Re: force vs power
- From: "Matifx" <matifx@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Jul 2006 10:39:07 -0700
srp wrote:
Matifx a écrit :
It's amazing but it is the simple ideas that open new avenues. Simple
but incredible:
http://www.doaj.org/abstract?id=119444&toc=y/
I wonder really, how many understand the implications. I'm also sad.
Just before retirement from a physics teaching job I'm faced with the
possibility that I did not have the full picture or at least I thought
the picture I had was the fullest possible.
Power instead of force. Simple but powerful, literally.
Mati
Very interesting paper indeed. Very daring also, considering the
weight of orthodox thinking.
From prior analysis, I had previously concluded that Newton considered
more important the kinetic energy longitudinally supporting motion
(precise enough for non relativistic velocities) while Leibnitz
considered more important the total energy induced by force as a
function of distance (not of time) between bodies, which we know now
also includes the energy contributing to relativistic mass increase
in bodies.
You seem open to reassessing some fundamental aspects of classical
physics. Have you maybe considered at some point that the actual energy
induced by force could possibly have physical existence and be the real
cause of motion ?
I have yet to meet a physicist who knows enough about electromagnetism
to really relate to the implications of what I have been trying to
explain in this regard.
André Michaud
I'm not the author of the paper. I think Leibniz's vis viva, or living
force, was equal to mv^2 or twice the kinetic energy. His passive force
was the momentum mv. Leibniz's assertion that vis viva is conserved was
wrong since what is actually conserved is total mechanical energy and
not just kinetic. If I recall correctly it was one of the Bernulli
brothers that pointed out this mistake of Leibniz.
In contrast Newton used momentum, which is conserved as per Noether's
theorem, for his quantity of motion and derived force from it, as in F
= dp/dt.
It is very interesting that in the paper I mentioned a way is found to
use kinetic energy as a quantity of motion by extending the law of
inertia. In this way, the derivative of kinetic energy (power) is the
force and gravitation is the result of the application of a force of
the same kind. In this way, total mechanical energy is still conserved
while the definition of force does not violate the conservation law.
It is remarkable indeed. I think we are dealing here with a trivial
issue that managed to escape unnoticed for a long time.
Mati
.
- References:
- force vs power
- From: Matifx
- Re: force vs power
- From: srp
- force vs power
- Prev by Date: Re: Incremental increases in gravity.
- Next by Date: Re: Curriculum for easy physics course?
- Previous by thread: Re: force vs power
- Next by thread: Re: force vs power
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
