The physics of the lever

sexwish

I'm back again. My physics of the lever is better than any other.

All of physics, even Newtonian mechanics stumble upon
The Physics Of The LEVER!!!

Lama

Hi sexwish,

First, you have a very nice website.

How can we understand strange attractors (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StrangeAttractor.html), by using lever principles?

dedaNoe

hi,

I tauhght I was banned so I preregistered under dedaNoe.

How are this attractors, on the page you provided, physics related?

kuengb

With a nice language feature!

Lama

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/chaos/chaos.html

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ATTRACTO.html

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...4/nichols.html

http://psychology.unn.ac.uk/dick/py0...ures/Chaos.htm

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...ePendulum.html

dedaNoe

My law for dynamics of the lever was:

F'=Fsoc(a)-Dsin(a) and D'=Fsin(a)+Dcos(a)

It is a sort of linear attractor, right?

Have you seen my simulation?
http://www.geocities.com/dedaNoe/_fi...rticle_sim.zip
For binary dept = 2 it's simple, two weights lever...
For binary dept = 14 it's highly complex, chaotic lever...

But can we, please, stick to my Physics Of The Lever instead of jumping to other theories (chaos theory)?

Lama

But the most phenomena in nature are complex, so why should we stick in the trivial side of the Physics Of The Lever, instead of exploring any possible state of it?

If you clime that the Physics Of The Lever is a fundamental law of nature, then, in my opinion, you cannot limit your research to some limited side of it.