Capiert
-
Posts
552 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Capiert
-
-
If I were
to convert Electricity
into average_momentum
e.g. & average_forces,
then this is how I would (mathematically) proportion (it, algebraically).To deflect its needle,
a D’Arsenval meter’s
average (e.g. steady state)
electromagnetic_forceFai=I*(R^0.5)*Ki, I=V/R & 1/R=1/(R^0.5)*(R^0.5)
is proportional
to the current I
& rooted_resistance R^0.5& the proportionality constant
Ki=Fai/(Pe^0.5)=1*[N/(A*(Ω^0.5)]
which is 1*[Newton/(Ampere*rooted_ohm)]
(&) that (can be determined
by) the average electromagnetic_force Fai
divided by the rooted electrical_power
Pe^0.5=Piv^0.5=(I*V)^0.5 .That current’s electromagnetic force
Fai=Fav
is the same
as the voltage's V=I*R (conversion
from current I
using the proportionality_constant R=Resistance,
has the same)
average electromagnetic_force
Fav=V*Ki/(R^0.5), Kv=1/Ki=1*[V*(Ω^0.5)/N]Fav=V/((R^0.5)*Kv).
Either (voltage or current)
average
electromagnetic_forces (Fai=Fav, are equal)Fai=(Pe^0.5)*Ki
Fav=(Pe^0.5)*Ki
& is proportional
to the rooted electrical_power Pe^0.5=(I*V)^0.5& (multiplied
by) the proportionality constant
Ki=Fai/(Pe^0.5)=1*[N/(A*(Ω^0.5)].Electricity’s
average
(random=)heating force
Fah=(Pe^0.5)*Kiis also proportional
to the rooted electrical_power Pe^0.5=(I*V)^0.5& the proportionality constant
Ki=Fai/(Pe^0.5)=1*[N/(A*(Ω^0.5)],
as (a random (scattering of the (repeated))) recoil, (Newton’s 3rd law opposite & equal) force (equivalent).Together
both the electromagnetic_force Fai& the random heating_force Fah
amounts
are equivalent to an (arbitrary) average_force Fa=Fai=Fah& (are “multiplied” together
to) make up the total electrical_powerPe=Fai*Fah/(Ki^2), where the inverse squared proportionality_constant is
(Ki^2)=1*[(N^2/((A^2)*Ω)].
So,
the electrical_power
Pe=(Fa/Ki)^2
is a squared average Force Fa^2
per squared proportionality_constant Ki^2.What does all that mean?
That means
the average_force
Fa=moma/t
is equivalent
to an mechanical average_force.---
(Please note:
James Watt’s mechanical Power P=Pm definition
Pa=Fa*va
is an (algebraic) “average”_Power Pa
using an “average” (steady_state) Force Fa=m*va/t
of mass m
multiplied by average linear_acceleration aa=va/t (my aa2 2nd order of motion);
& an average_speed va=d/t
of distance d
per time t.My “electrical” average_Power formula Pe=Fai*Fah/(Ki^2)
Pe#Pm
looks very different
from James Watt’s “mechanical” average_Power Pm=Pa=Fa*va.James’ (average) mechanical_Power
is an (average_)Force Fa
multiplied by a(n average)_speed Va;
while my (average) electrical_Power
is basically a “squared” (average_)Force Fa
but divided by a squared constant.E.g. A(n average_)speed
is (definitely) NOT a(n average_)force!Disclaimer:
1.
But that is the ONLY way
I know how to do it (=the conversion formulas), yet.2. ..(because)..
That is what the math
& its (observed) proportions tells me.
)---
& that (average_Force Fa)
is the rate
of the average_momentum
moma=m*va
per time t;where the average_speed va=d/t
is the distance d
per time t,
for a mass m.& that (average_Force)
Fa=Fai
is equal
to the current’s
average electromagnetic_force Fai.
& if you know the average force
Fa=Fah
then you also (already) know the average (random=)heating_force Fah
& the average electromagnetic_force Fai=Fav
for either the current (thru a Resistor, Resistance)
Fa=Fai
or for voltage (thru a Resistor, Resistance)
Fa=Fav
or both (I*V) when rooted.Note:
The units
for the proportionality constant
Ki=ki*[N*s/C]
work out to be
a(n average_)momentum [N*s]
per Coulomb [C],
e.g.
[N*s/C]=[kg*m/(s*C)]=[(kg/C)*(m/s)]
where a mass to charge ratio [kg/C]
is obvious(ly),
multiplied with an average_speed [m/s].
E.g.1
Let be given
the voltage V=1*[V]
the current I=1*[A]
the Resistance R=1*[Ω]the rooted_Resistance R^0.5=1*[Ω^0.5]
the electrical_power Pe=I*V=1*[A]*1*[V]=1*[A*V]=1 [electrical_Watt]
the rooted electrical_power Pe^0.5=Piv^0.5=(I*V)^0.5=(1*[A]*1*[V])^0.5=1*[A*V]^0.5 .The average electromagnetic_force is
Fai=I*(R^0.5)*Ki=1*[A]*((1*[Ω])^0.5)*1*[N/(A*(Ω^0.5)]=1*[N].The average heating_force is (also)
Fah=I*(R^0.5)*Ki=1*[A]*((1*[Ω])^0.5)*1*[N/(A*(Ω^0.5)]=1*[N].That (easy example) doesN’T tell much,
so let’s try something else.
E.g.2
Let be given
the voltage V=100*[V]
the current I=5*[A]
the Resistance R=V/I=100*[V]/(5*[A])=20*[Ω]the rooted_Resistance R^0.5=(V/I)^0.5=(100*[V]/(5*[A]))^0,5=(20*[Ω])^0.5=~4.7*[Ω^0.5]
the electrical_power Pe=I*V=5*[A]*100*[V]=500*[A*V]=500 [electrical_Watt]
the rooted electrical_power Pe^0.5=Piv^05=(I*V)^0.5=(5*[A]*100*[V])^0.5=(500*[A*V])^0.5=22.4*([A*V]^0.5).The average electromagnetic_force is
Fai=I*(R^0.5)*Ki=5*[A]*((4.7*[Ω])^0.5)*1*[N/(A*(Ω^0.5)]=22.4*[N].The average heating_force is (also)
Fah=I*(R^0.5)*Ki=5*[A]*((4.7*[Ω])^0.5)*1*[N/(A*(Ω^0.5)]=22.4*[N].Or else simply let
Fa=Fai=Fah
Fa=(Pe^0.5)*Ki, Pe^0.5=Piv^0.5=(I*V)^0.5Fa=((I*V)^0.5)*Ki.
Such (average_momentum electrical heating) will deliver
moma=Fah*t, let time t= 1*[second]
moma=22.4*[N]*1*[s]moma=22.4*[N*s]
in 1 second (of time).
In other words,
the 500*[W] electrical (power’s)
average heating_force
Fah=22.4*[N]will deliver 22.4*[N*s]
of average_momentum (heat)
per second.1000*[W] electrical
will deliver 31.6*[N*s]
per second;&
10*[kW] electrical
will deliver 100*[N*s]
per second.0 -
Some people
“boldly” say:1 degree
is 60 minutes(& DON’T think much about it).
But I find
4 minutes
is better& would have been more reasonable
to make more sense,
considering that shortcut used
for ship navigation
in the midevil ages.An Earth’s (solar) day
is a complete revolution (cycle, (e.g.) angle
wrt the sun),
in 24 hours (time).(Note: Unfortunately (now)
I find that definition
of a day
bound to both
time
& (cycle,
e.g. 360°) angle.
E.g. Instead of only time.)
A cycle is 360° (angle).Wrt the sun
the Earth’s
angular_speed
f=(angle/time)=1*[cycle]/(1*[solar_day]
is the angle
of 1*cycle=360°,
per the time
of 1*[solar_day]=24**60*[min/hr]*60*[sec/min]=86400*[sec].So, (the proportionalities, are)
f=360°/(86400*[sec])=0.0041667*[°/s], & inverted
T=1/f=86400*[sec]/(360°)=240*[sec/°].240*[sec]*1*[min]/60*[sec]=4*[min].
T=4*[min/°].
That means we (on Earth) need 4 minutes per degree (turned).
The Earth turns 1 degree (arc angle) in 4 minutes (time).So the Earth will turn 0.25° in 1 minute.
1 minute is 60 seconds
1*[minutes]=60*[seconds].
Time is time,
& that conversion relation has NOT changed.The Earth turns 1/4 degree in 60 seconds
f=0.25°/60*[sec]=0.0041667*[°/s]
is still the same relation.That (4 “minutes” time) seems to be the only discrepancy
with arc_angles'
“minutes”;
which (NOT to mention)
also causes a discrepancy with arc_angle “seconds”
due to the factor 60 (“times”).Does it (=the wording) get any more bizzare?
I mean,
do things right the 1st time
& then you WON’T have to correct them later.Summarize:
The Earth’s
1 day rotation (angle), has 360° (angle).
24 hours has 86400*[seconds] (time).It is obvious to conclude
that 1*[minute]=60*[seconds] time
of (the) Earth(’s) rotation,
will sweep ¼ degree (arc of) angle.Disclaimer:
Why then should there be 60*[minutes] (angle)
in a degree (angle)
when minutes were already defined for time?
Why confuse things?
A mistake is a mistake, please admit it;
instead of (trying to) ice a poor cake (flop, better).& then somebody came around
& tried to turn everything upside down
because they (whoever started the mess)
could NOT do the math correctly (originally).Continuity is demanded (=needed, for (fast, streamline) conversions);
NOT a (complicated) half_hearted(=assed) attempt.
(Again,
why then should there be 60*[minutes]
in a degree (angle),
(when) that (unit: minute) already exists (as a time definition)?
E.g. When minutes were already defined for time (only);
& then somebody came around
& tried to turn everything upside down
(to fix it)
because they (before (them)) could NOT do the math correctly (originally).
(It's built on a mess.)
I ask where are we in a (=this) modern world?
CAN’T we (at least) correct our ancestors mistakes?
Or do we have to continue & push the sludge thru?
But for what reason?
Mistakes ONLY slow_down progress=advancement.
Some things are NOT worth keeping.)Thus it seems a bit ridiculous
to claim 1° is 60*[minutes] (of arc),
since (it does NOT make sense (with time), &)
at least then (&/or) there
the correlation
to (the Earth’s) time has been lost
by the (fake) redefinition of the “minute”
as angle
instead of time (anymore).I mean, had the Earth’s math (angle_speed) analogy
been (correctly) extrapolated (finer);
then less confusion had arisen
for a (fake) distinction
between minutes:
in time; versus angle.
Time had remained time
(instead of the need
to distinguish time names (e.g. minutes & seconds)
from angles);
& a (natural, wrt Earthly) conversion
(from time)
to angle
had been obviously performed
from the (Earth’s) angle versus timef=360°/86400*[sec]=1/(240*[sec/°]);
or the inverse proportionality
as time versus angle
which is ((like) Period, but in other units)
T=1/f=86400*[sec]/(360°)=240*[sec/°].
I mean let’( u)s face it,
it looks
like an (obvious) error has happened
by the over_simplified redefinition
(of (arc_)angle into time “names”, e.g.
such as minute=60_seconds);
& its (errorful misnaming’s) cover_up
(still) has NOT corrected
that (time versus angle, math) mistake=ERROR!
I mean,
according
to them (old midevil naming):
1*[hour] (angle)
is suppose
to be 360°/24*[hour]=15*[°/hr]
=15*[degrees].But who says that?
Who calls an hour(_angle)?
Everybody recognizes
an hour
as (ONLY) a unit of time.
Who calls a day, 360°?Motivation:
I just wanted to point out that NONSENSE
(with a complaint);
& (note) the cover_up
behind it;
& propose an improvement.
E.g. Conservatives DON'T like changing anything
without a reason.
Take it
or leave it.
You can perpetuate the erroring
(if you want,
NOBODY is going to hinder brainless idiocy,
are they?;
or else clear it.
It’s YOUR choice.
We have a lot of (fishy) relics
left over
from the past.
NOT all are useful.
Cheers0 -
21 hours ago, swansont said:On 11/23/2023 at 1:43 AM, Capiert said:
I saw it in only 1 book
by 1 (specific) authorAnd from that you extrapolate this into being a widespread problem.
If you will? Yes.
It seems possible to me.(But) I DON'T need your wrath
(if it goes against too much).21 hours ago, swansont said:Which you interpret as “per” (despite it not making sense)
Please explain.
I thought "per" (=divided by) is rather clear.21 hours ago, swansont said:but was not stated as you claimed.
Please explain.
21 hours ago, swansont said:Your real issues are with this one author
I am rather greatful
to that author.
Years ago,
I hadN'T a clue what he meant.
With this thread
& your team's help
it (finally) dawned on me
what he (might have) meant.
His style technique, inspired me to recognize that (so).
(That's a lot of years
in between.)
I can thank him for the inspiration
(if I could).21 hours ago, swansont said:and your propensity to declare things to be a problem.
It (Ambiguous (unit) syntax) was a problem for me
no matter how you see it.
I just put the clues together.
& it is (now) solved for me.
(I am content with the results.)
Which is more than I can say
before starting this thread.
I now have a solution method
to deal with that problem (for me).
A work around.
Thus the problem has vanished.
You DON'T need it (the solution);
but I do.0 -
21 hours ago, studiot said:
I think it is very important that you separate numbers , units, symbols and the objects which they refer to.
Ok, but didn't I do that with my constructs?
E.g.
number (It(=the following variable k) is only a number)
k=K/[unit],
symbol (represents a composite=mixture.)
K=k*[unit],
unit (is stripped of all numbers.)
[unit]=K/k.
Those equations made a connection
to each other.
You however
want me to separate them
from each other.
But I think
that is already done,
because of the equals sign =
& which side
of the equation
they are on.
The (3) variables
k, K & [unit]
are all each alone
(meaning "separate(d)").
That I avoid (really using) numbers
by using variables (instead),
has (at least) separated numbers (e.g. 1,2,3..)
as NON_existent out from my syntax.21 hours ago, studiot said:That is you think separately about them, each in their own right.
Ok.
Only a number e.g. 1.
Only a unit, e.g. [kilogram] (it has NO number).
Only a symbol, e.g. M.(Warning: But I now know the Mass's symbol is M=1*[kilogram]
(because I have seen the necessity)
& so that (awareness of mine) might interfere with your (intended) lesson (for me).
E.g. I can NOT overcome my intelligence;
NOR the lack of it.)21 hours ago, studiot said:Let us take an example of this:
Making bread.
Bread has ingredients.
The ingredients are flour, yeast and water.
There are 3 ingredients.
Here the objects referred to are ingredients.
The number 3 is called a quantifier or a coefficient.
Is there any difference
between those 2 words?21 hours ago, studiot said:There are no units involved or if you prefer the unit i 'number or count of'
Any reason why i?
No units is fine;
but you lost me with i.21 hours ago, studiot said:But there are several types of number
Types?
Strictly math "numbers" 1,2,3?
each has its own name: one, two, three, ..
E.g. Ordinal (name & sequence), cardinal (value), irrational, ..
Or
do you mean (physic's) constructs,
made of a number with unit? No?21 hours ago, studiot said:and 3, each with their own special features.
Good.
Then they are constructs?
(e.g. small formulas.?).21 hours ago, studiot said:So we could have said:
There are 3 ingredients
1st ingredient, 2nd ingredient, 3rd ingredient.
Or we could have said even more
First ingredient flour
Second ingredient yeast
Third ingredient water.Which tells us even more.
First second and third are numbers, just a different kind of number.
~They are called ordinal numbers, as they show order.=Sequence (order).
21 hours ago, studiot said:We could also write a 1 on the jug of water, a 2 on the tub of yeast and a 3 on the bag of flour.
Then the instructions might read
Mix the contents of 2 with the contents of 3, then add the contents of 1.
E.g. Similar to a computing (pointer, pointing) language.
21 hours ago, studiot said:We are now using the numbers 1, 2 and 3 as symbols (you mentioned symbols)
E.g. Names;
NOT (number_)values!
Yes.
But there, ..
they have no number value.
Instead they designate (dictate)
the sequence (order).
Priority (order).21 hours ago, studiot said:We can make the description even more useful if we add units so
Mix 2 of yeast with 400 of flour and then add 250 of water is not very helpful.
Quantities without knowing what (kind)
from "several" possibilities.21 hours ago, studiot said:But
Mix 2 teaspoons of yeast with 400 grammes of flour and then add 250 milliliters of water is very helpful.
Yes.
21 hours ago, studiot said:Much more helpful than
Mix 2 teaspoons of 2 with 400 grammes of 3 and then add 250 milliliters of 1.
Yes, that is a bit (more) awkward for us (normal=typical) humans.
21 hours ago, studiot said:Although both are strictly correct and Mathematicians and computer engineers like the last as it is shorter.
Why? Only 1 symbol, or minimal (& sequence advantages)?
21 hours ago, studiot said:I have another example to explore but let us see what you make of this one first.
OK.
But, I doubt that I have fullfilled what you asked concerning separation.
& I took the liberty to eliminate the typos,
if you don't mind
(because they disturb=distract my thinking=concentration).0 -
Proposal:
Now to summarize;
& also be able
to use either
small (or large case, Capital) letters
for proportionality_constants
(&/or their variables, e.g. &/or their constructs),
we might need
an alphabetical subscripted syntax (=symbology, symbols).
E.g.
Please let
the Hooke’s_spring’s
proportionality_constant
k=nk*[uk]
where n is its number value
& is its [unit],
both multiplied together.
Their subscript k
denotes
that they belong
to the proportionality(_constant) (construct).Hooke’s_Law‘s
proportionality_constant(’s
symbology: as variables
including both numbers & units)
could then look like
k=nk*[uk]=nF*[N]/(-nx*[m]).& where units:
[N]=[Newton]
[m]=[meter].Disclaimer:
What a (complicated) mess;
(that’s why I (would) prefer Capital_letter constructs (=formulas)
& small letter number_value variables
(to get around that (ambiguous_syntax) problem);
but it should work right.
Again,
only the numbers(‘ variables) are
k=K/[unit]
f=F/[N]
-x=-X/[m].
Thus,
only the number_variable
(for the spring’s proportionality_constant), isk=(F/[N])/(1/(-X/[m]), rearrange
k=(F/(-X))*[m/N], <---That (whole) is (ONLY) a number(‘s value)!;
although [units] are (also) present.
k=(F/(-X))*[m/N], *[N/m]
k*[N/m]=(F/(-X)), <---Those are hybrids=mixtures: of number(_variable)s; & [units].
& (that proportionality_constant now has the correct [units]=[N/m]),
k*[N/m]=K, swap sides
as mixture_hybrid
K=k*[N/m].
As Swansont said
NO numbers are needed
to obtain the units.57 minutes ago, swansont said:57 minutes ago, swansont said:I have seen
Physic’s tables
where the units
are stated as “per”.Give an example
E.g.
Temperature
T
/K
20
30
40
I saw it in only 1 book
by 1 (specific) author
(he did all his tables that way)
& (I) thought it was very peculiar
(& (I) tried to figure it out
but could NOT
back then)
because NOBODY else did that;
but from the style
(it looked like)
he was trying to do something very fundamental.
He wrote his units
with a slash before them (units)
under the symbol.
Thus,
Name
Symbol
/Unit
number 1
number 2
number 3.
So I interpreted that (2_Liner)
Symbol
/Unit
to (elegantly) mean
=Symbol/Unit
(if it were written
on ONLY 1 line).0 -
---
1st
Please let me
try a different perspective.I have seen
Physic’s tables
where the units
are stated as “per”.
Meaning the concept
e.g. mass m
would be
ONLY a NUMBER;
(thus)
making it(e.g. the mass m as “ONLY number”;
instead of a "number*unit" hybrid mix(ture))
convenient
for multiplying
& dividing
ONLY as NUMBERs
in e.g. an Excel table (sheet).
NOW,
to reverse (=swap)
syntax
for my convenience (only),
please let (me make)
the(=my, large symbol)
Mass (concept)
M=m*[unit(s)]
(as construct)
be made
of (ONLY) a pure number
(small character) m,
& multiplied
by its units
in (square brackets)
[kg]=[kilogram].
Then the “number” (of) mass
m=M/[units]
is the whole Mass_concept M
but divided
by its units [kg].
That is VERY IMPORTANT,
because
it has separated
the (composite=hybrid=composite)
Mass_concept
into its basic (2) parts
(of (ONLY the))
number m
versus units [kg].
In that form(at)
(of (physic’s_)concept per (its) unit),
we can strip
ANY (physics)
concept
down
into ONLY its NUMBER value;
which is independent
of ANY (awkward)
(NON_Unifying=NON_mathematical;
alphabetic, (instead of numerical),
word (e.g. unit);
thus dealing
ONLY with MATH!
(e.g. with NO other hassels!).Motivation:
Why do I say all that blah blah blah?
Because it (=the number_variable, without units)
is genial
to be so unique.
I.e. It has (a lot
of) math advantages.
E.g. We are NOT restricted
to dealing
with ONLY complicated (hybrid, mixture) relations.
Instead we have LESS
to do,
which CAN
increase efficiency
thus make things go faster
& be (or at least seem)
simpler
& LESS complicated.So, where are we NOW?
NOWHERE my friend.
But we can use
what already exists.
& the results
are astounding!
For instead
of the units being multiplied
by the number values;
they are instead
“divided” by the number( value)s!& Thus as Sears
& Alonso said=stated
“NOT” multiplied!
But NOBODY
could tell me why;
because
(if=when viewed only from that ("per unit") perspective)
everybody (else)
has been doing
the math WRONG! (=Same method.)
(Otherwise NOT?)
Th(os)e (Physic’s) answers
are also suppose
to be a NUMBER
but “per” UNIT!;
instead of just beside the NUMBER (value).
Strange that Sears & Alonso
could NOT have said more
about those (per) units
to speed up
the (discovery) recogition
process.Disclaimer:
I personally
did NOT expect
that I would ever
have gotten
a solution (=reasonable, logical (explanation=) answer)
to that problem;
& I had (then, thus) thought
I must brainwash
myself;
& ONLY memorize
the method (technique),
(always) with the fear (=concern)
of forgetting
how to do it=((the math) things)
correctly,
(if I had forgot)
(eventually)
mixing things up (again).That puzzle (=paradox)
is NOW solved.(So let's give it a whirl.)
Please let
Hooke’s (compressed_spring force)
law
F=k*(-x)
be rewritten
in Capital lettersF=K*(-X).
& Retry:
(using (Capital letter) constructs
for: ((small letter) “number”_)variables;
& “units”).Please let
the Hooke’s Law’s
proportionality_constantK=F/(-X)
be for the (math) constructs (=formulas,
(that) I created in Capital letters).E.g.
Please let
the proportionality_constant
K=k*[units]
the (spring’s) force
F=f*[N]
& the displacement distance
-X=-x*[m]which are also ONLY the number(_value_variable)s
k=K/[unit]
f=F/[N]
-x=-X/[m]
because the (Capital_letter) constructs
(made
of “number” multiplied by “unit”)
are (then) divided by their unit
(thus leaving ONLY their number(_value)).So again,
the Hooke’s law’s
proportionality_constant, (when) including units, is
k*[unit]=f*[N]/(-x*[m]).
We can ignore the (small_letter) number_variables
thus leaving
the (derived) unit
k*[unit]=f*[N]/(-x*[m]).
This_time (=That_instance, or example, had)
NO ERROR occurred
when deriving
the (proportionality_)constant’s [units];
because it is algebraically sound=fit
with (NON_ambiguous) consistent_syntax.
I.e.
NO ambiguous,
double_meaning symbols.
The (3) math constructs
eliminated
the inconsistent syntax.
0 -
On 11/2/2023 at 8:39 PM, studiot said:
Please don't take this as a personal criticism but you are definitely overthinking this by a very long way.
Thank you for the help.
On 11/2/2023 at 8:39 PM, studiot said:Small wonder you are having trouble.
Good that you noticed.
But my wrong answer was a typo.On 11/2/2023 at 8:39 PM, studiot said:As I said, strictly proportionality is not about equations, although of course proportionality can lead to an equation.
Then (it=proportionality is about), estimating?
On 11/2/2023 at 8:39 PM, studiot said:The way to calculate the answer to my question by proportion is as follows.
225 millilitres of drink contains 10 grammes of sugar
So
1 millilitre of drink will contain 1/225 as much sugar.
That math has always turned my head (crazy).
On 11/2/2023 at 8:39 PM, studiot said:That is 10/225 grammes.
Agreeable.
On 11/2/2023 at 8:39 PM, studiot said:So
175 millilitres of drink will contain 175 times as much sugar or (10/225) * 175 grammes or about 7.8 grammes.
Also fitting.
On 11/2/2023 at 8:39 PM, studiot said:Check: 175 ml is about three quarters of 225ml so I would expect it to contain about three quarters as much sugar or about 7.5 grammes.
It all seems to make sense.
On 11/2/2023 at 8:39 PM, studiot said:Read this a few times I have laid it out in great detail.
Studiot, I am sorry (disappointed) I typed the wrong answer for you.
I had tried,
but I made a (stupid) decimal ERROR.
I had it right in Excel
but I copied it wrong.
(Too many problems with my eyes.)On 11/2/2023 at 7:35 PM, Capiert said:Then I have a Density
D=m/vol=10 [g]/0.225 [L]=1 [g]/0.0225 [L] (wrt a simple mass of 1 [g]); or else)
D=44.444.. [g/L].If my Density is
D=m/vol, swap sides
m/vol=D, *vol
m=D*vol.My new mass (would be)
m=D*vol=44.444.. [g/L]*0.175 [L]=7.777.. [g]
[NOT 0.777].
Considering, that mistake had NOT happened,
why (then) should I do otherwise
(& estimate)
when it is so simple (& exact)?
I mean,
I assume,
I still would have (probably) made
the same (or similar) mistake.
(Blurry vision, +.. . Reading glasses
are NOT going to help that.
Nor had the optometrist's cortisone brought permanent success.)On 11/2/2023 at 10:07 PM, swansont said:Who is “we”?
We is we naive (NON_physicists)
who have NOT a clue
(what is happening).
Abracadabra.Sometimes it is
& then sometimes it is NOT.On 11/2/2023 at 10:07 PM, swansont said:Density is m/V
if
There you go.
"Now" you begin constructing.
On 11/2/2023 at 10:07 PM, swansont said:mass has units of kg, and volume is expressed in m^3, the units are kg/m^3.
Although they are NOT visible
before (hand).On 11/2/2023 at 10:07 PM, swansont said:Or you could use grams/cm^3
That is all fine Swantsont.
But a fundamental step is missing
(which you obviously miss(ed)).On 11/2/2023 at 10:07 PM, swansont said:No numbers. They aren’t necessary.
This is a “you” problem.
Quite right.
I told you in advance.On 11/2/2023 at 10:07 PM, swansont said:Stop blaming physicists.
As my problem,
I consider then
that I should solve it,
with constructs.0 -
1 hour ago, studiot said:
Proportion, proportions and proportionality do not necessarily refer to equations in Maths or Science.
Consider the following question.
If there are 10 grammes of sugar in a 225 millilitre cup of drink
Then I have a Density
D=m/vol=10 [g]/0.225 [L]=1 [g]/0.0225 [L] (wrt a simple mass of 1 [g]); or else)
D=44.444.. [g/L].
That is where the Density's units (suddenly) pop up.
Only by using a specific (numbers) example
can we (suddenly) see the units.
It (=That pop_up, inclusion)
goes (=happens)
effortlessly.
(It's (easy (&)) automatic.)
But I typically do NOT use numbers
algebraically,
because irrational_numbers are very messy.
I usually deal with (general) variables
(for (very loosely speaking:) "any" number),
& (=but)
typically only use (exact) values (rarely)
when I need
some form of extra orientation.
The disturbing part
for me
here in Physics
is the inconsistent syntax (& or method?);
which causes me to runamuck.I would prefer
all symbols
had (also) their units
(multiplied)
with them
to be (obvious &) consistent;
but you (Physicists) DON'T deliver that (consistency)
because it looks messy.
((&) It's (also) NO fun!)
& then peculiar problems (occasionally) start to happen
that I can NOT (always) explain
or else I have difficulty explaining
(because they are so rare, & foreign).1 hour ago, studiot said:How many grammes of sugar are there in a 175 ml cup of the same drink ?
If my Density is
D=m/vol, swap sides
m/vol=D, *vol
m=D*vol.My new mass (would be)
m=D*vol=44.444.. [g/L]*0.175 [L]=0.777.. [g]1 hour ago, studiot said:Please indicate by what method you would solve this question to try to find your difficulty.
How can you find (=derive) the (proportionality_constant's) units
without number( value)s?
Answer: NOT known.
My problem is here at D=m/vol;
there is NO Problem after the 2nd "="
at
"10 [g]/0.225 [L]".
There is something missing for me
before the 2nd "=".
Maybe I also need
a (fake, (temporary) dummy, placeholder)
unit's_variable symbol too?
(for (premature) consistency)
e.g.
Density, is
D*[units]=m*[g]/(vol*[L].
?
But it clashes
in my head brutally.
Thus Failure.
0 -
On 11/1/2023 at 5:01 PM, swansont said:
Inversion?
Let’s say you have the equation 2x = 5
You can divide both sides by 2, and get x = 5/2
If you have F=-kx, you can divide both sides by x and get k = -F/x, or you can divide by k and get x = -F/k
These are math rules that you seem to be having trouble with.
Thanks for your attempt
to try & understand
"my" problem.
(It helps me try to look at it closer.)But I think you missed it.
My problem
is the clash
between inconsistent syntax.
I.e. 2 different syntaxes=formats.
(They (DON'T) mix like oil & water.)
(It's a MASTER & SLAVE relation.)(BEFORE derivation:)
Both F & x have units;
BUT k does NOT.
Thus k's units
"must" be "derived"
from them.
That is a 2 step process
instead of ONLY 1 step.
(I recover=repair it.)
k's units do NOT exist then
(before that)
until they are derived.
(& it is a tricky 1_way street,
until done!)
Attempting to (algebraically) manipulate
F's & x's "units"
before that (derivation, for k's_units (obviously?))
will fail.
That's the catch,
the whole problem.
Maybe my thread's title
should have been named
"(Proportionality_Constant's) Units ((perplexing), derivation)?"
instead.
Or something like that?
0 -
19 hours ago, Bufofrog said:
Do you have some sort of parentheses fetish?
Absolute(ly).
18 hours ago, swansont said:F=-kx
This is an equality
What is on the left side is equal to what is on the right side. This applies (separately) to the magnitude, the direction, and the units
If force is in Newtons (N) and x is in meters (m), the units for k will be N/m, because N/m * m gives you N.
m, being in both the numerator and denominator, cancels, similar to what would happen if you were simplifying a fraction (e.g. 3/3 =1)This is not considered to be mysterious.
The cancelation
(of units)
is NOT my problem.
My (automatic) inversion
of the units
is my (internal) problem.0 -
My (major) problem (obstacle)
is intuitively (a) psychological (block(age))
when using the 2 (thus) inconsistent ((conflicting(?) syntax) methods
(at the same time?)
while dealing
with the units (derivation).
Please let me explain
what I observe (mathematically).
I estimate
I automatically
get the algebra (answer) wrong
with (a fake) ~40%.
That is
I (repeatedly)
make the same mistake;
but recognize it
(just in time),
to correct it
(so that
(in the end)
it does NOT seem
like I am making a mistake (at all);
although I really do ERROR!).
I find that very peculiar,
why I can NOT directly
proceed to the correct answer;
but instead
I must always make the ERROR 1st;
& then go thru the routine
of correcting it 2nd.
That is a waste of time;
& a risky proceedure
(e.g. if severely distracted).But, what is happening
in my mind
does NOT make SENSE
unless there is a reason for all that (NONSENSE, detour).
I must conclude
that the k=F/(-x) construct
is EITHER a ruff forced_fit
which does NOT (naturally) belong (together);
or else there must be another explanation
(which I (might) have missed)?
What I see is,
units are typically
NOT included
for the symbols
F & -x
(but) until the number( value)s
are stated (=declared).
However, k does NOT have any (units,
at all before that);
thus those units are NOT known;
but still (NO_units means they) must be found
..from somewhere!
Strictly speaking,
for me,
I have 2 alternatives:
e.g. either to borrow them (units)
from F & -x
by cross_multiplying
them to k;
but then they are (wrongly) inverted;
& so I correct that inversion;
& notice that
I have only copied those units
from F/(-x)
in(to) the same positions.
I DON'T (think I) have to say
how little mathematical SENSE
that makes
(to me),
with a 1_sided abracadabra copy
(of units),
from F/(-x)
to the (empty=NO_units) k side.
It is simply a (functional) fix=repair
just to make things work
without explaining
why (things fail,
or why they should work,
but do NOT,
without that trick (of the trade).)Disclaimer:
EVERYBODY KNOWS
how to make
the units (derivation,
work correctly;
by repairing=correcting it);
BUT NOBODY tells (me) why
(that trick is NEEDED (at all);
other than that it is NEEDED).
My mind deals with that problem
like a paradox (conflict);
& WANTS to shut (it) off
like a clap TRAP.It is like asking
(for) a yes or NO answer
but the priority (dominates, &)
immediately locks up
(=latches)
into the NO priority,
as stolen!
It's VERY sticky
gumming up my thinking process(es).
ONLY a "corrected"
wrong_answer
will function correctly.
0 -
I was always stunned
by the complexity.Proportionality constants exist (almost) everywhere
(in Physics),
& their complexity has always stunned me;
but (peculiarly)
I have NOT seen (a textbook) anywhere
on how to make (=derive) them
(as though (derivation (of their units) is) avoided);
so I thought
I would give it a whirl (=try)
(on my own,
as DIM
=Do it myself).(It’s only common sense.
Dealt with intuitively, due to the(=my) confusion.)Recap:
1 of the most basic (& yet easy (but tricky)) concepts
(rarely found
in text books)
is deriving (=how to derive (them))
proportionality_constant’s “units”.---
Disclaimer1:
(I suspect)
E.g.
Maybe
(perhaps (because))
from the (misleeding?=confusing, conflicting)
contraproductive (brainwashing) statement(s)
(e.g. from Sears; & Alonso):
that units are NOT
(suppose to be)
multiplied
by the symbol’s number (value(s)),
(but) when they (perhaps) really are (multiplied),
instead;
but few (people=physicists (have)) admit(ted) it.
(Even)
although NOT perfectly
((multiplied) sometimes)
due
to singular versus plural (units, syntax).Maybe some people
get the basic idea right=correct.Math
is suppose
to be an exact science (sometimes).Units are (typically) NOT included
into formulas
until the number values are (present(ed)).((Rule 1:
(Simply)
include the units;
Rule2:
& then copy them (units)
to the constant.Rule3:
But how?))
Note:
I’( ha)ve used square_brackets for units, here.
---E.g.
Hooke’s law
(for)
a spring.The proportionality
k=F/(-x)
(looks like a quotient=ratio,
to me, &)
is the Force F
as main actor (influencer, cause);
wrt the negative displacement distance -x
as secondary actor=slave (result, effect)
e.g. which is in the opposite (=negative) direction.(Simply)
include
the(ir) (multiply_)units;k*[N/m]=F*[N]/(-x*[m])
then “copy” (them, units)
to the constant,
for equality.Keeping in mind
that a [Newton] is
[N]=[kg*m/(s^2)]
&
Force is
F*[?]=m*[kg]*a*[m/(s^2)]
the unknown units for Force are (simply)
[?]=[kg]*[m/(s^2)]=[N].Applying the same method
for Hooke's proportionality constant
k*[N/m]=F*[kg*m/(s^2)]/(-x*[m]), cancel [m/m]=[1/1]=1
k*[kg/(s^2)]=F*[kg/(s^2)]/(-x), swap sides.The k constant’s (unique) units are
[kg/(s^2)] kilogram per second(s)_squared,
or
[N/m] Newton(s) per meter.
Again, take the ratio (=quotient) including (multiplied) units
k [N/m]=F*[kg*m/(s^2)]/(-x*[m]), swap sides
F*[kg*m/(s^2)]/(-x*[m])=k*[N/m], *(-x*[m])
F*[kg*m/(s^2)]=(-x*[m])*k*[N/m], rearrange
F*[kg*m/(s^2)]=-k*[N/m]*(x*[m]), /[kg*m/(s^2)=N] remove(=divide_by) units
F=-k*x, gives us the standard recognized formula (Hooke’s Spring Force).E.g.
A (weight_)scale
could displace its spring
-1 [cm]=-0.01 [m] (down),
per [kg].
That force (weight)
Wt=m*g=1*[kg]*9.8*[m/(s^2)]=9.8*[kg*m/(s^2)]
would be 9.8 [N]
for 1 [kg] (mass).
Using Hooke’s spring law(=formula)
F=-k*x, swap sides
-k*x =F, /(-x)
the spring’s proportionality constant (e.g. ratio) is
k=F/(-x), let the Force F=Wt weight Wt=m*g
k=m*g/(-x), let the mass m=1 [kg] & the gravitational_acceleration g=-9.8 [m/(s^2)]
k=-9.8*[kg*m/(s^2)]/(-0.01 [m]), 1/0.01=100
k=980*[kg*m/(s^2)]/[m]), cancel [m/m]=[1/1]=1
k=980*[kg/(s^2).That spring (law) formula
F=-k*x, swap sides
-k*x=F, /(-k)
can be manipulated
to find the displacement
-x=F/k
for (e.g. calibrating
to) the mass m=Wt/g
-x=m*g/k, *(-1)
x=-m*g/k, let g=-9.8 [m/(s^2)] & k=-980*[kg/(s^2)
x=-m*(-9.8 [m/(s^2)])/(-980*[kg/(s^2)), 9.8/980=0.01 & [(s^2)]/[(s^2)]=1/1=1
x=-m*0.01 [m/kg].E.g. let mass m=1 [kg]
x=-1 [kg]*0.01 [m/kg], [kg/kg]=1/1=1
x=0.01 [m]=1 [cm].All pretty obvious.
Disclaimer 2:
Such a constant k
(as ratio),
also looks like
it could serve (well)
as a variable, instead
(e.g. if needed,
when a (so_called) constant
is NOT constant,
at all).
If that'( i)s the way
things are done(?);
then it would be a help
(to me).0 -
4 hours ago, Sensei said:
Laptop battery, cell phone battery certainly have no momentum..
They have a capacity expressed on the label as, for example, 10000 mAh.
mA = 0.001 A
h = 3600s
Q=I*t
I = 10000 mA = 10 A
Q=10A * 3600s = 36000 C
i.e. the device will work for 1h at 10A, or 10h at 1A (assuming no losses and lower voltage, which is unreliable)
E= Q*U
U is typically 3.6 V for Li-on battery..
Thanks Sensei.
That's a good example.
I will have to give it some thought (time).4 hours ago, Sensei said:@Ghideon Do you want to become a billionaire? You'll be the second administrator.. You gave me an idea..
Objects which have melting point at lower T than STP "attracts" energy in any form from the world.
Every object takes energy and releases it into the world.
In "ambient temperature," what goes out, is what comes in, and we have an equilibrium.
Transition from solid state to liquid state takes additional energy.
Transition from liquid state to gaseous state takes additional energy.
Transition from gaseous state to plasma state takes additional energy.
(This is called ionization energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_energy )
There are others for the high energy regime in quantum physics.
NO arguments there
(with those Temperature Energy concepts
commonly used).
E.g. Those approximations work (often).
(But I have to remind you
that I am looking
for an alternative (Newtonian math) concept;
instead of (Leibniz's) Energy
that will work
just as well;
if NOT better
with fewer ERRORs.)
(I envision)
Temperature
T=k*va/m
is a quotient
(proportional
to) the particle's average_speed va
"per" mass m
(instead of "factor"
"multiplied by"
for the product
of (average_)momentum
moma=va*m);
(&) where k
is simply some sort
of (correction)
proportionality_constant.
That is simply
2 different math methods:
e.g.
T (quotient)
versus
KEd (product);
using 2 similar parameters:
e.g.
the average_speed va
& which is then either:
divided by
or (else) multiplied by
the mass m.
3 hours ago, studiot said:So you can perform the following simple calculation, without using energy.
Please show me how.
I have a 1kg bar of lead that I wish to melt.
I have a bunsen burner and a suitable steel pot to melt the bar in.
How much gas do I need to fully melt the bar ?
Please ignore losses for this calculation.
2 methods (alternatives)
occur
to my mind.
E.g. I can convert existing energy values
into some kind of momentum;
or else
(I can abandon that method completely)
& concentrate
on the average_momentum squared concept
as a mass*Energy substitute.
I will need too much time
to (accurately) prepare that (details);
& hinder errors
(stumbling blocks).
Please (excuse me, but)
would you (please) prepare
th(os)e Energy calculations
(for me)
& I would attempt
to convert that
(in)to (some kind of)
momentum.
I would then know what (numbers) to expect
& whatever format
you desire
(if I wish to copy it).
I consider
I might be
a better editor
than author.
0 -
4 hours ago, Sensei said:
Energy is a physical thing,
That (shockingly) seems like a noun (thing);
but I got your drift, meaning concept.4 hours ago, Sensei said:that is, you can certainly feel the difference between hot coffee/tea and cold coffee/tea.
The question should be "how much leakage" of this energy, if any, instead of this crap: "Energy is NONSENSE".
I think Swansont
gave you (=us)
your best (=simplest)
so_called "crap"
Energy example
with a head on head collision
of 2 masses
each 1 [kg]
at speed(s)
v=(+/-)1 [m/s].
That'( i)s
at sub_light speed(s);
& the Energy
does NOT agree
with the momentum!
(Need I say more?)4 hours ago, Sensei said:If it's 0.00000000001 then you should show it.
We would have at least had some scientific discussion on your part.
E.g.
Mass 1's
mass
m1=1 [kg]
& (accelerated) speed_difference
vd1=1 [m/s];
mass 2's
mass
m2=1 [kg]
& (accelerated) speed_difference
vd2=-1 [m/s].4 hours ago, Sensei said:But you are not able to.
Really?
The average_momentum
(of each mass)
is
moma1=m1*va1=1 [kg]*1 [m/s]=1 [N*s]
moma2=m1*va2=1 [kg]*(-1) [m/s]=-1 [N*s]
momat=moma1+moma2=1 [N*s]-1 [N*s]=0.
The total (average_)momentum
is zero!However,
the(ir) kinetic_energy(differences) are each 0.5 [J];
so, their, total input (Energy) is 1 [J];
but their NON_elastic (collision) result
is zero Joule.KEd1=m1*vd1*va1=1 [kg]*1 [m/s]*0.5 [m/s]=0.5 [J]
KEd2=m2*vd2*va2=1 [kg]*(-1) [m/s]*(-0.5) [m/s]=0.5 [J]
KEdt=KEd1+KEd2=0.5 [J]+0.5 [J]=1 [J] total kinetic_Energy(_difference) input
but the KEd_output=0
because all speeds are (gone to) zero
meaning -1 [J] lost, abracadabra!
What a bunch of JUNK!
When
assuming
the speed_difference vd=vf-vi;
& each initial_speed is zero
vi=vi1=vi2=0
then their speed_differences
vd1=vf1-vi1=0-1=-1 [m/s], &
vd2=vf2-vi2=0-(-1) [m/s]=1 [m/s])
(for masses 1 & 2, are);
where
their (linearly_accelerated)
final_speeds
vf1=vi1+vd1=va1-vd1/2
vf2=vi2+vd2=va2-vd2/2
are the initial_speed vi
plus the speed_speed(_difference) vd;
&/or
vf1=va1-vd1/2
vf2=va2-vd2/2
the average_speed va
minus half the(ir) (accelerated) speed_difference vd/2.4 hours ago, Sensei said:You are not able to, because physics and chemistry are experimental.
That (sure) sounds like a false claim
on your part.
I'm quite sure the experiments
(will) show the discrepancy (ERORR)
between (average_)momentum
versus (kinetic_)Energy(_difference) results.
Kinetic_Energy is a looser
& you guys are trying to cover up that (fact).
E.g. With "dark" (=unknown) energy
on a galactic scale.
But I understand
you (all) HAVEN'T
a (faintest) CLUE
because it is in your natural character
to deny things
you do NOT understand
because of your education.
Scientists
can be typically the "LAST" person
to learn
what is new,
because their education (brainwashing)
interferes
with what is obvious.
(I.e. Common sense.
Who has it?
Every healthy person!).
Typically, instead of saying
they (scientists) have made a mistake;
they (scientists,
I DON'T want to mention any names)
say,
(=mildly admit)
they (scientists)
have discovered
other than they ((have) wrongly)
expected.
WOAH!
If the mistakes (=ERRORS)
are NOT going
to be admitted (& recognized);
then how are "we" going
to progress (e.g. in Physics)
(& eliminate those errors).
E.g.
Recognition
is the 1st step
to improvement.4 hours ago, Sensei said:Theoretical physics is something new in the 20th century.
To become a theoretical physicist, you have to learn everything about experimental physics, chemistry, etc.
Laymen on the Internet tend to skip the whole learning process and just post their useless drivel on science forums without bothering to acquire everything that real scientists took years of study.
By the look
of it
some of their study was in vain.
They forgot something
(very important)
like (e.g.) the initial_speed vi=vf-vd
(especially if that is light's_speed c)
which they love to eliminate
in their (linearly accelerated) speed_difference
vd=vf-vi.
I'm NOT telling you
something NEW;
(but instead)
just reminding you.
Your calculations
are full of holes
if you have forgotten missing (initial) terms
(which are prove_able
with simple algebra (math)).
You (=your colleagues & predecessors)
have built up
an unreliable empire
ready to crumble;
if you rely on ONLY
those incomplete equations
(with missing terms)
that you (so) carelessly ignore
& (even) reject.4 hours ago, Sensei said:Check sandbox:
https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/99-the-sandbox/
There, even well-known members practiced..
Still a good tip,
I'( a)m convinced.
LaTex is (a spastic) over_kill
because the programmers
could NOT correctly convert
all the(ir) .pdf or whatever formats.
They did NOT know enough
about the different text formats;
so they invented
their own (NON uni_directional) format
to make things work (somewhat) correctly.Why the overhead
(just because they could NOT do their task)?
Now you are demanding
everybody follow
"their" mistake('s remedy).
There exists
(more than)
a (=1) NEW text editor
every (10) year(s).
How many
have I learned?
& then NEVER need (it) again
because something better comes (along),
to overtake the situation;
because the last (editor) was inferior.
This 1 (LaTex) does NOT go backwards,
e.g. it does NOT convert backwards
into e.g. a Winword or .pdf file,
because the programmers
do NOT know how
to do that (conversion) correctly (originally),
so what have they learned?
Here today,
(but) gone tomorrow.
Is that (programming),
(called) science (Physics)?
NO(! way (my friend))
that is NONSENSE,
e.g. NOT understandable.
You have peculiar "demands"
because you CAN'T get your own act together.
I'm only making (improvement) suggestions
(to try & get out of the problems).
You want to avoid your (existing) problems
(& say they do NOT exist).
E.g.
Ohhh
there are limitations!
(..but because the formulas DON'T always work).
Let us (both) say,
there is room
for improvements.
It'( i)s
NOT easy
to change mainstream (opinions!).
Einstein & Michelson
both stood "against" mainstream;
& look at where we are NOW.
They (both) changed it (=mainstream)
(instead of (completely) correcting it).
What a mess!
To summarize
(this thread),
I have made 2 suggestions:
either: to kick_out (the scalar) Energy
as NONSENSE;
or else
(if you want to keep Energy,
although I do NOT know why)
to vectorize it (=Energy)
(as needed)
(& eventually factor it (=Energy)
with the scalar (called) mass (again)
(as a distortion)
mentioned in another thread:
acceleration note)
as an improvement.
Disclaimer2:
I do NOT find those (2) suggestions (either):
rude;
NOR (as) arrogant constrictions;
but instead
as liberal alternatives
for improvement.
E.g. You may choose either way;
if you want to choose at all.
I have only tried to state my observations
& conclusions
for that (part)
of the development.
Take it or leave it.
Your past scientists
did NOT like Galileo either;
NOT to mention Ohm, Einstein, Michelson, Wilson (plate tectonics), ...
You are all typically (mostly) of a rejecting attitude (tendency).
It takes (much effort &) a very long time
to convince you otherwise.
But history repeats itself.
For sure.-1 -
1 minute ago, Sensei said:
The word "energy" (in one form or another) existed before physics and chemistry. We used to say "young people have a lot of energy", "old people don't have the energy to ...", "sick people don't have energy", etc.
Most probably a (bio)chemical energy (reserve).
1 minute ago, Sensei said:Energy is the ability to do something.
Solid CO2 does not have the ability to do something,
I disagree, at STP solid CO2 is very cold
& that temperature difference
(while) melting
can change pressure
which can do work.1 minute ago, Sensei said:while liquid O2 has the ability to do something (burn with something and release "stored energy").
Yes, but that is (chemical) bonding energy (exchange).
1 minute ago, Sensei said:Basically, energy is like mass, energy before reaction is equal to energy after reaction. The mass before the reaction is equal to the mass after the reaction (in chemistry). A+B=C+D. So whatever you want to solve is equal. At the beginning of science, the equation was at the level of mass, which is true to some level of certainity. Then at energy level, which a way way more precise.
Energy is stored in various ways. The potential energy of a nucleus (which can be released during fusion, fission, spontaneous decay, etc. ), the energy bound between atoms or molecules, the potential energy of an object at a certain height above the ground, etc., etc., or the kinetic energy of an object or the rotational energy of an object..
Yes Sensei,
(I agree,
we have all those (Energy) concepts
with their (own) math);
but can't we use
e.g. (average_)momentum;
instead of Energy_math?
Why "must" we use ONLY energy?
I see more disadvantages
with Energy;
than advantages.0 -
Ghideon, that is excellent.
Exactly what I want to say.0 -
5 minutes ago, studiot said:
This
is
neither
a
speculation
nor
a
question
it
is
a
tirade
I do NOT see anger
in my statement,
ONLY (resignment &) reassurement
that Energy does NOT always add
thus it is (in that sense)
unaccountable ("NONSENSE!").
If things do add up
as they are (expectedly) supposed to
then they are behaving illogically.
Denying the problem
is NOT going to cure it.
Unlike most (people)
I am (at least)
recognizing a problem
& (then) attempting
a solution.
As long as that takes (me).
It is NOT an easy task.
Especially in only 1 shot.5 minutes ago, studiot said:so
it
belongs
in
the
trash.
I disagree.
I was only summarizing
so you can recognize
the direction.You have NOT addressed
the major question.
I.e. Title.5 minutes ago, studiot said:A real question would be something like
Are there any circumstance where energy methods are easier and or more efficient than other methods of analysis ?
That is NOT my question.
Especially because I know
Energy is an approximation
& thus relative.
I (already) know you guys (& gals)
already use math_Energy
for many things,
because it compares.5 minutes ago, studiot said:To which the answer is a resounding yes.
You are trying to change my question
in order to avoid it.0 -
3 minutes ago, Sensei said:
Inability to,
learn,
so simple,
thing,
causes,
that,
your,
other posts,
are unreliable..
Please let me help you.
Inability
to learn
so (=such) simple things
causes that your other posts
to be unreliable.
Are you sure you mean unreliable?
How?0 -
I agree with you Sensei.
I am unable to learn LaTex
& your programmers were unable
convert text formats correctly.
Thus they created a 1 directional conversion
you call Latex.
But I must say
my post looks
(a little) better
than yours.0 -
I tend
to think,
we do NOT need
(kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s
(redundant) syntax.
Let’( u)s face it.
Energy is NONSENSE!E.g. 1
Astronomer’s have been complaining
for a long time.
Now(adays, or a_daze)
you (also) have “dark” (=unknown) Energy
to cover up that problem.E.g. 2
The output
of a NON_elastic collision
is always less
than the input.
I.e.
NO matter how (much)
you (want
to) “guess” explaining its (NON_elastic) loss
(e.g. with deformation (dents),
acoustic noise (produced),
& heat (warmed));
instead of knowing
& measuring.
Mathematically that loss
is calculate_able (accountable,
into a reduced_mass (construct)).)E.g. 3.
That (NON_elastic collision, Energy loss)
is NOT energy conservation
but instead a math ERROR
(caused by)
incompatibility with (average_)momentum.
But my question
is, do we (really) need
the Energy (math) construct,
at all?I mean
we already have (average_)momentum
& it (=that (average_)momentum)
does NOT seem
to lie at us
like Energy
(sometimes) does.
With
the (kinetic_)Energy (construct)
we “loose” information.
I.e.
It (=KEd=delta_KE)
is NOT completely
“reversible” math
(without using the original( parameter)s again);
which hinders
a (bidirectional math) reverse_ability.
E.g.
(For linear_acceleration)
the kinetic_Energy(_difference)
KEd=m*v(d)*va
is composed (=made)
of: a (=1, single)
scalar (mass m);
& “2” (speed) vectors
(the speed_difference vd=v(d)=v=vf-vi
as final_speed vf minus initial_speed vi;
& multiplied
by the average_speed va=(vf+vi)/2=d/t
as added final_speed vf & initial_speed vi
divided by 2)
.
Th(os)e (2) speeds
are vectors
because they have “direction”,
(also)
meaning (each)
in simplest form
e.g.
if in 1D,
(the) travel can be either:
positive (forward(s));
or (else) negative (backward).
Mass (is a scalar, &)
can NOT do that (bidirectionality).
---
Disclaimer 1:I have NOT seen
a “negative” mass -m
(for that) coefficient (factor m);
even if you rave
about anti_matter;
simply because
it (=anti_matter)
is
(let us say)
opposite_charge
of (perhaps) a spin.
The rule
is,
every charged
(sub_atomic)
particle,
has its own
oppositely charged
(so_called aunty_)
particle.
(Does that include neutral (uncles)?)
But during annihilation,
at such a subatomic size,
how can you prove
your guess_work (=assumptions)?
That (tracking)
seems (to me) impossible
to follow;
& only a careless (misleading) idea.
---
A vector (e.g. such as a(n average) speed v(a))
multiplied
by a scalar (e.g. mass m)
remains a vector (e.g. (average_)momentum mom(a)=m*v(a))
.
But 2 (negative) vectors (e.g. speeds vd & va)
loose their (negative) polarity -1=j^2
when multiplied together
to become
(& always stay, only)
positive (scalar);
(no matter)
whether they were originally positive or negative.
That is a loss
of (the +/-)
polarity information,
which is NOT retrievable (=recoverable, salvageable)
without using
the (original)
polarity (again).
E.g. Using a factor *v/((v^2)^0.5),
where the (linear_accelerated) speed_difference vd=v
& visa versa
(is the truncated_symbol syntax)
v=vd,
because
they are identical.
(I simply truncated the d.)The (vectorized) kinetic_energy(_difference) (e.g. as a) vector
KEd=m*v*va*v/((v^2)^0.5)
is the (scalar) KEd=m*v*va
multiplied
by its speed_difference’s polarity
v/((v^2)^0.5).
If that speed_difference v=vf-vi was negative
then its KEd will also become negative.
That is why I say (=question)
do we really need (e.g. kinetic_)Energy?
if we have to (re)modify so much;
(because)
it(s Energy_math alone)
is inferior (NONSENSE).
Why DON’T we (just) kick out
the concept
of Energy (all together)?
& throw it away
in(to) the garbage.
Why do we perpetuate
the error_making problems,
(called) Energy?
Why do we bother,
at all,
with
(the concept, approximation)
Energy?
(E.g.
I have proposed bending (=modifying)
Newton’s motion laws
(as detour)
to get around
the Energy error problems;
(but that (detour) is)
instead
of dealing
with the real (guilty) culprit (i.e. Energy).)
It (=Energy)
is way too complicated
for what is needed.
Energy (syntax, (an) approximation)
was invented ((ruffly ~2*KE) by Leibniz;
it’( i)s NOT Newtonian)
to help describe
linear_acceleration(’s work).
But Leibniz originally confused mass m=Wt/g
with weight Wt=m*g.
It’( i)s the gravitational acceleration g=Wt/m
that (had) caused that (confusion) problem
for him (=Leibniz).-2 -
2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
You apparently decided for some reason to only recognize spatial dimensions as 'real' dimensions,
That's right!
I'm only interested
in the real McCoy.
(E.g. Spare me the science fiction.
I DON'T need Sc_Fi
(like they do).)2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:that's fine for you,
Thank you.
2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:but don't expect others to jump on board with you.
Pity (for them).
0 -
7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
You can't move through space without moving through time as well.
But you can move thru time
without moving thru space
e.g. maintaining the same distances
(so to speak).7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:Changing motion through space or time affects the other in predictable ways. Special Relativity works, and it wouldn't if time weren't a dimension.
Special Relativity
was retracted
by Einstein
as defect,
but (it was) a means to an End=his General_Relativity.
Ch 22, 1920.
Meaning Special Relativity
does NOT (always) work.
So I guess you lost that 1 arguement.
Meaning time can NOT be a dimension.
Sorry (for you).0 -
5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
It is not possible to locate an event without the dimension of time. For instance if I want to have a meeting with you it is not possible without specifying a time, in other words it takes a minimum of 3 spatial dimension and 1 time dimension.
What (is that suppose to mean)?
I did NOT say we can do without time.
Time is something else
(an extra)
which is necessary,
but it does NOT belong
to (category) dimension.
E.g.
I am alive,
I live & breath (air)
eat (food) & drink (water).
All those extras,
but they are NOT me.0 -
20 hours ago, Bufofrog said:
Time is not a vector but it is a dimension.
I see NO evidence of that.
Please explain.
..because..
You have heard (=read) my version.
E.g.
Dimensions (x,y,z)
are all
at 90°
to each other.
(That (3 mixture) starts at x;
& ENDS at z,
the last (alphabetic) symbol
(but chosen)
on purpose, intentionally
(to prevent further ones).)
Time is NOT
at 90°
to ANYTHING!
Time does NOT belong
to the category "dimension".
It (=Time) follows
NO previous example,
thus it is unique,
a category
of its own (nature).
I see NOTHING else
to prove
& convince me
otherwise.
It (= That (time) nature (=behaviour))
is very obvious
(to (at least) me).
Disclaimer:
I DON'T care
how badly
Minikowski
distorted
the description
of time
in the past;
it (=his distortion)
is NOT fitting.
Time reversal
is NOT possible.0
g wrt height
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by Capiert
The (Earth's) free_fall gravitational_acceleration
at the Earth's surface (radius r1=6378135*[m], equatorial sea_level),
is (ruffly (approximated (by me) to), simply)
g1=~π^2*[m/(s^2)]-ac1
where
π^2~9.8
is multiplied by the (proportionality constant of) units [m/(s^2)]
(& then)
minus
its (=the_Earth's) centrifugal_acceleration -ac1=(vc1^2)/r1,
with circumferential_speed vc1=cir/T=2*π*r1/T
for a sidereal_day period T=23*[hr]+56*[min]+4*[s],
T=23*[hr]*60*[min/hr]*60*[s/min]+56*[min]*60*[s/min]+4*[s],
T=82800*[s]+3360*[s]+4*[s]
T=86164*[s]
& barely produces (a meager loss (from π^2~9.8), of e.g.)
-0.34% at the equator.
Hovering at higher altitudes
have more centrifugal_acceleration.
For any (other) height h=r2-r1
above r1 (sea_level, equatorial)
the (larger) radius r2=r1+h
is useful.
g2=(π^2)*[m/(s^2)]-ac2, ac2=4*(π^2)*r2/(T^2)
g2=(π^2) [m/(s^2)]-(4*(π^2))*r2/(T^2)), bring out π^2
& move the units into the brackets to (only) factor "1"
g2=(π^2)*(1 [m/(s^2)]-(4*r2/(T^2))) is too complicated
but assumes 4*r2/(T^2)=1
for a hovering, e.g. geo_stationary_orbit GSO (weightlessness),
or
g2=(π^2)*(1 [m/(s^2)]-r2*((2/T)^2)), let r2=r1+h & g2=gh
g2=(π^2)*(1*[m/(s^2)]-(r1+h)*((2/T)^2)) <---!
That (g2=g_h) is the free_fall acceleration
wrt height h
when using
the sidereal_day period
T=86164*[s]
(which is a constant for any height h)
&
e.g. the Earth's polar radius
r1=6,378,137*[m].
Examples:
Equatorially:
If the height h=0
at the Earth's equatorial radius (surface)
r1=6399592*[m]
then (the term)
-(6399592*[m]+h)/(1856058724*[s^2])=-0.00344(646144442)
which is ~-0.34(46)% (equatorial) loss
from π^2*[m/(s^2)].
Try again, for GSO radius r2.
g2=(π^2)*[m/(s^2)]-(4*(π^2)*r2/(T^2)), +(4*(π^2)*r2/(T^2))
g2+(4*(π^2)*r2/(T^2))=(π^2)*[m/(s^2)], let g2=0 for a GSOrbit
4*(π^2)*r2/(T^2))=(π^2)*[m/(s^2)], *(T^2)/(4*(π^2))
r2=(T^2/4)*[m/(s^2)], T=86164*[s],
r2=((86164*[s])^2)/4)*[m/(s^2)], [s^2]/[s^2]=1/1=1
r2=(7,424,234,896)*[m])/4,
r2=1,856,058,724*[m]
is the Earth's GSO radius.