Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral


About quiet

  • Rank
  • Birthday January 31

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Friendship, Physics, History of the Physics, Music
  • College Major/Degree
    highschool teacher (professor)
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Classical Electrodynamics
  • Biography
    The sun, the walk and the bicycle I like as much as reading a good book.
  • Occupation
    highschool teacher

Recent Profile Visitors

683 profile views
  1. By the state that now it is, I think the best place for this thread is trash can ...
  2. quiet

    Exergy concept

  3. Thanks swansont pot the post. Also you have exposed reasonable objections, which deserve to be visible at the conclusion of the thread. --------- --------- --------- Dear strange, you know that I dislike the fray. It is very easy to write citation needed. The hard part is to retrieve the titles of the publications inside a repository of old papers, search for those titles on the internet, find the exact paragraph within the extension of the publication and bring it here. They are many hours of work to serve on a tray plus gunpowder, which will be used to prolong the war. It really is good that post yours that I have praised. And I admit that I have omitted those appointments. Then, as we are in speculations, I give you my affirmation that all these are speculative ideas of mine, that you will never be able to read in sources related to those authors. I solemnly affirm that I have invented all that whimsically. I solemnly affirm that the important thing is not to dialogue calmly. The important thing is to cut sentences and show them isolated from the context, where the sentences are paralyzed and we can easily charge the gun and shoot. This, advantageously, takes seconds. What the other forum member wrote has taken good fractions of hours. And adding up everything he wrote, he has taken many hours in more than a day. In seconds we managed to get something from the legitimate discussion to the trash can, without doing anything other than putting empirical data as "proofs" apt to refute a methodological analysis. It is like trying to refute Herodotus about the existence of Atlantis, saying that if Atlantis had ever existed, the ruins would have been found, as were the ruins of other ancient civilizations. And in seconds write: ruins needed. Very easy and very profitable to explode in the middle of the room something that tries to be shown as an objection, without the least care to analyze the context to do it in a legitimate way. I solemnly declare that I am capitulating in the war that you have created, dear strange. I sign the surrender and I put it into a golden tray. And I repeat, that post of yours that I have praised is good.
  4. Thank you strange for your post. The way in which you have criticized each concept has been precise and, for that reason, I have been able to follow your thought. You have exposed reasonable objections, which are a nice summary of what has been discussed. I think it's a good idea to leave your post as a thread closure.
  5. What you say is true. The word alien is not the best way to express the concept. I only try to remark that in newtonian physics, only for convenience, was used the setup corresponding to equality of the values of both terms. This, like you say, works perfectly in applications. When the point under discussion is the structure of the foundations of the physics, the convenience have nothing to do. The main issue is the recognition of what is postulated, and what is choosed conventionally. Like I have pointed out in a previous post, you can measure the action and the angular mentum, both, in [math]joule.second[/math], this is, you can choose the same dimensions for both. What you can't do is believe that both are the same kind of physical property. In analog way, you can choose for the gravitatory property and for the inertial property the same dimensions and, if you wish, can too choose the same value. But you can not believe, without well proved reasons, that both have the same nature, both comes from the same intimate phenomenon, both are subject to the same influence, etc. You have mentioned the satellital orbit. In this case, gravitatory mass is independent respect the tangential velocity. The inertial mass is dependent, like Lorentz transformation shows. Intentionally I say Lorentz transformation and not SR, because the increasing of the mass with the velocity was known and formulated in 19th century, before the publication of SR. Back to the main point. The satellital orbit is a nice example of the natural difference between both terms. Know you that the astronomers have finded EM waves with wavelength of astronomical size? When this kind of detection begins, a wavelength compatible with Earth-Moon distance was detected. What if an electromagnetic phenomenon is responsible for gravity? Oh!!! No!!! This is impossible because GR stablish spacetime warping!!! But, if the equality of both types of "masses" is not impossed by the physics previous to GR, and for create GR you stablish the equality like a new postulate, then, GR is just the thing under discussion, and we can not invoke GR to reject the possibility of an EM origin of the gravitation. There is somthing that here, in speculations, is not misplaced. Assuming an enough reasonable hipothesys, you can start a development that reaches various interesting results. One is to obtain, like a first aproximation, a formula for gravitatory force with the same format of Newton's formula. This fact is more or less obvious, because EM field vary with [math]r^2[/math]. Other result exhibit the intimate form of G in EM terms. Other shows that G is a fuction, not a constant. In special conditions G varies in very little proportion, in a way that allow take a little error if G is treated like a constant. Oh!!! GR assumes that G is true constant!!! I don't believe how someone can think that G is a function!!! Newton's formula have an error compatible with not taking in account the cotribution of the electrons to the gravitational action, and, only take in account the contribution of nucleons. The chaotic behavior of electrons cloud gives a little net contribution, because the cloud don't align in a preferent direction, like nuclons do. The error calculated using the EM model is in the order measured by Eotvos experiments, and subsequent experiments of that kind. Eotvos have find too that chemical composition intervenes in little proportion. The EM model just implies such fact. Remember the astronomers, today, are not sure respect to accuracy of GR in all cases. The worst thing we can do, into this theme, is to held rigidly that equality of both types of "masses" is an undoubtable natural law. --------- If both properties are not the same, then, we can't replace [math]m^2[/math] in equation (2) of the initial post. So, absurd is impossible. And if we, like Einstein, postulate the equality, the absurd is unavoidable.
  6. Hi, studiot. Since the gravitational equation and the second law are applied together, the military can, unfortunately, accurately calculate ballistic missile launches. And long before the cannon shots. In those cases the vertical component of the ballistic movement works like a vertical shot, which reaches its apogee and initiates the free fall. In order not to result in verbal arguments I have put the same development that the texts present to teach that the equality of both types of masses is conventional. Einstein himself emphasizes that in the physics of Newton nothing does impose equality. And he emphasizes that, since equality is not the consequence of principles or of physical laws prior to GR, the hypothesis of equality is a new element introduced to give a basis to GR. Einstein calls it a principle, as befits a new element that is introduced as the basis of a theory. You do not need me to name it, but I will do it to avoid verbal scuffles because of the name. He called it the equivalence principle of the gravitational and inertial masses. This principle is alien to Newtonian physics, to the theories of Lagrange and Hamilton, to thermodynamics, to statistical mechanics, to electrodynamics, to special relativity and to quantum theory. Only GR is based on that kind of hypothesis. If I, with seriousness, take the task of accompanying my statements with mathematical developments and demonstrate that I affirm something coherent and in accordance with physical laws, it is only fair that my affirmations are refuted in the same way. In the last mathematical post I presented there are no terms in absurd places of some equation. It is only a free fall, because thus the texts teach that the equality of both types of mass is not a consequence of the well-known physical laws, nor of the principles that are the basis of all that is not GR. Tired of the sterile verbal scuffle, in another post I put, ironically, that many people saying the same thing made me want to join them and think the same. I had really decided to leave the thread served to those who prefer the verbal fray, without writing me any new post. When swansont calmly resumed the dialogue, I thought: nobility obliges. That's why I wrote again and showed the corresponding mathematics. The tranquility was short lived. Now again the thread was thrown into empty verbality. What I do ? I follow ? I give up? They say that I must notice this, that, the other, take into account this and that detail and many more etceteras. Discounting me, did someone take paper and pencil, to see how the subject remains mathematically, before filling a post with phrases? I have patience, all the patience that a teacher exercises in the classroom, but that patience is finite. And it has reached the end.
  7. Let me go step by step. I have read all the posts, but first I analyze the main point of all this, to submit it to your criticism. --------- - Free fall. [math][/math] [math]m_{g_1} \ \rightarrow[/math] gravitational mass of the planet [math]m_{g_2} \ \rightarrow[/math] gravitational mass of the falling object With this symbols, we write the force as: [math]F = G \ \dfrac{m_{g_1} \ m_{g_2}}{r^2} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (A)[/math] The falling object is accelerating, and we write Newton's second law: [math]F = m_{i_2} \ a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (B)[/math] [math]m_{i_2} \ \rightarrow[/math] inertial mass of the falling object We equal (A) and (B). [math]G \ \dfrac{m_{g_1} \ m_{g_2}}{r^2}= m_{i_2} \ a [/math] We clear [math]m_{i_2}[/math] [math]G \ \dfrac{m_{g_1} \ m_{g_2}}{a \ r^2}= m_{i_2} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (C)[/math] - Acceleration and distance are measurables with rule and clock. - Both gravitatory masses, of the planet and of the object, have the same physical nature and are measured and expressed in the same way. - Inertial mass of the object is the term under discussion. We can stablish conventionally the value of G, without destroy the equality of the forces neither alter the equation (C). - We can, conventionally, choose a value of G that makes [math]m_{g_2}= m_{i_2}[/math]. This simplify many calculus, but there is no physical law, nor physical principle, that necessarily requires [math]m_{g_2}= m_{i2}[/math].
  8. Hello swansont. I liked the argument. And I would like it to stay firm. I'm thinking of a kind of chess between gentlemen. A is your argument and B is mine. I will try to look for a weak point in A and you can, if you decide to play, do the same with B. --------- In the case of the satellite orbit you mentioned, as in all applications of Newton's gravitational equation, G is calibrated precisely so that it is possible to use the same term [math]m[/math], with the same value, in the gravitation and inertia. This is a conventional decision, it is not a physical law. The number of convetional decisions that could be proposed is unlimited and all would work without contradiction. So the satellite case does not show that the same physical property is responsible for gravity and inertia.
  9. 1. I say that: The equation (3) is absurde into the physical context. 2. I say that: Absurde comes only from replace [math]m^2[/math] in Newton's equation of gravitatory force. 3. I say that: If we reject the idea of gravity and inertia caused by the same physical property, then, we can not put the same symbol ([math]m[/math]) in force equation and in the second law equation. 4. I say thay: We can't to put the same symbol without suppossing the same cause in gravity an in inertia. 5. I say that: The absurdity of eqution (3) requires reject the idea of the same cause. 6. I say that: You can call it: idea of the same cause. Or can choose other name. The name choosed not diminish the physical absurde. There isn't a mathematical absurde. There is an unavoidable physical absurde. 7. I say that: If someone still have doubts, try perform a proof of the items 1 to 6 are false. With one item really false, the proof is done. Remember that a proof must be not only logically valid. Must be too physically valid and referred only to well known physical principles and laws. 8. I say that: I will receive with happyness such a proof and I will be greatful.
  10. With many people saying the same thing, I tend to think the same as those people. I apologize for my ramblings. Best regards.
  11. Agree. And more, I have pointed out, in the first post of the thread, that is incorrect. The main question is where come from the incorrection? Have I made a wrong use of algebra? Have I altered Newton's equations? Have I commited an abuse? Respect to an abuse, there is one. Wich? To suppose that the same physical property is responsible for both, inertia and gravitation. This is simply incorrect. And this is the cause for what the same term [math]m[/math] appears in gravity formula and in the second law formula. This double appearing cause the absurde. And this double appearing come from the equivalence principle.
  12. In the limit you get Newton's gravitational formula. And that formula is incompatible with the principle of equivalence. Then GR is completely self-contradictory, since it contains a limit incompatible with its basic hypothesis.
  13. Hi, strange. The equation written with LaTex shows the main line of division at the height of the sign equal and slightly longer than the other line, belonging to the numerator. Keeping this in mind, the notation looks unambiguous. --------- The principle of equivalence assumes that physical property itself intervenes in inertia and gravitation. The physics of Newton does not allow to suppose that, because in case of supposing it you arrive at the equation (3), obtained in the initial post of this thread. In Newtonian physics you can not put the same m in the gravitational equation and in the formula of the second law, because by doing that you get to (3) irremediably. I repeat what was expressed in a previous post. Two magnitudes that have very different physical natures can have the same dimensions. You can measure in Kg both physical properties, one that intervenes in inertia and another that intervenes in gravitation. That does not mean that the same physical property intervenes in both phenomena. Newton's physics requires accepting that they are different properties, because when you assume that it is the same property you inevitably arrive at (3). A theory that demands to distinguish sharply between the property that intervenes in gravitation and the property that intervenes in the inertia, does not allow to accept the principle of equivalence. You must choose between Newton and Einstein regarding inertia and gravitation. You can not have both of them in the same kind of physics. To the same type of physics belong Newton's theory, the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian theories, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, special relativity and quantum theory, because none of these theories postulates the principle of equivalence. General relativity belongs to another type of physics, whose principle of equivalence is incompatible with the kind of physics mentioned previously. The mathematics of the initial post of the thread is simple and brief, but it brings out an essential detail. If you say that General Relativity is a physical theory, then Newton's theory, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian theories, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, special relativity and quantum theory are not physical theories. And if you say that the latter are physical theories, then general relativity is not a physical theory. Like it or not, that's inevitably so. For that reason the hope of linking general relativity with quantum theory is futile. Union attempts suffer from the same type of incompatibility that we see in equation (3).
  14. Oh, sorry. I had a confusion. The format is fine. Both lines of division are well located and well sized. --------- There is something important that deserves to be elucidated. When the principle of equivalence of Einstein is introduced in the physics of Newton, the result is absurd and self-contradictory. I do not see how to avoid that problem. Are Newton's physics and the principle of equivalence mutually incompatible? This question needs a well-founded answer. In case of being mutually incompatible, another question appears. Does Special Relativity remain valid if we reject Newton's physics? If it does not remain valid, another question appears. Can GR be valid if SR is discarded?
  15. There is no mathematical error in this equation. If you smplify respect to F remains F at the first power. Then you clear F and obtain the equation (3). Still doubts? Make a dimensional analisys and verfy that units are coherent.