Originally posted by John Martin
This gives a very correct account of the motion of orbital bodies. Hence its highly verifiable. There are some edge cases due to, among other things, Newtonian mechanics nothing taking time dilation into account and assumes instantaneous causation. One such case is Mercury, who's orbit precesses more than can be accounted for by Newtonian mechanics.
2) Wouldn't it be more logical for the gravity force F12 from m2, to be only proportional to m2?
3) If F12 and F21 are gravity forces caused by m1 and m2, how are those forces both equally dependent upon the magnitudes of m1 and m2, when the forces are at a distance of r, and acting in opposite directions?
4) If there is no real basis for the magnitudes of m1 and m2 being multiplied to attain the values of F12 and F21, what confidence can there be for the reality of G and any experiment performed to calculate G?
5) Newtonian orbital mechanics is based upon the assumption that inertia is an innate property of a body whereby the body will have a tangential velocity that is always constant.
6) The third Newtonian law that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction may well be a principle that does not apply to gravity. Such a conclusion may be found by comparing the forces F12 and F21, which are said to be equal and opposite, even when
i) m1 and m2 are unequal.
and
ii) F12 and F21 are at distance r, apart and therefore cannot truly be said to be an action and opposing reaction. Typically a force and its opposing re-action are tightly united, as say in a body hitting a wall. Yet with gravity, the force is assumed to not act in a similar, tight manner.
i) m1 and m2 are unequal.
and
ii) F12 and F21 are at distance r, apart and therefore cannot truly be said to be an action and opposing reaction. Typically a force and its opposing re-action are tightly united, as say in a body hitting a wall. Yet with gravity, the force is assumed to not act in a similar, tight manner.
As for ii) what you're saying is that all physical interaction ought to be local and this is a problem for Newtonian mechancis. And I agree. It is. Information and physical interaction can't propagate faster than the speed of light, as per the theory of relativity. Ergo Newtonian mechancis gets that part wrong, and will have instantanious interaction across vast distances.
However a version of Newtonian mechanics where the force of gravity propagates can be made if you want it. But there is no use for this.
7) When Newton's third law and mass attraction are combined, masses m1 and m2 are then the causes of gravity forces, F12 and F21 acting in opposing directions. Doesn't anyone at least question the veracity of two masses causing forces in opposite directions, when a singular mass can only attract in one direction? How is such a leap of logic even possible, let alone viable?
8) Mass attraction means a physical cause within a body must act within another body. Such a force is almost like a magical -
i) action at a distance, and
ii) a pseudo, qualitative compenetration of bodies...
i) action at a distance, and
ii) a pseudo, qualitative compenetration of bodies...
I think this one will go up on the refrigerator.
Comment