Re: Newton's words considering gravity- with which I totally agree
- From: "Androcles" <Engineer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:41:06 GMT
"malibu" <vegan16@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1183138662.062407.48000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Jun 28, 9:20 pm, "Androcles" <Engin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > "malibu" <vega...@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.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.
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.
:
: 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.
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?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: A Formula for the Gravitational Constant G found
- Next by Date: Re: allowed transitions
- 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
|
