(John Schoenfeld) wrote in message . com...
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.


You're already wrong. Two bodies, even point masses, can NOT collide
at a point P. Furthermore, the idea of point masses is wrong. Point
masses don't exist, except as spread out over an area, corresponding
to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principles.

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, I see the problem. But it isn't with Newton's Laws.

As it turns out, bodies never actually collide. They simply exchange
forces. One emits a carrier particle and the other absorbs it. Note
that these are virtual particles, and in fact during the period of
time between when the carrier particle is emitted by one particle and
when it is absorbed by the other, threre IS a violation of Newton's
Laws.

So you are correct in a sense. However, macroscopically, the twin
violations of Newton's Laws actually CANCEL eachother out. So you will
never actually SEE a violation of Newton's Laws, even though for a
short time, it does happen.

However, the problem occurs when you try to apply your logic to
normal, every day situations. And in THAT case it's wrong, because in
all cases on the larger, more visible scale, the forces DO cancel
eachother out.


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. Newtons laws do not prohibit the existence of point
masses, and the above analysis I've showed clearly outlines a logical
fallacy with these laws.

Well maybe there's something wrong with the concept of point masses.
It would come as no surprise that your logic turns out to be correct,
but that you are simply using false premises. Perhaps this explains
why a point mass universe cannot actually exist.

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

(John Schoenfeld) wrote in message
.com...
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.


You're already wrong. Two bodies, even point masses, can NOT collide
at a point P. Furthermore, the idea of point masses is wrong. Point
masses don't exist, except as spread out over an area
SNIP on the right track



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

(John Schoenfeld) wrote in message . com...
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.

As David pointed out this is an incorrect observation and your problem
starts from here.

Having gone thru your argument, I want to say a few things.
If you want to say that Newton's Laws are wrong, after 300 years of
its successful application, you are not going to get a decent response
for that. I am sure you are not saying that and you want to find a
internal logical inconsistency.

Unlike Mathematics, in Physics, there isn't a great amount of fuss
made regarding definitions. One does not start with axioms and then
proceed to theorems.

A theorem is stated and its application explained.
Newton's three laws by themselves dont tell all the story and its
working demonstrated in many words. This has been done by many great
scientists like Lagrange,Euler... Obvioulsy there is no contradiction
in the method of its application. and any human being with an intent
to constructively understand it, has done so, or has been doing so
applying it successfully at numerous places.

Now I dont know, if Newton or Euler or somebody has written
explicitly, that two point masses at the point of impact cannot be
considered a single mass. But it hardly matters, as it can be
understood quickly and one gets on with it.

Dont waste your time on such semantics. You might find more in
electromagnetism or quantum mechanics, but this is Physics, and you
will never find rigourous definitions in Physics like you do in Maths,
where the interaction of every variable with another is completely
specified and no freedom given for interpretations other than what's
given in the rule book.


Pad

(John Schoenfeld) writes:

You still have it all wrong.

No, I don't. I'm not the idiot who insists on misapplying Newtonian
Mechanics.

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,

But not an indivisible point mass. That is an external assumption brought
to us courtesy of the mind of Schoenfeld. Anything could happen. The
masses could coalesce, as you suggest. Or they could bounce off each
other elastically. Or they could explode into many different masses. By
Newton's Laws, the ONLY thing that we know is that the nett momentum of
the masses after the collision is equal to the nett momentum before.

You are saving Newtons laws by claiming that a point mass is not
atomic. A point is atomic by definition, a proposition otherwise is
both an "external assumption" and mathematically unsound.

A point is indivisible in geometry. But colliding point particles in
Newtonian Mechanics do not become one indivisible particle. Supply
a rigourous proof that Newton's Laws require colliding point particles
to coalesce. The proof that you supply must be valid (i.e. with no
logical holes). If you can't supply such a proof, then your
assumption is external to Newtonian Mechanics.

Man got to the Moon using Newtonian Mechanics. Do you really think that
such feats of engineering would have been possible if Newtonian Mechanics
had been as inconsistent as you insist on claiming???? Obviously
people have no trouble with applying Newton's Laws, and getting successful
results (like landing on the Moon), so your unorthodox ideas can't have
much validity.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the problem is not with
Newton's Laws of Motion but with you?

then the
superposition principle applies and the paired forces cancel each
other out as predicted.

Only if we agree to the Schoenfeld-patented assumption that the mass
at collsion is indivisible. Some others may think that the assumption
is far too strong to make in the general case.

Do you see the problem yet?

Yes, it is perfectly clear to me. I see exactly where the problem is.
The question is: Do YOU also see where the problem with yourself is yet?

Personal attacks on myself will not divide a point - please state your
mathematical reasoning for this interesting geometry.

Not a personal attack. Just a recognition that you insist on approaching
Newtonian Mechanics while holding fast to an assumption that is
inconsistent with the theory, and then you blame the theory for your own
shortcoming. Typical behaviour of a crank. This was just like your
ridiculous claim that Maxwell only introduced the displacement current
term into his equations to make the equations symmetrical. When others
pointed out that the term was required to make the equations consistent
with conservation of charge, you did not even acknowledge that they had
done this, and you did not retract your demonstrably false claim.

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.

It is virtually impossible to observe the motion of an object on the
Earth's surface in the absence of forces. As we are discussing Newtonian
Mechanics, gravity is treated as a force, so there are no objects on the
surface which are in the absence of forces. Empirical evidence tells us
nothing about the validity of the First Law.

It's impossible to conclusively prove it's wrong and likewise, it's
impossible to prove it's true. When something moves with non-constant
velocity the inference is always made that this body is being acted on
by a force - a counter-intuitive notion given that NOTHING is ever
observed to have non-constant velocity. This is the root cause fallacy
which has propagated its the way to the absurdites of the super-string
theories and dark matters of today.

It's a postulate of a physical theory. All physical theories have them.
The predictions of Newtonian Mechanics are correct within the domain of
applicability of the theory. That is the most that you require of any
theory (once you know what should be the domain of applicability). It
is a very successful theory for one that you keep claiming has no
consistent logical foundation. Its very success should be a warning
to you that there must be something wrong with your claims.

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

This objection requires Schoenfeld's very own patent-pending assumption
that upon collision, masses become one indivisible object, an assumption
which is EXTERNAL to Newtonian Mechanics. Most people do not accept such
an assumption, and so most people don't recognize the validity of your
so-called objection.

Ofcourse. A continuous mass distribution over a continuous space
colliding with another continuous mass distribution will inevitably
result in point mass collisions, and such collisions do not stand up
to basic mathematical analysis.

Only in your own view of the Mechanics. Fortunately, the people who
work professionally with Newtonian Mechanics are not hamstrung by your
eccentric view of the theory.

David McAnally

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