Well, my question has really frizzlled serveral minds, I can really smell that. Anyways so here we go towards the exact answer.

The solution is really dementating, which is hidden in the major consequences of "THEORY OF RELATIVITY" so proposed by Einstein, among the subjective results the one which gives the digestible solution of my question is "LENGTH CONTRACTION".

That is, if we are in rest frame of reference then the length of an object which is relative to our fixed frame of reference is supposed to be L', but when that object starts moving with some velocity 'v' then it's new length so observed by the observer who is speculating that rod or object from that fixed frame of reference, will seem to reduced because of Lorentz Factor effect, and thus from L' it will change into L (here we using the respective notations for the sake of our convenience). We can understand this phenomenon by means of following equation, which is,

L= L' ( 1- v^2/c^2 )^1/2
where 'c' is speed of light whose is value is 3x10^8 m/s, plus 'v' is always less than 'c', as if c<v then this thing will create great natural blunder.

Hence length of the rod (object) appears to reduce when there is relative motion between an observer and the rod, provided the relative velocity is comparable (but not eacatly equal) to speed of light.

One thing more which I would like to mention is that, length contraction takes place only along the direction of motion of the body. There is no change in length of the body perpendicular to the direction of its motion.

Hence by visionary point of view LENGTH CONTRACTION is responsible to effect the rigidity of any solid body.

Another thing which is very indespensible to highlight is that, here WE are not applying any sort of force personally on the frame of references, we are merely observers in this case.

So I think this thing shall now satisfy ur minds.


As far as Mr.Ghayas said that heat is the agent that could effect the rigidity, so in this ragards I would like to rectify that no doubt heat is an energy form but it is produced due to collision of atoms and molecules, and there is no objection in this fact that its only force that makes atome to collide and repel, so when there'll be no force then there'll be no friction, and once there won't be any friction how can heat be produced? Thus if heat is involved it means there is the contribution of some force. Hence the answer is valid.

And whatelse angelfalls said in this concern, also not accurate, as voltage is basically workdone per unit charge, and work is the scaler product of force and displacement. So once there won't be any force then there won't be any work done, and when there isn't any workdone by any charge then how could this voltage or potantial difference be produced?

Thus both these terms which are energy and heat are goverened by force, hence they are not of true match of my question.

Beyond doubt, u guys have definitely made encouraging attempts. I'm delighted.

So long then.

ALLAH PE AMAN.

Einstein had literally gone "mad" before he died. I pray that all those who pursue his findings don't end up like that.

and btw Maria, E=mc^2 would've been a better idea. don't u think so?



eXiT.

As regard the issue that: "The rigidity of a solid can be changed, without the application of external force, by applying voltage across its ends."

Voltage is produced when a conducting wire perpendicularly cuts the 'Magnetic Lines of Force' and in this way emf (electromotive force) is generated which is the VOLTAGE.

So the application of 'force' is there in the form of 'Magnetic Lines of Force'.

Secondly, as regards the issue of 'Theory of Relativity':

But ..... In this case we are just observing such an object whose APPARENT rigidity is already altered.

We our self have not introduced any real or apparent change in the rigidity of the object with or without the application of any force.

We are just observing an object, which belongs to a different frame of reference. We can 'see' its 'visible' length. Only thing is that we 'know' that the 'visible' or 'apparent' length is not the actual length but is such a length, which has been reduced by the Lorentz factor.

And Now I want to ask another question ..... especially from Miss Maria, because Physics is her own subject.

The question is: With reference to 'classical' physics, speed (or velocity) of an object is continuous variable or discrete variable......????

I mean consider the case of an object whose velocity reaches to 100 km/hr from the initial velocity of 0 km/hr. My question is that is it necessary (as per classical physics) that the speed (or velocity) must touch each and every fractional point between 0 and 100 or can it happen that velocity may increase in sudden steps like 10, 25, 50 and then 100.......????

I know that according to Quantum Physics, particularly 'spin' motion is not considered as any continuous motion. But Quantum Physics is applicable to sub-atomic level particles.

My question relates to Ordinary visible massive physical objects. So looking forward for the expert point of view/s.

Thanks!

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????

Mst Marria your question and your answer do not match,

you question is that "How can we effect the rigidity of any solid body without an application of external force?"

and your answer in one line "length contraction due to change of frame of refrence",

and my asnwer "applying heat", as we apply heat WE are not applying any sort of force personally, what we have done is we have put candle under the rod without toucing the rod.

your answer is based on thoery and my answer is fact.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more,
do more and become more, you are a leader
MCS Final Year (Karachi University)

radiation and heat - absolutely valid, but there is another concept involving lorentz transformation and relativity, but that is based on observed visionary aspects of the frame of reference.

Well, the man who failed in the aptitude test of Zurich School Of Poly-technique then later won noble prize on proposing this awesome THEORY OF RELATIVITY be perhaps “mad” near you, but in my view he is not.

He was the one to whom Israel offered its presidentship only because of his magnificent scientific perspiration. The offer was merely for the sake of quick manufacturing of nuclear bomb, which could easily be accomplished under Einstein’s assistance, but he refused, saying this to Israel that they better stop sacking and excruciating Palestines. May be he is “barmy” near u but not for me.

He was the one to whom when a German scientist asked to persuade President Roosevelt to generate nuclear bomb in 1945, he refused to give him that deadly favor and asked him to exercise for peace instead of war. May be such is “screwy” in ur sight but near me.

Scientists are constantly working on the research pages of that “mad” man, well this thing illustrate that in your vision all scientists and experts are also mad, right?

Anyways, so as you have written that whether E=mc^2 works here or not, so in this regards I would like to say that without any stimulation matter cannot be converted into energy, the example of annihilation of matter and materialization of energy is in front of view.

Plus, on thing that I have forgotten to write in the beginning, that, another consequence of theory of relativity i.e. “time dilation” provided the scientific endorsement to the event of MAYRA’AGE, so don’t put that scientist in the box of mads.
Yea, you can call him worst in the sense of bearing the flirtatious nature.


Though I’m not an expert of physics but I would like to lay down some lines regarding your question.

Well, talking about physical consideration, it is classified in two types, continuation and quantization. In classical mechanics the consideration is continued, that is here all values are possible. But in quantum mechanics certain values are permissible. Speaking of velocity, well as far as I know, it is non-continuous in quantum mechanics means there is quantization. But in classical mechanics the situation is averse i.e. here we deal velocity as a continuous variable. For example, if you move your hand then with respect to your naked eye the motion would seem continuous to you, but if you take its X-ray then over there the motion will be observed in steps.
Thus, we have two different readings with respect to two different branches. As we know that the coalition of phenomenon and system gives a physical entity, and very physical entity has its unit and that unit is termed as quanta. For instance, unit of human body is cell, unit of wall is brick, unit of any sample of matter is atom/molecule, similarly electricity has electron, light has photon, sound has sonon and heat has phonon as their units. What I mean to say is that if you will observe the motion of any body normally then it will appear continuous to you, but the same motion will be in jumps if you deal it according to laws of quantum mechanics.

Another thing which I want to say is that, its not necessary that as we are dealing velocity a continuous variable then it will touch all fractional values of its given range. Actually, its continuity is observed according to its parameters, which are time and displacement (in speed they are distance and time). That is, by plotting the graphs of velocity with displacement and time as its abssica and ordinate we come to know that whether velocity is continuous or not, i.e. if graph has jumps or steps in it then it means that it is discrete, which actually doesn’t happen in classical mechanics. As at every value of time we have a genuine formula to find its velocity, no matter how small the time may be, and that formula is that of instantaneous velocity. The reason behind writing all this is that, no matter whether your velocity of 100km/hr picks 10, 15 or 25 values, that doesn’t matter neither it affects its continuity the thing that matters is that at every interval of time it should cover some distance, that’s it.


ALLAH PE AMAN



I think my statement in my last post regarding your solution has resented you, which is cleared in your prompt response. Khair, I would need to correct your thoughts regarding theory of relativity, i.e. it is not merely a “theory” for your kind information, and the concept of LENGTH CONTRACTION is practically approved by NASA out side the space. Further, for easy layout, whenever you get the chance for a train travel, just make yourself look out the window when train attain its full speed, you will examine the objects outside the train moving quickly with more collapse form, which actually they are not. Hence same situation was in my above solution. We are merely observers, but the most certain thing is this that we have the ability to allocate the respective frame of reference, without a viewer; theory of relativity is nothing. We have placed ourselves in the subjective frame of reference because our intention is to affect the rigidity without any application of force or source. That is, our objective is to affect the rigidity without disturbing its atomic configuration or bond sequence. And according to my assessment LENGTH CONTRACTION is the most sensible solution.

And as far as heat is concern, well, everyone knows that energy is the ability or capacity to perform action or to do work. You are supplying heat energy means you are inciting or stirring atoms to move, in other words you are enabling them to do work, and as I have already said before that the displacement in the direction of force is work. That is, W=F.d, in other words one can easily assert without any objection that you are supply heat in the sense of force, as without any unbalanced force work cannot be done and your are unbalancing the force by providing external heat to the object.
Whether you grab ear directly or from behind your skull, the meaning is same.

Your answer will be suitable if our objective will be to mention any source, which could affect rigidity.

So it’s my request please don’t try to under estimate the approved and accepted concepts. We are here to learn instead of ditching others.

__________________
Farangi teyra chehra do rangi,,,A'ankhein roshan dil zangi.

@ Miss Maria,

Thanks for the valuable information about classical physics' point of view over continuous or discrete nature of motion.

Actually I believe that every challenge to 'approved' and 'accepted' concept either would result in the improvements and refinements of already established theories or at least shall give very deep insight into the true meanings of those 'approved' and 'accepted' concepts.

Over the issue of heat and rigidity, I do accept your point of view but I also thank to Mr. Ghayas whose insistance tempted we people to try to look deeply on this issue.

Secondly, I was in need to confirm whether non-continuous movement was possible in classical physics or not. Your post has made it clear that non-continuous movement is not possible in classical physics.

But.... I am having doubts in these 'approved' and 'accepted' concepts of classical physics.

Actually I am having the view that motion of ordinary massive objects may not be continuous in all the situations. Such motion can be 'discrete' as well.

Consider following simple examples and try to account for them as per the theory of classical physics.

1- Suppose I am driving a car. I am going with speed of 100 km/hr. It is raining outside. A drop of rain water falls on the wind screen before me. Previously that drop had zero horizontal velocity. It had only vertical velocity.

Now see what would happen:

All the vertical velocity of drop would become zero AT ONCE. I mean in a single step i.e. not continuously but completely dicretely.

The previous horizontal velocity was zero. But just after falling on the wind screen, the horizontal velocity would become exact 100 km/hr, also in just single step. Because drop cannot move with any less velocity than the velocity of car itself.

How will you account for this non-continuous change in the velocity of drop....?????


2- Suppose a small car is moving with such low velocity as 5 km/hr.

A very huge truck is moving with velocity of 100 km/hr. in the same direction.

That truck collides with that small car from behind.

What will happen to the velocity of Car....????

In my assessment, the velocity of car cannot be less then 100 km/hrs after collision. So again there will be non-continuous change in the velocity of car (from 5 to 100 km/hr or more ,.... in a single step)

3- Theory of collision also says that after collision(in case of same direction movement) ... the velocities of colliding objects interchange at once. So where is the common notion of continuous movement under such cases.

4- When a moving snooker ball collides with a stationary ball, the velocity of stationary ball then suddenly changes i.e. in non-continuous manner.

5- If I drop a rubber ball on ground. its velocity should have to be zero at the moment when it touches the ground. But at the very next moment, the ball bounces back with the SAME speed at which it collided the ground.

there are many other funny things but at least I have been unable to account for such occurrences in the light of 'approved' and 'accepted' concepts of classical physics. So please try to find justification for these things in the light of classical physics. I shall be thankful as I am doing a kind of research on such issues and work is stop due to these unresolved outstanding questions. I am in need of expert opinions.

Thanks!

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????

My pleasure monsieur.

Well I definitely agree with this fact that polemize on scientific theories and concepts result enhancement and refinement in respective ideas and notions, thus I really do appreciate that. But when people start confabulating without understanding the query, which has been so asked, and try hard to impose wrong solutions declaring the sensible one incorrect then such attempt worsen the discussion environment, so people should realize this figure. If one really want to object other’s solution then on contrast he better place some suitable adduce and ponderable piece of thought.

I said the respective concept “approved” and “accepted” only because yet nobody has presented anything, which can make its contradiction or any sort of disagreement. But recently I’ve read that by measuring variations in satellite objects, scientists have found the first direct evidence of one of the basic tenets of Albert Einstein theory of general relativity; that the earth and the other large celestial bodies distort space and time as they rotate. In the early twentieth century Einstein has postulated that the gravity of large bodies such as earth distorts space and time, mush the way a bowling ball stretched the rubber sheet held aloft on all four corners. Erricos Palvis of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center and Ignazio Ciufolini of Italy’s University of Leece have already measured the effect termed “frame dragging” by using satellites covered with “retroreflectors” that reflect laser beams from ground stations to closely track their orbits. NASA, meanwhile, is operating gravity probe B, an ongoing satellite mission designed to measure frame dragging by calculating gyroscopic deviations over time.

Now, the subjective theory that now is enlightening the scientific tracks doesn’t sound digestible to you then you are highly welcomed to place your notions against it.

Your sense of optimism is praiseworthy.

But.... I am having doubts in these 'approved' and 'accepted' concepts of classical physics.[/QUOTE]

Well, entirely the scientific dogmas of classical physics are not “approved” and “accepted” (your format has now filed you either in the queue of flouters of the forum). There are number of concepts which classical physics failed to elucidate and the credit goes to Quantum physics regarding their awesome clarification, examples of “Photo Electric Effect” and “Compton Effect” is in front of you.

But regarding the continuity of speed and velocity, classical mechanics has shown understandable concepts.


As far as my absurd perception is concern, velocity is the sum of its components, like for instance V= Vx i + Vy j , and hence the magnitude can be find out by taking the square root of the summation of squares of its components, which is V= ( Vx^2 + Vy^2)^1/2.

Now if the horizontal or vertical components of drop effaced simultaneously due to some particular circumstances that you have so mentioned above then as you have said by yourself that first it was moving in vertical direction and then after collision it started moving horizontally. Hence in first case V= Vy j , means velocity does has some value then after striking it became V= Vx i, i.e. still the drop has some velocity, hence in both timings its magnitude gives some value in km/hr parameter. Breakup in components doesn’t cause discontinuity, yea the if all components are becoming zero at once and then attaining some value once again then we can say that yes the motion of the respective body is not continuous, and this thing is only possible only if some external force of hindrance comes in its way. Here in this case the car came in the way of the drop, thus it struck with the windscreen, here the car is external obstacle, which hindered the drop for a minute time, drop personally didn’t stop itself, practically its velocity is continuous.

According to my limited knowledge classical mechanics deals with the movement of visible objects in collective sense.

I think my friend; you are mixing the concepts of variability and continuity. In the above case of momentum the velocity of lightweight object hasn’t broken up, i.e. its velocity definitely changes after collision but doesn’t stop. Here you will see the variation in the velocity not discontinuity. The velocity can only be made discontinuous if some force stops the moving object and then releases.


I think I’ve cleared the point above, no need to repeat again and again.

Your are taking the physical concept of continuity in decimal system of mathematics dear egghead, there isn’t any restriction that body will be called continuous iff (if and only if) it is attaining all values between the upper and lower limits ( I mean and initial and final) of velocity. No matter if there is variation in its speed values, the thing, which is required, is its continuous movement that it.

The nature of the medium and ground of action is responsible for this outlook. The rubber ball is not stopping on its own will.

Perhaps you haven’t read the classical accounts with due concentration. Aur lagta ha kay “approved” and “accepted” ko aap nay dil pay lay lia hay, I think there isn’t any need to be so emotional.

Carry on your research, wish you best of luck.

Though I’m a dunce subject in physics ground, but still couldn’t stop myself to place my views. Hope you wouldn’t mind this.

ALLAH PE AMAN.

__________________
Farangi teyra chehra do rangi,,,A'ankhein roshan dil zangi.

@ Maria Khan

Thanks a lot for taking pain for this reply. My reponse is as under:

Ok, if total velocity has to be the sum total of x and y components ... then your response is that when water drop shall collide with wind screen of moving car, all the vertical component of velocity of drop would be changed into horizontal velocity... in this way, you are justifying that there has been no sudden change in the TOTAL velocity..

But I am not justifying this matter in this sense..

Suppose water drop was stationary at the time of collision. Its total velocity was ZERO. But after collision its total velocity, at once, would become 100 km/hrs.

Kia is tarah stationary drop ki velocity at once change ho ker zero se 100 tak nahi pohunch jaye gi...?????

In this case, there is no involvement of x or y components. Total velocity was zero... before collision.... Total velocity has become 100 ... after collision... not continuously but AT ONCE...

Even if collective sense... there shall be no difference in the speed of car... even after collision.. so there is a sudden change in velocity even in this 'collective' system.

Again suppose that light weight object was stationary before collision... Now there would be no element of variation... only discontinuety shall be there.

As far I know, classical physics does not talk of 'will' of physical objects. Change in state of rest or motion has to occur due to external physical factors. Classical physics says that such change has to be continuous.

But this example shows that change can occur at once.

Falling ball had considerable velocity...

But right at the moment it collides with ground, AT ONCE, its velocity has been turned into ZERO.

The veru next moment it is bouncing back... from ZERO velocity to which velocity......???? obviously the same 'considerable' velocity...




Actually classical accounts main se sirf Newton ki 'Principia Mathematica' ko he read kia tha... I could not find anything convincing in that... Now i am finding anyone well conversant with academic Physics... shaid academic physics main koi convincing bat mil jaye...

And I am not emotional about it... I have criticized Newtons laws, in the form of an article. That article has been lost from my disk... Nahi to zaroor share kerta. Although one copy of that article is still intact on the disk of my friend... but I am not bothering to make some arrangement for the safety of that only one copy of that work.... I am not bothering bcoz I am not emotional about it...


Anyhow thanks a lot for your reply... It has given me some more input for the analysis of this issue...

Thanks again!

Khuram

__________________
Where is the SIGNATURE....????