Discussion Forum
 • Materials • Design Center • Processes • Units & Constants • Formulas • Mathematics
 Home Membership Magazines Forum Search Member Calculators
 Materials Design Processes Units Formulas Math
List Recent Topics | Start a New Topic

 << Previous Message No. 6763 Next >>
 Author: ozogg Time: 04/13/01 06:51 PST This is a reply to message no. 6761 by zapboy Reply | Original Message | New Topic | List Topics | List Messages on This Topic
 Current Topic:Rotation as a vector Now this message 6761 from Zapboy displays even worse understanding (than originally) of vectors. LESSON 1. A first position can defined as vector ~r1, with reference to some origin; a second position can be defined as vector ~r2;  the linear displacement from position one to two is a third vector ~r3 = ~r2 - ~r1. If all these vectors were co-linear, then the magnitude of the displacement r3 can be obtained by arithmetic (scalar) subtraction, but the direction of r3 does not disappear, it is still a VECTOR, not a SCALAR as Zapboy so egregiously machinates. DEFINITION 1 Yes the original question DID state that (linear) displacement is a vector, and that is correct. DEFINITION 2 The original question went on to ask if (angular) displacement is also a vector.  IT IS NOT !! CONCLUSION Zapboy contributes no increase to the body of human knowledge by his constant cavilling with words, rather than pursuing exact understanding. ozogg