Re: Newton's words considering gravity- with which I totally agree
- From: "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:20:02 GMT
"malibu" <vegan16@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1183041604.793657.10400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:
:
: 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
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
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: What am I missing?
- Next by Date: Re: What is the electric field near a rotating wire?
- Previous by thread: Re: Newton's words considering gravity- with which I totally agree
- Next by thread: Re: Newton's words considering gravity- with which I totally agree
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
