Osbourne Reynolds: The Sub-mechanics of the Universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasc15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reynolds Universe
AI Thread Summary
Osbourne Reynolds' publication "The Sub-mechanics of the Universe" explores theories involving extremely small particles, specifically those measuring 10^{-18} cm in diameter. The discussion highlights the paper's complexity and its unconventional ideas, which some find intriguing yet challenging to validate. Participants express skepticism about the paper's practicality and its reception, noting that its "nutty" characterization may deter readers. There is a call for insights on whether the work serves as a model rather than a definitive explanation of sub-mechanical phenomena. Overall, the conversation reflects a mix of curiosity and doubt regarding the relevance and accessibility of Reynolds' theories.
jasc15
Messages
162
Reaction score
5
Osbourne Reynolds: "The Sub-mechanics of the Universe"

While reading a very interesting article/lecture called http://jilawww.colorado.edu/perkinsgroup/Purcell_life_at_low_reynolds_number.pdf, there was a reference to a publication by Osbourne Reynolds called The Sub-mechanics of the Universe. The author/speaker says "[Reynolds] published a very long paper on the details of the sub mechanical universe , and he had a complete theory which involved small particles of diameter 10^{-18} cm. It gets very nutty from there on."

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1418181897/?tag=pfamazon01-20, with a preview of some of the text. It is indeed very nutty, but also very interesting. Can anyone shed some light on this? Is there validity to this paper? Is it intended to be a model of the sub-mechanical universe rather than an explanation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Bump.

I really thought this would get a few responses, so i figured i'd give it another chance.
 


Nobody is going to buy the book, or even read dozens of pages, particularly when it's described as "nutty".
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top