Why you think so?
Duration is time difference between two instants of time. The time stamp marked at every post in this forum can be considered as an instant of time.
What does it mean?
Please explain this.
Correct.
Modifying Newton's First Law of Motion
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
Why you think so?
Duration is time difference between two instants of time. The time stamp marked at every post in this forum can be considered as an instant of time.
What does it mean?
Please explain this.
hansda:
Arguably, one could say that Newton's 1st law follows from the second. The second says is there is no force, there is no acceleration. No acceleration means motion in a straight line with constant speed, and that's Newton's 1st law.
I think that Newton put the 1st law there explicitly to counter the Aristotlean idea that an applied force is required to keep something moving at constant speed.
There is no measurable "compressive force" on an object due to relativistic length contraction.
In your model, is time quantised, or continuous?
Normal, Newtonian mechanics, says that at any value of t, the continuous time variable, F(t) has some value. How is your theory any different from that?
As for kicking a football, the force applied by the kick is not instantaneous. The force is applied over a short time. It's what is sometimes called an impulsive force.
Certainly there is a classical description of reflection, which describes light as electromagnetic waves. Reflection occurs at the boundary between two media, for well-understood reasons. There is another, quantum description of reflection, too, but the explanation is broadly similar.
---
I'm still not seeing how your theory improves on Newton's.
That's a difficult question for me to answer, actually. Newton never really defines the term "force". In a sense, all of Newton's three laws implictly define what a force is, and what forces do.
Arguably, one could say that Newton's 1st law follows from the second. The second says is there is no force, there is no acceleration. No acceleration means motion in a straight line with constant speed, and that's Newton's 1st law.
I think that Newton put the 1st law there explicitly to counter the Aristotlean idea that an applied force is required to keep something moving at constant speed.
When you say "Newtonian Model", do you mean your model, or Newton's?
There is no measurable "compressive force" on an object due to relativistic length contraction.
I would need to sign up to something to do that.
You still haven't defined "instant of time".
In your model, is time quantised, or continuous?
Normal, Newtonian mechanics, says that at any value of t, the continuous time variable, F(t) has some value. How is your theory any different from that?
Photons are complicated things with both particle and wave properties. Reflection is perhaps best described as a wave phenomenon.
As for kicking a football, the force applied by the kick is not instantaneous. The force is applied over a short time. It's what is sometimes called an impulsive force.
You mean reflection?
Certainly there is a classical description of reflection, which describes light as electromagnetic waves. Reflection occurs at the boundary between two media, for well-understood reasons. There is another, quantum description of reflection, too, but the explanation is broadly similar.
---
I'm still not seeing how your theory improves on Newton's.
I have sympathy with handsa's notion of instantaneous acceleration, as it is a natural element of my own TOE. But I have to agree with the detractors who claim it has no place or in any way enhances Newton Laws of Motion. Let me explain (hopefully) briefly.
Scratch, break or otherwise reduce any "Newtonian body" down into its fundamental nubbies and what do we find? Quantum ensembles and ensembles of Quantum ensembles. The whole Newtonian narrative of continuous bodies moving continuously through Time and Space useful but as an explanation of the physical universe it IMHO is a sham. When Schroedinger says you cannot describe a quantum entity in terms of classical particles he is IMHO correct exactly because the effort would be analogous to defining a "tree" in terms of very large numbers of forests!! Besides being extremely complex, the whole exercise is logically self-referencing. (Whether this was his logic is besides my point.)
Large numbers tone down some of the 'illogical' quirkiness of QM, but at the root, it does not eliminate the discrete nature of all quantum/classical motion. Nor does the 'averaged' mathematical techniques used to describe CM. Deep down, QM and CM are already joined at the hip; and the deep reason instantaneous acceleration of classical bodies cannot occur is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The time required for the coordination of the effect of a given force on a whole classical body (aka ensemble of very, very many quantum events) must always be greater than zero.
This also calls into question the Copenhagen Interpretation, which insists on "classical measuring" devices. Should not the logical flaw invite unresolvable paradoxes like a magnet?
So where does instantaneous acceleration apply? With any body which is an intrinsic whole and not an assembly of parts -- quantum or otherwise. The absolute rigid wholeness of the particle's extension means there is no delay or decay in the effect of a force on the kinetic energy of the impacted body. Such particles have been known to physics -- the Atomos of Democritus and Leucippus, e.g. but no longer. What Democritus, and later Classical Atomists, did to the idea of "immutable and eternal" particles was tragic. But much has been left unexplored -- especially the treatment of "atoms and void" as a granular medium from which persistent dynamic wave phenomena are emergent.
My thoughts were not appropriate on a "science" thread but should be just so now this is an alternate theory thread (?)
d.
Scratch, break or otherwise reduce any "Newtonian body" down into its fundamental nubbies and what do we find? Quantum ensembles and ensembles of Quantum ensembles. The whole Newtonian narrative of continuous bodies moving continuously through Time and Space useful but as an explanation of the physical universe it IMHO is a sham. When Schroedinger says you cannot describe a quantum entity in terms of classical particles he is IMHO correct exactly because the effort would be analogous to defining a "tree" in terms of very large numbers of forests!! Besides being extremely complex, the whole exercise is logically self-referencing. (Whether this was his logic is besides my point.)
Large numbers tone down some of the 'illogical' quirkiness of QM, but at the root, it does not eliminate the discrete nature of all quantum/classical motion. Nor does the 'averaged' mathematical techniques used to describe CM. Deep down, QM and CM are already joined at the hip; and the deep reason instantaneous acceleration of classical bodies cannot occur is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The time required for the coordination of the effect of a given force on a whole classical body (aka ensemble of very, very many quantum events) must always be greater than zero.
This also calls into question the Copenhagen Interpretation, which insists on "classical measuring" devices. Should not the logical flaw invite unresolvable paradoxes like a magnet?
So where does instantaneous acceleration apply? With any body which is an intrinsic whole and not an assembly of parts -- quantum or otherwise. The absolute rigid wholeness of the particle's extension means there is no delay or decay in the effect of a force on the kinetic energy of the impacted body. Such particles have been known to physics -- the Atomos of Democritus and Leucippus, e.g. but no longer. What Democritus, and later Classical Atomists, did to the idea of "immutable and eternal" particles was tragic. But much has been left unexplored -- especially the treatment of "atoms and void" as a granular medium from which persistent dynamic wave phenomena are emergent.
My thoughts were not appropriate on a "science" thread but should be just so now this is an alternate theory thread (?)
d.
Just to let you know; saying that you have a 'Theory of Everything' is the same as proclaiming you are a pseudoscientist.
Actually, Newton's First Law and Second Law of Motion are related. Without first Law, Second Law has no meaning. And First Law also can be explained with the Second Law. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html
Newton defined "force" in his Second Law of Motion.
Newton's Third Law of Motion is not directly related with the 1st or 2nd law of motion; as you can see from the diagramme of the above link.
Correct.
I have no idea about Aristotlean view.
My theory/paper is based on Newtonian Model. So, it is Newtonian Model.
If there is measurable length contraction due to relativistic speed; there will be measurable strain. Strain is related with stress. Stress is related with force. So, "relativistic length contraction" can be related with "compressive force". This is as per Newtonian mechanics/model.
I dont know why some people are facing problem for accessing the links of my theory/papers.
If you consider force as function of time, a graph of F(t) can be drawn with F(t) values in the y-axis and time t values in the x-axis. "Instant of time" can be considered as any point on the x-axis. Here x-axis represents time t.
Its basically Newtonian Model. So, time is continuous.
My concept of time is same.
Even if it is a wave phenomenon, dont you think a force or something external is required for its reflection.
So, here force has a very short duration and F(t) vs t graph can be plotted.
It can be reflection, refraction, diffraction or bending of photon as in gravitational lensing. If no force is applied to a photon particle, it will move in a straight line. The moment its trajectory changes, we can say some force is applied to it.
Basically it is Electromagnetic Force which causes reflection.
You are making a statement about my theory? I believe you havent yet seen my theory/paper because you are not able to access the links for my papers.
The notion of "Instantaneous acceleration" is not mine. This notion is already existing. You can google it. I used the notion of "Instantaneous Force" to explain my theory. Considering F=ma; if F is Instantaneous Force, 'a' becomes "Instantaneous acceleration".
What is the significance of "(?)" . Are you framing some question, making a statement or expressing some doubts?
Hello Hansda, forgive the ignorance I have not got the time to read the entire thread. Six pages now and you seem to be struggling to explain some immediate force that is applied to something related with newtons first law.
An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by external forces . i.e wind resistance , friction, gravitation influence.
Are you in some way trying to change or extend this very respected law?
Interestingly, I have a very similar reaction when I read from quantum string theorists trying to present QST as a possible 'theory of everything'. I'm not a scientist or mathematician, so at least I have a decent excuse.
Technically, my own pseudology (which I call "Beon-Void Conjecture" or "BVC") is not a full-blown physical theory ... not yet. But I was pretty sure that "my own COE" would not be well comprehended. In the same vein I used the 'Atomos' vocabulary as something the typical reader here should be familiar with -- rather than 'Beon' or 'S(1)' or 'singleton', which are terms I use internally to refer to "fundamental" absolutely rigid "particles".
Absolutely rigid bodies cannot be "matter" and do not have, e.g., "mass". Ergo "F=ma" becomes meaningless. Quantum particles measure as having mass. Very large scale quantum ensembles do exhibit Newtonian Laws of Motion. What BVC advocates is two sets of Motion Laws: one for Newtonian bodies and one for (non-standard) absolutely rigid singletons. Hansda's proposal would fit in the latter case.
I know pretty much exactly how BVC is "non-standard". I also know that the standard model has holes in it which have persisted for centuries. E.g.: Why do inertial and gravitational mass measure equivalently? Answer that and you answer quantum mass and QG. But IMO, the current delineating (debilitating?) standard set of tenets in TSM are wrong and so make it impossible for 'real' science to solve many of its outstanding problems -- like unifying physics theory.
Even if all the pseudoscientists were mere monkeys on keyboards, the probability for success is still greater than zero. Compare to the same zero understandings which TSM offers up. Its a race, a 0-0 tie, and hope springs eternal.
d.
True, but that also means you are wasting your time making uneducated guesses about things you do not understand, but if it makes you happy, that is fine. Just don't expect anyone but fellow pseudoscience guys to waste the effort to discuss it.
Could be worse.. I could be papered and gainfully employed professionally -- taking pride in making uneducated guesses about things I don't understand. Pseudoscience guys of the world, untie!
Your concern for my usage of my time is duly appreciated.
d.
I don't think there are any jobs like that.
John.P:
Thanks for your interest with my theory.
Good question.
I am trying to extend the scope of Newton's First Law of Motion(Law of Inertia) to include the trajectories of mass-less particles.
Thanks for your interest with my theory.
Good question.
I am trying to extend the scope of Newton's First Law of Motion(Law of Inertia) to include the trajectories of mass-less particles.
Thanks for observing an application of my theory.
RADII
Registered Senior Member
hansda, I as well as "John P" got some way in, then said "All right, let's read the last pages first to find out how this ends!" Hence, my appearance here, instead of some place earlier on...
Apologies if this was resolved earlier, I saw references & questions regarding it, but never saw an answer from you (or missed it, perhaps). The question I have is: you postulate a quantized 'time' right? Your term 'instantaneous' [to me] implies a state change from 'not there' to 'there' & in the case of any particle, I can't make this work without a quantization of 'time.'
Am I correct? If so, I can accept that: as both 'massive' & 'massless' particles share the same 'time' then an action that applies to a 'massive' particle in instantaneous fashion can have the same application on a 'massless' particle; else, time has a duality that I can't accept, one for massive particles & one for massless particles.
RADII:
Thanks for your interest with my theory.
Its ok.
James R in his post #102 also asked me similar questions. I answered them in my post #105. You also can see my answers at the post #105.
I am considering the concept of time as it is considered in Newtonian Model of Physics. Here 'time' is continuous and not quantized.
It is basically an 'instant of time' in the time axis.
It is basically Newtonian Model of time. Here two consecutive instants of time can be considered at dt (infinitely small) time interval apart.
Here I am considering Newtonian Model of time for both massive & massless particles. There is no duality of time here.
Thanks for your interest with my theory.
Its ok.
James R in his post #102 also asked me similar questions. I answered them in my post #105. You also can see my answers at the post #105.
I am considering the concept of time as it is considered in Newtonian Model of Physics. Here 'time' is continuous and not quantized.
It is basically an 'instant of time' in the time axis.
It is basically Newtonian Model of time. Here two consecutive instants of time can be considered at dt (infinitely small) time interval apart.
Here I am considering Newtonian Model of time for both massive & massless particles. There is no duality of time here.
RADII
Registered Senior Member
Which would require a quantized time. On a continuous time line, then it would have to be there all the time, but increase in some fashion. Your statement "...two consecutive instants of time can be considered at dt (infinitely small) time interval apart" is the definition of quantized time.
Seems you are correct. In that case, what we consider as continuous is basically quantized.
I have observed three unknown forces, which can be considered in Newtonian Model. This can be seen here https://www.academia.edu/34096181/THREE_UNKNOWN_FORCES_TO_BE_CONSIDERED
Using my Instantaneous Law of Inertia, I have developed one more unknown force which may be responsible for metric expansion of space. I have correlated this force with Hubble's Law. This can be seen here https://www.academia.edu/34302744/One_More_Unknown_Force_to_be_Considered_as_Space_Force