"Spaceman" <spaceman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:s7udnaL83ceu-8DVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bill Miller wrote:
>> "Spaceman" <spaceman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:MtGdnScK_upVu8DVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Bill Miller wrote:
>>>> For example, for many years, Newton's Law fell into the "Law"
>>>> category. Not anymore.
>>>
>>> Sorry to quibble Bill,
>>> What law of newtons became not a law anymore?
>>> Perpetual motion designers all over the world would like to know
>>> so they can "break" all of his laws by simply jumping over one.
>>> :)
>>>
>>> --
>>> James M Driscoll Jr
>>> Spaceman
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Spaceman. No quibble... just an example of how teaching has
>>> not kept pace with reality. Here goes:
>>
>> One of the fundamental laws of mechanics is Newton's law of action and
>> reaction, usually stated as : "Whenever a body exerts a force
>> (action) on a second body, the second body exerts an equal and
>> opposite force (reaction) on the first body."
>>
>> Suppose that a stationary mass is located in the gravitational field
>> of another, distant stationary mass.The two m***** exert equal and
>> opposite forces on each other. (Action and reaction) Let us now
>> allow one mass to move under the action of the field of the other
>> mass. ut the second mass, being far away, does not yet "know
>> that the first mass has moved. (gravity -- like light -- cannot
>> propagate instantaneously.) The second body continues to experience
>> the same force as before.
>
> Bill, I am sorry you have been fooled by the described situation
> Newtons force theory has to include every object in between
> also.
> When every action-reaction of the object is considered, it has never
been
> wrong.
> The example given is "ignoring" action-reaction of all in between
> the two objects.
>
>> In other words, the forces are now unequal in magnitude and direction
>> and Newton's action/reaction law no longer holds! Further, this
>> situation also is in conflict with the very basic law of conservation
>> of momentum.
>
> Every action/re-action in between have balanced.
> Forces have caused "objects that would transfer the force
> to transfer to a different direction, and not enough force
> was transmitted all the way to cause the re-action you were hoping for.
> Newton still holds true if each and every action-reaction is considered
> in between.
>
>> For a detailed analysis of this, and other Newtonian flaws, please see
>> Jefimenko's "Causality, Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" OR
>> "Gravitation and Cogravitation."
>
> Again,
> This is not a newton flaw, it is a flaw of the understanding of the
newton
> law.
> Each and every single object in between must be considered.
> You can not ignore the action-reactions that take place in between
> the two objects like such is being done to come up with
> the supposed violation.
>
> Try this one in a much simpler form but almost like the gravity
> problem...
> Lets use air.
> Air between two objects on the ground.
> Would the air transfer all the motion of an object
> that is 5 ft away from another object?
> No, simply because all the force of the action-reactions
> are diverted by the air but all action re-action of the air
> follows Newton's law very well.
> the same holds true for gravity.
> :)
>
>> BTW, Timo questioned my assertion that F = MA was also "leaky." I
>> THOUGHT that the above also affected this equation. After further
>> review... Timo's right... so far!
>
> Action-reaction of Newton law still holds true if
> all such action-reactions in between are considered.
>
>
>> I hope this helps!
>
> I hope what I babbled probably too many times just now,
> helps you understand that Newton still holds fine and no
> problem has occured that Newton has been proven wrong
> in such.
> (Missing forces is the only way he is ever proven wrong)
> and missing forces only proves that someone is not following
> Newton the way they really should.
>
> After all any force at all, is a force and not only the ones
> Newton haters want to pick are the only forces.
> :)
>
>> BTW, yes, a glass is simultaneously 20% empty and 80% full, but
>> entirely too many people (IMNTBHO) ignore the fullness and
>> concentrate only on the empitiness. And that's kinda sad!
>
> Yes, it is sad..
> I always try to think of both sides of the story.
> It is much safer to do so also.
> :)
>
> I am sorry for babbling but I have never seen Newton's
> Laws to be wrong.
> and that is why I always follow him and think about each
> and every force (action-reaction) that could occur.,,
> also if I don't follow such being mechanically minded... I could be
> killed.
> Newton has saved my life a few times.
> I am sure he probably has saved a lot of peoples lives by coming
> up with such beautiful laws that have not actually been broken ever.
> :)
>
> --
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
>
>
I think I understand your point, but in the case that I described, there
is
nothing in between the two m***** but vacuum. Are you postulating some
special property of vacuum that instantaneously transmits force vector
information from a perturbed mass to a mass in the same field? If so, I'd
like to learn more about that!
If not, then there will be a delay between when a mass is perturbed and
when
the perturbation is sensed..And that delay is not explicit in any of
Newton's laws.
|
