A Conservative Force Law from Nothing (A Bit of Fun)
Jenny
ds = 0
Divide the the little Nothing into two “complementary” parts (dx and
cdt) such that
dx^2 + (cdt)^2 = 0 = ds^2
dx^2 = - (cdt)^2
dx = icdt (i)
Let's assemble all of our all dx’s into a continuum and call the
asembly “Space” and Let's assemble all of our all cdt’s into another
continuum and call that asembly “Time” (for want of better words)
Since we can never run out of Nothing, we can make our Space and Time
as big as we like.
Now we take a little bit of Extra Nothing (cal it "dstuffadded"), and
split this Extra Nothing into two parts (momentum and potential). We
add a little momentum (cdp) into time and a little bit of potential
(dV) into space and set
d(stuffadded) = 0
(We had to add Nothing, because Nothing is all that we have to work
with).
Nevertheless, even starting with Nothing, we can derive a Force Law,
by splitting the stuffadded into its components as follows:
(cdp)^2 + dV^2 = [d(stuffadded)]^2 = 0
(icdp)^2 = (dV)^2
icdp = dV
dp/dt = dV/icdt
but, from (i)
dx = icdt
so
dp/dt = dV/dx (ii)
Which is the fundamental equation for a conservative force.
Love,
Jenny
eric gisse
[...numerology...]
> dp/dt = dV/dx (ii)
>
> Which is the fundamental equation for a conservative force.
A force is conservative if F = -grad (some potential).
>
> Love,
> Jenny
Jenny
> Jenny wrote:
> > dp/dt = dV/dx
> > Which is the fundamental equation for a conservative force.
> A force is conservative if F = -grad (some potential).
That's a very weak criticism.
Firstly, you seem to have no sense of humour. The moderator at
SPResearch at least saw the humour in my post.
Secondly, your criticism is misplaced. The "-" sign makes no
difference to the "numerology".
If you don't understand this, think of negative and positive charges -
it might help.
Thirdly, you missed entirely the underlying point that the
conservative force arose naturally from a fundamental symmetry in what
is possibly the simplest possible cosmological model.
There might be a lesson in that. There again there might not.
I wonder where you think physical laws come from. Possibly it's not
interesting enough for you to think about. Possibly you don't think
about it because there's no answer. Perhaps you've already thought
about it and have an answer but you can't be bothered to give it.
Love,
Jenny
Tom Roberts
> On Jan 1, 3:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A force is conservative if F = -grad (some potential).
> difference to the "numerology".
Not true. The minus sign is ESSENTIAL. Otherwise there would be a force pushing
an object to a higher energy state, and all sorts of fundamental physical laws
would be violated. For example, with such a "force" it would be dead easy to
build a perpetual motion machine that generated arbitrary amounts of free energy.
Eric's definition is not quite correct -- it depends on
the topology of the manifold in question. In particular,
a conservative force is really one for which a closed
trajectory neither loses nor gains energy; the generalized
Stokes theorem then implies that it must be representable
by a closed differential form [#], not an exact form as Eric
said. But in any simply-connected manifold every closed
form is exact, so it is only in a non-simply-connected
manifold that the difference is important.
[#] There is a pun on "closed" here -- a closed differential
form is one whose exterior derivative is identically zero,
which is only distantly related to a closed trajectory. (An
exact form is one which is the exterior derivative of some
other form -- Eric's grad is essentially a way of writing the
exterior derivative in Euclidean space.)
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> Jenny wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 3:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A force is conservative if F = -grad (some potential).
> > [...] The "-" sign makes no
> > difference to the "numerology".
>
> Not true. The minus sign is ESSENTIAL. Otherwise there would be a force pushing
> an object to a higher energy state, and all sorts of fundamental physical laws
> would be violated. For example, with such a "force" it would be dead easy to
> build a perpetual motion machine that generated arbitrary amounts of free energy.
Honest Roberts, a perpetual motion machine that generates an unlimited
amount of energy out of nothing is a direct corollary of Einstein's
1905 false light postulate. The very long rod trapped inside a very
short container would exert such a force on the doors of the container
that Einsteinians, by harnessing this force, would be able to solve
all energy problems of humankind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/5fd35b8b38f2a49d?
EINSTEINIANA AS PERPETUUM MOBILE
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
> Honest Roberts, a perpetual motion machine that generates an unlimited
> amount of energy out of nothing is a direct corollary of Einstein's
> 1905 false light postulate.
Dishonest Valev, this is quite wrong. As has been explained to you many times in
many ways. You need to learn what these theories ACTUALLY imply, and not just
make unfounded GUESSES.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Honest Roberts, no GUESSES at all, let alone unfounded, on my part in
this case. According to your superior brothers Einsteinians, Divine
Albert's Divine Special Relativity ACTUALLY implies that "the rod will
be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn", and since you are
extremely honest, you should say something about the (ENORMOUS?) force
the compressed rod exerts on the doors of the barn (can in principle
this force be harnessed to produce work for Einsteiniana?):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Inertial
news:668504b0-07d5-4a48...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 4, 6:50 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > Honest Roberts, a perpetual motion machine that generates an unlimited
>> > amount of energy out of nothing is a direct corollary of Einstein's
>> > 1905 false light postulate.
>>
>> Dishonest Valev, this is quite wrong. As has been explained to you many
>> times in
>> many ways. You need to learn what these theories ACTUALLY imply, and not
>> just
>> make unfounded GUESSES.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Honest Roberts, no GUESSES at all, let alone unfounded, on my part in
> this case. According to your superior brothers Einsteinians, Divine
> Albert's Divine Special Relativity ACTUALLY implies that "the rod will
> be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn",
So?
> and since you are
> extremely honest, you should say something about the (ENORMOUS?) force
> the compressed rod exerts on the doors of the barn (can in principle
> this force be harnessed to produce work for Einsteiniana?):
No different to putting a compressed spring between two doors of a barn (in
Classical phsycis).
That's nothing like a perpetual motion machine, nor does it generate
unlimited energy
Really .. if you are going to make criticisms, don't post nonsense and
lies.
Anti Vigilante
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:36:30 -0800, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Jan 4, 6:50 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> > Honest Roberts, a perpetual motion machine that generates an
>> > unlimited amount of energy out of nothing is a direct corollary of
>> > Einstein's 1905 false light postulate.
>>
>> Dishonest Valev, this is quite wrong. As has been explained to you many
>> times in many ways. You need to learn what these theories ACTUALLY
>> imply, and not just make unfounded GUESSES.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
I'll try... Although I'm open to C+V (see my Recreational... thread in
s.p.particle) I can play with this a bit.
> Honest Roberts, no GUESSES at all, let alone unfounded, on my part in
> this case. According to your superior brothers Einsteinians, Divine
> Albert's Divine Special Relativity ACTUALLY implies that "the rod will
> be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn", and since you are
> extremely honest, you should say something about the (ENORMOUS?) force
> the compressed rod exerts on the doors of the barn (can in principle
> this force be harnessed to produce work for Einsteiniana?):
There are forces which make the rod the length that it is. These forces
are mediated by Van der Waals effects which are EM effects and hence
photons are involved. So the length is caused by light and the result of
relativity is not as mysterious then.
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at
> either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch.
> You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn.
> Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of
> light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity
> (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion:
> this is called the Lorentz Contraction.
Beginning here there's some more effects. I'll explain below.
> So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in
> the reference frame of a stationary observer..... So, as the pole passes
> through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
> barn.
Suppose that "within the barn" was represented by another idea.
Suppose you had two bullets at each end of the barn firing perpendicularly
1 second apart. If the rod were stationary at least one bullet would
penetrate. But using the bullet speed as analogous to the speed of light,
with the rod moving close to but slower than the bullet you could
conceivably arrange it so both bullets miss. Hence, the rod seems to fit
in the barn. And in reality I would think this is closer to what is meant
by length contraction than the literal interpretation.
The shortening of length, increase in mass, and time dilation are
measurement effects. But in reality, all measurements are EXPERIMENTS. All
measurements have a dependency on the whole condition of the environment
including the velocity being a cause of variation.
--
Fuck the Enlightenment! Viva la Renaissance!
Anti Vigilante
follow-up to header.
Can someone Copy and Paste previous message?
Androcles
"Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
news:hhv9ep$6r5$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
Androcles
> fr.sci.physique and astrophysique do not let me post even though I added
> follow-up to header.
>
> Can someone Copy and Paste previous message?
>
>
I only snip the snippers. Look up.
Anti Vigilante
> I only snip the snippers. Look up.
Oh no, see my news client got a complaint 441: Follow up to required.
Androcles
"Anti Vigilante" <antivi...@pyrabang.com> wrote in message
news:hhv9ep$6r5$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jenny
> Jenny wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 3:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A force is conservative if F = -grad (some potential).
> > [...] The "-" sign makes no
> > difference to the "numerology".
> Not true. The minus sign is ESSENTIAL. Otherwise there would be a force pushing
> an object to a higher energy state, and all sorts of fundamental physical laws
> would be violated.
NO! It's just a spelling issue.
All we have to do is recalibrate, if V is zero at infinity, then it is
positive at the Earth's surface.
I wrote "if you don't understand this, think of negative and positive
charges". I thought I wouldn't have to explain further.It's just a
spelling issue.
In household electric currents, electrons move from negative to
positive against the arrows in the current diagrams. That's why it's
sometimes suggested that the wrong "sign" was chosen for electon
charge. Changing the sign does not change the physics - it's just a
"spelling" issue.
In my model, where V is positive (a maximimum) at the Earth's surface,
then increase in kinetic energy is matched by an increase in potential
(which is it's imaginary complement - KE and V always sum to zero.
KE and V have the same complementary relationship that space and time
have. And the sum total of each pair is always zero.
Love (somewhat impatiently),
Jenny
Darwin123
> On Jan 1, 3:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jenny wrote:
> > > dp/dt = dV/dx
> > > Which is the fundamental equation for a conservative force.
> > A force is conservative if F = -grad (some potential).
>
> That's a very weak criticism.
>
> Firstly, you seem to have no sense of humour. The moderator at
> SPResearch at least saw the humour in my post.
>
Financial conservatives say that force is a difference in
potential. In other words, accomplishments are the results of
competition and human potential. Capitalism is great because it
encourages individualism.
I will not say that I agree with this completely. However, some
conservatives would have seen this right away.
Jenny
> I think you missed the joke.
> Financial conservatives say that force is a difference in
> potential. In other words, accomplishments are the results of
> competition and human potential. Capitalism is great because it
> encourages individualism.
> I will not say that I agree with this completely. However, some
> conservatives would have seen this right away.
Some think that an increase in cooperation (not competition) is
associated with an increase in human potential with consequent
accomplishments.
Standing on shoulders, not tramping on feet.
Love,
Jenny
polariton
> Jenny wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 3:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A force is conservative if F = -grad (some potential).
> > [...] The "-" sign makes no
> > difference to the "numerology".
>
> Not true. The minus sign is ESSENTIAL. Otherwise there would be a force pushing
> an object to a higher energy state, and all sorts of fundamental physical laws
> would be violated.
i disagree vehemently, the sign is only a reminder
both LHS and RHS are vectors, a sign in front of a vector,
just makes it look funny
> For example, with such a "force" it would be dead easy to
> build a perpetual motion machine that generated arbitrary amounts of free energy.
not sure, all energy is free,
please name a energy which is not free
>
> Eric's definition is not quite correct -- it depends on
> the topology of the manifold in question. In particular,
> a conservative force is really one for which a closed
> trajectory neither loses nor gains energy;
you mean motion along a closed path
> the generalized
> Stokes theorem then implies that it must be representable
> by a closed differential form [#], not an exact form as Eric
i disagree, the path do not need to be closed,
you just start and end at same potential, you lose nothing
> said. But in any simply-connected manifold every closed
> form is exact,
this is very pretty, because is closed
> so it is only in a non-simply-connected
> manifold that the difference is important.
what difference, I do not understand
>
> [#] There is a pun on "closed" here -- a closed differential
> form is one whose exterior derivative is identically zero,
> which is only distantly related to a closed trajectory. (An
> exact form is one which is the exterior derivative of some
> other form -- Eric's grad is essentially a way of writing the
> exterior derivative in Euclidean space.)
I do not understand
a force through a vector field is conservative iff
the vector field is a potential, what else?
this also true in relativity, yes?
>
> Tom Roberts
thanks
Darwin123
You are both right! You need both!
Like you, I myself am more with the cooperation camp. However, I
thought his dry referral to the "human potential" rather funny.
Since pointed out his lack of humor concenring conservatives, I
thought you would be amused to find out he was making fun of liberals
|:-)