Bill Miller wrote:
> "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!
No instantly transfering anything is needed.
If it is truly "vacuum" there should no transfer of energy possible
at all.
That is one reason I allow people to say there is an aether.
and I listen.
My glass is both half empty and half full simultaneously.
but when relativists start pulling crap that "math" is the cause
of energy transference, you jumped me into the half empty mode.
Without physical force, physical force can not be transmitted.
and we all know light waves do have a physical force.
or they would not burn our skin when we fall asleep
in the sun.
so I do think the supposed vacuum is full of stuff
that can transfer the "mass in motion" (energy).
:)
> 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.
The problem is simple sorta,
The larger the mass, the more delay for it to move if it moves at all
( larger force needed to move larger mass of course).
the smaller the mass, the less delay could be detected.
It really is all newtonian.
(but only when you look and find every single bit of
newtonian factors of course.)
It (The universe) truly all does all act like a Dirac sea.
All very fluid in motion.
of course it might not be "stuff we can even detect yet"
No proof of things we can not see can be made
of course, but again, no disproof can either.
:)
If anything the only thing Newton was off on,
is the "instant motion".
We know it can't be instant.
but all his other stuff falls right into place once we
add the "non instant" delays of motion in.
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
