This is directly implied by Newton's First Law, which does away with
absolute velocity. If there is no way to measure absolute velocity,
there can be no absolute reference frame, and all inertial frames must
be equivalent. If they weren't, then a system would evolve in
different ways depending on who/what 'looked' at it. This is an absurd
notion. To paraphrase Hawking (I think it was in A Brief History Of
Time), 'Any passing sub-atomic particle could cause entire star
systems to collapse.'

Absolute velocity does not disallow equivalent intertial reference
frames. Furthermore, Newton's first law is WRONG. To say that bodies
have default linear motion is in total contradiction with observation.
Not to mention the fact that Newtons third law is a logical fallacy. A
forces opposing force cannot be itself and it cannot be not itself.
Otherwise the notion of cause is totally lost or the cause ends up
creating an infinity of separate opposing forces of equal magnitude
which would make no sense either.


Enough said of the first postulate.

The second postulate, that the speed of light is constant in all such
frames:

This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
light is determined by the laws of physics. First, remember the
process by which light was realised to be electromagnetic in nature.

Speed of light has been observed to vary. So transistively, relativity
is wrong.

Maxwell, from his equations of electromagnetism, realised that a
combination of an electric and magnetic field could propagate through
space without a conductor or a magnet present. If you do the maths, it
turns out that this disturbance MUST propagate at the speed of light,
or it wouldn't 'work'. Because the speed of light was fairly well
known, and agreed with Maxwell's predictions of electromagnetic waves,
it was suggested that light WAS these waves. Subsequent experiments
proved it.

Maxwell got it wrong. Delbruck scattering is well known and even a 12
year old can infer that for a particle to move in a discontinuous path
then it must have changed velocity magnitude at that point.

So, with all inertial frames being equivalent, and light only being
ABLE to propagate at c, SR is the only possible answer. The fact that
a century of experiments have agreed again and again with relativity
only confirms this.

I can confirm anything when all discrepencies in theory result in the
"discovery" of fantastical new entities (i.e. dark matter).

Regards to all

P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.

(John Schoenfeld) writes:

Absolute velocity does not disallow equivalent intertial reference
frames. Furthermore, Newton's first law is WRONG. To say that bodies
have default linear motion is in total contradiction with observation.

In which there are quantities like friction. It is virtually impossible
to observe motion on the Earth in the complete absence of force.

Not to mention the fact that Newtons third law is a logical fallacy. A
forces opposing force cannot be itself and it cannot be not itself.
Otherwise the notion of cause is totally lost or the cause ends up
creating an infinity of separate opposing forces of equal magnitude
which would make no sense either.


You make no sense. The total amount of force is conserved. Then two
opposite forces are then spread to each of the two interacting
systems. So this does not cause any infinities whatsoever.

If you say that the acceleration caused two forces - opposing each
other - then then Newtons 3rd law contradicts Newtons 1st law which
explicitly states that the cause of acceleration IS a force.

So, if a force F1 causes acceleration A which causes a counter-force
F2, then what is the counter-force of F2? If you say "It's F1" then F2
must be of a fundamentally different type of force of which newtons
3rd law doesn't apply.

Newton's Third Law is the statement that all forces can be paired in such
a manner that each force in a pair is a reaction to the other. If F2 is
the counter-force to F1, then F1 and F2 make up one of these pairs, and so
the counter-force to F2 is the other force in the pair, i.e. F1. This
means that Newton's Third Law does apply: it is just the guarantee that
every force can be paired with another force. F1's mate in its pair is
F2. F2's mate in its pair is F1.

The concept that counter-force is caused by acceleration is wrong. The fact
is that Newton's Third Law tells us that forces always come in pairs. If
the "counter-force" had been caused by acceleration alone, then what
accounts for that a body which experiences a number of different forces
simultaneously also exerts a number of forces simultaneously? They can't all
be caused by acceleration. If all the forces on a body balance, then the body
undergoes no acceleration but it still exerts a reaction to each force on it.
Since the body is not accelerating in that case, then it has no acceleration
which can be used to cause these "counter-forces", and yet it still manages to
exert the "counter-forces". In short, the interpretation that the
counter-force is caused by acceleration is wrong. Instead, forces are caused
in such a manner that both action and reaction come into being simultaneously
and are caused by the same mechanism, not by each other.

And as a reminder, if the force F1 is exerted on the body B by the body A,
then the paired force F2 is exerted on the body A by the body B. That is,
for each pair of forces, the body experiencing one of the forces is exerting
the other, and vice versa.

Otherwise, F2 causes an opposing force F3 which
causes F4 which in turn causes an infinity of forces. Either, way
Newtons laws as defined are inadequate or incomplete at best as
causuality information is lost.

That is true if you make the wrong interpretation that reaction is caused by
acceleration (an interpretation which is untenable as shown above). If you
make the interpretation that both an action and its reaction are caused by the
same mechanism, then there is no logical problem. So now we have the
situation where any mechanical mechanism casues forces in pairs, and the
forces in a pair are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The
mechanism causes both forces, and neither force causes the other.

snip

Either way, I'd say most of
physics is wrong.

This from the person who claimed that Maxwell only introduced the displacement
current term into the equation for curl H in order to make the equations
more symmetric, rather than in order to make the equations consistent
with conservation of charge, which was the real reason why the displacement
current term was introduced, i.e. to make the theory mathematically
consistent. Without the displacement current term, the theory was
inconsistent (the equations could not hold simultaneously with conservation
of charge), so the term was necessary for consistency.

snip other attacks on the framework of physics

David McAnally

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

Newton's Third Law is the statement that all forces can be paired in such
a manner that each force in a pair is a reaction to the other. If F2 is
the counter-force to F1, then F1 and F2 make up one of these pairs, and so
the counter-force to F2 is the other force in the pair, i.e. F1. This
means that Newton's Third Law does apply: it is just the guarantee that
every force can be paired with another force. F1's mate in its pair is
F2. F2's mate in its pair is F1.

If two equal and opposing forces occur simultaneously at the point of
collision of two point particles, then those two particles are bound
at the same point after the collision as the opposing forces cancel
each other out. The result is two different point particles existing
at the same point causing an infinity of further collisions. When did
causality become a non-issue in the study of physical science?

(John Schoenfeld) writes:

Newton's Third Law is the statement that all forces can be paired in such
a manner that each force in a pair is a reaction to the other. If F2 is
the counter-force to F1, then F1 and F2 make up one of these pairs, and so
the counter-force to F2 is the other force in the pair, i.e. F1. This
means that Newton's Third Law does apply: it is just the guarantee that
every force can be paired with another force. F1's mate in its pair is
F2. F2's mate in its pair is F1.

If two equal and opposing forces occur simultaneously at the point of
collision of two point particles, then those two particles are bound
at the same point after the collision as the opposing forces cancel
each other out.

Rubbish. The forces do NOT act on the same particle. One of the forces
affects the motion of one of the particles, and the other force affects
the motion of the other particle. They do NOT affect the SAME particle,
so your assessment above is complete garbage since it assumes something
which is not true.

The result is two different point particles existing
at the same point causing an infinity of further collisions. When did
causality become a non-issue in the study of physical science?

Maybe it started for you when you started making assumptions which were
not true, just like you did above.

David McAnally

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

(John Schoenfeld) wrote in message . com...
Newton's Third Law is the statement that all forces can be paired in such
a manner that each force in a pair is a reaction to the other. If F2 is
the counter-force to F1, then F1 and F2 make up one of these pairs, and so
the counter-force to F2 is the other force in the pair, i.e. F1. This
means that Newton's Third Law does apply: it is just the guarantee that
every force can be paired with another force. F1's mate in its pair is
F2. F2's mate in its pair is F1.

If two equal and opposing forces occur simultaneously at the point of
collision of two point particles, then those two particles are bound
at the same point after the collision as the opposing forces cancel
each other out.

Uh....the "forces" act on different bodies. If two bodies A and B interact
then one force is the force that A exerts on B. The "equal and opposite"
force is the force that B exerts on A. So the "equal and opposing forces
act on completely different particles so the particles are not "bound" but
accelerated in opposite directions. Unless they stick together due to some
other forces etc.

The result is two different point particles existing
at the same point causing an infinity of further collisions. When did
causality become a non-issue in the study of physical science?

more to the point is WHY did causality become a non issue? The answer is
that it became a non issue for no reason at all.

Arf!
Arfur.

John Schoenfeld wrote:

Absolute velocity does not disallow equivalent intertial reference
frames. Furthermore, Newton's first law is WRONG. To say that bodies
have default linear motion is in total contradiction with observation.
Not to mention the fact that Newtons third law is a logical fallacy. A
forces opposing force cannot be itself and it cannot be not itself.

Dolt! The forces of Newton's third law are separate. Body A acts on body
B and body B acts on body A with distinct forces, equal in magnitude and
opposite direction. The 3-rd law is the conservation of classical
momentum stated in other terms. It turns out the momentum must be
defined in a relativistic manner for conservation to hold.

As to the first and second law they are correct. One cannot distinguish
between rest and uniform motion where there is no net force or
acceleration. That is the whole point which Aristotle missed. He
concluded that -any- motion requires a force. Not so.




Otherwise the notion of cause is totally lost or the cause ends up
creating an infinity of separate opposing forces of equal magnitude
which would make no sense either.

You are blovating. For low velocity motions Newton's laws are
experimentally verified.






Enough said of the first postulate.

The second postulate, that the speed of light is constant in all such
frames:

This is actually an extension of the first postulate, as the speed of
light is determined by the laws of physics. First, remember the
process by which light was realised to be electromagnetic in nature.


Speed of light has been observed to vary. So transistively, relativity
is wrong.

Not in free space. The speed of light as measured by any known means is
constant in free space when measure in inertial frames.

Bob Kolker




Maxwell, from his equations of electromagnetism, realised that a
combination of an electric and magnetic field could propagate through
space without a conductor or a magnet present. If you do the maths, it
turns out that this disturbance MUST propagate at the speed of light,
or it wouldn't 'work'. Because the speed of light was fairly well
known, and agreed with Maxwell's predictions of electromagnetic waves,
it was suggested that light WAS these waves. Subsequent experiments
proved it.


Maxwell got it wrong. Delbruck scattering is well known and even a 12
year old can infer that for a particle to move in a discontinuous path
then it must have changed velocity magnitude at that point.


So, with all inertial frames being equivalent, and light only being
ABLE to propagate at c, SR is the only possible answer. The fact that
a century of experiments have agreed again and again with relativity
only confirms this.


I can confirm anything when all discrepencies in theory result in the
"discovery" of fantastical new entities (i.e. dark matter).


Regards to all

P.S. Note that GR came about from (sort of) applying SR to
accelerating reference frames, and must consequently also be correct.

(David McAnally) wrote in message ...
(John Schoenfeld) writes:

Newton's Third Law is the statement that all forces can be paired in such
a manner that each force in a pair is a reaction to the other. If F2 is
the counter-force to F1, then F1 and F2 make up one of these pairs, and so
the counter-force to F2 is the other force in the pair, i.e. F1. This
means that Newton's Third Law does apply: it is just the guarantee that
every force can be paired with another force. F1's mate in its pair is
F2. F2's mate in its pair is F1.

If two equal and opposing forces occur simultaneously at the point of
collision of two point particles, then those two particles are bound
at the same point after the collision as the opposing forces cancel
each other out.

Rubbish. The forces do NOT act on the same particle. One of the forces
affects the motion of one of the particles, and the other force affects
the motion of the other particle. They do NOT affect the SAME particle,
so your assessment above is complete garbage since it assumes something
which is not true.

At a point collision of two point particles, if a force and its equal
opposite are caused simultaneously as you say, then those forces
cannot be superpositional as they would otherwise not exist (i.e. they
would cancel each other out at that point IRRESPECTIVE of the bodies
involved in the collision.)

If you deny this behaviour then you deny the superposition principle.

The result is two different point particles existing
at the same point causing an infinity of further collisions. When did
causality become a non-issue in the study of physical science?

Maybe it started for you when you started making assumptions which were
not true, just like you did above.

Most of physics is based on assumptions (e.g. Newtons 1st law is
true).

(John Schoenfeld) writes:

(David McAnally) wrote in message ...
(John Schoenfeld) writes:

Newton's Third Law is the statement that all forces can be paired in such
a manner that each force in a pair is a reaction to the other. If F2 is
the counter-force to F1, then F1 and F2 make up one of these pairs, and so
the counter-force to F2 is the other force in the pair, i.e. F1. This
means that Newton's Third Law does apply: it is just the guarantee that
every force can be paired with another force. F1's mate in its pair is
F2. F2's mate in its pair is F1.

If two equal and opposing forces occur simultaneously at the point of
collision of two point particles, then those two particles are bound
at the same point after the collision as the opposing forces cancel
each other out.

Rubbish. The forces do NOT act on the same particle. One of the forces
affects the motion of one of the particles, and the other force affects
the motion of the other particle. They do NOT affect the SAME particle,
so your assessment above is complete garbage since it assumes something
which is not true.

At a point collision of two point particles, if a force and its equal
opposite are caused simultaneously as you say, then those forces
cannot be superpositional as they would otherwise not exist (i.e. they
would cancel each other out at that point IRRESPECTIVE of the bodies
involved in the collision.)

If you deny this behaviour then you deny the superposition principle.

Wrong. The superposition principle states that the nett force on a body
is equal to the superposition of the forces acting on the body, so that
the time-derivative of the momentum of a body is the superposition of all
the forces acting on the body. More generally, the nett force on a system
of bodies is equal to the superposition of all the forces exerted on
bodies internal to the system by bodies external to the system, so the
time-derivative of the momentum of a system is equal to the superposition
of all forces exerted on bodies internal to the system by bodies external
to the system. The superposition principle tells us absolutely nothing
about the internal dynamics of the bodies within a system. It only tells
you about the time-derivative of the nett momentum of the system. Since a
single body is a special case of a dynamical system, then I will give
justification in the general case. First of all, Newton's Second Law of
Motion tells us that the time-derivative of the momentum of a body is
equal to the superposition of the forces acting on the body. Suppose a
force F is exerted on a body A by a body B, and both bodies are internal
to the system, then the partner of F in its pair is a force G, equal in
magnitude and opposite in direction, which is exerted on the body B by the
body A. It follows that the contribution to the time-derivative of the
sum of the momenta of A and B from F and G is zero, as these forces
cancel. So, upon defining the nett momentum of a system as the sum of the
momenta of the individual component bodies, all forces exerted on bodies
internal to the system by bodies internal to the system cancel in pairs.
On the other hand, if a force F is exerted on a body A by a body C, and
the body A is internal to the system and the body C is external to the
system, then F contributes to the time-derivative of the sum of the
momenta of the bodies in the system, and so to the time-derivative of the
nett momentum of the system. On the other hand, the partner G of F in its
pair is a force exerted on the body C by the body A, and so it is exerted
on a body external to the system and does not contribute to the
time-derivative of the sum of the momenta of the bodies of the system, and
so it does not contribute to the time-derivative of the nett momentum of
the system. In short, the time-derivative of the momentum of the system
equals the sum of the time-derivatives of the momenta of the bodies which
make up the system, which equals the superposition of the forces which are
exerted on the bodies of the system. By Newton's Third Law of Motion, the
forces between bodies internal to the system cancel each other in pairs.
This leaves the forces exerted on bodies internal to the system by bodies
external to the system, so that the time-derivative of the nett momentum
of the system is equal to the superposition of the forces exerted on
bodies internal to the system by bodies external to the system. The
important point to note is that while the superposition determines the
time-derivative of the nett momentum of the system, it has no bearing on
the dynamics of the bodies within the system, since there is not enough
information to determine the behaviour of the individual bodies. This
means that because the forces cancel in a collision, then the momentum of
the system of the two particles is conserved, but it gives you no
additional information about the motion of the individual particles, so
you can't make the assertion that you did.

The result is two different point particles existing
at the same point causing an infinity of further collisions. When did
causality become a non-issue in the study of physical science?

Maybe it started for you when you started making assumptions which were
not true, just like you did above.

Most of physics is based on assumptions (e.g. Newtons 1st law is
true).

Physical theories are based on axioms and postulates. Newton built his
Theory of Mechanics from certain axioms, which included his Three Laws of
Motion. The Theory was then used to make certain predictions, and these
predictions could be tested. Newtonian Mechanics is a consistent theory.
On the other hand, you tried to add an assumption to the framework of the
already established theory, and the assumption that you tried to add was
inconsistent with that theory, and now you are attempting to condemn the
theory as inconsistent merely because it happens to be inconsistent with
your added assumption. Instead of condemning Newtonian Mechanics just
because your own personal interpretation of the Laws is inconsistent, it
would be better for you to take the trouble to learn the correct
interpretation of the laws, and to understand, for example, that the
superposition of forces exerted on internal bodies of a system by external
bodies gives you no other information than the time-derivative of the
total momentum of the system, and specifically, it gives you no additional
information about the motion of the specific bodies in the system.

David McAnally

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

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. 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.

(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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

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.

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.

The fallecy that you showed required the ADDITIONAL assumption of
Schoenfeld's very own assumption that point masses become one indivisible
object upon collision. So the most that your fallacy shows is that your
very own personal assumption is inconsistent with Newtonian Mechanics.
It does not show an inconsistency within Newtonian Mechanics.

David McAnally

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