Linear Force and Linear Momentum

gluon

Banned
Banned
I argue there are two other concepts physics generally hasn't considered. These are:

Linear Force; is a force exerted on an object with a constant acceleration with a linear trajectory.

Linear Momentum; is the momentum a body has with a constant acceleration with a linear trajectory.

I define the math as:

$$\hat{F}=ad$$

where $$\hat{F}$$ is the linear force. The linear force is given by acceleration times distance.

key equations

[1] $$d=\frac{1}{2}at^2$$

[2] $$a =\frac{v}{t}$$

This gives us

$$\hat{F}=\frac{v}{t}\frac{1}{2}at^2$$

solving gives us with solving (1)

$$\hat{F}=\frac{1}{2}atv$$

which is the Linear Force equation derived. The Liner Force equation has a constant acceleration in a given distance. Linear Momentum is derived as:

$$d(mv)=p(\hat{F}-a)=\hat{p}$$
$$p(\frac{1}{2}at^2)=d(mv)$$
$$=mv\frac{1}{2}\frac{v}{t}t^2$$
$$=\frac{1}{2}mv^2 t$$ [1]

where $$d(mv)$$ is linear momentum $$\hat{p}$$. At the point [1], we find an equation very similar to the kinetic energy equation, so my concept of linear momentum is the same magnitude of a variation of kinetic energy in some time. So the value of linear momentum is simply a multiple of $$\frac{1}{2}Mv^2$$.

If we now use the concept of a linear momentum given by $$d(mv)=\hat{p}$$, then we can now put this into relativistic terms,

$$F=\frac{\partial \hat{p}}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial(mvd)}{\partial t}$$
$$m\frac{\partial(vd)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial m}{\partial t}(vd)$$

From here we can derive:

$$m\frac{\partial (vd)}{\partial t}=F-\frac{F.v}{c^2}(vd)$$

For the resultant force.

(1) - $$F=ad$$ so
$$ad=\frac{v}{t}\frac{1}{2}at^2$$ gives
$$ad=\frac{1}{2}atv$$
 
F=ad has the wrong units. You know that F=ma, so F/a must have units of mass. F=ad implies it's got units of distance. So you're wrong immediately. Also, an object experiencing constant acceleration doesn't have constant momentum. Also p = d(mv) is wrong, whether d is a derivaive or d is distance. Units again.

This stuff is taught in secondary school. A basic grasp of the suvat equations and Newtons laws is expected of 17 year olds. Despite you claiming you're in some advanced class for this you fail to grasp even the simplest of results. Further more, you're stupid enough to try and BS your understanding infront of other people, but since you pick a subject which is so easy more people will see through your crap than if you'd picked a more advanced topic.

Given you're completely incompetant at anything which is beyond the simplest of algebra, I'd suggest sticking with trying to make up crap about advanced topics. If you're going to put in effort to make up lies, make up lies which fewer people can spot.
 
F=ad has the wrong units. You know that F=ma, so F/a must have units of mass. F=ad implies it's got units of distance. So you're wrong immediately. Also, an object experiencing constant acceleration doesn't have constant momentum. Also p = d(mv) is wrong, whether d is a derivaive or d is distance. Units again.

This stuff is taught in secondary school. A basic grasp of the suvat equations and Newtons laws is expected of 17 year olds. Despite you claiming you're in some advanced class for this you fail to grasp even the simplest of results. Further more, you're stupid enough to try and BS your understanding infront of other people, but since you pick a subject which is so easy more people will see through your crap than if you'd picked a more advanced topic.

Given you're completely incompetant at anything which is beyond the simplest of algebra, I'd suggest sticking with trying to make up crap about advanced topics. If you're going to put in effort to make up lies, make up lies which fewer people can spot.

Well actually, i was savy on the dimensional part of this, so no, i won't really take any of this so-called ''advice'' of you. I am quite aware that F=ad is not the conventional units, and this work was to define an equation that could derive force independant of its mass. Ultimately, i feel in a linear force equation, there is no need for a mass term if you calculate its acceleration by its distance... but that is why i placed it in psuedoscience.
 
Oh and by the way... You did notice it was a $$\hat{p}$$ in the equation $$\hat{p}=d(mv)$$, where d is distance?
 
Oh and by the way... You did notice it was a $$\hat{p}$$ in the equation $$\hat{p}=d(mv)$$, where d is distance?


In fact alphanumeric, lets be really analytical about this, and use this information i just gave you. I now take a new spin on this theory, and i announce that $$\hat{F}$$ need not have the dimensions of Newtonian Force, but even treat $$\hat{F}$$ as if it has $$ad$$ dimensions.

prove it wrong. The algebra and numerical work is sound, so find another arguement, because this work in the right analysis is correct.
 
In fact i have decided to rewrite new laws of motion for linear movement in one dimension. I believe, and i don't know how many would share the sentiment, that linear force is certainly a force of description unto its own, and perhaps the equations i have given so far would describe a linear force without reverting to the mass dimensions of Newtionian Force Equations.

I think Newton was wrong, and that force can be deducted for a system without the use of its mass. This is achieved of course through $$F=ad$$, and from this little equation, we can derive a whole new set of mathematical laws, indeed if i derive them correctly. The math is relatively simple so far, but the differentiation is quite hard. I might even continue writing new laws, and then rewrite them again into non-classical components.

The next one from the post below, is the Modified Equations of Motion which i mathematically deducted would play a role in a linear determination of the system.

I argue there are two other concepts physics generally hasn't considered. These are:

Linear Force; is a force exerted on an object with a constant acceleration with a linear trajectory.

Linear Momentum; is the momentum a body has with a constant acceleration with a linear trajectory.

I define the math as:

$$\hat{F}=ad$$

where $$\hat{F}$$ is the linear force. The linear force is given by acceleration times distance.

key equations

[1] $$d=\frac{1}{2}at^2$$

[2] $$a =\frac{v}{t}$$

This gives us

$$\hat{F}=\frac{v}{t}\frac{1}{2}at^2$$

solving gives us with solving (1)

$$\hat{F}=\frac{1}{2}atv$$

which is the Linear Force equation derived. The Liner Force equation has a constant acceleration in a given distance. Linear Momentum is derived as:

$$d(mv)=p(\hat{F}-a)=\hat{p}$$
$$p(\frac{1}{2}at^2)=d(mv)$$
$$=mv\frac{1}{2}\frac{v}{t}t^2$$
$$=\frac{1}{2}mv^2 t$$ [1]

where $$d(mv)$$ is linear momentum $$\hat{p}$$. At the point [1], we find an equation very similar to the kinetic energy equation, so my concept of linear momentum is the same magnitude of a variation of kinetic energy in some time. So the value of linear momentum is simply a multiple of $$\frac{1}{2}Mv^2$$.

If we now use the concept of a linear momentum given by $$d(mv)=\hat{p}$$, then we can now put this into relativistic terms,

$$F=\frac{\partial \hat{p}}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial(mvd)}{\partial t}$$
$$m\frac{\partial(vd)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial m}{\partial t}(vd)$$

From here we can derive:

$$m\frac{\partial (vd)}{\partial t}=F-\frac{F.v}{c^2}(vd)$$

For the resultant force.

(1) - $$F=ad$$ so
$$ad=\frac{v}{t}\frac{1}{2}at^2$$ gives
$$ad=\frac{1}{2}atv$$

The three new equations of motion, or (MEM), the Modified Equations of Motion, i present them as:

[1] $$adt=\hat{v}-u$$

[2] $$\frac{1}{2}(u+\hat{v} d)=\frac{\hat{s}}{t}$$

[3] $$\hat{v^2}=u^2+2ad\hat{s}$$

These equations for a linear description are a consequence of the math, not the other way around; it uses explicitely dimensions of multiples of $$a$$, or acceleration, which means that the linear descriptions can be provided.

Derivations

[1] $$\hat{v}=u+adt$$, so $$adt=\hat{v}-u$$

[2] $$\hat{s}=\frac{1}{2}(u+vd)t$$ so $$\frac{1}{2}(u+vd)=\frac{\hat{s}}{t}$$

[3] $$2ad\hat{s}=\hat{v}^2-u^2$$ so $$\hat{v^2}=u^2+2ads$$
 
In fact i have decided to rewrite new laws of motion for linear movement in one dimension. ...

I think Newton was wrong, and that force can be deducted for a system without the use of its mass.

Who cares what you believe? The opening post is complete crap.
 
I more or less agree with you actually. I was bored when i wrote this, and i m still bored. This place is boring, and i don't know why i hang about here sometimes, nor am i in a happy frame of mind anyway.
 
I more or less agree with you actually.

So why waste your time on crap? Why not try to make something of your life?

I was bored when i wrote this, and i m still bored. This place is boring, and i don't know why i hang about here sometimes, nor am i in a happy frame of mind anyway.

Relationship breakdowns are never a barrel of laughs. But you will get over it.

I must say, though, you're not likely to win many friends here by posting nonsense when you're bored. Why persist in posting pseudo-physics or pseudo-maths when you could talk about stuff you actually know something about in one of the other sub-forums? There must be things you're actually good at, or have experience of, or know about. Why pretend to be some hot-shot physics genius? You'll get caught out every time. There's always somebody smarter and more knowledgable than you are.
 
I seem to have that impression? I often tell myself i am bad at physics, but then a little voice tells me to stand up, and remember that not many people often get to get the education i get.

Difference James, is that i actually believe that knowledge is mediocre. I certainly don't believe that i know everything, and i certainly don't believe i will ever come to know everything. I might act like i know everything, but geeze, i seem to have that effect on people, even my boyfriend.

You know, i attend college about seven hours a week. Befoe that, i was trying to hold down more than 20 hours at college a week, and it was clashing with travelling and all sorts, so i am now only studying the one subject, physics.

So i will continue to sit here bored, read my boring little pages, and my boring little life will unfold to every boring crevice of this boring little site.
 
Then again, its not even a dreakdown james. Its a breakup.

I often think, 'fuck it. I'm gonna pack my things and get to fuck. Travel the world. See new people, meet good people, people who are proud to know me, and people who are happy to share time with me.'

Maybe i will.
 
Difference James, is that i actually believe that knowledge is mediocre.

Then be honest with yourself. Why keep studying stuff if you believe it is worthless? Do something else.

You know, i attend college about seven hours a week. Befoe that, i was trying to hold down more than 20 hours at college a week, and it was clashing with travelling and all sorts, so i am now only studying the one subject, physics.

Clashing with travelling? What do you mean? That you have to travel a long way from home to college? Or that you want to travel to places rather than go to college?

What do you hope to do when you've completed your one subject at college? Where will it get you that you can't get to without it? That is, what are you getting out of it? If you think it's ultimately worthless, why do it?

So i will continue to sit here bored, read my boring little pages, and my boring little life will unfold to every boring crevice of this boring little site.

I'm sorry, but I'm sure most readers here wouldn't appreciate your littering of this "boring little site". If you feel the need to take out your frustrations on people here, then think carefully about whether you wish to be allowed to continue to post.
 
I often think, 'fuck it. I'm gonna pack my things and get to fuck. Travel the world. See new people, meet good people, people who are proud to know me, and people who are happy to share time with me.

Maybe i will.

That sounds much more positive than your previous post. You're much more likely to succeed doing something you enjoy than doing something you think is worthless.
 
Then be honest with yourself. Why keep studying stuff if you believe it is worthless? Do something else.



Clashing with travelling? What do you mean? That you have to travel a long way from home to college? Or that you want to travel to places rather than go to college?

What do you hope to do when you've completed your one subject at college? Where will it get you that you can't get to without it? That is, what are you getting out of it? If you think it's ultimately worthless, why do it?



I'm sorry, but I'm sure most readers here wouldn't appreciate your littering of this "boring little site". If you feel the need to take out your frustrations on people here, then think carefully about whether you wish to be allowed to continue to post.

It is a long travel everyday.

I will probably go study astrophysics after this one subject. My heart has always been really in the physics of cosmology. I wouldn't be able to study astrophysics without my HND in quantum physics. What i amn getting out of it right now however, is nothing but boredome.
 
Back
Top