Plane Normals

In classical physics, "classical" relativity, and QM, mass is unequivocally
a scalar.
Even in rockets, where you have dm/dt, mass is still a scalar.
Momentum, tho, is a vector, and a lot of people confuse momentem w/ mass via
the loosely applied term "inertia".
Energy is a scalar.

In fukn String Theory, which I think is just sly-entific assholes yankin
people's strings, mebbe mass/energy is a vector. But these are likely the
same genii who supported Cold Fusion.

 

Very true--but then they don't have a meaningful cross product, either.

 

You get a couple.
See #28 :
http://www.math.wpi.edu/Bridge/Sues/physicsterms/physicsterms1/physicsterms1.html

 

Now yer axin me to solve the problem!!
Don't you know the rules on Usenet, Cliff?
We don't really *do* anything useful here, we just talk *about* doin sumpn
useful...
If you continue to violate the rules....

IIRC, a plane is actually defined by a normal vector to it, passing thru the
cartesian origin. This in fact represents the minimum distance between the
plane and the origin.
So the question is in fact answered! This representation of a plane IS its
normal, albeit at a very specific location.
Again, std formulas, which should be in $37....

There's other stuff you can do, I think, but man, not only am I gettin a big
headache, I'm getting nightmarish flashbacks, as well....
And, speaking of usefulness, ahm not machinin a goddamm thing over here....

 

We don't yet have a working GUT AFAIK.

That's BB, among others.
Just the conservation laws at work.

Busy buggers ....

Nope. Those were some odd chemists.
http://www.fractalschlaraffenland.net/g6/full/cold fusion.jpg

"Science" had some very good cartoons long ago ..

 

Do they have physical/mechanical meaning, like in, uh, 3 dimensions??

 

Things like "torque" come to mind ....

You also have to consider them when building any structure,
as an example. Whats to keep your bridge from going all
wompus, as an example?

Very important in Mechanics, among other things.

 

That could be any of an infinite number of planes, unless you
also define the plane as passing thru (0,0,0).

??

That's one way to calculate/define one. Or just a 3D point and a
vector normal to the plane.

In the end, the form remains as I stated.

You'd have a normal vector at each & every point on the plane
as well, should you wish to calculate it.

But you had fun.

 

I'm not talking about the effing idiots who prematurely published their
""""results"""".

Ahm talkin bout the BEVY of fukn assholes who *confirmed* those results, on
theoretical grounds.
Hope those people never go into architecture, construction, or medicine.
Well, actually, if they went into medicine, they'd blend right in....