Physics

[Sasun]

OK, I will answer you tomorow, as I should go to sleep now.

 

As for the force, bring me your head, I will prove you that force exist, you will feel it.  

 

LOLOL ))) :D

 

No Domino stay away from my head

 

Edited April 11, 2003 by Sasun

[Guest Fadi]

Now, lets come to the answer.

 

Yes, I runed away from classical physic, I admit, but I had no choice, because you claimed that force don't exist, all is about movement. I could not do otherwise then leave classical physic, come in moder physic, prove you it exist, then leave again, and go for classical physic and after I proved you that force exist, I can prove you I am right about what I advance.

 

First of all, forces exist.

 

Lets take two big masses, two of the size of earth, then a big Giant take one in one hand, and the other in another, to prevent them to go one on each other(Gravity). During that moment, there is gravitational forces that is attracting on on each other, but there is no movement. If there is no forces, so what is making them go on each others ? Is that no forces ? Wait a minute, it is even classical physic(Newtonian ). Only forces could justify accelaration, the laws of movement only explain the transfert of movement, not accelaration, on the other hand forces explain it, and again from F = ma. Movement formula on the other hand, is M = mv, it takes in account the speed, not the acceleration. So if there is a possibility of acceleration, so there is forces.

 

So force do exist, and even during movement, when that object hit another, it is its inertty that gives that forces, it tries to resist, and that is dependent to it mass, so as long as there is mass, there is always force, and even when there could be no masses there will be force, because energy transfert to be possible, there should be a change in its localisation, it should change position, by doing such it should be propulsed, this propulsion is force. And even if you consider that this energy has no masses, it still will have a forces applied to it, equal to the limit 0. And here again, I will prove you that there is force. Imagine that there is something that has no mass... mass is 0, imagine that, then the force you apply to it is 0. Devide the mass from the force 0/0, to find the acceration. You end up by an undertimanted form 0/0, so the acceration is undeterminated, not 0, but underminated. And as long as there is acceration, there is force, even if this force is equal to 0. The same goes for the energy.

 

Imagine that at the starting point, there was no energy, no force, nothing. Imagine there was a 0. Mathematically speaking you could still produce something from nothing. Here is a prove 5 + -5 = 0. I can produce among many others, a 5 and a -5, so this 0, could produce a force, and an anti force, it could accerate the 0, it could as well accerate the 0 negativally, that this is why an acceration of the form 0/0, could give an infinity of answers.

 

I will stop there, because I will enter in the philosophy of physic, my theories about why the 4 fundamental forces exist, why two masses are attracted with each others etc... and I will bore you I think.

 

But in some, force exist everytime, it can be as the potential kind waited to be exploited as movement, or when not as movement as a way to resist.

 

 

As for religion, if you don't find any dogma's, then it would make you an agnostic, not a religious person. I may be a spiritual individual, but sure not a religious one.

Edited April 11, 2003 by Fadi

[Sasun]

Domino, you are doing a trick

So, first you said that an object that moves at a steady speed, has a force that is waiting to be exploited, and that means that there was an initila force, otherwise how could the object have a force? Then I didn't believe you and said there is no force. Now you bring the example of gravitational force, which has nothing to do with the original problem (except that it is a physics subjec too ) OK, so you found a force from somewhere (but I have a reservation, you will see below). But you still have to prove that the object moving with a steady speed had original force. I say, you can't prove it Let's see what kind of a trick you will do next.

 

My reservation about force. I want to make a point that force is a manifestation of movement, but I don't have a full proof (and I will not to tricks like you). Electromagnetic force: this is a result of movement or spinning of charged particles, this we know for certain. The electromagnetic fiald itself is a movement of photons. So, the so called force is only a tool to desribe and quantify the movement of particles. However, we all know very well that these particles obey different rules than macro objects. But it is not my problem, my job is only to show you that there is movement behind force

Strong/nuclear forces: now I have to fish from whatever is left in my rusty memory. If I am not mistaken, scientists have theoretized that this field is somewhat equivalent to electromagnetic field, in that the strong force/field results from the movement of small particles. I think these are called hadrons, but I am not positive. The basic principle to understand the logic is to remember how a rocket works. mv is thrown out of the rocket, and the rocket is propelled to the opposite direction. Imagine if the mass was negative, then the rocket would move to the same direction as the particles. So this is a small insight as to how (probably) the forces work.

Gravitation forces: according to Einsteins general theory of relativity, gravitational field travels at the speed of the light. A few months ago I read in the news about an experiement from astronomy that confirmed this view. So, although no particles have been found responsible for gravitational forces, there is compelling evidence that there are such particles that travel like photons.

Weak forces: I don't remember anything about weak forces. But who cares about weak forces? (I am sure you will find some analogues theory for weak fields)

 

And here again, I will prove you that there is force. Imagine that there is something that has no mass... mass is 0, imagine that, then the force you apply to it is 0. Devide the mass from the force 0/0, to find the acceration. You end up by an undertimanted form 0/0, so the acceration is undeterminated, not 0, but underminated. And as long as there is acceration, there is force, even if this force is equal to 0. The same goes for the energy.

Domino, this is not a proof, this is a trick In order to determine the acceleration of an object, you first of all have to use the definition of acceleration. According to that definition, what we call acceleration is the variation of speed. Since the speed is 0 and stays 0, there is no variation of speed. So, acceleration is 0, so is your imaginary force

 

Imagine that at the starting point, there was no energy, no force, nothing. Imagine there was a 0. Mathematically speaking you could still produce something from nothing. Here is a prove 5 + -5 = 0. I can produce among many others, a 5 and a -5, so this 0, could produce a force, and an anti force, it could accerate the 0, it could as well accerate the 0 negativally, that this is why an acceration of the form 0/0, could give an infinity of answers.

this is another Domino-trick.

 

 

I will stop there, because I will enter in the philosophy of physic, my theories about why the 4 fundamental forces exist, why two masses are attracted with each others etc... and I will bore you I think.

No, go on and tell me that stuff, it never bores me to expose your tricks and kick your ass

[Sasun]

Religion: I am definitely not agnostic. What do you mean by dogmas? I think that you understand differently (if ther is no dogma than the person is agnostic). I am spiritual and religious

[Guest Fadi]

I am not using any tricks You denied the existance of forces, so I had to prove they exist, so I have gravity as example. Strong forces are not due to movements, neither any ones of those movements, I can on the other hand say, that movements are the results of a force, where a short period of time there has been an acceleration. Forces, like for example electromagnetic, are not created by movement, those movements are created by forces, electrons are attracted by protons, not because of any movements, but because they are attracted, up quarks are attracted to down quarks, not because of movement, but because of forces. Forces exist, and it is one of the only things that I am sure exist. The theory of electromagnetic forces, is the unification of electric forces and magnetic forces, not lets take magnetic forces, and prove you that movement does not explain all. When you gives a potential electricity to a solenoid, there is a production of a magnetic(lets ignore electro) forces, that is perpendiculary to the electric vector. We can see that, as a transfert of forces from the electrons, perpendiculary from its direction, mouvement can in no way explain why both should be perpendiculary, mouvement should respect the final sense and direction of vectors, forces as well, but forces here could respect it, by definition of the forces resulting that will be perpendiculary to the electrons, just as force, and not as a product of forces from vectors. Now how mouvement could explain such perpendicularity ? It can just not.

 

Yes, there is hypotheses, about everything, for example the existance of gravity may be because of some sort of particules called Gravitons, and just recently they have even allegedly found the speed of gravitational force, that would be around those of light(like you said in your post). But that does not prove there is no forces, because forces exist and is defined by observations, it does not matter from what it is created, I can say it is not created, you can say it is due to movement, but that does not change the fact that forces exist, because it is just a word we found to explain a physical observation.

 

Now, acceration, in physical laws, you can define forces to be ma, ma is force, so everytime you want to say forces, you can just say ma, here, there is acceration, and masse, this is what forces is, so finding its causes, why it exist, the fact is that the definition of force would be ma.

 

Now, lets return to what I said previously. An object in movement has Kinetic energy, afterall the question was about that. Like I said, imagine that you have a slower object and a faster one, the faster one when it touches the other, it provide a force, that force exist, whatever or not you think it is created from another thing. Now, what makes your theory right, I mean, what proves in fact that this object continued like this, without being touched by anything. So you see, you are trying to prove me right, but you already uses a premiss that I can even reject, because you presupose even before starting that the object, just could move without being stoped, while, not only do I have to prove that an object is moving because a force has been applied to it, but as well, I have to do it in this possibility that this object always was moving. If that is not a trick, I wonder what it is. I mean, it is already difficult to explain the transfert of forces, in order to turn in cycle and trying to explain that an object will transfert its forces when it touches, that proves it has a forces that it will apply it to others, when it touches them. I will give you that, you were able to mix me and I feel like blank right now. Lets just say that you believe that an object could move, without having been applied any force to it, and that I say else.

 

I never was good at explaining physic, I must admit, I always was better in explaining philosophical concepts.

 

As for religion. Sorry I don't like to discuss about that, if you want to discuss about philosophy, I am your man.

[Sasun]

Domino jan, you are fine Sorry, I was just having fun above ( This happens when your job bores you). I never thought before about the above said, only these few days. Yes, you are right, forces do exist. But while we were dicussing it occured to me that force could be a secondary measure because in a lot of cases there is movement behind the force. Hence my argument which could be a total nonsense, so just ignore it.

I think we were actually talking more philosophy than physics - another example how people can turn a small problem into philosophy. BTW, you made some very interesting points, IMO (which I called tricks ). Another thing is that on average I don't clearly understand about 30% of your posts

I really like philosophy but don't know much. So, I would be glad to talk to you about philosophical topics, just bring something interesting if you like

[Guest Fadi]

That O.K like I said, I am really, really bad on explanning physics. But I am not the same with philosophy. So, lets give me some times to think of a new thread about philosophy.