- Thank you received: 0
The entropy of systems
15 years 3 months ago #23800
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi GD, I would recommend the book "Calculus made easy" by Silvanus P. Thompson. Now this book is very old ut as far as I know, it's never been out of print. Its style can seem a little old school at times but this guy is the maths teacher you never had. There's no dreaded "therefore" three dots, which tends to make people throw the book at the wall in frustration.
When I was a kid, I was the one that sat at the back of the class, drawing on my exercise book. So bone idle I didn't even want to come out of the womb. Two maths memories which have stuck, one was when pi was introduced; that had to be of interest to a kid that was into art. The second was calculus. The teacher came in, hands on hips, and said the dreaded word. There was wailing, tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth. Then for the next two hours one couldn't hear a pin drop. Mind I have to say that this maths teacher was good at their job, most aren't.
At the end, someone asked why it wasn't taught when we all ten years old. The maths guy just shrugged.
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a little calculus primer thread? The basics, then a little section on "as time varies." It might be an idea to write something then send it to Larry or Mark, then they could edit any contributions into something with a bit of flow; otherwise it might go the way of most threads and wander all over the place.
When I was a kid, I was the one that sat at the back of the class, drawing on my exercise book. So bone idle I didn't even want to come out of the womb. Two maths memories which have stuck, one was when pi was introduced; that had to be of interest to a kid that was into art. The second was calculus. The teacher came in, hands on hips, and said the dreaded word. There was wailing, tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth. Then for the next two hours one couldn't hear a pin drop. Mind I have to say that this maths teacher was good at their job, most aren't.
At the end, someone asked why it wasn't taught when we all ten years old. The maths guy just shrugged.
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a little calculus primer thread? The basics, then a little section on "as time varies." It might be an idea to write something then send it to Larry or Mark, then they could edit any contributions into something with a bit of flow; otherwise it might go the way of most threads and wander all over the place.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 3 months ago #23528
by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
No. A constant force will change momentum at a constant rate. A changing force acting on a constant mass will give acceleration. An acceleration can be expressed as a = dv/dp = d^2p/dt^2...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You are correct about the "Newton" definition... We would like to know more on what causes matter to accelerate. What if the mass is not constant? What makes energy flow in matter?
We already know that energy in motion causes force fields. Are the force fields emanating from matter in motion? Does this not remove energy in the process?
I think Maxwell was closer to the answer than Einstein was.
Stoat,
Calculus is a math tool... Without the correct theory, it will lead you in circles...
No. A constant force will change momentum at a constant rate. A changing force acting on a constant mass will give acceleration. An acceleration can be expressed as a = dv/dp = d^2p/dt^2...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You are correct about the "Newton" definition... We would like to know more on what causes matter to accelerate. What if the mass is not constant? What makes energy flow in matter?
We already know that energy in motion causes force fields. Are the force fields emanating from matter in motion? Does this not remove energy in the process?
I think Maxwell was closer to the answer than Einstein was.
Stoat,
Calculus is a math tool... Without the correct theory, it will lead you in circles...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 3 months ago #23801
by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
I wrote on 27 Jul 2009 : 22:07:30<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No. A constant force will change momentum at a constant rate. A changing force acting on a constant mass will give acceleration.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What I meant is, "A constant force acting on a constant mass gives acceleration; changing force acting on a constant mass will give jerk."
GD: 28 Jul 2009 : 17:48:50<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We would like to know more on what causes matter to accelerate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I shall answer you from the perspective of my own model, so don't expect this to resemble anything you might learn in school. In my model, every fundamental particle consists of pairs or groups of ethereal shear waves orbiting one another at the speed of light. When a particle accelerates, the center around which its constituent shear waves orbit is what accelerates; the shear waves themselves continue to orbit at the speed of light. The momentum of the particle is the sum of momenta of its constituent shear waves, so the force acting on the particle does so by acting on the shear waves and thereby altering their momenta.
Ethereal shear waves, which propagate at the speed of light, exchange momentum with ethereal pressure waves (dark energy), which propagate at the speed of gravity. The character of that exchange depends on the magnitude, wavelength, phase angle and polarity of the shear wave and pressure wave relative to one another. This is quite different from the random scattering of gravitons in LeSage type models.
Because that exchange of momentum is non-random, two shear waves can "see" one another as either brighter or darker against an otherwise uniform background of shear waves. If the two shear waves are in each other's plane of polarity and in phase with one another, they may be attracted, in another plane and polarity configuration they might repel. Working out details of just how these forces depend on phase, polarity, etc., may involve thousands of future carreers in a new science. I can only suggest that that science be invented by someone, perhaps in another century or two.
I suspect that an orbiting pair of shear waves is surrounded by a rapidly precessing conical pattern of brighter and darker regions of the affected pressure waves. Within a certain distance, certain groups of particles (quarks) may be attracted or repelled by the weak nuclear force. Other groups of particles at other distance are affected by the strong nuclear force because of different pattern surrounding them. These forces do not act at greater distances because of the complex geometry of their effects on the flux of pressure waves.
Looking at the acceleration of a particle in a gravitational field, we have greater flux of pressure waves from one direction than from another. I suspect that free shear waves might accelerate in different directions, depending on their phase and polarity in relation to the net flux of pressure waves. Shear waves which are bound in particles are precessing rapidly so acceleration averages out, and the net acceleration is toward the deficit of pressure waves.
Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator
GD: 28 Jul 2009 : 17:48:50<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We would like to know more on what causes matter to accelerate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I shall answer you from the perspective of my own model, so don't expect this to resemble anything you might learn in school. In my model, every fundamental particle consists of pairs or groups of ethereal shear waves orbiting one another at the speed of light. When a particle accelerates, the center around which its constituent shear waves orbit is what accelerates; the shear waves themselves continue to orbit at the speed of light. The momentum of the particle is the sum of momenta of its constituent shear waves, so the force acting on the particle does so by acting on the shear waves and thereby altering their momenta.
Ethereal shear waves, which propagate at the speed of light, exchange momentum with ethereal pressure waves (dark energy), which propagate at the speed of gravity. The character of that exchange depends on the magnitude, wavelength, phase angle and polarity of the shear wave and pressure wave relative to one another. This is quite different from the random scattering of gravitons in LeSage type models.
Because that exchange of momentum is non-random, two shear waves can "see" one another as either brighter or darker against an otherwise uniform background of shear waves. If the two shear waves are in each other's plane of polarity and in phase with one another, they may be attracted, in another plane and polarity configuration they might repel. Working out details of just how these forces depend on phase, polarity, etc., may involve thousands of future carreers in a new science. I can only suggest that that science be invented by someone, perhaps in another century or two.
I suspect that an orbiting pair of shear waves is surrounded by a rapidly precessing conical pattern of brighter and darker regions of the affected pressure waves. Within a certain distance, certain groups of particles (quarks) may be attracted or repelled by the weak nuclear force. Other groups of particles at other distance are affected by the strong nuclear force because of different pattern surrounding them. These forces do not act at greater distances because of the complex geometry of their effects on the flux of pressure waves.
Looking at the acceleration of a particle in a gravitational field, we have greater flux of pressure waves from one direction than from another. I suspect that free shear waves might accelerate in different directions, depending on their phase and polarity in relation to the net flux of pressure waves. Shear waves which are bound in particles are precessing rapidly so acceleration averages out, and the net acceleration is toward the deficit of pressure waves.
Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 3 months ago #22971
by evolivid
Replied by evolivid on topic Reply from Mark Baker
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a little calculus primer thread? The basics, then a little section on "as time varies." It might be an idea to write something then send it to Larry or Mark, then they could edit any contributions into something with a bit of flow; otherwise it might go the way of most threads and wander all over the place.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hey stoat I think that would be a good idea, as well as a thread on the forces from rest-Mass, showing how if you stop time for a moment even light stops then as you let time start, how acceleration starts to take place which will need some calculus at some point, so it might be good to use the Physics of acceleration in the calculus
primer examples "that way we kill three birds with one stone"
all I know of calculus is that the derivative of mc^2 is 2c^m
I got some calculus books I just have to schedule time to start them... I like the way equations work and I think they make it easier to learn for instance starting with the rest mass of a electron ,
E = mc^2 = W/Q = W/e = (h/v) = hf = UQ = hc/wavelength = UI(t) = P(t)= F(d)/e = (F/a)c^2 = (F/v*t)c^2 ,
then this is where we need the calculus when we throw in the KE
kinetic energy.. when two or more particle's come in to play
when those particles then start accelerating toward or away from each other
so do you look at the acceleration from the point of view that matter could be viewed as light and do calculations from both points of view, and I think in these multiple points of view will give a clearer understanding of the processes is found.
we have to know what units were working in tho, Atomic units,"Schrdinger" units,Natural Units (Particle Physics), these are used and when you mix them up you get the wrong results even tho you think you might be using the right number from a different unit category. Maybe using Schrdinger units with the wave matter view
and Natural with the particle matter view even!
MARX
<br />
Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a little calculus primer thread? The basics, then a little section on "as time varies." It might be an idea to write something then send it to Larry or Mark, then they could edit any contributions into something with a bit of flow; otherwise it might go the way of most threads and wander all over the place.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hey stoat I think that would be a good idea, as well as a thread on the forces from rest-Mass, showing how if you stop time for a moment even light stops then as you let time start, how acceleration starts to take place which will need some calculus at some point, so it might be good to use the Physics of acceleration in the calculus
primer examples "that way we kill three birds with one stone"
all I know of calculus is that the derivative of mc^2 is 2c^m
I got some calculus books I just have to schedule time to start them... I like the way equations work and I think they make it easier to learn for instance starting with the rest mass of a electron ,
E = mc^2 = W/Q = W/e = (h/v) = hf = UQ = hc/wavelength = UI(t) = P(t)= F(d)/e = (F/a)c^2 = (F/v*t)c^2 ,
then this is where we need the calculus when we throw in the KE
kinetic energy.. when two or more particle's come in to play
when those particles then start accelerating toward or away from each other
so do you look at the acceleration from the point of view that matter could be viewed as light and do calculations from both points of view, and I think in these multiple points of view will give a clearer understanding of the processes is found.
we have to know what units were working in tho, Atomic units,"Schrdinger" units,Natural Units (Particle Physics), these are used and when you mix them up you get the wrong results even tho you think you might be using the right number from a different unit category. Maybe using Schrdinger units with the wave matter view
and Natural with the particle matter view even!
MARX
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 3 months ago #22972
by PhilJ
Replied by PhilJ on topic Reply from Philip Janes
GD: 29 Jul 2009 : 12:13:36<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a little calculus primer thread?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[8D]Does the phrase "blind leading the blind" mean anything to you, GD. Such a thread might be helpful if everyone in it is either simultaneously taking the same calculus course or else offering his service as a free tutor. You can find free tutorial help at
Yahoo!Answers
.
In the thread Different take on gravity, 13 Jul 2009: 17:56:42 I gave you a list of physics & cosmology courses on DVD from the Teaching Company . They also have some excellent math courses at both high school and college level. (Sorry, my link to search results doesn't work on this board. Try searching the Teaching Company for "calculus". You should get 24 results.)
As I stated previously, you can probably get some of these courses free from your public library or from a university library.
Search Google for more math course resources .
Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator
In the thread Different take on gravity, 13 Jul 2009: 17:56:42 I gave you a list of physics & cosmology courses on DVD from the Teaching Company . They also have some excellent math courses at both high school and college level. (Sorry, my link to search results doesn't work on this board. Try searching the Teaching Company for "calculus". You should get 24 results.)
As I stated previously, you can probably get some of these courses free from your public library or from a university library.
Search Google for more math course resources .
Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
15 years 3 months ago #22974
by GD
Replied by GD on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PhilJ</i>
<br />What I meant is, "A constant force acting on a constant mass gives acceleration; changing force acting on a constant mass will give jerk." ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
How does your theory explain changing forces acting on a changing mass (for example: the sun) ?
...Lets try calculus later...
<br />What I meant is, "A constant force acting on a constant mass gives acceleration; changing force acting on a constant mass will give jerk." ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
How does your theory explain changing forces acting on a changing mass (for example: the sun) ?
...Lets try calculus later...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.453 seconds