Thread: what is momentum (p) ? They say p = m*v. It is not enough !

Definition is fundamental in Physics, as anywhere else, because it indicates the essence of a being, a thing.

MOMENTUM has no verbal definition at all. This is regrettable.

It has only an arithmetic (numeric) definition: p = m * v.
The dimension has been left as such M*v that is :no dimension
It is left vague,s o according to one's needs, it can be interpreted as anythin and everything: energy or else

numeric definition is a poor definition as it points only to the way to calculate its value.

In this case the definition is a multiplication, which aggravates the situation.

In arithmetics we cannot add sweets and children, but we can multiply sweets by children
so if five children have 10 sweets each we get 5*10= 50 (fifty what? I reply: children!)
Can anyone correct me? not by scientific arguments,(only by common sense), beacuse maths has a gap there:
5children * 10sweets is equal to 10sweets * 5children that is 50 (I say children!, you say humbug!:sweets)

50 can mean only either sweets or children, as it is so far unreported a substance which is created anew by arithmetics

I hope you can see my point,(I stand corrected)

now I ask again to you physicists: what is momentum is it mass or velocity?
Is it legitimate to assimilate it to any other category?

What is momentum is it mass or velocity?

Momentum is not mass or velocity, it (linear momentum) is mass multiplied by velocity (as you stated) which is just



which in terms of units gives



What is so difficult to understand about this? Momentum is just the product of the mass and velocity of an object and is a vector quantity; and the amount of momentum an object has depends upon 2 physical quantities- mass and velocity of the moving object in the frame of reference.

Here is a good summary of momentum as applied to classical mechanics, relativistic mechanics and quantum mechanics:

Momentum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Momentum is a consequence of the inertia that comes with mass, which is loosely defined as the resistance to change in velocity. Because of the innate inertia of an object with mass, it will have a certain momentum attributed to it at any non-zero velocity. Having said this, massless particles like photons also have momentum, but this is a more complicated issue.

Originally Posted by x(x-y);275212
1) What is so difficult to understand about [B

this[/B]?
2)Here is a good summary of momentum....

Hallo Sir, I'm glad you are from UK, so we speak the same idiolect.

I must humbly ask you to re-read less hastily my thread

1) I never said I do not understand that
2) Thanks for your kindness! but, i do not see why I need your suggestions,
since you have confirmed the trueness and exactness of my statements
if I make any mistake, your correction is welcome and likewise any suggestion for my documentation

I am a Linguist by profession, so, if sometime I should sound pedantic, I apologize in advance!

I deliberately skipped the verbal definition of momentum (p= quantity of motion) because I do not want to start here a discussion in semantics or philosophy which would take us too far, and would find few specialists here.I want to open a debate with specialist physicists.
(BTW: what is MOTION? is it a technical, physical term? is it a synonym of speed/velocity or what? please answer this)

I just madet some mathematical points, to which you should respond.
These points have, nevertheless, implications in semantics and epistemology which you may not ignore.

that is : mass and velocity are two categories
if you multiply their quantities can you obtain a new category?

I raised this very delicate issue. If, as it figures, your answer is affirmative, well
you have a lot of reasoning to do, repeating a few formulas will not do!...
....and I myself wouldn't like to be in your shoes!

Thanks you for your attention

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Momentum is a consequence of the inertia that comes with mass,

Hi Kalster, thanks for your reply.
Please read my previous post

Originally Posted by peterpan

Hallo Sir, I'm glad you are from UK, so we speak the same idiolect.

I am a Linguist by profession, so, if sometime I should sound pedantic, I apologize in advance!

Forgive me if I doubt this. A linguist would know that an idiolect is the language of an individual in terms of vocabulary, idiom and pronounciation. Therefore it is practically inconceivable that you would have the same idiolect as another.

Originally Posted by peterpan

1) I never said I do not understand that

By asking whether momentum was mass or velocity, you seem to demonstrate that you do not understand momentum. If you did there would be no reason to ask such an irrelevant question.

Originally Posted by peterpan

2) Thanks for your kindness! but, i do not see why I need your suggestions,

Because your observations indicate you have a poor grasp of the principles of mathematics and physics, and very litte understanding - if any of momentum.

Originally Posted by peterpan

since you have confirmed the trueness and exactness of my statements
if I make any mistake, your correction is welcome and likewise any suggestion for my documentation

Unfortunately, almost every one of your statements is wrong, misleading or misguided.

Originally Posted by peterpan

I am a Linguist by profession, so, if sometime I should sound pedantic, I apologize in advance!

I would have hoped that a linguistic, skilled in the use of langauge, could choose words and sentence structures that would flow, yielding clarity rather than pedantry. But that's just me - and I used to sell double glazing.

Originally Posted by peterpan

BTW: what is MOTION? is it a technical, physical term? is it a synonym of speed/velocity or what? please answer this

One of the physicist members may give a better answer, but I would say that motion is the process by which an object changes its position within a specific reference frame.

Originally Posted by peterpan

I just madet some mathematical points, to which you should respond.
These points have, nevertheless, implications in semantics and epistemology which you may not ignore.

Again you provide reasons for me to doubt your claim to be a linguist. Clearly I may ignore your points. Indeed I intend to do so. Perhaps you meant I should not ignore them.

Originally Posted by peterpan

that is : mass and velocity are two categories
if you multiply their quantities can you obtain a new category?

Define category in this context.

Originally Posted by peterpan

....and I myself wouldn't like to be in your shoes!

You do realise you are coming across as a whacko with some weird agenda? Was that what you were aiming for?

Originally Posted by peterpan

if you multiply their quantities can you obtain a new category?

Velocity itself is a new category derived from from other basic units. It is speed with direction (speed and velocity are not the same as speed by itself does not have direction.)
In turn, speed is derived from distance and time. Speed is dist/time.

Most units in physics are derived units. , Force, acceleration, energy, etc. They are all derived from the three fundamental units of mass, distance and time. Energy is is force x distance. Which is equal to applying a force over a distance. (if I apply a certain force to an object while pushing it a given distance, I have imparted a given energy to it. ) Force is mass times acceleration, or how hard you have to push on a given mass to accelerate it by a given amount. Acceleration is change in velocity in a given time, Etc.

So in fundamental units, Energy is expressed as: mass x distance²/time² . Which can be read as a property you impart upon a mass by accelerating it over a distance .

This is all covered in a subject known as "dimensional analysis".

Thus, in your sweets-children example: Each child has 10 sweets, which is 10 sweets per child or 10 sweets/child. If you have 5 children the equation becomes:



by the rules of mathematics this can be rearranged as:



children and child are the same unit and cancel out (children/child (children per child) = 1, a dimensionless unit) leaving you with



there is no confusion as to whether the answer is in sweets or children because the "child" unit drops out of the equation.

Or in brie,f p=mv, and yes, that is quite sufficient for those who are educated.

Originally Posted by peterpan

that is : mass and velocity are two categories if you multiply their quantities can you obtain a new category?

Simply put, yes. Momentum is exactly what is says on the tin (which is the formula p = mv in this case!) and is just a derivation of units from other physical quantities (as explained by Janus); if you can make an equation homogenous in terms of units on both sides of the equation, then it will be valid (if that is not the case all the time, someone please correct me)- and the formula p = mv is homogenous due to the units of mass and velocity.

To see why multiplying two units gets a different unit (or category, whatever), consider the unit of meters. Would you say that length (meters) and area (meters times meters) are comparable? If so, how many meters are there in one square meter?

Originally Posted by Janus

1)Velocity itself is a new category derived..............

2)..... which is 10 sweets per child or 10 sweets/ child. .

1)thank you for all you kind info about units.They are irrelevant here, they are basic categories I never mentioned or said I ignore!

I mentioned the two categories physics mentions in the formula=definition and I am quite satisfied with them: mass and velocity
I gather:

1) mass is often referred to as " a form of energy, trapped energy.....or whatever you prefer"
2) velocity is a vector ....or whatever you like. Whatever, whichever anyone's chooses, I have NO objections, at least hic and nunc.
(Feel free to add ad libitum, but remember you are not correcting or contradicting me, as I said I accept everithing, even nonsense)

now, chemistry tells us that if we add two categories (substances) we might get a new category (like H+H+O => water)
could anyone report an istance where multiplying two categories we get a new one ? (if so by which laws?) (like children * sweets)

3)(BTW Janus could you please specify what MOTION means in physics.Is it speed ,velocity or just generical movement, dislocation or what?)

2) Could you please, make explicit the logic of that passage between per and divided?

Thank you, Janus, dont' forget question 3.!
That is really something I ignore

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

.......you are coming across as a whacko...... ?

Quite right sir!
..................in the idiolect I share with (x^2-xy) .... I define myself as an old codger!

come again!
(but, please, understand that I'll ignore future posts)

In order to avoid pointless discussions, I'll re-frame my example

we have

1) 5 (children), 10 (sweets) we multiply 5 * 10 and we get 50 (fifty what? I reply: children)

someone corrects me: NO! it's fifty sweets. He is using commonsense and (probably) is right

now I say, we have :

2) 5 (crates), 10 (boxes) multiply and we get again we get 50 (fifty what? I reply: crates)

someone pops up and says: No, it's fifty boxes! Who is right?

(Aleck might say : fifty containers!)

have a try, and have a good time!

Your attempts at imposing your understanding of chemistry and language onto math are doomed.

Originally Posted by peterpan

In order to avoid pointless discussions, I'll re-frame my example

we have

1) 5 (children), 10 (sweets) we multiply 5 * 10 and we get 50 (fifty what? I reply: children)

someone corrects me: NO! it's fifty sweets. He is using commonsense and (probably) is right

now I say, we have :

2) 5 (crates), 10 (boxes) multiply and we get again we get 50 (fifty what? I reply: crates)

someone pops up and says: No, it's fifty boxes! Who is right?

(Aleck might say : fifty containers!)

have a try, and have a good time!

You obviously

1) Didn't read what Janus posted explaining this.
2) Didn't understand what Janus posted.

I'll post it again, here:

Thus, in your sweets-children example: Each child has 10 sweets, which is 10 sweets per child or 10 sweets/child. If you have 5 children the equation becomes:



by the rules of mathematics this can be rearranged as:



children and child are the same unit and cancel out (children/child (children per child) = 1, a dimensionless unit) leaving you with



there is no confusion as to whether the answer is in sweets or children because the "child" unit drops out of the equation.

Read and understand!

Originally Posted by peterpan

In order to avoid pointless discussions, I'll re-frame my example

we have

1) 5 (children), 10 (sweets) we multiply 5 * 10 and we get 50 (fifty what? I reply: children)

someone corrects me: NO! it's fifty sweets. He is using commonsense and (probably) is right

now I say, we have :

2) 5 (crates), 10 (boxes) multiply and we get again we get 50 (fifty what? I reply: crates)

someone pops up and says: No, it's fifty boxes! Who is right?

(Aleck might say : fifty containers!)

have a try, and have a good time!

The math wizards have explained how the math works. I don't know if I can help, but here are a couple of things that I thought about while reading your posts. You are correct, in a way, that the product of the quantities of two dissimilar items can yeild a third quantity. Your example of 10 sweets and 5 children could produce 50 sweetchildren. "Sweetchildren" makes no sense as a third quantity, as it has no definition. On the other hand, momentum does have a definition which makes sense - it is the quantity of motion in a body. Therefore, the formula (which is not a definition), p=mv makes sense...at least to me.

I expect there are many folks here who could give real-world examples of how p=mv can be put to practical use. The auto industry, for one, would find this useful when designing safe vehicles. Someone else may find it useful in figuring out what it will take to deflect an asteroid. Yet another may use the formula when building a robot designed to play billiards and never miss a shot.

When he said each child had ten sweets he didn't realize that's 10 sweets/child. So he thinks he's multiplying 'sweets' and 'child' together.

Wow.

If you had a reason to multiply sweets and children together, then you'd have a reason for sweet-children to make sense. When you multiply meters by meters, that gives meaning to meters squared.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

To see why multiplying two units gets a different unit (or category, whatever), consider the unit of meters.
Would you say that length (meters) and area (meters times meters) are comparable? If so,
how many meters are there in one square meter?

Broad hint:
(to you, ledger,gottaBtold and all other readers)
If you just recall to your mind, or write down
the definition of multiplication


it is just simple arithmetics!
you'll get the answers to all this questions and mine too! have a try!

the definition of multiplication

Yes, the multiplication of numbers. When you are talking about units, as in , it tells you what set of constituent quantities are used to describe this particular quantity. In fact, you could draw up a graph showing the relation between velocity and mass that would produce that particular value of momentum.

As stated, momentum is a phenomenon that describes a property of mass at a certain speed, which is that a mass, having inertia, will take a certain amount of effort to stop. The amount of effort needed depends on its mass and the velocity it is moving at. Mass and velocity are factors of momentum.

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

1) Didn't read what Janus posted explaining this.
2) Didn't understand what Janus posted.

I'll post it again, here:

Read and understand!

I already answered Janus, Ledger and you did not understand.it's your problem

You think you are smart.
But you are only cheating.
PER has two meanings: (if you don't have a dictionary see wiki),
I used one in the question and you jump the other in the answer.
That's very clever!
that's why I modified it.

I will not answer again

Originally Posted by peterpan

Originally Posted by x(x-y)

1) Didn't read what Janus posted explaining this.
2) Didn't understand what Janus posted.

I'll post it again, here:

Read and understand!

I already answered Janus, Ledger and you did not understand.it's your problem

You think you are smart.
But you are only cheating.
PER has two meanings: (if you don't have a dictionary see wiki),
I used one in the question and you jump the other in the answer.
That's very clever!
that's why I modified it.

I will not answer again

What on Earth are you rambling about? You make no coherent sense at all and obviously don't have much of an understanding of physics nor mathematics.

You are attempting to multiply two units (children and sweets) together which do not make much sense multiplied together:



The proof shown by Janus, however, does make physical sense- and you still don't understand it, as far as I can see.

Multiplying the two units children and sweets is like multiplying together Ohms and Angular velocity:



It makes no sense, you can technically multiply these two terms but you don't end up with any physical quantity at the end of it- just gibberish. It's exactly like the phrase: "Garbage in, garbage out".

He actually said, "if five children had ten sweets each." Thus, 10 sweets/child. When extended over the number of children, 'sweets' is the only unit left as the kids cancel.

I,m not thinkerbell but try to think for her... situation starts from 1*50 sweets and 5*1 children all unicque for you because you are the one and only real Peterpan offcourse.

Only one of two real numbers mathematical can have a unity within this type of expressions (produkt and quotient). One number also must have or we swim in meaningless abstraction, fly - as we can fly just as anyone - in total vacuum. It can be 50 *1 sweet ór 1 * 50 sweets, fifty series of 1 or 1 serie of fifty. Who cares we have to make the sweets fit to the five children. But why divide ? We can lay all sweets out on a table or checkerboard pattern. On a table making groups with bigger distances between groups of sweets . But it
stays one series of fifty sweets. It,s arranging/shaping within a serie to fit to the amount of children. Similar
as you can do with a matrix. Five
rows for five children. No need to divide then ; the children will recognize what you did and take their share it comes out 5*10 and
we have produced five sweet and happy children with ten sweats each.
Connecting sweets as unit to the colums ánd what fills them would make for "sweets^2". Put the children in a ratio to sweets^2 it,s 5/50 (ch/Sw^2).

OMG

If five kids have ten sweets each they have fifty in total. Fifty sweets. That's it.

There's nothing more to it.

Originally Posted by Ledger

When he said each child had ten sweets he didn't realize that's 10 sweets/child. So he thinks he's multiplying 'sweets' and 'child' together.

Wow.

Originally Posted by Ledger

OMG

If five kids have ten sweets each they have fifty in total. Fifty sweets. That's it.

There's nothing more to it.

I'm new here, but I think Moderators should do something.
They can't beat ignorance, but perhaps can keep down trollism

Yes, I can see you haven't been around for long. If we stopped all posts with that tone, the forum would become a ghost town. Not that we'd want to either. There are definitely limits, but this doesn't come close enough.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Yes, I can see you haven't been around for long.
1) If we stopped all posts with that tone, the forum would become a ghost town. Not that we'd want to either.

2) There are definitely limits, but this doesn't come close enough.

I left Yahoo because I was sick and tired of joke, pranks an sneers.But there, beside such things you can find useful information.
I moved here because I want to be informed, no amused. Nor I have time to waste!

1) now, look at this thread. You got 26 posts and not a semblance of decent, serious attempt to solve the problem!
I prefer I had found no post, instead of being forced to go through a load of....nothing!

I quoted Ledger's because it is a masterpiece: in the second post he disproved his first, thus proving that there he had been ignorant and arrogant.
And to me an arrogant ignorant is very close to a troll!

2) I referred to other posts: take #14,
not a word re the thread. Just a personal, disparaging, stupid attack on another poster.
,
I hope , that as a moderator , you agree that you must show, prove by cogent argument your interlocutor is an idiot, you never can just say it

I think such posts should be immediately removed ​, the thread ,and the forum, would gain, and its author warned or banned
I think also, but perhaps this opinion is debatable, that a ghost town is much better than an infested town.

The question has been answered multiple times, in multiple ways. The OP refuses to accept any of those answers. There's really not much left to say after that, but so far neither side is willing to give up the argument.

Also, Ledger's posts don't disagree with each other, so you're not doing too good of a job of making your point.

Finally, I know moderating-by-proxy is frowned upon, but just so you can hear it from a non-mod, it's usually considered rude to tell a mod how to do his job, at least in the open forums (PMs are better for such things).

Originally Posted by Ledger

1)If five kids have ten sweets each they have fifty in total. Fifty sweets.
2)That's it.

Now , look, I am just a student who wants to learn, I didn't know I had come here to teach.

1) right ! The simple, obvious answer.,
......but I am blind or dumb (obviously both), because that is the first and only time I read it. Here.
as to the rest, I read only snide remarks and delirious statements that 5 per (*) ten becomes by magic 5 divided (/) ten.
(but I am not a wizard, do not grasp that)

I DO NOT intend to get involved in personal polemics, so leave me alone! I just owe a reply, to no one in particular, you may disagree,keep it for yourselves!

1) I joined this forum and I thought I had a right to express my opinion on the forum and its policies. If I have no right, I apologize, and I'll leave the forum

2) it was not my purpose: I read this discussion only because I was stimulated by an intriguing question, but since my modest competence seems adequate, I hope the various Lords will let me express my personal opinion.

I have been taught that multiplication is just repetition of addition,
we have n sets of m elements
we find result R calculating the number of elements (R = n*m)
so we get 50

fifty what? we must find only which is element? obviously sweet in the first case, box in the second, if crates are bigger, and
VECTOR in the original question

2)wrong! There is a LOT more to it! but ........everyman to his last, .....I am not a troll, a wizard neither.

It takes a physicist to answer that.I came here hoping to find one

Excuse me if I have disturbed your pastime

This general topic is called dimensional analysis. Like my wife says, it's a big scary name for something that should be common sense. Go read more here. How you do the multiplication (repeated addition or whatever) doesn't change the answer. (50 sweets was given as the answer in post #7 by the way.)

Originally Posted by Ledger

When he said each child had ten sweets he didn't realize that's 10 sweets/child. So he thinks he's multiplying 'sweets' and 'child' together.

Wow.

Originally Posted by Ledger

He actually said, "if five children had ten sweets each." Thus, 10 sweets/child. When extended over the number of children, 'sweets' is the only unit left as the kids cancel.

Originally Posted by Ledger

OMG

If five kids have ten sweets each they have fifty in total. Fifty sweets. That's it.

There's nothing more to it.

OK, let's see how smart "phyz" really is. He said the second disproved the first. Really. Lol!

I think you just exposed yourself, "phyz." I don't think Ledger is the one with the problem.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

This general topic is called dimensional analysis.

OK, let's see how smart "phyz" really is. .[/QUOTE]

I accept discussion, not personal polemic or attack, I said twice I came here to learn, surely not to show I am smart . I am dumb!,OK?
Quote my statements, just by disproving them you will show both I am dumb and you are smart, smarter,... whatever gratifies you.!

I am prepared to discuss with you dimensional analysis,
but first let's make one thing straight:

the word per is ambiguous it originally meant 1) only for each and that means x, multiplied , by ( per is the Latin word for x)
"£ 10 pound per/for each gallon" means that if I buy 5 gallons... I pay 50 (10 x 5) pounds .Ican't make 5 / 10, or 10 / 5

it is used to express 2) ratio of units,
likewise, "ten miles per 1 gallon" means (the average consumption).If I use ten gallons... I make 50 miles.I can't make 5/10 , or 10 / 5.

When you express ratio of units you are just making the inverse process operation , just calculating average consumtion from total distance:

I made 50 miles, I used 5 gallons......the average consumption is miles divided by gallons 50 / 5 =10 miles/ 1 gallon ... ten miles per gallon.

When you get down to the math, both definitions of per you've given mean the same thing, so it's not really ambiguous at all.

You can say or . Both make sense. In neither case can you make 10/5 or 5/10 because the units don't match up. In both cases you can get 50 (or 1/50 if you really want) because the units do match up.

, and . Both work fine.

, which is nonsensical unless you have a use for the unit.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

1)You can say or ..

Originally Posted by phyz

"£ 10 pound per/for each gallon" means that if I buy 5 gallons... I pay 50 (10 x 5) pounds .Ican't make 5 / 10, or 10 / 5

Please always quote my statements, else we keep chasing our tails endlessly

1)I could say, but I didn't and don't
I repeat: I bought 5 gallons and each gallon costs 10 pounds.
the set is gallon (or child) because it includes the elements pounds (or sweets)
we multiply n sets containing m elements and we get (n=5,m=10) 50 elements , that is pounds/sweets
if you agree 100% you say OK, and move on to get your fraction ten pounds/gallon .And I'll tell if I agree or not, or if I'm wrong and apologize.

P.S. 2)you say (10 pounds/gallons : if it is a misprint for 10 pounds/ gallon, it makes sense (and, if you use it, I said it is average) if it is not a misprint please explain what it means)

For the ambiguouty (I think you sense it right but doesn,t come out as well this way) I would also look at the familiar word "to" for ratio. But be carefull, to is also in "going from a to b".
A tilefloor 5*10 tiles has a 10 to 5 ratio for width and length but the tiles not going - to- anywhere and a "ten to one bet" is not paying ten and get one back in exchange or vice versa. A bet is a bet, not going anywhere until it stops being (a bet).

A word as price implies a "to-ratio" in itself as it,s a produkt from negotiation or market. Paying in correspondance to a price ratio is not the ratio. That,s a two way transfer where you get something back (not necessarily material or even a service) or you would not be paying but throwing away dollars.

Is this thread gaining, or losing momentum...?

Originally Posted by phyz

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

1)You can say or ..

Originally Posted by phyz

"£ 10 pound per/for each gallon" means that if I buy 5 gallons... I pay 50 (10 x 5) pounds .Ican't make 5 / 10, or 10 / 5

Please always quote my statements, else we keep chasing our tails endlessly

1)I could say, but I didn't and don't
I repeat: I bought 5 gallons and each gallon costs 10 pounds.
the set is gallon (or child) because it includes the elements pounds (or sweets)
we multiply n sets containing m elements and we get (n=5,m=10) 50 elements , that is pounds/sweets
if you agree 100% you say OK, and move on to get your fraction ten pounds/gallon .And I'll tell if I agree or not, or if I'm wrong and apologize.

P.S. 2)you say (10 pounds/gallons : if it is a misprint for 10 pounds/ gallon, it makes sense (and, if you use it, I said it is average) if it is not a misprint please explain what it means)

If my post immediately follows yours, I won't bother to quote it. There's no point. The rest of your post doesn't make sense.

When you say "each gallon costs 10 pounds" that's the same as saying the price of gas is 10 pounds per gallon or, written a different way, . Multiply the price of gas by how much you bought to get the price of what you bought. (And is it really worth nitpicking vs ? Yes, they mean the same thing.)

Your comment about the set gallon including the element pounds is purely nonsense though. You're arguing about semantic issues while throwing in your own semantically incorrect statements.

This is the most redundant and useless thread I've read in a long tine.
All this squabbling about naming conventions and definitions...

Maybe it should be posted in the Dictionary/Thesaurus forum, certainly not on the physics forum.

]

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

Your comment about the set gallon including the element pounds is purely nonsense
though.
You're arguing about semantic issues while throwing in your own semantically incorrect statements.

The examples in the thread concern arithmetics.Nobody can deny it!
I do not know if you could be or are a schoolteacher, and I wonder what you would teach/ expect from your students.

That is the domain of abstract algebra or set theory.
if you ignore or refuse that, there is no further discussion, and migl is right.
if you agree 100%, we move on.

(P.S. I wish you knew what semantics issues are)

Just because the examples concern arithmetic doesn't mean you can go making up extra meanings for words like set.

In fact, I am a TA of computer science, though I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.

Also, your false dilemmas are getting annoying. No one will ever agree 100%.

And yes, I know what semantic issues means.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

1)Just because the examples concern arithmetic doesn't mean you can go making up extra meanings for words like set.

2) In fact, I am a TA of computer science, though I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.

3)Also, your false dilemmas are getting annoying. No one will ever agree 100%.

4) And yes, I know what semantic issues means.

It is regrettable that you seem to ignore the basic rules of a decent discussion.
semantics: I deliberately chose this word because it has at least two meanings
1) you are ignorant of (strong connotation)
2) you pay no attention to (mild connotation)

The readers (you included) can decide which one is relevant.

0) even if your post immediately precedes mine, I have quoted your precise words and I am going to disprove them, nothing else
0) If you want to start a serious and fruitful debate you must agree (100%) on certain methodological premises
if 2) is true ,....you know that in computer science you have choise 0/1 only, and that means Yes/ no!
(I am a computer programmer myself. An expert with oracle. I hope you know the basics of Logics. BTW what is TA?)

...then.... 3) is a false statement.
I asked you " if you agree that the subject matter of the discussion concerns arithmethics and it is under the domain of set theory."
The answer can be only yes or no. NO WAY : maybe, partially, in a certain way, so-so, up to an extent, as long as it suites me....
Discussion proceeds step by step, like in a flowchart. Only after we agreed on one step, we move on to another
Now,
1) I challenge you to show the extra meanings
in the previous post # 38 you said " ....your comment...is purely nonsense"
it is rude and silly to make such statements. We already agreed ( probably it was not 100%, I see) not to use disparaging words .
You just quote my precise words.... ( and you ignored them) ...and then prove what and why is false.
Readers can decide who is the fool, who is talking nonsense!

in the same previous post you affirm " ....you are arguing about semantic issues..."
4) if you know what are you talking about,
quote 'my arguing' show where semantics comes in and then , if you can, disprove it.

I challenge you ! ()

This is completely pointless and mindless arguing (yes, it's gone past the point of debating)- the fact of the matter is, concerning the content of the thread, multiplying 10 children by 5 sweets (or whichever way around it was) gives 50 children-sweets which makes no sense at all. The post by Janus explains how it should happen- we have covered that already!

Velocity is a vector, essentially by definition. Let's write to celebrate this fact. It is also part of the definition of a vector that, when multiplied by a scalar, we have a (possibly) new vector. Like for some scalar in some specified vector space

Mass is scalar, so that, ignoring physics for now. it is a simple fact of mathematics that , where, by virtue of the preceding, I have paid homage to the necessary conclusion that momentum is a vector also.

As to whether momentum, mass and velocity are different "categories", or whatever the gibberish was, I think that has been well answered here. If the OPer doesn't think so, I suggest a cold shower and a good text.

By the way (Mod notes):

I assume that all here realize that phyz and peterpan are one and the same? I also assume that he/she is aware that multiple user accounts is against forum rules. Last chance, whoever you are, choose a name and stick with it

I would put the vectoriality here also P=>Mv.

To see the unity,s.

F=Ma
P=MV

Exchanging Mass (KG) for F/a [NS^2/m]
P=(F/a).V
Unitywise [Ns].

The above Ft (NS) is for during a collision offcourse. Between first contact to last while V is income outcome effect. F is mediated Newton-force during contact and t time involved for the collision. F and t both dependant on things as materials, size, weight.... Tennisballs, skippyballs or two billardballs..all different t and F for collisions.
Collisiontime is mostly much shorter then t at the other side of the ecquation for v.

Originally Posted by Guitarist

1) ... vector... when multiplied by a scalar, we have a.... new vector.
Like for some scalar in some specified vector space

Mass is scalar,..... it is a simple fact of mathematics that
, .......the necessary conclusion that momentum is a vector also.

2) different "categories", or whatever the gibberish (*) was,

3) I suggest a cold shower
and a good text.

1) does that mean that the result is 50 vectors ?

2) in dimensional analysis (the Great Principle of Similitude)
physicists (you give no basic information about your education, may be your username is a clue?)
use a peculiar ( this is a nice euphemism) inappropriate language
(when a scientist abandons numbers and formulas and uses ordinary language, he should be careful as to the rules of language (orthography...etc))

quote "....Maxwell distinguished mass, length and time as fondamental units....in dimensional analysis"

quote VIM3 formal definition "physical quantity is a property of a phenomenon, body or substance where a property has a magnitude that can be expressed as .... a number and a reference" that is ...a quantity is a property can be quantified by measurement (number= quantity)
( I do not comment this as any schoolboy understands there is something queer, we may amuse ourselves later.)

quote "..the basic physical dimensions (usually mass, length, time, electric charge and temperature) "

Now, you (if you consider ys. a physicist) are calling (time, space....etc) that are patently abstract Ideas, Concepts
.................................................. ...... quantities, dimensions and units
........which are all three incorrect terms by themselves, but have different and contrasting meanings.

Some of these basic abstract ideas , summa genera ,called by Kant pure concepts
(ousia, poson, poion, pou, pote) were called by
Aristotle in is Organon : category (Κατηγορια) and by
Kant : categories, predicaments, ontological predicates. (Kant criticized the random classification)

...Now , if your disparaging term gibberish* was maladroit * as referred to me, imagine how to qualify it as referred to Aristotle and Kant

the guys in VIM3, or the ones who defined dimensional analysis where just ignorants who were trespassing, should have sought counsel from specialists.
If you want to back them, I wouldn't like to be in your shoes, Sir, you have to do a lot of specialized arguing!

3)
If giving advice is not a privilege of Moderators, I suggest you take a fresh shower ( a refresher in dimensional analysis, set theory, ontology, epistemology,.....
.....and good manners!)

*(Oxford: 1) a series of meaningless sounds (that is flatus vocis) , 2) blundering or ungrammatical talk 3) nonsense
I am a non native speaker, please specify to which definition you are referring
I hope you agree, as a moderator, all three are highly disparaging! and I wish you could you moderate your own language, please?


(P. S. BTW, have you noticed that the thread (maybe peterpan?) has received a like by Mr Beaker?
GottaBtold, do you think that is momentous?

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

The above Ft (NS) is for during a collision offcourse. Between first contact to last while V is income outcome effect. F is mediated Newton-force during contact and t time involved for the collision. F and t both dependant on things as materials, size, weight.... Tennisballs, skippyballs or two billardballs..all different t and F for collisions.
Collisiontime is mostly much shorter then t at the other side of the ecquation for v.

Correction to myself. A force as in F=ma and what I describe would be when a billiardplayer makes a faul (pushingl). I made an identic faul.

When a secondball is immediately behind the cue-ball such a faul brings both balls in motion as one. A third ball as cueball to the two balls in line only brings the last ball in motion.
It,s the ambiguouty of Newton,s (or Newton?) for F as in F=Mg and F=Ma.
Ambiguouty in the good sense is nothing wrong with (part of life ánd nature) as long as distinction is not lost. And unity analisis needs distinctionbetween Ng and Nf (for gravity-force and fysical force), where and when.

Originally Posted by Guitarist

I also assume that he/she is aware that multiple user accounts is against forum rules. Last chance, whoever you are, choose a name and stick with it

Wrong again, my friend!
peterpan, as you know, has abandoned the forum and declared it in post #21


(P.S. I gave you a like, and that was not ironical as I thought you were a braveheart to provoke me.
I hope you (and magicwizard) haven't already chickened out!

Really? Magicwizard? Not that I consider that a bad handle, but purposefully misprinting someone's username is a fairly childish insult.

Also, what's the point of quoting a post if you're going to edit the quotes?

Finally, you don't get to impose your own rules on a conversation. As it is, your posts are too hard to read, full of errors and insults, and just generally not worth the effort. Take this a chickening out if it makes you feel better, but for now, I'm done with you.

Originally Posted by phyz

Wrong again, my friend!
peterpan, as you know, has abandoned the forum and declared it in post #21

This site, like all others that I know of, enables moderators to see who posts what from which computer and using which host.

You and your so-called "Grandfather" seem to share a computer. Fair enough

But you also seem to share the same irritating habit of inappropriate use of bold text, and share an even more worrying insistence that the classical definition of momentum is wrong. It seems unlikely in the extreme to me that genetics could possibly be that unkind

I say you are lying when you claim that peterpan and phyz are not the same person.

Prove me wrong

Originally Posted by phyz

1) peterpan, as you know, has abandoned the forum and declared it in post #21

4) But you also seem to share the same irritating habit of inappropriate use of bold text,

2) I say you are lying when you claim that peterpan and phyz are not the same person.

3) Prove me wrong

Hallo Guitarist,
I'm glad you're here! , and haven't vanished like cosmicwizard

I am delighted that you accepted my humble request and started quoting my actual words!, thank you, much obliged!
I hope you have a sense of humour, because I decided to accept the advice of admins :
they said the forum is open-minded and certain verbal excesses are tolerated. So I will not complain but give tit for tat, reply to childish provocation with childish quips, if necessary with strong language.I started with Magimaster, and he got an easy excuse to evaporate.

Now, I am afraid you might regret you haven't followed his example, because you see what happens when you are honest and quote my words?
3) I don't even need to prove you wrong, because you proved yourself wrong and showed you are cheating:
you affirm 2) I claim something I have never said. I said only 1) peterpan has declared he abandoned the forum.And he did.Full stop.

4) I'm not a native speaker, I do not know about you, But I wish you'd heard the English saying " like father, like son!" ( )(bold again: incorrigible! it must run in the family! Probably DNA is hereditary?)

Well, I hope you are not scared, now, by fair quoting, and when you finish your refresher shower you quote my real arguments and prove they are gibberish

If you decide to follow the wizard, I don't blame you. I told you, I myself wouldn't like to be in your shoes (or M.master's).But I'll miss you both!
Take care!

Originally Posted by Guitarist

1) You and your so-called "Grandfather" seem to share a computer

Originally Posted by Guitarist

2) Last chance, whoever you are, choose a name and stick with it

Oops, Moderator, I forgot:

1) in which post I so-called that peterpan be my grandfather (are you too a wizard) ?

2) You are a moderator, you have ascertained rules been-broken, well ,be consequent , take some concrete action.
Remove peterpan's account, and mine too, if you please!

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

12) This general topic is called dimensional analysis. Like my wife says, it's a big scary name for something that should be common sense. .)

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

1) Magicwizard? ....purposefully misprinting someone's username is a fairly childish insult.
2) what's the point of quoting a post
3) if you're going to edit the quotes?
4) don't get to impose your own rules
5) on a conversation
6) your posts are too hard ..
7) full of errors a
8)... and insults,
9) and ....not worth the effort.
10) but for now,
11) I'm done with you.

* I'm using italics not to irritate Guitarist!

Hallo Magimaster,
I am fair, I owe you a reply out of courtesy. If I sound a bit harsh, it is because I am bit annoyed by your superficiality and arrogance.
You keep on provoking me, and then running away. I am patient.
And I'll try to speak a simple language,this time, hoping you'll understand.
0) If you choose a funny name and show off a comic badge, it is only your problem.
Because when you act silly, you must be prepared to be exposed to ridicule.
** whenever,whatever is hard, do a Google!

1) Wrong, Sir! not at all a misprint, a childish insult neither.It a higly-specialistic technicism,a way of synthesis.It is a portmanteau.
A short form for MAGImagister+cosmiC WIZARD. It the result is funny it is only because, unfortunately, both terms are funny.
If it makes you feel ridicule, it is only because, unfortunately, your behaviour sits well.
2) wrong again! You must quote my post because if you do so, you can't twist my words, as you've often done, as Guitarist has done.
But he has been imprudent, quoting my post, and exposed himself to ridicule!
3) wrong again! I do not edit. I omit irrelevant parts. I add numbers to main points, and then pinpoint by bold/ italics the exact words I am disproving
4) wrong again! They are not my rules, they are rules of goodmanners between educated people.
If you do not quote my words, do not give arguments and give only offensive judgement such as 'nonsense' 'gibberish' 'whacko' etc you are violating all the accepted rules of civilized, educated people and are behaving like an arrogant bully, and making a fool of yourself
5) wrong again! That what you are trying to do, trying to trasform this thread and this forum into a circus. This is an academical debate
6) wrong again! if it is supposed to be an objective judgement. It depends on the intelligence, education, competence and comprehension capacity of the reader. If somenthing is hard, do a wiki, a Google.
7) wrong again! quote the errors, prove they are indeed errors
8) wrong again! quote the insults
9) wrong again! I you think something is not worth, you don't bother to reply, to argue. I did not understand the two posts by Ghrasp, I did no reply to him saying "you are talking nonsense, your post is not worth", if I had I would have been an idiot and a hick. I just didn't reply!
can you comprehend at least this?
10) wrong again sir!, it's better for you if you cross out "for now".Let sleeping dogs...
11) RIGHT AT LAST, SIR (oops, I couldn't refrain: bold agin, but it is necessary, it cries out). You'd better leave me alone, I might get mean!

12) You are kucky Sir, you seem to have a wise wife.Seek counsel with her, She (or your child) might explain to you in not too hard a way, that:

SPACE, TIME etc are not physical and are not quantities, but abstract ideas, uncountable nouns. and whoever say so is an ignorant, which is an euphemism for an idiot.
Your child could tell you that quantity is not quality, nor substance, and answers to "how much?" and the possible answers are:
much, little , a lot, 3, 24 ..... not space, time, substance and so on...

I hope she might bring you to reason, down from hyperspace down to earth, to common sense

Fare thee well, Magimaster, take care of yourself!

Originally Posted by phyz

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

12) This general topic is called dimensional analysis. Like my wife says, it's a big scary name for something that should be common sense. .)

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

1) Magicwizard? ....purposefully misprinting someone's username is a fairly childish insult.
2) what's the point of quoting a post
3) if you're going to edit the quotes?
4) don't get to impose your own rules
5) on a conversation
6) your posts are too hard ..
7) full of errors a
8)... and insults,
9) and ....not worth the effort.
10) but for now,
11) I'm done with you.

* I'm using italics not to irritate Guitarist!

Hallo Magimaster,
I am fair, I owe you a reply out of courtesy. If I sound a bit harsh, it is because I am bit annoyed by your superficiality and arrogance.
You keep on provoking me, and then running away. I am patient.
And I'll try to speak a simple language,this time, hoping you'll understand.
0) If you choose a funny name and show off a comic badge, it is only your problem.
Because when you act silly, you must be prepared to be exposed to ridicule.
** whenever,whatever is hard, do a Google!

1) Wrong, Sir! not at all a misprint, a childish insult neither.It a higly-specialistic technicism,a way of synthesis.It is a portmanteau.
A short form for MAGImagister+cosmiC WIZARD. It the result is funny it is only because, unfortunately, both terms are funny.
If it makes you feel ridicule, it is only because, unfortunately, your behaviour sits well.
2) wrong again! You must quote my post because if you do so, you can't twist my words, as you've often done, as Guitarist has done.
But he has been imprudent, quoting my post, and exposed himself to ridicule!
3) wrong again! I do not edit. I omit irrelevant parts. I add numbers to main points, and then pinpoint by bold/ italics the exact words I am disproving
4) wrong again! They are not my rules, they are rules of goodmanners between educated people.
If you do not quote my words, do not give arguments and give only offensive judgement such as 'nonsense' 'gibberish' 'whacko' etc you are violating all the accepted rules of civilized, educated people and are behaving like an arrogant bully, and making a fool of yourself
5) wrong again! That what you are trying to do, trying to trasform this thread and this forum into a circus. This is an academical debate
6) wrong again! if it is supposed to be an objective judgement. It depends on the intelligence, education, competence and comprehension capacity of the reader. If somenthing is hard, do a wiki, a Google.
7) wrong again! quote the errors, prove they are indeed errors
8) wrong again! quote the insults
9) wrong again! I you think something is not worth, you don't bother to reply, to argue. I did not understand the two posts by Ghrasp, I did no reply to him saying "you are talking nonsense, your post is not worth", if I had I would have been an idiot and a hick. I just didn't reply!
can you comprehend at least this?
10) wrong again sir!, it's better for you if you cross out "for now".Let sleeping dogs...
11) RIGHT AT LAST, SIR (oops, I couldn't refrain: bold agin, but it is necessary, it cries out). You'd better leave me alone, I might get mean!

12) You are kucky Sir, you seem to have a wise wife.Seek counsel with her, She (or your child) might explain to you in not too hard a way, that:

SPACE, TIME etc are not physical and are not quantities, but abstract ideas, uncountable nouns. and whoever say so is an ignorant, which is an euphemism for an idiot.
Your child could tell you that quantity is not quality, nor substance, and answers to "how much?" and the possible answers are:
much, little , a lot, 3, 24 ..... not space, time, substance and so on...

I hope she might bring you to reason, down from hyperspace down to earth, to common sense

Fare thee well, Magimaster, take care of yourself!

Stop your mindless rambling and actually make sense for once. Post some real science! Well, to be honest, this thread has long passed from the topic of physics...

I agree with x(x - y). I am minded to lock this thread. And your (collective) thoughts are......?

Just for phys's benefit, I'd like to point out that Forum Cosmic Wizard is an automatically attached title given for a high post count. It's not something I put there. I'll also point out that MagiMaster is the name of a character from a memorable game I played as a child. (Look it up if you care.)

Other than that, yeah, I think it'd be safe to lock this. It's going nowhere.

Locking thread. Move along people, nothing to see here.