Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: curtis osterhoudt <flutzpah@yahoo.com>*Date*: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:46:18 -0800 (PST)

Pages 34 and 35 of Whittaker's "A treatise on the analytical dynamics of particles and rigid bodies" ( http://books.google.com/books?id=OSckAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=edmund+taylor+whittaker&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false ) uses N's 2nd to eventually derive (and define) the kinetic energy. Then he goes on to show that a particular functional form on the kinetic energy holds (of course, these are the Euler-Lagrange equations), and eventually -- for conservative potentials -- that the Lagrangian is a useful concept.

I quite like this treatment, and he uses terms we probably wouldn't use today, such as (on page 55) "ignoration of coordinates", which are, of course, coordinates which don't have to enter into the problem because of constraint forces. That's a GREAT term for it.

/************************************

Down with categorical imperative!

flutzpah@yahoo.com

************************************/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian***From:*Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>

**References**:**[Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian***From:*Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian***From:*curtis osterhoudt <flutzpah@yahoo.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian***From:*Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>

**Re: [Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian***From:*curtis osterhoudt <flutzpah@yahoo.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] Landau on Lagrangian** - Index(es):