Bill Miller wrote:
> Don & Spaceman
>
> Don's ball exercise was an excellent ANALOGY but it does not
> represent an EXAMPLE of the issues that I raised. I will cheerfully
> concede that the dynamics of balls clicking together represents known
> (almost high-school level) interactions between materials whose
> proprties are (or can be) well known..
>
> What is of interest to me is what happens when these "balls" are in
> space and their only interaction is via gravity. In this case, we
> have to resort to the concept of force fields.
>
> (Please! let us not re-open the silly discussion about the "reality"
> of fields.)
>
> In my example, we have two m***** separated by a distance. We wiggle
> one mass. MUCH later the effect is felt by the other mass. During
> that time perid, the law of action and reaction does not hold.
Actually it does, but like I said,
to think Newtonian, you would have to have an aether of some sort
"a medium of the transference of the force".
I do agree there will not be an instant reaction between any two object
and a newtonian force would need that to be "complete".
But still, the basic of the newton equation still hold
(barring the instant motion thing)
Each and every " ball" be it so tiny would account
for the motion occuring.
It also is of course an immense amount of math of each and every
action/re-action.
> There are other examples:
>
> If one calculates the forces between a charged particle moving on the
> x axis and a particle moving along the z axis, we find the forces are
> unequal. ( Breitenburger "Magnetic Interaction betwen Charged
> Particles" A J Ph. 36, 505-515 1968 & Scanio, "Conservation of
> Momentum in electrodynamics... " A J Ph. 43, 258-260, 1975)
Such non balance of the forces is simply "a missing a force"
that is ignored and thrown into the "anti-newton evidence" folder.
:)
> Also, if a charge moves past a magnetic dipole, the forces are
> unequal. (****tis, "Electromagnetic Fields, Sources and Media" John
> Wiley & Sons 1978, pp 390-392)
Ditto again.
If they looked for the force instead of just dismissing the missing force
as a newton fault, they may actually find it instead of using "math"
as a cause instead.
math is not a cause.
At least not in the Universe I know.
:)
> There are others. See Ch 4 of Jefimenko's "Causality..." book for
> some more.
>
> This is not surprising. Newton's theory of gravitation is based on the
> Gravitational Force Law, F = G(M1M2)/r sq.
>
> This is a STATICS law. There is no provision for time dependency,
> whether it be location, velocity (linear or otherwise) nor of mass.
> Also, like Coulomb, it has an obvious flaw in that it "blows up" as
> r --> 0. Or do we just "normalize" this away as some would have us
> do with Coulomb?
>
> We do not (slavishly) attempt to apply Coulomb's Law to Electrodynamic
> situations. Why should we do so with Newton?
>
> Let's douse the candles and incense at Isaac's shrine and recognize
> that his is a great theory, or "law" if you wish..
>
> It is incomplete.
I agree, but it is only incomplete in the "timing" of the action/reaction.
With proper timing and newtonian force laws and the actual finding
of each and every force,
Newtons force laws hold fine but are missing the timing equation
of such force transference.
:)
And the biggest factor of timing with a newtonian/eculidian world,
would be to use "absolute" timing.
nothing relative at all.
Relative timing is non standard, if you read my post about that.
"The standard of time and identical clocks"
I am sure you would agree.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
|
