Recent content by Kiril

Yes I thought so too. Its a good example of the straw man fallacy. The type of trick one might play if he were hiding a proud dogmatism - perhaps even a fear of independent thought, and perhaps even worse still, he never knew it.

No, not similar. Sense perception is different from detection by experimental apparatus, for the reasons I mentioned. It is an epistemological distinction - this means that sense perception involves no inference(deduction or induction) and is therefore axiomatic(direct); indirect...

If you'll permit me to answer: The concept of validity does not apply to sense perception, as it does with any man made apparatus of detection(and interpretations from same). This is because the evidence of the senses(not inference from it, eg. bent stick) are the basis for any...

Do you understand the epistemological connection between concept and concrete? Given your sincerity in this belief, I'm very concerned if you're a physics teacher.

No it wouldn't, at best, probabilistic approximation can tell it only that it moves(yes, in orbital configurations), not how to move(how to generate its motion). What I did in the opening post of this thread and what I explained in the "what is energy" thread: I'm asking for the referents of...

Could you reduce the difference between inertia and momentum to the perceptual level of understanding? The popular definition of 'quantity of motion' is nearly meaningless(does not differentiate). Since the quantity of motion is an objects position in space, at any given instant, relative to...

Thank you for clarifying. That force is inertia. What else do you think your measuring with momentum? I looked and it doesn't seem obvious to me how objects continue moving past the point of application(only that they do). Its why I asked,initially, for experimental evidence that an object...

I can understand your example, however, should it not also follow, from said definition, that given an initial impetus, and after loosing contact with the point of application, it is the property of inertia which insists that the motion continue; which resists a change in motion(to decelerate)...

If I understand correctly, this is describing the effects of inertia, not the causes. This is precisely what dawned on me: inertia/momentum must be a product of some underlying mechanism(not directly perceivable, like the cause of gravity) which has an interface to the macro/perceivable...

I think inertia describes the general category of such phenomena, in which momentum is subsumed and also provides a quantitative measure of. How do you know? It seems to me that without that mechanism which makes inertia possible, motion would cease as soon as the influence of the impetus...

Hello everyone, Recently I realized what momentum refers to in reality. Briefly: On the perceptual level it refers to the phenomenon which enables an entity to continue motion even after the cause of the initial motion, either by direct contact or via field, no longer affects it. It is distinct...

Thanks for the tip. Its just what I was hoping to come across: an intermediary method, which as a rule must exist.

SpecialKM, thanks for your efforts. I have taken from your answer, the idea of something being derived, even though without a formal(Genus–differentia) definition - and the theory behind it - it cannot be seen as anything more then a synonym of "calculated"; so that the following question could...

Hi SpecialKM, Yes, however the keyword is "seen". I will appreciate any assistance, as per your interpretation of the questions.

Hello everyone, My general goal is to understand why and how certain physical formulas came to be written, a specific way and not another - so as to judge their correspondence with reality. My specific interest in this thread is to understand the link between a formula(calculated or complex...