| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Donald G. Shead" |
| Date: |
16 Jul 2003 04:16:46 AM |
| Object: |
Inertia |
The inertia of any given body, object, quantity, or mass of material matter
is a Constant: Its inertia is the quotient of the ratio of its weight [w],
divided by the acceleration [g] at which it will free fall at the location
of the scale on which it is weighed. This I call "gravitational inertia";
known previously [to me at least] as gravitational mass; for obvious [as all
get out] reasons: That is w/g is a constant for any given body; as long as
the body remains intact.
This gravitational inertia is equal in magnitude to the ratio of _any_ net
force [f = the total force (F) minus the product of a coefficient of
resistance (u) and the Earthweight: f = F-uw], and the acceleration [a] that
it causes; anytime, _anywhere_. That is f/a is a constant for any given
body; as long as the body remains intact.
Inertia = f/a = Gravitational Inertia = w/g!
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 07:48:44 AM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
The inertia of any given body, object, quantity, or mass of material matter
is a Constant: Its inertia is the quotient of the ratio of its weight [w],
divided by the acceleration [g] at which it will free fall at the location
of the scale on which it is weighed. This I call "gravitational inertia";
known previously [to me at least] as gravitational mass; for obvious [as all
get out] reasons: That is w/g is a constant for any given body; as long as
the body remains intact.
This gravitational inertia is equal in magnitude to the ratio of _any_ net
force [f = the total force (F) minus the product of a coefficient of
resistance (u) and the Earthweight: f = F-uw], and the acceleration [a] that
it causes; anytime, _anywhere_. That is f/a is a constant for any given
body; as long as the body remains intact.
Sigh!
Inertia
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Inertia.html
Weight
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things:
Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings.
And why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings."
Makes about as much sense as Shead eternal struggle with inertia,
weight and mass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 08:13:23 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F1549A9.6AAB8F40@mchsi.com...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
The inertia of any given body, object, quantity, or mass of material
matter
is a Constant: Its inertia is the quotient of the ratio of its weight
[w],
divided by the acceleration [g] at which it will free fall at the
location
of the scale on which it is weighed. This I call "gravitational
inertia";
known previously [to me at least] as gravitational mass; for obvious [as
all
get out] reasons: That is w/g is a constant for any given body; as long
as
the body remains intact.
This gravitational inertia is equal in magnitude to the ratio of _any_
net
force [f = the total force (F) minus the product of a coefficient of
resistance (u) and the Earthweight: f = F-uw], and the acceleration [a]
that
it causes; anytime, _anywhere_. That is f/a is a constant for any given
body; as long as the body remains intact.
Sigh!
Inertia
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Inertia.html
Weight
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things:
Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings.
And why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings."
What does Wolfram say about that? Any dictionary is a good "fictionary";
Wolfram's no better or worse than any other but why let them do your
thinking for you?
Makes about as much sense as Shead eternal struggle with inertia,
weight and mass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 09:00:27 AM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F1549A9.6AAB8F40@mchsi.com...
Sigh!
Inertia
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Inertia.html
Weight
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things:
Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings.
And why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings."
What does Wolfram say about that? Any dictionary is a good "fictionary";
Wolfram's no better or worse than any other but why let them do your
thinking for you?
Makes about as much sense as Shead eternal struggle with inertia,
weight and mass.
Weisstein, not Wolfram, is a good reference in newsgroup postings, in
terms of saving bandwidth, but is often not sufficient to address a
discussion argement. The above quotation from Lewis Carol is pure
nonsense, as often are your postings are about inertia, weight and
mass.
Human beings have developed counsiousness, communications and a
curiosity of the world about them, asking how things work. What we call
"physics" is a method of establishing "rules" and predictions about how
nature works. There are common terms that evolve to describe properties
and concepts to aid our communication.
"Inertia, weight and mass" are terms that are well defined so that we
can communicate in the same common language about those concepts.
Physicists, students of physics and others tend to use these terms with
those definitions. Weisstein does an excellent job of stating those
definitions.
I've always made the assumption, Shead, that you were trying to
understand the common usage of these terms: "Inertia, weight and mass".
Some of us were taking the time to help you with that understanding.
You probably have noticed that many of us resist your attempts to
change the common usage meanings of the physics community for those
terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 09:55:11 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F155A77.BA107695@mchsi.com...
Cut<
Some of us were taking the time to help you with that understanding.
You probably have noticed that many of us resist your attempts to
change the common usage meanings of the physics community for those
terms.
That's where dictionaries get their definitions: From common usage meanings.
If common usage is erroneous it finds its way into the dictionary: One lies,
and another swears to it.
My attempts to change the common usage meanings are only directed to
definitions that I've found erroneous. This would seem to me to be in the
best interests of humanity: Yet you keep referring me to those same darn
definitions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 10:03:48 AM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <u10889@snet.net> wrote in message
news:jHdRa.10408$GK5.3002688650@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F155A77.BA107695@mchsi.com...
Cut<
Some of us were taking the time to help you with that understanding.
You probably have noticed that many of us resist your attempts to
change the common usage meanings of the physics community for those
terms.
That's where dictionaries get their definitions: From common usage
meanings.
If common usage is erroneous it finds its way into the dictionary: One
lies,
and another swears to it.
My attempts to change the common usage meanings are only directed to
definitions that I've found erroneous.
But that doesn't mean that the physics community has found them to be
erroneous.
And what is it you mean when you say that a definition is erroneous.
This would seem to me to be in the
best interests of humanity: Yet you keep referring me to those same darn
definitions.
So? There's nothing wrong with what Sam has quoted. What is it you think is
wrong with them?
Pmb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 11:31:22 AM |
|
|
"Pmb" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:oPdRa.530$7O.378@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
"Donald G. Shead" <u10889@snet.net> wrote in message
news:jHdRa.10408$GK5.3002688650@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F155A77.BA107695@mchsi.com...
Cut<
Some of us were taking the time to help you with that understanding.
You probably have noticed that many of us resist your attempts to
change the common usage meanings of the physics community for those
terms.
That's where dictionaries get their definitions: From common usage
meanings.
If common usage is erroneous it finds its way into the dictionary: One
lies,
and another swears to it.
My attempts to change the common usage meanings are only directed to
definitions that I've found erroneous.
But that doesn't mean that the physics community has found them to be
erroneous.
No kidding: How long will that take?
And what is it you mean when you say that a definition is erroneous.
That means I've found it to be incorrect, and/or incomplete.
This would seem to me to be in the
best interests of humanity: Yet you keep referring me to those same darn
definitions.
So? There's nothing wrong with what Sam has quoted.
Yes there is: It's incorrect and incomplete.
What is it you think is
wrong with them?
Pay attention! I've been vociferating about this for years:
Pmb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 01:52:01 PM |
|
|
"Pmb" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:lmfRa.399$0F4.339@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Cut<
Here's a perfect example - I *specifically* asked you to state your case
and
you refuse?
Pmb
I've stated my case many times and places; I'm _sick_ of it: If you are so
interested: Do your own research on what I've already stated.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 09:03:06 AM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F1549A9.6AAB8F40@mchsi.com...
Sigh!
Inertia
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Inertia.html
Weight
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things:
Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings.
And why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings."
What does Wolfram say about that? Any dictionary is a good "fictionary";
Wolfram's no better or worse than any other but why let them do your
thinking for you?
Makes about as much sense as Shead eternal struggle with inertia,
weight and mass.
Weisstein, not Wolfram, is a good reference in newsgroup postings, in
terms of saving bandwidth, but is often not sufficient to address a
discussion argument. The above quotation from Lewis Carol is pure
nonsense, as often are your postings are about inertia, weight and
mass.
Human beings have developed consciousness, communications and a
curiosity of the world about them, asking how things work. What we call
"physics" is a method of establishing "rules" and predictions about how
nature works. There are common terms that evolve to describe properties
and concepts to aid our communication.
"Inertia, weight and mass" are terms that are well defined so that we
can communicate in the same common language about those concepts.
Physicists, students of physics and others tend to use these terms with
those definitions. Weisstein does an excellent job of stating those
definitions.
I've always made the assumption, Shead, that you were trying to
understand the common usage of these terms: "Inertia, weight and mass".
Some of us were taking the time to help you with that understanding.
You probably have noticed that many of us resist your attempts to
change the common usage meanings of the physics community for those
terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Gardner" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 08:41:11 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F155B17.BCA32F42@mchsi.com>...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F1549A9.6AAB8F40@mchsi.com...
Sigh!
Inertia
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Inertia.html
Weight
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Weight.html
Mass
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Mass.html
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things:
Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings.
And why the sea is boiling hot and whether pigs have wings."
What does Wolfram say about that? Any dictionary is a good "fictionary";
Wolfram's no better or worse than any other but why let them do your
thinking for you?
Makes about as much sense as Shead eternal struggle with inertia,
weight and mass.
Weisstein, not Wolfram, is a good reference in newsgroup postings, in
terms of saving bandwidth, but is often not sufficient to address a
discussion argument. The above quotation from Lewis Carol is pure
nonsense, as often are your postings are about inertia, weight and
mass.
Human beings have developed consciousness, communications and a
curiosity of the world about them, asking how things work. What we call
"physics" is a method of establishing "rules" and predictions about how
nature works. There are common terms that evolve to describe properties
and concepts to aid our communication.
"Inertia, weight and mass" are terms that are well defined
Really? By whom?
Take the case inertial mass. As Jammer points out in his 1999 book,
"Concepts of mass in contemporary physics and philosophy" (pp 9-12),
there are only two ways of objectively comparing the inertial masses
of two bodies, A and B, that interact or collide. These are:
Mach's: mA/mB = - aB/aA, the ratio of the accelerations of the
bodies;
Weyl's: mA/mB = - vB/vA, the ratio of the velocities of the bodies in
the centre of mass frame.
In the Newtonian limit, v << c, they both give the same result,
inertial mass = rest mass. But what we have today is most physicists
insisting that this assertion continues to hold at all velocities,
ignoring the fact that at relativistic velocities it no longer
satisfies either of the above criteria. We further find that many
texts on special relativity and relativistic mechanics choose to dodge
the issue.
Most of those that do addresss it, eg French (Special Relativity p 23)
and Rindler (Iintroduction to Special Relativity, p 80) adopt the Wehl
criterion which can only be satisfied at relativistic velocities by
accepting that inertial mass = relativistic mass = p/v = E/c^2. This
of course requires us to also accept that the inertial mass of the
photon is E/c^2, not zero!
Do the physicists who still insist that inertial mass = rest mass
really claim that a 100 Gev electron has less inertia than than a 1.0
Gev proton?
Phil Gardner
so that we
can communicate in the same common language about those concepts.
Physicists, students of physics and others tend to use these terms with
those definitions. Weisstein does an excellent job of stating those
definitions.
I've always made the assumption, Shead, that you were trying to
understand the common usage of these terms: "Inertia, weight and mass".
Some of us were taking the time to help you with that understanding.
You probably have noticed that many of us resist your attempts to
change the common usage meanings of the physics community for those
terms.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Inertia |
16 Jul 2003 01:25:45 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:hl8gu-4km.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
In sci.physics, Donald G. Shead
<u10889@snet.net>
wrote
on Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:16:46 GMT
<2K8Ra.10317$C83.2992094340@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com>:
The inertia of any given body, object, quantity, or mass of material
matter
is a Constant:
*Mass* is constant (barring movement; SR is weird :-) ).
*Inertia* is not measured.
[rest snipped]
I agree: SR _is_ weird, and inertia is not measured: Inertia _is_ the
measure; of mass.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
