studiot

Sound waves are indeed longitudinal, but aren't the mechanical copies impressed on the medium transverse ?

I don't like the use of the word coercion because it is stronger than forced. My question was Rhetorical. Do you seriously believe there is only one unique use of the term free will employed ? On the face of it your definition sounds good but it is incomplete. Intentions and beliefs ? All of them all of the time ? Is free will a general state or doe it apply sometimes and not others ? No I was not starting at the beginning, but do I not have a point (that you ignored) ?

Wouldn't a counter example to this definition be someone at the beginning of a nuclear physics course saying I have free will to pass my exam ? She may be able to pass that exam at the end of the course, but at the beginning she can only wish.

Would you not say the term isolated is better than free ? A free body has a special significance in mechanics, that is usually associats with many forces acting on that body. If we want to say 'free of all imposed forces' (which is what I think you mean) physicists would say isolated. Would you not agree that if we are going to propose a unversal rule, like your original hypothesis, we must be able to apply it universally ? Even to systems that although we know of no actual instance, we would expect conform to all known laws ? So consider either a universe with only one single body in it or alternatively one single body so far from any other body that it may be considered isolated ? Can you describe the motion of such a body ?

Understanding "Free Will" ? If you are going to understand free will you need to start by realising that this is a compound statement with an inherent tension or partial contradiction. Furthermore if you are going to fully understand it you cannot pick and choose specific or particular definions alone. ~Fully automatically points to 'understanding' being a range rather than a single instance. We can then see that both free and will also have ranges of meaning rather than just one. Sometimes it is easier to define the negation or opposite of something and then say that the something is 'everything which is not the negation'. Working along these lines what is the opposite or negation of free will ? Do we negate one or both terms ? Opposites to free couls be 'forced', or 'constrained' , which are different. But 'will' implies a degree of forcing, therby opposing the idea of free. Constraints are weaker than forcing, to which there is no opposition. So we come to the idea that free will is anything within a set of constraints. Physics make considerable use of the idea of 'degrees of freedom'. On use of degrees of freedom is in making the distinction between a structure and a mechanism. Structures ( and indeed other systems) can also be what is known as overdetermined. Mechanisms are where a structure is underdetermined, so has one or more degrees of freedom, so is 'free' to take up a range of positions. Does the mechanism therefore possess 'free will ? Note for @Alkonoklazt Computer systems and programs also conform to this underdetermined/overdetermined/uniquely determined classification. Don't know why the @function is not working properly ?

Which would be incorrect so you do, in fact disagree with Newton. A body will continue in its state rest of uniform motion, in its right line, unless acted on by a force. Which boils down to And a change to its state of motion is defined as an acceleration, whether from rest or any form of actual motion, rectiliear or otherwise. Note carefully the difference between what is needed to effect a change of motion and what will happen if no force is applied. An associated question If a force is applied to a body will it necessarily change its state of rest or motion ?

Another well thought out, well balanced post. +1

To try something and find it doesn't work......................................That is adventurous. And if you then learn something like why it didn't work then it may have been worth it. To try the same thing again with the same result........................ is foolhardy. To try the same thing a third time.............................................. Now that is just plain stupid.

Note that since T = 2π√(m/k). the period also depends upon the mass of the lamp.

What do the laws of Thermodynamics have to say about this ? Say you have a cubic metre of water at 5oC and you pump it down 1km. 1) How long will it have to stay there bring it up to 30oC? 2) Once it is up to temperature you pump it back up again. How much energy will this take ? 3) Once it is back to the surface and (ignoting losses) at 30oC, how much heat can you extract from it ?

Excellent, we need more women with an enquiring mind. But please try to respect the views of others as well as stating your own. And be prepared to modify your ideas as a result of discussions with others. The collection of the matters you have ranged over in this thread sound like a youngster trying to make sense of and reconcile different stories told to you by different teachers over a very wide range (religion, science, arts and so on). I don't know and I don't need to know if that's true and further I don't know if you are using a translator, though your English is pretty good. English is an excellent language because it allows two concepts for nouns and adjectives. English allows the 'abstract' and the 'concrete'. Colour is an abstract noun and I agree with you that 'colour is in the eye of the beholder.' So colour does exist as an abstract noun, as do individual colours. But you have some misconceptions about this as well. So two things arise from these statements. Firstly, colour is seen and used by other creatures than humans. More particularly, and amongs other creatures, bees, butterflies and estrelid finches see more colours than humans. This ability is called tetrachromacy. Many members have offered you information about how we know these things and of course you can look them up for yourself. If you look up the sensitivity of eyes to the three colour system I described, you will discover that the eye does not have the same sensitivity across the board. The eye sensitivity tails off in the red and blue regions and has a peak in the yellow/green in the middle. A botanist once described to me the connection between the enhanced yellow sensitivity and the fact that the first flowers of spring are nearly all yellow. There are fewer pollinators about at that time so it is important for the plants to best attract them. Secondly there is no way I can tell exactly what you see when you see a particular colour or if it is the same or different from what I see. Worse still, the question of what do you or I see when I view the same light source in either different circumstance or at a different time. Do I see the same colour ? There is an old joke about the American television system NTSC - 'never twice the same color.' So what have we learned about the subject of colour ? Well we have learned that colour is a very complicated subject and that what we is is subjective. Because of this subjectivity we require objective information and criteria, if we want to delve more deeply into the subject. Luckily modern science has developed many objective techniques and I have described a few. We have machines that can receive the incoming light and analyse it in an objective way so that we can compare one colour with another. We can then use these measurement for instance to set the colour guns in a cathode ray tube so that it is producing an identical colour (ie standardisation) to that of another cathode ray tube. And from you point of view you can extend to understanding of the subject of colour to include objectivity v subjectivity. Objectivity v subjectivity is incredibly important in science.

One further consideration for those who think that 'colour' is determined by the frequency of some wave and nothing else. Since this has been placed in quantum physics, The frequencies of light produced by quantum processes is very tightly defined by the process. So the spectral lines are the same if you are on Earth or Sirius or Alpha Centauri. However because these places are moving at speed relative to each other each observer will observe the line produces by the others at a different frequency. This is known as the Galactic redshift. The patterns of these lines are used for astronomical calibrations, but the absolute frequencies cannot be so used, only their shifts are significant.

Of course I gave you human references. References suitable to martians wouldn't be of much use would they ? Is a reference to time an attempt to deflect attention from yourself ? The answer is #9e978e Around the world, printers, artists, designers, textile companies and many more use the Pantone system of colour referencing. Some companies even have their own special Pantone colour and are very jealous of anyone else using it. The point is that if you are going to print, paint or otherwise put a design onto something such as a piece of paper, plastic, tea-shirts, packaging, company headed paper, you want the colour the be identical. That is the point of the Pantone system. https://www.pantone.com/color-systems/pantone-color-systems-explained So are you going to answer my questions or not ?

First you say and Then you say and If we ignore the typo in your statement of the frequency of green light, how is this not directly contradicting yourself ? How is your (typo corrected) statement not a measurement ? You say you read what I offered so you should have found out that I can set my computer screen to show a colour wash of 16 colours, 256 colours, 64 thousand colours and so on. To do this I must have a measurement to instruct the computer circuitry to generate all these different colours. In fact you should have found out that the standard measurement provides 3 numbers which are not frequencies. This then enable me to generate the same colour on my screen as someone in Australia, if she gives me her 3 numbers. So please do not tell me you cannot measure colour. There are many other way to do this for other purposes. Final question for you to think about If I go out in the dark and illuminate my grass lawn with a strontium lamp, what colour will the grass appear to me ?

Thanks for your view.

Usually new work of any description extends existing knowledge, but remains compatible with where existing knowledge is known to work. The have been a very few cases where the new work has actually contradicted existing thinking, caloric would be an example, but such examples are very few indeed. And there has never been a case where the existing rules of mathematics has been breached in the way that you are trying to do here.

Did you read the material I offered or am I wasting my time ? If you come to the PHYSICS section of a scientific discussion forum like this one and start rabbitting on like this you can't imagine how quickly you will loose credibility. I call the first quote trying to introduce religion by the back door and the second quote preaching religion.

Like this and the rest of your summing up +1 Now here's a thought Philosophical determinism is a bit of a cop out isn't it ? After it it is a bit like the God-did-it brigade. Determinist. "Actions are determined !" Questioner " Can you show me how to determine any action ?" Determinist "No idea but I believe it can be done if all the information and all the rules are known" Questioner "So who knows all of this stuff ?" Determinist " God ?" Something else I have never been able to get a determinist to clarify. Is determinism A Priori or Posteriori or both or neither ?

Cream cake ? Yes please. +1

I thought we had agreed that all motion is relative to something other than the object itself. You did not object when I asked you for a definition of motion and rephrased your reply in a more useful form. You also replied that you disagreed with Newton's First Law. Do you know what Newton's First Law states ? The book on the table is not moving on or from the table, yet there are forces acting on it. If i add another small force by pushing gently with my finger the book still does not move from the table, why is this ?

This is progress. +1 😀 The plus 1 is because this is the first time you have laid things out in proper fashion. You see that immediately, even whilst I was writing this, folks have been able to see what you are doing and offer sensible and useful comment. However listing your symbols and stating what they stand for is really good practice and what I mean by progress. So many waste so much time and effort just writing algebra down. (did you know that although our word, algebra was, was named after early arabic 'al-jabr', which meant completion ?) I am sorry but yes your algebra is flawed. So let us look at your algebra. (I will only work the first equation) You claim this expression for your RR Force. [math]F = 1 - \sqrt {\frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}} [/math] To show that this does not lead to the expression for the force per unit mass as you then stae, proceed as follows. [math]F - 1 = \sqrt {\frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}} [/math] [math]{\left( {1 - F} \right)^2} = \frac{1}{{1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}}}[/math] [math]\frac{1}{{{{\left( {1 - F} \right)}^2}}} = 1 + \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{1}{{{{\left( {1 - F} \right)}^2}}} - 1 = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{{1 - {{(1 - F)}^2}}}{{{{(1 - F)}^2}}} = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{{1 - {F^2} + 2F - 1}}{{{F^2} - 2F + 1}} = \frac{{m{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\frac{{{c^2}F\left( {F + 2} \right)}}{{m{v^2}{{(F - 1)}^2}}} = 1[/math] We have now reached the stage where we can isolate F/m, your force per unit mass. [math]\frac{F}{m} = \frac{{{v^2}{{(F - 1)}^2}}}{{{c^2}\left( {F + 2} \right)}}[/math] And we some that not only is the expression much more complicated than yours, but it still contains F. This is because the original expression is what is known as implicit. That is it is not possible to separate the variables F and m to obtain an explicit expression between them. An explicit equation would contain only an expression in F on one side and an expression in m on the other, which is what you are trying to do.

So you had a good idea that turned out to be wrong. So move on. The good news is that nobody was killed by your idea. Unfortunately that does happen with 'good ideas' from time to time, especially if someone clings to them in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

And I am still waiting for you to complete your side of the bargain. 😀

What is your variable that is measured in seconds ? Seconds alone is not a variable.

Where do F and F' magically come from in mechanics ? This has nothing to do with Group theory or Noether This simply require properly substituting for every force acting in two frames and comparing the results You need two particles to consider this properly. Consider two particles acting through a force F (x1, x2) where x1 and x2 are the x coordinates of particles 1 and 2 respectively and m1 and m2 are their masses. We have due to the force of interaction by Newton's third Law. [math]F\left( {{x_1},{x_2}} \right) = {m_1}\frac{{{d^2}{x_1}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] and [math] - F\left( {{x_1},{x_2}} \right) = {m_2}\frac{{{d^2}{x_2}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] now imagine a second frame (denoted by dashes or primes) translated so that its origin is at x0 in the original frame We have [math]{x_1} = {x_1}' + {x_0}[/math] and [math]{x_2} = {x_2}' + {x_0}[/math] Substituting the new parameters into out master equation we have [math]F\left( {x{'_1} + {x_0},x{'_2} + {x_0}} \right) = {m_1}\frac{{{d^2}x{'_1}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] and [math]F\left( {x{'_1} + {x_0},x{'_2} + {x_0}} \right) = {m_2}\frac{{{d^2}x{'_2}}}{{d{t^2}}}[/math] Now please explain why you think there is form invariance between the x and x' frames, when the form of the equations in the x' frame is so clearly different from that of the x frame ? Further the equation depends upon the origin of the x' frame, which the original does not.