On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:11 AM, djandus
<jandew@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't have time to go over every post in this thread, especially seeing as it is rather full of people getting offended.
Has anyone brought up the right-hand rule? (for rotations)
That is, for the wheels on a car, I could say:
{lo karce xislu cu carna zo'e lo zunle be lo karce}
because if you were to stick your right thumb to the car's left, your fingers would curl around in the direction of rotation. This is consistent with the overall standard of the right-hand rule, which comes up on this topic via the cross product definition of angular motion. That is, if I were to be asked the "direction" of the angular motion, momentum, or similar, it would be to the car's left. This is arbitrary, but completely standardized in physics.
I believe Pierre did, yes.
Similarly, I would say that a top would be {carna zo'e lo gapru} if it were spinning counter-clockwise when viewed from above. If I were to instruct one to remove a screw, I could say {ko cargau lo klupe ku zo'e lo bartu}, because the direction a screw moves and the direction it needs to rotate correspond by the same standard right-hand rule. If I were to use the carna2 spot, the axis would probably be defined with a direction as "positive," after which I could then use {li ni'u}/{li ma'u} in carna3. (This would be the establisment of a coordinate system.) If the axis was given descriptively without a direction, then my other examples illustrate how I would deal with that.
Is there anything terribly wrong with these examples?
mu'o mi'e djos
I don't see anything.