Jump to content

Is there such a thing as derivitives from vibrations?


CuriosOne
 Share

Recommended Posts

This takes on the same ideas as changes from a body accellerating, accept this time the body is held still while vibrating  in a medium that is being disturbed by some external forces..Perhaps a stationary boat bobbing up and down as another boat passes by it..

Or think about a point in space vibrating left and right and you want to take the instantaneous vibration of the right area location..

What's the point? Several things pertaining to un-balances and correcting them...

I get this idea from "Statistics" using Bell's Theorem..

Edited by CuriosOne
Misspelling..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is “derivative” here? What is “take the instantaneous vibration of the right area location”?

A boat bobbing up and down is not stationary.

 

From the viewpoint of someone aboard a boat, surely it is stationary. It's the sea outside which is going up and down.  This is elementary Galilean relativity. Which applies to us all.

For example, from the point of view of the Earth, the Sun is going round it. When the the Sun rises in the east, goes across the sky, then sets in the west,  no-one on Earth experiences any sense of motion.  We stay still.  We don't experience any "whirling" movement.

How can you confute this?  Without offending both Special and General  Relativity?

Edited by Charles 3781
neatness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is “derivative” here? What is “take the instantaneous vibration of the right area location”?

A boat bobbing up and down is not 

Calculus uses things that move, just replace the thing that moves with something that vibrates..

Is it really that hard? something bob's up and down, where is the force greater??

In the up location or down location??

I found this book that explains thnXxx

Vibration Analysis with SOLIDWORKS Simulation 2016

 
 
 
 
 
  1. Vibration Analysis with SOLIDWORKS Simulation 2016
  2. 51w3uW%2Bar3L._AC_SY200_.jpg

 

21 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

From the viewpoint of someone aboard a boat, surely it is stationary. It's the sea outside which is going up and down.  This is elementary Galilean relativity. Which applies to us all.

For example, from the point of view of the Earth, the Sun is going round it. When the the Sun rises in the east, goes across the sky, then sets in the west,  no-one on Earth experiences any sense of motion.  We stay still.  We don't experience any "whirling" movement.

How can you confute this?  Without offending both Special and General  Relativity?

Great Point!!!!!

Edited by CuriosOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

From the viewpoint of someone aboard a boat, surely it is stationary. It's the sea outside which is going up and down.  This is elementary Galilean relativity. Which applies to us all.

Accelerations are not relative. The people in the boat know they are moving. (You tend not to get seasick if you’re stationary)

Newton’s first law and all.

38 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

For example, from the point of view of the Earth, the Sun is going round it. When the the Sun rises in the east, goes across the sky, then sets in the west,  no-one on Earth experiences any sense of motion.  We stay still.  We don't experience any "whirling" movement.

And yet we can tell we’re moving. Not that this is a relevant example.

 

38 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

How can you confute this?  Without offending both Special and General  Relativity?

I think you overestimate your mastery of physics.

 

 

24 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Calculus uses things that move, just replace the thing that moves with something that vibrates..

It was not at all clear to me you meant mathematical derivative. Derivative of what variable, with respect to what?

24 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Is it really that hard? something bob's up and down, where is the force greater??

Was it so hard to use “force” when you meant “force”?

Something bobbing up and down - let’s assume a sinusoid motion in time. The second derivative is the acceleration. So maximum at the max displacement

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Accelerations are not relative. The people in the boat know they are moving. (You tend not to get seasick if you’re stationary)

Newton’s first law and all.

And yet we can tell we’re moving. Not that this is a relevant example.

 

I think you overestimate your mastery of physics.

 

 

It was not at all clear to me you meant mathematical derivative. Derivative of what variable, with respect to what?

Was it so hard to use “force” when you meant “force”?

Something bobbing up and down - let’s assume a sinusoid motion in time. The second derivative is the acceleration. So maximum at the max displacement

 

You say ""acceleration is not relative"" if this is true,  this answers all my questions, and "Now" physics makes sense...

What is accelleration?

Is it when an object starts its "speed or velocity" from 0 to higher and higher speeds 1,2,3...on a "straight upward path?"

 

I need to make sure I know before I move onto other "bigger topics here."

Edited by CuriosOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swansont said:

a = dv/dt

Any change in velocity is an acceleration

Can you show me with numbers in them??

I don't want to ask this but our velocity acts like a distance then?

Why not?

It's the only thing deriving quantities of change, while the changes are all conserved....This is pretty deep.....

Does this means Einstein's Special Relativity was based on this very concept?

Velocity is linear then??? But bends time as Space Time???

 

Is this the correct way to think about velocity as a ""straight line???""

Edited by CuriosOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Charles 3781 said:

Do you mean that a change in velocity, by slowing down, is actually an acceleration?

Yes

6 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Can you show me with numbers in them??

It's better to no use numbers, but if your speed changes from 1 m/s to 2 m/s in 1 second, you have a ∆v of 1 m/s and an acceleration if 1 m/s^2. (if a is constant, a = ∆v/∆t)

But, if you're moving at 1 m/s in a circle with a radius of 1m, you also have an acceleration of 1 m/s^2, since your direction of motion changes. Acceleration and velocity are vectors. Changing your direction of motion requires an acceleration. (this is pointed out in Newton's first law)

6 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

I don't want to ask this but our velocity acts like a distance then?

No, velocity is velocity

But a constant velocity implies straight-line motion

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes

It's better to no use numbers, but if your speed changes from 1 m/s to 2 m/s in 1 second, you have a ∆v of 1 m/s and an acceleration if 1 m/s^2. (if a is constant, a = ∆v/∆t)

But, if you're moving at 1 m/s in a circle with a radius of 1m, you also have an acceleration of 1 m/s^2, since your direction of motion changes. Acceleration and velocity are vectors. Changing your direction of motion requires an acceleration. (this is pointed out in Newton's first law)

No, velocity is velocity

But a constant velocity implies straight-line motion

 

"Understood" both examples make better sense than most explanations, thnXxxx!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.