George Hrabovsky il 29/10/2023 11:51:56 ha scritto:
>> Instead, resistance to acceleration is not always there, it is only there when acceleration occurs, because the two things are connected.
>
> This is in error. Forces acting on a body accelerate the mass of the body.

Certainly, but the forces that act on a body also have another consequence: they activate the body's resistance force!

And vice versa, the body's (inertial) resistance force is activated *only* when the external force intervenes.

Newton also says it: "A body exerts this force only, when another force, impressed upon it, endeavors to change its condition; and the exercise of this force may be considered both as resistance and impulse; it is resistance, in so far as the body, for maintaining its present state, withstands the force impressed; it is impulse, in so far as the body, by not easily giving way to the impressed force of another, endeavors, to change the state of that another. Resistance is usually ascribed to bodies at rest, and impulse to those in motion; but motion and rest, as commonly conceived, are only relatively distinguished; nor are these bodies always truly at rest, which commonly are taken to be so."

L’inerzia è sia impulso che resistenza.

> The mass is always there, and it is a measure of inertia. This is encapsulated in Newton's second law, F = m a, F is the applied force, m is the mass, and a is the acceleration. F and a are vectors, m is a scalar.

Of course, mass (which is the amount of matter) is always there because it is a scalar and has no direction.

Instead, inertia is not a quantity of matter but is the ability of bodies to resist, to oppose, to react: it is an action.

So, mass and inertia are not the same thing.

>> There is resistance to acceleration if there is acceleration and there is no resistance to acceleration if there is no acceleration.
>
> The mass is always there, otherwise how would the body know when to have mass or not?

The body doesn't need to know when it has mass and when it doesn't, because mass is *always* there.

Instead, he needs to know when it's time to resist and when not.

>> Inertia in the absence of any acceleration (which must not resist acceleration) is a completely different thing from inertia in the presence of acceleration (which must resist acceleration).
>
> Why?

You can understand this by looking at my animation where the bodies m1 and m2 (before the collision) do not have to resist anything because no one is accelerating them and, instead, during the collision they both have to resist because they are accelerating each other.

>> You can understand everything by looking at my animation https://www.geogebra.org/m/mjnqb8vk
>
> Your animation demonstrates the conservation of momentum and the effects of friction (a force caused by electromagnetism), so it has nothing to do with inertia intrinsically.

My animation demonstrates that there is a simultaneity between inertia and electromagnetic forces.

In fact, the electromagnetic forces are activated only during the collision, that is, precisely at the moment in which both bodies m1 and m2 need a force to be able to resist the mutual external acceleration.

This means that it is precisely the bodies m1 and m2 that use *their* electromagnetic forces (what else if not?) to be able to oppose each other.

In fact, in the lower part of my animation (despite there being contact between m1 and m2) no electromagnetic force is activated because the inertias do not activate them (not needing them).

Luigi Fortunati

On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 3:17:24 AM UTC-5, Luigi Fortunati wrote:
This will be my last response on this topic, as you refuse to attempt to understand reality. As such, this is becoming a waste of my time.

> Certainly, but the forces that act on a body also have another consequence: they activate the body's resistance force!

Such an activation requires a mechanism. In a spring we have the Hooke's law force that activates only when you displace a particle on a spring from equilibrium. You suggest no such mechanism, and there is no physical evidence for any such mechanism in matter other than mass. Mass is completely well understood in classical mechanics as the quantity of inertia, thus it goes by the name of inertial mass. Your refusal to accept this tells me that you are no longer dealing with reality.
>
> And vice versa, the body's (inertial) resistance force is activated *only* when the external force intervenes.

Nonsense.

> Newton also says it: "A body exerts this force only, when another force, impressed upon it, endeavors to change its condition; and the exercise of this force may be considered both as resistance and impulse; it is resistance, in so far as the body, for maintaining its present state, withstands the force impressed; it is impulse, in so far as the body, by not easily giving way to the impressed force of another, endeavors, to change the state of that another. Resistance is usually ascribed to bodies at rest, and impulse to those in motion; but motion and rest, as commonly conceived, are only relatively distinguished; nor are these bodies always truly at rest, which commonly are taken to be so."

You suggest that inertia is a force. This makes no sense as solving the equations of motion we would be multiplying by a new force and the end result would be in units of Newton's squared, and they are not.
>

> You can understand this by looking at my animation where the bodies m1 and m2 (before the collision) do not have to resist anything because no one is accelerating them and, instead, during the collision they both have to resist because they are accelerating each other.

Your animations are not solutions of the equations, they are an artist rendering. Thus, they are useless as a model.

> My animation demonstrates that there is a simultaneity between inertia and electromagnetic forces.
>
> In fact, the electromagnetic forces are activated only during the collision, that is, precisely at the moment in which both bodies m1 and m2 need a force to be able to resist the mutual external acceleration.

You clearly have no understanding of the electromagnetic basis of friction. The reason why you have friction is because of the interaction of atoms and ions with each other electromagnetically. Atoms want to stick together, so as an object moves it experiences a force that tries to get the object to stay where it is. You diagram does not even attempt to show how that works.
>
> This means that it is precisely the bodies m1 and m2 that use *their* electromagnetic forces (what else if not?) to be able to oppose each other.

No, it is their differences in their initial states of momentum.
>
> In fact, in the lower part of my animation (despite there being contact between m1 and m2) no electromagnetic force is activated because the inertias do not activate them (not needing them).

As I said above, I am done wasting my time on this. You will never accept reality. Good luck.

George

George Hrabovsky il 02/11/2023 14:08:07 ha scritto:
>> Newton also says it: "A body exerts this force only, when another force,
>> impressed upon it, endeavors to change its condition; and the exercise of
>> this force may be considered both as resistance and impulse; it is
>> resistance, in so far as the body, for maintaining its present state,
>> withstands the force impressed; it is impulse, in so far as the body, by not
>> easily giving way to the impressed force of another, endeavors, to change
>> the state of that another. Resistance is usually ascribed to bodies at rest,
>> and impulse to those in motion; but motion and rest, as commonly conceived,
>> are only relatively distinguished; nor are these bodies always truly at
>> rest, which commonly are taken to be so."
>
> You suggest that inertia is a force.

It is Newton who expressly says so!

In fact, he says: "A body exerts this force (inertia, vis intima)
*ONLY* when another force, impressed upon it, endeavors to change its
condition".

Therefore, inertia becomes a force only when external conditions
require it (not always).

This is what happens in my animation *ONLY* during the collision: what
does the body m2 do on that occasion? It opposes (resists) the other
force (that of m1) which strives to change its condition of rest.

And m1 does the same when another force (that of m2) tries to change
its condition of rectilinear and uniform motion.

The inertia (the vis intima) of m1 and m2 is not always a force, it
becomes *ONLY* when each of the two becomes an *external* force for the
other.

You're disputing Newton too, not just me.

Luigi Fortunati.

I want to highlight an error of judgment that we all make and that my animation
https://www.geogebra.org/m/mjnqb8vk
seems to confirm it.

In fact, during the collision, the two arrows seem to indicate the presence of a blue force that acts *only* on the body m2 and of a corresponding red force that acts *only* on the body m1 (moreover only at the two points A and P) .

Of course, this is not the case.

The two bodies m1 and m2 are not two single and compact blocks but are a set of billions and billions of particles connected to each other by a network of forces that I have schematized in my new animation
https://www.geogebra.org/m/sqmsc4ey
where it is clearly seen that (in the collision) the blue and red forces arise and develop within the two bodies.

The blue forces start from the zero level of the body m1, where the particles W, T and V (which move forward inertially) push the corresponding particles of level 1 who are slowing down.

This push (the blue force) increases in the transition from the first to the second level because those of level 1 are added to the pushes of the level zero particles and so on, increasing their strength more and more until level 4, where they reach their maximum .

Therefore, the blue forces, even before arriving at the body m2, exert their action on the particles of the body m1 (particles of the body m1 pushing other particles of the body m1).

And the same goes for the red forces which are forces that the particles in the body m2 exert on other particles in the body m2, before arriving at the body m1.

All this means that it is not at all true that (during the impact) the blue force directed to the right acts *only* on the body m2 and that the red force directed to the left acts *only* on the body m1.

A red *external* force directed to the left and a blue *internal* force directed to the right act on body m1 and a blue *external* force directed to the right and a red *internal* force directed to the left act on body m2.

Forces always act in pairs, as the third principle teaches: there are no forces (actions) without the corresponding opposing forces (reactions).
Luigi Fortunati.