1. There exists two point masses moving towards each other.
2. At time T they collide at point P.
3. At time T two simultaneously paired opposite forces of equal magnitude occur
at point P.

This is a contact force. On a side note, in Special Relativity, all
forces are contact forces.

4. ________
Fill in the blanks.

Point mass 1 exerts a force on point mass 2, and point mass 2 exerts the
paired force on point mass 1. The motion of point mass 1 is affected by
the force exerted on it by point mass 2. Since the force exerted on point
mass 2 by point mass 1 is not on point mass 1, then it has no effect on
the motion of point mass 1. While you continue to consider that there is
no effect of two paired contact forces on a system because they balance,
then you are not doing Newtonian Mechanics, because you are making an
assumption which is contradictory to Newtonian Mechanics (specifically,
it is contradictory to Newton's Second Law of Motion).

You still have it all wrong.

POINT mass A has mass Ma.
POINT mass B has mass Mb.
At time t, a collision occurs at POINT p.

So at time t we observe mass A and mass B existing simultaneously at
point P. An equivalent observation would be that there exists a SINGLE
POINT
mass C with mass Ma+Mb existing at POINT P at time t.

Also at time t, we have the paired force as predicted by Newtons 3rd
law. Given that there is a single POINT mass at point p, then the
superposition principle applies and the paired forces cancel each
other out as predicted.

Do you see the problem yet?


Newton's Three Laws of Motion:

1. If a body has no forces acting on it, then it either remains
stationary or it moves uniformly.

Empirical evidence implies otherwise.

2. The time-derivative of the momentum of a body is equal to the
sum of the forces which are exerted on the body.

Contact forces can never exist as they are always cancelled out at the
point of contact.


3. Forces are paired in such a manner that the forces in a pair
are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The two forces
in a pair are caused by the same mechanism. The same body
experiences one of the forces and exerts the other, so that if
one force in a pair is exerted on body A by body B, then the
other force in the pair is exerted on body B by body A.


The problem with Newtons laws is that they do not define what a body
is and isn't. Furthermore, Newtons laws do not prohibit the existence
of POINT
masses and - as i've clearly shown - fails to predict their behaviour
(unless logical fallacies constitute "strong evidence" in academic
circles).

JS

1. There exists two point masses moving towards each other.
2. At time T they collide at point P.
3. At time T two simultaneously paired opposite forces of equal magnitude
occur
at point P.

This is a contact force. On a side note, in Special Relativity, all
forces are contact forces.

4. ________
Fill in the blanks.

Point mass 1 exerts a force on point mass 2, and point mass 2 exerts the
paired force on point mass 1. The motion of point mass 1 is affected by
the force exerted on it by point mass 2. Since the force exerted on point
mass 2 by point mass 1 is not on point mass 1, then it has no effect on
the motion of point mass 1. While you continue to consider that there is
no effect of two paired contact forces on a system because they balance,
then you are not doing Newtonian Mechanics, because you are making an
assumption which is contradictory to Newtonian Mechanics (specifically,
it is contradictory to Newton's Second Law of Motion).

You still have it all wrong.

POINT mass A has mass Ma.
POINT mass B has mass Mb.
At time t, a collision occurs at POINT p.

So at time t we observe mass A and mass B existing simultaneously at
point P. An equivalent observation would be that there exists a SINGLE
POINT
mass C with mass Ma+Mb existing at POINT P at time t.

Also at time t, we have the paired force as predicted by Newtons 3rd
law. Given that there is a single POINT mass at point p, then the
superposition principle applies and the paired forces cancel each
other out as predicted.

Do you see the problem yet?


Yes, point masses DO NOT exist. And electron IS NOT a POINT. It has size,
mass, momentum, helix spiral fields and can exist up to 6 dimensions of
SIZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.


S. Enterprize Co. (Membership)
http://www.s-enterprize.com/
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

I have answered the following in response the OTHER place where you posted
the same comment. To post the same comment twice under two different
subject headings, presumably in the hope that one of the postings will
remain unanswered and thus appear to be unanswerable, is very bad form.

Since I have already given an answer to the other identical posting that
you made, I won't bother here, except to point out that I have made an
extra remark at the end.

(John Schoenfeld) writes:

1. There exists two point masses moving towards each other.
2. At time T they collide at point P.
3. At time T two simultaneously paired opposite forces of equal magnitude occur
at point P.

This is a contact force. On a side note, in Special Relativity, all
forces are contact forces.

4. ________
Fill in the blanks.

Point mass 1 exerts a force on point mass 2, and point mass 2 exerts the
paired force on point mass 1. The motion of point mass 1 is affected by
the force exerted on it by point mass 2. Since the force exerted on point
mass 2 by point mass 1 is not on point mass 1, then it has no effect on
the motion of point mass 1. While you continue to consider that there is
no effect of two paired contact forces on a system because they balance,
then you are not doing Newtonian Mechanics, because you are making an
assumption which is contradictory to Newtonian Mechanics (specifically,
it is contradictory to Newton's Second Law of Motion).

You still have it all wrong.

POINT mass A has mass Ma.
POINT mass B has mass Mb.
At time t, a collision occurs at POINT p.

So at time t we observe mass A and mass B existing simultaneously at
point P. An equivalent observation would be that there exists a SINGLE
POINT
mass C with mass Ma+Mb existing at POINT P at time t.

Also at time t, we have the paired force as predicted by Newtons 3rd
law. Given that there is a single POINT mass at point p, then the
superposition principle applies and the paired forces cancel each
other out as predicted.

Do you see the problem yet?


Newton's Three Laws of Motion:

1. If a body has no forces acting on it, then it either remains
stationary or it moves uniformly.

Empirical evidence implies otherwise.

2. The time-derivative of the momentum of a body is equal to the
sum of the forces which are exerted on the body.

Contact forces can never exist as they are always cancelled out at the
point of contact.


3. Forces are paired in such a manner that the forces in a pair
are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The two forces
in a pair are caused by the same mechanism. The same body
experiences one of the forces and exerts the other, so that if
one force in a pair is exerted on body A by body B, then the
other force in the pair is exerted on body B by body A.


The problem with Newtons laws is that they do not define what a body
is and isn't. Furthermore, Newtons laws do not prohibit the existence
of POINT
masses and - as i've clearly shown - fails to predict their behaviour
(unless logical fallacies constitute "strong evidence" in academic
circles).

As I pointed out when I responded to your other identical posting, you have
made assumptions which are EXTERNAL to Newtonian Mechanics, and to
which others have not generally agreed. So the most that you have managed
to do is to prove that your additional unstated assumption is inconsistent
with Newtonian Mechanics. You have not established an inconsistency within
Newtonian Mechanics. Try again without making unjustifiable additional
assumptions like you did this time.

David McAnally

--------------

(S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message ...
1. There exists two point masses moving towards each other.
2. At time T they collide at point P.
3. At time T two simultaneously paired opposite forces of equal magnitude
occur
at point P.

This is a contact force. On a side note, in Special Relativity, all
forces are contact forces.

4. ________
Fill in the blanks.

Point mass 1 exerts a force on point mass 2, and point mass 2 exerts the
paired force on point mass 1. The motion of point mass 1 is affected by
the force exerted on it by point mass 2. Since the force exerted on point
mass 2 by point mass 1 is not on point mass 1, then it has no effect on
the motion of point mass 1. While you continue to consider that there is
no effect of two paired contact forces on a system because they balance,
then you are not doing Newtonian Mechanics, because you are making an
assumption which is contradictory to Newtonian Mechanics (specifically,
it is contradictory to Newton's Second Law of Motion).

You still have it all wrong.

POINT mass A has mass Ma.
POINT mass B has mass Mb.
At time t, a collision occurs at POINT p.

So at time t we observe mass A and mass B existing simultaneously at
point P. An equivalent observation would be that there exists a SINGLE
POINT
mass C with mass Ma+Mb existing at POINT P at time t.

Also at time t, we have the paired force as predicted by Newtons 3rd
law. Given that there is a single POINT mass at point p, then the
superposition principle applies and the paired forces cancel each
other out as predicted.

Do you see the problem yet?


Yes, point masses DO NOT exist. And electron IS NOT a POINT. It has size,
mass, momentum, helix spiral fields and can exist up to 6 dimensions of
SIZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.


Irrespective of the existence of point masses Newtons laws still don't
make it.
Furthermore, you cannot save Newtons laws by invoking the
Electromagnetic and Nuclear forces when considering particle
collisions.

The reason for the latter is quite simple. The existence of the
electromagnetic force, Quantum mechanics and Relativity is derived
transistively from Newtons laws. If Newtons laws are wrong, then all
its derivations are wrong.

The reason for the former is also simple. If point particles do not
exist then space is quantized and/or a body can never be considered as
the integral sum of its containing point masses (which means Classical
physics (including Maxwells theory) and Relativity are wrong as they
assume the existence of continuous space and mass density).

Even in a quantized space, the problem does not go away as the "point
masses" become the "atomic masses" and since nothing prevents them
from existing at the same quantized space coordinate, the problem
remains.

John Schoenfeld:

You still have it all wrong.

No he doesn't. You do.

POINT mass A has mass Ma.
POINT mass B has mass Mb.
At time t, a collision occurs at POINT p.

So at time t we observe mass A and mass B existing simultaneously at
point P. An equivalent observation would be that there exists a SINGLE
POINT mass C with mass Ma+Mb existing at POINT P at time t.

That's your mistake. If the collision occurs, where did the energy
go? It went into additional mass at the point of impact. or else some
or all of it went into heat. Whatever energy is not dissipated as heat,
is the kinetic energy given to the masses as they separate.


Also at time t, we have the paired force as predicted by Newtons 3rd
law. Given that there is a single POINT mass at point p, then the
superposition principle applies and the paired forces cancel each
other out as predicted.

Wrong. The kinetic energy is transformed into heat if the collision
is perfectly inelastic. If you use forces, then you have to use impulses.

p_1 + p_2 = \integral F dt

The impulse is \integral F dt.

Do you see the problem yet?

Yes. You need to study newtonian mechanics.

Newton's Three Laws of Motion:

1. If a body has no forces acting on it, then it either remains
stationary or it moves uniformly.

Empirical evidence implies otherwise.

No, it doesn't.


2. The time-derivative of the momentum of a body is equal to the
sum of the forces which are exerted on the body.

Contact forces can never exist as they are always cancelled out at the
point of contact.

Wrong, unless you plan to make energy disappear.

3. Forces are paired in such a manner that the forces in a pair
are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The two forces
in a pair are caused by the same mechanism. The same body
experiences one of the forces and exerts the other, so that if
one force in a pair is exerted on body A by body B, then the
other force in the pair is exerted on body B by body A.


The problem with Newtons laws is that they do not define what a body
is and isn't. Furthermore, Newtons laws do not prohibit the existence
of POINT

Actually, they do, unless you want to think newtons laws allow for
infinite mass densities. Tell me, if the mass density is infinite,
what's the integral of the mass density over a point?

masses and - as i've clearly shown - fails to predict their behaviour
(unless logical fallacies constitute "strong evidence" in academic
circles).

Just what the newsgroup needs. Another crackpot with a konspiracy
theory.

You still have it all wrong.

No he doesn't. You do.

Your reasons for this assertion are irrelevent and fail to explain the
mechanics behind point mass collisions.

POINT mass A has mass Ma.
POINT mass B has mass Mb.
At time t, a collision occurs at POINT p.

So at time t we observe mass A and mass B existing simultaneously at
point P. An equivalent observation would be that there exists a SINGLE
POINT mass C with mass Ma+Mb existing at POINT P at time t.

That's your mistake. If the collision occurs, where did the energy
go? It went into additional mass at the point of impact. or else some
or all of it went into heat. Whatever energy is not dissipated as heat,
is the kinetic energy given to the masses as they separate.

The issue is not with dynamics but with mechanics - specifically,
Newtons THIRD law claiming that paired equal and opposite forces occur
at the point of collision. Two point particles never collide unless
they occupy the same point in space. At the point of collision the two
point masses are equivalent to a single point mass and thus the forces
predicted by Newtons third law superimpose and nullify one another.
Once again, you might want to do your credibility some good and rather
than attacking myself personally, explain how this situation is
avoided without the extreme claim that "point masses do not exist".


Also at time t, we have the paired force as predicted by Newtons 3rd
law. Given that there is a single POINT mass at point p, then the
superposition principle applies and the paired forces cancel each
other out as predicted.

Wrong. The kinetic energy is transformed into heat if the collision
is perfectly inelastic. If you use forces, then you have to use impulses.

This is an example of the irrelevancy your posts tend to contain.

p_1 + p_2 = \integral F dt

The impulse is \integral F dt.

Do you see the problem yet?

Yes. You need to study newtonian mechanics.

Newton's Three Laws of Motion:

1. If a body has no forces acting on it, then it either remains
stationary or it moves uniformly.

Empirical evidence implies otherwise.

No, it doesn't.


2. The time-derivative of the momentum of a body is equal to the
sum of the forces which are exerted on the body.

Contact forces can never exist as they are always cancelled out at the
point of contact.

Wrong, unless you plan to make energy disappear.

3. Forces are paired in such a manner that the forces in a pair
are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The two forces
in a pair are caused by the same mechanism. The same body
experiences one of the forces and exerts the other, so that if
one force in a pair is exerted on body A by body B, then the
other force in the pair is exerted on body B by body A.


The problem with Newtons laws is that they do not define what a body
is and isn't. Furthermore, Newtons laws do not prohibit the existence
of POINT

Actually, they do, unless you want to think newtons laws allow for
infinite mass densities. Tell me, if the mass density is infinite,
what's the integral of the mass density over a point?

Mass density is not infinite, but continuous over space. You have no
evidence suggesting otherwise unless you invoke quantum mechanics
which is ultimately derived from Newtons work and inapplicable in this
very basic scenario.

"John Schoenfeld" wrote in message
om...
You still have it all wrong.

No he doesn't. You do.

Your reasons for this assertion are irrelevent and fail to explain the
mechanics behind point mass collisions.

POINT mass A has mass Ma.
POINT mass B has mass Mb.
At time t, a collision occurs at POINT p.

So at time t we observe mass A and mass B existing simultaneously at
point P. An equivalent observation would be that there exists a SINGLE
POINT mass C with mass Ma+Mb existing at POINT P at time t.

That's your mistake. If the collision occurs, where did the energy
go? It went into additional mass at the point of impact. or else some
or all of it went into heat. Whatever energy is not dissipated as heat,
is the kinetic energy given to the masses as they separate.

The issue is not with dynamics but with mechanics - specifically,
Newtons THIRD law claiming that paired equal and opposite forces occur
at the point of collision. Two point particles never collide unless
they occupy the same point in space. At the point of collision the two
point masses are equivalent to a single point mass and thus the forces
predicted by Newtons third law superimpose and nullify one another.
Once again, you might want to do your credibility some good and rather
than attacking myself personally, explain how this situation is
avoided without the extreme claim that "point masses do not exist".


Also at time t, we have the paired force as predicted by Newtons 3rd
law. Given that there is a single POINT mass at point p, then the
superposition principle applies and the paired forces cancel each
other out as predicted.

Wrong. The kinetic energy is transformed into heat if the collision
is perfectly inelastic. If you use forces, then you have to use
impulses.

This is an example of the irrelevancy your posts tend to contain.

p_1 + p_2 = \integral F dt

The impulse is \integral F dt.

Do you see the problem yet?

Yes. You need to study newtonian mechanics.

Newton's Three Laws of Motion:

1. If a body has no forces acting on it, then it either remains
stationary or it moves uniformly.

Empirical evidence implies otherwise.

No, it doesn't.


2. The time-derivative of the momentum of a body is equal to the
sum of the forces which are exerted on the body.

Contact forces can never exist as they are always cancelled out at the
point of contact.

Wrong, unless you plan to make energy disappear.

3. Forces are paired in such a manner that the forces in a pair
are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The two forces
in a pair are caused by the same mechanism. The same body
experiences one of the forces and exerts the other, so that if
one force in a pair is exerted on body A by body B, then the
other force in the pair is exerted on body B by body A.


The problem with Newtons laws is that they do not define what a body
is and isn't. Furthermore, Newtons laws do not prohibit the existence
of POINT

Actually, they do, unless you want to think newtons laws allow for
infinite mass densities. Tell me, if the mass density is infinite,
what's the integral of the mass density over a point?

Mass density is not infinite, but continuous over space. You have no
evidence suggesting otherwise unless you invoke quantum mechanics
which is ultimately derived from Newtons work and inapplicable in this
very basic scenario.

Lets see, how many ways is this whole discussion wrong????
1. the only point mass is the singularity in the middle of a black hole
2. you refuse to allow infinite density, but insist on zero size
3. you refuse to allow quantum mechanics yet require interactions that are
clearly in the quantum realm
4. contact forces??? how can you have contact between two zero size objects?
5. there can be no empirical evidence of a situation like this
6. two object can't occupy the same point in space at the same time
7. what happens to the gravitational attraction at zero distance?
8. what happens when the two event horizons overlap on the two black holes
that must be colliding?
9. i shouldn't even be reading this, let alone bothering to respond

Lets see, how many ways is this whole discussion wrong????
1. the only point mass is the singularity in the middle of a black hole

What good is General Relativity if Newtons laws are wrong?

2. you refuse to allow infinite density, but insist on zero size

The "size" of a point mass does not converge at 0.

3. you refuse to allow quantum mechanics yet require interactions that are
clearly in the quantum realm

Quantum mechanics brings down alot of concepts from Newtonian
mechanics and Classical physics. When considering NEWTONIAN MECHANICS,
it is not valid to invoke QUANTUM MECHANICS to explain away logical
inconsistencies with the former.

4. contact forces??? how can you have contact between two zero size objects?

Any body in Newtonian mechanics is considered the integral sum of its
containing point masses. This is basic physics and quite a fundamental
assumption. Otherwise, is space quantized? Is mass quantized? Does the
problem go away? No. The continuity of space and mass density IMPLIES
the existence of point masses - so then explain the mechanics of point
mass collisions without invoking the quantum model - a fundamentally
different and irreconcilable model. Claim your relativistic
stress-energy tensor allows for a discontinuous mass density across a
locally Minkowskian 4-manifold and maybe, just maybe I'll believe you.

5. there can be no empirical evidence of a situation like this

There doesn't need to be any evidence if it is a mathematical (albeit
quite trivial) analysis of Newtons laws. They don't work for point
masses as you can find yourself faced with a LOGICAL FALLACY (do you
know what that actually means?). Newtons laws by themselves are
inadequate or incomplete at best. Or maybe they are just plain wrong.


6. two object can't occupy the same point in space at the same time

Where do Newtons Laws prohibit this?

7. what happens to the gravitational attraction at zero distance?

Gravitational attraction is not explained with Newtons 3 Laws. Newtons
gravitational law is provably wrong yet it suffers not the fate of the
first three, but a much worse one. "Force at a distance" is one of the
most blatent signs that the Newtons first law is WRONG. The state of
physics today is a reflection of the propagation of these fundamental
mistakes.

8. what happens when the two event horizons overlap on the two black holes
that must be colliding?

Relativity is irrelevant when considering Newtonian Mechanics.

John Schoenfeld:
You still have it all wrong.

No he doesn't. You do.

Your reasons for this assertion are irrelevent and fail to explain the
mechanics behind point mass collisions.

Point masses don't exist except as idealizations. Along with idealizing
a point mass, you have to take what goes along with the fiction if you
expect to get something other than non-sense. You've already proved that
when you got complete non-sense by ignoring the physics.

[...]
That's your mistake. If the collision occurs, where did the energy
go? It went into additional mass at the point of impact. or else some
or all of it went into heat. Whatever energy is not dissipated as heat,
is the kinetic energy given to the masses as they separate.

The issue is not with dynamics but with mechanics - specifically,
Newtons THIRD law claiming that paired equal and opposite forces occur
at the point of collision.

You're too busy firing off a load of crap and not busy enough reading
what I wrote about impulse. In particular, one must take the limit
so that the impulse is removed from the equations. Then the forces are
always balanced in any interval dt as t- 0.



Wrong. The kinetic energy is transformed into heat if the collision
is perfectly inelastic. If you use forces, then you have to use impulses.

This is an example of the irrelevancy your posts tend to contain.

You not only don't know as much as you think you do, you don't know
as much as the average college sophomore.

[...]

Mass density is not infinite, but continuous over space. You have no
evidence suggesting otherwise unless you invoke quantum mechanics
which is ultimately derived from Newtons work and inapplicable in this
very basic scenario.

If you ever took a physics course, I suggest you get a refund and
consider legal action against your advisor for negligence in failing
to steer you into a field that requires less in the way of analytical
skills. As a physicist you simply wouldn't be employed. As an engineer
you'd be dangerous.

Your reasons for this assertion are irrelevent and fail to explain the
mechanics behind point mass collisions.

Point masses don't exist except as idealizations. Along with idealizing
a point mass, you have to take what goes along with the fiction if you
expect to get something other than non-sense. You've already proved that
when you got complete non-sense by ignoring the physics.

Idiot. If you have a continuous space and a mass then that mass is the
integral sum of its containing point masses.


[...]
That's your mistake. If the collision occurs, where did the energy
go? It went into additional mass at the point of impact. or else some
or all of it went into heat. Whatever energy is not dissipated as heat,
is the kinetic energy given to the masses as they separate.

The issue is not with dynamics but with mechanics - specifically,
Newtons THIRD law claiming that paired equal and opposite forces occur
at the point of collision.

You're too busy firing off a load of crap and not busy enough reading
what I wrote about impulse. In particular, one must take the limit
so that the impulse is removed from the equations. Then the forces are
always balanced in any interval dt as t- 0.


Idiot. The dynamics of a collision are irrelevant if the collision is
logically impossible.

Wrong. The kinetic energy is transformed into heat if the collision
is perfectly inelastic. If you use forces, then you have to use impulses.

This is an example of the irrelevancy your posts tend to contain.

You not only don't know as much as you think you do, you don't know
as much as the average college sophomore.

Idiot. This reminds me of the time you called my equation for
computing a real with the natural numbers as the mantissa wrong. How
many more lessons do I need to teach you before you learn?

[...]

Mass density is not infinite, but continuous over space. You have no
evidence suggesting otherwise unless you invoke quantum mechanics
which is ultimately derived from Newtons work and inapplicable in this
very basic scenario.

If you ever took a physics course, I suggest you get a refund and
consider legal action against your advisor for negligence in failing
to steer you into a field that requires less in the way of analytical
skills. As a physicist you simply wouldn't be employed. As an engineer
you'd be dangerous.

Idiot.