Gravity (split)

[Mordred]

If your going to use Newtons law then at least show you properly understand it.

 

Mass is resistance to inertia.

 

The statement you made that inertia is resistance to motion makes absolutely no sense.

 

Ether theories have been proved to be incorrect. The rest of your post is too garbled to decipher

Edited May 14, 2016 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

I only want to be understood.

 

!

Moderator Note

It's been mentioned that your habit of breaking up your sentences so often with additional lines is difficult to follow. If the above is true, perhaps you could use normal paragraphs, which are much easier to follow and requires less scrolling. Do you want people to read, or do you want them to scroll? You're losing valuable attention which is one of your most important assets here.

 

And seriously, why can't you tell us what's wrong instead of just claiming it's wrong? So far you're just waving your hands. It's one big Argument from Incredulity, and not very rational.

[Strange]

If you want to know,

you go to the original texts

& read them like Einstein said (=recommended),

instead of professing what everybody does NOT know!

 

 

It is not necessary to read Einstein's own writings (Personally, I think his writings on relativity are not particularly clear and there are many better explanations out there. And the maths is there same in all cases, which is what really matters.)

 

 

 

Perfect? Hmm, with that math? I have my doubts.

 

You haven't explained why you have doubts so I don't know what to do about that. I assume it is because you you have misunderstood something. If you could explain where your doubts come from, then maybe people can help clear them up.

Yes your website does not allow me

to update, correct modify & improve

my past posts,

There is an "Edit" button at the bottom of every post which allows you to do just that.

 

So, for example, you could reformat that sentence properly:

Yes your website does not allow me to update, correct modify & improve my past posts, as my texting & programming get familiar (to me) & improve.

[Capiert]

..

Mass is resistance to inertia.

(What?!=) That "stuns" me to read, the 1st time.

 

As I said, I have not read the principia (or how it's called). (My latin is not very good.)

I use the word inert, intuitively (not according to your modern formula definitions)*

trying to figure how nature works.

I do not limit myself to your vocabulary & perspective.

I'm concerned with how other people see it too, e.g. naturally, without an education.

I don't know your vocabulary (exactly, if at all).

But I'm just trying to figure out things (the way nature is, & mechanics?).

* Perhaps that is where we differ. I'm just trying to explain things (my way) for me, simply (if possible)

in my own words, to complete my picture.

You know things, that I don't from my perspective.

& I don't know what they are all called (in yours), to explain it.

 

E.g. Perhaps my so called "inertial" discusion

is only about "vectors"? (Maybe that's why a new word for speed was invented, velocity?

e.g. To isolate that as a mixture of 2 or 3, 90 degree angled, parts.)

Straight line "speeds" ("distances", per time). (Euclids? Arrows?)

How should I call it? (motion of (virtual) points?)

To explain it in normal words.

 

Ewert (1996) commented (in words) on the (terrible) problem of mass (~weight) & inertia could never be the same, in physics.

It was outrageous for him [too?].

 

I was curious what was meant, because I didn't follow back then. What did Newton say? What is meant now?

I only know his 3 laws & my intuitive conclusions.

 

Can you help there? (I hope I've said it right, to get the message across. ?)

 

I'm searching to follow my intuitions (=to identify things, (you or) I already have);

not reject them (like you often advize.

That is (=would be) unnaturally disgusting(=ugly) brute force against nature, for me.

Not a harmonic (harmony) synthesis. Simple common sense is what I want, not frustrated comprimises.)

 

Ref

The statement you made that inertia is resistance to motion makes absolutely no sense.

Ether theories have been proved to be incorrect.

How do you mean "proved"?

The rest of your post is too garbled to decipher

Which points? Maybe they are typos, I haven't noticed, or I've used the wrong word, or sentence structure.

 

P.S. Is there any way to improve past posts, that do not allow edit anymore?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Capiert

[Mordred]

In physics, mass is a property of a physical body. It is generally a measure of an object's resistance to change its state of motion when a force is applied.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

 

 

Inertia The tendency of a body to resist acceleration.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Capiert]

mass: object's resistance to change its "state" of motion when a force is applied.

Inertia: tendency of a body (=mass) to resist acceleration.

What is the difference?

 

What is state?

 

 

Unless you mean, the 1st applies pressure P=F/A

& the 2nd does not?

Push, pull.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Capiert

[Mordred]

Think of it this way inertia the the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.

 

So when you stated

Inertial, is resistance to motion (an oversimplified explaination).

 

.

This statement is incorrect. As a body in motion (inertia) will stay in motion in a straight line until acted upon by a force.

 

Any change in direction or momentum (inertia) is a change in acceleration.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Capiert]

 

inertia: (ruffly) a body stays (having) the same (straight) speed ,

unless acted on by an external pressure, P=F/A.

 

A body does not change speed on their own. Conservation of momentum (mom=m*v. Newton's 1st law).

Something (e.g. pressure) must "cause" it to accelerate (=effect).

 

Thus, constant speed.

 

+mom2=+F*t Impulse changes speed. Adding momentum changes speed. (Newton's 2nd law).

Pushing a body (with pressure P=F/A) for a duration (time t) increases its speed.

mom1+mom2=mom3 (v=v1) (m=m1) v1+v2=v3 m=m1=m3 m2=0 (very interesting, mom2 is massless, =has no mass).

 

Mom1 (1st law) is a conservation of mass law (inductively)

& mom2 (2nd law) is a defile(ment) against constant speed.

 

0=(mom1+mom2)-mom3 (3rd law), opposite momentum is needed, to maintain mass (?)

mom1=mom3-mom2

 

REaction=REpulsion (EM=electromagnetic).

Action=mom2 (acceleration, a=F/m).

 

Is that correct so?

 

(I'm still not sure how to twist mom3 (for Newton's 3rd), to interpret it, & need some time Please.)

 

 

There is an "Edit" button at the bottom of every post which allows you to do just that. So, for example, you could reformat that sentence properly:

No! that's wrong.

If I go to

10 May 2016 07:14 PM

I do NOT find an "edit" button

like I would find in a recent post.

It's just NOT there!

 

Even if this were true, why should anyone believe what you say? At least a professor has credibility and deserves the benefit of doubt. You're just spewing unsupported nonsense.For example, you say thisut give no actual supporting evidence that it's true. There's no science to discuss, or rebut.

Einstein gets into orbits. Your schools teach obits as ellipses, & that an ellipse is a cone cut.

But that's wrong. A cylinder cut produces an ellipse. A cone cut produces an egg.

 

An egg has 1 focii (sun), not 2 (Kepler's ellipse).

 

Your physicist's often wrongly leave out the initial speed v0 in kinetic energy KE=m*((v^2)+v0),

v=v1-v0 speed difference, m=mass, v1=final speed.

KE#m*(v^2) not equal

KE~m*(v^2) approximation.

 

D'Arsenval meters have linear scales.

They are used to measure currect & voltage linearly.

Their movement is loaded with a spring, that's Hooke's law of force.

Any linear display is compensating against force. (Equivalence. Linear=Force; not linear then not force.)

But meters use power.

Thus electric power is force_squared P=Fi*Fv

& has wrong units.

But power is the rate of doing work.

Lifting mass, a height per second.

That doesn't agree with the electrical definition (units).

You also have dark energy, for things you can not explain.

 

Constant means something does not change. Never.

General relativity discovers light's speed changes

(it's not a 100% constant). It's not always constant.

SR was based on that c is constant.

Theory died! Hit the dust. Undependable.

& sentence wording says nothing about that,

hiding SR behind GR.

(1920, ch22).

 

 

.

 

inertia: (ruffly) a body stays (having) the same (straight) speed ,

unless acted on by an external pressure, P=F/A.

 

A body does not change speed on their own. Conservation of momentum (mom=m*v. Newton's 1st law).

Something (e.g. pressure) must "cause" it to accelerate (=effect).

 

Thus, constant speed.

 

+mom2=+F*t Impulse changes speed. Adding momentum changes speed. (Newton's 2nd law).

Pushing a body (with pressure P=F/A) for a duration (time t) increases its speed.

mom1+mom2=mom3 (v=v1) (m=m1) v1+v2=v3 m=m1=m3 m2=0 (very interesting, mom2 is massless, =has no mass).

 

Mom1 (1st law) is a conservation of mass law (inductively)

& mom2 (2nd law) is a defile(ment) against constant speed.

 

0=(mom1+mom2)-mom3 (3rd law), opposite momentum is needed, to maintain mass (?)

mom1=mom3-mom2

 

REaction=REpulsion (EM=electromagnetic).

Action=mom2 (acceleration, a=F/m).

 

Is that correct so?

 

(I'm still not sure how to twist mom3 (for Newton's 3rd), to interpret it, & need some time Please.)

Edited May 20, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

No! that's wrong.

If I go to

10 May 2016 07:14 PM

I do NOT find an "edit" button

like I would find in a recent post.

It's just NOT there!

 

 

There

is,

quite

reasonably,

a

limit

on

the

time

for

edit

ing

messa

ges.

Perhaps

you

should

put

more

effort

into

for

mat

tin

g

you

r

mess

ages

so

they

are

rea

dabl

e

befor

e

postin

g.

 

The content could be improved as well.

[Capiert]

Think of it this way inertia the the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on..

That sentence stuns me also, you said it (I didn't), that's what I mean. Exactly.

 

So when you statedThis statement is incorrect. As a body in motion (inertia) will stay in motion in a straight line until acted upon by a force.

Any change in direction or momentum (inertia) is a change, in acceleration.

Not acelleration of acelleration.

 

Ref

Think of it this way, "inertia is the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion, in a straight line, unless acted on" by an outside force.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Capiert

[ajb]

Not acelleration of acelleration.

Jerk! ;-)

[Capiert]

Jerk! ;-)

(Ha ha.)

But why? I am spastic. Anything said, I get both meanings (or more), thrown back & forth, between the different perspectives.

Many distractions. I cannot stay on topic. P.S. I like you (too). Otherwise you would not have said what's spontaineously on your mind. Softly with a smiley. Good joke. (Even if it was cynical).

There

is,

quite

reasonably,

a

limit

on

the

time

for

edit

.

.

.

befor

e

postin

g.

 

The content could be improved as well.

Good medicine. (Extremes. I can dish it out, but can't take it.)

The content could be improved as well.

No bout adout it! Edited May 20, 2016 by Capiert

[ajb]

The rate of change of change of acceleration is known as jerk

[Capiert]

The rate of change of change of acceleration is known as jerk

3rd order, big jerk?

[ajb]

The rate of change of jerk is sometimes known as snap.

 

 

It was just a small joke based on your 'acceleration of acceleration' comment.

[Capiert]

Please wait!

Caution: program errors (mixed up, some hash)

 

C=Exact-approximation

C=Error

calculus=approximation+C

 

calculus=approximation+Error

 

Can anyone define C for me? (Formula, to get numbers).

What is in C?

Nothing cannot be (the answer).

Everything else is assumption (approximation), not exact science.

 

Error*oo=large number! Noticeable.

oo=infinity. =N.

 

As example:

 

There is an "Edit" button at the bottom of every post which allows you to do just that. So, for example, you could reformat that sentence properly:

I wish I had X_Ray vision, for old posts, so I could see their edit button.

 

Thus, that asumption is wrong. Approximation only, with serious error,

because it was assumed.

 

Improvement proposal:

Can (edit) timelimits be changed (corrected)? (Permission wise?)

Edited May 20, 2016 by Capiert

[Strange]

C=Exact-approximation

C=Error

calculus=approximation+C

 

calculus=approximation+Error

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Capiert]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Calculus is an aproximation going to limits.

Calculus answer=approximation+C

An approximation is not the exact answer (by definition).

Thus constant C is added on.

Without C

Calculus gives (instead of is, sorry) an approximation

e.g. integrate.

Answer=integral of function+C.

Nobody uses C, its always left out.

Instead, the approximation is used

Answer~integral of function. But

Answer#integral of function.

The integral of the function is NOT the (real) exact answer.

The difference between exact answer & the approximation is error.

Error=Exact answer-approximate answer.

 

Is that clear now?

Edited May 20, 2016 by Capiert

[ajb]

Calculus is an aproximation going to limits.

Calculus answer=approximation+C

An approximation is not the exact answer (by definition).

This is not the right way to view calculus.

 

It is true that calculus uses limits, but the point is that we have a mathematically well defined notion of

 

i) the rate of change of a function with respect to some variable at a specified value of that variable (ie an instantaneous change)

ii) the area under the graph of a function between two specified values of the variable

 

(This can be generalised to multivariable)

 

These two notions agree with what we expect from examples that do not requite calculus, say the area under a straight line. In this sense the C you give is zero, by definition.

 

Unless you mean the C that is the constant of integration. This just reflects that you can differentiate different functions and get the same result... specifically if they differ only by a constant.

[Capiert]

This is not the right way to view calculus.

But it is the correct view to (cross_examine) interogate (=question, test) calculus (for leaks).

(It is a view that you do not contend (=believe) could ever have any importance or significance, especialy if C is not known completely).

& so you ignore C pushing it into a closet (locked up) to keep the room tidy.

 

It is true that calculus uses limits, but the point is that we have a mathematically well defined notion of

1=i) the rate of change of a function with respect to some variable at a specified value of that variable (ie an instantaneous change)

2=ii) the area under the graph of a function between two specified values of the variable.

(This can be generalised to multivariable (=general formula?.)

These two notions (=ideas) agree with what we expect from examples that do not require* calculus, the area under a straight line.

(*not "requite", as you typed. Even you have difficulty with this website editing. It is so squirrelly trying to edit with it. It does not always obey! For me it's terrible torture on_line! Nerve racking. I need more than 3x the time to correct it. A single post can cost me half a day's time, ~4hrs plus.. . Your programmers are not aware of the tablet problems. It ruins people!)

In this sense the C you give (Cd) is zero, by (via algebra of the) definition.

Unless you mean the C that is the constant of integration (Ci).

(There are 2 different constants (if they are), & to be thorough (rigorous).)

This just reflects (=indicates) that you can differentiate different functions and get the same result specifically if they differ only by a constant

or function.

2 exist.

 

A straight line is a nice (=pretty, easy) example. It has no problems, obvious.

Things look (very) different when dealing with curves. (Pandora's box is opened up, so to speak.) E.g. It's

Non_linear, X with exponents more or less than 1. E.g. (X^n, n#1, n=2,3,..).

Non_Euclidian (=curved, not straight). It it has many problems & generally is too complicated for most people.

 

But to keep that simple let's concentrate (only) on circular geometry, because it is so regular, consistent. It has the same system built into it, because it uses whole numbers (intergers) in the exponent (instead of fractions or irrational numbers). It also uses Pi. There we can get a glimpse of what is happening, with those (integer test samples).

 

Calculus is used all the time to calculate area and volume,

& it confuses me, that it is perfect, for circular geometry.

 

(But the devil is in the detail. Maybe a common trait cancels out?)

 

The nth Dimension formula (© 2003 PS) is

[math](1/2*n) * (Pi*D^n)[/math]

D=2*r diameter

Pi=3.14

r=radius

n=dimension number 1, 2, 3.

If there is a 4th dimension,

that formula will help describe it.

(But I doubt there is 1.)

Time is not a dimension,

it is a scalar,

it is a parameter,

because Dimensions have direction & amount;

but time only goes forward (not backwards, too)

determined by it's amount.

(Otherwise we could make time machines,

other than clocks.

Nobody has done that to prove it.

Particle physics theory, are guesses of what could be (my opinion).

(I have never seen the hands of time go in the opposite direction,

except when I turn my wrist watch upside down, & other clocks so.

Have you?)

 

The formula is split into 2 terms.

Using only the right term, we get

n=

1 circumference

2 sphere's_area

3 8*Pi*(r^3).

 

Using both terms, we get

n=

1 semi_circle

2 circle's_area

3 sphere's_volume.

 

Compared dimensionally, though,

the single term represents the next dimension.

E.g. n=2 is for a "sphere's" area.

A sphere is a 3D object, not 2D;

but its area is considered 2D.

Maybe that is the error? I.e.

Expressed in cataloging

where everything is found.

A bit of chaos.

 

A circumference

is a 2D shape,

but is created with dimension n=1

(using only the 2nd term).

 

As I've said (=meant), calculus is a little bit squirrelly (in my opinion),

not completely logical.

 

Using D(iameter) instead of only r(adius) allows more overview, & insight.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Capiert

[Phi for All]

Improvement proposal:

Can (edit) timelimits be changed (corrected)? (Permission wise?)

 

!

Moderator Note

After a certain amount of time, people have quoted and referred to posts, and we don't want them to be changed, since it makes replies look wrong, or misapplied.

 

If you ask a question, and it gets answered correctly, but you're then allowed to change the question, you waste the time of responders. If it's only to make you look better, that's not fair to those made to look foolish.

 

Why do you want to change what's already been said? Can't you make corrections in subsequent posts? Or are you concerned that you're science is being corrected so often?

[ajb]

I have no idea what you are talking about here in relation to calculus.

 

There are various ways of making calculus more formal and rigorous. For example with integtation Riemann formalised basic integration and from there more complete notions were developed into what we now call measure theory.

[Capiert]

!

Moderator Note

After a certain amount of time, people have quoted and referred to posts, and we don't want them to be changed, since it makes replies look wrong, or misapplied.

 

If you ask a question, and it gets answered correctly, but you're then allowed to change the question, you waste the time of responders. If it's only to make you look better, that's not fair to those made to look foolish.

 

Why do you want to change what's already been said? Can't you make corrections in subsequent posts? Or are you concerned that you're science is being corrected so often?

I find the typos distracting. This website strips of apostropies when copy paste, & it's unstable accessing with my finger tip. Marking is very unstable after a few attempts, locking up & repeating the same error, returning to start e.g. 1st of line. It's very difficult here to get things perfect. I usually type my ruff outline & fill in the details. Your crew is cean on cutting me off before I'm even finished. It usually takes me 4..6 hrs to get done, with all the difficulty. Just for 1 post. It's a terrible back & forth, & then spastic things happen, making a sentence ununderstandable or misleeding. That's why. There is no preview button, when preparing a post. I must first post, & then correct it, after. Copy paste produces errors. I'm at a terrible disadvantange. A scroll button does not exist on the side. Instead it's luck if scrolling will happen inside the reply window. & usually bad luck, after some tries.

[Strange]

There is no preview button, when preparing a post.

 

Click on "More Reply Options". That will give you a preview.

[Capiert]

I have no idea what you are talking about here in relation to calculus.

 

I have given you that formula. If you experiment with it in the 2 modes I have said, you will get the formulas mentioned, namely,

circumference Cir=2*Pi*r=Pi*D,

circle's area Pi*(r^2),

sphere's area 4*Pi*(r^2)=Pi*(D^2),

sphere's volume (4/3)*Pi*(r^3).

All those familiar formulas, of circular geometry that were developed (derived) with calculus.

There is a natural system within, & the key to calculus.

 

The catch is those are calculus results. That's a calculus summary then.

 

There are various ways of making calculus more formal and rigorous. For example with integtation Riemann formalised basic integration

I am sorry. I do not know it. I do not have a formal math education, to identify it.

 

and from there more complete notions were developed into what we now call measure theory.

Again, another thing I cannot recognize yet.

Maybe you could give me a simple overview?

Click on "More Reply Options". That will give you a preview.

Thank you Strange. Edited May 31, 2016 by Capiert