Problems in Newtonian Mechanics

[Leonhard]

1) If F₁₂ is caused by m₂ acting on m₁, how is F₁₂ acting at m₁ then proportional to both m₁ and m₂?

On the contrary, m₁ produces a gravitatinoal field of a strength that is proportional to the mass of m₁, and this field produces a force acting on m₂ that is proportional to the mass of m₂ and directed at m₁. Likewise if you switch around m₁ and m₂. This way the forces have the same magnitude, they are proportional to both (m₁ and m₂, namely their product m₁m₂), and the force acting on m₁ will point towards m₂, and vice versa.

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?

No, as per indicated above.

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?

Both cases are symmetric as per the first paragraph. You get the same magnitude for the force, but 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?

Since there is, then this doesn't need to be answered.

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.

Can you back up this assertion of yours. Tangential... to what? You're being fussy and unclear here again.

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.

On the contrary, there is no problem. The two forces are indeed equal and opposite, as we'd expect even when the two masses are unequal. That is because the force is proportional to their product (m₁m₂).

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?

I show this in the first paragraph.

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...

A pseudo, qualitative compenetration of bodies!

I think this one will go up on the refrigerator.

[Leonhard]

That oughta hold you for a while. I'll get back to work (working at home today so I can set my own time).

[Roy]

The other problems aren't associated with the gravity acting on a particle within a sphere. Any other errors remain to be exposed. I invite you to do so as you see fit. I really would like you to try, as it would be a learning experience for me.

I doubt it. Since you haven't learned from the hundreds of previous cases that your 'problems' are due to your own errors and not earth-shattering revelations that have somehow been missed by millions of experts for centuries, one or two more demonstrations are unlikely to enlighten you.

Please start only with Problem 2, if you so wish to proceed.

I don't think you're smart enough to understand where you've gone wrong in #2.

You might be able to grasp where you've gone wrong in #5 though.

The Earth does accelerate towards a man standing on it. However, since acceleration from application of a force is inversely proportional to mass (a=F/m), and the mass of the Earth is far far greater than that of a man, the acceleration of a man towards the Earth will be many orders of magnitude greater than the acceleration of the Earth towards a man, to the extent that the latter is negligible.

But even if you do grasp this, until you realise that five minutes of browsing Wikipedia won't give you more insight into a scientific topic than thousands of far more intelligent people gain in decades of professional work, and hence your "problems" are inevitably going to be nothing more than reflections of your own ineptitude, trying to teach you anything is a waste of time.

[JohnMartin]

A pseudo, qualitative compenetration of bodies!

I think this one will go up on the refrigerator.

Thanks. I had a chuckle when I wrote it as well. Good to see you're having some fun.

JM

[shunyadragon]

[JohnMartin]

1) If F12 is caused by m2 acting on m1, how is F12 acting at m1 then proportional to both m1 and m2?

On the contrary, m1 produces a gravitational field of a strength that is proportional to the mass of m1, and this field produces a force acting on m2 that is proportional to the mass of m2 and directed at m1. Likewise if you switch around m1 and m2. This way the forces have the same magnitude, they are proportional to both (m1 and m2, namely their product m1m2), and the force acting on m1 will point towards m2, and vice versa.

You have only described what the gravity formula for F12 is using m1 and m2, only by assuming the gravity field is in proportion to both m1 and m2. This doesn't tell me anything other than repeating the formula. You have not substantially answered the question above. Why not? Simply because you have only assumed the gravity field m1 "produces a force acting on m2 that is proportional to the mass of m2 and directed at m1". The assumption does not explain anything.

Also the statement "this field produces a force acting on m2 that is proportional to the mass of m2 and directed at m1", means the field from m1, which is proportional to m1, produces a force on m2 that is proportional to m2. Yet there is nothing within the field from m1 to cause the force on m2 to be proportional to m2. Simply nothing at all. There is only a proportion of field strength caused by the mass m1, within the field of m1. To have a proportion also to m2 is an articial construct brought into the discussion to cover over the problem.

Accordingly you have not answered the above, nor the following question -

) 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?

JM

[Leonhard]

You have only described what the gravity formula for F12 is using m1 and m2, only by assuming the gravity field is in proportion to both m1 and m2.

That the strength of the gravitational field is proportional to the mass of the particle that causes it, is one of the assumptions of Newtonian mechanics. The strength of the gravitational field caused by two different particles, is not proportional to both. Such a field would be a sum of two individual fields, each of which independently would be proportional to the mass of the particle they emminate from.

This doesn't tell me anything other than repeating the formula. You have not substantially answered the question above. Why not? Simply because you have only assumed the gravity field m1 "produces a force acting on m2 that is proportional to the mass of m2 and directed at m1". The assumption does not explain anything.

What is it that you want explained? Why the field from m₁ produces a force that is proportional to m₂?

Also the statement "this field produces a force acting on m2 that is proportional to the mass of m2 and directed at m1", means the field from m1, which is proportional to m1, produces a force on m2 that is proportional to m2. Yet there is nothing within the field from m1 to cause the force on m2 to be proportional to m2. Simply nothing at all.

On the contrary, just as a magnet A is pulled twice as strongly towards another magnet B, if the fieldstrength of the magnet B is twice as great, or the A is twice as great, so the same with the mass attraction.

Explanation: The field produced by a mass m₁ is the same, no matter the magnitude of the mass m₂. However the force produced on m₂ is an extensive quality depending on its total mass. The force of attraction experienced between any two identical atoms of matter, at the same distance, are the same, but as a large body consists of many small bits of matter the total force experienced becomes dependent on the total amount of matter. Hence the effect becomes extrinsic and dependent on m₂, even though it can be considered intensive for undividable bits of matter.

To have a proportion also to m2 is an articial construct brought into the discussion to cover over the problem.

I'm afraid it follows from the basic assumptions of Newtons law.

Hence I've answered your objection, and the numerous ones that followed as they all base themselves on your assumption that there's a problem here.

[JohnMartin]

Also the statement "this field produces a force acting on m2 that is proportional to the mass of m2 and directed at m1", means the field from m1, which is proportional to m1, produces a force on m2 that is proportional to m2. Yet there is nothing within the field from m1 to cause the force on m2 to be proportional to m2. Simply nothing at all.

On the contrary, just as a magnet A is pulled twice as strongly towards another magnet B, if the fieldstrength of the magnet B is twice as great, or the A is twice as great, so the same with the mass attraction.

Explanation: The field produced by a mass m1 is the same, no matter the magnitude of the mass m2. However the force produced on m2 is an extensive quality depending on its total mass. The force of attraction experienced between any two identical atoms of matter, at the same distance, are the same, but as a large body consists of many small bits of matter the total force experienced becomes dependent on the total amount of matter. Hence the effect becomes extrinsic and dependent on m2, even though it can be considered intensive for undividable bits of matter.

What you seem to be saying is the gravity field interacts with the opposing mass, to cause a force of attraction within the opposing mass. Such means -

gravity force = ma = Gmm/r²

then g = GM/r², where g has units of N/kg = F/m = a = m/s²

where G is a universal constant with dimensions of N m²/kg²

G is a constant with dimensions derived from Dimensional Analysis and a value of 6.67 x10^-11N m²/kg²

Where, according to Wiki, G is determined from a torsion experiment where G = m³ kg^-1 s^-2. Evidently the dimensional units of G vary from that given in the standard form above of N m²/kg².

The Wiki page on the Cavendish experiment shows a variation of the Cavendish experiment with a picture as shown below.

torsion.jpg

A better image of the same picture is on the web page. The article presents a series of formulas which lead to finding a value of G. The experiment is set up to have two large balls M1 and M2 placed near two small balls m1 and m2, whereby M1 is attracted to m1, and M2 attracted to m2. The formulas derived from experiment assume Newtonian mass attraction, which causes the smaller masses to be attracted to the larger masses. The smaller masses move with a moment of inertia, which is restricted by the torsion force applied in the wire.

Eq 1) kθ = LF

Eq 2) kθ= L GM1m1/r²

Eq 3) G = 2pi² Lr²θ/MT²

The derivation of G as given in the example is problematic as the experiment

1) assumes only attraction of the small masses to the large masses and must ignore the attraction of m1<--M2, m1<--m2, m2<--M1, m2<--m1, and M1<--M2. In ignoring such attractions, the formulas used to derive G are false and the value determined is also false.

2) must have a highly accurate value for k, which seems to be unachievable (I remain to be persuaded either way of this).

3) ignores the mass of the rod between the two masses m1 and m2.

4) assumes the experiment is idealised, but must be performed in the real, surrounded by other masses, such as the earth, sun, moon, stars, buildings and so on, which must be removed from the results. The experiment as idealised seems to make any practical/real value of G almost meaningless.

As the value of G seems to be problematic, the value of GM/r² as an acceleration field also seems problematic and any claims based upon such a field attracting another mass are thereby also problematic. With such variation in the units for G, the standard explanation given above whereby GM/r² = a, is dependent upon G having the dimensional units of N m²/kg² and not m³ kg^-1 s^-2. As the dimensions of G are conditioned upon the equations being used, and G is determined in a problematic manner as discussed above, -

A) what confidence is there that GM/r² really does represent an acceleration? After all, M/r² contains a mass and a distance squared variable, as M/r², which seems nothing like Δv/Δt?

B) If the dimensions of G are only determined by the dimensional analysis method using the principle of equation homogeneity, which requires the dimensions of G to be N m²/kg², isn't G really only a quantity with an artificial dimension? Hence the constant is not a measure of anything real at all. Hence, M/r² is also artificial and not really relevant to Δv/Δt?

C) If the experimental measure of G is false then GM/r² is also false and the conclusion that GM/r²=Δv/Δt is also false. How then does Newtonian mechanics have any explanatory value when it seems the derivation of G is false?


Also other questions regarding the previous m₁ and m₂ experiment in the OP of this thread -

1) If the acceleration field is said to act from m₁ with a vector direction towards the center of mass m₁, why doesn't the field from m₁, g₁=Gm₁/r₁₂² subtract from the opposing field g₂=Gm₂/r_{2 only}² to yield

g_{1 net} = G(m₁/r₁₂²-m₂/r_2only²)

and then

F₁₂ = G(m₁/r₁₂²-m₂/r_2only²)m₂

and not

F₁₂ = Gm₁m₂/r₁₂²

2) In other words, if the acceleration field caused from m₁ acts within the body of m₂ to cause F₁₂ = Gm₁m₂/r², why doesn't the acceleration field caused from m₂ also act within the body of m₂ and thereby dominate the value of F₁₂? After all, 1/r² from m₁ to m₂ is a far smaller value than r_2only within m₂?

3) If it is said that the local acceleration field caused by m₂ alone acts on the body of m₂, and the local acceleration field caused caused by m₂ is irrelevant, how is the Newtonian theory consistent with itself, whereby it claims the local acceleration field caused by m₁ interacts with the body of m₂, but the local acceleration field caused by m₂ does not interact with the body of m₂?

JM

[JohnMartin]

roblem 4 The application of multiplying m1 with m2, along with the gravity constant indicates the force of gravity is simply not caused by mass attraction as we are told in Newtonian mechanics. As gravity is both far greater than an individual mass, (as indicated by multiplying the masses) and far less than any individual mass magnitude (as indicated by multiplying the masses by G), then the subsequent disproportion of individual mass values to gravity force calculated by -

i) multiplying the masses to find the value of F, and

ii) multiplying the masses with the very small constant G, to find the value of F

indicate gravity is a force that is simultaneously far greater than any individual mass (i) and far smaller than any individual mass (ii). The manner of using mass in the gravity formula, along with the gravity constant indicates gravity is not caused by mass attraction as assumed within Newtonian mechanics.

Question - How does a Newtonian defend the postulate that gravity is caused by mass attraction, when the force of gravity is an effect that is disproportionate to any particular mass as shown in (i) and (ii)?

You made a mistake here. You say gravitional attraction between two masses is disproportional to the masses? On the contrary, the gravitiational attraction between two masses is proportional to the size of both masses. If you double the size of m1, while keeping m2 the same, you double the attraction between them. Vice versa with m2.

I don't know why you have two different lines. You calculate the force acting between the two bodies of mass with

F=Gmm/r^2

Where G is some constant that is very small. Since you didn't explain why it is a problem that it is small, I have nothing to defend here.

G is a variable other than mass. Newtonian mechanics posits gravity is caused by mass attraction, but then requires the use of a variable, whereby the quantity of mass is modified by G. When G acts to change the variables m1 and m2, the modification indicates gravity is caused by mass, and another cause in G. Therefore Newtonian mechanics claims gravity is caused by mass attraction, but includes an unknowable constant within the force formula, thereby indicating gravity is caused by something other than mass.

It's like saying a flow rate is determined by the channel area and flow velocity, whereby

Eq 1) Q=VA

Q = the volumetric flow rate
A = the cross sectional area of flow
V = the mean velocity

and then placing a constant in the equation of say G, whereby

Eq 2) Q=GVA.

Eq 2 indicates Q is not only dependent upon V and A, but also another phenomena indicated by the value of G. Here, G will either modify V or A, or both simultaneously, to reduce the area, and/or flow rate within the channel. Similarly when

Eq 3) F=Gmm/r²,

F is then also dependent on a phenomena indicated by the value of G. Hence gravity cannot only be caused by mass attraction. If Newtonian gravity is truly dependent upon mass attraction at a distance, then

Eq 4) F=mm/r²

But such an equation would yield force values that are too large and Newtonian mechanics could not account for planetary motion, etc. To include G in the equation indicates gravity is caused by a phenomena other than body mass, perhaps by an interaction of space and the body, whereby the value of mass which causes the acceleration filed is reduced by the product of G. Therefore it seems that the use of G within equation 3 indicates Newtonian mechanics is pointing towards an aether based physics to better explain gravity.

Questions - If mass is a property of a body, and mass is measured according to kg, relative to a standard mass,

1) How does mass generate an acceleration field around the body?

2) How does mass generate an acceleration field around the body with a vector direction towards the center of mass and not away from the center of mass?

3) How can an acceleration field around the body be said to be physical/or real, when the field is itself without mass, or any property other than acceleration?

4) If there is no physical reality to an acceleration field, how can such a field be said to interact with a mass, to cause a force within the mass?

5) If there is no demonstration of the physics of an acceleration field being anything more than a maths model (which means the field cannot exist in the real), how can we be sure that Newtonian gravity is nothing more than a maths construction which is unrelated to bodies, distances and motions in space, as observed in the real?

6) How can physics demonstrate an acceleration field can exist in the real?

7) If there are no physics experiments or thought experiments or deductive reasoning available to demonstrate the real existence of an acceleration field, how can we trust with any certitude that Newtonian mechanics (NM) is in any way realist?

8) If an acceleration field can be proven not to be real, doesn't this mean NM must not be real?

For example, An argument for the unreality of an acceleration field.

That which is not real, is a non being.
An acceleration field is an area of influence around a mass that accelerates a mass when a mass is placed within the field.
Mass has being and is therefore real.
Acceleration is a change in velocity over time of a mass.
An acceleration field without mass (being) is a field that has change in velocity over time without a mass.
But change in velocity over time without a mass, is change in velocity over time without being.
But change in velocity over time without being is change without being.
And change without being is an act without being.
An act without being is non being.
Therefore acceleration field is a non being.
Therefore an acceleration field is not real.

So there you have it. Newtonian gravity is based upon a field that can only ever be mathematical and never real. Hence Newtonian mechanics is not a realist explanation for gravity and hence another model, which uses a mechanism other than mass attraction must account for gravity.

9) If a gravity field is said to be real, as caused by mass attraction, and physics doesn't know what mass is, how is physics able to determine that a gravity field does not interact with another field, such as a magnetic field . . . etc?

JM

[JohnMartin]

Problem 3 Furthermore, the problems within the gravity formula become more evident when we notice the use of the formula in the above example, whereby gravity is said to conform with Newtons third law, stated as "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". This law determines that where there is a two body system, F12 = -F21. Therefore

1) mass m1causes the gravity force F12 on mass m2, and

2) m1 causes a gravity force <-- -F21 --->on mass m1, with a vector direction opposite of <-- F12.

The manner of using m1 within the gravity formula, means m1 is both -

i) a cause of gravity acting by m2 attracting m1 towards m2.

ii) a cause of gravity acting by m1 attracting m2 towards m1.

The simultaneous use of m1 as a single principle, causing two opposing forces is fundamentally at odds with the nature of causation, which requires

1) a single principle produces only one effect

2) contrary principles produce contrary effects.

3) a single principle does not produce contrary effects. This is contrary to what Newtonian mechanics posits for the action of m1 in F12 and -F21.

Similar conclusions can be made about the use of m2 within the gravity formula.

Question - How does a Newtonian defend the notion of Newtonian Gravity in light of mass producing contrary gravitational effects, disconcordant with the laws of causation?



You have it the wrong way around. The mass m1, causes a gravitional field to exist, this field which it causes to exist by itself causes no change to m1 but causes an attraction of other masses such m2 towards m1 (mutatis mutandis).

And while its true that one non-rational agent can only have one principal effect, there is nothing wrong with that effect to involve multiple entities. For instance one fire can be the cause of multiple pots of soup being heated. However the fire having the power to do that is a question of its magnitude and size, but there's nothing in the efficient cause of a flame that prevents it from warming more than one pot of soup. However a flame can't suddenly decide to do things fire doesn't do, it can only be a flame and nothing else.

Conversely a human can choose between many different kinds of effects, which is what separates us from the non-rational.

I don't know what you mean with 'a contrary principle producing contrary effects'. I think you mean 'the same principle producing contrary effects in the same circumstance', in which case there would indeed be a contradiction, which can't happen. One cause can't produce the effect, and the opposite... this is basically stating the same point as above, only more specifically. As I think I've already answered the more general case, the answer can be applied to the more specific as well.

Thanks for your explanation and pointing out my error. I believe my thinking on Newtonian gravity has improved after the correction.

Problem 3 has been modified as follows - Gravity is said to conform with Newtons third law, stated as "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". This law determines that where there is a two body system, F12 = -F21. Therefore

1) mass m1 causes the gravity field (a) on m2 and m2 provides the mass to cause the force F12 as a product of m2.a.

2) mass m2 causes the gravity field (a) on m1 and m1 provides the mass to cause the force F21 as a product of m1.a.

The manner of using m1 within the gravity formula, means -

i) m1 is a mass that causes an acceleration field in 1)

ii) m1 is a mass that acts as a mass within an acceleration field in 2)

The simultaneous use of m1 as a single principle, causing two effects of field and force is fundamentally at odds with the nature of causation, which requires -

1) a single principle produces only one effect. Therefore mass can only produce the one effect of mass and not a field.

2) contrary principles produce contrary effects. As mass only causes mass, then the contrary effect of a field between the masses can only be caused by another principle, which is not mass.

3) a single principle does not produce contrary effects. This is contrary to what Newtonian mechanics posits for the action of m1 as both the cause of a field and a mass (hence a force = m.a).

Similar conclusions can be made about the use of m2 within the gravity formula. The contrary effects of mass within Newtonian gravity means the theory is problematic. If it is objected that a single principle can produce more than one effect, for example fire can produce heat and light, then I reply as follows. Yes, sometimes an object can cause more than one effect, but a cause is a cause of diverse effects, without the diverse effects contradicting the fundamental nature of the cause. Hence, fire which causes both heat and light, does not conclude to a contradiction within the nature of fire. But fire causing the effects of darkness and cold would contradict the nature of fire. Yet can the same be said of mass, which Newtonian gravity assumes causes both a quantity of mass and an acceleration field (g)?

According to Wiki mass is defined in two ways -

1) as an inertial property that tends to cause a body to stay at its existing velocity and not accelerate.

Mass is an inertial property; that is, it is related to the tendency of an object at rest to remain at rest, or if in motion to remain in motion at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force. According to "Newton's laws of motion" and the equation F = ma, (second law of motion) when acted upon by a force F of one newton, an object with mass m of one kilogram will accelerate a at the rate of one meter per second per second (1 m/s2)—about one-tenth the acceleration due to Earth's gravity[Note 5]

If we compare the first definition of mass with the Newtonian understanding of gravity (NG) as mass attraction, we note that mass as defined above, tends to cause a body not to accelerate. Yet NG says mass is a cause of an acceleration field, which causes a body to accelerate. The definition of mass then excludes mass as a cause of any field that would cause mass to accelerate. But NG requires that mass be the dominant cause of gravity, hence NG requires a breach in causation, whereby the nature of mass, defined as that which prevents acceleration, contradicts the Newtonian mass as that cause of an acceleration field, which causes acceleration.

2) As a property of an object independent of gravity.

While the weight of an object is dependent upon the strength of the local gravitational field, the mass of an object is independent of gravity, as mass is a measure of how much matter an object contains.[Note 6] Accordingly, for astronauts in microgravity, no effort is required to hold objects off the cabin floor; they are "weightless". However, since objects in microgravity still retain their mass and inertia, an astronaut must exert ten times as much force to accelerate a 10‑kilogram object at the same rate as a 1‑kilogram object.

If we compare the second definition of mass with the Newtonian understanding of gravity (NG) as mass attraction we note mass is defined as a property of an object independent of gravity. Yet NG says gravity (g) is an acceleration field caused by a distant mass. But the distant mass is defined as being without (g), and hence without an acceleration field. So (g) in NG is consequently an acceleration field caused by a mechanism that doesn't have an acceleration field. Hence NG requires a gravity mechanism that has an effect which contradicts the nature of mass. Or in other words, mass is defined as without g, but in NG, mass is said to cause g.

The above contradictions between the nature of mass and mass as a cause of gravity means Newtonian mechanics is without any logical means to describe gravity or the cause of gravity. The contradictions within Newtonian mechanics means the acceleration field is not caused by mass. Also as we have seen in a recent post, the acceleration field cannot be a real, physical thing acting on a mass to cause the mass to accelerate, hence any acceleration of a mass said to be caused by gravity, must be caused by a physical cause that is not mass, such as an aether flow.

How does Newtonian Mechanics resolve the problems exposed above?

Problem 3b

Eq 1) F12 = Gm1m2/r^2

Eq 2) F21 = Gm1m2/r^2

Newtonian mechanics says that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Within the acceleration fields caused by m1 and m2, each field is said to accelerate with vectors in opposite directions. But in equations 1 and 2, the vector opposition of the fields must be ignored, and thereby not considered under the principle of action and reaction. For example F12 = Gm1m2/r^2 assumes the field of Gm1/r^2 alone is relevant to m2. Likewise F21 = Gm1m2/r^2 assumes the field of Gm2/r^2 alone is relevant to m1. Both formulas ignore the opposing field of acceleration and thereby, do not apply the principle of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". In doing so, the fields are not consistently used in equations 1 and 2 as an action and opposing reaction.

Hence Newtonian Mechanics is inconsistent with its own principle of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", making the theory invalid.

JM

[JohnMartin]

For example, an argument for the unreality of an acceleration field.

That which is not real, is a non being.
An acceleration field is an area of influence around a mass that accelerates a mass when a mass is placed within the field.
Mass has being and is therefore real.
Acceleration is a change in velocity over time of a mass.
An acceleration field without mass (being) is a field that has change in velocity over time without a mass.
But change in velocity over time without a mass, is change in velocity over time without being.
But change in velocity over time without being is change without being.
And change without being is an act without being.
An act without being is non being.
Therefore acceleration field is a non being.
Therefore an acceleration field is not real.

JM

A clarification of the argument stated above. I have argued that an acceleration field cannot exist without a mass. Some may object and say that because all mass has been removed from the field then I have only proven an acceleration field is not real without mass. This is not so. I have shown that an acceleration field can only be in act when the field acts to change the velocity of a mass. When all mass is removed, then the field can no longer exist, and thereby be in act.

To claim that an acceleration field is in act without mass, means the field must be doing the act of accelerating without anything to accelerate. Such a claim is self evidently false. For an acceleration field to be real, without mass, the field then can only be either a non being, or what can be, and therefore in potency to be an acceleration field. Even still, if an acceleration field is in potency, then the field is not in act and therefore not a real being in act. As such, an acceleration field without any mass within the field is not real.

This is something Newtonian mechanics must account for, but cannot do so.

JM

I have not proven an

[oxmixmudd]

A clarification of the argument stated above. I have argued that an acceleration field cannot exist without a mass. Some may object and say that because all mass has been removed from the field then I have only proven an acceleration field is not real without mass. This is not so. I have shown that an acceleration field can only be in act when the field acts to change the velocity of a mass. When all mass is removed, then the field can no longer exist, and thereby be in act.

To claim that an acceleration field is in act without mass, means the field must be doing the act of accelerating without anything to accelerate. Such a claim is self evidently false. For an acceleration field to be real, without mass, the field then can only be either a non being, or what can be, and therefore in potency to be an acceleration field. Even still, if an acceleration field is in potency, then the field is not in act and therefore not a real being in act. As such, an acceleration field without any mass within the field is not real.

This is something Newtonian mechanics must account for, but cannot do so.

JM

I have not proven an

You know - if you would spend as much time trying to learn as you do trying to rebut what has been established for the last 400 years, you might figure out why this theory has survived scrutiny all those years (and why you are wrong), and why it still proves useful today, even though technically Einstein's theory has replaced it.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

I've requested that the thread be closed.

Its time for other activities.

Its been fun.

Mass attraction.

Maybe its a con after all.

The acceleration field cannot be real without a mass.

Masses cannot cause an acceleration field, nor the force of gravity according to the definition of mass.

And the centripetal force is a fiction.

I suspect mechanics has taken a bad turn several centuries ago. Maybe I will be vindicated one day.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

I've requested that the thread be closed.

Its time for other activities.

Its been fun.

Mass attraction.

Maybe its a con after all.

The acceleration field cannot be real without a mass.

Masses cannot cause an acceleration field, nor the force of gravity according to the definition of mass.

And the centripetal force is a fiction.

I suspect mechanics has taken a bad turn several centuries ago. Maybe I will be vindicated one day.

JM

Not likely.

[Roy]

In other words, if the acceleration field caused from m₁ acts within the body of m₂ to cause F₁₂ = Gm₁m₂/r², why doesn't the acceleration field caused from m₂ also act within the body of m₂ and thereby dominate the value of F₁₂?

Roche limit added to the cluelessness list.