A man sees or (feels?) a certain length and 'that length' is a SINGLE SENSE DATUM for him. In science quantification of that (a specified) length involves THREE SENSE DATA: number of units or [N], size of the unit or(<>) and identity (i). We do not realize that in science 'unit' involves two sense data - size of the unit or (<>) and identity (i) because we replace (<>)(i) by a PROPER name (w) such as inch, foot, ounce, pound, gallon etc. Here identity (i) is not a variable - we cannot cannot develop a formula to change the indentity (i). If we change size (<>) then (w) proper name changes, but identity (i) cannot change. It is interesting to note that size (<>) can be a continuous variable but 'name' (a word) cannot be a continuous variable. This does mean that 'size' or (<>) cannot be a continuous variable in mathematics or physics. In fact (<>) or 'size' is a continuous variable if length (L) of thing elongates, volume (V) expands or there is implosion. Do we have (<>) or size of unit or 1 1n pure mathematics? Can our calculation 2+3=5 be justified without first ascertainig that all (<>) are of same size? In fact we never change (<>)(i) or the 'name' or the proper noun. In all calculations with a quantity [N](<>)(i) or [N](w), we only use the pure number [N] and all the 'changes' is brought about or the problems are 'solved' by calculations with the pure number [N] and not by changing (<>)(i). It not clear what is differentiated or integrated in physics. Moreover is it possible to predict anything by this kind of calculation?
> A man sees or (feels?) a certain length and 'that length' is a SINGLE > SENSE DATUM for him. In science quantification of that (a specified) > length involves THREE SENSE DATA: number of units or [N], size of the > unit or(<>) and identity (i). We do not realize that in science 'unit'
Can you give concrete examples? Say, in the following physical quantities:
. 7 m . 26 m^2 . 0.4 s . 54 kg*m/s^2
What is the "size" of the unit? The quantity of units (its numeric value) is obvious for everyone here, IMO. What is the "identity"?
BTW, are you using "sense" in what sense?
What are the possible values of "size of the unit"? <snip>
> does mean that 'size' > or (<>) cannot be a continuous variable in mathematics or physics. In > fact (<>) > or 'size' is a continuous variable if length (L) of thing elongates, > volume (V) expands or there is implosion.
You are confusing value measured with "value of unit" (whatever way you define it).
> Do we have (<>) or size of > unit or 1 1n pure mathematics? Can our calculation 2+3=5 be justified > without first ascertainig > that all (<>) are of same size?
No. There are no units in pure mathematics. Please read an real analysis book and try to find one, if you are not convinced.
So, your strange theory applies only to physics, not mathematics.
-- --------------------------------------- Duran Castore (duran_cast...@yahoo.com)
"V.Gopal" wrote: > In fact we never change (<>)(i) or the 'name' or the proper noun. In > all calculations with a quantity [N](<>)(i) or [N](w), we only use the > pure number [N] and all the 'changes' is brought about or the problems > are 'solved' by calculations with the pure number [N] and not by > changing (<>)(i). It not clear what is differentiated or integrated in > physics. Moreover is it possible to predict anything by this kind of > calculation?
> > A man sees or (feels?) a certain length and 'that length' is a SINGLE > > SENSE DATUM for him. In science quantification of that (a specified) > > length involves THREE SENSE DATA: number of units or [N], size of the > > unit or(<>) and identity (i). We do not realize that in science 'unit'
> Can you give concrete examples? Say, in the following physical > quantities:
> . 7 m > . 26 m^2 > . 0.4 s > . 54 kg*m/s^2
> What is the "size" of the unit? The quantity of units (its numeric value) > is obvious for everyone here, IMO. What is the "identity"?
> BTW, are you using "sense" in what sense?
> What are the possible values of "size of the unit"? > <snip> > > does mean that 'size' > > or (<>) cannot be a continuous variable in mathematics or physics. In > > fact (<>) > > or 'size' is a continuous variable if length (L) of thing elongates, > > volume (V) expands or there is implosion.
> You are confusing value measured with "value of unit" (whatever way you > define it).
> > Do we have (<>) or size of > > unit or 1 1n pure mathematics? Can our calculation 2+3=5 be justified > > without first ascertainig > > that all (<>) are of same size?
> No. There are no units in pure mathematics. Please read an real analysis > book and try to find one, if you are not convinced.
> So, your strange theory applies only to physics, not mathematics.
7m=[7](<>)(L). Here 7 is the pure dimensionless number. It does not occupy space or time. (<>) is the international standard rod of 1 meter length that we use to graduate or correct our measuring instrument and (L) shows that we are talking about length. 'm'=(<>)(L). 'm' is what I have denoted as (w). 7m=[70](cm). I have to change the proper noun (w) if I am using a different international rod for measuring the same distance. Change of proper noun does not mean it is no more length or (L) has changed; it compels us to change the pure number [N]. My question is: when we differentiate length what element of the expression L=[N](<>)(l) do we differentiate - [N] or (<>) or our idea (L) of length. One can estimate short lengths by seeing or by feeling with hands or by travelling along the distance if it too long. This idea of length is absolute in the form of a single sense datum. Communication of length is not through a single sense datum or absolute; it is always relative to a standardised unit. If there are no units inpur mathematics then how can we justify that 2+3=5. For measurements (w) or (<>)(i) is like a quantum. This method of defining 'quantity' helps us to understand the reason why in physics frequency is always a whole number as if there is no angular acceleration between two consecutive frequencies. We can represent unit of time OR period per cycle as T=[1](<>)(t). Here [1] is frequency. During angular acceleration period per cycle or (<>)(T)decreases and the number within the bracket[?] increases but 'T' remains constant because it is 'clock' and [1](<>)(t) is the flywheel. We cannot imagine (<>) as the continuous variable, therefore we simply use whole numbers or integers to a series of frequencis extruding the idea of angular acceleration.
>> > A man sees or (feels?) a certain length and 'that length' is a SINGLE >> > SENSE DATUM for him. In science quantification of that (a specified) >> > length involves THREE SENSE DATA: number of units or [N], size of the >> > unit or(<>) and identity (i). We do not realize that in science 'unit'
>> Can you give concrete examples? Say, in the following physical >> quantities:
>> . 7 m >> . 26 m^2 >> . 0.4 s >> . 54 kg*m/s^2
>> What is the "size" of the unit? The quantity of units (its numeric value) >> is obvious for everyone here, IMO. What is the "identity"?
>> BTW, are you using "sense" in what sense?
>> What are the possible values of "size of the unit"? >> <snip> >> > does mean that 'size' >> > or (<>) cannot be a continuous variable in mathematics or physics. In >> > fact (<>) >> > or 'size' is a continuous variable if length (L) of thing elongates, >> > volume (V) expands or there is implosion.
>> You are confusing value measured with "value of unit" (whatever way you >> define it).
>> > Do we have (<>) or size of >> > unit or 1 1n pure mathematics? Can our calculation 2+3=5 be justified >> > without first ascertainig >> > that all (<>) are of same size?
>> No. There are no units in pure mathematics. Please read an real analysis >> book and try to find one, if you are not convinced.
>> So, your strange theory applies only to physics, not mathematics.
>7m=[7](<>)(L). Here 7 is the pure dimensionless number. It does not >occupy space or time. (<>) is the international standard rod of 1 >meter length that we use to graduate or correct our measuring >instrument and (L) shows that we are talking about length. >'m'=(<>)(L). 'm' is what I have denoted as (w). >7m=[70](cm). I have to change the proper noun (w) if I am using a >different international rod for measuring the same distance. Change of >proper noun does not mean it is no more length or (L) has changed; it >compels us to change the pure number [N]. >My question is: when we differentiate length what element of the >expression >L=[N](<>)(l) do we differentiate - [N] or (<>) or our idea (L) of >length.
Of course [N]. The (<>) and (L) stay "as is".
>One can estimate short lengths by seeing or by feeling with hands or >by travelling along the distance if it too long. This idea of length >is absolute in the form of a single sense datum. Communication of >length is not through a single sense datum or absolute; it is always >relative to a standardised unit. >If there are no units inpur mathematics then how can we justify that >2+3=5. >For measurements (w) or (<>)(i) is like a quantum.
Yes, something like that.
>This method of >defining 'quantity' helps us to understand the reason why in physics >frequency is always a whole number as if there is no angular >acceleration between two consecutive frequencies. We can represent >unit of time OR period per cycle as >T=[1](<>)(t). Here [1] is frequency. During angular acceleration >period per cycle or (<>)(T)decreases and the number within the >bracket[?] increases but 'T' remains constant because it is 'clock' >and [1](<>)(t) is the flywheel. We cannot imagine (<>) as the >continuous variable, therefore we simply use whole numbers or integers >to a series of frequencis extruding the idea of angular acceleration.
No. Actually, during angular acceleration there are two "times". One is the internal, the one we use for the case of uniform motion. This what you are talking about. It's the 'T', or the standard "clock". The other, is, hm, kind of "instantaneous time", the "external" time, relative to which you can measure the acceleration. In the case of uniform motion these two "times" coincide.
> >> > A man sees or (feels?) a certain length and 'that length' is a SINGLE > >> > SENSE DATUM for him. In science quantification of that (a specified) > >> > length involves THREE SENSE DATA: number of units or [N], size of the > >> > unit or(<>) and identity (i). We do not realize that in science 'unit'
> >> Can you give concrete examples? Say, in the following physical > >> quantities:
> >> . 7 m > >> . 26 m^2 > >> . 0.4 s > >> . 54 kg*m/s^2
> >> What is the "size" of the unit? The quantity of units (its numeric value) > >> is obvious for everyone here, IMO. What is the "identity"?
> >> BTW, are you using "sense" in what sense?
> >> What are the possible values of "size of the unit"? > >> <snip> > >> > does mean that 'size' > >> > or (<>) cannot be a continuous variable in mathematics or physics. In > >> > fact (<>) > >> > or 'size' is a continuous variable if length (L) of thing elongates, > >> > volume (V) expands or there is implosion.
> >> You are confusing value measured with "value of unit" (whatever way you > >> define it).
> >> > Do we have (<>) or size of > >> > unit or 1 1n pure mathematics? Can our calculation 2+3=5 be justified > >> > without first ascertainig > >> > that all (<>) are of same size?
> >> No. There are no units in pure mathematics. Please read an real analysis > >> book and try to find one, if you are not convinced.
> >> So, your strange theory applies only to physics, not mathematics.
> >7m=[7](<>)(L). Here 7 is the pure dimensionless number. It does not > >occupy space or time. (<>) is the international standard rod of 1 > >meter length that we use to graduate or correct our measuring > >instrument and (L) shows that we are talking about length. > >'m'=(<>)(L). 'm' is what I have denoted as (w). > >7m=[70](cm). I have to change the proper noun (w) if I am using a > >different international rod for measuring the same distance. Change of > >proper noun does not mean it is no more length or (L) has changed; it > >compels us to change the pure number [N]. > >My question is: when we differentiate length what element of the > >expression > >L=[N](<>)(l) do we differentiate - [N] or (<>) or our idea (L) of > >length.
> Of course [N]. The (<>) and (L) stay "as is".
> >One can estimate short lengths by seeing or by feeling with hands or > >by travelling along the distance if it too long. This idea of length > >is absolute in the form of a single sense datum. Communication of > >length is not through a single sense datum or absolute; it is always > >relative to a standardised unit. > >If there are no units inpur mathematics then how can we justify that > >2+3=5. > >For measurements (w) or (<>)(i) is like a quantum.
> Yes, something like that.
> >This method of > >defining 'quantity' helps us to understand the reason why in physics > >frequency is always a whole number as if there is no angular > >acceleration between two consecutive frequencies. We can represent > >unit of time OR period per cycle as > >T=[1](<>)(t). Here [1] is frequency. During angular acceleration > >period per cycle or (<>)(T)decreases and the number within the > >bracket[?] increases but 'T' remains constant because it is 'clock' > >and [1](<>)(t) is the flywheel. We cannot imagine (<>) as the > >continuous variable, therefore we simply use whole numbers or integers > >to a series of frequencis extruding the idea of angular acceleration.
> No. Actually, during angular acceleration there are two "times". > One is the internal, the one we use for the case of uniform > motion. This what you are talking about. It's the 'T', or the > standard "clock". The other, is, hm, kind of "instantaneous time", > the "external" time, relative to which you can measure the > acceleration. In the case of uniform motion these two "times" > coincide.
> Hope that helps.
> -glenn
I asked: In any 'quantity' say length represented by L=[N](<>)(l) which element of expression do we 'DIFFERENTIATE'? You said: 'Of course [N], the (<>) and the identity (l) stay "as is". My question is: [N] is a pure number and the very first derivative of [N], is zero, or dN=0. Does it mean that the differential of every 'physical quantity' is zero? I do accept accept that IF in [N](<>)(i), (i) is AREA (a) and A=[N](<>)(a), then the first derivative of A 'can be' what we call as dA. 'dA' is elemental area, and dA=YdX. Since here 'integral dX=X', we have to accept that X is 'time-like' - homogeneous, continuous, consistent, unchanging, unchangeable and INDEPENDENT of everything external to it. In the calculation of area 'A', dA is the continuous variable along X (time or length - the independent variable) and in dA= YdX the continuous variable is Y (IN space-time) and therefore integral of dY is not a constant in space time (the independent variable). In geometry if V is volume and V=[N](<>)(v) then dV=ZdA. As we can 'feel', in this expression we cannot integrate dA unless 'dA' has a amathematical order of increase or decrease (so that shape is geometric) and Z is time-like independent variable and integral dZ=Z. I believe that unless the question: 'what element, in the expression that conveys 'quantiy' Q=[N](<>)(i) is differentiated?' calculus cannot be used in physics in a sensible manner.
> >> > A man sees or (feels?) a certain length and 'that length' is a SINGLE > >> > SENSE DATUM for him. In science quantification of that (a specified) > >> > length involves THREE SENSE DATA: number of units or [N], size of the > >> > unit or(<>) and identity (i). We do not realize that in science 'unit'
> >> Can you give concrete examples? Say, in the following physical > >> quantities:
> >> . 7 m > >> . 26 m^2 > >> . 0.4 s > >> . 54 kg*m/s^2
> >> What is the "size" of the unit? The quantity of units (its numeric value) > >> is obvious for everyone here, IMO. What is the "identity"?
> >> BTW, are you using "sense" in what sense?
> >> What are the possible values of "size of the unit"? > >> <snip> > >> > does mean that 'size' > >> > or (<>) cannot be a continuous variable in mathematics or physics. In > >> > fact (<>) > >> > or 'size' is a continuous variable if length (L) of thing elongates, > >> > volume (V) expands or there is implosion.
> >> You are confusing value measured with "value of unit" (whatever way you > >> define it).
> >> > Do we have (<>) or size of > >> > unit or 1 1n pure mathematics? Can our calculation 2+3=5 be justified > >> > without first ascertainig > >> > that all (<>) are of same size?
> >> No. There are no units in pure mathematics. Please read an real analysis > >> book and try to find one, if you are not convinced.
> >> So, your strange theory applies only to physics, not mathematics.
> >7m=[7](<>)(L). Here 7 is the pure dimensionless number. It does not > >occupy space or time. (<>) is the international standard rod of 1 > >meter length that we use to graduate or correct our measuring > >instrument and (L) shows that we are talking about length. > >'m'=(<>)(L). 'm' is what I have denoted as (w). > >7m=[70](cm). I have to change the proper noun (w) if I am using a > >different international rod for measuring the same distance. Change of > >proper noun does not mean it is no more length or (L) has changed; it > >compels us to change the pure number [N]. > >My question is: when we differentiate length what element of the > >expression > >L=[N](<>)(l) do we differentiate - [N] or (<>) or our idea (L) of > >length.
> Of course [N]. The (<>) and (L) stay "as is".
> >One can estimate short lengths by seeing or by feeling with hands or > >by travelling along the distance if it too long. This idea of length > >is absolute in the form of a single sense datum. Communication of > >length is not through a single sense datum or absolute; it is always > >relative to a standardised unit. > >If there are no units inpur mathematics then how can we justify that > >2+3=5. > >For measurements (w) or (<>)(i) is like a quantum.
> Yes, something like that.
> >This method of > >defining 'quantity' helps us to understand the reason why in physics > >frequency is always a whole number as if there is no angular > >acceleration between two consecutive frequencies. We can represent > >unit of time OR period per cycle as > >T=[1](<>)(t). Here [1] is frequency. During angular acceleration > >period per cycle or (<>)(T)decreases and the number within the > >bracket[?] increases but 'T' remains constant because it is 'clock' > >and [1](<>)(t) is the flywheel. We cannot imagine (<>) as the > >continuous variable, therefore we simply use whole numbers or integers > >to a series of frequencis extruding the idea of angular acceleration.
> No. Actually, during angular acceleration there are two "times". > One is the internal, the one we use for the case of uniform > motion. This what you are talking about. It's the 'T', or the > standard "clock". The other, is, hm, kind of "instantaneous time", > the "external" time, relative to which you can measure the > acceleration. In the case of uniform motion these two "times" > coincide.
> Hope that helps.
> -glenn
You say that during acceleration there sre two "times". Can you tell me in what way one differs from the other? What mathematical operations are possible among these two "times"? The only way to avoid all situations in which two "times" are likely to appear simultaneposly in any real demonstration involving passage of time (say, L vs T curve) is to clock time is time without change, and instantaneous change or 'change involving no clock time' or 'Change without conventional time'. Newton has used L/T^2 as MOVING AVERAGE, where average increases during unconventional time or the undifinable time.
|
