On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 17:26:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> > Op 16-jan.-2022 om 21:55 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> >> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@notmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Op 16-jan.-2022 om 20:25 schreef Richard Hertz:
> >>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > (>>>> Seto of Lake should be here)
> >
> >>> [snip ross rant]
> >>>
> >>>>> Instead is for putting space-time together with a potential theory,
> >>>>> helping to illustrate freedom in boost, kinetics will keep us together.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, ........
> >>>>
> >>>> I've followed some of your posts for a while but I never WANTED to
> >>>> meddle with you, Ross.
> >>>
> >>> Paradoxically, it takes a big idiot to recognize a small one.
> >>>
> >>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>
> >>
> >> Class I: “Physics is too hard to leave to physicists, and it should be left
> >> to engineers. Sure, engineers chose to be engineers and not physicists, but
> >> that’s only after they realized how much bullshit physics is, which is why
> >> engineers understand it better than physicists.”
> >>
> >> Class II: “Physics is cool and it’s fun to talk about, which is why I’m
> >> asking whether there’s a possible inter-dimensional conformal mapping that
> >> explains baryon masses. No, I’ve not formally studied physics, since you
> >> ask, but I take lots of notes about cool words. Can I play?”
> >>
> >> Class III: “Physicists just say stuff to sound smarter than everyone else
> >> and make the common man feel stupid. Well, this common man is not going to
> >> take that lying down. This common man is going to show that my book is
> >> better at doing physics than their stupid books, because it’s going to
> >> explain things so simply and without using any math or arcane jargon.”
> >>
> >
> > Totally nailed that :-)
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> Well, as you can see, it’s not that hard to figure them out.

You're a primitive guy, so your strawmen are also primitive
ones.

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:05:50 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:52 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:42:52 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> >>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> [snip whatever]
> >>>> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
> >>>> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
> >>>> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
> >>>> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
> >>>> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
> >>>> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
> >>>>
> >>>> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
> >>>> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
> >>>> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (... and all the science is already written in it.)
> >>>
> >>> That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
> >>> making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
> >>> a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
> >>> or that local gauge invariance starts.
> >>>
> >>> I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
> >>> transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
> >>> basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
> >>>
> >> HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
> >> What on Earth took you so long???
> >> FINALLY!
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Lorentz-London-Einstein for example sees "here you go,
> > speed of light is effectively infinite", for SR, or, "here
> > you go, energy of object at light speed is effectively infinite",
> > GR.
> NO NO NO!!! Effectively infinite?? Twice???
> BASICALLY infinite, surely you mean. Twice.
> What on Earth happened to you on your way out from sci.math???
> >
> > If you ask for any model of superconductivity basically it
> > is that there is one and it's great 20'th and 21'st century physics -
> > if Fritz London is really so great and like Chandrasekhar.
> Yeah, BASICALLY that is what that is. EXACTLY BASICALLY.
> That's a good boy there.
>
> Dirk Vdm

Fucking ignorant you all!

Lagrangians, Hamiltonian and similar shit are basically Newton's laws for mechanical energy, WHICH DISIPATES with enough time (say a
couple of billion years for celestial mechanics).

That's why dL/dt = 0 and its integral renders L = CONSTANT.

Now apply it to KE + U = E (constant), of which every fucking equation in the last 200 years has been derived, either
for cosmic systems or the idiotic attempt to use it at the atomic level in QM.

Fucking ignorant you all. Get dizzy with so many equations, but you are UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALS!

Fundamental for an engineer: ENERGY VANISHES ON ANY SYSTEM, UNLESS YOU FEED THAT SYSTEM WITH EXTRA ENERGY
ALL THE TIME.
There is a thing calling Power = dE/dt (Watts).

No go and put the above simplicity in the right context!

Muuurtel, I expected a bit more from you, stupid COW.

But you are stuck with relativity, so fuck you!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:05:50 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:52 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:42:52 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
>>>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> [snip whatever]
>>>>>> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
>>>>>> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
>>>>>> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
>>>>>> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
>>>>>> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
>>>>>> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
>>>>>> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
>>>>>> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (... and all the science is already written in it.)
>>>>>
>>>>> That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
>>>>> making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
>>>>> a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
>>>>> or that local gauge invariance starts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
>>>>> transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
>>>>> basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
>>>>>
>>>> HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
>>>> What on Earth took you so long???
>>>> FINALLY!
>>>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>> Lorentz-London-Einstein for example sees "here you go,
>>> speed of light is effectively infinite", for SR, or, "here
>>> you go, energy of object at light speed is effectively infinite",
>>> GR.
>> NO NO NO!!! Effectively infinite?? Twice???
>> BASICALLY infinite, surely you mean. Twice.
>> What on Earth happened to you on your way out from sci.math???
>>>
>>> If you ask for any model of superconductivity basically it
>>> is that there is one and it's great 20'th and 21'st century physics -
>>> if Fritz London is really so great and like Chandrasekhar.
>> Yeah, BASICALLY that is what that is. EXACTLY BASICALLY.
>> That's a good boy there.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Fucking ignorant you all!
>
> Lagrangians, Hamiltonian and similar shit are basically Newton's laws for
> mechanical energy, WHICH DISIPATES with enough time (say a
> couple of billion years for celestial mechanics).
>
> That's why dL/dt = 0 and its integral renders L = CONSTANT.

Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
about. Let’s see what you know.

>
> Now apply it to KE + U = E (constant), of which every fucking equation in
> the last 200 years has been derived, either
> for cosmic systems or the idiotic attempt to use it at the atomic level in QM.
>
> Fucking ignorant you all. Get dizzy with so many equations, but you are
> UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALS!
>
> Fundamental for an engineer: ENERGY VANISHES ON ANY SYSTEM, UNLESS YOU
> FEED THAT SYSTEM WITH EXTRA ENERGY
> ALL THE TIME.
> There is a thing calling Power = dE/dt (Watts).
>
> No go and put the above simplicity in the right context!
>
> Muuurtel, I expected a bit more from you, stupid COW.
>
> But you are stuck with relativity, so fuck you!
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, 17 January 2022 at 20:48:03 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:05:50 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:52 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> >>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:42:52 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> >>>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>> [snip whatever]
> >>>>>> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
> >>>>>> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
> >>>>>> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
> >>>>>> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
> >>>>>> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
> >>>>>> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
> >>>>>> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
> >>>>>> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (... and all the science is already written in it.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
> >>>>> making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
> >>>>> a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
> >>>>> or that local gauge invariance starts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
> >>>>> transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
> >>>>> basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
> >>>>>
> >>>> HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
> >>>> What on Earth took you so long???
> >>>> FINALLY!
> >>>>
> >>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>
> >>> Lorentz-London-Einstein for example sees "here you go,
> >>> speed of light is effectively infinite", for SR, or, "here
> >>> you go, energy of object at light speed is effectively infinite",
> >>> GR.
> >> NO NO NO!!! Effectively infinite?? Twice???
> >> BASICALLY infinite, surely you mean. Twice.
> >> What on Earth happened to you on your way out from sci.math???
> >>>
> >>> If you ask for any model of superconductivity basically it
> >>> is that there is one and it's great 20'th and 21'st century physics -
> >>> if Fritz London is really so great and like Chandrasekhar.
> >> Yeah, BASICALLY that is what that is. EXACTLY BASICALLY.
> >> That's a good boy there.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Fucking ignorant you all!
> >
> > Lagrangians, Hamiltonian and similar shit are basically Newton's laws for
> > mechanical energy, WHICH DISIPATES with enough time (say a
> > couple of billion years for celestial mechanics).
> >
> > That's why dL/dt = 0 and its integral renders L = CONSTANT.
> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
> about. Let’s see what you know.

Odd, you're lacking any knowledge to examine anyone
about anything.

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 11:48:03 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:05:50 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:52 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> >>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:42:52 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>>> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> >>>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>> [snip whatever]
> >>>>>> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
> >>>>>> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
> >>>>>> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
> >>>>>> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
> >>>>>> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
> >>>>>> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
> >>>>>> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
> >>>>>> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (... and all the science is already written in it.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
> >>>>> making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
> >>>>> a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
> >>>>> or that local gauge invariance starts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
> >>>>> transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
> >>>>> basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
> >>>>>
> >>>> HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
> >>>> What on Earth took you so long???
> >>>> FINALLY!
> >>>>
> >>>> Dirk Vdm
> >>>
> >>> Lorentz-London-Einstein for example sees "here you go,
> >>> speed of light is effectively infinite", for SR, or, "here
> >>> you go, energy of object at light speed is effectively infinite",
> >>> GR.
> >> NO NO NO!!! Effectively infinite?? Twice???
> >> BASICALLY infinite, surely you mean. Twice.
> >> What on Earth happened to you on your way out from sci.math???
> >>>
> >>> If you ask for any model of superconductivity basically it
> >>> is that there is one and it's great 20'th and 21'st century physics -
> >>> if Fritz London is really so great and like Chandrasekhar.
> >> Yeah, BASICALLY that is what that is. EXACTLY BASICALLY.
> >> That's a good boy there.
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Fucking ignorant you all!
> >
> > Lagrangians, Hamiltonian and similar shit are basically Newton's laws for
> > mechanical energy, WHICH DISIPATES with enough time (say a
> > couple of billion years for celestial mechanics).
> >
> > That's why dL/dt = 0 and its integral renders L = CONSTANT.
> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
> about. Let’s see what you know.
> >
> > Now apply it to KE + U = E (constant), of which every fucking equation in
> > the last 200 years has been derived, either
> > for cosmic systems or the idiotic attempt to use it at the atomic level in QM.
> >
> > Fucking ignorant you all. Get dizzy with so many equations, but you are
> > UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALS!
> >
> > Fundamental for an engineer: ENERGY VANISHES ON ANY SYSTEM, UNLESS YOU
> > FEED THAT SYSTEM WITH EXTRA ENERGY
> > ALL THE TIME.
> > There is a thing calling Power = dE/dt (Watts).
> >
> > No go and put the above simplicity in the right context!
> >
> > Muuurtel, I expected a bit more from you, stupid COW.
> >
> > But you are stuck with relativity, so fuck you!
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

See, in a few hours with help some Internet cranks I have written
a modern approach to overall physics.

Of course one must specifically "agree", the Lagrangians, ....

(Excuse me I already thought that out then regurgitated it.)

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:48:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is about. Let’s see what you know.

<snip>

I'm not going to write a dozen pages dealing with Lagrangian theory, originally developed to study N-body systems under Newton' Laws.

Enough to write these compact points:

1) Euler invested several decades to get a final expression of Newton's 2nd.. Law, until he was satisfied by stating that F(u) = m.d²u/dt²,
being any arbitrary unidimensional variable under which axis of representation the above expression verifies.
In modern generalized acceptation, F(r) = m.d²r/dt² = m.g(r) or, as widely used, F(x) = m d²x/dt² = m.a

2) Euler extended his analysis to a general problem of Newton's theory for celestial mechanics, using N bodies and (x,y,z) coordinate
system, under the premise that such complex system was conservative (stable). It meant that the total energy involved was constant.

3) Lagrange took from Euler such concept, but extended it to any system including N bodies, which COULD be conservative or not.

4) Lagrange generalized the use of (x,y,z) coordinate systems, replacing them with a common set of n generalized coordinates,
written as an i-tuple q = (q₁, q₂, q₃, .. qᵢ) AND replaced Euler's forces by ENERGY (in a simplified manner, E = F.d).

5) Lagrange then, under the premise that in such system, E = T + U is due to the total kinetic and potential contribution of each one
of the N particles (point-like masses, as Newton conceived them), developed a COMPLEX SET of additions of each particle to the
system, which COULD BE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.

6) The most used derivation of the lagrangian E = T + U for celestial mechanics, if for CONSERVATIVE systems, where E = constant.
Laplace, the third genius in the timeline, used these developments to develop his Treatise on celestial mechanics, which is
UNCHALLENGED as of today (we're talking about 200-220 years ago).

7) The Euler-Lagrange has proven to be useful for systems that are conservative OR NOT. For the classic Lagrangian, widely used for
cosmic or atomic interactions, E is conserved. So, in such systems, dE/dt = 0. This, if properly developed with additional perturbations
to what is already A VERY COMPLEX SET OF EQUATIONS, is what rules Newton dynamics for spatial systems (NASA, Russia, etc.)

If you want to learn a little more, in modern terms, read these lectures from a senior astrophysicist:

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.04%3A_The_Lagrangian_Equations_of_Motion

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.08%3A_More_Lagrangian_Mechanics_Examples

Enjoy, Paudkin.

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 11:48:03 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:05:50 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:52 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
>>>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 10:42:52 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>> Op 17-jan.-2022 om 19:28 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
>>>>>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:50:40 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, January 16, 2022 at 4:49:52 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>>> [snip whatever]
>>>>>>>> Most people have heard of Einstein, then there's Feynman, now Fritz London.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Yes, we are pink sub-creatures, thank you, robot overlords".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the phenomenon of superconductivity and all the various ways it
>>>>>>>> reflects transition changes in regime transitions, in physics, makes for
>>>>>>>> directly that much after relativity and energy is so explained, that so simply,
>>>>>>>> for models of London dispersal or along transforms exactly for
>>>>>>>> "Lorentz-London" transforms: is generally it would suffice to help make
>>>>>>>> for science, that all sorts of new science can be written in it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The symplectic for the meromorphic, these days is the framework,
>>>>>>>> to get what builds the symplectic and projects the meromorphic,
>>>>>>>> a usual notion of overpressure, plotting the mathematics of physics in it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (... and all the science is already written in it.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That a Lorentz transform is a Lagrangian either way, is for
>>>>>>> making then this notion of Lorentz-London, of also having
>>>>>>> a London dispersal well associated what is it torsion center,
>>>>>>> or that local gauge invariance starts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e. this way for example it's after writing derivation in Lorentz
>>>>>>> transforms, sorting out how they're connecting Lagrangians,
>>>>>>> basically what results sorting local/global gauge invariance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> HA! There we have Finlayson's world-famous "BASICALLY" again.
>>>>>> What on Earth took you so long???
>>>>>> FINALLY!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>
>>>>> Lorentz-London-Einstein for example sees "here you go,
>>>>> speed of light is effectively infinite", for SR, or, "here
>>>>> you go, energy of object at light speed is effectively infinite",
>>>>> GR.
>>>> NO NO NO!!! Effectively infinite?? Twice???
>>>> BASICALLY infinite, surely you mean. Twice.
>>>> What on Earth happened to you on your way out from sci.math???
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ask for any model of superconductivity basically it
>>>>> is that there is one and it's great 20'th and 21'st century physics -
>>>>> if Fritz London is really so great and like Chandrasekhar.
>>>> Yeah, BASICALLY that is what that is. EXACTLY BASICALLY.
>>>> That's a good boy there.
>>>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>> Fucking ignorant you all!
>>>
>>> Lagrangians, Hamiltonian and similar shit are basically Newton's laws for
>>> mechanical energy, WHICH DISIPATES with enough time (say a
>>> couple of billion years for celestial mechanics).
>>>
>>> That's why dL/dt = 0 and its integral renders L = CONSTANT.
>> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
>> about. Let’s see what you know.
>>>
>>> Now apply it to KE + U = E (constant), of which every fucking equation in
>>> the last 200 years has been derived, either
>>> for cosmic systems or the idiotic attempt to use it at the atomic level in QM.
>>>
>>> Fucking ignorant you all. Get dizzy with so many equations, but you are
>>> UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND FUNDAMENTALS!
>>>
>>> Fundamental for an engineer: ENERGY VANISHES ON ANY SYSTEM, UNLESS YOU
>>> FEED THAT SYSTEM WITH EXTRA ENERGY
>>> ALL THE TIME.
>>> There is a thing calling Power = dE/dt (Watts).
>>>
>>> No go and put the above simplicity in the right context!
>>>
>>> Muuurtel, I expected a bit more from you, stupid COW.
>>>
>>> But you are stuck with relativity, so fuck you!
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
>
> See, in a few hours with help some Internet cranks I have written
> a modern approach to overall physics.

You have written a ragout of steamed jargon, stirred in a pot for far too
short a time.

>
> Of course one must specifically "agree", the Lagrangians, ....
>
> (Excuse me I already thought that out then regurgitated it.)
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:48:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
>> about. Let’s see what you know.
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm not going to write a dozen pages dealing with Lagrangian theory,
> originally developed to study N-body systems under Newton' Laws.
>
> Enough to write these compact points:
>
> 1) Euler invested several decades to get a final expression of Newton's
> 2nd. Law, until he was satisfied by stating that F(u) = m.d²u/dt²,
> being any arbitrary unidimensional variable under which axis of
> representation the above expression verifies.
> In modern generalized acceptation, F(r) = m.d²r/dt² = m.g(r) or, as
> widely used, F(x) = m d²x/dt² = m.a
>
> 2) Euler extended his analysis to a general problem of Newton's theory
> for celestial mechanics, using N bodies and (x,y,z) coordinate
> system, under the premise that such complex system was conservative
> (stable). It meant that the total energy involved was constant.
>
> 3) Lagrange took from Euler such concept, but extended it to any system
> including N bodies, which COULD be conservative or not.
>
> 4) Lagrange generalized the use of (x,y,z) coordinate systems, replacing
> them with a common set of n generalized coordinates,
> written as an i-tuple q = (q₁, q₂, q₃, .. qᵢ) AND replaced Euler's
> forces by ENERGY (in a simplified manner, E = F.d).
>
> 5) Lagrange then, under the premise that in such system, E = T + U is due
> to the total kinetic and potential contribution of each one
> of the N particles (point-like masses, as Newton conceived them),
> developed a COMPLEX SET of additions of each particle to the
> system, which COULD BE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.
>
> 6) The most used derivation of the lagrangian E = T + U for celestial
> mechanics, if for CONSERVATIVE systems, where E = constant.
> Laplace, the third genius in the timeline, used these developments
> to develop his Treatise on celestial mechanics, which is
> UNCHALLENGED as of today (we're talking about 200-220 years ago).
>
> 7) The Euler-Lagrange has proven to be useful for systems that are
> conservative OR NOT. For the classic Lagrangian, widely used for
> cosmic or atomic interactions, E is conserved. So, in such systems,
> dE/dt = 0. This, if properly developed with additional perturbations
> to what is already A VERY COMPLEX SET OF EQUATIONS, is what rules
> Newton dynamics for spatial systems (NASA, Russia, etc.)
>
>
> If you want to learn a little more, in modern terms, read these lectures
> from a senior astrophysicist:
>
> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.04%3A_The_Lagrangian_Equations_of_Motion
>
> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.08%3A_More_Lagrangian_Mechanics_Examples
>
> Enjoy, Paudkin.
>
>
>
>
>

Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about
what a Lagrangian is.

You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:07:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:48:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
> >> about. Let’s see what you know.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I'm not going to write a dozen pages dealing with Lagrangian theory,
> > originally developed to study N-body systems under Newton' Laws.
> >
> > Enough to write these compact points:
> >
> > 1) Euler invested several decades to get a final expression of Newton's
> > 2nd. Law, until he was satisfied by stating that F(u) = m.d²u/dt²,
> > being any arbitrary unidimensional variable under which axis of
> > representation the above expression verifies.
> > In modern generalized acceptation, F(r) = m.d²r/dt² = m.g(r) or, as
> > widely used, F(x) = m d²x/dt² = m.a
> >
> > 2) Euler extended his analysis to a general problem of Newton's theory
> > for celestial mechanics, using N bodies and (x,y,z) coordinate
> > system, under the premise that such complex system was conservative
> > (stable). It meant that the total energy involved was constant.
> >
> > 3) Lagrange took from Euler such concept, but extended it to any system
> > including N bodies, which COULD be conservative or not.
> >
> > 4) Lagrange generalized the use of (x,y,z) coordinate systems, replacing
> > them with a common set of n generalized coordinates,
> > written as an i-tuple q = (q₁, q₂, q₃, .. qᵢ) AND replaced Euler's
> > forces by ENERGY (in a simplified manner, E = F.d).
> >
> > 5) Lagrange then, under the premise that in such system, E = T + U is due
> > to the total kinetic and potential contribution of each one
> > of the N particles (point-like masses, as Newton conceived them),
> > developed a COMPLEX SET of additions of each particle to the
> > system, which COULD BE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.
> >
> > 6) The most used derivation of the lagrangian E = T + U for celestial
> > mechanics, if for CONSERVATIVE systems, where E = constant.
> > Laplace, the third genius in the timeline, used these developments
> > to develop his Treatise on celestial mechanics, which is
> > UNCHALLENGED as of today (we're talking about 200-220 years ago).
> >
> > 7) The Euler-Lagrange has proven to be useful for systems that are
> > conservative OR NOT. For the classic Lagrangian, widely used for
> > cosmic or atomic interactions, E is conserved. So, in such systems,
> > dE/dt = 0. This, if properly developed with additional perturbations
> > to what is already A VERY COMPLEX SET OF EQUATIONS, is what rules
> > Newton dynamics for spatial systems (NASA, Russia, etc.)
> >
> >
> > If you want to learn a little more, in modern terms, read these lectures
> > from a senior astrophysicist:
> >
> > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.04%3A_The_Lagrangian_Equations_of_Motion
> >
> > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.08%3A_More_Lagrangian_Mechanics_Examples
> >
> > Enjoy, Paudkin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about
> what a Lagrangian is.
>
> You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

See here for example I win this argument by staying out of it.

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:07:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:48:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
> >> about. Let’s see what you know.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I'm not going to write a dozen pages dealing with Lagrangian theory,
> > originally developed to study N-body systems under Newton' Laws.
> >
> > Enough to write these compact points:
> >
> > 1) Euler invested several decades to get a final expression of Newton's
> > 2nd. Law, until he was satisfied by stating that F(u) = m.d²u/dt²,
> > being any arbitrary unidimensional variable under which axis of
> > representation the above expression verifies.
> > In modern generalized acceptation, F(r) = m.d²r/dt² = m.g(r) or, as
> > widely used, F(x) = m d²x/dt² = m.a
> >
> > 2) Euler extended his analysis to a general problem of Newton's theory
> > for celestial mechanics, using N bodies and (x,y,z) coordinate
> > system, under the premise that such complex system was conservative
> > (stable). It meant that the total energy involved was constant.
> >
> > 3) Lagrange took from Euler such concept, but extended it to any system
> > including N bodies, which COULD be conservative or not.
> >
> > 4) Lagrange generalized the use of (x,y,z) coordinate systems, replacing
> > them with a common set of n generalized coordinates,
> > written as an i-tuple q = (q₁, q₂, q₃, .. qᵢ) AND replaced Euler's
> > forces by ENERGY (in a simplified manner, E = F.d).
> >
> > 5) Lagrange then, under the premise that in such system, E = T + U is due
> > to the total kinetic and potential contribution of each one
> > of the N particles (point-like masses, as Newton conceived them),
> > developed a COMPLEX SET of additions of each particle to the
> > system, which COULD BE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.
> >
> > 6) The most used derivation of the lagrangian E = T + U for celestial
> > mechanics, if for CONSERVATIVE systems, where E = constant.
> > Laplace, the third genius in the timeline, used these developments
> > to develop his Treatise on celestial mechanics, which is
> > UNCHALLENGED as of today (we're talking about 200-220 years ago).
> >
> > 7) The Euler-Lagrange has proven to be useful for systems that are
> > conservative OR NOT. For the classic Lagrangian, widely used for
> > cosmic or atomic interactions, E is conserved. So, in such systems,
> > dE/dt = 0. This, if properly developed with additional perturbations
> > to what is already A VERY COMPLEX SET OF EQUATIONS, is what rules
> > Newton dynamics for spatial systems (NASA, Russia, etc.)
> >
> >
> > If you want to learn a little more, in modern terms, read these lectures
> > from a senior astrophysicist:
> >
> > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.04%3A_The_Lagrangian_Equations_of_Motion
> >
> > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.08%3A_More_Lagrangian_Mechanics_Examples
> >
> > Enjoy, Paudkin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about
> what a Lagrangian is.
>
> You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I think it's usually these days about adiabatic and non-adiabatic,
plain energy and Lagrangians.

Normalization is a big deal and the non-renormalizable in Lagrangians,
is that there do exist what are non-renormalizable Lagrangians, what
still establish what are conditions as a usual quantization approach.

I.e. this would be framed in quantum mechanics, which has at least three
subfields, QED, QCD, ....

About what are and aren't covariant and coordinate-free terms are as so.

https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/node/3259
"Adiabatic Effective Lagrangian", 1989

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >
> >> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
> >> about. Let’s see what you know.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I'm not going to write a dozen pages dealing with Lagrangian theory,
> > originally developed to study N-body systems under Newton' Laws.
> >
> > Enough to write these compact points:
> >
> > 1) Euler invested several decades to get a final expression of Newton's
> > 2nd. Law, until he was satisfied by stating that F(u) = m.d²u/dt²,
> > being any arbitrary unidimensional variable under which axis of
> > representation the above expression verifies.
> > In modern generalized acceptation, F(r) = m.d²r/dt² = m.g(r) or, as
> > widely used, F(x) = m d²x/dt² = m.a
> >
> > 2) Euler extended his analysis to a general problem of Newton's theory
> > for celestial mechanics, using N bodies and (x,y,z) coordinate
> > system, under the premise that such complex system was conservative
> > (stable). It meant that the total energy involved was constant.
> >
> > 3) Lagrange took from Euler such concept, but extended it to any system
> > including N bodies, which COULD be conservative or not.
> >
> > 4) Lagrange generalized the use of (x,y,z) coordinate systems, replacing
> > them with a common set of n generalized coordinates,
> > written as an i-tuple q = (q₁, q₂, q₃, .. qᵢ) AND replaced Euler's
> > forces by ENERGY (in a simplified manner, E = F.d).
> >
> > 5) Lagrange then, under the premise that in such system, E = T + U is due
> > to the total kinetic and potential contribution of each one
> > of the N particles (point-like masses, as Newton conceived them),
> > developed a COMPLEX SET of additions of each particle to the
> > system, which COULD BE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.
> >
> > 6) The most used derivation of the lagrangian E = T + U for celestial
> > mechanics, if for CONSERVATIVE systems, where E = constant.
> > Laplace, the third genius in the timeline, used these developments
> > to develop his Treatise on celestial mechanics, which is
> > UNCHALLENGED as of today (we're talking about 200-220 years ago).
> >
> > 7) The Euler-Lagrange has proven to be useful for systems that are
> > conservative OR NOT. For the classic Lagrangian, widely used for
> > cosmic or atomic interactions, E is conserved. So, in such systems,
> > dE/dt = 0. This, if properly developed with additional perturbations
> > to what is already A VERY COMPLEX SET OF EQUATIONS, is what rules
> > Newton dynamics for spatial systems (NASA, Russia, etc.)
> >
> >
> > If you want to learn a little more, in modern terms, read these lectures
> > from a senior astrophysicist:
> >
> > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.04%3A_The_Lagrangian_Equations_of_Motion
> >
> > https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.08%3A_More_Lagrangian_Mechanics_Examples
> >
> > Enjoy, Paudkin.
> >

> Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about what a Lagrangian is.
>
> You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Of course, a typical answer from an ignorant woodworker with mild butthurt,

I forgive you, Paudkin, just because I'm in a good mood and feel pity for peacocks which don't know that are near
to be dinner's main course.

Poor Paudkin, trying to discuss with an engineer (and an EE, for worse).

Too much pyroligneous acid emanating from the wood which you "work" is making your mind a quagmire where your thoughts are drown.

Have a resting time at a place far away from your "lab for wood". Maybe your stupidity will decrease a little.

Lagrangians, hamiltonians....LOL!

What a fuck can you possibly know, just by reading? Recycling borrowed knowledge in your primitive brain? Gimme a break!

These woodworkers!

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:07:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:48:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
>>>> about. Let’s see what you know.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I'm not going to write a dozen pages dealing with Lagrangian theory,
>>> originally developed to study N-body systems under Newton' Laws.
>>>
>>> Enough to write these compact points:
>>>
>>> 1) Euler invested several decades to get a final expression of Newton's
>>> 2nd. Law, until he was satisfied by stating that F(u) = m.d²u/dt²,
>>> being any arbitrary unidimensional variable under which axis of
>>> representation the above expression verifies.
>>> In modern generalized acceptation, F(r) = m.d²r/dt² = m.g(r) or, as
>>> widely used, F(x) = m d²x/dt² = m.a
>>>
>>> 2) Euler extended his analysis to a general problem of Newton's theory
>>> for celestial mechanics, using N bodies and (x,y,z) coordinate
>>> system, under the premise that such complex system was conservative
>>> (stable). It meant that the total energy involved was constant.
>>>
>>> 3) Lagrange took from Euler such concept, but extended it to any system
>>> including N bodies, which COULD be conservative or not.
>>>
>>> 4) Lagrange generalized the use of (x,y,z) coordinate systems, replacing
>>> them with a common set of n generalized coordinates,
>>> written as an i-tuple q = (q₁, q₂, q₃, .. qᵢ) AND replaced Euler's
>>> forces by ENERGY (in a simplified manner, E = F.d).
>>>
>>> 5) Lagrange then, under the premise that in such system, E = T + U is due
>>> to the total kinetic and potential contribution of each one
>>> of the N particles (point-like masses, as Newton conceived them),
>>> developed a COMPLEX SET of additions of each particle to the
>>> system, which COULD BE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.
>>>
>>> 6) The most used derivation of the lagrangian E = T + U for celestial
>>> mechanics, if for CONSERVATIVE systems, where E = constant.
>>> Laplace, the third genius in the timeline, used these developments
>>> to develop his Treatise on celestial mechanics, which is
>>> UNCHALLENGED as of today (we're talking about 200-220 years ago).
>>>
>>> 7) The Euler-Lagrange has proven to be useful for systems that are
>>> conservative OR NOT. For the classic Lagrangian, widely used for
>>> cosmic or atomic interactions, E is conserved. So, in such systems,
>>> dE/dt = 0. This, if properly developed with additional perturbations
>>> to what is already A VERY COMPLEX SET OF EQUATIONS, is what rules
>>> Newton dynamics for spatial systems (NASA, Russia, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to learn a little more, in modern terms, read these lectures
>>> from a senior astrophysicist:
>>>
>>> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.04%3A_The_Lagrangian_Equations_of_Motion
>>>
>>>
>>> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.08%3A_More_Lagrangian_Mechanics_Examples
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy, Paudkin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about
>> what a Lagrangian is.
>>
>> You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> See here for example I win this argument by staying out of it.
>
>

Ack!! Another one who is here to win arguments by spluttering gibberish. As
though winning arguments is the point.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>>> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
>>>> about. Let’s see what you know.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I'm not going to write a dozen pages dealing with Lagrangian theory,
>>> originally developed to study N-body systems under Newton' Laws.
>>>
>>> Enough to write these compact points:
>>>
>>> 1) Euler invested several decades to get a final expression of Newton's
>>> 2nd. Law, until he was satisfied by stating that F(u) = m.d²u/dt²,
>>> being any arbitrary unidimensional variable under which axis of
>>> representation the above expression verifies.
>>> In modern generalized acceptation, F(r) = m.d²r/dt² = m.g(r) or, as
>>> widely used, F(x) = m d²x/dt² = m.a
>>>
>>> 2) Euler extended his analysis to a general problem of Newton's theory
>>> for celestial mechanics, using N bodies and (x,y,z) coordinate
>>> system, under the premise that such complex system was conservative
>>> (stable). It meant that the total energy involved was constant.
>>>
>>> 3) Lagrange took from Euler such concept, but extended it to any system
>>> including N bodies, which COULD be conservative or not.
>>>
>>> 4) Lagrange generalized the use of (x,y,z) coordinate systems, replacing
>>> them with a common set of n generalized coordinates,
>>> written as an i-tuple q = (q₁, q₂, q₃, .. qᵢ) AND replaced Euler's
>>> forces by ENERGY (in a simplified manner, E = F.d).
>>>
>>> 5) Lagrange then, under the premise that in such system, E = T + U is due
>>> to the total kinetic and potential contribution of each one
>>> of the N particles (point-like masses, as Newton conceived them),
>>> developed a COMPLEX SET of additions of each particle to the
>>> system, which COULD BE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.
>>>
>>> 6) The most used derivation of the lagrangian E = T + U for celestial
>>> mechanics, if for CONSERVATIVE systems, where E = constant.
>>> Laplace, the third genius in the timeline, used these developments
>>> to develop his Treatise on celestial mechanics, which is
>>> UNCHALLENGED as of today (we're talking about 200-220 years ago).
>>>
>>> 7) The Euler-Lagrange has proven to be useful for systems that are
>>> conservative OR NOT. For the classic Lagrangian, widely used for
>>> cosmic or atomic interactions, E is conserved. So, in such systems,
>>> dE/dt = 0. This, if properly developed with additional perturbations
>>> to what is already A VERY COMPLEX SET OF EQUATIONS, is what rules
>>> Newton dynamics for spatial systems (NASA, Russia, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to learn a little more, in modern terms, read these lectures
>>> from a senior astrophysicist:
>>>
>>> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.04%3A_The_Lagrangian_Equations_of_Motion
>>>
>>>
>>> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.08%3A_More_Lagrangian_Mechanics_Examples
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy, Paudkin.
>>>
>
>> Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about
>> what a Lagrangian is.
>>
>> You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> Of course, a typical answer from an ignorant woodworker with mild butthurt,
>
> I forgive you, Paudkin, just because I'm in a good mood and feel pity for
> peacocks which don't know that are near
> to be dinner's main course.
>
> Poor Paudkin, trying to discuss with an engineer (and an EE, for worse).
>
> Too much pyroligneous acid emanating from the wood which you "work" is
> making your mind a quagmire where your thoughts are drown.
>
> Have a resting time at a place far away from your "lab for wood". Maybe
> your stupidity will decrease a little.
>
> Lagrangians, hamiltonians....LOL!
>
> What a fuck can you possibly know, just by reading? Recycling borrowed
> knowledge in your primitive brain? Gimme a break!
>
> These woodworkers!
>
>

I’m sure you’re aware in the middle of your brain that the main person
fucking you in the ass is you.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 6:58:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about what a Lagrangian is.
> >
> > You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

I forgot to add that you are discrediting, imbecile, this scientist:

http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/index.php

Jeremy Tatum
Emeritus Professor (Physics & Astronomy)
University of Victoria

See, Paudkin, why you are A CERTIFIED IDIOT good for nothing?

In your dreams you are a happy engineer, then you wake up and can't control your anger and frustration.

But I understand that there are online careers for becoming a Wood Engineer. You should give it a try.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 6:58:02 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about
>>> what a Lagrangian is.
>>>
>>> You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I forgot to add that you are discrediting, imbecile, this scientist:

You are discrediting yourself. You can’t even get the generic expression
for the Lagrangian right.

>
> http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/index.php
>
> Jeremy Tatum
> Emeritus Professor (Physics & Astronomy)
> University of Victoria
>
> See, Paudkin, why you are A CERTIFIED IDIOT good for nothing?
>
> In your dreams you are a happy engineer, then you wake up and can't
> control your anger and frustration.
>
> But I understand that there are online careers for becoming a Wood
> Engineer. You should give it a try.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Op 17-jan.-2022 om 22:49 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 1:07:40 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:48:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Maybe you would like to express in words what Lagrangian mechanics is
>>>> about. Let’s see what you know.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I'm not going to write a dozen pages dealing with Lagrangian theory,
>>> originally developed to study N-body systems under Newton' Laws.
>>>
>>> Enough to write these compact points:
>>>
>>> 1) Euler invested several decades to get a final expression of Newton's
>>> 2nd. Law, until he was satisfied by stating that F(u) = m.d²u/dt²,
>>> being any arbitrary unidimensional variable under which axis of
>>> representation the above expression verifies.
>>> In modern generalized acceptation, F(r) = m.d²r/dt² = m.g(r) or, as
>>> widely used, F(x) = m d²x/dt² = m.a
>>>
>>> 2) Euler extended his analysis to a general problem of Newton's theory
>>> for celestial mechanics, using N bodies and (x,y,z) coordinate
>>> system, under the premise that such complex system was conservative
>>> (stable). It meant that the total energy involved was constant.
>>>
>>> 3) Lagrange took from Euler such concept, but extended it to any system
>>> including N bodies, which COULD be conservative or not.
>>>
>>> 4) Lagrange generalized the use of (x,y,z) coordinate systems, replacing
>>> them with a common set of n generalized coordinates,
>>> written as an i-tuple q = (q₁, q₂, q₃, .. qᵢ) AND replaced Euler's
>>> forces by ENERGY (in a simplified manner, E = F.d).
>>>
>>> 5) Lagrange then, under the premise that in such system, E = T + U is due
>>> to the total kinetic and potential contribution of each one
>>> of the N particles (point-like masses, as Newton conceived them),
>>> developed a COMPLEX SET of additions of each particle to the
>>> system, which COULD BE CONSERVATIVE OR NOT.
>>>
>>> 6) The most used derivation of the lagrangian E = T + U for celestial
>>> mechanics, if for CONSERVATIVE systems, where E = constant.
>>> Laplace, the third genius in the timeline, used these developments
>>> to develop his Treatise on celestial mechanics, which is
>>> UNCHALLENGED as of today (we're talking about 200-220 years ago).
>>>
>>> 7) The Euler-Lagrange has proven to be useful for systems that are
>>> conservative OR NOT. For the classic Lagrangian, widely used for
>>> cosmic or atomic interactions, E is conserved. So, in such systems,
>>> dE/dt = 0. This, if properly developed with additional perturbations
>>> to what is already A VERY COMPLEX SET OF EQUATIONS, is what rules
>>> Newton dynamics for spatial systems (NASA, Russia, etc.)
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to learn a little more, in modern terms, read these lectures
>>> from a senior astrophysicist:
>>>
>>> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.04%3A_The_Lagrangian_Equations_of_Motion
>>>
>>> https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Classical_Mechanics/Classical_Mechanics_(Tatum)/13%3A_Lagrangian_Mechanics/13.08%3A_More_Lagrangian_Mechanics_Examples
>>>
>>> Enjoy, Paudkin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Congratulations. You have just showed you have no idea whatsoever about
>> what a Lagrangian is.
>>
>> You came closer to describing a Hamiltonian, but not what I asked about.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
>
> I think it's usually these days about adiabatic and non-adiabatic,
> plain energy and Lagrangians.
>
> Normalization is a big deal and the non-renormalizable in Lagrangians,
> is that there do exist what are non-renormalizable Lagrangians, what
> still establish what are conditions as a usual quantization approach.
>
> I.e. this would be framed in quantum mechanics, which has at least three
> subfields, QED, QCD, ....
>
> About what are and aren't covariant and coordinate-free terms are as so.
>
> https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/node/3259
> "Adiabatic Effective Lagrangian", 1989
>

As long as you BASICALLY think all this, no harm is done.
Probably. Basically.

Dirk Vdm

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:27:47 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> You are discrediting yourself. You can’t even get the generic expression for the Lagrangian right.

<snip>

Write it, alleged "mathematician", and be sure to not make a single mistake..

I'll destroy your fucking "interpretation", woodworker. This is an issue for physicists or engineers, not wood-mathematicians.

Write it concisely and without any gobbledygook. I give you three paragraphs, because I'm generous.

But I'm going to expose you as the fucking pretender you've been since you wrote your first post here. Come on, do it. And, as a BONUS
to mock at me with your Superior Knowledge, write the general expression of the Hamiltonian. If you can, tell your audience their
differences, clown.

And I'm talking about ORIGINALS, as were used 140 years ago. Not any crappy post-QM interpretation. Write them EXACTLY as
they were conceived, for Newton's mechanics. The forum is your audience now, pretender.

Paudkin — Maker of fine gobbledygook on whatever.

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:46:10 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:27:47 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>
> > You are discrediting yourself. You can’t even get the generic expression for the Lagrangian right.
<snip>

> Write it, alleged "mathematician", and be sure to not make a single mistake.
>
> I'll destroy your fucking "interpretation", woodworker. This is an issue for physicists or engineers, not wood-mathematicians.
>
> Write it concisely and without any gobbledygook. I give you three paragraphs, because I'm generous.
>
> But I'm going to expose you as the fucking pretender you've been since you wrote your first post here. Come on, do it. And, as a BONUS
> to mock at me with your Superior Knowledge, write the general expression of the Hamiltonian. If you can, tell your audience their
> differences, clown.
>
> And I'm talking about ORIGINALS, as were used 140 years ago. Not any crappy post-QM interpretation. Write them EXACTLY as
> they were conceived, for Newton's mechanics. The forum is your audience now, pretender.
>
> Paudkin — Maker of fine gobbledygook on whatever.

Curious!

Instantaneous responses for a charlatan and his small talk. Eternal silence for an alleged "mathematician" to reply a simple challenge
(as Bodkin called this topic: elementary).

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:10:27 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:46:10 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:27:47 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > You are discrediting yourself. You can’t even get the generic expression for the Lagrangian right.
> <snip>
>
> > Write it, alleged "mathematician", and be sure to not make a single mistake.
> >
> > I'll destroy your fucking "interpretation", woodworker. This is an issue for physicists or engineers, not wood-mathematicians.
> >
> > Write it concisely and without any gobbledygook. I give you three paragraphs, because I'm generous.
> >
> > But I'm going to expose you as the fucking pretender you've been since you wrote your first post here. Come on, do it. And, as a BONUS
> > to mock at me with your Superior Knowledge, write the general expression of the Hamiltonian. If you can, tell your audience their
> > differences, clown.
> >
> > And I'm talking about ORIGINALS, as were used 140 years ago. Not any crappy post-QM interpretation. Write them EXACTLY as
> > they were conceived, for Newton's mechanics. The forum is your audience now, pretender.
> >
> > Paudkin — Maker of fine gobbledygook on whatever.
> Curious!
>
> Instantaneous responses for a charlatan and his small talk. Eternal silence for an alleged "mathematician" to reply a simple challenge
> (as Bodkin called this topic: elementary).

You mean d/dt dV - dT = 0 ?

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:15:15 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
<snip>
> You mean d/dt dV - dT = 0 ?
No, I mean that given E = T - V = 1/2 ∑ᴺ mᵢ vᵢ² - V(r⃗₁, r⃗₂, r⃗₃, r⃗₄, ..., r⃗ᶰ) , for conservative systems like in newtonian gravity.
This implies to solve a Lagrangian expressed as:
∂L/∂r⃗ᵢ - d/dt ∂L/∂ṙ⃗ᵢ + ∑ᴱ λᵦ ∂fᵦ/∂r⃗ᵤ = 0 , where i: 1, 2, 3, ...., N particles and u: 1, 2, 3, ..., E constraints.
∂r⃗ᵢ ≡ (∂/∂xᵢ , ∂/∂yᵢ , ∂/∂zᵢ). Use the same notation for ∂ṙ⃗ᵢ .
At any case, ask Bodkin, who knows this shit in depth.
Also, ask him how the first order Lagrangian derives in this simple expression used for planetary motion (even Einstein used it):
1/2 m [r² (dθ/dt)² + (dr/dt)²] – GMm/r = E
or
d²r/dt² + μ/r² = 0 ------> 1/2 v² - μ/r = constant = E (all derived from Newton-Euler m d²r⃗/dt² = - GMmr⃗/r³).

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:31:45 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:15:15 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > You mean d/dt dV - dT = 0 ?
> No, I mean that given E = T - V = 1/2 ∑ᴺ mᵢ vᵢ² - V(r⃗₁, r⃗₂, r⃗₃, r⃗₄, ..., r⃗ᶰ) , for conservative systems like in newtonian gravity.
>
> This implies to solve a Lagrangian expressed as:
>
> ∂L/∂r⃗ᵢ - d/dt ∂L/∂ṙ⃗ᵢ + ∑ᴱ λᵦ ∂fᵦ/∂r⃗ᵤ = 0 , where i: 1, 2, 3, ...., N particles and u: 1, 2, 3, ..., E constraints.
>
> ∂r⃗ᵢ ≡ (∂/∂xᵢ , ∂/∂yᵢ , ∂/∂zᵢ). Use the same notation for ∂ṙ⃗ᵢ .
>
> At any case, ask Bodkin, who knows this shit in depth.
>
> Also, ask him how the first order Lagrangian derives in this simple expression used for planetary motion (even Einstein used it):
>
> 1/2 m [r² (dθ/dt)² + (dr/dt)²] – GMm/r = E
>
> or
>
> d²r/dt² + μ/r² = 0 ------> 1/2 v² - μ/r = constant = E (all derived from Newton-Euler m d²r⃗/dt² = - GMmr⃗/r³).

Still though, d/dt dV - dT = 0.

I.e. it is a potential solution and a usual always finite solution.

It is for operators this way, here in t also "T" as it were.

This is where the potential solution defines the classical solution
instead of a usual other the way around.

This is parameterized in t, you know whatever is besides an action
something like "the infinite speed is light" as that "the infinite speed
of the end of this arm reaching its time and force as the rest of it does",
makes for simpler models of relativity, that express for example,
how in just the same way the potential adds back up in organized motion,
as what results with classical motion.

For example for a lever action to double applied force, or all simple
machines, let's be building those first in potential before all the
way to light's speed is infinite". It's only finitely different how much
longer it takes the arm to swing, but it has more force while it does so,
given the inputs and outputs, of the simple machine.

Here then it's "1, 0, infinity simple machines: 1/oo = 0".

There's is 1+ and 1- but it's different than 0 * oo.

Which of course doesn't exist as anything times zero is zero
and anything times infinity is infinity. For numbers between
zero and one, that, "anything times these infinity is actually zero",
is that there are numbers greater than 1 and their reciprocals less than one.

Here about d/dt = 0, dd/dt = 0, ..., is about what is rest.

I.e. it is on one or the other the terms, or both, what reflects,
for example what is pair-wise and co-ordinate, and, what is
in terms, in area terms, or as whatever are paired, what results
that according to their shared time evolution, the differential
and integral terms are included, about the balance that results
in the results under group addition of course, and zero, there's
that as the writing of the terms is arithmetic, it's so defined.

Then, there are the half and double momentum what result
terms, that, accommodate in potential terms what are twice.

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:31:45 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:15:15 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > You mean d/dt dV - dT = 0 ?
> > No, I mean that given E = T - V = 1/2 ∑ᴺ mᵢ vᵢ² - V(r⃗₁, r⃗₂, r⃗₃, r⃗₄, ..., r⃗ᶰ) , for conservative systems like in newtonian gravity.
> >
> > This implies to solve a Lagrangian expressed as:
> >
> > ∂L/∂r⃗ᵢ - d/dt ∂L/∂ṙ⃗ᵢ + ∑ᴱ λᵦ ∂fᵦ/∂r⃗ᵤ = 0 , where i: 1, 2, 3, ...., N particles and u: 1, 2, 3, ..., E constraints.
> >
> > ∂r⃗ᵢ ≡ (∂/∂xᵢ , ∂/∂yᵢ , ∂/∂zᵢ). Use the same notation for ∂ṙ⃗ᵢ .
> >
> > At any case, ask Bodkin, who knows this shit in depth.
> >
> > Also, ask him how the first order Lagrangian derives in this simple expression used for planetary motion (even Einstein used it):
> >
> > 1/2 m [r² (dθ/dt)² + (dr/dt)²] – GMm/r = E
> >
> > or
> >
> > d²r/dt² + μ/r² = 0 ------> 1/2 v² - μ/r = constant = E (all derived from Newton-Euler m d²r⃗/dt² = - GMmr⃗/r³).
> Still though, d/dt dV - dT = 0.
>
> I.e. it is a potential solution and a usual always finite solution.
>
> It is for operators this way, here in t also "T" as it were.
>
> This is where the potential solution defines the classical solution
> instead of a usual other the way around.
>
> This is parameterized in t, you know whatever is besides an action
> something like "the infinite speed is light" as that "the infinite speed
> of the end of this arm reaching its time and force as the rest of it does",
> makes for simpler models of relativity, that express for example,
> how in just the same way the potential adds back up in organized motion,
> as what results with classical motion.
>
> For example for a lever action to double applied force, or all simple
> machines, let's be building those first in potential before all the
> way to light's speed is infinite". It's only finitely different how much
> longer it takes the arm to swing, but it has more force while it does so,
> given the inputs and outputs, of the simple machine.
>
> Here then it's "1, 0, infinity simple machines: 1/oo = 0".
>
> There's is 1+ and 1- but it's different than 0 * oo.
>
> Which of course doesn't exist as anything times zero is zero
> and anything times infinity is infinity. For numbers between
> zero and one, that, "anything times these infinity is actually zero",
> is that there are numbers greater than 1 and their reciprocals less than one.
>
> Here about d/dt = 0, dd/dt = 0, ..., is about what is rest.
>
> I.e. it is on one or the other the terms, or both, what reflects,
> for example what is pair-wise and co-ordinate, and, what is
> in terms, in area terms, or as whatever are paired, what results
> that according to their shared time evolution, the differential
> and integral terms are included, about the balance that results
> in the results under group addition of course, and zero, there's
> that as the writing of the terms is arithmetic, it's so defined.
>
> Then, there are the half and double momentum what result
> terms, that, accommodate in potential terms what are twice.

I.e. there are separate derivations
for rest momentum and exchange momentum.

About acceleration and rest, and velocity, about
distance, which in time measures velocity, is
that constant acceleration results in a shared frame,
and a shared frame is rest.

I.e., here the differential and integrable components,
integrable and differentiable with respect to each other,
result potential for rest in action.

Then when you say "what do you mean KE is 1/2 KE,
in momentum , and what happened to mv, with
respect to mv^2, or shall I say m dt dt, ....", then
of course it is something relevant for people to understand
in the classical derivations, ..., why in the classical
term there is to understand that dt dt is on its square
in time, for acceleration, while only v + v in distance,
or "Newton's 2'nd law".

On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 8:17:33 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:55:09 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:31:45 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 9:15:15 PM UTC-3, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > You mean d/dt dV - dT = 0 ?
> > > No, I mean that given E = T - V = 1/2 ∑ᴺ mᵢ vᵢ² - V(r⃗₁, r⃗₂, r⃗₃, r⃗₄, ..., r⃗ᶰ) , for conservative systems like in newtonian gravity.
> > >
> > > This implies to solve a Lagrangian expressed as:
> > >
> > > ∂L/∂r⃗ᵢ - d/dt ∂L/∂ṙ⃗ᵢ + ∑ᴱ λᵦ ∂fᵦ/∂r⃗ᵤ = 0 , where i: 1, 2, 3, ...., N particles and u: 1, 2, 3, ..., E constraints.
> > >
> > > ∂r⃗ᵢ ≡ (∂/∂xᵢ , ∂/∂yᵢ , ∂/∂zᵢ). Use the same notation for ∂ṙ⃗ᵢ .
> > >
> > > At any case, ask Bodkin, who knows this shit in depth.
> > >
> > > Also, ask him how the first order Lagrangian derives in this simple expression used for planetary motion (even Einstein used it):
> > >
> > > 1/2 m [r² (dθ/dt)² + (dr/dt)²] – GMm/r = E
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > d²r/dt² + μ/r² = 0 ------> 1/2 v² - μ/r = constant = E (all derived from Newton-Euler m d²r⃗/dt² = - GMmr⃗/r³).
> > Still though, d/dt dV - dT = 0.
> >
> > I.e. it is a potential solution and a usual always finite solution.
> >
> > It is for operators this way, here in t also "T" as it were.
> >
> > This is where the potential solution defines the classical solution
> > instead of a usual other the way around.
> >
> > This is parameterized in t, you know whatever is besides an action
> > something like "the infinite speed is light" as that "the infinite speed
> > of the end of this arm reaching its time and force as the rest of it does",
> > makes for simpler models of relativity, that express for example,
> > how in just the same way the potential adds back up in organized motion,
> > as what results with classical motion.
> >
> > For example for a lever action to double applied force, or all simple
> > machines, let's be building those first in potential before all the
> > way to light's speed is infinite". It's only finitely different how much
> > longer it takes the arm to swing, but it has more force while it does so,
> > given the inputs and outputs, of the simple machine.
> >
> > Here then it's "1, 0, infinity simple machines: 1/oo = 0".
> >
> > There's is 1+ and 1- but it's different than 0 * oo.
> >
> > Which of course doesn't exist as anything times zero is zero
> > and anything times infinity is infinity. For numbers between
> > zero and one, that, "anything times these infinity is actually zero",
> > is that there are numbers greater than 1 and their reciprocals less than one.
> >
> > Here about d/dt = 0, dd/dt = 0, ..., is about what is rest.
> >
> > I.e. it is on one or the other the terms, or both, what reflects,
> > for example what is pair-wise and co-ordinate, and, what is
> > in terms, in area terms, or as whatever are paired, what results
> > that according to their shared time evolution, the differential
> > and integral terms are included, about the balance that results
> > in the results under group addition of course, and zero, there's
> > that as the writing of the terms is arithmetic, it's so defined.
> >
> > Then, there are the half and double momentum what result
> > terms, that, accommodate in potential terms what are twice.
> I.e. there are separate derivations
> for rest momentum and exchange momentum.
>
> About acceleration and rest, and velocity, about
> distance, which in time measures velocity, is
> that constant acceleration results in a shared frame,
> and a shared frame is rest.
>
> I.e., here the differential and integrable components,
> integrable and differentiable with respect to each other,
> result potential for rest in action.
>
> Then when you say "what do you mean KE is 1/2 KE,
> in momentum , and what happened to mv, with
> respect to mv^2, or shall I say m dt dt, ....", then
> of course it is something relevant for people to understand
> in the classical derivations, ..., why in the classical
> term there is to understand that dt dt is on its square
> in time, for acceleration, while only v + v in distance,
> or "Newton's 2'nd law".

There needs be a better explanation, if you're familiar
with usual derivations and mv and mv^2.

And v = 0....

Here though as stated is along the lines of how
dynamics, organized, makes for rest in effect
and in motion.

I.e. this introduces a usual symmetry term
to explain its effect.

Potential in effect....

Ah, then here these Lagrangians mostly reflect,
for example, what under terms in action, result
as from what 's usual in organization, in effect.

Alternatives in derivations are key in any physics
because they result attached from their physical
interpretation. Of course, it's as usual derivations
of course are reducing or otherwise free, here what
it's let that as long as the Lagrangian condition
holds, so what's declared holds for it.

Here the point is that the Lagrangian remains
attached for these rest and exchange terms.

Anyways that's a rather more specific point to be making
about classical terms in rest and momentum,
and Lagrangians, for exchange conditions, besides what
rather it's the condition, agreed, that the Lagrangian
establishes the variational principle, which is a usual
accord about continuity and zero, and, of course, 1.0
in distance and the metric.

Here the point is that the Lagrangian actually holds,
and, 1.0 in distance, is well-defined, in the gauge
theory's metric. (Here that it is even, balanced,
in terms in here what is the potential under action,
of what is energy, with respect to the kinetic, and rest.)

Then Lorentz-London is to work out the conditions,
where the Lagrangian what results, is after what
otherwise terms replace potential, here for quantum
theories, the limits what result from organization,
with respect to defining some usual perfect zero or
infinite capacity as the result of space in potential,
that then the terms of inputs and outputs, results
from an "is what it is" - for why, where, and when
Lagrangians define terms, here those outside or as
from the energy concerns the "non" conservative,
which are built variously as terms in Lagrangians.

I.e. the Lagrangian has abstractly most any number
of terms of the order of the differential/integral.
Point being at zero it's also zero. Then that results
variationally together, or, apart.

Besides just V-T = 0 and when v = 0.

Den 17.01.2022 20:36, skrev Richard Hertz:
|>
> Fucking ignorant you all!
>
> Lagrangians, Hamiltonian and similar shit are basically Newton's laws for mechanical energy, WHICH DISIPATES with enough time (say a
> couple of billion years for celestial mechanics).
>
> That's why dL/dt = 0 and its integral renders L = CONSTANT.

I suppose that L is the Lagrangian.

L = T - V kinetic energy MINUS potential energy.

L is constant only if T and V both are constant.
(Example: planet in circular orbit)

But in the general case, both T and V may change.
(Example planet in orbit with eccentricity ≠ 0)

Since the total energy E = T+V = constant,
dT/dt = - dV/dt

dL/dt = 2dT/dt

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 7:27:47 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You are discrediting yourself. You can’t even get the generic expression
>> for the Lagrangian right.
>
> <snip>
>
> Write it, alleged "mathematician", and be sure to not make a single mistake.
>
> I'll destroy your fucking "interpretation", woodworker. This is an issue
> for physicists or engineers, not wood-mathematicians.
>
> Write it concisely and without any gobbledygook. I give you three
> paragraphs, because I'm generous.
>
> But I'm going to expose you as the fucking pretender you've been since
> you wrote your first post here. Come on, do it. And, as a BONUS
> to mock at me with your Superior Knowledge, write the general expression
> of the Hamiltonian. If you can, tell your audience their
> differences, clown.
>
> And I'm talking about ORIGINALS, as were used 140 years ago. Not any
> crappy post-QM interpretation. Write them EXACTLY as
> they were conceived, for Newton's mechanics. The forum is your audience now, pretender.
>
> Paudkin — Maker of fine gobbledygook on whatever.
>
>

1. L = T - U, not T + U

2. The principle of stationary action does not say that dL/dt is constant.
The variation is not over time, and the quantity that is varying is not L,
but the integral of L over the canonical trajectories.

3. L is not energy, and the Euler-Lagrange equations are not conservation
of energy.

4. It might help your credibility if you chose to CLOSE your yap about a
subject until you’ve learned something about it, rather than your habit of
of OPENING your yap and THEN learning something about the subject. Would it
hurt you to just NOT SAY ANYTHING about a subject for a bit?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables