Re: A question (fwd)

["Prof. John P. Ertel (wizard)" <jpe@USNA.EDU>]

I can't help but agree with Bob Sciamanda here, although I guess I might
have stopped just short of calling it a nonsense question.  Well, maybe
not.  When you think about it, the question really doesn't make sense
conceptually.

It seems to me that both the concepts of "gravitational mass" and charge
are meaningless unless they relate to the interaction between two or more
"gravitational masses" or to the interaction between two or more charges.

I would point out that "inertial mass" would still be there as it is "self
aware" -- it doesn't need the interaction with any other object to be
meaningful.

The more Cartesian thinkers (philosophically oriented towards Descartes)
might say that the concept of "inertial mass" is also only meaningful by
the "interaction" with other objects in that motion cannot really be
specified unless other objects are present.  "With only ONE object in all
of the universe," they might ask, "do the concepts of position, velocity,
acceleration, or force have any meaning?"

+=================================+

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Bob Sciamanda wrote:

> > Brian,
> > If (as I think you are doing) we read the question as asking about a
> > universe consisting ONLY of a single charged particle, then I would answer
> > that this is a nonsense question.  We invented the property "charge" in
> > order to describe (model) certain interactions between pairs of particles.
> > The concept has (at least in its original classical use) no meaning unless
> > there is more than one particle.
> >
> > Bob Sciamanda (W3NLV)
> > Physics, Edinboro Univ of PA (em)
> > trebor@velocity.net
> > www.velocity.net/~trebor
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "brian whatcott" <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>
> > To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 7:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: A question (fwd)
> >
> >
> > > At 15:55 4/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > > > Can someone help Dr. Agashe (below)?
> > > >
> > > > William J. Beaty
> > >
> > > > From: "Prof. S.D. Agashe" <eesdaia@ee.iitb.ac.in>
> > > >
> > > > What is(are) the differential equation(s) governing
> > > > the "classical" motion of a single charged body?
> > > >
> > > > S D Agashe
> > >
> > >
> > > The quixotic answer is that the three orthogonal components
> > > of velocity would be constant, and acceleration would be zero,
> > > for any starting position coordinates of a single charged body
> > > if such measures were meaningful in this model.
> > >
> > >  In the same way, the gravitational trajectory of the sole massive
> > > particle in a universe is a straight line, or would be if such a
> > > line could be specified in such a universe.
> > >
> > > But I am open to demur.
> > >
> > >
> > > brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>  Altus OK
> > >                 Eureka!

+=================================+=================================+
ERTEL SENDS.
{best viewed in Courier}       /^\-/^\
                              /       \
                             |    *    |
                             |#########|
                     ===========================
                       / Prof. John P. Ertel \
                      / USNA-NESA Faculty Rep \
                     /   veteran Eagle Scout   \
 +==============================================================+
 |     JPE@usna.edu              or         JPErtel@BigFoot.com |
 |   Physics Department, 9C               Office : 410-293-6657 |
 |     Michelson  Rm-338                     DSN :     281-6657 |
 |      572 Holloway RD                      FAX : 410-293-3729 |
 |    U. S. Naval Academy                                       |
 |   Annapolis, MD 21402-5026          HomeVoice : 410-757-6618 |
 | {Call HomeVoice to activate FAX/DATA} HomeFAX : 410-757-6619 |
 +==============================================================+
     http://physnet.usna.edu/physics/Faculty/Ertel/ertel.html
            http://physnet.usna.edu/ECAs/NESA/nesa.htm