Why two mass attracts each other?

[Farsight]

But Minkowski doesn't refer to a screw. In the text you cite the translation is "force-screw". Other translators use "wrench in mechanics" or other phrases. He originally used German words that refer to a feature of mechanics where a combination of forces can be broken down into a (somewhat) arbitrary decomposition.

This is one example of one reason why textual analysis of translations should not be used in the place of actual physics.

Indeed, you take one translation, you studiously avoid studying physics, and you claim yourself the authority of physics.

PhysBang, you still don't know any physics, and you're still too arrogant to understand that people will look this up for themselves. In the original-German Raum und Zeit Minkowsi used the words Kraftschraube der Mechanik. People can translate it for themselves too. And by the way, here's the original Maxwell. There it is in black and white:

"A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw."

Did you see that? Screw? No translation there. But you didn't mention that did you? You are transparent, PhysBang. People can see right through you. LOL, you're screwed.

 

[OnlyMe]

PhysBang, you still don't know any physics, and you're still too arrogant to understand that people will look this up for themselves. In the original-German Raum und Zeit Minkowsi used the words Kraftschraube der Mechanik. People can translate it for themselves too. And by the way, here's the original Maxwell. There it is in black and white:

"A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw."

Did you see that? Screw? No translation there. But you didn't mention that did you? You are transparent, PhysBang. People can see right through you. LOL, you're screwed.

Translating German to English, is not always an exact "science".

"Kraftschraube der Mechanik" to "Force of the screw mechanism", could in "intent" be interpreted as "rotation" or a twisting motion... The mechanism of force one sees in a screwing motion.

As far as Maxwell is concerned a literal translation of an analogy, does not always lead the reader to the author's intent...

All of these quotes are from another time and another knowledge base. It is important to read history with an understanding of the knowledge base, of the time, as well as the theoretical basis upon which the history in question emerges.

You seem to do a lot of interpreting the past, based on what you believe today, or even sometimes based on some earlier interpretation. Go back far enough and that same experience becomes the action of a god or gods...

Maxwell believed in an aether, in the style of the day.., something which has been fairly put to rest, as an inaccurate description of reality.., and much of how he explained his ideas and science, was rooted in the mechanical characteristics of that aether.

You do the same thing with Einstein, as if you were unaware that GR today, is a far more complex and evolved theory than it was back in the day.

You read things, out of the context, within which they were intended and/or originated. We may all be guilty of the same, from time to time but with you it seems the rule rather than the exception.

 

[Markus Hanke]

"Kraftschraube der Mechanik" to "Force of the screw mechanism", could in "intent" be interpreted as "rotation" or a twisting motion... The mechanism of force one sees in a screwing motion.

"Mechanik" means mechanics, not mechanism ( which would be "Mechanismus" ). That is a world of a difference. "Kraftschraube der Mechanik" therefore translates literally to "force screw of mechanics", as in classical mechanics.
This from someone who has been speaking fluent German, amongst other languages, for 35 years.

Translating German to English, is not always an exact "science".

Very true. I should tell you that Google Translate is in fact a very dangerous tool when it comes to interpreting German.

 

[Farsight]

Translating German to English, is not always an exact "science".

"Kraftschraube der Mechanik" to "Force of the screw mechanism", could in "intent" be interpreted as "rotation" or a twisting motion... The mechanism of force one sees in a screwing motion.

It's not an exact science, but it's good enough. You don't have to be a genius to know what schraube is.

As far as Maxwell is concerned a literal translation of an analogy, does not always lead the reader to the author's intent...

He said what he said.

All of these quotes are from another time and another knowledge base. It is important to read history with an understanding of the knowledge base, of the time, as well as the theoretical basis upon which the history in question emerges.

It's important to read what those guys said. Then when you see it's nothing like what some self-appointed expert said they said, you understand that the self-appointed expert is serving up bad science.

You seem to do a lot of interpreting the past, based on what you believe today, or even sometimes based on some earlier interpretation. Go back far enough and that same experience becomes the action of a god or gods...

Don't clutch at straws in order to dismiss what Einstein/Maxwell/Minkowski actually said. Just read it. Do not go into denial because it doesn't match what you've been told.

Maxwell believed in an aether, in the style of the day.., something which has been fairly put to rest, as an inaccurate description of reality.., and much of how he explained his ideas and science, was rooted in the mechanical characteristics of that aether.

So did Einstein. See his 1920 Leyden Address. The idea that Einstein dispensed with aether is a popscience fairy tale for kids. See this where you can read but if you’ve heard Frank Close or John Ellis talk about the Higgs field as a kind of “relativistic aether”.

You do the same thing with Einstein, as if you were unaware that GR today, is a far more complex and evolved theory than it was back in the day. You read things, out of the context, within which they were intended and/or originated. We may all be guilty of the same, from time to time but with you it seems the rule rather than the exception.

I do my own research. You should do the same. Think for yourself.

 

[CHRIS.Q]

I think it is decided the direction of motion of the particles.

 

[eram]

This from someone who has been speaking fluent German, amongst other languages, for 35 years.

Your name sounds German too.

 

[Markus Hanke]

Your name sounds German too.

Let's just say I grew up and received my eductation in a multilingual environment

 

[eram]

Let's just say I grew up and received my education in a multilingual environment

Nice.

I took German lessons a couple of years back, but when we progressed to listening comprehension, auf Wiedersehen.

I just couldn't understand what was being said lol

 

[OnlyMe]

"Mechanik" means mechanics, not mechanism ( which would be "Mechanismus" ). That is a world of a difference. "Kraftschraube der Mechanik" therefore translates literally to "force screw of mechanics", as in classical mechanics.
This from someone who has been speaking fluent German, amongst other languages, for 35 years.

Markus, my intent was not to offer an accurate translation, it was to highlight the fact that interpretation cannot be made word for word... So how does the intent of the literal translation, "force screw of mechanics" interpret to English, within the context of the knowledge base and culture of the mid to late 1800's?

 

[OnlyMe]

Farsight, you seem to have a great deal of difficulty both recognizing and putting historical analogy into context.

If you read the Leyden address, in it's entirety Einstein talks about SR, GR, space-time and the.., or an ether.., in several contexts. They are not always consistent. He in essense describes space-time as the ether of GR, while at the same time he describes space-time ("empty space") as dynamic ("neither homogeneous nor isotropic"), while denying a dynamic character to the ether, ("The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities...")

Einstein was speaking to a group of students and professors about GR only 5 years after its initial publication. The underlying changes in context had not yet been incorporated into even university education, let alone any education leading up to that level. Most of his audience came to an understanding of reality that was based largely on the aether of Lorentz, Poincare, even Maxwell, an aether of the 1800's, which was consistent with Newtin's concept of space and time. He was speaking to his audience within the context of their background and attempting to introduce a change in thier fundamental understanding, of reality.

 

[eram]

Markus, my intent was not to offer an accurate translation, it was to highlight the fact that interpretation cannot be made word for word... So how does the intent of the literal translation, "force screw of mechanics" interpret to English, within the context of the knowledge base and culture of the mid to late 1800's?

Perhaps it is loosely related to Ampere's law.

 

[hansda]

I have a understanding that, "Gravitational Force" is dependent on "Strong Nuclear Force".

 

[eram]

I have a understanding that, "Gravitational Force" is dependent on "Strong Nuclear Force".

Where the hell did you get that from?

Oh my... stop making stuff up.

 

[PhysBang]

PhysBang, you still don't know any physics, and you're still too arrogant to understand that people will look this up for themselves. In the original-German Raum und Zeit Minkowsi used the words Kraftschraube der Mechanik. People can translate it for themselves too.

So, despite the fact that you don't actually know how to do physics (since you always avoid answering physics questions), you want to overturn all of physics on the basis of Google Translate?

And by the way, here's the original Maxwell. There it is in black and white:

"A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw."

Did you see that? Screw? No translation there. But you didn't mention that did you? You are transparent, PhysBang. People can see right through you. LOL, you're screwed.

Thanks for the link in context. It is quite clear that Maxwell is not saying that there is a screw involved in electromagnetism and that his discussion is entirely about mechanics.

 

[brucep]

So, despite the fact that you don't actually know how to do physics (since you always avoid answering physics questions), you want to overturn all of physics on the basis of Google Translate?

Thanks for the link in context. It is quite clear that Maxwell is not saying that there is a screw involved in electromagnetism and that his discussion is entirely about mechanics.

He's what cranks call themselves: Conceptual Physicist. The only thing required is acknowledgement of your own brilliance. Hence he qualifies. Interesting that cranks always seem to think those that disagree with their nonsense are posters but anybody just reading acknowledge their brilliance.
He wants to mock you but the real mockery is his crank intellectual dishonesty.

 

[eram]

He's what cranks call themselves: Conceptual Physicist. The only thing required is acknowledgement of your own brilliance. Hence he qualifies. Interesting that cranks always seem to think those that disagree with their nonsense are posters but anybody just reading acknowledge their brilliance.
He wants to mock you but the real mockery is his crank intellectual dishonesty.

What about those who write Conceptual Physics textbooks?

 

[Farsight]

Thanks for the link in context. It is quite clear that Maxwell is not saying that there is a screw involved in electromagnetism and that his discussion is entirely about mechanics.

No, in context he's talking about electromagnetism. And everybody can read it, so you cannot hope to get away with your assertion.

Farsight, you seem to have a great deal of difficulty both recognizing and putting historical analogy into context...

I don't. The difficulty is yours. When you read Maxwell/Einstein/etc saying something at odds with what you've been taught, you search for specious reasons to dismiss what they said, such as "context". And you persist with that even though the context is crystal clear. For example follow the Maxwell link above, read more than just the line I quoted. Then you will appreciate that Maxwell really was talking about the screw nature of electromagnetism. His discussion was not "entirely about mechanics". It's similar for Einstein and his Leyden Address. The guy said what he said.

 

[Markus Hanke]

No, in context he's talking about electromagnetism. And everybody can read it, so you cannot hope to get away with your assertion.

I hope you are not still confused about the difference between chirality and helicity. The latter is a feature of electromagnetism, the former is not. This has already been explained to you - I suggest you accept it and simply move on. I really don't get why this is so difficult to fathom.

 

[Farsight]

I understand the difference between chirality and helicity and was never confused by it. Chirality is a feature of electromagnetism. Google it and what comes up? Top of the list is the wikipedia article Chirality (electromagnetism). Electromagnetic wave propagation is described in terms of helicity, but we can conduct pair production with electromagnetic waves to create the electron and the positron which exhibit opposite chirality. They do not acquire it by some kind of magic. Chirality is a feature of QED too. I suggest you accept it and simply move on.

 

[eram]

...Two electrical charges of opposite polarity also attracts each other. Two magnets of opposite polarity also attracts each other.

It's because electromagnetism has a chirality or "handedness".

I understand the difference between chirality and helicity and was never confused by it. Chirality is a feature of electromagnetism.

...Top of the list is the wikipedia article Chirality (electromagnetism).

I don't think you were referring to the same thing mate.