Newton's words considering gravity- with which I totally agree
|
|
Thread rating:  |
malibu - 28 Jun 2007 15:40 GMT In a letter to Richard Bentley: You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for ye cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, & therefore would take more time to consider of it... Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without ye mediation of something else wch is not material) operate upon & affect other matter wthout mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so yt one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum wthout the mediation of any thing else by & through wch their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to ye consideration of my readers.
John
malibu - 28 Jun 2007 15:48 GMT > In a letter to Richard Bentley: > You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John Of course the key words are: belief in suck gravity is "so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
We have a dearth of people who have 'in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking'.
Sam comes to mind. Goose. Duck. Horny_Man
Chuckle.
John
Randy Poe - 28 Jun 2007 16:13 GMT > In a letter to Richard Bentley: > You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to ye > consideration of my readers. So you would be an advocate for graviton-based theory then, in which an agent (as a boson, it would probably qualify as what Newton considered "immaterial") is responsible, "acting constantly according to certain laws".
- Randy
Androcles - 29 Jun 2007 04:20 GMT : In a letter to Richard Bentley: : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] : : John Had Newton studied electromagnetics he might have had different views, although he cannot be blamed for requesting that gravity not be laid at his door, he has openly stated he frames no hypotheses and honestly stated he doesn't know what gravity is. Nor do any of us.
Whether Newton liked it or not, action-at-a-distance is an empirical fact and we cannot measure the amount of matter (whatever that may be) without it. It seems to me that action-at-a-distance is no less mysterious than matter itself, for who can say what the flubber is that an electron or proton is made of? No known element, that's for sure, because the elements are made of (supposedly) protons, neutrons and electrons and it is action-at-a-distance (electrostatic) that is an essential ingredient of the Bohr atom. Action-at-a-distance has three macroscopic forms, electrostatic, magnetic and gravitational, and we also have the weak and strong nuclear forces, but those are theoretical and based on our models, not on direct observation. I would propose that we accept action-at-a-distance as fact, however absurd it may seem to Newton, and inquire into how that produces inanimate brute matter. The way to do so is of course a paradigm shift, and such shifts are extremely difficult to bring about, giving the inertia of human thought. We "educate" each other, but do not encourage individuals to think for themselves. The reason for that, of course, is that so many free-thinkers go off on wild ideas and we don't have all day just to shoot holes in them so we ignore them.
I suggest start with the photon. That "focuses" the electric and magnetic components to a point and is then conceived of as a particle, but we must reject such side issues as "Einstein said" or "Maxwell said" or even "Newton said" as irrelevant to our studies and fall back on empirical data only. Only then can our understanding of fundamental physics move forward. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
malibu - 29 Jun 2007 18:37 GMT > : In a letter to Richard Bentley: > : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > difficult to bring about, giving the inertia of human thought. We "educate" > each other, but do not encourage individuals to think for themselves.snip What Newton was saying is that matter can't be acting on its own. Like a kite doesn't fly without wind. Like a waterwheel doesn't turn without flow.
Matter doesn't produce gravity actively. It produces it passively.
Put a huge rock in a river flowing at speed and a whirlpool forms behind it.
Put the same rock in a river flowing twice as fast, aand a larger whirlpool forms behind it. Same rock, different whirlpools.
Similarly, the gravity produced by matter is not dependent on the matter, but on the flow.
John
Androcles - 29 Jun 2007 19:41 GMT : > : In a letter to Richard Bentley: : > : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] : acting on its own. Like a kite doesn't fly without wind. : Like a waterwheel doesn't turn without flow. Of course a waterwheel turns without flow. Have you not heard of angular momentum? A waterwheel turns unless something stops it.
: Matter doesn't produce gravity actively. : It produces it passively. Gravity produces matter actively. Without gravity there would be no matter.
: Put a huge rock in a river flowing at speed : and a whirlpool forms behind it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : by matter is not dependent on the matter, : but on the flow. In that case you should easily detect turbulence in the wake of the planets, notably as their moons fly off or fall into the planet. Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute rocks in rivers should (without ye mediation of whirlpool wch is not material ) operate upon & affect other matter wthout mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. What are you proposing, turbulence in aether?
malibu - 30 Jun 2007 07:14 GMT > : > : In a letter to Richard Bentley: > : > : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. > What are you proposing, turbulence in aether? An incoming energy flow from many sides at once of the same magnitude- read a density of space making itself known by having energy flow in all directions. One just then has only to identify the mediator of that flow and what fuels the flow.
Presumably this flow is attenuated by matter.
Candidate: (suggestion- previously undetected emanations from each and every electron as it accelerates around its nucleus- these rays travel at 30c and are ultra-ultra-ultra-ultra- high-frequency)
John
Androcles - 30 Jun 2007 08:06 GMT : > : > : In a letter to Richard Bentley: : > : > : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] : : John Oh, ok... Like all crackpot charlatans you are babbling words you do not understand, and now you want others to believe in "previously undetected emanations", "incoming energy flow", "fuels the flow" and "density of space". Why not use words like "ectoplasm", "celestial plane" and read the future from your crystal ball to us so that we all understand we have to cross your palm with silver to have our horoscopes read?
Gravity is a force, boy. It has units of newtons, but it isn't energy. Energy is the ability to do work. Forces cannot do work. Ergo gravity is not energy, an incoming flow of energy, a previously undetected emanation or an ultra ^4-high-frequency. Let me know when you want to discuss physics, I'm not interested in palmistry.
malibu - 30 Jun 2007 12:51 GMT > : > : > : In a letter to Richard Bentley: > : > : > : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > Let me know when you want to discuss physics, I'm not interested > in palmistry. Hmm. So a dam cannot do work?
John
Androcles - 30 Jun 2007 15:30 GMT : > : > : > : In a letter to Richard Bentley: : > : > : > : You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] : : Hmm. So a dam cannot do work? Sunlight evaporates water, water falls as rain, rain fills streams and rivers, rivers fill lakes behind dams, kinetic energy of falling water drives turbines which drive generators which do useful work. The work eventually comes heat which radiates back into space.
The dam did no work, the energy came from the sun. Dams cannot do work because dams do not pump water uphill.
Force is not energy. You can compress a spring, and the spring will then exert a force which allows work to be done, but only until the spring is once again relaxed. Then you must apply more energy to compress it again. Whilst the spring is compressed and not allowed to relax, it exerts a force but does no work. Force is not energy.
All energy we use on Earth (saving minute amounts of starlight and more recently tidal energy) comes or came directly from the sun.
Energy can be stored and it can be converted from one form to another, that's what technology is all about. Sunlight -> photo-chemical reaction with CO2 releasing oxygen -> tree growth building carbon molecules -> wood -> coal/vegetable oil-> petroleum/plastics-> cars/car fuel -> chemical reaction with oxygen (burning) -> heat -> radiate to space.
Efficiency is a measure of how much energy is converted. Power stations run at about 34% efficient, the remaining 66% of heat from the coal/oil is converted to steam and radiated into space, leaving 34% electricity. Cars and trucks run at around 18% efficiency, electrical transformers and motors at around 99% efficient, transferring electrical energy to motive power with very little heat loss.
Gravity is a force and doesn't relax. You lift a brick onto a shelf, you've given it sufficient energy to fall and break your toe. Stand above the shelf and the brick no longer has energy to break your toe but you've given yourself sufficient energy to fall and crack your skull. Thus energy is relative. Gravity does no work, the work was done when you lifted the brick. We say the raised brick has "potential" energy, PE, and we say the falling brick has "kinetic" (motion) energy, KE. It was first lifted against gravity in order for it to have energy. No work is done by the falling brick until it suddenly decelerates upon collision with your toe, when the energy is converted in breaking the electrical bonds between the molecules of your toe bones and tearing the flesh apart as you get a laceration at the same time. ****** FORCE IS NOT ENERGY. ********
Power. One horsepower was a useful measure to compare how well a steam engine could perform against a horse. It is 550 ft lbs per second, meaning that a horse can lift 550 lbs to a height of 1 foot or 1 lb to a height of 550 feet in one second and keep it up all day long. A man can generate one horsepower but he cannot maintain it all day, he will collapse with the exertion. You can prove this by running upstairs and timing yourself with a stopwatch. It is your own weight you are lifting. A horse can easily generate 10 horsepower, it can run faster than a man but will not maintain it all day. Thus a man is not as powerful as a horse which is not as powerful as a steam engine. As a rough guide, a domestic vacuum cleaner or washing machine has about a horsepower (746 watts). The watt was named after James Watt who did much theoretical work on steam engines. This is basic schoolboy physics which you should have been taught in your early teenage years. We are now a heck of a long way from trying to discover the nature of action-at-a-distance which I cannot debate with you because you haven't understood the basics and do not know the language of physics. No! A dam cannot do work.
rick_sobie@hotmail.com - 30 Jun 2007 19:04 GMT > In a letter to Richard Bentley: > You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John Thanks John, now if the moderator in talk.origins would just let me post again, I could offer this up as proof of my assertions.
Apparently people are still laboring under this false pretense, that Newtonian gravity is an attractive magnetic like force, and base their entire cosmology on this false assumption, even when it was falsified when it failed to predict the perihelion of the precession of Mercury.
If Newtonian gravity was correct, then it would have been able to predict that.
And since appearances can be deceiving, we must be vigilant to not be fooled by appearances, but insist that all the pieces fit, before we make claim that a thing is in fact true.
Just as in accounting, that one penny may speak of a missing million dollars in the balance sheet, this, is just the tip, of the iceberg.
|
|
|