Vector representations

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...
There are two 'kinds' of motion: 'Inertial' motion [vi*t],
and 'Forced' [accelerated] motion [at²/2]: Which
together [vi*t + at²/2] make up the 'Resultant'
motion that we "see". These are representable,
TO SCALE as vectors: The vectors may extend in any
direction; including backward [-] and forward [+]:


o---------------|----------------------|
l = vi*t s = at²/2
o---------------------------------------|
d = l + s = vi*t + at²/2


And if you add a constant for the starting position, such as x_0, then
the formula

d = vi*t + at^2/2 + x_0

will give you the exact milepost you have reached on the highway you
are travelling on!

Double-A

Assuming _any_ change in position [d] has a starting point; another term
in
the equation is superfluous. The equation is complete without x_0; which
would just shift the starting and ending positions equally anyways;
unless
it's zero!

You are trying to sneak the calculus in aren't you(;-?


Now, I wouldn't do that to you, would I? Fact is, I don't care
whether you use calculus or not. Like I said before, it's just a
tool. You can make up your firewood with the old bucksaw just as well
as with the chainsaw. It will just take a little more time and
effort, that's all.

Actually, I kind of like the way you hammer away at the fundamentals.
A lot of people memorize a lot of higher math, but forget what the
hell it's all about. Never hurts to keep reviewing, and questioning,
the fundamentals.

Double-A

With all your A's, you must have learned the fundamentals just the way
teacher taught. Didn't question authority?

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
Cut
"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...
There are two 'kinds' of motion: 'Inertial' motion [vi*t],
and 'Forced' [accelerated] motion [at²/2]: Which
together [vi*t + at²/2] make up the 'Resultant'
motion that we "see". These are representable,
TO SCALE as vectors: The vectors may extend in any
direction; including backward [-] and forward [+]:


o---------------|----------------------|
l = vi*t s = at²/2
o---------------------------------------|
d = l + s = vi*t + at²/2

Cut
A lot of people memorize a lot of higher math, but forget what the
hell it's all about. Never hurts to keep reviewing, and questioning,
the fundamentals.

Double-A

Despite what Gene Nygaard says; the slug has been part of the
foot-pound-second system of weights and measures longer than most of us can
remember. There is, and never was any confusion that the slug is a unit of
force. The foot, pound and second suffice for all quantity measurements, and
the slug is a mathematical constant: One slug = w/g = 32#/(32'/sec²) = f/a =
1# sec²/foot:

As far as I know, no one ever tried to make an artifact to fit that
criteria, but they did make a whole slew of counterweights for use on
weight-scales

The fact that many people never heard of the slug, and engineers have no
need for it, is because it has little usefulness. The fact that mass is a
measure of a body's inertia was virtually unheard of until the metric system
adopted mass as one of its fundamental units, because they were looking for
constants! Mass fit that criterion and weight doesn't.

They overlooked, or were ignorant of the fact that the measure of mass is
inertia; which is a measure of mass in that it's a _ratio_! A ratio of the
(net) force [f] to the acceleration [a] that it causes.

The rest is history; decimals are easier to use; if we can use mass as
weight when the situation calls for it. The newton's too small anyways.

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
news
N.. .. ..

Dense Moron Filter Activated.

"Ronald Stepp" wrote in message
...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
news
N.. .. ..

Dense Moron Filter Activated.


Your only hurting yourself Ron(:-)

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message om...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message
om...
There are two 'kinds' of motion: 'Inertial' motion [vi*t],
and 'Forced' [accelerated] motion [at²/2]: Which
together [vi*t + at²/2] make up the 'Resultant'
motion that we "see". These are representable,
TO SCALE as vectors: The vectors may extend in any
direction; including backward [-] and forward [+]:


o---------------|----------------------|
l = vi*t s = at²/2
o---------------------------------------|
d = l + s = vi*t + at²/2


And if you add a constant for the starting position, such as x_0, then
the formula

d = vi*t + at^2/2 + x_0

will give you the exact milepost you have reached on the highway you
are travelling on!

Double-A

Assuming _any_ change in position [d] has a starting point; another term
in
the equation is superfluous. The equation is complete without x_0; which
would just shift the starting and ending positions equally anyways;
unless
it's zero!

You are trying to sneak the calculus in aren't you(;-?


Now, I wouldn't do that to you, would I? Fact is, I don't care
whether you use calculus or not. Like I said before, it's just a
tool. You can make up your firewood with the old bucksaw just as well
as with the chainsaw. It will just take a little more time and
effort, that's all.

Actually, I kind of like the way you hammer away at the fundamentals.
A lot of people memorize a lot of higher math, but forget what the
hell it's all about. Never hurts to keep reviewing, and questioning,
the fundamentals.

Double-A

With all your A's, you must have learned the fundamentals just the way
teacher taught. Didn't question authority?


Why do you say that? I questioned authority all the time. But on
tests, I knew enough to give them the answers they wanted, not my
personal opinion.

In fact, I think it's good to learn the theories, math, and presumed
facts of the time in which you live. You need to thoroughly
understand what other people think before you can be convincing in
critiquing their views. If I lived in the days of Ptolemaic
astronomy, I would want to memorize every epicycle, even if I thought
there must be a more natural way to describe the motions of the
planets. Copernicus certainly learned the Ptolemaic system at the
university, before coming up with his own theory.

From what I have read of the astronomers of the middle ages, they
sounded a lot like some of today's GR and QM enthusiasts, "Just do the
math." They didn't try to visualize what was really going on with the
solar system back then, just like most nowadays don't try to visualize
what's really going on at the atomic level.

But although they might not be the ultimate theories, I would like to
learn as much as I can about GR and QM, because those are what
scientists today are using. I think it's good to have a foundation in
the current systems of knowledge, before attempting to propose
something better. At least by knowing the currently used theory and
math, you will command the respect you need to be listened to.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...

Why do you say that? I questioned authority all the time. But on
tests, I knew enough to give them the answers they wanted, not my
personal opinion.

In fact, I think it's good to learn the theories, math, and presumed
facts of the time in which you live. You need to thoroughly
understand what other people think before you can be convincing in
critiquing their views. If I lived in the days of Ptolemaic
astronomy, I would want to memorize every epicycle, even if I thought
there must be a more natural way to describe the motions of the
planets. Copernicus certainly learned the Ptolemaic system at the
university, before coming up with his own theory.

From what I have read of the astronomers of the middle ages, they
sounded a lot like some of today's GR and QM enthusiasts, "Just do the
math." They didn't try to visualize what was really going on with the
solar system back then, just like most nowadays don't try to visualize
what's really going on at the atomic level.

But although they might not be the ultimate theories, I would like to
learn as much as I can about GR and QM, because those are what
scientists today are using. I think it's good to have a foundation in
the current systems of knowledge, before attempting to propose
something better. At least by knowing the currently used theory and
math, you will command the respect you need to be listened to.

Double-A

GR, QM and the visualizeation of what's really going on at the atomic level
are all just speculation:
Copernicus got the idea of the Earth moving around the sun etc, from
Aristarchus of Samoa; by reading his work. Still Copernicus procrastinated
'til near death for fear of retribution.

I've got my ideas from reading about Descartes, Galileo, leSage and Newton
as well as many others; incuding Einstein and his predecessors. If you don't
like them because they're my interpretations; you're welcome to criticize,
reject or accept them: But they are something that people are taking
seriously; with trepidation., whether they admit it or not(:-)

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message m...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...

Why do you say that? I questioned authority all the time. But on
tests, I knew enough to give them the answers they wanted, not my
personal opinion.

In fact, I think it's good to learn the theories, math, and presumed
facts of the time in which you live. You need to thoroughly
understand what other people think before you can be convincing in
critiquing their views. If I lived in the days of Ptolemaic
astronomy, I would want to memorize every epicycle, even if I thought
there must be a more natural way to describe the motions of the
planets. Copernicus certainly learned the Ptolemaic system at the
university, before coming up with his own theory.

From what I have read of the astronomers of the middle ages, they
sounded a lot like some of today's GR and QM enthusiasts, "Just do the
math." They didn't try to visualize what was really going on with the
solar system back then, just like most nowadays don't try to visualize
what's really going on at the atomic level.

But although they might not be the ultimate theories, I would like to
learn as much as I can about GR and QM, because those are what
scientists today are using. I think it's good to have a foundation in
the current systems of knowledge, before attempting to propose
something better. At least by knowing the currently used theory and
math, you will command the respect you need to be listened to.

Double-A

GR, QM and the visualizeation of what's really going on at the atomic level
are all just speculation:
Copernicus got the idea of the Earth moving around the sun etc, from
Aristarchus of Samoa; by reading his work. Still Copernicus procrastinated
'til near death for fear of retribution.

I've got my ideas from reading about Descartes, Galileo, leSage and Newton
as well as many others; incuding Einstein and his predecessors. If you don't
like them because they're my interpretations; you're welcome to criticize,
reject or accept them: But they are something that people are taking
seriously; with trepidation., whether they admit it or not(:-)


The more I read,the more amazed I am at how many different people made
contributions to science and mathematics from ancient times down to
the present. Any modern college textbook is a compendium of the
discoveries of many people. But because of the apparent "star system"
in physics, only the big names (Galileo, Newton, Einstein) get all the
credit. But truly many others also deserve credit for what we know
today.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
Shead wrote
Cut

Why do you say that? I questioned authority all the time. But on
tests, I knew enough to give them the answers they wanted, not my
personal opinion.

Don't you feel guilty about doing that? Just for the sake of a good grade.
You might have discovered the truth quicker if you'd expressed your opinion
at least a little bit: Say enough to get C's instead of A's(;^)

GR, QM and the visualizeation of what's really going on at the atomic
level
are all just speculation:
Copernicus got the idea of the Earth moving around the sun etc, from
Aristarchus of Samoa; by reading his work. Still Copernicus
procrastinated
'til near death for fear of retribution.

I've got my ideas from reading about Descartes, Galileo, leSage and
Newton
as well as many others; incuding Einstein and his predecessors. If you
don't
like them because they're my interpretations; you're welcome to
criticize,
reject or accept them: But they are something that people are taking
seriously; with trepidation., whether they admit it or not(:-)


The more I read,the more amazed I am at how many different people made
contributions to science and mathematics from ancient times down to
the present. Any modern college textbook is a compendium of the
discoveries of many people. But because of the apparent "star system"
in physics, only the big names (Galileo, Newton, Einstein) get all the
credit. But truly many others also deserve credit for what we know
today.

And they also ought to deserve demerits for misleading us into GR, QM and
the visualizeation of what's NOT really going on at the atomic level.

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
Cut

Why do you say that? I questioned authority all the time. But on
tests, I knew enough to give them the answers they wanted, not my
personal opinion.

Ya know 'straight A', I think that if a few smart cookies like you _did_
express their own personal opinions instead of going along with the stock
answers; it could very well lead to the truth: Instead you leave it to me;
who is dumb enough to think that there _is_ a real _true answer_, but is
having a tough time trying to prove it.

Think about it...

"Donald G. Shead" wrote in message om...
"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
Shead wrote
Cut

Why do you say that? I questioned authority all the time. But on
tests, I knew enough to give them the answers they wanted, not my
personal opinion.

Don't you feel guilty about doing that?

Not since grade school.

Just for the sake of a good grade.
You might have discovered the truth quicker if you'd expressed your opinion
at least a little bit: Say enough to get C's instead of A's(;^)

I may have expressed some of my opinions in class, but on a test, you
tell them what they want to hear.


GR, QM and the visualizeation of what's really going on at the atomic
level
are all just speculation:
Copernicus got the idea of the Earth moving around the sun etc, from
Aristarchus of Samoa; by reading his work. Still Copernicus
procrastinated
'til near death for fear of retribution.

I've got my ideas from reading about Descartes, Galileo, leSage and
Newton
as well as many others; incuding Einstein and his predecessors. If you
don't
like them because they're my interpretations; you're welcome to
criticize,
reject or accept them: But they are something that people are taking
seriously; with trepidation., whether they admit it or not(:-)


The more I read,the more amazed I am at how many different people made
contributions to science and mathematics from ancient times down to
the present. Any modern college textbook is a compendium of the
discoveries of many people. But because of the apparent "star system"
in physics, only the big names (Galileo, Newton, Einstein) get all the
credit. But truly many others also deserve credit for what we know
today.

And they also ought to deserve demerits for misleading us into GR, QM and
the visualizeation of what's NOT really going on at the atomic level.

Double-A