Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479202 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-06 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-12 13:44 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
the famous formula RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-06 10:49 -0800
Re: the famous formula pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-06 11:30 -0800
Re: the famous formula dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-12-06 11:43 -0800
Re: the famous formula RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-07 10:15 -0800
Re: the famous formula dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-12-07 11:13 -0800
Re: the famous formula RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-09 00:02 -0800
Re: the famous formula dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-12-09 15:23 -0800
Re: the famous formula Libor Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-12-10 09:54 +0100
Re: the famous formula dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-12-10 05:43 -0800
Re: the famous formula Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-12 11:08 -0600
Re: the famous formula dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-12-12 09:35 -0800
Re: the famous formula Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> - 2018-12-12 19:20 +0000
Re: the famous formula Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-12 19:28 -0600
Re: the famous formula Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-13 16:13 +0000
Re: the famous formula "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-14 04:56 -0800
Re: the famous formula "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-14 05:23 -0800
Re: the famous formula RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-19 13:06 -0800
Re: the famous formula Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-19 20:32 -0600
Re: the famous formula RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-27 13:40 -0800
Re: the famous formula Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-12 10:28 -0600
Re: the famous formula dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> - 2018-12-12 09:12 -0800
Re: the famous formula Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-14 12:21 -0600
Re: the famous formula "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-06 09:20 -0800
Re: the famous formula "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-06 09:37 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-06 20:50 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 22:47 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-07 12:06 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 16:15 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-08 14:18 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 13:43 +0000
Re: the famous formula "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-08 06:01 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-08 18:18 +0100
Re: the famous formula Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-12-08 19:26 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-09 19:35 +0100
Re: the famous formula Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-12-09 20:24 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-10 18:48 +0100
Re: the famous formula Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> - 2018-12-10 19:37 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-10 22:27 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-10 22:35 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-12 16:45 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-13 17:21 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 19:03 +0100
Re: the famous formula Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-12-09 20:37 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-10 18:40 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-10 21:59 +0100
Re: the famous formula "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 05:33 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-22 14:51 +0100
Re: the famous formula "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 15:30 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-23 01:34 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-11 16:31 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:24 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-12 16:32 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 16:27 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-14 15:13 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 14:28 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-15 13:35 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 13:52 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-15 19:50 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 20:33 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-17 11:13 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-18 04:45 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-18 18:50 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-21 22:48 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-15 22:02 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-17 11:01 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 15:28 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-18 18:42 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-06 18:45 +0100
Re: the famous formula Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 16:54 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2019-01-06 17:17 +0100
Re: the famous formula "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-06 08:35 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2019-01-07 14:56 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-06 18:47 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 12:55 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-13 23:14 +0100
[OT] Work (was: the famous formula) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-11 21:56 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:14 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 19:22 +0100
Re: the famous formula Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-12-07 17:57 +0100
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-08 14:03 +0100
Re: the famous formula Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-08 05:29 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-08 18:43 +0100
[OT] Work (was: the famous formula) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 21:53 +0100
Re: [OT] Work Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-09 19:08 +0100
Re: [OT] Work Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-12-09 19:31 +0100
Re: [OT] Work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 18:58 +0100
Re: [OT] Work Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-10 18:52 +0100
Re: [OT] Work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-10 22:28 +0100
Re: [OT] Work Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-11 16:36 +0100
Re: [OT] Work Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-11 20:24 +0100
Re: the famous formula Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-08 14:02 -0800
Re: the famous formula Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-12-08 16:56 +0100
Re: the famous formula Ejí Utorka <edew@aewedoc.cl> - 2018-12-08 16:05 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-08 18:35 +0100
Re: the famous formula Ejí Utorka <edew@aewedoc.cl> - 2018-12-08 17:58 +0000
Re: the famous formula Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-12-08 19:34 +0100
Re: the famous formula Ejí Utorka <edew@aewedoc.cl> - 2018-12-08 18:54 +0000
Re: the famous formula Ejí Utorka <edew@aewedoc.cl> - 2018-12-08 16:09 +0000
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 22:16 +0100
Re: the famous formula Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 18:15 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2019-01-02 22:10 +0100
Re: the famous formula Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:07 +0000
Re: the famous formula Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2019-01-01 17:22 -0800
Re: the famous formula Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 22:47 +0100
Re: the famous formula "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 15:06 -0800
Re: the famous formula benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:44 -0500
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 20:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv3oe3$118u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479887 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 15.12.2018 um 13:52 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>
>>>> It isn’t really up to debate. The term “work” is defined clearly, has been
>>>> defined clearly for a couple of centuries, and that definition contrasts
>>>> with a meaning that you are saying makes sense to you.
>>>
>>> The concept of vectors is much younger than the concept of the quantity
>>> 'work'.
>>
>> The *term* is younger, but that does not mean anything.
>
> Newton wrote in the 17th century and vectors came into fashion in the
> 19th century.
Newton offered no concept of work. Work was introduced in the 19th century.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244957729_A_History_of_Vector_Analysis
>
>
>>
>>> So you are incorrect in your assumption, that work is regarded as
>>> product of two vectors since many centuries.
>>
>> The abstraction of a complex number as a pair of two numbers was introduced
>> by William Rowan Hamilton (1805–1865). That was about two (“a couple of”)
>> centuries ago now.
>>
>
> not quite. As far as I remember this was in the 1850th.
>
>> The geometric concept of putting arrows atop each other is so basic that it
>> was known earlier already; it is in the “Mechanics” of Heron of Alexandria
>> (first century CE):
>>
>> <http://www.math.mcgill.ca/labute/courses/133f03/VectorHistory.html>
>>
>> (first Google hit for “vector history”)
>>
>>>> .. Here, you are uneducated in the meanings of basics concepts, and you
>>>> are attempting to make a case that, in the absence of education, what
>>>> you come up just by “thinking about it” in a vacuum of ignorance should
>>>> nevertheless be considered seriously. I disagree. Basic concepts are to
>>>> be learned, not reinvented […]
>>>
>>> Of course I am 'educated' in this field.
>>
>> Once again you are using your silly straight-apostrophe quotes correctly.
>
> No.
>
> In German we use an active term for learning ('lernen'), while 'being
> educated' is a passive phrase, which has no counterpart in German,
> except maybe in prisons ('belehrt werden').
>
> The entire concept of 'education' is actually British and adopted by
> institutions in the USA.
Excuse me?
>
> TH
>
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 11:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g7pb74F40emU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #479896 |
Am 15.12.2018 um 21:33 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> In German we use an active term for learning ('lernen'), while 'being
>> educated' is a passive phrase, which has no counterpart in German,
>> except maybe in prisons ('belehrt werden').
>>
>> The entire concept of 'education' is actually British and adopted by
>> institutions in the USA.
> Excuse me?
>
To call learning 'education' stems from the French and English aristocracy.
This is so, because the English have still a medieval class society,
with aristocrats, citizens (middle class) and peasants (proletarians).
The aristocracy is based on the idea of inherited privileges and those
include the right to let others work.
Since they did not have any intention to do something useful, they also
do not want to call the things they do in school and collage 'learning'.
Instead the 'elite' is trying to maintain their privileges and
distribute them to their offspring.
Since the kids are not really keen for learning something useful, the
aristocracy invented a system, that keeps the mind and thinking of
their kids in the ways, which are useful for their class.
This process is called 'education' (in school and collage).
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 04:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7a8655c5-9f31-9988-2bad-424c7cd6131f@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #480032 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.12.2018 um 21:33 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> In German we use an active term for learning ('lernen'), while 'being
>>> educated' is a passive phrase, which has no counterpart in German,
>>> except maybe in prisons ('belehrt werden').
>>>
>>> The entire concept of 'education' is actually British and adopted by
>>> institutions in the USA.
>> Excuse me?
>
> To call learning 'education' stems from the French and English aristocracy.
>
> This is so, because the English have still a medieval class society,
> with aristocrats, citizens (middle class) and peasants (proletarians).
(Like everything else you are babbling about, you have never been to
England, let alone the UK, or the USA, right?)
Please just shut up. TIA.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g7sqahFrcotU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #480107 |
Am 18.12.2018 um 04:45 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2018 um 21:33 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>> In German we use an active term for learning ('lernen'), while 'being
>>>> educated' is a passive phrase, which has no counterpart in German,
>>>> except maybe in prisons ('belehrt werden').
>>>>
>>>> The entire concept of 'education' is actually British and adopted by
>>>> institutions in the USA.
>>> Excuse me?
>>
>> To call learning 'education' stems from the French and English aristocracy.
>>
>> This is so, because the English have still a medieval class society,
>> with aristocrats, citizens (middle class) and peasants (proletarians).
>
> (Like everything else you are babbling about, you have never been to
> England, let alone the UK, or the USA, right?)
Wrong, since I have been in England.
That doesn't matter, anyhow, since 'French and English aristocracy'
indicates a certain time-frame, which is out of reach for us common
people (without a time-machine).
England has actually an aristocracy and the aristocrats have certain
inherited privileges:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales
In comparison the order of precedence in Germany, which contains only
five persons (compared to several thousand in the UK):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_order_of_precedence
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-21 22:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <b048cdca-ca96-1be5-cdb1-ee5e1e9e83f2@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #480146 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > England has actually an aristocracy and the aristocrats have certain > inherited privileges: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales > > In comparison the order of precedence in Germany, which contains only > five persons (compared to several thousand in the UK): > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_order_of_precedence Semantic fallacy. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 22:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5c5d8839-03ab-b864-eb0e-8fef20e111f9@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479887 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.12.2018 um 13:52 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> It isn’t really up to debate. The term “work” is defined clearly, has been
>>>> defined clearly for a couple of centuries, and that definition contrasts
>>>> with a meaning that you are saying makes sense to you.
>>>
>>> The concept of vectors is much younger than the concept of the quantity
>>> 'work'.
>> The *term* is younger, but that does not mean anything.
>
> Newton wrote in the 17th century
He was prolific in the 17th *and* 18th century.
> and vectors came into fashion in the 19th century.
Which, AISB, *was* about 200 years ago (it is the 21st century now),
contrary to your claims.
But once again, when the *term* was first used is completely irrelevant.
The *concept* was known before.
In particular, as the referenced source says, Newton *used* the concept in
the «Principia», where he proved geometrically that Kepler’s Second Law of
Planetary Motion (put simply, “a planet moves in such a way that a line in
the *direction* *from* the Sun *to* the planet covers equal areas in equal
times”) holds if one assumes that there is a force *directed* *towards* the Sun.
This is conceptually no different from saying that the rate of change of the
area A covered by the radial vector r⃗ (pointing from the Sun to the planet)
is constant if the radial vector and the force vector F⃗ are (anti)parallel,
so that their vector product is zero:
dA/dt = |r⃗ × dr⃗/dt|
d²A/dt² = |dr⃗/dt × dr⃗/dt + r⃗ × d²r⃗/dt²|
[product rule of differentiation: (u v)' = u' v + u v']
= |0⃗ + r⃗ × a⃗ |
= | r⃗ × F⃗∕m|
= |(r⃗ × F⃗)∕m|
= |0⃗/m|
= |0⃗|
d²A/dt² = 0.
[Proof:
(x₁, y₁, z₁) × (x₂, y₂, z₂)
:= (y₁ z₂ − y₂ z₁, z₁ x₂ − z₂ x₁, x₁ y₂ − x₂ y₁).
If x₂ = x₁, y₂ = y₁, and z₂ = z₁, then
(y₁ z₁ − y₁ z₁, z₁ x₁ − z₁ x₁, x₁ y₁ − x₁ y₁)
= (0, 0, 0).
Also, if x₁ and x₂ are arbitrary, and y₁ = z₁ = y₂ = z₂ = 0, then
(x₁, y₁, z₁) × (x₂, y₂, z₂)
= (0 · 0 − 0 · 0, 0 · x₂ − 0 · x₁, x₁ · 0 − x₂ · 0)
= (0, 0, 0).
Likewise for x₁ = x₂ = z₁ = z₂ = 0, and x₁ = y₁ = x₂ = y₂ = 0,
respectively.
NB: The magnitude of the vector product of two vectors a⃗ and b⃗ is equal
to the area of the parallelogram produced by them: A = |a⃗ × b⃗|.
a⃗
---------->
^\ \ \ \ \ ^
b⃗ /\ \ A \ \ / b⃗
/\ \ \ \ \ / __
'----------> |PE
a⃗
It should be obvious that if both vectors have the same direction
(parallel) or opposite direction (antiparallel), the area of that
parallelogram must be zero. And only the null vector has
magnitude zero: |0⃗| = |(0, 0, 0)| = √(0² + 0² + 0²) = 0.]
(If you do not understand this, then you should shut up about vectors NOW.)
In English:
[en]
<http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics<
In German:
[de] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeORz7UV2wI>
> [pointless, clueless crackpot quibbling and blathering]
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g7pag2F3ro1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #479897 |
Am 15.12.2018 um 22:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 15.12.2018 um 13:52 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>>> It isn’t really up to debate. The term “work” is defined clearly, has been >>>>> defined clearly for a couple of centuries, and that definition contrasts >>>>> with a meaning that you are saying makes sense to you. >>>> >>>> The concept of vectors is much younger than the concept of the quantity >>>> 'work'. >>> The *term* is younger, but that does not mean anything. >> >> Newton wrote in the 17th century > > He was prolific in the 17th *and* 18th century. > >> and vectors came into fashion in the 19th century. > > Which, AISB, *was* about 200 years ago (it is the 21st century now), The was a controversy between Hamilton and Heavyside about the use of quaternions (which Hamilton had invented). Vectors have won. The event was in the late 19th century, but actually I don't know exactly when. Also 170 is a little less than two centuries - but that is not really important.. > But once again, when the *term* was first used is completely irrelevant. > The *concept* was known before. > > In particular, as the referenced source says, Newton *used* the concept in > the «Principia», where he proved geometrically that Kepler’s Second Law of > Planetary Motion (put simply, “a planet moves in such a way that a line in > the *direction* *from* the Sun *to* the planet covers equal areas in equal > times”) holds if one assumes that there is a force *directed* *towards* the Sun. This absolutely nothing to do with the question, whether the quantity 'work' is a vector quantity or a scalar. The idea of work as a scalar is based on the idea of distance is a vector. Only: this is not the case, since 'vector' in physics is shorthand for 'vector quantity', not for 'little arrow, pointing in a certain direction'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 15:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv8fas$1qii$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480030 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 15.12.2018 um 22:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 15.12.2018 um 13:52 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>>>> It isn’t really up to debate. The term “work” is defined clearly, has been >>>>>> defined clearly for a couple of centuries, and that definition contrasts >>>>>> with a meaning that you are saying makes sense to you. >>>>> >>>>> The concept of vectors is much younger than the concept of the quantity >>>>> 'work'. >>>> The *term* is younger, but that does not mean anything. >>> >>> Newton wrote in the 17th century >> >> He was prolific in the 17th *and* 18th century. >> >>> and vectors came into fashion in the 19th century. >> >> Which, AISB, *was* about 200 years ago (it is the 21st century now), > > > The was a controversy between Hamilton and Heavyside about the use of > quaternions (which Hamilton had invented). > > Vectors have won. > > The event was in the late 19th century, but actually I don't know > exactly when. > > > Also 170 is a little less than two centuries - but that is not really > important.. > >> But once again, when the *term* was first used is completely irrelevant. >> The *concept* was known before. >> >> In particular, as the referenced source says, Newton *used* the concept in >> the «Principia», where he proved geometrically that Kepler’s Second Law of >> Planetary Motion (put simply, “a planet moves in such a way that a line in >> the *direction* *from* the Sun *to* the planet covers equal areas in equal >> times”) holds if one assumes that there is a force *directed* *towards* the Sun. > > This absolutely nothing to do with the question, whether the quantity > 'work' is a vector quantity or a scalar. > > The idea of work as a scalar is based on the idea of distance is a vector. No, that’s irrelevant because work involves displacement not distance. Distance only suffices in the simplest of circumstances. > > Only: this is not the case, since 'vector' in physics is shorthand for > 'vector quantity', not for 'little arrow, pointing in a certain direction'. > > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 18:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g7sprhFr9leU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #480048 |
Am 17.12.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Am 15.12.2018 um 22:02 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 15.12.2018 um 13:52 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>>>>> It isn’t really up to debate. The term “work” is defined clearly, has been >>>>>>> defined clearly for a couple of centuries, and that definition contrasts >>>>>>> with a meaning that you are saying makes sense to you. >>>>>> >>>>>> The concept of vectors is much younger than the concept of the quantity >>>>>> 'work'. >>>>> The *term* is younger, but that does not mean anything. >>>> >>>> Newton wrote in the 17th century >>> >>> He was prolific in the 17th *and* 18th century. >>> >>>> and vectors came into fashion in the 19th century. >>> >>> Which, AISB, *was* about 200 years ago (it is the 21st century now), >> >> >> The was a controversy between Hamilton and Heavyside about the use of >> quaternions (which Hamilton had invented). >> >> Vectors have won. >> >> The event was in the late 19th century, but actually I don't know >> exactly when. >> >> >> Also 170 is a little less than two centuries - but that is not really >> important.. >> >>> But once again, when the *term* was first used is completely irrelevant. >>> The *concept* was known before. >>> >>> In particular, as the referenced source says, Newton *used* the concept in >>> the «Principia», where he proved geometrically that Kepler’s Second Law of >>> Planetary Motion (put simply, “a planet moves in such a way that a line in >>> the *direction* *from* the Sun *to* the planet covers equal areas in equal >>> times”) holds if one assumes that there is a force *directed* *towards* the Sun. >> >> This absolutely nothing to do with the question, whether the quantity >> 'work' is a vector quantity or a scalar. >> >> The idea of work as a scalar is based on the idea of distance is a vector. > > No, that’s irrelevant because work involves displacement not distance. > Distance only suffices in the simplest of circumstances. Sure, work is directed and displacement is involved. But: once is enough (one directed quantity)! The quantity force is actually a vector (- quantity) and a certain force vector would include enough information about direction of work. We had to use the component of the force in the direction of the movement. But this would be sufficient. What we do NOT want in the equation is the actually position. IOW: we could lift a stone here or anywhere else (on Earth) and the force-vector would provide enough information (besides hight). What we do not need is the actual location. We could lift a stone of say 10 kg in Paris or New York for one meter and we want similar work (besides different directions). The location (city Paris/New York) is not necessary and we do not want that in the term 'work'. But a path is a set of locations, that are reached by a certain object as a function of time. TH >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3a288d3e-f1ec-6b7a-a615-d85d284b49ef@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #480145 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.12.2018 um 16:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> The idea of work as a scalar is based on the idea of distance is a vector.
>> No, that’s irrelevant because work involves displacement not distance.
>> Distance only suffices in the simplest of circumstances.
>
> Sure, work is directed
No.
> and displacement is involved.
Yes. And force, which has a direction, too.
> But: once is enough (one directed quantity)!
No, two.
> The quantity force is actually a vector (- quantity) and a certain force
> vector would include enough information about direction of work.
So you finally realize that force is a vector: F⃗ (arrow on top)
Well, displacement *also* is a vector:
> We had to use the component of the force in the direction of the
> movement. But this would be sufficient.
No.
> What we do NOT want in the equation is the actually position.
Nonsense. Position is a vector (in general):
r⃗₁
^
/
^ /
:/
+'-->
The displacement from position r⃗₁ to position r⃗₂
is the difference of the positions r⃗₁ and r⃗₂:
dr⃗
r⃗₁ ----->
^ .^ r⃗₂
/ .'
^ / .'
:/.'
+'-->
r⃗₂ = r⃗₁ + dr⃗
dr⃗ = r⃗₂ − r⃗₁
(Simple arithmetic.)
So displacement MUST be a vector.
Therefore, work is NOT a vector; it is a *scalar*:
W = ∫_C F⃗ · dr⃗.
Got it now?
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-01 16:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cac08b2f-85f5-4f22-890c-e9555eac3495@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479887 |
Have no idea what you mean by that. I can as well argue that our idea of "education" is more Prussian, and was adopted in the US (especially for public primary and secondary schooling) from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g9eo0mFn6hiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #480789 |
Am 02.01.2019 um 01:54 schrieb Steve BH:
> Have no idea what you mean by that. I can as well argue that our idea of "education" is more Prussian, and was adopted in the US (especially for public primary and secondary schooling) from there.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
>
The country were I live is not Prussia.
In fact Prussia does not exist anymore since roughly 150 years.
The current name of the nation is "Federal Republic of Germany".
A main difference between Prussia and Germany: Prussia was a monarchy
and Germany is a republic.
We have also no king or aristocracy in Germany.
In former times, when there still were aristocrats, they had developed
the idea of 'education' for what now call 'learning'.
The young aristocrats were told how to rule and all the others how to serve.
This has nothing to do with distribution of knowledge, but with
education ('to learn where the place in the society is').
The methods used in Prussia were mainly force, like physical punishment.
The US educational system has dropped this a bit, but still uses
propaganda for the same purpose.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 08:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <452d38b5-9a49-49eb-b804-8fa993edaec5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #481188 |
Thomas Heger escrito
Am 02.01.2019 um 01:54 schrieb Steve BH:
> Have no idea what you mean by that. I can as well argue that our idea of "education" is more Prussian, and was adopted in the US (especially for public primary and secondary schooling) from there.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
>
The country were I live is not Prussia.
In fact Prussia does not exist anymore since roughly 150 years.
The current name of the nation is "Federal Republic of Germany".
A main difference between Prussia and Germany: Prussia was a monarchy
and Germany is a republic.
We have also no king or aristocracy in Germany.
In former times, when there still were aristocrats, they had developed
the idea of 'education' for what now call 'learning'.
The young aristocrats were told how to rule and all the others how to serve.
This has nothing to do with distribution of knowledge, but with
education ('to learn where the place in the society is').
The methods used in Prussia were mainly force, like physical punishment.
The US educational system has dropped this a bit, but still uses
propaganda for the same purpose.
TH
Frankfurt School
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Subjugation & Compliance System creating productive Oblivious Workers
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ILQepXUhJ98
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 14:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g9h443F8mdnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #481191 |
Am 06.01.2019 um 17:35 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller:
> Thomas Heger escrito
>
> Am 02.01.2019 um 01:54 schrieb Steve BH:
>> Have no idea what you mean by that. I can as well argue that our idea of "education" is more Prussian, and was adopted in the US (especially for public primary and secondary schooling) from there.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
>>
>
> The country were I live is not Prussia.
>
> In fact Prussia does not exist anymore since roughly 150 years.
>
> The current name of the nation is "Federal Republic of Germany".
>
>
> A main difference between Prussia and Germany: Prussia was a monarchy
> and Germany is a republic.
>
> We have also no king or aristocracy in Germany.
>
> In former times, when there still were aristocrats, they had developed
> the idea of 'education' for what now call 'learning'.
>
> The young aristocrats were told how to rule and all the others how to serve.
>
> This has nothing to do with distribution of knowledge, but with
> education ('to learn where the place in the society is').
>
> The methods used in Prussia were mainly force, like physical punishment.
>
> The US educational system has dropped this a bit, but still uses
> propaganda for the same purpose.
>
> TH
>
> Frankfurt School
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Well, as you may have guessed, I do not like the Frankfurt School.
>
> Subjugation & Compliance System creating productive Oblivious Workers
>
> https://youtube.com/watch?v=ILQepXUhJ98
This actually a good video. It's a little polemic, but I still like it.
And: they don't call it 'learning' or 'teaching children', but 'education'.
This system includes massive propaganda, like 'pledge of allegiance'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpQewj9PDKY
TH
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <927125d4-4aba-1b65-bc4a-26d5f9990a4e@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #481188 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 02.01.2019 um 01:54 schrieb Steve BH: >> Have no idea what you mean by that. I can as well argue >> that our idea of "education" is more Prussian, and was >> adopted in the US (especially for public primary and >> secondary schooling) from there. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system > > The country were I live is not Prussia. Correct, you live in your own fantasy world instead. (Learn to know what an analogy is.) -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv2tki$17i8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479859 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 14.12.2018 um 15:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > ... >>> The statement, that I disagreed with was, that work is a scalar, because >>> it is a product of two vectors. >>> >>> This is wrong, since it is not a product of two vectors, but a product >>> of a physical quantity called 'force', which behaves like a vector, and >>> something we are still debating. >> >> The correct assessment is that you are debating it. This is in effect the >> same thing as you saying that it is open to debate what “penguin” means and >> that to you, a penguin is a large striped cat found in Asia. >> >> It isn’t really up to debate. The term “work” is defined clearly, has been >> defined clearly for a couple of centuries, and that definition contrasts >> with a meaning that you are saying makes sense to you. > > The concept of vectors is much younger than the concept of the quantity > 'work'. Both were introduced in the 19th century. I stand by my statement. > > So you are incorrect in your assumption, that work is regarded as > product of two vectors since many centuries. > > >> .. Here, you are uneducated in >> the meanings of basics concepts, and you are attempting to make a case >> that, in the absence of education, what you come up just by “thinking about >> it” in a vacuum of ignorance should nevertheless be considered seriously. I >> disagree. Basic concepts are to be learned, not reinvented by “free > > > Of course I am 'educated' in this field. > > But I wanted to express, that I do not agree to mainstream concepts > about this term. Which is as irrelevant as disagreeing on the mainstream concept of mammal. It is a concept established by DEFINITION, not by argument by appeal. > > I have written, why I think so, but you have not written any reply to my > arguments and are spitting out statements of unjustified arrogance. > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 23:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <feca1336-5aca-7472-921b-f400c01d94aa@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479684 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.12.2018 um 19:24 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> ".. It is the integral of the scalar product between two vectors..."
>>>
>>> I said: no, it is not, since a vector is a mathematical construct.
>> I disagree. A vector is a way to characterize a physical quantity. Velocity
>> is a vector, momentum is a vector, force is a vector. All of those are
>> real.
>
> There is still a difference between 'vector' and 'physical quantity
> characterized by a vector'.
No, there is not. All we can have are models about the world.
> A vector is a mathematical construct, while quantities have units and a
> physical meaning.
False dichotomy.
If there is an object that is moving in a frame of reference at the same
time with 3 m/s in the x-direction, 4 m/s in the y-direction, and 0 m/s
in the z-direction, then it has the (relative) velocity
⎛3 m/s⎞ ⎛3⎞
v⃗ = ⎜4 m/s⎟ = ⎜4⎟ m/s,
⎝0 m/s⎠ ⎝0⎠
and it has the (relative) speed
v = |v⃗| = √((3² + 4² + 0²) m²/s²) = 5 m/s.
∂y/∂t
^
:
+ ^^
: / :
+ / :
: v⃗ / :
+ / :
: / :
+ / :
:/ :
'--+--+->+-------> ∂x/∂t
> You may characterize that quantity by an appropriate vector, but this
> does not make a vector a quantity.
Blithering fool, shut up until you have a minimum clue.
F’up2 where you belong
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 21:56 +0100 |
| Subject | [OT] Work (was: the famous formula) |
| Message-ID | <8da6fbf9-0e2e-f0a2-ffe1-d45c105be177@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479610 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.12.2018 um 22:41 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>>> It relates to the real world, hence is not a product of either one or
>>> two vectors.
>>
>> I disagree. There are LOTS of real world quantities that are related in
>> some way to other real world quantities. Velocity (a vector) is related to
>> differential displacement and differential time. Momentum is related to
>> mass and velocity.
>
> This is correct. But I had something against this statement:
In English, that is “I objected to”.
> ".. It is the integral of the scalar product between two vectors..."
>
> I said: no, it is not,
But it is. Your ignorant claims do not change reality; they do not change
the fact that calculating the quantity of work this way actually works (no
pun intended).
In fact, for work to be a scalar quantity (which is the case, despite your
claims to the contrary and your contradicting yourself in the next posting),
it MUST be so that the factors of the product are vectors.
Because we do not calculate a vector (cross) product (×) here; only then
would the result be a vector.
If only one of the factors would NOT be a vector, then the ("dot") product
of them *would* be a vector, because multiplying a vector with a scalar
results in a vector that has all its components multiplied with the scalar:
⎛v_x⎞ ⎛a · v_x⎞
a · v⃗ = a · ⎜v_y⎟ = ⎜a · v_y⎟.
⎝v_z⎠ ⎝a · v_z⎠
The same equation for work also works with scalars *only*, and *then* the
common product operation as well because, as I have already showed, the
scalar product in one dimension is equivalent to the common product, and
the magnitude of a vector with one component is simply the component itself:
⎛Fₓ'⎞ ⎛drₓ'⎞
F⃗'(r⃗) · dr⃗' = ⎜ 0 ⎟ · ⎜ 0 ⎟ = Fₓ · drₓ + 0 · 0 + 0 · 0.
⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎝ 0 ⎠
|F⃗'(r⃗)| = √(Fₓ'² + 0² + 0²) = √(Fₓ'²) = Fₓ'
|dr⃗'| = √(drₓ'² + 0² + 0²) = √(drₓ'²) = drₓ'.
But this – F⃗'(r⃗), dr⃗' − is *a special case* where the force and the
displacement vector are (anti-)parallel (e.g. they have *the same*
direction; and we rotate our coordinate system so that both are
[anti-]parallel to one of the coordinate axes).
The *general* solution is indeed
W = ∫ F⃗(r⃗) · dr⃗
C
for the total work done by a force field F⃗(r⃗) on a particle moving along a
curve C that is described by the tangent vector dr⃗ on it:
__
C F(r⃗) _ dr⃗ .':
\ :\ .'
\ __ \ .' `..__. r⃗₂
.-' '-.--._..' _.-':
r⃗₁ .' _.-'
^ _.-'
/ _.-'
z / y _.-'
^ /.^ _.-' __
:/'.-' |PE
+---> x
As nice result this explains why the orbital speed of an object (e.g. a
planet, “P”) in one point r⃗ of an orbit C (ignoring any friction,
precession, and gravitational radiation) is *exactly the same* when it
returns to the same point, even though the gravitational field of the
central body (e.g. Sol, “S”) has done work on it on the way: *in total* that
gravitational field did NOT do *any* work on it (this was a question in an
exercise in freshman physics):
___ <.
.-''' '''-. '.
. . '
: S---->P '
' r⃗ '
'-...___...-' __
|PE
[Drawing proper ellipses in ASCII art is *hard*.]
r⃗
W = ∫ F⃗(r⃗) · dr⃗ = ∫ F⃗(r⃗) · dr⃗ = 0.
C r⃗
[You do not even have to do the integration or – you *really* do NOT
want to do this – parametrize the ellipse. Just remember the rule of
thumb that the definite integral of a function yields the area under
the curve of that function from the lower bounds of integration to
the upper one? *Of course* that area is zero if the bounds are
*the same*, and so is the value of this integral:
F⃗(r⃗) __
^ |PE
: W
: __ .'
:..':/:`._.'
: :/:/.'`..--.-''
: :/://////:
: :/://////:
'---+-+------+-----> r⃗
r⃗₁ r⃗₂
dr⃗ -->: :<--
]
> since a vector is a mathematical construct.
Like a curve/path/trajectory. Like (your) Minkowski spacetime. Like…
It is also a physical construct, because some (not all) physical quantities
have a magnitude *and* a direction. This includes the infinitesimal segment
of the path of motion (dr⃗) and the force (F⃗), which are scalar-multiplied
here (also known as the “dot product” in English).
It is completely hopeless to try to understand physics without at least a
basic understanding of mathematics. That includes linear algebra, so
vectors and the dot/scalar product. Had you studied what you are talking
about, you would know this.
Good grief, even Wikipedia confirms it.
F’up2 sci.physics
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 20:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <a7c8ea49-5a8e-33e2-0029-42c97d2a2dfb@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479345 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 08.12.2018 um 15:01 schrieb David (Kronos Prime) Fuller: >> You make a couple of mistakes. >> >> First of all, energy is not positive-definite. I don’t know why you think it is. >> >> Secondly, a scalar can have either a positive or negative sign. >> Being signed doesn’t make it a vector. > > Vectors have a direction. Yes. Also they follow certain transformation rules, which scalars do not. > A Joule for instance or a kilo-Watt-hour has no direction. That is what I told you. > Numbers often have signs, what does not turn them into vectors. Then why have *you* claimed the opposite before? Why have *you* claimed that work (which can have the unit kWh) would be a vector? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 19:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <15bf704b-ee74-a444-3354-0878e7616e1c@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479322 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 07.12.2018 um 16:15 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> Am 06.12.2018 um 22:47 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>> Then energy/work is >>>> >>>> E = W = F s = m a s = m v/t s = m s/t² s = m s²/t² = m (s/t)² = m v². >>>> >>>> The far right-hand side should ring a bell if you think of kinetic >>>> energy, the energy of motion: T = E_kin = 1/2 m v² (Newtonian). >>>> >>>> c is the *speed* of light, so E₍₀₎ = m c² makes sense dimensionally.] >>> >>> Energy and work are not the same thing. >> >> Dimensionally they are exactly the same because of how energy is defined >> (AISB in the part that you did not quote). >> >>> Energy is a scalar unit, >> >> Energy is a _quantity_, not a unit. > > Well, yes. English is a foreign language for me and occasionally I make > mistakes. English is not my native language either. You make *ridiculous*, *beginner* mistakes in virtually *all* scientific matters because you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. The main reason for that is that you are either lazy or stupid. You do not want to understand or are unable to understand the underlying concepts. So you think that just using throwing around scientific terminology without regard to its meaning would be enough. Well, it is not. >>> hence cannot become negative >> But it can. > > There is a difference between mathematics and the real world. Says the person who cluelessly claims that a “skewed time axis” and “a transformation of matter to radiation when objects are moving” would be real. Hilarious. In the real world, Minkowski spacetime applies locally, and distances in it can be negative. You have repeatedly stated that Minkowski spacetime is the real and only truth for you, so you cannot wind around the fact now that even according to your own distorted idea of reality distances *can* become negative. Of course, as you have no clue what you are talking about when talking about Minkowski spacetime, too, you were completely unaware of that fact. Hopeless case. > [not even wrong] -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web