Capiert

I don't know much about vectors. (Maybe you can help?) Perhaps it's what I don't know that counts? That little I know (& whether it's correct?) is: vectors have magnitude (amount) & direction. Negative (direction) is rotated 180 degrees (angle) in the opposite direction. Vectors are subdivided into 3 major axii (xyz), which are 90 degrees to each other (so Pythagorus's 90 degree triangle rule can be used, easily). Vectors can be added, graphically, maintaining their directions, not necessarily their positions. e.g. chained together, arrow tip point on end of the next vector, important is the angles (orientation) stay the same. Vectors can be multiplied, either: dot product, "simple multiplication" with a factor, called scalar, because it can globally change all (or any, single) vectors' amount, but not the direction, so. Scalars only change the magnitude (amount), not the angle (orientation). Scalar multiples change e.g. the size of a (vector triangle) shape, but not its shape or angles. Or Vector cross products use 2 coordinates input, to produce a 3rd coordinate output. At least that's what rumor(s I've heard) & intuition tells me. Vectors can be subtracted. That means the negative vector is rotated (angle) 180 degrees, & then stringed (=chained) together in the usual method (added or) (arrow's point tip onto the tail end of the previous vector (or arrow)). So knowing that. Is mass m a vector? No it's a scalar (having amount, no direction (yet)). I haven't seen negative mass (not to mention mass as only a number, but that's beside the point. We deal only with positive mass, mostly. So I'll assume it's a scalar. We can multiply mass with its speed v=v1-v0 (difference). (v1=final_speed. We can assume the initial_speed v0=0 is zero here for simplicity. But it could be any value we choose, if we leave the formula so.) Is the (mass's) speed v a vector? Well yes, wrt zero initial_speed, it has magnitude (amount) & direction forth (positive) or backwards (negative, wrt positive direction). Is their (m & v) product (momentum) a vector? Yes because the scalar mass (m) is multiplied by the vector speed (difference) v to give a different vector (momentum). The speed is scaled (up or down) by the mass. Let's look at the average speed va=(v0+v1)/2=v2/2. That's 2 vectors (v0 & v1) added together, result is a vector v2=v0+v1. That's simple vector addition. Ok divide (vector v2) by 2. Ops! We didn't mention vector division, please excuse me. Then let's multiply by the scalar 0.5, instead, that's a simple number, enough. Scalar (0.5) multiplied by a vector (v2) gives another vector, we call va, average_speed. Even if average_speed was not a vector, we could call it a scalar then, but it's not. va is really a vector. Ok. Scalar multiplied by a vector is a vector. What about a vector multiplied by a vector. Well, if they are both in the same direction, no problem, because we don't need vectors' direction for that. Are v & va in the same direction? Yes if initial_speed v0=0 is zero. What did we assume at first for simplicity? Right, let v0=0. Does a vector multiplied by a vector (in the same direction) remain a vector in the same direction (e.g. the magnitude of 1 of the vectors (e.g. va) is used as a scalar quantity) for the other vector e.g. the speed v. The problem would have been a lot easier, if va were (simply) only a scalar.) Anyway, I will assume, a vector multiplied by a (parallel*) vector remains a vector. 2 (parallel) vectors & a scalar, all 3 multiplied together gives a(other) vector. KE=m*v*va. KE is a vector. Sorry! I can only conclude, KE is a vector. * (If non parallel, it (the vectors' product, as new vector) may not remain pointed in the same direction, but it still remains "a vector", perhaps with a different: (orientation) direction & magnitude (amount).)

If I travel in my car at 100km/h & I'm the only 1 on the highway, at all in (=on) the whole earth, then my average speed is 100km/h including for the whole earth. The statistic(s) does not change when I discuss only 1. The method including the math remains the same. The meaning, thus, has not changed. Often it's a lot easier to deal with only 1 thing (vs a background, environment or container etc.). Maybe not for you? It might have meaning for me? There are limits to how far I can go, though. Is a vector multiplied by a vector, a(nother) vector? I assume a vector multiplied by a scalar (e.g. just a number) is a(nother) vector. ?

Oh (yes), I agree full heartedly there with Swansont. His point backward or foreward, was very enlightening. Very effective (=efficient).I was so convinced, I advanced right into the next step, forgetting to mention it. What is 4-momentum? Aren't all speeds relative? They are always a comparison, always a difference, from what we say is zero.That would be a comparison to the container, e.g. a jar's surface, where it would strike, or a "stationary" thermometer's surface. The molecule hits an area (surface). But that is too closely related to pressure. How do I distinguish? I suspect part of the speed (per area, & numbers of collisions) represents temperature & the other part represents pressure. ? There I would need to assign, temperature & pressure, & have to know the size (& shape) of the container.Otherwise for me impossible to conceive of correctly. =Too little info. An alternative, would be to determine the missing values, from a few assumptions. (I can not even prepare to answer your previous posts, until I know enough about vectors. E.g. can we vectorize energy? (=Can we turn KE into a vector with some sort of formula or operation, so we can deal with that result, as a vector?) Are vectors simply a math construct (tool) that we have invented? Or are we bound to only what they (vectors) can deliver because they are a natural phenomena (that we cannot modify, as impossible to change, in any way, because it (the concept of vector) is not a tool)? Y/N's + etcs. Studiot may answer there (too) if he wants because he seems to put it in my words, better.

It's clear negative polarity gets lost in the squared speed. Thus KE is useless to determine direction (mathematically).Can energy be vectorized? i.e. be made into a vector.

Forwards, naturally.Which direction does time progress? Forwards, not backwards.

The temperature of a single particle would depend on it's speed (& rotation(al energy)). ? Because of the deduction sequence that followed. Let us say a (cushion) layer, bouncing thickness. ?I don't know how thick? 1mm, 1..2 cm? What is practical? But does not a sort of thing exist for momentum too, such as a spring force? Hooke's Law is linear. F=-x*ks. x=displacement, ks=spring constant. P=F/A. Ok, so force is present. Interesting. Volume for the layer, does not play a role? Hmm, ? ok, .., Ok! Amount is there. hhhhhm. ? What is with kinetic energy?What is with a thrown stone, at an object? Does the object not recoil, in the direction the stone was thrown. If an object falls, does not its speed accumulate in 1 direction (down)? It does not go anywhere, it goes down instead. The kinetic energy can thus only be a downward one, not directionless. ? If I throw a ball up, its kinetic energy can only be positive til it stops. The speed direction can only determine the energy polarity. The stopped ball will (continuously=analog) change its direction relative to the earth's surface speed accelerating (up) to overcome the ball's speed. We thus see that the ball falls back (down), without any collision, or affect working on it. No shield can interfere with its motion. Whether in vacuum or not. Your potential energy is a kinetic energy also, while it is so equated. In mechanics, the study of acceleration & speed. An accelerated (inertial) frame. I cannot see that energy has no direction. Everything indicates it has. Water falls down for our generators, it does not go up. DC electricity flows in 1 direction only. AC reverses. Cars travel in straight lines in (only) 1 direction. Their gasoline is scalar mass, for chemical heat energy (temperature, random motion). But every molecule, in an instant of a second is going in 1 direction. Some even rotating, or spinning. But that is all direction, impling vectors. All that energy, surely must be vectorable. Or is the math not competent enough yet, for that? No one has not devised something like that yet. They cannot do it, they are incapable. Surely there must be a reason why kinetic energy is not a vector, if it is. Because I have seen every indication, that it should be. (1st half transfers til here. 1/2)

e.g. a stupid loophole. A stupid exception, e.g. discontinuity.I think you did a pretty good job at showing some of the weaknesses, than I ever could. You also know the jargon. What is non-holonomic? The theorem should allow no room for error (the way I see it), but your collieges want a specific example (from the theorem you know). They expect me to argue with things they know & I don't, only in intent to rub me out. That is not a fair discussion. That's sabbotage instead. We all know I started a different discussion yesterday on the other string gravity. That is my prefered arguement basis (common to all); not this 1. Here I am like a fish out of water. I know you want a number example. That's simple enough, but I don't have 1 yet (& it's that simple, too). Because that's not my basis of arguementation. My arguementation, deals with the conclusion (deductions) I made from my derivations. Your arguement would be, why should we use them. Mine would be, if they (those calculations) can present (more) things yours can't then why is it not valid. You will argue that it is not working completely correct; & I will try to show you that your standard needs a few corrections (tweeks), that you are not aware of yet. That is (was) said in an attempt to speed up things to a reasonable discussion (later). The main issues. *please continue, when appropriate. I have nave not understood all of the implications of the above to make an addiquate stand. (Beloved) As grand as ever! Delightful to hear. Did you get nothing as a report? #23. Your server kacked up on me as well. I could not confirm anything landed because report was the only option. Delightful to hear my friend (if I am allowed to say/be so spontaineous). hm, perhaps not soo bad (as that).More the PC problems, distractions, & own blinding mistakes (if I may hide some of that disgust, about the midsts). More pondering, how to do it best. E.g. where can I begin correctly. Cultivating the seeds, & checking their ripeness. I'll try to repost. Please excuse (& forgive) the poetic flare, triggered by your "Whilst" Nostalgia. Sorry, it still won't upload. I'll have to chop it up later, & send.

Yes, that is what I meant by catch in post 50. According to that (=my calculations, of nth D formula, & (my) derivative) those lesser terms seem missing. I cannot find them in your solutions, when they exist in mine. That's the puzzle. Riddle if you will.How are you guys getting the right answer? Or are you getting the right answer? Are the circular answers complete? I addressed a different problem yesterday, (on the COW string) but nobody answered it. How do we calculate the volume of a sphere? Nobody presented the math (of shells) to orient me. Is this forum here to ignore my questions, although I answer yours? If you do it correctly from my perspective*, then I will see no error. But if that simple calculation is wrong*, then I will see an error. The error is the lack of accuracy, in the approximation. I must evaluate your method. It is a reasonable arguement goal. Please give me the math example I requested.I will take it from there if worthy.

Oh je! We'll never get done if we do that.How about later? Because the details (=lesser terms, not the most significant term) are missing from the approximation (standard derivative, not mine) (if I'm allowed to say that so). I'm a bit reluctant to call it mine (egoism), but I don't know how to distinguish the 2 otherwise, publically. I'd rather be egoistic at/in other things.

N is the number of elements that we divide the thing into.If 1=100%, then we can e.g. divide into N slices, if it were a loaf of bread. Infinitesimal calculus makes dx very small without saying exactly how small. Here we have a way to set the thickness, &/or resolution. Exacta (prep) Sun 2016 05 22 05:56 PS Wi 11.3 C blue Ok, let' see how we got that (nth Dimension formula). To be thorough we should go thru every step, till we have enough info to make the formula (to test). I'll try to make it painless. But caution! I am going to use the same (syntax) symbol n#nth (they) are NOT the same! To start with: Take a point (Sorry I don't know an easy, no cost, drawing program, with raster, editable with formula numbers.) draw a circle with radius r=1 [cm]. (But we'll drop units to make it easy.) The line thru the center (point) is the diameter D=2*r. We notice the circumference Cir=Pi*D is (factor) Pi=3.14 larger than the line (D). We're told the circle's area is A=Pi*(r^2) (from school). A1=Pi*1 Doubling the radius (r2=2), we get A2=Pi*(r2^2) A2=Pi*4 The area_ring is AR2=A2-A1=Pi*(4-1)=Pi*3 Let's continue 2 more times, for r3=3 & r4=4. A3=Pi*(r3^2)=Pi*9 A4=Pi*(r4^2)=Pi*16. Their rings(' area) are AR3=A3-A2=Pi*(9-4)=Pi*5 AR4=A4-A3=Pi*(16-9)=Pi*7. What do we notice? The areas are Pi*(1, 4, 9, 16), depends on r^2 The ring areas are Pi*(1, 3, 5, 7), +2 added (increments). For those who don't know Pi*(1, 4, 9, 16)=Pi*1, Pi*4, Pi*9, Pi*16. ..06:40 If we divide those by Pi it's (1, 4, 9, 16) circle areas (1, 3, 5, 7) ring areas (1st ring has no hole, so it's not really a ring, but for simplicity (to avoid distraction). Tell me what to call it.) ..06:50 The number of rings we had (there) were N=4. Each ring had its own number n=1, 2, 3, 4. (You call them "elements".) So we know the name of each element. AR(1, 2, 3, 4), ring's_area. (=Area of ring number n). Each ring_area is ARn=An-A(n-1) the nth circle's_area minus the previous (circle's area) n-1. i.e. the existing number's (circle_area) n, minus the previous n-1 (circle's_area). ..07:15 What constitutes (=makes up) that? The areas formula, of each ring (=element). (n is which ring's number) Thus, any ring's_area is ARn=Pi*(rn^2)-Pi*((r(n-1))^2), grouping Pi out ARn=Pi*((rn^2)-((r(n-1))^2)), grouping r out (not really very legal, but we try) ARn=Pi*(r^2)*((n^2)-((n-1)^2)), we see the ring's area is determined by a difference term (n^2)-((n-1)^2) (multiplied by the original (maximum) area, using (maximum) radius r). That is the differential! (Reduced to syntax.) (A part* of what Newton searched (for).) (Is it all there? I doubt it. Why should everything you guys have done be without error. The Royal society wants skeptics, because science is in a mess, invented by students. Each different with their own ways. A professor is still learning. They don't know everything. What for a better student than that? Nobody can know everything. & what you know? You got it from somebody else, mostly. There is no consistency.) It's a factor, multipled to the area. Because that is where it came from (the radius squared). n^2-(n-1)^2 That is an area calculation, using a squaring, ^2. That factor now defines the operation (activity) about subtracting 2 (similar) squared terms (with exponents). Meaning the original area formula remains original! To obtain an element. We all know a(n infinitesimally) very small element (limit going to zero thick, or extremely "thin") is described by a differential. (?) In terms, (our example was N=4, but now N~oo is almost infinite) for the 1st element n=1, & the number of elements N=oo (limit). The thickness (width) is 1/N=1/oo. The integral: Goal: n/N into the integrating formula. oo=infinity 1 (=100%) can be divided into any number N of parts, (not just 100). Each called 1% or 1 cent. or 1 can be divided into any number N of parts, (not just 4). The number of parts, is not the same as their size. However, the number N influences their size, inversely (proportionally). Large N, small size. Small N, large size. As long as we have an equality (equivalence), we have an exact (accurate) answer. It does not matter what value N is. It could even be infinity, if possible. That is amazing accuracy. Predictability. That means "no" error! The method (integration) is to multiply the same element (width) by the number of elements N, to get the area. The element width is the differential (or difference). ..10:01 ARn/Pi*(r^2)=((n^2)-(n-1)^2)) I hope that helps a bit, & it's ok for you, otherwise typos got me again.

I will try. No, that looks only partly correct. The dx looks like too much. Other than that it looks like you have transscribed correctly. I think dx=x/N. d=1/N is the basis.[latex]{dy}= (x^z) - ((x-1)^z)[/latex] Then I would expect [latex]\frac{dy}{dx} = ((x^z) - (x-1)^z)*\frac{N}{x}[/latex] ok I've never plotted the beast (before). Ok. x=0.5 (y'=0)But your suggestion looks like a good idea. ? ?I'm sorry, visually it does not quite look exactly horizontal to me when I magnify in excel. I get a slight indication that the curve (y=x^2) is not completely horizontal, at x=0.5 & that (=my) derivative has a slope of m=2, & an offset b=-1. y'=2*x-1. ? ?I'm sorry, that's not what I get. It looks more like 60 degrees to me.

Before I do, 1 note. Your standard deriviative gives only the most significant term. The other terms (=rest of the details) are not included in your standard (=approximation). The method is finite element calculus, starting with a circle. Using what we know (cirles area), I chop it up into (N=)4 pieces, =3rings+core. (Caution: I like to wrongly say 4 rings, for simplicity sake, calling the core: a ring without a hole.) Each element can be labled. The nth Dimension formula uses other syntax. Similarities are r=x, n=exp. It's irritating, not to confuse them. I've attempted to avoid e in the past, respecting confusion with Euler's. Instead I used n for the exponent, but need that for element number. Today I used exp for the previous mail. Last minute decision. Ok so far?

I did not say those results are not correct.That is the problem. They look to me like they are derived from another formula, which you do not use. Namely a derivative y'=(x^exp)-((x-1)^exp) if the original formula is y=x^exp. exp=exponent. If so then C=(my derivative)-(your standard derivative). ?

I have given you that formula. If you experiment with it in the 2 modes I have said, you will get the formulas mentioned, namely,circumference Cir=2*Pi*r=Pi*D, circle's area Pi*(r^2), sphere's area 4*Pi*(r^2)=Pi*(D^2), sphere's volume (4/3)*Pi*(r^3). All those familiar formulas, of circular geometry that were developed (derived) with calculus. There is a natural system within, & the key to calculus. The catch is those are calculus results. That's a calculus summary then. I am sorry. I do not know it. I do not have a formal math education, to identify it. Again, another thing I cannot recognize yet.Maybe you could give me a simple overview? Thank you Strange.

I find the typos distracting. This website strips of apostropies when copy paste, & it's unstable accessing with my finger tip. Marking is very unstable after a few attempts, locking up & repeating the same error, returning to start e.g. 1st of line. It's very difficult here to get things perfect. I usually type my ruff outline & fill in the details. Your crew is cean on cutting me off before I'm even finished. It usually takes me 4..6 hrs to get done, with all the difficulty. Just for 1 post. It's a terrible back & forth, & then spastic things happen, making a sentence ununderstandable or misleeding. That's why. There is no preview button, when preparing a post. I must first post, & then correct it, after. Copy paste produces errors. I'm at a terrible disadvantange. A scroll button does not exist on the side. Instead it's luck if scrolling will happen inside the reply window. & usually bad luck, after some tries.

If you take my language so formally, instead of trying to understand what I mean then "hopeless(ly absurd)". My only justification is my intention. i.e. What's meant, not what's said. Easier? Doesn't it take longer? e.g. "more" complex? More to do. I have my doubts. How is the area of a sphere calculated?For me the shell thickness, in the middle, can not have the same volume on both sides (outside, & inside). The calculation looks rather strange. Everybody is happy with it though. Quite probably so. I think that they are different, has already been declared, (previously).You make it sound as though that wasn't so. The later is what I mean, instead. You get the sentences, not the jist (of the paragraph?). You hold onto the tree, & loose the forest (theme). What I don't do the short way, I try to do the long way. (A picture to complete.) Actions speak louder than words. If the business did leave the chairs. (Please don't put the cart before the horse. Reverse annalogy is obviously absurd, but you're using it, not me. "because"). It would be a logical reverse deduction. Yes. Simply, 2 facts in, an answer out. Any answer. How may I retract them? (What is required?)What should I say to your pleasure, that will alieviate the pain. Above is what was intended. Not what was stated before. Is that something like what you want to hear? (You are so formal, I do not know how to deal with you.) If you were interested in the jist of (communication) things, don't you think it would be better, when something is noticed wrong to question whether so .. is intended, to stay on theme? If your answer is no, then I'll assume you want to correct & improve my english, for the future, & I thank you in advance.

Hi John, I think you are missing the context in which I mean. I prefer to write long sentences. But this website recommends shorter. That comprimise goofed. I still want to answer your questions, but need time to prepare them. (Can't tell you how long, & I cannot tell you if I will be completely be successful, for your requirements. But I find your presentation fair. Includinding strange's.) What does disturb me however is not being able to show how I meant what I said. My english is not the best. Sometimes (often) it comes out the wrong way. As I said, I would like to dig up some numbers if I can.I'll need some time to prepare, because you have found me empty handed. -Cheers

Math_Polarity_Quirk_in_Physics_2016_05_30_1026_1418_PS_Wi.docx Hi John I question, whether you've grasped the problem (of this theme) correctly, with the info provided, as when I see all this calculus stuff from Noether. We have a (math) syntax problem, rather than a math, physics or calculus problem. From experience we know calculus does NOT show us where the problem is. However, with the problem in mind, maybe we can see if calculus is able to address it. So here comes the big question John. kinetic energy KE=m*((v1^2)-(v0^2))/2 & momentum mom=m*(((2*h*g+(v0^2))^0.5)-v0) both h=height fallen (e.g. -1m) & g=freefall_acceleration -9.8m/(s^2) are negative values, & v0=initial speed can also be negative when not zero. (e.g. thrown -2m/s) Kinetic energy is obviously not a vector, but momentum is. How can Noether's theorem guarantee the "negative polarity" "angle integrity" when the momentum formula('s syntax) can't? (Rooting squared_negatives rotates to positive 360°, but negatives are 180°. How do you know when things such as speed are negative, from so_called positive (=minus_squared) values?) What is that for a proof then? It's rediculous. Noether's theorem won't find that (math syntax) problem. (That problem is buried in the operation.) Please show me that Noether's calculus (theorem) will extract (or maintain) the negative polarities for that momentum equation, with a simple example. If it can't, then it is no proof. You are the specialist there. I don't see that I am asking the world. That lies in your region of competence to make it obvious. I've laid my cards on the table. I think the audience understands the issue. Maybe Not? Depends on their intelligence, or character? (At least then we can discuss the limitations of calculus.) i.e. That's not being nasty. I'm interested in learning whether she can track negative polarity (angle). Does she deal with syntax integrity? (I don't know. Do you?) Can she prove a reverse_ability, for tracking the angles? Does she recover the negative polarity (e.g. in momentum's speed)? Napier's syntax does for (polarity) purbreds (=homologous pair products); but not for (polarity) hybrids (=hetrogenous pair products). It cannot identify which term the negative character belongs to. That's a weakness. Did she use Napier's syntax? No? Sorry weakness to her proof, also. But not even Napier's syntax is enough to solve the (whole) problem, of hybrids' ambiguity of polarity. I.e. which (1 of 2) gets the minus sign. I expect her proof works perfectly for values that all stay positive. How does she deal with indefinite Integrals? That use negative 1 exponents? In response to your questioning (doubt): (rufly, drift, don't take it too serious, meant in fun) Hey Capiert! Ahh, your theory? Where does it fit, in ours? Can you show us? We dont know where it belongs (exactly). Our math proofs say the opposite. If you're right, where did we go wrong? Can you help us? We've only got a vague idea where it might fit in. (We dont know where to begin? Maybe you do?)-Tickle. Or something like that, so it's clear what were talking about. Cheers.

Please Wait! I always have problem programming quotes.I do not know why this sytem is not stable! Help!I've pressed multiquote & quote. Hi John. I mean it's not the weakness. My problem lies on a different basis, the reliability of the math rules, not their application.Your're dealing with using the tools. There appears to me to be some quirks with algebra (tool itself). ? </p></blockquote>The point is that the conservation laws can be proven mathematically and that's the opposite of what you say.<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >QuoteQuoteQuote<p>Fine. That's the level you're working at. You're not going to find an error at you're level.It does not address the problem. I hope you can see that. John, if you pull that 1 forward, we're not going to get anywhere.I think you are more interested in seeing what sort of calculations go screwy.Let's try to stay reasonable.I don't need a lot of calculus that tells me nothing right now.I'm looking for something that shows me differences, not just can show me differences.Any person can eat a meal, but which 1 (single 1) ate your dinner?We can deal with her proof with calculus, when we've "found" an error to work on, to backtrack & see why the proof goofed(?), as comparison.E.g. What does calculus address, what are it's limitations.At present, it's only a needle in the haystack, guessing at what we don't know.Please wait & be patient.If you need a formal replay that I have failed with your reply then hear it is (for now).I can't deal with it (yet). It doesn't help me solve the problem, including this 1. Yours.I've asked you for time, & I still have to prepare the FEM comparison for you too.I'm not trying to ignore you.But let's turn the table. Can you please explain to me what she did that I understand?Most of that link just goes thru my ears (right now).I can't even begin with it.

Sounds careful? Good! That gets me wondering, sceptical? maybe? Why? Good. Clear enough. Good! My instinct would say, temperature (ruffly, no calibration, nor etc). The stagnation point has lost a significant part of its momentum, to other parts of the fluid. ? Or it's lost that speed into rotation, vortexes, whirlpools. The question is naturally, to the slow down (loss). The whirls stop. Where did the speed go? Especially if it is not (gone) into heat (random) motion. I say, 2 colliding particles that stop (not bounce), becoming 1 total (mass, like bread doe) have cancelled their opposite speeds. Result, (& I know you're not going to like it) momentum cancelled (=destroyed); & if that can happen(?), then it can happen to another law (guess which one?) then energy can also cancel (e.g. like 2 waves, with same frequency, that meet out of phase (180 degrees, 1 inverted) from opposite directions). Thus energy is destroyable. & momentum is also destroyable. But since so much of both exists, then I must conclude they are both creatable, too. But how? As opposite pairs, simply by the reverse annalogy. The conservation law holds for the pairs (only) not the exclusive thing (e.g. wave). How is that done? Perhaps via 90 degree intervention. We need energy, to make energy (at 90 degrees). (?) Repulsion. A water wave can "push up", 90 degrees to its "horizontal motion", e.g. surfing. EMF electromagnetic force is at 90 degrees. But like charges repel too, as in radioactive decay. 180 degrees, into KE near light speed straight line motion beta particles, that bang around into collisions, ending random (zig zag) as then after, heat (motion=speed+acceleration, in varrying values).

Please Wait! Under construction. I don't want to be rude, but she is not my theme, nor method. That would be a sidetrack, off theme.If most of the witnesses say yes, I don't learn anything new. Only that strange & rare no, sets the gears working. Cheers.-SLH

Now "your" lack of knowledge, amases me! At least we have something in common. We're human. I don't think any of you have been capable of that calculation til now. Otherwise you would have done it. It was thought out to get the exact answer. The more exact answer is a little more complex but does not change anything significantly. Can you understand that, (at least). Sorry.

Yes I agree. Is there anything wrong with the formulas, there?

Please Wait! Under construction