Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#16141 01/18/06 08:22 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
No Ptolemy believed that bodies can only move around by "pushing" them; i.e. by expenditure of energy. McC also advocates this in his book. Galileo argued convincingly that bodies can move without needing to expend energy to move them. It is in this context that I am arguing that McC does not understand the fundamental basics of physics; i.e. relativity

.
#16142 01/19/06 02:37 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
L
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
L
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3
Yes, Galileo understood inertia and momentum,but if a body has inertia and momentum that is tangential relative to another body, is not energy required to change that straight line path to an orbit of some kind?i.e. Newton's first law of motion.

#16143 01/19/06 08:53 AM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
No, this is falacious reasoning. The "force" changes the momentum as required by Newton's second law; in fact when it is perpendicular to the velocity it can only change the direction of the momentum; not its magnitude. The kinetic energy is given by the mass multiplied by the square of the velocity; therefore it does not change at all. Thus no extra energy is imparted to the body. What we define as a "force" is the desire of a body to go to a lower potential energy. When a body performs circular motion it tries to diminish its potential energy by falling towards the centrum. It is, however prevented from doing so by moving tangentially with correct speed. This is how a sttelite stays aloft. Neither the kinetic nor the potential energy changes. So why do you require energy to keep it moving in a circle. This is why you also have a set of Newton's laws for angular movement. When moving in a circle the angular momentum stays constant (1st law of angular motion) the angular momentum can be changed by applying a torque (2nd law of angular motion etc.) These laws have worked experimentally for more than 300 years! So why do you need energy transfer to keep a body moving in a circle. Be careful to assume that "force" is an absolute concept. For example if somebody passes you in a train and throws a ball into the air, you will see the ball following a parabolic trajectory and conclude that the person on the train has thrown it at an angle to the vertical direction; i.e. has applied a "force" with a horizontal component whereas it is not the case. Einstein combined all these concepts beautifully in his theories of relativity which shows that bodies can move along "non-straight" trajectories while not changing their energies. Thus McC analysis is wrong and will not stand the test of experimental verification. A theory that does not do the latter is just plain cr*p.

#16144 09/28/06 06:30 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I am going to stick with Newton and Einstein for
now. Here is why.

We should have accelerated past the speed of light
by now on the Earth's surface. I have measured
the speed of light in fiber optics on my work
bench. If I am moving faster than light, why can
I bounce a light beam off the moon? Why does it
still take eight minutes for light to get here from
the sun?

The Final Theory is interesting but flawed I think.

#16145 09/28/06 11:19 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi JohnnyW:

I am the guy that made the original posting regarding the book. I have not read past the first few pages in the 80"s.

While not being specifically educated in the manner some of you point out I have spent many years of my spare time working on the Solar System, including the effects of gravitation,
and I found the author's speculation of expanding planets and other celestial objects to be such a great distraction from reality that I stopped reading the book and I have not touched it since. Note I bought the book because I was ready to greet a new theory with open arms. No author can trash proven and tested criteria just by talking about it without providing better working formulas that stand up to reality.

Even so, I am pleased for the author that there are those that enjoy his efforts.
jjw

#16146 10/02/06 02:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw:
. No author can trash proven and tested criteria just by talking about it without providing better working formulas that stand up to reality.
Well said jjw. One must be led by experimental results; however, sometimes scientists become so dogmatised that when a new experiment leads to "better working formulas that stand up to reality", they do not even want to consider it objectively. I do not think the latter applies to McCutcheon's book. It is my belief that his teachers in physics erred by stopping his course on classical mechanics before teaching him the fundamentals of rotational motion.

#16147 10/02/06 10:35 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi JB:

Some things are simply beneath the peers of the topic. The book I wrote, in basic math, shows that the Solar System is truly symplistic, and can be broken down into very little stuff.

I am working on a better product, more detailed and with more expression of my views.

Any way, getting back to your comment on rotational factors, in our space I wanted to copy 2 pages of my book to save typing a lot of numbers and skipped it. I will create a new post with an expression of detail that I think will cause a little wonder after the first crush.
Or maybe no interest.
jjw

#16148 10/03/06 01:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw:
Hi JB:

Some things are simply beneath the peers of the topic. The book I wrote, in basic math, shows that the Solar System is truly symplistic, and can be broken down into very little stuff.

I am working on a better product, more detailed and with more expression of my views.

Any way, getting back to your comment on rotational factors, in our space I wanted to copy 2 pages of my book to save typing a lot of numbers and skipped it. I will create a new post with an expression of detail that I think will cause a little wonder after the first crush.
Or maybe no interest.
jjw
I am looking forward to seeing it. good luck!!

#16149 10/03/06 02:51 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
jjw wrote: "No author can trash proven and tested criteria just by talking about it without providing better working formulas that stand up to reality."

Authors have the great advantage of being able to present what they want their readers to see. The problem is this - many, many things are very simple when you first look at them, but very complicated as you get into them. We learn things in elementary school that are not quite true. This is not because we are stupid, though some of us are. It is not because teachers are stupid, though some of them are. It's not because anyone made a mistake, though there's plenty of them.

It's because we are taught what we're ready to hear. And so, many children are taught that babies come from mommy's "stomach." It's not colloquially wrong, but technically it is wrong.
It's not a lie. It's not a mistake. It's like a place-holder for future explanation. Mind you, I never explained it to my own kids this way, but I sympathize with those who did.

Similarly MANY things that we learn in our youths tend to be simplifications of reality - math, chemistry, physics, English. But many people will never get past those simpler understandings. A more coherent understanding of physics doesn't help a person pump gas any better, or teach English, or write better programs (in general).

When an author writes something about science to a lay audience, he is not necessarily communicating the same thing he might be conveying to a more sophisticated audience, even though he is using the same words. A lay audience might say, "Well, THAT does sound interesting and compelling." But the lay audience knows what it knows. It will almost certainly not have the broader context of a scientific or engineering audience.

It's not just science. An author can write about, say, the etymology of some word and that explanation might be utterly convincing to a person who is not well-versed in that subject; whereas, a person who is more knowledgable will be rolling her eyes at the same history. This is not a hypothetical example. It's quite real. The net abounds with apocryphal folk derivations for various words.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5