >
> >
> First, you need to develop one or more premises which are true and
> which logically lead to a true conclusion. That still may not
> necessarily be true of our reality, but it's a good way to start.
You
> will still need empirical research to make it an accepted fact as
logic
> alone is like math, it cannot guarantee reality.

Exactly! Confrontation with empirical results! That's what a theory has
to satisfy!

> >
> >
> > > Based on
> > > your first premise, your conclusion could be true or false, which
> > means
> > > it is unreliable. Logic is not proof of facts, but it helps in
> > > straight thinking.
> > >
> > > Your second premise, that the universe can be explained by one
> > physical
> > > law, is of course false, since even the large number of physical
> laws
> > > which have been found to date have not yet explained it.
> >
> > And what if I maintained that all those laws could be derived from
> ONE
> > law, like Kepler's laws are all derived from Newton's law of
> > gravitation and conservation of momentum, and like all of
chemistry's
> > laws are derived from quantum mechanics (Dirac equation) and
> > electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations)? What would you need to see
to
> > check the truth of that statement?
> >
> > > >
> Something quite simple can fill the bill, such as, "Energy is a force
> which is observed whenever energy is in use." From there can come
GUTs
> and TOEs to review for logic and truth until we come accept one from
> the group. Or, how about, "Energy is the fundamental force of all
> events." Just think how far we can get with that one! All events
> require a force in order to occur and force is the physical
expression
> of energy, thus, energy is the fundamental force. And on and on....

And I like my theory better. How to distinguish between them?

[snip]

PD

Quantcast