quote:

Originally posted by Jagter:
Jon A, decide for yourself - read this article.

quote:

Mr Ethan Skylar is duping us with clever word play and reasoning ?

quote:

Jon A, decide for yourself - read this article.

quote:

Posted 09 July 2006 20:36
After quite some time a reply to Alf's question above re 'mathematical derivations' (formulae) and Jon A's remark re 'Engineering background'.

The following link will take you to an article which may finally help you to get a clear understanding of the cause of events in hunting.

quote:

On another issue, the term "moment of inertia" is misnamed. It is another
example of attempting to grant reality to "inertia" where none exists. Moment
refers to a theoretical concentration of the matter of a rotating object at an
average distance at right angle to the axis of rotation. Think of moment as a
lever with one end attached to the fixed axis and some distance away all the
object's matter is concentrated at and fastened to the lever. Now to impose
angular acceleration for the object's matter a force (torque) must be applied
to the lever. Newton's formula is modified to take into account the length of
the radius (lever) and then it fully applies to predicting the correct angular
acceleration that will result.

Where in here do you see the presence of "inertia"? There is talk about
how the object's matter "resists" the tangential acceleration/Action force but
such is not the case. Yes an a/A force is required to cause angular
acceleration (either speeding up or slowing down of its rate of rotation). But
just as in linear acceleration events, with friction absent, there is no
evidence of any such "inertial" resistance to acceleration. Once the a/A
torque force is present, angular acceleration is immediate and without any
sort of internal inert "inertial" resistance. As in linear accelerational
events, such predictions are based not upon experiment but upon poor
reasoning. Clearly a complete lack of understanding of the supportive but
always non-resistive acceleration/Reaction force is their problem.

Accordingly the false and misleading term "moment of inertia" needs to be
replaced by a term that is based upon the quantity of the object's matter and
the distance this matter is positioned, when averaged, from the axis of the
actual object's rotation. Something like "moment of matter". As always, matter
is real, "inertia" is unreal. Someday we will all laugh at how Physics got
this sooo wrong.
Ethan Skyler.

quote:

the predictions of Albert Einstein's theory are without meaning.

quote:

The inertias I deal with every day come with units of inches to the fourth power. Has nothing to do with weight and alone cannot tell you how much force anything can withstand (although it is a big part of how you find that out).

quote:

Dick, that's what.

quote:

Jon A, as to who is really "uhm...slow", I think you already know the answer after having read the specific article above already twice and still not getting it. Try again. Who knows, maybe you're lucky the third time round!
Só, decide for yourself who is really educated and who not.

As far as I'm concerned, your ability to judge for yourself and make what you've learned over the years applicable in practice, is already highly suspect.
Thus frustrating rather than entertaining!

quote:

Alf,

quote:
Classic Newtonian derivations are still the norm and will likely remain the norm for many years to come, unquote:


Who disagreed with the above?
Neither me nor Ethan Skyler in any of his works or comments - you're fighting your shadow over this and in the process don't understand what you're reading!

quote:

Inertia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about inertia as it applies to physics. For other meanings, see inertia (disambiguation)

The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental laws of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. The concept of inertia is today most commonly defined using Isaac Newton's First Law of Motion, which states:

Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight ahead, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed. [Cohen & Whitman 1999 translation]

quote:

Article I
In his great work, "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", known today more simply as "PRINCIPIA" [1], Isaac Newton described inertia as the "force of inactivity". He went on to say that an object maintained its state of rest, or uniform motion (same state) "by its inertia only." In other words "resting" and "uniformly moving" objects were viewed by Newton as being equally inactive and further that this inactivity was being maintained by the force Newton called "inertia". Thus, according to Newton's description, the object's "force of inertia" must serve in some manner to prevent activity from occurring to the object's state of motion if the object's "inactivity" is to be "maintained". With rest and uniform motion being the inactive state then a change in motion (acceleration) must be the active state that challenges the inactivity-maintaining power of the object's "inertia". Since the activity of acceleration is always caused by an accelerative force (Newton's LAW I), and further since every accelerative force always finds support against some other force of equal magnitude (Newton's LAW III), then it holds that Newton's inertia must be this other force that reacts in support of the accelerative force which is busy acting as the cause of the object's accelerational activity. (See references [2], [3], and [4]).

(2) But why then did Newton refer to inertia as being a "force of inactivity"? Clearly, any force that reacts in support for an acceleration-causing action force is itself a force that is a participant in the activity of acceleration. For certain, as long as the active acceleration force is present, the object will continue to accelerate with no end in sight. Therefore, in practice, any reactive inertia force directed back from the object does nothing to prevent the acceleration action force from continuing to cause acceleration for the object. In fact, it is clear that as long as the acceleration action force is impressed against the accelerating object, no force of any type is present that is successful in causing an end to the acceleration and thereby restoring the object once again to the non-accelerative inactive state of rest or uniform motion as Newton predicts is the true role of the object's inertia. In reality, during an accelerational event, I do not think there is any evidence of the presence of any "force of inactivity" that matches Isaac Newton's description for the role of inertia.