Paradox Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Law II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impress'd; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impress'd. dv/dt is proportional to F momentum = mV so F = d(mV)/dt If we consider m to be a constant then we get: F=m dv/dt a= dv/dt Therefore F = ma Where's the mistranslation? Euler used a translation involving 'rate of change' where you have written 'alteration' There is no 'rate of' change in the original latin, just change. Newton's concept of force is more akin to the modern concept of impulse (force [by modern understanding] times time), supplied in the form of a push or a 'kick'. And yet we come to the same conclusion. So again I ask, where's the mistranslation? I clearly said! It's 'rate of change of motion' instead of what it should be; mutationem motus = change in motion B.T.W. "Alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force" is the same as: "rate of change of motion is proportional to force" How about this then, what formula was Newton stating according to you? It's pretty obvious: mv2 - mv1, where v1is the starting and v2 is the finishing velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And for those who trot out the old fallacy that the mass translation ( E supposedly equals gamma*mc2) renders Newton's second law invalid at close-to-light speeds, there is absolutely no reason why, in Newon's system, we can't say that force is equal to m2v2 - m1v1 where m1 is the starting and m2 is the finishing mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Well, if the ivory tower you dwell in is a non-Popperian one, why do it's foundations have to be connected to the Earth at all! You'd be hard pushed to find a staunch (or even anything approaching it) Popperian in the philosophy of science community nowadays. Yes Paradox, I'd be hard pushed, because I don't mix in those circles, remember? Oh and you'd probably be hard pushed too. Why? Because you'd most likely reject anyone else's definition of what a staunch Popperian is - in favor of your own definition. No -- it's because very few philosophers would confer upon such a nebulous term as 'science' the exalted and well-defined status that Popper and, generally, the science community like to. ...and 'science' needs the seal of endorsement/approval of these philosophers? Like a fish needs a bicycle? Machines stop working, experimentation becomes impossible, universal laws and constants begin varying, effect precedes cause and cosmic chaos ensues? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I clearly said! It's 'rate of change of motion' instead of what it should be; mutationem motus = change in motion B.T.W. "Alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force" is the same as: "rate of change of motion is proportional to force" How about this then, what formula was Newton stating according to you? It's pretty obvious: mv2 - mv1, where v1is the starting and v2 is the finishing velocity. The only thing obvious here is that you have done nothing to the formula. V2-V1 = delta v The change in velocity can only be measured as you have already pointed out over time t (delta v)/t as t gets smaller is exactly the same thing as dv/dt which is the rate of change of velocity or acceleration. Thus we get: F= m dv/dt, since a=dv/dt F=ma What exactly have you achieved other than word salad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And for those who trot out the old fallacy that the mass translation ( E supposedly equals gamma*mc2) renders Newton's second law invalid at close-to-light speeds, there is absolutely no reason why, in Newon's system, we can't say that force is equal to m2v2 - m1v1 where m1 is the starting and m2 is the finishing mass. You really haven't studied physics have you? We regularly do that and have been regularly doing that for many many years. Not only in physics but in engineering. How exactly do you thing the velocity of a rocket is calculated with its fuel mass being expended? How do you think we calculate fuel capacity designed on large ships where its even more complex due to the water line change affecting the drag? Then there were the common physics problems taught at year 11 for calculating the acceleration of a known volume with mass M cylinder ejecting X litres of water per second under pressure. You are bringing up arguments at the year 11 physics level like they are new to science. My god, how dumb to you think the world of engineering and physics is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I clearly said! It's 'rate of change of motion' instead of what it should be; mutationem motus = change in motion B.T.W. "Alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force" is the same as: "rate of change of motion is proportional to force" How about this then, what formula was Newton stating according to you? It's pretty obvious: mv2 - mv1, where v1is the starting and v2 is the finishing velocity. The only thing obvious here is that you have done nothing to the formula. V2-V1 = delta v The change in velocity can only be measured as you have already pointed out over time t so your (delta v)/t as t gets smaller is exactly the same thing as dv/dt which is the rate of change of velocity or acceleration. Thus we get: F= m dv/dt, since a=dv/dt F=ma What exactly have you achieved other than word salad? Sorry mate but if you try telling a physicist that an impulse, measurable as mv2-mv1, is the same as a force (in the modern conception), measurable as ma, then he'll give you one of those funny looks that only a physicist can give. Newton's conception of force was a function of time. The modern conception of force is instantaneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 And for those who trot out the old fallacy that the mass translation ( E supposedly equals gamma*mc2) renders Newton's second law invalid at close-to-light speeds, there is absolutely no reason why, in Newon's system, we can't say that force is equal to m2v2 - m1v1 where m1 is the starting and m2 is the finishing mass. You really haven't studied physics have you? We regularly do that and have been regularly doing that for many many years. Not only in physics but in engineering. How exactly do you thing the velocity of a rocket is calculated with its fuel mass being expended? How do you think we calculate fuel capacity designed on large ships where its even more complex due to the water line change affecting the drag? Then there were the common physics problems taught at year 11 for calculating the acceleration of a known volume with mass M cylinder ejecting X litres of water per second under pressure. You are bringing up arguments at the year 11 physics level like they are new to science. My god, how dumb to you think the world of engineering and physics is? You have missed the whole point. Now at this stage, if I was you or some of the other contributors to this thread, I wouldn't elaborate, as it would be too much like showing my hand. But the obvious point is simply that the relativists think mass increases with velocity (actually, most of them nowadays even reject that Einsteinian idea, as it is contrary to the principle of relativity, what with extra gravitational forces being in on the fray), and this renders Newton's second law false. This is patent nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Sorry mate but if you try telling a physicist that an impulse, measurable as mv2-mv1, is the same as a force (in the modern conception), measurable as ma, then he'll give you one of those funny looks that only a physicist can give. Newton's conception of force was a function of time. The modern conception of force is instantaneous. You gave me your interpretation that he meant v2-v1 and I derived the same formula as every other scientist has. So, how about you, give us the whole formula, not part of it, that relates force and velocity w.r.t. time as you think Newton meant it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Sorry mate but if you try telling a physicist that an impulse, measurable as mv2-mv1, is the same as a force (in the modern conception), measurable as ma, then he'll give you one of those funny looks that only a physicist can give. Newton's conception of force was a function of time. The modern conception of force is instantaneous. More word salad. Show me your derived formula for what you think is Newton's law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Sorry mate but if you try telling a physicist that an impulse, measurable as mv2-mv1, is the same as a force (in the modern conception), measurable as ma, then he'll give you one of those funny looks that only a physicist can give. Newton's conception of force was a function of time. The modern conception of force is instantaneous. More word salad. Show me your derived formula for what you think is Newton's law. I have already given it to you three times. And you are no great shakes with algebra if you think that v2 - v1 would have got you anywhere near to dismantling the formula I gave, when there is a mass coefficient involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 PS... A2O -- what about all that other stuff you seem conveniently to have laid aside -- the gyroscope geometry, the twin paradox and the reciprocity of velocity, the objective measurability of values that Einstein says are purely relative to the observer, and so on and so on...??? We need answers, cobber!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The twin paradox isn't a paradox. Its been explained often enough, you don't accept the answer because you obviously don't understand it. The fibre optic laser you don't understand nor have you shown us the geometry that you claim you have done and as you have pointed out, its up to the person bringing forth the theory to show it. You haven't. Reciprocity of velocity explained here You can't give us a formula for your interpretation of Newtons law either? Thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The twin paradox isn't a paradox. Its been explained often enough, you don't accept the answer because you obviously don't understand it. The fibre optic laser you don't understand nor have you This is the old method of pushing relativity. It's a bit like the Turner Prize and doubtless many other modern art prizes: you don't like the art because you don't understand it. Well, you haven't done very well to try to help us no-hopers understand. Yet it remains the case that it the mark of one who understands, to be able to teach others what he knows. shown us the geometry that you claim you have done and as you have pointed out, its up to the person bringing forth the theory to show it. You haven't. I expect there are people reading this thread who have worked out the geometry of it already. All you need is a pen and paper and a drawing ability of something more than a three-year-old's. I have already said that the angle of reflection changes: the reflectors shift before the light reaches them so that it is more acute for one of the beams and more obtuse for the other, owing to the way that the receptor and each of the reflectors get closer to one light source than the other, leading to a shorter optical path for one in relation to the other. Since you brought the subject up, given the context, it's for you to show why I should reject the simple explanation in favour of the ludicrous relativistic one. You have failed to do so. Reciprocity of velocity explained here Sorry, duff link. (Fitting that it should be, too.) You can't give us a formula for your interpretation of Newtons law either? Thought so. You want me to say it a fourth time? mv2 - mv1 !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The twin paradox isn't a paradox. Its been explained often enough, you don't accept the answer because you obviously don't understand it. The fibre optic laser you don't understand nor have you This is the old method of pushing relativity. It's a bit like the Turner Prize and doubtless many other modern art prizes: you don't like the art because you don't understand it. Well, you haven't done very well to try to help us no-hopers understand. Yet it remains the case that it the mark of one who understands, to be able to teach others what he knows. shown us the geometry that you claim you have done and as you have pointed out, its up to the person bringing forth the theory to show it. You haven't. I expect there are people reading this thread who have worked out the geometry of it already. All you need is a pen and paper and a drawing ability of something more than a three-year-old's. I have already said that the angle of reflection changes: the reflectors shift before the light reaches them so that it is more acute for one of the beams and more obtuse for the other, owing to the way that the receptor and each of the reflectors get closer to one light source than the other, leading to a shorter optical path for one in relation to the other. Since you brought the subject up, given the context, it's for you to show why I should reject the simple explanation in favour of the ludicrous relativistic one. You have failed to do so. Back to the lowest common denominator theory then. Reciprocity of velocity explained here Sorry, duff link. (Fitting that it should be, too.) Works for me. You can't give us a formula for your interpretation of Newtons law either? Thought so. You want me to say it a fourth time? mv2 - mv1 !!!!! That's not a formula. Do you know what a formula even is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 You want me to say it a fourth time? mv2 - mv1 !!!!! That's not a formula. Do you know what a formula even is? It's not synonymous with an equation, if that's another of your duff ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 You want me to say it a fourth time? mv2 - mv1 !!!!! That's not a formula. Do you know what a formula even is? It's not synonymous with an equation, if that's another of your duff ideas. So you don't know what a formula is. What you have written is an expression. An expression provides a value. Newton mentioned force. Where does that appear in your expression? How is force related to what you have written since no where have you referenced force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 You want me to say it a fourth time? mv2 - mv1 !!!!! That's not a formula. Do you know what a formula even is? It's not synonymous with an equation, if that's another of your duff ideas. So you don't know what a formula is. What you have written is an expression. An expression provides a value. Newton mentioned force. Where does that appear in your expression? How is force related to what you have written since no where have you referenced force. Don't be stupid. Force is defined as change in momentum, as is very clear, especially since the second law expresses the proportionality of 'the forces impressed'. Are we going to get down to any serious business, any more, in this thread, or are you just going to keep deflecting the course of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Which is what I asked you for, the whole formula, not that you've provided it but I gather you mean the following. According to you, F= mV2 - mV1 F = m( v2-v1) delta v = v2 - v1 Again, the change in velocity as you have stated requires time, so F = m dv/dt dv/dt = acceleration. Thus F=ma And yet again I ask, how was this a misinterpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Which is what I asked you for, the whole formula, not that you've provided it but I gather you mean the following. According to you, F= mV2 - mV1 F = m( v2-v1) delta v = v2 - v1 Again, the change in velocity as you have stated requires time, so F = m dv/dt dv/dt = acceleration. Thus F=ma And yet again I ask, how was this a misinterpretation? Oh, Heck! acceleration is conceived as an instantaneous phenomenon. If you have two different velocities, v1 and v2, there are an infinite number of different acceleration curves to arrive at v2 from v1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 So you don't understand limits and differential calculus? btw Don't be stupid. Force is defined as change in momentum' date=' as is very clear, especially since the second law expresses the proportionality of 'the forces impressed'.[/quote'] Force is NOT defined as a change in momentum. Force can be present with no velocity, such as a weigh on a table. A compressed spring etc. Maybe you now understand why I wanted you to provide the whole formula, so there could be no excuses that I misinterpreted you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Oh' date=' Heck! acceleration is conceived as an instantaneous phenomenon. If you have two different velocities, v1 and v2, there are an infinite number of different acceleration curves to arrive at v2 from v1. [/size'] Really? Last I checked acceleration the rate of change of velocity. e.g. The average acceleration of the car was: X ms^2 over the 1/4 mile and time 9seconds. As we reduce t towards zero we start getting acceleration getting closer to instantaneous but we can never use t=0. Since we can never use t=0 it cannot be instantaneous. I have no idea where you got the impression that it was instantaneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Look, last time I was on this subject, a couple of weeks ago, we got into calculus and it was a lot of posts spect going round the houses and finding out nothing of any great significance, which is why I didn't mention it. If you want to play upon the two ideas of Newton's definition of force (which was deliberately idealised and conceived conditions of perfect elasticity) and the modern definition of force and keep saying I am wrong about what force is when I have not so much as stated my own conception of force, it's up to you. Stop picking up on every utterance with 'so you don't understand...' with arm-flailing persistence. I am getting fed up of this crap. Get on with the substantial issues or drop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 If you want to play upon the two ideas of Newton's definition of force (which was deliberately idealised and conceived conditions of perfect elasticity) and the modern definition of force and keep saying I am wrong about what force is when I have not so much as stated my own conception of force' date=' it's up to you. Stop picking up on every utterance with 'so you don't understand...' with arm-flailing persistence. [/size'] I have repeatedly asked you for the formula for your interpretation of newtons law which involves force. You gave me an expression instead. Then you said that force is defined as Force is defined as change in momentum Now you say you haven't discussed what your conception of force is. So it seems you have been arguing something which none of us were privy to. But, it seems to me you did up there and that is not what force is defined as by any standard I'm aware. You want me to stop saying you don't understand concepts yet it is clear that you either don't or you are deliberately being deceptive by redefining things to your own personal ideas without opening them up to scrutiny then hailing that the concepts everyone else uses don't match those that you are using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 You want me to stop saying you don't understand concepts yet it is clear that you either don't or you are deliberately being deceptive by redefining things to your own personal ideas without opening them up to scrutiny then hailing that the concepts everyone else uses don't match those that you are using. You are following in strong tradition. Einstein made his whole crap argument through sentences that began with 'It is clear that...'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaToOmega Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 You want me to stop saying you don't understand concepts yet it is clear that you either don't or you are deliberately being deceptive by redefining things to your own personal ideas without opening them up to scrutiny then hailing that the concepts everyone else uses don't match those that you are using. You are following in strong tradition. Einstein made his whole crap argument through sentences that began with 'It is clear that...'. When real world results confirm the theory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts