[timey (OP)]

Is there something wrong with asking a question Jeff?
... I really don't see why you have to respond in the fashion that you do.  It's not all that pleasant to have a person sneering at one's every move, and I dare say it's not the most pleasant of reads for anyone reading either.

Any speed on earth has an energy driving it, both accelerated speed and constant speed.  Otherwise that speed would decelerate and come to rest with respect to the Earth.  Road traction, air resistance, blah, blah.

In the vacuum a speed will remain uniform unless acted upon by an external force....

... and v can actually be thought of as having been caused by a force, and resulting in a speed that covers a distance in a specific amount of time.

So - considering that a speed in a vacuum will remain uniform unless acted upon by an external force, when calculating using p in the maths, is this describing the external force?

Where my physical description would be that of momentum being caused by a force and resulting in an acceleration?

[Bill S]

...but am also now mildly interested in what an animadversion is.  I've not come across that before (quick google) ... Ah, criticism!

If that is the modern definition, I'm behind the times, but I was using it in the original sense as "thoughts".

[JohnDuffield]

Thank you John.  Btw, I am aware that if one uses duration of a GR time dilated second to calculate the speed of light via, then it could be said that light slows down closer to mass, as a time variant, not a speed variant.

Einstein talked about the speed varying, as did Irwin Shapiro:

 

This is of course interesting to me, but despite your description of momentum, I am no closer to an explanation of 'why' p is being used in the maths.

I read somewhere that it's p for petere, which is the latin for impetus.

...my question arising from Janus's answer is very specific, and having had the title question answered by Janus, the question I am asking now is specifically as I state and it is that and nothing else that I require an answer to, at this time.

I had hoped I'd answered your question, in that momentum is a time-based measure of resistance to change-in-motion.

[jeffreyH]

So no answer on the simple question of vector direction? If you can't answer that John how on earth are you able to answer questions reliably? You will simply be misleading people.

[timey (OP)]

Jeff - as far as I am concerned, John is being conversational.  I don't come to this site to be informed of anything, I come here
a) In the hope of meeting a mathematician who is open to calculating 'my' model...
And:
b) In the event that a) has proved far more difficult than I'd imagined, to simply get a grip on how other people think and interpret Relativity.

The fact that Relativity is even open to interpretation being proof of the fact that Relativity is not a complete theory.  A fact backed up by the opinion of just about every professional theoretical physicist who's works I've read.

John - Thanks for the input.  With regards to the last paragraph of your post - this only works if there is a spatial dilation of curvature.  This spatial dilation being a point of contention in my model.

Bill - Hey no problem ...  In any case I did not think you were being bitchy, as you never have been in the past.  And it would appear to be a normality amongst some that the consensus is that I am being critical, so even if you had thought that, in your case I would forgive you of it anyway...

[alancalverd]

Momentum is nothing more or less than the product of mass times velocity.

Since mass is a scalar and velocity is a vector, momentum is a vector.

The importance of momentum is that it is conserved.

[timey (OP)]

So if the momentum of a body is conserved then this means there is no external force acting upon it.

So - no matter if p is derived by:
p = mv
or
p= h*vbar
where h is Planck's h constant and:
vbar = v/a
or
p = hbar*k
where hbar is:
hbar = h/2pi
and k is angular velocity...

What is the physical action being described when we see p in the maths such as:

Wavelength = h/p

...If momentum is conserved, what is it that is causing momentum and what resulting physical action is being described by it?

[jeffreyH]

There John, vectors. See the significance of the question that you couldn't answer.

[timey (OP)]

Momentum is nothing more or less than the product of mass times velocity.

Since mass is a scalar and velocity is a vector, momentum is a vector.

The importance of momentum is that it is conserved.

So if the momentum of a body is conserved then this means there is no external force acting upon it.

So - no matter if p is derived by:
p = mv
or
p= h*vbar
where h is Planck's h constant and:
vbar = v/a
or
p = hbar*k
where hbar is:
hbar = h/2pi
and k is angular velocity...

What is the physical action being described when we see p in the maths such as:

Wavelength = h/p

...If momentum is conserved, what is it that is causing momentum and what resulting physical action is being described by it?

Alan... ?

P.S.  Jeff - it may also be of significance to mention that v is indicative of a speed as per a directional speed that can be described as angular velocity, and when v is describing a vector, technically this should be signified by v with an arrow drawn over the top.

[jeffreyH]

I am so glad you clarified that. I will have to remember to put arrows over my vectors.

[timey (OP)]

And there I was thinking your retort would involve a lecture on pseudo vectors...
In any case I'm quite sure that I haven't clarified anything 'you' hadn't know already.  I was just mentioning it in relation to your post to John, and letting you know that 'I' (just of late) realise this, although sometimes you mathematicians are prone to shorthand and it can be misleading.

Still no closer to getting an answer on  a cause and effect description of the use of p in the maths though...

Alan has said it is important to remember that momentum is conserved, which means that there is no external force acting upon it.

Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?

[Ethos_]

Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?

Basic physics defines this phenomenon as the tendency for a mass, once set in motion to continue in motion until acted upon by a resisting agent. Where no resisting agent is applied, the mass will continue at it's initial velocity indefinitely.  This is why we define momentum as "conserved".

[Ethos_]

...If momentum is conserved, what is it that is causing momentum and what resulting physical action is being described by it?

The action of a force being applied to a mass will give that mass momentum, so the initial force applied transfers some of it's energy to said mass resulting in a velocity for said mass.

In the emptiness of space, where no resistance is applied to a given mass velocity, no additional energy is required to keep said mass in motion. Understanding that even in what we term "empty space", an occasional atom of Hydrogen will retard said motion even if only in the slightest.

As alan has explained, momentum is mass times velocity and that momentum is conserved.

[alancalverd]

Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?

That's a very odd question. Momentum isn't an effect, so it doesn't have a cause, any more than velocity, spin, (1,2,3),  or "one mile north" is an effect - they are vectors. Nor does momentum have a "resulting action".  It is the product of mass and velocity and is therefore a property - indeed the property - of a moving body.   As Newton pointed out, the effect of a force is to change momentum, F = dp/dt, so you might say that the cause of momentum is the integral of force over time, but that's a bit abstract in the absence of a source of force - it's more of a definition than a causal relationship.

[jeffreyH]

Timey, Alan's answer IS the correct answer.

[timey (OP)]

Can someone please describe to me in words what the physical cause of momentum is, and what the resulting action does?

That's a very odd question. Momentum isn't an effect, so it doesn't have a cause, any more than velocity, spin, (1,2,3),  or "one mile north" is an effect - they are vectors. Nor does momentum have a "resulting action".  It is the product of mass and velocity and is therefore a property - indeed the property - of a moving body.   As Newton pointed out, the effect of a force is to change momentum, F = dp/dt, so you might say that the cause of momentum is the integral of force over time, but that's a bit abstract in the absence of a source of force - it's more of a definition than a causal relationship.

Thanks Alan for the answer, I'm teaching myself maths at mo.  The question might not have seemed so odd in the context that I first posed it to you, many, many posts ago now.

I'm interested in the Planck Einstein relation and the DeBroglie connection.

Where:
E = hv
p = h*vbar
vbar = v/a
and:
Wavelength = h/p

Property in physics:

"A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system. The changes in the physical properties of a system can be used to describe its transformations or evolutions between its momentary states."

Integral:

a function of which a given function is the derivative, i.e. which yields that function when differentiated, and which may express the area under the curve of a graph of the function."

Momentum:
Alan's Abstract - An integral of force over time.

Ditching Planck's h constant for time being, in the case of free fall:
p = mv
So if you have 100kg cannonball and a 10kg cannonball, then despite the fact that v at each moment in time is equal for both cannonballs in free fall, p will be vastly differing...
So this basically means that it will take a greater force to stop the 100kg  cannon ball than it will to stop the 10kg cannonball.
Or - that if the cannonballs were to each free fall onto a trampoline, that the 100kg cannonball would bounce higher than the 10kg cannonball.

F = m*a
So - acceleration is also equal for both cannonballs in free fall, but because m value is differing for each cannonball, F will also be differing for each cannonball.
But - increasing force tends to increase acceleration, while increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration.

This suggests that the gravitational body M exerts more force on the 100kg cannonball than the 10kg cannonball, but because the 100kg cannonball is heavier it's acceleration to force ratio is lesser.
And - that the gravitational body M exerts less force on the 10kg cannonball, but because the 10kg cannonball is lighter it's acceleration to force ratio is greater.
And we end up with
F/m = a
for both cannonballs, this resulting in an equal value of acceleration for both. ie: free fall.

Therefore a means of describing a causal force for an accelerating velocity, and therefore an escalating momentum, is to state mass as becoming greater as it falls.
This means of a description being the reason for relativistic mass, (and/or the mass energy equivalence?)
+ velocity = + kinetic energy = + mass = + velocity
(remembering that potential energy doesn't affect relativistic mass)

However we also see that
+ mass = - acceleration
Where
F/m = a
and therefore this regulates velocity and serves to ensure the universal speed limit of the speed of light.
(For everything apart from the fabric of space)

a = change in velocity/time
and
p = mv
where value of p escalates as value of a escalates.

Therefore can it not be said that the cause of p is a?
And that the cause of a is F?
Resulting in +m (or -m concerning escape velocity) being the cause of F?

[Colin2B]

Therefore a means of describing a causal force for an accelerating velocity, and therefore an escalating momentum, is to state mass as becoming greater as it falls.
This means of a description being the reason for relativistic mass, (and/or the mass energy equivalence?)
+ velocity = + kinetic energy = + mass = + velocity

I applaud your determination to learn maths and would like to encourage you to persevere, so I will reply to your question.
You were doing well up to the above quote, and the question you ask is worth investigating. You have the tools to do so at your fingertips, so you can calculate the acceleration due to g and compare it with the effect that increasing mass, due to velocity, would have. See whether the 2 match.

[timey (OP)]

Thanks Colin!  Your applause it appreciated.

In the case of light - relativistic mass 'is' what regulates the speed of light in the face of the accelerative force, is it not?

Where F/rest mass = nearly 0 acceleration and the speed of light is then fully maintained in the face of the slowing of time at decreasing h from M?

The slowing of time at decreasing h from M cancelling out the increase in velocity caused by the nearly 0 accelerative force?

Please understand Colin that I am working solely from the operating system of an iphone4s without a Internet connection, where I am hotspotting a connection from another person's phone that, often as not, I must stand outside in the freezing cold in order to connect to...

I am not making any numerical calculations at-all, but am simply juggling proportions in my head...
So in light of these circumstances, if you do see a mistake, could you please tell me this mistake rather than direct me to a numerical calculation?

[alancalverd]

p = mv
So if you have 100kg cannonball and a 10kg cannonball, then despite the fact that v at each moment in time is equal for both cannonballs in free fall, p will be vastly differing...
So this basically means that it will take a greater force to stop the 100kg  cannon ball than it will to stop the 10kg cannonball.

yes

Or - that if the cannonballs were to each free fall onto a trampoline, that the 100kg cannonball would bounce higher than the 10kg cannonball.

no

F = m*a
So - acceleration is also equal for both cannonballs in free fall, but because m value is differing for each cannonball, F will also be differing for each cannonball.
But - increasing force tends to increase acceleration, while increasing mass tends to decrease acceleration.

This suggests that the gravitational body M exerts more force on the 100kg cannonball than the 10kg cannonball, but because the 100kg cannonball is heavier it's acceleration to force ratio is lesser.
And - that the gravitational body M exerts less force on the 10kg cannonball, but because the 10kg cannonball is lighter it's acceleration to force ratio is greater.
And we end up with
F/m = a
for both cannonballs, this resulting in an equal value of acceleration for both. ie: free fall.

Therefore a means of describing a causal force for an accelerating velocity, and therefore an escalating momentum, is to state mass as becoming greater as it falls.

provided that you have a means of adding mass to a falling body. Or even a rising one. The acceleration of a body whose mass is changing is the basis of rocket science.

This means of a description being the reason for relativistic mass, (and/or the mass energy equivalence?)
+ velocity = + kinetic energy = + mass = + velocity
(remembering that potential energy doesn't affect relativistic mass)

However we also see that
+ mass = - acceleration
Where
F/m = a
and therefore this regulates velocity and serves to ensure the universal speed limit of the speed of light.
(For everything apart from the fabric of space)

no. The speed of light is determined by Maxwell's equations for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. 

a = change in velocity/time
and
p = mv
where value of p escalates as value of a escalates.

Therefore can it not be said that the cause of p is a?
And that the cause of a is F?
Resulting in +m (or -m concerning escape velocity) being the cause of F?

No. You could in principle accelerate a fixed mass to escape speed with a suitable gun, as described quite accurately by Jules Verne, and the basis of the HARP  project and the Iraqui Supergun. 

[timey (OP)]

The Maxwell equations are not describing light in the g-field.

The HARP looked a bit complicated on investigation, might go back there at some later point, but shoot a ray of light away from M, it keeps on going, surely?

Rocket science involves mass decreases as rocket transforms onboard fuel to energy = acceleration running at a fuel to energy conversion loss, complicating matters somewhat in the gravity well g-field.

Yes - the answer 'is' no... a 100kg cannonball in free fall bouncing off a trampoline will bounce upwards to the same distance as the 10kg cannonball will, for the same reason that each accelerate at same rate in free fall.

I have observed that an adult person makes more of a dent in a trampoline than a child.
The 100kg cannonball will make a bigger dent in the trampoline than the 10kg cannonball.  This must be momentum related, i.e: it takes more force to change the direction of the 100kg cannon ball than it does to change the direction of the 10kg cannonball, or is this kinetic energy related?
A 100kg cannonball will make a bigger impact on the ground from free fall than the 10kg cannonball will?

If we leave both cannonballs to bounce on their respective trampolines, we will observe that there is a conversion to energy loss with each touchdown on the trampoline, and the cannonballs will come to rest on the trampoline...

Could you please give me some insight as to this conversion to energy loss Alan?
Clearly some energy value will be lost to air drag, but not all of the loss, right?
...And - will the two differing masses of the cannonball, if dropped at the same moment in time, come to rest at the same moment in time?