Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479238 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-15 19:51 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 168 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:58 +0000
Re: What is a field? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 11:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:05 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 14:13 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 11:39 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:28 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:33 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 17:52 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 18:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 18:37 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:18 +0100
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 21:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:20 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:44 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:04 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 10:31 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 13:33 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 13:53 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 06:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 14:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 14:13 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 23:03 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 15:46 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 01:37 +0000
Re: What is a field? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:32 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 16:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 06:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 18:09 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 20:18 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:21 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 13:20 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 10:47 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-14 05:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-14 15:13 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 15:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-15 14:05 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 08:24 -0800
Re: What is a field? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-17 08:31 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 09:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 10:06 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 02:23 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 07:41 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 12:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 14:17 +0000
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-19 15:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:04 -0500
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:30 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:12 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 17:19 +0100
Re: What is a field? Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> - 2018-12-09 00:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:29 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 06:18 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 07:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:11 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:14 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-12 04:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 07:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:00 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 10:59 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 08:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 13:23 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 23:36 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 20:06 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 12:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-14 15:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 02:14 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 19:53 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 12:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 10:38 -0800
Re: What is a field? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 12:48 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 12:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 12:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 22:05 +0100
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 16:24 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:46 -0500
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:41 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 14:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 14:44 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:36 -0500
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-13 12:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 21:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:35 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 22:01 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:21 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:17 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-09 01:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:26 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:23 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 14:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:25 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:14 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:18 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:09 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:28 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-12-09 00:06 +0100
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 00:13 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:44 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 09:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 07:50 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:09 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:37 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:40 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:07 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:07 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 18:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 01:24 +0100
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:42 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 10:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 19:36 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 11:51 +0100
Re: What is a field? carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 13:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-15 19:51 -0800
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 00:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <puhiq8$r3a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479401 |
Op 08-dec-2018 om 23:56 schreef kenseto: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress >>>>>>> in space, something like the various sorts of stress that >>>>>>> are possible within a solid body. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>> >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where >>>>>> every point in a mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>> >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists >>>>> at every point in a solid body is very close to the correct >>>>> description. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood >>>> him. >>>> >>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>> >>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in >>>> which (a) coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And >>>> there are rules (operations) that define how you can get from >>>> one point to another, for example. >>>> >>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>> >>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to >>>> every point in a mathematical space as described by its >>>> coordinates. That value can be a number (scalar), perhaps with >>>> a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in general it can be a >>>> tensor. (See below.) >>>> >>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like >>>> temperature, force, acceleration, or stress), then you can use >>>> this field to describe physical reality mathematically. In the >>>> first example in my previous follow-up, the coordinate system >>>> was defined so that the heat source was in its origin because >>>> the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became >>>> lower as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), >>>> according to the Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>> >>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation >>> why material objects interacting with each other at a distance. >>> For example, what is the physical cause of gravity....why object >>> orbiting each other without falling into each other? >> >> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an >> attractive force could only conceivably result in the two >> attracting objects approaching each other. To you, the idea of a >> stable circular orbit with no decrease in distance is impossible >> with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable to you. > > Yes, a stable orbit with just an attractive force is not > feasible....Newton’s formula includes centripetal acceleration and > centrifugal acceleration. For that matter action at a distance is not > possible without connection between the interacting objects. Ken, don't you ever wonder why all these dumb people here keep, and keep, and keep, and never, ever stop trying to convince you of their deep-rooted nonsense, and actually trying to brainwash you? Surely you must be suspicious of their motives. No? Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puhmn1$11gj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479401 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>> >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>> >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>> >>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>> >>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>> >>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>> >>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>> >>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>> >>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>> without falling into each other? >> >> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >> to you. > > Yes, a stable orbit with just an attractive force is not feasible.... Oh but it is. You just don’t understand how and that frustrates you. When you don’t understand something, you invent something you do understand. But, as you can see from the lack of people downloading your book even though it’s FREE, nobody cares. > Newton’s formula includes centripetal acceleration and centrifugal > acceleration. For that matter action at a distance is not possible > without connection between the interacting objects. > >> >> I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old >> HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. >> >> And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be >> wrong. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Is it not a solid body? >>>> >>>> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* >>>> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe >>>> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also >>>> exist independently from Nature, and physics. >>>> >>>> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That >>>> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. >>>> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the >>>> center of the body, or in its center of mass. >>>> >>>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> >>>> >>>>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the >>>>> stresses exist within it? >>>> >>>> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just >>>> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with >>>> each other*. >>>> >>>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the >>>> attribution line. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PointedEars >>>> >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 23:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pui6j3$1p9a$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479409 |
On 12/8/2018 7:13 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>>> >>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>>> >>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>>> >>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>>> >>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>>> >>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>>> >>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>>> >>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>>> without falling into each other? >>> >>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >>> to you. >> >> Yes, a stable orbit with just an attractive force is not feasible.... > > Oh but it is. You just don’t understand how and that frustrates you. > > When you don’t understand something, you invent something you do > understand. But, as you can see from the lack of people downloading your > book even though it’s FREE, nobody cares. Hey, my book is free and nobody (especially you) cares. Most agree with you that it feels a lot more comfy to make an effort to stay ignorant and happy than to strain yourself thinking. Hence, it is always best to refuse to read any new ideas. >> Newton’s formula includes centripetal acceleration and centrifugal >> acceleration. For that matter action at a distance is not possible >> without connection between the interacting objects. >> >>> >>> I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old >>> HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. >>> >>> And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be >>> wrong. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Is it not a solid body? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* >>>>> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe >>>>> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also >>>>> exist independently from Nature, and physics. >>>>> >>>>> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That >>>>> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. >>>>> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the >>>>> center of the body, or in its center of mass. >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> >>>>> >>>>>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the >>>>>> stresses exist within it? >>>>> >>>>> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just >>>>> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with >>>>> each other*. >>>>> >>>>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the >>>>> attribution line. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PointedEars >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 09:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <074176b6-7c5f-49d0-83a2-6f83651906fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479409 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 7:13:26 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within > >>>>>>> a solid body. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>>>> > >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point > >>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. > >>>> > >>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > >>>> > >>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? > >>>> > >>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > >>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > >>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > >>>> > >>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > >>>> > >>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > >>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > >>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > >>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > >>>> > >>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > >>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > >>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > >>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > >>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > >>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > >>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > >>> > >>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > >>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > >>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > >>> without falling into each other? > >> > >> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > >> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > >> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > >> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > >> to you. > > > > Yes, a stable orbit with just an attractive force is not feasible.... > > Oh but it is. You just don’t understand how and that frustrates you. No, it is not....If there is only an attractive force between the earth and the moon then the orbit of the moon is not stable. This is high school physics. > > When you don’t understand something, you invent something you do > understand. But, as you can see from the lack of people downloading your > book even though it’s FREE, nobody cares. It is you who don’t have the mental competency to know that an attractive force alone cannot maintain a stable orbit. > > > Newton’s formula includes centripetal acceleration and centrifugal > > acceleration. For that matter action at a distance is not possible > > without connection between the interacting objects. > > > >> > >> I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old > >> HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. > >> > >> And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be > >> wrong. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> Is it not a solid body? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* > >>>> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe > >>>> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also > >>>> exist independently from Nature, and physics. > >>>> > >>>> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That > >>>> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. > >>>> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the > >>>> center of the body, or in its center of mass. > >>>> > >>>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> > >>>> > >>>>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the > >>>>> stresses exist within it? > >>>> > >>>> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just > >>>> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with > >>>> each other*. > >>>> > >>>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the > >>>> attribution line. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> PointedEars > >>>> > >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 > >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puk4j1$1l4k$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479465 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 7:13:26 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>>>> >>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>>>> >>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>>>> >>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>>>> >>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>>>> >>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>>>> without falling into each other? >>>> >>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >>>> to you. >>> >>> Yes, a stable orbit with just an attractive force is not feasible.... >> >> Oh but it is. You just don’t understand how and that frustrates you. > > No, it is not....If there is only an attractive force between the earth > and the moon then the orbit of the moon is not stable. This is high school physics. Not true. Look in your high school physics book by Halliday and Resnick. > >> >> When you don’t understand something, you invent something you do >> understand. But, as you can see from the lack of people downloading your >> book even though it’s FREE, nobody cares. > > It is you who don’t have the mental competency to know that an attractive > force alone cannot maintain a stable orbit. > >> >>> Newton’s formula includes centripetal acceleration and centrifugal >>> acceleration. For that matter action at a distance is not possible >>> without connection between the interacting objects. >>> >>>> >>>> I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old >>>> HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. >>>> >>>> And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be >>>> wrong. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it not a solid body? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* >>>>>> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe >>>>>> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also >>>>>> exist independently from Nature, and physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That >>>>>> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. >>>>>> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the >>>>>> center of the body, or in its center of mass. >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the >>>>>>> stresses exist within it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just >>>>>> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with >>>>>> each other*. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the >>>>>> attribution line. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> PointedEars >>>>>> >>>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c139cb1d-0c67-447c-ba37-6dc1a05cd712@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479504 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:30 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 7:13:26 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within > >>>>>>>>> a solid body. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point > >>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > >>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > >>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > >>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > >>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > >>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > >>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > >>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > >>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > >>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > >>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > >>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > >>>>> > >>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > >>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > >>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > >>>>> without falling into each other? > >>>> > >>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > >>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > >>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > >>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > >>>> to you. > >>> > >>> Yes, a stable orbit with just an attractive force is not feasible.... > >> > >> Oh but it is. You just don’t understand how and that frustrates you. > > > > No, it is not....If there is only an attractive force between the earth > > and the moon then the orbit of the moon is not stable. This is high school physics. > > Not true. Look in your high school physics book by Halliday and Resnick. I already rejected the fundamental of physics in Halliday and Resnick and that’s why I formulated Model Mechanics. So what is the point of telling me to look in Halliday and Resnick? > > > > >> > >> When you don’t understand something, you invent something you do > >> understand. But, as you can see from the lack of people downloading your > >> book even though it’s FREE, nobody cares. > > > > It is you who don’t have the mental competency to know that an attractive > > force alone cannot maintain a stable orbit. > > > >> > >>> Newton’s formula includes centripetal acceleration and centrifugal > >>> acceleration. For that matter action at a distance is not possible > >>> without connection between the interacting objects. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old > >>>> HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. > >>>> > >>>> And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be > >>>> wrong. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is it not a solid body? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* > >>>>>> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe > >>>>>> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also > >>>>>> exist independently from Nature, and physics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That > >>>>>> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. > >>>>>> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the > >>>>>> center of the body, or in its center of mass. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the > >>>>>>> stresses exist within it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just > >>>>>> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with > >>>>>> each other*. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the > >>>>>> attribution line. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> PointedEars > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 > >>>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 17:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pum6k8$5cf$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479527 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >I already rejected the fundamental of physics in Halliday and Resnick >and that's why I failed completely at physics. You can't even learn from a freshman level book!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pummhk$vf2$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479527 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:30 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 7:13:26 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>>>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>>>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>>>>>> without falling into each other? >>>>>> >>>>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >>>>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >>>>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >>>>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >>>>>> to you. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, a stable orbit with just an attractive force is not feasible.... >>>> >>>> Oh but it is. You just don’t understand how and that frustrates you. >>> >>> No, it is not....If there is only an attractive force between the earth >>> and the moon then the orbit of the moon is not stable. This is high school physics. >> >> Not true. Look in your high school physics book by Halliday and Resnick. > > I already rejected the fundamental of physics in Halliday and Resnick So you are rejecting high school physics. Note above you claimed that it is high school physics that if there is only an attractive force only then a circular orbit is unstable. That was a lie. It is high school physics that a circular orbit is stable with only an attractive force. But as you say, you reject even high school physics. You believe high school physics is all wrong. > and that’s why I formulated Model Mechanics. So what is the point of > telling me to look in Halliday and Resnick? >> >>> >>>> >>>> When you don’t understand something, you invent something you do >>>> understand. But, as you can see from the lack of people downloading your >>>> book even though it’s FREE, nobody cares. >>> >>> It is you who don’t have the mental competency to know that an attractive >>> force alone cannot maintain a stable orbit. >>> >>>> >>>>> Newton’s formula includes centripetal acceleration and centrifugal >>>>> acceleration. For that matter action at a distance is not possible >>>>> without connection between the interacting objects. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old >>>>>> HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be >>>>>> wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is it not a solid body? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* >>>>>>>> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe >>>>>>>> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also >>>>>>>> exist independently from Nature, and physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That >>>>>>>> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. >>>>>>>> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the >>>>>>>> center of the body, or in its center of mass. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the >>>>>>>>> stresses exist within it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just >>>>>>>> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with >>>>>>>> each other*. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the >>>>>>>> attribution line. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> PointedEars >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>>>>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 23:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pui65m$1p9a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479399 |
On 12/8/2018 5:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> kenseto wrote: >>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>> a solid body. >>>>> >>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>> >>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>> >>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>> >>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>> >>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>> >>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>> >>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>> >>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>> >>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>> >>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >> >> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >> without falling into each other? > > This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > to you. That is because all forces as John has told you are pushes and not pulls. There is no such thing as a "attractive" force (unless she is a really hot babe) Odd you are a moron who thinks that mathematics is not fantasy ans is some real thing. > I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old > HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. If High School physics says attractive forces are real they they are wrong and abusing children. > And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be > wrong. Things that don't make sense (like those things you copy from your books, Odd) actually ARE wrong. Live with it. >> >> >>> >>>> Is it not a solid body? >>> >>> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* >>> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe >>> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also >>> exist independently from Nature, and physics. >>> >>> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That >>> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. >>> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the >>> center of the body, or in its center of mass. >>> >>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> >>> >>>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the >>>> stresses exist within it? >>> >>> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just >>> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with >>> each other*. >>> >>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the >>> attribution line. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 | 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puj420$1erv$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479425 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/8/2018 5:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>> >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>> >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>> >>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>> >>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>> >>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>> >>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>> >>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>> >>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>> without falling into each other? >> >> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >> to you. > > That is because all forces as John has told you are pushes and not > pulls. There is no such thing as a "attractive" force (unless she is a > really hot babe) Odd you are a moron who thinks that mathematics is not > fantasy ans is some real thing. > >> I’ll point out this is is not a modern physics idea. It is a centuries-old >> HIGH SCHOOL physics idea. > > If High School physics says attractive forces are real they they are > wrong and abusing children. > >> And your reaction is that if it makes no sense to you, then it must be >> wrong. > > Things that don't make sense (like those things you copy from your > books, Odd) actually ARE wrong. Live with it. Stir the pot, Ben. It’s what you do. > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Is it not a solid body? >>>> >>>> Yes, a (mathematical) space is NOT a solid body. It is an *abstract* >>>> *concept* instead. It can be used, and is used, in physics, to describe >>>> Nature; but like other mathematical concepts, in mathematics it can also >>>> exist independently from Nature, and physics. >>>> >>>> A solid body can be described as being *in* a mathematical space. That >>>> is, some points of the space lie inside the body and some outside of it. >>>> It is often useful to place the origin of the coordinate system in the >>>> center of the body, or in its center of mass. >>>> >>>> <http://www.cornell.edu/video/richard-feynman-messenger-lecture-2-relation-mathematics-physics> >>>> >>>>> If it is not a solid body how can material objects interact with the >>>>> stresses exist within it? >>>> >>>> Stress is not something that a (whole) solid body interacts with; it just >>>> is, *for* the body, caused by the particles of the body interacting *with >>>> each other*. >>>> >>>> Please trim your quotes to the relevant minimum; that includes the >>>> attribution line. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PointedEars >>>> >>>> Twitter: @PointedEars2 >>>> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <69f1a0dd-2890-4fbd-9576-8fa758572ae3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479399 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within > >>>>> a solid body. > >>>> > >>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>> > >>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>> > >>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>> > >>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point > >>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. > >> > >> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > >> > >>> In any case what is mathematical space? > >> > >> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > >> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > >> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > >> > >> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > >> > >> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > >> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > >> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > >> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > >> > >> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > >> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > >> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > >> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > >> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > >> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > >> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > > > > This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > > material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > > what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > > without falling into each other? > > This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > to you. That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not possible with just an attractive force. The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it is able to calculate the orbit of the moon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puk4j0$1l4k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479464 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>> >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>> >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>> >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>> >>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>> >>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>> >>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>> >>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>> >>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>> >>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>> without falling into each other? >> >> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >> to you. > > That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not > possible with just an attractive force. Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter on circular motion says otherwise. > The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are > expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent > structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous > tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two > forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. > > Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it > is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 08:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f9f2c24-98c7-49a2-9d15-897c66656171@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479503 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within > >>>>>>> a solid body. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>>>> > >>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point > >>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. > >>>> > >>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > >>>> > >>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? > >>>> > >>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > >>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > >>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > >>>> > >>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > >>>> > >>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > >>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > >>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > >>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > >>>> > >>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > >>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > >>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > >>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > >>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > >>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > >>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > >>> > >>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > >>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > >>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > >>> without falling into each other? > >> > >> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > >> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > >> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > >> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > >> to you. > > > > That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not > > possible with just an attractive force. > > Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter > on circular motion says otherwise. Gravitational physics in Halliday and Resnick is wrong and that’s why I invented DTG. The force in Newton’s equation is a composite force....it includes both attractive EM force and repulsive effect due to confinement. > > > The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are > > expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > > OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent > > structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous > > tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two > > forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. > > > > Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it > > is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. > > Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. > Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force > and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pumndo$11lv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479530 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>>>> >>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>>>> >>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>>>> >>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>>>> >>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>>>> >>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>>>> without falling into each other? >>>> >>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >>>> to you. >>> >>> That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not >>> possible with just an attractive force. >> >> Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter >> on circular motion says otherwise. > > Gravitational physics in Halliday and Resnick is wrong And so you are claiming that ALL physics, including introductory physics, is wrong. Aha. Note that Archimedes Plutonium has you beat. In his online book he claims that not only all physics is wrong but all mathematics is wrong too. He says that ellipses are not conic sections and that sine and cosine functions are just semicircles. His book is therefore much grander than yours. > and that’s why I invented DTG. The force in Newton’s equation is a > composite force....it includes both attractive EM force and repulsive > effect due to confinement. >> >>> The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are >>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. >>> OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent >>> structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous >>> tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two >>> forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. >>> >>> Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it >>> is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. >> >> Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. >> Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force >> and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 07:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c13167a-1a88-4704-9b8a-b564cd62cb41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479572 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:56:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within > >>>>>>>>> a solid body. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point > >>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > >>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > >>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > >>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > >>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > >>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > >>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > >>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > >>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > >>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > >>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > >>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > >>>>> > >>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > >>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > >>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > >>>>> without falling into each other? > >>>> > >>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > >>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > >>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > >>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > >>>> to you. > >>> > >>> That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not > >>> possible with just an attractive force. > >> > >> Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter > >> on circular motion says otherwise. > > > > Gravitational physics in Halliday and Resnick is wrong > > And so you are claiming that ALL physics, including introductory physics, > is wrong. Aha. No, I claimed that All physics based on the wrong fundament assertions such as extra dimensions, fields, virtual particles, length contraction and time dilation will never be able to arrive at the correct “theory of everything”. That’s why physicists can’t come up with the cause of gravity. And that’s why they can’t incorporate GRT into Quantum physics. > > Note that Archimedes Plutonium has you beat. In his online book he claims > that not only all physics is wrong but all mathematics is wrong too. He > says that ellipses are not conic sections and that sine and cosine > functions are just semicircles. His book is therefore much grander than > yours. > > > and that’s why I invented DTG. The force in Newton’s equation is a > > composite force....it includes both attractive EM force and repulsive > > effect due to confinement. > >> > >>> The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are > >>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > >>> OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent > >>> structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous > >>> tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two > >>> forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. > >>> > >>> Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it > >>> is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. > >> > >> Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. > >> Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force > >> and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pup0eo$1ol0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479607 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:56:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>>>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>>>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>>>>>> without falling into each other? >>>>>> >>>>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >>>>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >>>>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >>>>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >>>>>> to you. >>>>> >>>>> That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not >>>>> possible with just an attractive force. >>>> >>>> Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter >>>> on circular motion says otherwise. >>> >>> Gravitational physics in Halliday and Resnick is wrong >> >> And so you are claiming that ALL physics, including introductory physics, >> is wrong. Aha. > > No, I claimed that All physics based on the wrong fundament assertions > such as extra dimensions, fields, virtual particles, length contraction > and time dilation will never be able to arrive at the correct “theory of everything”. Note that Newton’s theory of gravity, which says that an attractive force alone can yield a stable circular orbit, involves nine of the things you mention. Halliday and Resnick’s presentation of circular motion ALSO involves none of the things you mention. > That’s why physicists can’t come up with the cause of gravity. And that’s > why they can’t incorporate GRT into Quantum physics. > >> >> Note that Archimedes Plutonium has you beat. In his online book he claims >> that not only all physics is wrong but all mathematics is wrong too. He >> says that ellipses are not conic sections and that sine and cosine >> functions are just semicircles. His book is therefore much grander than >> yours. >> >>> and that’s why I invented DTG. The force in Newton’s equation is a >>> composite force....it includes both attractive EM force and repulsive >>> effect due to confinement. >>>> >>>>> The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are >>>>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. >>>>> OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent >>>>> structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous >>>>> tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two >>>>> forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. >>>>> >>>>> Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it >>>>> is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. >>>> >>>> Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. >>>> Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force >>>> and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 18:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b75352f5-62c4-424d-839e-c707762ee455@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479621 |
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:56:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within > >>>>>>>>>>> a solid body. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point > >>>>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > >>>>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > >>>>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > >>>>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > >>>>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > >>>>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > >>>>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > >>>>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > >>>>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > >>>>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > >>>>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > >>>>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > >>>>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > >>>>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > >>>>>>> without falling into each other? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > >>>>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > >>>>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > >>>>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > >>>>>> to you. > >>>>> > >>>>> That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not > >>>>> possible with just an attractive force. > >>>> > >>>> Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter > >>>> on circular motion says otherwise. > >>> > >>> Gravitational physics in Halliday and Resnick is wrong > >> > >> And so you are claiming that ALL physics, including introductory physics, > >> is wrong. Aha. > > > > No, I claimed that All physics based on the wrong fundament assertions > > such as extra dimensions, fields, virtual particles, length contraction > > and time dilation will never be able to arrive at the correct “theory of everything”. > > Note that Newton’s theory of gravity, which says that an attractive force > alone can yield a stable circular orbit, involves nine of the things you > mention. Newton’s theory without the centrifugal acceleration will cause a satellite to crash into the earth. The introduced tangential acceleration and that the satellite and the earth are expanding in the same direction is what causes the satellite to maintain a stable orbit. > > Halliday and Resnick’s presentation of circular motion ALSO involves none > of the things you mention. Halliday and Resnick is wrong. > > > That’s why physicists can’t come up with the cause of gravity. And that’s > > why they can’t incorporate GRT into Quantum physics. > > > >> > >> Note that Archimedes Plutonium has you beat. In his online book he claims > >> that not only all physics is wrong but all mathematics is wrong too. He > >> says that ellipses are not conic sections and that sine and cosine > >> functions are just semicircles. His book is therefore much grander than > >> yours. > >> > >>> and that’s why I invented DTG. The force in Newton’s equation is a > >>> composite force....it includes both attractive EM force and repulsive > >>> effect due to confinement. > >>>> > >>>>> The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are > >>>>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > >>>>> OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent > >>>>> structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous > >>>>> tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two > >>>>> forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. > >>>>> > >>>>> Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it > >>>>> is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. > >>>> > >>>> Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. > >>>> Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force > >>>> and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pur3ti$p0n$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479661 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:56:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>>>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>>>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>>>>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>>>>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>>>>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>>>>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>>>>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>>>>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>>>>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>>>>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>>>>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>>>>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>>>>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>>>>>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>>>>>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>>>>>>>> without falling into each other? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >>>>>>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >>>>>>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >>>>>>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >>>>>>>> to you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not >>>>>>> possible with just an attractive force. >>>>>> >>>>>> Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter >>>>>> on circular motion says otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> Gravitational physics in Halliday and Resnick is wrong >>>> >>>> And so you are claiming that ALL physics, including introductory physics, >>>> is wrong. Aha. >>> >>> No, I claimed that All physics based on the wrong fundament assertions >>> such as extra dimensions, fields, virtual particles, length contraction >>> and time dilation will never be able to arrive at the correct “theory of everything”. >> >> Note that Newton’s theory of gravity, which says that an attractive force >> alone can yield a stable circular orbit, involves nine of the things you >> mention. > > Newton’s theory without the centrifugal acceleration will cause a > satellite to crash into the earth. Not true. Newton’s theory only has centripetal acceleration, and there is no centrifugal or tangential acceleration in Newton’s description of a circular orbit. > The introduced tangential acceleration and that the satellite and the > earth are expanding in the same direction is what causes the satellite to > maintain a stable orbit. > >> >> Halliday and Resnick’s presentation of circular motion ALSO involves none >> of the things you mention. > > Halliday and Resnick is wrong. And so you say all of physics is wrong, not just modern physics. All physics. > >> >>> That’s why physicists can’t come up with the cause of gravity. And that’s >>> why they can’t incorporate GRT into Quantum physics. >>> >>>> >>>> Note that Archimedes Plutonium has you beat. In his online book he claims >>>> that not only all physics is wrong but all mathematics is wrong too. He >>>> says that ellipses are not conic sections and that sine and cosine >>>> functions are just semicircles. His book is therefore much grander than >>>> yours. >>>> >>>>> and that’s why I invented DTG. The force in Newton’s equation is a >>>>> composite force....it includes both attractive EM force and repulsive >>>>> effect due to confinement. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are >>>>>>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. >>>>>>> OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent >>>>>>> structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous >>>>>>> tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two >>>>>>> forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it >>>>>>> is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. >>>>>> Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force >>>>>> and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 07:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <446e0dd8-04ba-42ee-953c-ae212f7b38ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479679 |
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:53:57 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:56:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a solid body. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a > >>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point > >>>>>>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) > >>>>>>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules > >>>>>>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in > >>>>>>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a > >>>>>>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in > >>>>>>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, > >>>>>>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical > >>>>>>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the > >>>>>>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin > >>>>>>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower > >>>>>>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the > >>>>>>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why > >>>>>>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, > >>>>>>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other > >>>>>>>>> without falling into each other? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force > >>>>>>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching > >>>>>>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in > >>>>>>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable > >>>>>>>> to you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not > >>>>>>> possible with just an attractive force. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter > >>>>>> on circular motion says otherwise. > >>>>> > >>>>> Gravitational physics in Halliday and Resnick is wrong > >>>> > >>>> And so you are claiming that ALL physics, including introductory physics, > >>>> is wrong. Aha. > >>> > >>> No, I claimed that All physics based on the wrong fundament assertions > >>> such as extra dimensions, fields, virtual particles, length contraction > >>> and time dilation will never be able to arrive at the correct “theory of everything”. > >> > >> Note that Newton’s theory of gravity, which says that an attractive force > >> alone can yield a stable circular orbit, involves nine of the things you > >> mention. > > > > Newton’s theory without the centrifugal acceleration will cause a > > satellite to crash into the earth. > > Not true. Newton’s theory only has centripetal acceleration, and there is > no centrifugal or tangential acceleration in Newton’s description of a > circular orbit. Moron, can you make a satellite maintain a stable orbit without tangential acceleration? Guess not... > > > The introduced tangential acceleration and that the satellite and the > > earth are expanding in the same direction is what causes the satellite to > > maintain a stable orbit. > > > >> > >> Halliday and Resnick’s presentation of circular motion ALSO involves none > >> of the things you mention. > > > > Halliday and Resnick is wrong. > > And so you say all of physics is wrong, not just modern physics. All > physics. > > > > >> > >>> That’s why physicists can’t come up with the cause of gravity. And that’s > >>> why they can’t incorporate GRT into Quantum physics. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Note that Archimedes Plutonium has you beat. In his online book he claims > >>>> that not only all physics is wrong but all mathematics is wrong too. He > >>>> says that ellipses are not conic sections and that sine and cosine > >>>> functions are just semicircles. His book is therefore much grander than > >>>> yours. > >>>> > >>>>> and that’s why I invented DTG. The force in Newton’s equation is a > >>>>> composite force....it includes both attractive EM force and repulsive > >>>>> effect due to confinement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are > >>>>>>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. > >>>>>>> OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent > >>>>>>> structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous > >>>>>>> tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two > >>>>>>> forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it > >>>>>>> is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. > >>>>>> Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force > >>>>>> and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puu8ki$18fr$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479746 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:53:57 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:56:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:22:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 5:42:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:09:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas >>>>>>>>>>> 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a solid body. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where and when did he write/say this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, we have been over this here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A field in physics is simply an object in models where every point in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical space is assigned a value: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So Weinberg’s description that a field is the stress exists at every point >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a solid body is very close to the correct description. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. And probably you misquoted or misunderstood him. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case what is mathematical space? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *A* mathematical space is (put simply) *an* abstract entity in which (a) >>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate(s) is/are assigned to each point. And there are rules >>>>>>>>>>>> (operations) that define how you can get from one point to another, for example. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (There is not *the* mathematical space.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The concept of a field uses this. You can assign a value to every point in >>>>>>>>>>>> a mathematical space as described by its coordinates. That value can be a >>>>>>>>>>>> number (scalar), perhaps with a unit; it can be a vector itself, or in >>>>>>>>>>>> general it can be a tensor. (See below.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If the value is that of a *physical* quantity (like temperature, force, >>>>>>>>>>>> acceleration, or stress), then you can use this field to describe physical >>>>>>>>>>>> reality mathematically. In the first example in my previous follow-up, the >>>>>>>>>>>> coordinate system was defined so that the heat source was in its origin >>>>>>>>>>>> because the temperature was highest there (note the peak); it became lower >>>>>>>>>>>> as the distance from the origin – given by √(x² + y²), according to the >>>>>>>>>>>> Pythagorean theorem – increased. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This mathematical approach is devoting the physical explanation why >>>>>>>>>>> material objects interacting with each other at a distance. For example, >>>>>>>>>>> what is the physical cause of gravity....why object orbiting each other >>>>>>>>>>> without falling into each other? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is where even the simple ideas elude you. To you, an attractive force >>>>>>>>>> could only conceivably result in the two attracting objects approaching >>>>>>>>>> each other. To you, the idea of a stable circular orbit with no decrease in >>>>>>>>>> distance is impossible with an attractive force — it’s just inconceivable >>>>>>>>>> to you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That’s right.....stable orbit between the moon and the earth is not >>>>>>>>> possible with just an attractive force. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Open your copy of Halliday and Resnick, an introductory book. The chapter >>>>>>>> on circular motion says otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gravitational physics in Halliday and Resnick is wrong >>>>>> >>>>>> And so you are claiming that ALL physics, including introductory physics, >>>>>> is wrong. Aha. >>>>> >>>>> No, I claimed that All physics based on the wrong fundament assertions >>>>> such as extra dimensions, fields, virtual particles, length contraction >>>>> and time dilation will never be able to arrive at the correct “theory of everything”. >>>> >>>> Note that Newton’s theory of gravity, which says that an attractive force >>>> alone can yield a stable circular orbit, involves nine of the things you >>>> mention. >>> >>> Newton’s theory without the centrifugal acceleration will cause a >>> satellite to crash into the earth. >> >> Not true. Newton’s theory only has centripetal acceleration, and there is >> no centrifugal or tangential acceleration in Newton’s description of a >> circular orbit. > > Moron, can you make a satellite maintain a stable orbit without > tangential acceleration? Guess not... Yes, of course! In frictionless environments no tangential acceleration is needed at all!! > >> >>> The introduced tangential acceleration and that the satellite and the >>> earth are expanding in the same direction is what causes the satellite to >>> maintain a stable orbit. >>> >>>> >>>> Halliday and Resnick’s presentation of circular motion ALSO involves none >>>> of the things you mention. >>> >>> Halliday and Resnick is wrong. >> >> And so you say all of physics is wrong, not just modern physics. All >> physics. See? All of physics. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> That’s why physicists can’t come up with the cause of gravity. And that’s >>>>> why they can’t incorporate GRT into Quantum physics. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Note that Archimedes Plutonium has you beat. In his online book he claims >>>>>> that not only all physics is wrong but all mathematics is wrong too. He >>>>>> says that ellipses are not conic sections and that sine and cosine >>>>>> functions are just semicircles. His book is therefore much grander than >>>>>> yours. >>>>>> >>>>>>> and that’s why I invented DTG. The force in Newton’s equation is a >>>>>>> composite force....it includes both attractive EM force and repulsive >>>>>>> effect due to confinement. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The earth and the moon are attracted to each other because they are >>>>>>>>> expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands. >>>>>>>>> OTOH, the earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent >>>>>>>>> structure of the E-Matrix (momentum) and this contributes a continuous >>>>>>>>> tangential motion to the orbit of the moon. The combination of these two >>>>>>>>> forces is what makes the moon to achieves a stable orbit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Newton’s equation including these two opposing forces and that’s why it >>>>>>>>> is able to calculate the orbit of the moon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Newton’s equation involves nothing from your e-matrix and you know it. >>>>>>>> Newton’s description of circular motion involves only a centripetal force >>>>>>>> and not a centrifugal force. Look in Halliday and Resnick. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web