# Capiert

Senior Members

271

-30

• Rank
Atom

## Profile Information

• Gender
Not Telling
• Interests
Classical physics
(no calculus)
• Favorite Area of Science
Classical physics

## Recent Profile Visitors

3123 profile views

1. ## Vis_viva ? (Dark Energy)

I'm a believer! (=Yes it must be truely amazing, for the learning amount & different ways.) (Mind boggling!) Penrose, wasn't he the 1 that said the past does NOT exist, it's a stack of nows? (Oh we'( wi)ll have to start a new thread, if this (=these fascinating discusions) keeps up, & the scalar time?) Btw Isn't the basic problem with vectors, dealing with "even" negative_multiples? Even multiples of a dimension x^(2*n) for n=0, 1, 2, 3, .. are all scalars. (Negative) "Polarity is lost" (= not tracked, anymore). (So the polarity stays positive, =never goes negative). Odd multiples of a dimension (e.g. x^1, x^3, x^5, .. are (all) vectors &) have complex (=complicated, sometimes wierd) multiplication rules, (in order) to track ((negative) polarity). Thus no (single) general formula (rule) for both (vectors & scalars) ? E.g. Vector notation would be prefered for both (vectors & scalars) because it's most (cap)able (to deal with negatives(' tracking)). (But dread to think,) what happens when we root a scalar, that was based on x^2? (E.g. The other( scalar)s, with even exponents larger than 2 would NOT be a problem because their scalar status would NOT change.) Yes, that (SI standards) must be the best way to cut thru the confusion.
2. ## Vis_viva ? (Dark Energy)

Does anybody have a link to Gravesande's (original) experiment &/or measurements? E.g. Brass ball weights dropped vertically from different heights into clay (=mud) that produces dents of various area (diameter) sizes, & depths.

Moved.

5. ## Vis_viva ? (Dark Energy)

Yes. I always wondered (for years) why Lorentz (1904, Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light, in German, from das Relativitaetsprinzip "1913" (=not otherwise, thus found here) https://archive.org/details/dasrelativittsp00minkgoog) would go into such detail of all 3 dimensions, to tackle the (analysis) problem(s) for the first 19/20 terms of GR (i.e. that was very admirable, to get into the nitty gritty e.g. every step of the way, when nothing else worked (right) (but I couldn't follow it (=his breakdown method) then(, why)); & (I also had wondered (for years) why a gyroscope had the ability to (180 degree) rotate & transfer a(n asymetrical, =1 sided) force, or acceleration (such as g) (for precession) at slow speeds (e.g. hanging 90 degrees, horizontal; away from the vertical rotating axis, at 0 degrees). Now I know (why). The (rotating) acceleration, is "non"_linear for the 2 rotating coordinates (e.g. x, & y; when z is vertical); (although gravitional acceleration g=-9.8 m/(s^2) is linear). The asymetric (rotational) acceleration (wrt time) causes the (momentum, & acceleration) transfer to another dimension (of the 3D's). The acceleration of 1 (rotating) coordinate (when added) is different for every step of time. Yes. Thank you, the article; your do's & don'ts; & tips are very helpful at getting me started. Just the right amount (of guidence: not too exhaustingly (long &) boring; nor too little to grasp) with torque example, to get the (=my mind's) ball rolling (& make it click (for me)). Enough to get me curious enough to ask why (in view of the paradoxes (to solve)). Thanks both (of you).
6. ## Vis_viva ? (Dark Energy)

Yes, but I suppose there are (at least) 2 different possibilities: Elastic (e.g. bounced, having more acceleration (damage?)), & (absorbed) non_elastic collisions (e.g. like Gravesande's experiment, 1D).
7. ## Vis_viva ? (Dark Energy)

I want to agree with you there, but I'( woul)d have to say, (theoretical) physics has to be fit to the observations (=experimental results). E.g. Dark (=unknown) energy, needs some filing (=rework, fitting).
8. ## Vis_viva ? (Dark Energy)

That means: (KE is) the amount of work(_energy) to (move=) accelerate a mass m, from initial_velocity vi=0 m/s to the final_velocity vf at the time of impact. But that sounds like force F=m*a (instead). I suspect the (forced, travelled) distance d=va*t is a clever way to involve the amount of time t into the equation, as d=t*va (for momentum mom=F*t). Work_energy is WE=F*d, d=t*va WE=F*t*va, mom=F*t WE=mom*va. (Momentum is in the core of the (work) energy equation.)
9. ## Vis_viva ? (Dark Energy)

KE=p * v_a (p & v_a are multiplied together; NOT added) So the answer to my question: (Can we know the (simple=) linear velocity (components) of a rotating object?) is no! We do NOT have linear velocity formulas for rotating objects' x & y components.

Moved.