----------------------------
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:kpR7k.67754$102.31400@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.
>
Put a bunch of ball bearings in contact with each other in a row. Tap the
first one and not that the last one does not instantaneously react. At
each
contact point, assuming the bearings are incompressible there is a local
action/reaction equivalence but the time for this to be transferred to the
end is dependent on the speed of sound in the bearings. Essentially a
travelling wave. No need to go to deep space to see a delay. Does this
make
Newtons 3rd law invalid?
In the vacuum, we really do not know the propagation method and there are
various proposed mechanisms including aether and virtual phonons and the
delay depends on the velocity of light.
These all appear to be attempts to cope with mechanical forces at
distances
by some essentially fully mechanical coupling. Why?
Do the delays make Newton's law of action/reaction invalid? After all,
this
was developed without consideration of delays. Timo points out the
Heaviside
view-all reactions are local. -
Don Kelly dhky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the X to answer
|
