Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:MtGdnScK_upVu8DVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
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

"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:s7udnaL83ceu-8DVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:MtGdnScK_upVu8DVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Regards,

kl31n

"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo at (no spam) physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0806221102300.656 at (no spam) serene.st...
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.

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.

"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:s7udnaL83ceu-8DVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:MtGdnScK_upVu8DVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
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.

"Benj" <bjacoby at (no spam) iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:a5dc0c3f-d3af-4585-9137-49012fe89856 at (no spam) e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
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.

----------------------------
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:kpR7k.67754$102.31400 at (no spam) bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:s7udnaL83ceu-8DVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:MtGdnScK_upVu8DVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
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. (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?

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

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

Don Kelly dhky at (no spam) shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

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!

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!

"Don Kelly" <dhky at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rqU7k.26648$Jx.4753 at (no spam) pd7urf1no...
----------------------------
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:kpR7k.67754$102.31400 at (no spam) bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:s7udnaL83ceu-8DVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:MtGdnScK_upVu8DVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
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 dhky at (no spam) shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

----------------------------
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:_s78k.136843$SV4.71669 at (no spam) bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Don Kelly" <dhky at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:rqU7k.26648$Jx.4753 at (no spam) pd7urf1no...
----------------------------
"Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye at (no spam) worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:kpR7k.67754$102.31400 at (no spam) bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:s7udnaL83ceu-8DVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
Bill Miller wrote:
"Spaceman" <spaceman at (no spam) yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
news:MtGdnScK_upVu8DVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d at (no spam) comcast.com...
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!
-----------------
But, at the point of contact the forces are the same whether or not the
impact is dead on. You give some direct force but you also have some
spin-on both balls. You still have conservation of angular momentum. No
problem with Newton there -just consider the forces as vectors. Newton
obviously did .
---------


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.
------
But then considering only the first dusty ball, the problem becomes not a
two body problem but a multibody problem. Considering all the balls, this
is compounded. The failure is not Newton but in our ability to actually
solve the resultant multibody problem. We don't know the masses or
velocities of the dust particles but they aren't being converted to
energy so there is no change in the total system mass. You can still
assume total momentum, angular and linear is unchanged- even if the final
interaction occurs some time later than the first collision.

--

Don Kelly dhky at (no spam) shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer


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


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 dhky at (no spam) shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

Don & Spaceman

Don & Spaceman

Don's ball exercise was an excellent ANALOGY but it does not
represent an EXAMPLE of the issues that I raised. I will cheerfully
concede that the dynamics of balls clicking together represents known
(almost high-school level) interactions between materials whose
proprties are (or can be) well known..

What is of interest to me is what happens when these "balls" are in
space and their only interaction is via gravity. In this case, we
have to resort to the concept of force fields.

(Please! let us not re-open the silly discussion about the "reality"
of fields.)

In my example, we have two masses separated by a distance. We wiggle
one mass. MUCH later the effect is felt by the other mass. During
that time perid, the law of action and reaction does not hold.

There are other examples:

If one calculates the forces between a charged particle moving on the
x axis and a particle moving along the z axis, we find the forces are
unequal. ( Breitenburger "Magnetic Interaction betwen Charged
Particles" A J Ph. 36, 505-515 1968 & Scanio, "Conservation of
Momentum in electrodynamics... " A J Ph. 43, 258-260, 1975)

Also, if a charge moves past a magnetic dipole, the forces are
unequal. (Portis, "Electromagnetic Fields, Sources and Media" John
Wiley & Sons 1978, pp 390-392)

There are others. See Ch 4 of Jefimenko's "Causality..." book for
some more.

This is not surprising. Newton's theory of gravitation is based on the
Gravitational Force Law, F = G(M1M2)/r sq.

This is a STATICS law. There is no provision for time dependency,
whether it be location, velocity (linear or otherwise) nor of mass.
Also, like Coulomb, it has an obvious flaw in that it "blows up" as
r --> 0. Or do we just "normalize" this away as some would have us
do with Coulomb?

We do not (slavishly) attempt to apply Coulomb's Law to Electrodynamic
situations. Why should we do so with Newton?

Let's douse the candles and incense at Isaac's shrine and recognize
that his is a great theory, or "law" if you wish..

It is incomplete.

Bill Miller wrote:
Don & Spaceman

Don's ball exercise was an excellent ANALOGY but it does not
represent an EXAMPLE of the issues that I raised. I will cheerfully
concede that the dynamics of balls clicking together represents known
(almost high-school level) interactions between materials whose
proprties are (or can be) well known..

What is of interest to me is what happens when these "balls" are in
space and their only interaction is via gravity. In this case, we
have to resort to the concept of force fields.

(Please! let us not re-open the silly discussion about the "reality"
of fields.)

In my example, we have two masses separated by a distance. We wiggle
one mass. MUCH later the effect is felt by the other mass. During
that time perid, the law of action and reaction does not hold.

Actually it does, but like I said,
to think Newtonian, you would have to have an aether of some sort
"a medium of the transference of the force".