[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

psychoceramics: (fwd) Shoo-SI

I gather from a followup that this guy's been doing this before. It's
got one of the more impressive vehemence-to-actual-content ratios.

On 21 Sep 1997 11:13:04 GMT, in alt.sci.physics.new-theories "Donald
G. Shead" <u--@s--.net> wrote:

>     Hello out there on the ethernet.  This is your ‘Nu Physics’ teacher -
>who is himself still attending the school of hard knocks - with yet another
>lesson in the countdown for the SI system of weights and measures.
>     Phew, I’m getting sick of this, aren’t you?  Buuut..., we must
>continue until you get it right.  All too often you’ve been shoved along,
>into halfvast theories, without your having grasped the fundamental
>*quantity* concepts of everyday physics.  These are what I’ll lecture on
>today.  So “listen up” will you?  So we won’t have to keep repeating:
>     Physics is essentially about the existence of what we call MATTER; 
>moving, and *interacting* in what we call SPACE; *during* what we call
>     In order to make sense of these concepts, we must be able to measure
>them and express them quantitatively:
>       ~ The Three *Primary* Quantity Concepts ~
>*LENGTH*:  is the quantity concept with which we measure the extent
>(volume) of various masses of matter, and the distances that they are are
>separated by, and how far they move, *in space*.  The size, or volume, of a
>particular mass of matter consists of its 3 dimensional extent: (Average)
>Lengths in 3 perpendicular directions.
>     For our *Unit* of length, we’ll use the foot, of the US-British
>*gravitational* foot-pound-second (fps) system.
>[Physics texts just seem to *luuuv* making things much more difficult by
>presenting problems involving lengths with Units *other* than the foot: 
>Like as if it’s *really* important to our understanding of physics
>*principles* that we know the foot can be divided into inch Units and
>fractions thereof.  Or that there are *multiple* Units of the foot, like
>the yard, rod, furlough, etc.  I think that for teaching the principles of
>*physics*, they should avoid these *distractions* of converting to and from
>those other units by sticking to one “basic” unit, AND DECIMALS THEREOF. 
>Physics is difficult enough.  The foot, and decimals thereof, can cover a
>*wide* range of measurements.  Conversion of units is a whole science in
>itself;  it should usually be treated as such.  Of *course* there are
>exceptions:  Miles, and Hours make much more sense for such as traveling,
>and measuring heavenly bodies and their orbital motions...]
>*FORCE*:  is the quantity concept with which we measure the magnitude of
>physical thrusts, and/or the heaviness of various masses of matter; the
>forces that they *mutually* exert upon each other as they resist each
>others free passage.  Where this resistance is due to that property of
>matter (impenetrability) whereby no two particles, or bodies of it, can
>simultaneously occupy or pass through the exact same place.
>     Force (symbol ‘f ’) is the physical thrust of (bodies of) matter
>other matter;  such as where bodies moving through air thrust against air
>particles, and are reciprocally thrusted against by these particles. 
>Bodies “resting” on the ground, or other support thereon, thrust
>centripetally toward Earth’s center against the ground or other support,
>and are reciprocally restrained, by *their* (upward) thrust, from
>further.  This vertical thrust, or WEIGHT (symbol ‘w’), is what we feel as
>*heaviness* of matter.
>     IF ONLY IT WERE *THAT SIMPLE*:  The fact that force is mutual to two
>or more bodies, brings out the fact that there are two aspects of force! 
>Action and Reaction:  The act, or *action*, of one or more (moving) bodies,
>or particles of matter, impinging upon one or more others, which *react* or
>resist a change in their own motion (by “reluctantly” starting, and/or
>speeding up).   Where this “inertial” resistance, in return, results in
>changing the motion of the acting bodies (by slowing, and/or stopping it). 
>In addition to this “inertial resistance” of bodies themselves, the
>greatest resistance to motion and forces is due to “external forces”; 
>gravity, friction, and imperviousness (the resistance to piercing), of
>other obstructions;  of bodies and surfaces thereof:
>     In addition to the force of gravity - which is a resistance to lifting
>- the most obvious and easiest to explain form of these *external* forces
>is the reaction and/or resistance of friction, where a body’s free motion
>is hindered by contact with other bodies, or surfaces thereof.   Where the
>resisting force is the product of a coefficient of friction (symbol u) -
>that is based on the surface roughnesses - and the moving body’s weight
>(w):  On a theoretically ‘level’ surface, resisting forces due to friction
>are the product of a coefficient of friction (u), multiplied by the weight
>(w) of the body;  the resisting *force* is “uw”.  Coefficients of friction
>are usually, but not necessarily, less than one.
>     This coefficient of friction can be modified to encompass (virtually)
>the whole realm of resisting (or restraining) forces:
>     For a body “resting” on Earth’s surface or other support thereon, the
>“coefficient of resistance (or restraint)” - which on ‘solid’ ground, or
>some other non-yielding support - is equal to ONE:  That is the restraining
>force (uw), which supports the weight and prevents the body from
>freefalling further, is equal to the product of *one* times the body’s
>weight;  where the body’s weight is the only centripetal thrust acting:  In
>this case, to lift the body, requires a total “force of effort” *greater*
>than the restraining force (uw); which is just the restraining (‘holding’)
>     The *total force* then, to lift a mass, or body of matter, is equal to
>the sum of the restraining force (uw), and a little extra............to
>upwardly accelerate it !!! ..........
>     For resisting forces against thrusts that are greater than simple
>weight, such as those produced by sledge hammers and pile drivers, the
>product of the coefficient of restraint and the thrust may be considerable.
> Then too, in some cases, it may even have a negative value.
>     The NET force then, that produces changes in motion, and/or “work”, is
>the total impressed force (f) minus the external resisting force (uw):
>       NET, or Resultant Force = f - uw
>     For our *Unit* of force, we’ll use the pound, of the  US-British
>*gravitational* foot-pound-second (fps) system.
>[That the pound can be subdivided, and that there are Units containing
>multiples of it, need not be of primary concern to our understanding of
>basic physics.  The pound, and decimals of it can cover a wide range of
>DURATION:  is the quantity concept with which we measure periods^ of
>continuously passing time *during which* such phenomena as motion, changes
>in it, and thrusts occur, and/or heaviness lasts.
>  ^ [NOTE that an ‘instant’ is NOT a short period of time ~ it is a *point*
>in the
>continuous *passage* of time !!!]
>     For our *Unit* of duration, we’ll use the second, of the US-British
>*gravitational* foot-pound-second (fps) system.
>[Just about everybody is familiar with the numerous other Units of time
>duration;  by which we regulate and live our lives.]
>          _________________
>     Virtually all of the other concepts of *Basic* Mechanical Physics are
>combinations, and/or ratios of these three!!!
>          1)  Length (distance in Space).
>          2)  Force (f) including weight (w), Restraining forces (uw), and
>Net Force (f-uw).
>          3) Duration (periods of continuously passing Time).
>     HERE’S where physics has another biiig problem !!!  To avoid having to
>write out these combinations for each derived concept, “shorthand” names
>and symbols have been derived, or made up, for them.  Using this shorthand,
>and these shorthand symbols in mathematical formulas, causes us to lose
>track of what we’re actually doing:  Some of these shorthand symbols are: 
>‘v’ for the length/duration ratio of velocity, ‘m’ for the
>force/acceleration ratio of mass, ‘a’ for the change in velocity/duration
>ratio of acceleration, I for the force x duration product of impulse, and
>‘p’(?) for the mass x velocity product of momentum.  New ones are ever
>being created, as new concepts proliferate.
>     Next week, *or whenever*, we’ll talk about these:
>       ~ *Derived* Concepts and Units thereof ~

Bruce Baugh       <*>
a--@e--.org <*>