An intro question regarding uniform motion (mayby stupid question),

Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
uniform motion? Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
line?

Thanks,  Joe

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Joe Avery wrote:
An intro question regarding uniform motion (mayby stupid question),

Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
uniform motion?

No. It's a special case of accelerated motion.

Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
line?

Uniform motion = zero acceleration. Uniform motion is what is described by
Newton's 1st law. It isn't a stupid question to ask for clarification of
technical terms such as "uniform motion".

For (uniform) circular motion, the speed is constant, but the velocity is
not.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

An intro question regarding uniform motion (mayby stupid question),

Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
uniform motion?

Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
line?

This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Joe Avery" <joe_avery_2005@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f8eec84-04e4-4a4a-91b4-69c096925b36@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
| An intro question regarding uniform motion (mayby stupid question),
|
| Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
| uniform motion? Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
| line?
|
| Thanks, Joe


Not a stupid question by any means, merely a matter of definition.

An intro question regarding uniform motion (mayby stupid question),

Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
uniform motion? Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
line?

Thanks,  Joe

On Apr 27, 6:47 pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:



On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Joe Avery wrote:
An intro question regarding uniform motion (mayby stupid question),

Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
uniform motion?

No. It's a special case of accelerated motion.

Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
line?

Uniform motion = zero acceleration. Uniform motion is what is described by
Newton's 1st law. It isn't a stupid question to ask for clarification of
technical terms such as "uniform motion".

For (uniform) circular motion, the speed is constant, but the velocity is
not.

Thanks much for the reply. If I understand it correctly, uniform
circular motion is not uniform motion.

Is uniform circular motion then a special case of curvilinear motion
at constant speed?

Joe



--
Timo Nieminen - Home page:http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints:http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits:http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

Gyroscopes are still not understood. No equations exist, nor any
Physics explanation exists.

On Apr 27, 6:47�pm, Timo Nieminen <t...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Joe Avery wrote:
An intro question regarding uniform motion (mayby stupid question),

Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
uniform motion?

No. It's a special case of accelerated motion.

Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
line?

Uniform motion = zero acceleration. Uniform motion is what is described by
Newton's 1st law. It isn't a stupid question to ask for clarification of
technical terms such as "uniform motion".

For (uniform) circular motion, the speed is constant, but the velocity is
not.

Thanks much for the reply. If I understand it correctly, uniform
circular motion is not uniform motion.

Is uniform circular motion then a special case of curvilinear motion
at constant speed?

Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
uniform motion? Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
line?

Gyroscopes are still not understood. No equations exist, nor any
Physics explanation exists.

On Apr 27, 6:14 pm, Joe Avery <joe_avery_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

An intro question regarding uniform motion (mayby stupid question),

Can we consider circular motion at a constant speed a speical case of
uniform motion? Or uniform motion refers only to motion on a straight
line?

Thanks,  Joe

Uniform motion is motion along a straight line -- rectilinear motion
-- with constant velocity (actually constant speed will suffice
because we already assumed motion on a straight line, i.e. constant
direction)

Circular motion with constant speed is not uniform motion but it is
unifom circular motion.

So to answer your question we have:

- Uniform (rectilinear) motion  - in this case "rectilinear" is often
omitted.
- Uniform circular motion

- I do not recall to have ever seen the term "uniform curvilinear
motion", if that's what you meant.

Mike

"Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> escreveu na mensagemnews:48162c65$0$26508$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com..."Phantom" <phan...@mail.pt> wrote in message

news:67mo5qF2of4edU1@mid.individual.net

Gyroscopes are still not understood. No equations exist, nor any
Physics explanation exists.

Someone missed the semester where angular momentum
was taught.

Yes, angular momentum sounds a good way to start, but
that's not enough.

Can I ask you some simple questions?
1 - Why a gyroscope resists to any motion that causes
it spin axis to have angular displacement? (Or else, why
a mass suspended from a gyroscope doesn't fall? Instead
the gyroscope precesses.)

2 - Where does the precession kinetic energy come
from?

3 - Since the hole problem is perfectly symmetric, why
precession always obeys the right hand rule?

I can answer the above 3 questions easy, along with a
detailed explanation.

I don't ask you the gyroscope equations of motion
because you don't have none (besides Euler's equation
of motion which are dependent equations taken on the
principal axis (a rotating frame of reference) from which
you cannot take any conclusions (you cannot solve then)).

I've those equations of motion deduced by Newton Method
(brute force like Timo Nieminen said once), plus the Lagrangian
Method (same shit as previous) and also a new vectorial method:
Torque = w x L (there are six terms "cross product" in total).
w - The angular velocity vector (w1, w2, w3)
x - cross product
L - Angular momentum vector (L1, L2, L3).

Guess what?
All the 3 methods produce the same result.
The result leads no where and must be wrong because
doesn't produce the experimental results. One don't
see precession at infinite angular speed when the gyro
is horizontal (equation taken from a 2008 book from
Harvard - The very best we have).

Then apply the Conservation of Energy.
Great, one can cut a lot of terms and will get a second order
differential equation which explains the behaviour of the
nutation axis due to torque applied on the precession axis.

What else?
I've been fucking my brain for almost 3 Years now and
I'm still very unhappy with the results.

Gyroscope explanation doesn't exist, nor the equations.
All Physics goes along - down the toilet.
(Relativity long time ago is on the toilet, since cannot handle
circular motion of a mass, but Andocles cannot see it even
with a flash light).