More cowbell!!! On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Jose Catena <j...@diwaves.com> wrote:
> I also think it may be not a good idea to discuss physics here. But since > this is going on anyway, I think I may help to find an agreement and end > this. Please forgive me and skip the rest of this post if you aren't > interested. > I think everyone participating in the discussion knew what the centrifugal > force is, and all the confusion could be explained by assumptions on what > the 'real' definition is, since the natural language adjective is ambiguous > as a scientific definition. Perhaps this happened with more than one word. > It is not important if we name a force 'real' or 'abstract', as long as we > understand what it actually is and agree on definition of 'real', what is > not obvious as proven in the discussion. > Forces are vectors (forget for now that 'vector' is in itself an > abstraction). For analysis, many times natural forces are expressed as sum > of vectors. Of course this makes another abstraction, every time we apply > math we are abstracting in some way. Although it is also a valid meaning of > 'real' something that can be demonstrated mathematically. > Instead of centrifugal force, I'll put an example that I think is pretty > useful to show the conflict: the force the air causes to a wing moving on > it. The 'real' or single force vector is not useful for understanding or > analysis, so we always express it as a sum of two vectors: 'lift' and > 'drag'. I never hear of anyone saying that these are not real since their > effect is demonstrable, while most people would consider the single natural > force an abstraction, since it is demonstrated and understood as the sum of > the two calculable components lift and drag. > Furthermore, we often consider how a sum of forces are applied to an > object, > while at the end, only the sum is what matters to the effect produced, and > in this case we might say this sum is an abstraction while the components > are 'real' or not (they may be also abstracted components of a real > force)... > You see how assuming the meaning of words may be so confusing in science. > As I see it, the problem in the discussion can be solved by delimiting the > meaning of 'real', or much better, avoiding this ambiguous adjective in > favor of a more explicit one. Indeed the centrifugal force is not directly > caused in the nature, so if we say 'real' means a direct representation of > something that physically exist, it is not 'real'. But we may also say that > 'real' means it can be demonstrated mathematically, and then the > centrifugal > force is certainly 'real', as would 'lift' and 'drag' in a wing. Both are > valid meanings of 'real' in different scopes (physical existence vs. > scientifically demonstrable). > Something that unfortunately happens too often. In any kind of discussion, > people should try to understand each other's reasoning instead of > nit-picking on definitions to discredit them. It is different than an > exhaustive essay where the author should be careful to clear any ambiguity. > We couldn't speak if we had to be scientifically accurate in every word. > Sorry for the long and off topic post, I advised to skip it if no > interest... ;-) > > Jose Catena > DIGIWAVES S.L. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > -- Alex Lovin - www.erasereality.3x.ro
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
