- Thank you received: 0
C Squared
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
21 years 11 months ago #3974
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My point is just that c2 is very confining where as F=ma will set you free of a lot of baggage.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
OK. c^2 ...
Would you mind using "standard" notation for things like this? I know what you mean, but there are others on the board that might not, and it never hurts to be considerate of the lurkers. Part of why we do this is to attract more people to the world of science.
OK. c^2, as in E = m * c^2, is <b>confining</b>.
But F = m * a is <b>not confining</b>.
Can you explain what this means? Or, perhaps give me an example of the baggage that is eliminated by using F= m * a <b>instead of</b> E = m * c^2.
Often when teaching it is easier to use an example than to try to explain. Once a student (me, in this case) "gets it", then a more formal explanation can tie up the loose ends, dot the 'I's and cross the 'T's.
Regards,
LB
OK. c^2 ...
Would you mind using "standard" notation for things like this? I know what you mean, but there are others on the board that might not, and it never hurts to be considerate of the lurkers. Part of why we do this is to attract more people to the world of science.
OK. c^2, as in E = m * c^2, is <b>confining</b>.
But F = m * a is <b>not confining</b>.
Can you explain what this means? Or, perhaps give me an example of the baggage that is eliminated by using F= m * a <b>instead of</b> E = m * c^2.
Often when teaching it is easier to use an example than to try to explain. Once a student (me, in this case) "gets it", then a more formal explanation can tie up the loose ends, dot the 'I's and cross the 'T's.
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 11 months ago #4758
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The frist point of how the more flexible a process is the better it is may be my slant on the matter. If you think this is not so then we just have a different view point. I have no problem with that you may be better able to use a knife and fork while I'm only able to use a spoon.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 11 months ago #4761
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The frist point of how the more flexible a process is the better it is may be my slant on the matter. If you think this is not so then we just have a different view point. I have no problem with that you may be better able to use a knife and fork while I'm only able to use a spoon.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Actually I didn't say it was or was not better. I'm asking for an example that shows why you think it is better.
I am genuinely curious. I won't ridicule you if there is some obvious problem with your example. Once we talk about it you may decide to abandon it. Or, you may go on to find a better example that actually works. Or, it might be 42 right out of the box!
We'll never know unless you post an example. It only hurts for a few seconds.
hint:
Both formulas are useful for some problems, but not for others. And there will be some problems that can be worked with both formulas, although generally one will be easier to use than the other. Which one depends on the problem you want to solve.
(We ALL make some mistakes as we learn things. Take it like a man. Learn to live with it.)
Regards,
LB
Actually I didn't say it was or was not better. I'm asking for an example that shows why you think it is better.
I am genuinely curious. I won't ridicule you if there is some obvious problem with your example. Once we talk about it you may decide to abandon it. Or, you may go on to find a better example that actually works. Or, it might be 42 right out of the box!
We'll never know unless you post an example. It only hurts for a few seconds.
hint:
Both formulas are useful for some problems, but not for others. And there will be some problems that can be worked with both formulas, although generally one will be easier to use than the other. Which one depends on the problem you want to solve.
(We ALL make some mistakes as we learn things. Take it like a man. Learn to live with it.)
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 11 months ago #4420
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
An acceleration of 10e17m/ss can be applied for a nanosecond or less and explain chemical reactions much better since there is a lot of motion in the process. How can this be done when we are restricted by velocity squared? The same thing can be done with nuclear bonding. As for baggage how about blackholes to start with? The neutrino may be even a better example. Now-a-days these things are being spotted more often than unicorns ever were.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
21 years 11 months ago #4762
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[LB]
Can you explain what this means? Or, perhaps give me an example of the baggage that is eliminated by using F= m * a instead of E = m * c^2.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]
An acceleration of 10e17m/ss can be applied for a nanosecond or less and explain chemical reactions much better since there is a lot of motion in the process. How can this be done when we are restricted by velocity squared? The same thing can be done with nuclear bonding. As for baggage how about blackholes to start with? The neutrino may be even a better example. Now-a-days these things are being spotted more often than unicorns ever were.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
These are some pretty good examples of problems. Mankind is already spending many dollars each year on them. And it's NOT impossible (IOW it IS possible) that you could have a valuable contribution to make in one of these areas. If not right now, then perhaps in a few years.
So try to put it in words. In addition to one or more problems, I was kind of expecting some discussion by you about a less confining way to "do something". I'm sorry I can't be more precise, but I need an explanation or example from you to help understand.
Regards,
LB
Can you explain what this means? Or, perhaps give me an example of the baggage that is eliminated by using F= m * a instead of E = m * c^2.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]
An acceleration of 10e17m/ss can be applied for a nanosecond or less and explain chemical reactions much better since there is a lot of motion in the process. How can this be done when we are restricted by velocity squared? The same thing can be done with nuclear bonding. As for baggage how about blackholes to start with? The neutrino may be even a better example. Now-a-days these things are being spotted more often than unicorns ever were.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
These are some pretty good examples of problems. Mankind is already spending many dollars each year on them. And it's NOT impossible (IOW it IS possible) that you could have a valuable contribution to make in one of these areas. If not right now, then perhaps in a few years.
So try to put it in words. In addition to one or more problems, I was kind of expecting some discussion by you about a less confining way to "do something". I'm sorry I can't be more precise, but I need an explanation or example from you to help understand.
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
21 years 11 months ago #3736
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
I don't have a clue what you mean by "doing something" and I am not much good at fishing either.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.320 seconds