Re: Is F=ma a definition or not?

From: Mike (eleatis_at_yahoo.gr)
Date: 01/14/05 

Date: 14 Jan 2005 10:24:52 -0800

Franz Heymann wrote:

[snip]
>
> It sounds as if it is irrelevant to what has been discussed so far.
>

Maybe not.

>
> Newton's laws actually do not apply in the case of any planetary
> orbits. It is only in the case of the elliptical orbits that the
> deviation from Newtonian orbits can be observed.

How so? F = GMm(g)/r^2 = dp/dt = m(i)d^2r/dt^2

m(g) = gravitational mass, m(i) = inertial mass. Most of Eotvos based
EP tests are based on this equation. Tjis equation hold to 1 part in 13
trillion in the case of elliptical orbits near the surface of earth,
which is exactly what a free-falling particle path is.

> No, I can not. However, I do know that in the weak limit, GR and
> Newton make the same predictions.

This contradicts what you said before. The motion of the Moon around
the Earth is virtually weak limit.

> You're just bragging now.

Physics is bragging out?

> > Remember: force is the only foundation of physics around,
>
> No.

Yes, it is. Force is the only foundation of physics known today, ask
any physsicist how knows what he's talking about. Have you heard of the
great effort to unite the four fundamental forces?

> >No force, no motion, period.
>
> Bollocks. What happened to Newton's first law?

Partly correct you are. I should have said "change in motion". Listen,
deviations from geodesic motion in GR is absolute motion. GRists hide
their face in the sand. Space-time in GR is no less absolute than
Newton's absolute space. No progress has been made with GR towards a
relational dynamics. It's all the same religion as Newtonian
absolutism. Newton's last book was about the Bible, not physics. He
insisted that all motion is due to God and that his laws did not
explain anything. He was honest I say. False assurances small minded
brainwashed phycisists of all kinds offer these days to assymetrically
informed students who can only become victims of OTC stock brokers or a
cheating wife from an ex eastern block country, in the best case, but
never understand the foundational problems of physics.
Mike

>
> [snip]
>
> Franz

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hobbas misconceptions
    ... >> Newton's invention of an absolute space in which accelerations live. ... >> any inertial state of motion) which so bothered Mach and then Einstein. ... >> Newton's absolute acceleration space. ... > upon which science and in particular physics is built. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Conflicting truths in time dilation aka time dilation debunking 101..
    ... We have laws of physics, ... Those laws of physics are not consistent with an absolute, ... > the basics of non variant units in measurement.. ... > Absolute motion is still fine to work with today. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Conflicting truths in time dilation aka time dilation debunking 101..
    ... the basics of non variant units in measurement.. ... Like a lot of other revelations in physics, ... | an absolute state, distinguishable from rest as an absolute state -- ... Absolute motion is still fine to work with today. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Can current theory explain the twin paradox?
    ... Since absolute motion and absolute rest have no meaning, ... You are mistaken in thinking that the definition of relative velocity ... None of the laws of physics, which work admirably well, require ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Conflicting truths in time dilation aka time dilation debunking 101..
    ... We have laws of physics, ... > Those laws work fine with an absolute obeserver independant of time. ... > It is a human created measurement system that is supposed to ...
    (sci.physics)