Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #589521 > unrolled thread

What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 00:43 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 00:57 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 02:20 -0700
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-16 10:22 -0400
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:24 -0700
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-17 00:47 -0400
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-16 22:29 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 22:47 -0700
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-17 12:12 -0400
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 09:55 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:41 -0500
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 12:27 -0700
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:02 -0700
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 16:05 -0700
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 16:28 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 19:03 -0700
                  Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 19:09 -0700
                    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 20:49 -0700
                      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 22:33 -0700
                        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 18:42 -0700
                          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 19:04 -0700
                            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 19:38 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 14:25 -0700
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 12:31 -0700
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:06 -0700
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 13:17 -0700
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:21 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 16:44 -0500
                  Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? SPQR <SPQR@SPQR.org> - 2016-07-17 16:28 -0600
                    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-17 16:59 -0700
                    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 17:24 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Colonel Edmund J. Burke" <burkesgurlz@t-girls.com> - 2016-07-16 06:24 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-16 12:44 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:00 -0500
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-16 12:04 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-17 14:10 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 23:16 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-17 10:04 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 06:19 -0400
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-07-17 11:33 +0100
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-17 22:46 +0000
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-07-17 18:52 -0400
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-18 06:24 -0400
            Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 00:05 +0000
              Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-07-18 20:39 -0400
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-07-18 20:19 -0700
                Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 06:19 -0400
                  Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-07-19 23:07 +0000
            a particle in noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 18:44 -0700
        Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 15:55 -0700
          Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 15:59 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-17 12:29 -0500
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 11:24 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? xxein1@att.net - 2016-07-17 12:07 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-17 13:26 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? yanarchi@hotmail.com - 2016-07-18 21:58 -0700
      Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-18 22:03 -0700
    Re: What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 09:25 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#589705

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:19:56 -0400, kensi wrote:

> On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com, wrote:
>> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?
> 
> According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of mine,
> BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a non-dissipative
> physical system has a corresponding conservation law. In the case of
> spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics are the same at
> every location) the result is conservation of linear momentum, given
> that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has conservation of energy
> -- which it does, as it has *time* translation symmetry). So the
> particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until given some kind of a
> nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said nudge allows it to
> exchange some linear momentum with some other particle or particles.
> 
> More at:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

And kensi solves another one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589708

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:46:03 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:19:56 -0400, kensi wrote:
>
>> On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com, wrote:
>>> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?
>> 
>> According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of mine,
>> BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a non-dissipative
>> physical system has a corresponding conservation law. In the case of
>> spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics are the same at
>> every location) the result is conservation of linear momentum, given
>> that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has conservation of energy
>> -- which it does, as it has *time* translation symmetry). So the
>> particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until given some kind of a
>> nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said nudge allows it to
>> exchange some linear momentum with some other particle or particles.
>> 
>> More at:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
>
>And kensi solves another one.

No, I'm sorry but kensi seems to be a flatlander. She clearly
has no concept that space itself is curved. So there can be
NO conservation of linear momentum can exist because all 
momentum necessarily has to be curved in curved space.

HTH


-- 

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

"It is my learned opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the thin-skinned
or the ignorant."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589742

On 17/07/2016 6:52 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:46:03 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:19:56 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com, wrote:
>>>> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?
>>>
>>> According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of mine,
>>> BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a non-dissipative
>>> physical system has a corresponding conservation law. In the case of
>>> spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics are the same at
>>> every location) the result is conservation of linear momentum, given
>>> that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has conservation of energy
>>> -- which it does, as it has *time* translation symmetry). So the
>>> particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until given some kind of a
>>> nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said nudge allows it to
>>> exchange some linear momentum with some other particle or particles.
>>>
>>> More at:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
>>
>> And kensi solves another one.
>
> No, I'm sorry but kensi seems to be a flatlander.

???

> She clearly has no concept that space itself is curved.

Oh, really? Then explain my use of the term "timelike geodesic" above.

> So there can be NO conservation of linear momentum can exist because
> all momentum necessarily has to be curved in curved space.

It's linear momentum when we're considering motion of the object's 
center of mass. Even if it is not moving in a straight line. The "line" 
in "linear" is then tangential to the object's trajectory, but if that 
trajectory is a geodesic, then that geodesic is actually as straight as 
the tangent can get anyway.

All defined in opposition to *angular* momentum, which involves the 
object's motion degrees of freedom that keep the center of mass in 
place. In simple cases this would be a rigid rotation of the whole 
object, as with a spinning thrown football. But it can be more 
complicated, as witness an atom with its many separately moving electrons.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589842

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:24:29 -0400, kensi wrote:

> On 17/07/2016 6:52 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:46:03 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:19:56 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?
>>>>
>>>> According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of
>>>> mine, BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a
>>>> non-dissipative physical system has a corresponding conservation law.
>>>> In the case of spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics
>>>> are the same at every location) the result is conservation of linear
>>>> momentum, given that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has
>>>> conservation of energy -- which it does, as it has *time* translation
>>>> symmetry). So the particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until
>>>> given some kind of a nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said
>>>> nudge allows it to exchange some linear momentum with some other
>>>> particle or particles.
>>>>
>>>> More at:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
>>>
>>> And kensi solves another one.
>>
>> No, I'm sorry but kensi seems to be a flatlander.
> 
> ???
> 
>> She clearly has no concept that space itself is curved.
> 
> Oh, really? Then explain my use of the term "timelike geodesic" above.
> 
>> So there can be NO conservation of linear momentum can exist because
>> all momentum necessarily has to be curved in curved space.
> 
> It's linear momentum when we're considering motion of the object's
> center of mass. Even if it is not moving in a straight line. The "line"
> in "linear" is then tangential to the object's trajectory, but if that
> trajectory is a geodesic, then that geodesic is actually as straight as
> the tangent can get anyway.
> 
> All defined in opposition to *angular* momentum, which involves the
> object's motion degrees of freedom that keep the center of mass in
> place. In simple cases this would be a rigid rotation of the whole
> object, as with a spinning thrown football. But it can be more
> complicated, as witness an atom with its many separately moving
> electrons.

And kensi schools yet another kook.

<snicker>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589851

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:05:55 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:24:29 -0400, kensi wrote:
>
>> On 17/07/2016 6:52 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:46:03 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
>>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:19:56 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com,
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?
>>>>>
>>>>> According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of
>>>>> mine, BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a
>>>>> non-dissipative physical system has a corresponding conservation law.
>>>>> In the case of spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics
>>>>> are the same at every location) the result is conservation of linear
>>>>> momentum, given that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has
>>>>> conservation of energy -- which it does, as it has *time* translation
>>>>> symmetry). So the particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until
>>>>> given some kind of a nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said
>>>>> nudge allows it to exchange some linear momentum with some other
>>>>> particle or particles.
>>>>>
>>>>> More at:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
>>>>
>>>> And kensi solves another one.
>>>
>>> No, I'm sorry but kensi seems to be a flatlander.
>> 
>> ???
>> 
>>> She clearly has no concept that space itself is curved.
>> 
>> Oh, really? Then explain my use of the term "timelike geodesic" above.
>> 
>>> So there can be NO conservation of linear momentum can exist because
>>> all momentum necessarily has to be curved in curved space.
>> 
>> It's linear momentum when we're considering motion of the object's
>> center of mass. Even if it is not moving in a straight line. The "line"
>> in "linear" is then tangential to the object's trajectory, but if that
>> trajectory is a geodesic, then that geodesic is actually as straight as
>> the tangent can get anyway.
>> 
>> All defined in opposition to *angular* momentum, which involves the
>> object's motion degrees of freedom that keep the center of mass in
>> place. In simple cases this would be a rigid rotation of the whole
>> object, as with a spinning thrown football. But it can be more
>> complicated, as witness an atom with its many separately moving
>> electrons.
>
>And kensi schools yet another kook.
>
><snicker>

Kensi did no such thing. I never saw any such reply so I think you
made it up to try to defend your friend who apparently views space
as flat. LOL. An astrophysics Ph.D. who is a flat-Earther?  

And she calls others *kook*?  OMG!

All Kensi says above about linear motion is STILL taking place in
a curved space. The only true way to make it linear would be to
somehow compensate for the curvature of space and redirect the motion
of the object in a curve that is opposite of the curved space motion.
Then, a dilemma arises in that the motion is STILL not linear but only
curved differently than if the object was left alone.

[afn added]


-- 

Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

"It is my learned opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the thin-skinned
or the ignorant."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589885

In article <67tqob9uai0gvblclgparf7gflos999br5@4ax.com>, 
greghall@yacht_master.fake says...


> 
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:05:55 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 06:24:29 -0400, kensi wrote:
> >
> >> On 17/07/2016 6:52 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:46:03 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
> >>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:19:56 -0400, kensi wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com,
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of
> >>>>> mine, BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a
> >>>>> non-dissipative physical system has a corresponding conservation law.
> >>>>> In the case of spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics
> >>>>> are the same at every location) the result is conservation of linear
> >>>>> momentum, given that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has
> >>>>> conservation of energy -- which it does, as it has *time* translation
> >>>>> symmetry). So the particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until
> >>>>> given some kind of a nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said
> >>>>> nudge allows it to exchange some linear momentum with some other
> >>>>> particle or particles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> More at:
> >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
> >>>>
> >>>> And kensi solves another one.
> >>>
> >>> No, I'm sorry but kensi seems to be a flatlander.
> >> 
> >> ???
> >> 
> >>> She clearly has no concept that space itself is curved.
> >> 
> >> Oh, really? Then explain my use of the term "timelike geodesic" above.
> >> 
> >>> So there can be NO conservation of linear momentum can exist because
> >>> all momentum necessarily has to be curved in curved space.
> >> 
> >> It's linear momentum when we're considering motion of the object's
> >> center of mass. Even if it is not moving in a straight line. The "line"
> >> in "linear" is then tangential to the object's trajectory, but if that
> >> trajectory is a geodesic, then that geodesic is actually as straight as
> >> the tangent can get anyway.
> >> 
> >> All defined in opposition to *angular* momentum, which involves the
> >> object's motion degrees of freedom that keep the center of mass in
> >> place. In simple cases this would be a rigid rotation of the whole
> >> object, as with a spinning thrown football. But it can be more
> >> complicated, as witness an atom with its many separately moving
> >> electrons.
> >
> >And kensi schools yet another kook.
> >
> ><snicker>
> 
> Kensi did no such thing. I never saw any such reply so I think you
> made it up to try to defend your friend who apparently views space
> as flat. LOL. An astrophysics Ph.D. who is a flat-Earther?  
> 
> And she calls others *kook*?  OMG!
> 
> All Kensi says above about linear motion is STILL taking place in
> a curved space. The only true way to make it linear would be to
> somehow compensate for the curvature of space and redirect the motion
> of the object in a curve that is opposite of the curved space motion.
> Then, a dilemma arises in that the motion is STILL not linear but only
> curved differently than if the object was left alone.
> 
> [afn added]

Can a chord exist within a circle?

-- 

Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, Official Ko0K Wrangler
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote  (Post-Burnore)
Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame
Copyright © 2016 
all rights reserved 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589919

On 18/07/2016 8:39 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:05:55 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> And kensi schools yet another kook.
>>
>> <snicker>
>
> Kensi did no such thing.

Did too!

> I never saw any such reply so I think you made it up to try to defend
> your friend

Check in afn, a group you often screed into, ko0ky.

> who apparently views space as flat.

Liar.

> LOL. An astrophysics Ph.D. who is a flat-Earther?

Liar^2.

> And she calls others *kook*?

I do indeed, k00k.

> All Kensi says above about linear motion is STILL taking place in
> a curved space. The only true way to make it linear would be to
> somehow compensate for the curvature of space and redirect the motion
> of the object in a curve that is opposite of the curved space motion.
> Then, a dilemma arises in that the motion is STILL not linear but only
> curved differently than if the object was left alone.

Look up the definition of "linear momentum" in a physics text sometime. 
It applies even to objects moving on a curved path, including 
accelerating ones.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#590014

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 06:19:58 -0400, kensi wrote:

> On 18/07/2016 8:39 PM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:05:55 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda
>> <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> And kensi schools yet another kook.
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>>
>> Kensi did no such thing.
> 
> Did too!
> 
>> I never saw any such reply so I think you made it up to try to defend
>> your friend
> 
> Check in afn, a group you often screed into, ko0ky.
> 
>> who apparently views space as flat.
> 
> Liar.
> 
>> LOL. An astrophysics Ph.D. who is a flat-Earther?
> 
> Liar^2.
> 
>> And she calls others *kook*?
> 
> I do indeed, k00k.
> 
>> All Kensi says above about linear motion is STILL taking place in a
>> curved space. The only true way to make it linear would be to somehow
>> compensate for the curvature of space and redirect the motion of the
>> object in a curve that is opposite of the curved space motion. Then, a
>> dilemma arises in that the motion is STILL not linear but only curved
>> differently than if the object was left alone.
> 
> Look up the definition of "linear momentum" in a physics text sometime.
> It applies even to objects moving on a curved path, including
> accelerating ones.

SMACKDOWN !!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589867 — a particle in

that is if you could teleport yourself at the speed of lightwaves,
depending upon how the surf breaks

> Oh, really? Then explain my use of the term "timelike geodesic" above.
> 
> > So there can be NO conservation of linear momentum can exist because
> > all momentum necessarily has to be curved in curved space.
> 
> It's linear momentum when we're considering motion of the object's 
> center of mass. Even if it is not moving in a straight line. The "line" 
> in "linear" is then tangential to the object's trajectory, but if that 
> trajectory is a geodesic, then that geodesic is actually as straight as 
> the tangent can get anyway.
> 
> All defined in opposition to *angular* momentum, which involves the 
> object's motion degrees of freedom that keep the center of mass in 
> place. In simple cases this would be a rigid rotation of the whole 
> object, as with a spinning thrown football. But it can be more 
> complicated, as witness an atom with its many separately moving electrons.
> 
> -- 
> "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
> the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
> "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
> in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589709

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:46:06 PM UTC-7, Nadegda wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:19:56 -0400, kensi wrote:
> 
> > On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com, wrote:
> >> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?
> > 
> > According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of mine,
> > BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a non-dissipative
> > physical system has a corresponding conservation law. In the case of
> > spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics are the same at
> > every location) the result is conservation of linear momentum, given
> > that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has conservation of energy
> > -- which it does, as it has *time* translation symmetry). So the
> > particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until given some kind of a
> > nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said nudge allows it to
> > exchange some linear momentum with some other particle or particles.
> > 
> > More at:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
> 
> And kensi solves another one.

No he didn't. Besides, any talk of particles coasting along their timelike geodesics is crackpottery and stupid nonsense. Nothing can move in spacetime by definition. Surprise! This is why Sir Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." Source: Conjectures and Refutations.

So far, not one of you brain-dead relativists has managed to explain why a particle in inertial motion remains in motion. You know why? It's because you are all a bunch of clueless morons, members of a cretinous religion of jackasses, ass kissers and con artists.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589711

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:55:38 PM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:46:06 PM UTC-7, Nadegda wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 06:19:56 -0400, kensi wrote:
> > 
> > > On 16/07/2016 3:43 AM, hanson, socked up as mapou001@gmail.com, wrote:
> > >> What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?
> > > 
> > > According to Noether's Theorem (discovered by a personal hero of mine,
> > > BTW), every differentiable symmetry of the action of a non-dissipative
> > > physical system has a corresponding conservation law. In the case of
> > > spatial translation symmetry (i.e. the laws of physics are the same at
> > > every location) the result is conservation of linear momentum, given
> > > that physics as a whole is not dissipative (has conservation of energy
> > > -- which it does, as it has *time* translation symmetry). So the
> > > particle coasts along a timelike geodesic until given some kind of a
> > > nudge and won't ever accelerate on its own. Said nudge allows it to
> > > exchange some linear momentum with some other particle or particles.
> > > 
> > > More at:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
> > 
> > And kensi solves another one.
> 
> No he didn't. Besides, any talk of particles coasting along their timelike geodesics is crackpottery and stupid nonsense. Nothing can move in spacetime by definition. Surprise! This is why Sir Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." Source: Conjectures and Refutations.
> 
> So far, not one of you brain-dead relativists has managed to explain why a particle in inertial motion remains in motion. You know why? It's because you are all a bunch of clueless morons, members of a cretinous religion of jackasses, ass kissers and con artists.
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

I'm just now finding out that Kensi is a she. My bad. The reference to Noether now makes sense. But the "explanation" is still crap.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589655

On 7/16/2016 2:43 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
>  Deep down, everything is absolute.


prove it or STFU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589658

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 10:29:42 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 7/16/2016 2:43 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> >  Deep down, everything is absolute.
> 
> 
> prove it or STFU

I already did but it obviously flew over your little Zika head. Hint: a relative universe is a self-referential universe. I won't say it again.

ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589659

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 1:29:42 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 7/16/2016 2:43 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> >  Deep down, everything is absolute.
> 
> 
> prove it or STFU

xxein:  It may be absolute but it does no good to use that as a fact except to feel satisfied.  The math of physics would be beyond just cumbersome.  It would have no practical use because it would have little local relevance.  It is fair enough to say f=ma and ignore gravity for almost all practically.  Why not ignore the absolute also?  It wouldn't have any measureable effect.

I think it would suit the OP better if more were known about the nature of gravity.  As is, it is quite abstract in cognitive navigation.  It helps if you know more than just a bus schedule - like did it have a flat, run out of fuel, roads impassible, driver went bananas worried about an absolute, etc.

One might worry about if there is a God and/or is it your God with nothing but belief as proof.  What me worry?  Forget about it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589678

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all a bunch of clueless morons.
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> 
> PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute.
> 
> "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts."
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

There exists only particles, their properties and their interactions. Everything else is either abstract of something relativists jamm up their asses every morning.

It follows that all properties, including position, are intrinsic to particles. Therefore, they are absolute by virtue of being intrinsic.

You fucking relativist morons need to add a few more neurons to the two you got between your ears. You are stupid as fuck. You are a bunch of fucking mental midgets. You members of a religion of cretins.

ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589898

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:44:07 PM UTC+10, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
"What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?"

This would have to be the simplest question out there, and even then you and many others have made a baloney porridge out of it. 

That there are no forces acting on a particle, is the reason any particle remains inertial. It's simple Newtonian physics. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589901

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 9:58:28 PM UTC-7, yana...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:44:07 PM UTC+10, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> "What causes a particle in inertial motion to remain in motion?"
> 
> This would have to be the simplest question out there, and even then you and many others have made a baloney porridge out of it. 
> 
> That there are no forces acting on a particle, is the reason any particle remains inertial. It's simple Newtonian physics. 
> 
> -y

Fuck you. You're a fucking moron, just like all the other brain-dead relativists.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#589938

On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:44:07 AM UTC-7, mapo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm asking, not because any of you relativist bozos on sci.physics know the answer, but because I want to make to make the point that you are all a bunch of clueless morons.
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> 
> PS. Before any of you brain-dead relativists start asking, "inertial motion relative to what?", let me point out that a universe in which everything is relative is a self-referential universe. Not even wrong. The idea that all motions and positions are relative is the doctrine of a religion of cretins. In fact, the relative is abstract. Deep down, everything is absolute.
> 
> "O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts."
> 
> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

All that is is in motion.Nothing is standing still no matter how you create the frame. Think about it TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web