Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" wrote in message
...
Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..
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 masses 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 masses 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

"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

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 masses 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.

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.

Hmm. Newton's 3rd law of motion (along with Newton 2, to relate force and
transfer of momentum) is basically a statement that momentum is conserved.

Correct. And as long as the interaction is of a contact nature, then
eveything is OK. But when there is a delay between the action and the
reaction, then *for that delay period* momentum is not conserved. But we
know that momentum MUST be conserved, so we must look at Newton with an eye
to modifying it to deal with what amounts to a time dependency.

This is not a new idea. We have long recognized, for EM that electrostaic
representations break down when time dependency is present.

Heaviside suggested this in 1893 but never took it all the way to its
logical conclusion.

Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be
interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out.

Does this mean Newton 3 is wrong? Does this mean momentum is not
conserved? I would say that it means that we simply don't have a situation
where there are two objects interacting at a distance, but two objects
each interacting with a field. Perhaps the interaction really is as
described by field theory, a local interaction between field and body, and
we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a
distance rather than Newton 3.

That's one way of dealing with it. I believe that a better way would be to
recognize that Newton's work is not applicable to time dependency. That's no
different, conceptually, from Maxwell's expansion of Ampere's Law to include
The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in a
time-dependent environment.

Please note that Amoere's Law was not WRONG. It was simply not totally
applicable to a time dependent environment. Same situation with Newton and
gravity.

We know that a force is exerted on each mass. We know that in a static
case, the force is symmetric. We don't know that it is the other body that
is actually exerting the force. The example you give strongly suggests
that it isn't.

Nope. It suggests (to me) that -- just like Maxwell's adaptation of Ampere's
Law -- we need an adaptation of Newton.

It wasn't that long ago that I wrote a lot more about this, so I won't
repeat it here.

But for an example of a "law" by Newton that we know is only an
approximation: Newton's law of universal gravitation.

--
Timo

Bill

"kl31n" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:15 GMT, Bill Miller wrote:

Suppose that a stationary mass is located in the gravitational field of
another, distant stationary mass.The two masses 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.

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.

Either you forgot to say something that I can't reverse engineer at the
moment, or, in the case you described, the forces are still always equal
instant per instant


The fields are time and space continous and both of the masses move with
trajectories that are of class Cinf and with speeds below those of the
fields. How can the forces possibly be unequal? I assume you know what
you're talking about, so please tell me more, because I don't get it.

Imagine two mass, M1 and M2. separated by a distance D. A change *of any
sort* in, say, M1 will not be detected by M2 until time t = D/Cg where Cg =
speed of gravitation (assumed to be equal to the speed of light.) During
that time, the forces will be out of balance. Further, if the change is
continuous, then the forces will continually be out of balance.

73
Bill .

Regards,

kl31n

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:


"Timo A. Nieminen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Bill Miller wrote:

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 masses 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.

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.

Hmm. Newton's 3rd law of motion (along with Newton 2, to relate force and
transfer of momentum) is basically a statement that momentum is conserved.

Correct. And as long as the interaction is of a contact nature, then
eveything is OK. But when there is a delay between the action and the
reaction, then *for that delay period* momentum is not conserved. But we
know that momentum MUST be conserved, so we must look at Newton with an eye
to modifying it to deal with what amounts to a time dependency.

This is not a new idea. We have long recognized, for EM that electrostaic
representations break down when time dependency is present.

Heaviside suggested this in 1893 but never took it all the way to its
logical conclusion.

Heaviside's Maxwellian gravitation? There is no modification of Newton's
laws of motion in it. Newton's law of universal gravitation, describing
gravitational forces as interactions between distant bodies, is replaced
by a field theory, wherein all interactions are local - body interacts
with local field, not body with distant body.

As for Newton's laws of motion, Newton 1 and 2 are pretty much just
definititions of inertial motion and force, while Newton 3 is (as above)
conservation of momentum. How can these be modified sensibly?

Yes, if we consider two masses as above (or two electric charges) to be
interacting with each other, we have exactly the problem you point out.

Does this mean Newton 3 is wrong? Does this mean momentum is not
conserved? I would say that it means that we simply don't have a situation
where there are two objects interacting at a distance, but two objects
each interacting with a field. Perhaps the interaction really is as
described by field theory, a local interaction between field and body, and
we should throw away the classical mechanics idea of interaction at a
distance rather than Newton 3.

That's one way of dealing with it. I believe that a better way would be to
recognize that Newton's work is not applicable to time dependency. That's no
different, conceptually, from Maxwell's expansion of Ampere's Law to include
The rate of Change Of E field in order to deal with magnetic fields in a
time-dependent environment.

I think it is different conceptually. One is a conservation law, and the
other describes a limited set of experimental observations. If the limited
set of observations are static, then modifications for time-dependent
cases shouldn't be surprising. But conservation of momentum works for
time-dependent cases too - consider a bunch of colliding particles in a
box. Consider a collision between two elastic bodies - the collision
itself is time dependent, and Newton's laws work well. How can we modify
conservation of momentum to become time-dependent? Momentum is only
conserved in an average sense? Momentum is not conserved?

Yes, Newton's laws of motions describe observations too, but not in an
obvious or straightforward way (which is why students often have
difficulty).

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/...,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

In news:sci.physics, "Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice posted on
Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:41:44 -0700:

Where do you get that? I'm not the one dissatisfied with the rate at
which science and technology have progressed. I'm happy with a glass
that is 80% full. You on the other hand appear to be disappointed
because it isn't 90% full.

Oh, please. Whether the glass of water is 20% empty, 80% full, 90%
full...none of that crap matters. All that matters is: do you want
any of the water? Yes? Drink it. No? Leave it.

Damaeus

On Jun 23, 3:22 pm, "Bill Miller"
wrote:

Imagine two mass, M1 and M2. separated by a distance D. A change *of any
sort* in, say, M1 will not be detected by M2 until time t = D/Cg where Cg =
speed of gravitation (assumed to be equal to the speed of light.) During
that time, the forces will be out of balance. Further, if the change is
continuous, then the forces will continually be out of balance.

Absolutely. Causality is one of the things that physics tends to sweep
under the rug even though everybody knows it's there. And it's worse
than that. As one can often see here physicists are often so proud of
their mathematical abilities and their skill with understanding the
most complex maths. But is it physics? In my observation todays
physics is still VERY simplistic and elementary in spite of the
developed complexity. There are a couple of reasons for this lack of
advancement to the next level. The ignoring of causality is one. And
related to this is the implicit assumption in science that laws are
all fixed and never changing. In fact ALL phenomena is assumed to be
fixed and never changing! Transient effects no matter how throughly
demonstrated are all lumped into the realm of "pseudoscience". And it
gets even worse. Today's scientists have next to NO understanding of
the nature of feedback systems. For example, the human body is
probably the most salient feedback system on the planet. Yet look at
medicine! "feedback" is NEVER taken into account. You give medicine A
to treat disease B and the body's reaction to A is NEVER taken into
the equation. Yes people know about "side effects" and the way the
body will adjust itself to drugs, but it's never regarded as the
feedback system it is. Physicists find it impossible to imagine a case
where when you are performing an experiment, the experiment is
ACTIVELY trying to keep you from performing it! Hint. In many other
non-science fields, politics for example, this is ALWAYS the case and
widely accepted! Scientists have all developed this idea that the
universe is basically passive and just sits there as we operate upon
it. There is plenty of evidence this idea is dead wrong!

And to get back onto the topic of this thread, the problem with all
this in not only a simplistic view that fails to advance scientific
thought, but that when people bring the subject up, the
"establishment" attacks and starts using "faith" to assert that the
old primitive linear and non-varying system viewpoints are the ONLY
"valid" viewpoints and if you disagree, you can expect to find the
unemployment line! Notice how Jefimenko who made a big point of
including causality has been vilified here as a "kook" a "quack" and a
"tenured professor gone bad".

These people who are so proud of their mathematical "intellectual"
achievements really should be ashamed of how they have stunted and
stultified their own fields! As usual, hubris is followed inexorably
and inevitably by nemesis.

----------------------------
"Bill Miller" wrote in message
...

"Spaceman" wrote in message
...
Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..
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 masses 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 masses 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
remove the X to answer

"Bill Miller" wrote in message
...

"Benj" wrote in message
...
I just saw Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled: no intelligence allowed"
over at the $1 theater and it was a great piece of work. Namely those
promoting the dogma of establishment science.

snip brilliant exposition

Ok. Now all you with the GS rating can start posting the suggestion
that I go look for my "tinfoil hat". Of course you haven't viewed this
movie and never will, but I'm sure you are nevertheless convinced that
it's all "pseudoscience", lies and right wing Christian tripe. [All
perpetrated by the well-known right wing Christian evangelist Ben
Stein! :-) ]

Benj... You left out the "other" Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian Bible
Thumping Evangelist -- Rush Limbaugh. He was born and raised in the Jewish
Faith.

May I add my list of Dogmatically accepted physics "laws"

Yes, of course, Bill. Go right ahead.

The near-universal interpretation that Maxwell's "Laws" show that E
*causes*
H and H *causes* E,

F=MA as a "law" although there are many well recognized exceptions.

Newton's "law" that violates conservation of momentum.

For *every* action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. NOT!

Coulomb's "law" that "blows up as r -- zero.

Thermodynamics "laws" that aren't (except on average.)

I suspect there are more, but we dare not speak them aloud for fear the
spirit of St. Albert might strike us dead.


And then you see things in the 'establishment' press such as the following.
Journal of Plasma Physics (2000), 63: 115-128 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © 2000 Cambridge University Press
quote
"This paper reports the first experimental results in which the kinetic
energy of cold fog, generated in a water arc plasma, exceeds the electrical
energy supplied to form and maintain the arc."
/unquote
Not having an account I can't say that I know any more about this than the
above. And as it's impossible anyway, I would be wasting my time too
Regards,
Vince

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:rqU7k.26648$Jx.4753@pd7urf1no...
----------------------------
"Bill Miller" wrote in message
...

"Spaceman" wrote in message
...
Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..
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 masses 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 masses 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?

GREAT example. Let's think about this.

We hit the first ball. Some time later, the last ball moves.

Newton says: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." If
this means "instantly," then clearly there is a flaw. Does this mean that
Newton is wrong, or merely incomplete?

Since we routinely use Newton to chart the heavens, launch satellites etc.
etc., it is clear that Newton isn't WRONG. I believe the answer is
"incomplete."

Let's take your line of balls idea a step farther. First, let's assume that
the second ball is slightly out of line with all the others. When we strike
the first ball, it passes the impact on to the second ball slightly off
center. This acts to transfer some of the impact in a straight line, but
also causes it to rotate. This imparts angular momentum to the second
ball -- and subsequent balls. The reaction is not the same as the action!

Now let's assume that it has been a while since we have played with our
balls. (Sorry! I couldn't resist!) A thick coating of dust covers all the
balls.

We strike the first ball, and as the traveling wave progresses, it shakes
the dust off of all the other balls. This reduces the mass of each ball.
Again, the reaction is not the same as the action.

So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to modify the
rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate retardation, deal with
changes in angular momentum, and handle situations where the starting and
ending masses are not the same!

These issues are important in planetary systems. There, we have distances
that are large WRT the speed of gravity, we have bodies that possess angular
momentum, and (like a comet whose mass changes as it travels by) bodies
whose mass is not constant with time.

A gravitostatic model does not work in a gravitodynamic environment.

In the vacuum, we really do not know the propagation method

True

and there are various proposed mechanisms including aether and virtual
phonons and the delay depends on the velocity of light. (or gravity -- they
are not necessarily the same, although they SEEM to be)
These all appear to be attempts to cope with mechanical forces at
distances by some essentially fully mechanical coupling. Why?

Because we seem to be worshiping at the shrine of St, Isaac rather than
looking -- as Heaviside did in 1893 (!) -- at the facts.

Do the delays make Newton's law of action/reaction invalid?

Not invalid. Just incomplete.

...After all, this
was developed without consideration of delays. Timo points out the
Heaviside view-all reactions are local. -

True! But all actions are not!

Bill

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

Bill Miller wrote:
GREAT example. Let's think about this.

We hit the first ball. Some time later, the last ball moves.

Newton says: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite
reaction." If this means "instantly," then clearly there is a flaw.
Does this mean that Newton is wrong, or merely incomplete?

Since we routinely use Newton to chart the heavens, launch satellites
etc. etc., it is clear that Newton isn't WRONG. I believe the answer
is "incomplete."

Let's take your line of balls idea a step farther. First, let's
assume that the second ball is slightly out of line with all the
others. When we strike the first ball, it passes the impact on to the
second ball slightly off center. This acts to transfer some of the
impact in a straight line, but also causes it to rotate. This imparts
angular momentum to the second
ball -- and subsequent balls. The reaction is not the same as the
action!

Hmm,
wait a bit.
It will be an action that creates the equal "opposite" reaction.
spin one way hits and produces spin the other way.
Newton is still correct about that part.
(he is still incomplete with the instantaneousness though)



Now let's assume that it has been a while since we have played with
our balls. (Sorry! I couldn't resist!) A thick coating of dust covers
all the balls.

That is so disgusting and true it is kinda funny.



We strike the first ball, and as the traveling wave progresses, it
shakes the dust off of all the other balls. This reduces the mass of
each ball. Again, the reaction is not the same as the action.

but again,
you need to include all the actions and reactions.
the shaking off is a reaction.

So... if Newton is incomplete, as it seems to be, then we need to
modify the rules/formulae. The modification must accomodate
retardation, deal with changes in angular momentum, and handle
situations where the starting and ending masses are not the same!

Angular momentum is covered (gearing)
and starting and ending mass is also covered
the "dust" was part of the reaction.
The only thing really still missing is the
reaction "speed"
We do know it is not instant.

So,
Incomplete by only the timing factor of the motion.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman