FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
My thought on F=ma
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [10 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:19 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153213122.270064.254560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153120504.457023.235100@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hello,

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
If gravity is not a force, what is gravity then?

It is consistent with objects simply following
the straightest possible path through curved
spacetime. If you are fond of aether, you may
want to check out Ilja's work:
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/

I don't have a definite position on existence of
ether. I am open to either possibility.

Good. The Lorentz aether can neither be proved nor disproved in
this Universe.

Quote:
On the other end, could we conjecture all
force as a result of space-time curvature. i.e.
Force simply doesn't exist. We are bending
space-time with power(force as energy) all
the time? Why can't we say electromagnetic
force is not a force, but a curvature for
space-time for electromagnetic object?

OK. Magnetism requires two components to work. Charge and
motion. The motion part reveals "length contraction / time
dilation". But that is the extent to which curvature of a *4D*
manifold can take us. This leaves charge, which can supply a
force even when it is not moving, which radiates photons when it
is accelerating. Higher dimensionality might yield charge... I
don't know. But how we only get unitary charge... that makes me
think that dimensionality is not the answer to charge.

....
Quote:
I beg to differ here. Because it is the mechanic
working with our inventions make such a
comment.

And?

Clever, the mechanic ask us to invent a motor
that is free of this 'issue'. We are working on that.

Ask him to make an omelette without breaking eggs. Each new
feature has a price.

Quote:
Usually those motor has a high torque spin
slower, and those motor has a lower torque
spin faster. Being fast or slow, there is still
a limit.

The limit comes from the insulation, and the
vibrational stability of the rotor. *Not* the
electronics/magnetics. Your faster/slower
analogy is overcome in some ideal world by
increasing the applied voltage.

Good, we don't need to invent on demand!

No, you need a specification that is not a moving target.

Quote:
Why does we need more voltage to keep
spinning faster in a motor?

Rotational energy is still kinetic energy,
which comes from the power supply.
Losses in magnetising the various
windings/cores, prior to actually attracting
the rotor. Friction losses.

The big energy picture is not that simple,
you had to remember that the tendency to
maintain the rotational motion doesn't
residue in the rotating object itself. The
rotating Inertia has something to do with
the mass in universe.

Ernst Mach.

Quote:
When it is rotating in the vertical plane,
gravity is involved in the energy exchange.
I would refrain from start with conservation
of energy without a serious consideration
of every detail of energy exchange involved.

The only thing gravity will do is change the "static" loading on
the bearings. You don't need to make this harder than it has to
be.

David A. Smith
Back to top
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:58 am    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Quote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153120504.457023.235100@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hello,

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force
acting to accelerate a motor. However, this
explanation doesn't explain why this only
happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity.

If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to
explain.

I am not saying gravity is not a force,

OK. But gravity is consistent with *not*
being a force.

If gravity is not a force, what is gravity then?

It is consistent with objects simply following the straightest
possible path through curved spacetime. If you are fond of
aether, you may want to check out Ilja's work:
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/

I don't have a definite position on existence of ether. I am open to
either possibility. On the other end, could we conjecture all force as
a result of space-time curvature. i.e. Force simply doesn't exist. We
are bending space-time with power(force as energy) all the time?
Why can't we say electromagnetic force is not a force, but a curvature
for space-time for electromagnetic object?

Quote:
I am thinking about the theoritical consistency if I
hypothesis that ether is responsible for presence
of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation,
then why doesn't gravity also interact with ether?

Aether isn't affected by light, yet propagates light.
Why should it propagate gravity, yet be affected by
gravity?

Just a curious thought: Can't it propagate gravity
because it is affected by gravity? Much like water as
a meidum of sound wave.

You have to define "affected by" very carefully. If aether is
"sucked in" then all objects are gravitationally and EM-wise
completely isolated. Aether itself likely has no mass, but
neither do photons. Yet photons are at least "diverted" by
gravity.

Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take
place in a magnet doesn't encounter back
emf but a motor can't run too fast because of
back emf?

There is one rotating frame where the drag on
the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's
phase. That is where the motor runs. If the
load is trying to spin faster, it ends up
"powering the mains". The "back emf" comes
from the power grid.

I can see what happen if the load is trying to
spin faster than the motor. My question:
Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because
the coil would interact with the Magnets inside
in accordance to Lenz's Law as if it is inside a
Generator.

Notice that a DC motor can go "infinitely fast",
just keep apply more voltage. Up until the
insulation breaks down, or the rotor explodes...

I beg to differ here. Because it is the mechanic
working with our inventions make such a
comment.

And?

Clever, the mechanic ask us to invent a motor that is free of this
'issue'. We are working on that.

Quote:
Usually those motor has a high torque spin
slower, and those motor has a lower torque
spin faster. Being fast or slow, there is still
a limit.

The limit comes from the insulation, and the vibrational
stability of the rotor. *Not* the electronics/magnetics. Your
faster/slower analogy is overcome in some ideal world by
increasing the applied voltage.

Good, we don't need to invent on demand!

Quote:
Why does we need more voltage to keep
spinning faster in a motor?

Rotational energy is still kinetic energy, which comes from the
power supply. Losses in magnetising the various windings/cores,
prior to actually attracting the rotor. Friction losses.

The big energy picture is not that simple, you had to remember that the
tendency to maintain the rotational motion doesn't residue in the
rotating object itself. The rotating Inertia has something to do with
the mass in universe. When it is rotating in the vertical plane,
gravity is involved in the energy exchange. I would refrain from start
with conservation of energy without a serious consideration of every
detail of energy exchange involved.

Quote:
Does it a constant applied force on the rim of
a motor would constantly accelerate the object
in rotational motion? F=B*I, B doesn't change,
so I shouldn't. I just wonder if we are talking
about the same thing in different language.

Maybe.

David A. Smith
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:21 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153120504.457023.235100@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Hello,

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force
acting to accelerate a motor. However, this
explanation doesn't explain why this only
happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity.

If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to
explain.

I am not saying gravity is not a force,

OK. But gravity is consistent with *not*
being a force.

If gravity is not a force, what is gravity then?

It is consistent with objects simply following the straightest
possible path through curved spacetime. If you are fond of
aether, you may want to check out Ilja's work:
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/

Quote:
I am thinking about the theoritical consistency if I
hypothesis that ether is responsible for presence
of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation,
then why doesn't gravity also interact with ether?

Aether isn't affected by light, yet propagates light.
Why should it propagate gravity, yet be affected by
gravity?

Just a curious thought: Can't it propagate gravity
because it is affected by gravity? Much like water as
a meidum of sound wave.

You have to define "affected by" very carefully. If aether is
"sucked in" then all objects are gravitationally and EM-wise
completely isolated. Aether itself likely has no mass, but
neither do photons. Yet photons are at least "diverted" by
gravity.

Quote:
Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take
place in a magnet doesn't encounter back
emf but a motor can't run too fast because of
back emf?

There is one rotating frame where the drag on
the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's
phase. That is where the motor runs. If the
load is trying to spin faster, it ends up
"powering the mains". The "back emf" comes
from the power grid.

I can see what happen if the load is trying to
spin faster than the motor. My question:
Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because
the coil would interact with the Magnets inside
in accordance to Lenz's Law as if it is inside a
Generator.

Notice that a DC motor can go "infinitely fast",
just keep apply more voltage. Up until the
insulation breaks down, or the rotor explodes...

I beg to differ here. Because it is the mechanic
working with our inventions make such a
comment.

And?

Quote:
Usually those motor has a high torque spin
slower, and those motor has a lower torque
spin faster. Being fast or slow, there is still
a limit.

The limit comes from the insulation, and the vibrational
stability of the rotor. *Not* the electronics/magnetics. Your
faster/slower analogy is overcome in some ideal world by
increasing the applied voltage.

Quote:
Why does we need more voltage to keep
spinning faster in a motor?

Rotational energy is still kinetic energy, which comes from the
power supply. Losses in magnetising the various windings/cores,
prior to actually attracting the rotor. Friction losses.

Quote:
Does it a constant applied force on the rim of
a motor would constantly accelerate the object
in rotational motion? F=B*I, B doesn't change,
so I shouldn't. I just wonder if we are talking
about the same thing in different language.

Maybe.

David A. Smith
Back to top
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:15 am    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

Hello,

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Quote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force
acting to accelerate a motor. However, this
explanation doesn't explain why this only
happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity.

If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to
explain.

I am not saying gravity is not a force,

OK. But gravity is consistent with *not* being a force.

If gravity is not a force, what is gravity then?

Quote:
I am thinking about the theoritical consistency if I
hypothesis that ether is responsible for presence
of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation,
then why doesn't gravity also interact with ether?

Aether isn't affected by light, yet propagates light. Why should
it propagate gravity, yet be affected by gravity?

Just a curious thought: Can't it propagate gravity because it is

affected by gravity? Much like water as a meidum of sound wave.

Quote:
Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take
place in a magnet doesn't encounter back
emf but a motor can't run too fast because of
back emf?

There is one rotating frame where the drag on
the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's
phase. That is where the motor runs. If the
load is trying to spin faster, it ends up
"powering the mains". The "back emf" comes
from the power grid.

I can see what happen if the load is trying to
spin faster than the motor. My question:
Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because
the coil would interact with the Magnets inside
in accordance to Lenz's Law as if it is inside a
Generator.

Notice that a DC motor can go "infinitely fast", just keep apply
more voltage. Up until the insulation breaks down, or the rotor
explodes...

David A. Smith

I beg to differ here. Because it is the mechanic working with our
inventions make such a comment. Usually those motor has a high torque
spin slower, and those motor has a lower torque spin faster. Being fast
or slow, there is still a limit.
Why does we need more voltage to keep spinning faster in a motor? Does
it a constant applied force on the rim of a motor would constantly
accelerate the object in rotational motion? F=B*I, B doesn't change, so
I shouldn't. I just wonder if we are talking about the same thing in
different language.
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:46 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153069047.166321.29320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
....
The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force
acting to accelerate a motor. However, this
explanation doesn't explain why this only
happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity.

If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to
explain.

I am not saying gravity is not a force,

OK. But gravity is consistent with *not* being a force.

Quote:
I am thinking about the theoritical consistency if I
hypothesis that ether is responsible for presence
of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation,
then why doesn't gravity also interact with ether?

Aether isn't affected by light, yet propagates light. Why should
it propagate gravity, yet be affected by gravity?

Quote:
Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take
place in a magnet doesn't encounter back
emf but a motor can't run too fast because of
back emf?

There is one rotating frame where the drag on
the motor's rotor, matches the driving emf's
phase. That is where the motor runs. If the
load is trying to spin faster, it ends up
"powering the mains". The "back emf" comes
from the power grid.

I can see what happen if the load is trying to
spin faster than the motor. My question:
Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because
the coil would interact with the Magnets inside
in accordance to Lenz's Law as if it is inside a
Generator.

Notice that a DC motor can go "infinitely fast", just keep apply
more voltage. Up until the insulation breaks down, or the rotor
explodes...

David A. Smith
Back to top
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Quote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153017875.130210.21080@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
On 4/18/05, euler cheung <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote:
...
So when anyone/anything is exerting a force,
it is a mass that moving to a location where
it has already occupied by the mass we
would like to move.

Explain the motion of a radiometer. No
"initiating mass" is required. Likewise an electric
motor, where induced electric potential (aka.
"magnetic force") makes the motor's rotor
accelerate.

This also puzzle me too. Especially Lorentz's
force. My only explanation that can come up
with is: Ether.

Whatever floats your boat. But the contact forces that your
gedanken started with are also based on *charges*.

The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force
acting to accelerate a motor. However, this
explanation doesn't explain why this only
happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity.

If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to explain.

I am not saying gravity is not a force, I am thinking about the
theoritical consistency if I hypothesis that ether is responsible for
presence of this Force. If ether is offered as an explanation, then why
doesn't gravity also interact with ether?
Quote:

Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take
place in a magnet doesn't encounter back
emf but a motor can't run too fast because of
back emf?

There is one rotating frame where the drag on the motor's rotor,
matches the driving emf's phase. That is where the motor runs.
If the load is trying to spin faster, it ends up "powering the
mains". The "back emf" comes from the power grid.

David A. Smith

I can see what happen if the load is trying to spin faster than the
motor. My question: Presumably a motor can't spin too fast because the
coil would interact with the Magnets inside in accordance to Lenz's Law
as if it is inside a Generator. i.e. When the coil is rotate away from
a Magnetic pole, it would create an attractive force by attempting to
form an attractive pole; When the coil is rotate toward a Magnetic
pole, it would create an repulsive force by attempting to form an
repelling pole. But when we simply pass a electrical current through
the rim of a Magnet, the Magnet spin faster and faster and faster. Both
are without loading, but why later appear to have no upper limit of
rotational velocity? Even if we are not using a coil, we use straight
conductor wire, we nevertheless encounter the same speed limit issue
impose by back EMF generated to counteract the rotation. The only
difference seems to me is a conductor wire contain the electrical
current, but a naked Magnet does not.
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:09 pm    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153024461.346517.285620@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153017875.130210.21080@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
On 4/18/05, euler cheung <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote:
...
So when anyone/anything is exerting a force,
it is a mass that moving to a location where
it has already occupied by the mass we
would like to move.

Explain the motion of a radiometer. No
"initiating mass" is required. Likewise an electric
motor, where induced electric potential (aka.
"magnetic force") makes the motor's rotor
accelerate.

This also puzzle me too. Especially Lorentz's
force. My only explanation that can come up
with is: Ether.

Whatever floats your boat. But the contact forces that your
gedanken started with are also based on *charges*.

Quote:
The force is exert in the ether, and reaction force
acting to accelerate a motor. However, this
explanation doesn't explain why this only
happen in electromagnetic force but not gravity.

If gravity is not a force... there is then nothing to explain.

Quote:
Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take
place in a magnet doesn't encounter back
emf but a motor can't run too fast because of
back emf?

There is one rotating frame where the drag on the motor's rotor,
matches the driving emf's phase. That is where the motor runs.
If the load is trying to spin faster, it ends up "powering the
mains". The "back emf" comes from the power grid.

David A. Smith
Back to top
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:34 am    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Quote:
Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153017875.130210.21080@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
On 4/18/05, euler cheung <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote:
...
So when anyone/anything is exerting a force,
it is a mass that moving to a location where
it has already occupied by the mass we
would like to move.

Explain the motion of a radiometer. No "initiating mass" is
required. Likewise an electric motor, where induced electric
potential (aka. "magnetic force") makes the motor's rotor
accelerate.

This also puzzle me too. Especially Lorentz's force. My only
explanation that can come up with is: Ether. The force is exert in the
ether, and reaction force acting to accelerate a motor. However, this
explanation doesn't explain why this only happen in electromagnetic
force but not gravity.

Second puzzle is: Why Lorentz's force take place in a magnet doesn't
encounter back emf but a motor can't run too fast because of back emf?
i.e. Pass a electrical current directly on the surface of a Magnet, the
Magnet would spin faster and faster. However, doing so with a
conductive wire in Motor would result in Back EMF, or drag force.
Therefore the Motor can't be accerlerate indefinitely. What make the
difference?
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:18 am    Post subject: Re: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

Dear Euler's New Dice:

"Euler's New Dice" <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153017875.130210.21080@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
On 4/18/05, euler cheung <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote:
....
So when anyone/anything is exerting a force,
it is a mass that moving to a location where
it has already occupied by the mass we
would like to move.

Explain the motion of a radiometer. No "initiating mass" is
required. Likewise an electric motor, where induced electric
potential (aka. "magnetic force") makes the motor's rotor
accelerate.

....
Quote:
atom. It would require time and ENERGY to
overcome the attraction of the atom/molecular
not directly affected by this force, thus some
kinetic ENERGY of the mover is DISSIPATED
in the process as heat.

Bull.

Quote:
A bare minimum level of kinetic energy is
require to cause minimum level of
displacement. Thus, NOT the TOTALITY of that
external force is being transferred as kinetic
energy of each atom/molecular of the
moved. So F does NOT equal to ma.

This doesn't follow. Energy =/= force.

You sure ramble on a lot.

David A. Smith
Back to top
Euler Cheung
science forum beginner


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:44 am    Post subject: My thought on F=ma Reply with quote

On 4/18/05, euler cheung <eulercheung@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello friends,
Quote:
I was out for a meeting yesterday so I hardly had any time to write.
This is a more detail exploration of the thoughts I raise yesterday.

1. Why net acting Force does NOT equal to Acceleration times Mass?
There are two routes to arrive into this conclusion. One from a
microscopic perspective, another from the analog I raise the day
before yesterday.
From the microscopic's perspective, we need to explore the exact
happening when an external contact force is acting on an object from a
molecular or atomic level. When an external contact force is exerting
on an object, it must be the atoms/molecular in direct contact of the
force exerter experience that force first. What really is a force?
Think about when you try to move something, your hand move a location
to another location, so it really is a tendency of displacement. The
microscopic structure of your hand are moving from one location to
another location as a whole.(Assuming the totality of your hand is
still there after you move!) So when anyone/anything is exerting a
force, it is a mass that moving to a location where it has already
occupied by the mass we would like to move.
In the process of exerting a force, the object moved and the mover
would first come into a close contact. Probably close enough for the
repulsive force of the electrons from the mover and the moved to
overcome any molecular/atomic attraction between them. Thus pressure
is exerted by the means of electrical repulsion. Notice that if the
mover is not in contact of the whole surface of the moved object, then
the picture need a small modification as NOT the totality of first
layer of atom/molecule is affected, ONLY those in direct contact with
the mover. As the other atoms/molecules not affecting by this force
try to holding the affected into their original location. We have
surface tension in action. This surface would attempt to resort to its
original location, thus exerting a reaction force to the mover. On the
other hand, the area affected is displace to further inward of that
object due to the electrical repulsion force, thus drawing the ire of
yet another electrical repulsion force from the layer of atom deeper
inside the object. The first layer of atom/molecule now react to this
force, and the deeper layer both react and being push inward by the
electrical repulsion force from the first layer. This process repeat
itself until every layer of the moved is affected, which is how a
force transferring from the surface of the moved to its totality of
atom. It would require time and ENERGY to overcome the attraction of
the atom/molecular not directly affected by this force, thus some
kinetic ENERGY of the mover is DISSIPATED in the process as heat. A
bare minimum level of kinetic energy is require to cause minimum level
of displacement. Thus, NOT the TOTALITY of that external force is
being transferred as kinetic energy of each atom/molecular of the
moved. So F does NOT equal to ma. Moreover, we rely on the intricate
interaction of attraction and repulsion of the atom/molecule, or the
ELECTROMAGNETIC properties of the moved object for the reaction to
take place. Why would we be confident that E-M world would provide us
something like F=ma when it is so dissimilar from the world of force?
(The case for action at a distance is pretty similar to this picture
since a field require time to reach each layer of the moved object.
The first layer is always reacting first to such a force, and the
second layer a little bit later, so on and on. The real disparity from
contacting force is that all layer is experiencing force of various
strength at the same time. Nevertheless, energy is dissipate in the
process as heat and the force also rely on the electromagnetic field
inside the object to conduct.)
From the perspective of that Force is merely another expression of
E-M field. Remember the phenomena of inductance? It would take some
minimal level of electrical energy to 'initialize' a conducting object
into a state of conductor of certain level of current; similarly, we
would expect a minimal level of kinetic energy is required to change
an object from the state of movement at constant speed to the state of
movement with either constant increasing/decreasing speed. That
minimal level of energy is coming from the mover itself. Thus NOT all
of the totality of kinetic energy of the mover is transferred to the
moved object. In other words: F does NOT equal to mass times
acceleration.
BTW, the only difference between solid and liquid is how attracted
are the atom/molecules to each other. What phenomena we see in one
state should also expect another manifestation in another state.
Therefore, surface tension is existing in three different states with
different parameter, and so do others.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [10 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:57 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Prine Number thought experiment robert.w.adams@verizon.ne Math 1 Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:31 am
No new posts A Tale of Two Clocks: A Thought Experiment Titus Piezas III Relativity 7 Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:48 am
No new posts beginner thought experiments Ning Hu Relativity 46 Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:57 am
No new posts Pop my thought balloon Edward Green Electromagnetics 10 Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:18 am
No new posts Weekend thought provoker - nonclean overlapping recursion Csaba Gabor Undergraduate 4 Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:43 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0545s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0162s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]