|
|
In article <vshgg2tr2hr7on2l9eh2s41bugkh5idm0o@xxxxxxx>,
Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:42:28 -0400, herb z <herbzet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Lester Zick wrote:
> >> herb z wrote:
> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
> >> >> herb z wrote:
> >> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
> >> >> >> herb z wrote:
> >> >> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
> >> >> >> >> herb z wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> >> >> >How do you compactly write, for purposes of concision or
> >> >> >> >calculation,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "dr/dt in combination with transverse dv/dt"
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >or
> >> >> >> > "v in combination with transverse a"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Angular momentum should suffice. L = r x p and dL/dt = dr/dt x p + r
> >> >> >> x
> >> >> >> dp/dt with together with variations.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I will defer questions on this till I go home and consult my
> >> >> >Big Fat Book O' Physics.
> >> >>
> >> >> Physics? Looks like math to me.
> >
> >
> >I left this bit in because it relates to (a) below.
> >
> >
> >> Okay. So by "df ( )" you mean "the definition of ( )"?
> >
> >By "X =df Y" I mean "X equals by definition Y". It's a common
> >notational convention, though not universal. "=df" is to be
> >considered one symbol. If you find you're allergic to it, it
> >can be dispensed with.
>
> I don't say I couldn't learn to use it. It's just that I do tend to be
> allergic to non generic symbolism which may contain unintended
> implications. I've always contended all math symbolism could be
> expressed generically and often should be for cross disciplinary
> purposes.
The world could all learn one language, but chooses not to.
The various specialities in all areas could all learn a common jargon,
but they choose not to.
So Zick is expecting a perfection he does not display himself of others.
> >
> >(a) It seems, with your desire to ground definitions "mechanically"
> >(I have to put it in quotes at this point) that you have a foot in
> >two realms, mathematics and physics. When you say angular momentum
> >looks like math (above), that seems to be a step away from physics
> >(mechanics), towards mathematics. It does seem to be part of your
> >general complaint against modern "mathematikers" that their definitions
> >are not grounded "mechanically".
>
> Well you know that's true. For example only yesterday I had to take
> Stephen to task for just assuming the definition of a circle was a
> constant radius of rotation when in point of fact circles of finite
> radii of rotation are correctly defined as having incrementally
> changing radii of dr.
Circles have been defined as the locus of points in a plane having a
fixed distance, called the radius, from a fixed point, called the
center, for several millennia. That Zick claims otherwise only reveals
his ugly combination of arrogance, insolence and ignorance.
> In other words with circles of finite radii their radii can and do
> change as long as the change is infinitesimal and not finite.
With what mechanical tools does Zick plan to measure these allegedly
mechanical infinitesimal changes that are present in his allegedly
mechanical system?
|
|