Что такое сила?
Can Gravity be derived without using Newton's Gravitational constant?
- Thread starter quant
- Start date
Пожалуйста.Many thanks !!
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
That translates as "strength" which is not a thing in physics. I have strength to lift weights.
Force has a few forms in physics, one is from Newton
F =ma
F= Force
m=mass
a= acceleration
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Torque is another example, twisting force, cited a lot in terms of car performance.
T=rFsine(theta)
T= Torque
R=radius
F=Force
Sine theta = Sine of the angle
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Friction
Ff = μN
Frictional force= friction coefficient x normal force.
It gets more complicated when you get the atomic level, quantum mechanics. The Hamiltonian is the equivalent but let's quit there.
Ff = μN
Frictional force= friction coefficient x normal force.
It gets more complicated when you get the atomic level, quantum mechanics. The Hamiltonian is the equivalent but let's quit there.
Как бы вы это не назвали, хоть "сила", хоть "энергия", она должна иметь причину. Вы эту причину знаете? Я как то тут высказала свою идею, она вам не понравилась. Ну, придумайте что-нибудь лучше.
ольга, I am aware that trying to translate and understand an alien language must be difficult, however, if you had properly read my post, you would realise that the whole purpose of the post was to explore the causative factor behind gravity. Something which neither Einstein nor Newton were able to do. The fortunate thing here is that positive results are forthcoming.
Pinball1970, the main problem with science today is that the majority of physicists are unable to accept the fact that a major gaffe had taken place with the acceptance of wave-particle duality. A shift that has resulted in unacceptable conclusions when viewed from a logical point of view. Consider, in an unbiased manner; does it make sense that the bound electron is treated as a cloud within the atom and one can just begin to imagine how complicated this must be when multiple electron atoms are under consideration and all of these electron clouds not only have to interact with each other but also have to absorb and emit photons at rates of hundreds of trillions of hertz? What is really ironical is that within the nucleus, wave particle duality does not exist. Why is this? Within the nucleus 'virtual' gauge bosons (like photons) account for the stability of the nucleus. When the lamb shift has clearly indicated that electrons in the atom are constantly undergoing self-interactions by emitting and absorbing virtual photons, why was not wave-particle duality discarded? The constant emission and absorption of virtual photons by electrons would perfectly account for the stability of the atom, no need for wave particle duality, so why then did QM stick with wave-particle duality? . The answer is two-fold, in the first instance 'virtual particles' had not been discovered when wave-particle duality was discovered and would remain undiscovered for the next more than a quarter century. The second factor that was responsible for the retention of wave-particle duality is more occult, it is that quantum mechanics was just too heavily invested in wave-particle duality by that time. Take away wave-particle duality and quantum mechanics ceases to exist. All the Hilbert spaces with its multiple dimensions and the wave-functions etc., vanish, leaving nothing but Newtonian physics in its place.
Last edited:
Что сверхъестественного в дуализме? Смотайте нить в моток - вот вам частица, размотайте обратно в линию - волна.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Electric force another example.
Force= k q1q2
R>2
What causes forces? All the things I mentioned. There are 4 Universal forces in nature and they manifest in the equations I have pointed out.
Electromagnetic
Weak nuclear
Strong nuclear
Gravity
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
This is an outdated term
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Virtual particles are not a thing, only in pop sci. They are used as a mathematical tool to do calculations in quantum mechanics.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Force and Energy are related but are not the same thing. If you are talking about one or the other in physics it will form part of that specific equation.
I gave you a few examples.
What "causes" energy? It depends which energy you mean.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
The great thing about science is that when I use a word in context everyone should know what I mean.
It does not work that way in normal speak.
So what is energy? Energy is the ability to do work. What is work?
Force x distance.
My car breaks down so I have to push it to the pavement. I am using energy to exert a force on the car to move it.
What energy? Chemical energy of my body, muscles.
What forces do I have to overcome?
Inertia, things do not change motion unless there is a force acting on it. What forces are acting on the car?
Gravity. The car is accelerating towards the centre of the earth.
Friction, between the car and the road.
Energy, work, force.
Чем вам идея равновесия не понравилась? Или вы даже не читали? Она все эти силы объясняет, и легко объединяет физику макро и микро мира.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Why do you want replace physics with a random idea?
Physics works, you can do experiments and make predictions.
Does your idea do at least everything current physics does? Like fly rockets and build computers?
You have the equations ready so people can use them?
It explains things where current physics fails?
Если бы вы прочитали эту идею, то поняли бы, что она не опровергает физику, а только немного дополняет и объясняет то, что было уже подтверждено в экспериментах. Я просто собрала уже имеющиеся паззлы в одну картину.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Ok post one part explaining a significant phenomena illustrating this with equations
Заново всё переписывать? Я же уже писала здесь.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I have to translate every single post of yours to reply!
Send me the link, I don'know where it is.