Re: Absolute or relative space? Newton's Laws

On Feb 21, 7:23 pm, srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 21 fév, 01:24, proton <leosara...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am reading "The discovery of Dynamics", by Julian Barbour, and I
found the following passage:

"[Newton] assumed that the forces which act between bodies depend
either solely on the relative configuration of the bodies, or else on
the relative configuration and the relative velocities of the bodies
but in no case on their position or overall velocity in absolute
space. [...]

This quote seems to make no sense whatsoever. The only thing
that Newton ever related to velocity is momentum. Never did he
assert anywhere that "force" could depend in any way on
velocity either directly or indirectly.

This looks like some misunderstanding of a translation or
simply a bad translation of Newton's text.

André Michaud

Monsieur Michaud, seriez vous assez aimable pour bien vouloir traduire
en français
- vos réponses
- les textes initiaux auxquels vous répondez - quand ils évoquent
Newton
- tous les textes se prononçant en faveur de Newton, des lieux
absolus, des vitesses absolues

Merci
YT

Avant de déblayer le terrain de l'imposture du fasciste Heisenberg -
comme j'ai cru comprendre que vous le souhaitiez autant que moi -
Nous devons commencer par balayer l'imposture relativiste au profit de
Newton (en y ajoutant le délai du signal gravitation)


This is NOT a consequence of his laws of motion. For
example, the strength of the force that acts between two bodies could
depend on the velocity of the centre of mass of the two bodies through
absolute space without violating any of the three laws of motion."

I was very much surprised by this assertion: from Newton's second law
F = ma, it is clear that a force can only arise if there is a mass.
Forces can only be interactions between bodies, not between a body and
(absolute) space. Therefore, if my understanding is correct, the fact
that forces do not depend neither on the absolute position, nor the
absolute velocity IS a consequence of Newton's laws.

Is my interpretation correct? I would appreciate any comments on this.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Absolute or relative space? Newtons Laws
    ... either solely on the relative configuration of the bodies, ... depend on the velocity of the centre of mass of the two bodies through ... absolute space without violating any of the three laws of motion." ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Absolute or relative space? Newtons Laws
    ... either solely on the relative configuration of the bodies, ... This is NOT a consequence of his laws of motion. ... absolute space without violating any of the three laws of motion." ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Absolute or relative space? Newtons Laws
    ... either solely on the relative configuration of the bodies, ... This is NOT a consequence of his laws of motion. ... depend on the velocity of the centre of mass of the two bodies through ... absolute space without violating any of the three laws of motion." ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Absolute or relative space? Newtons Laws
    ... either solely on the relative configuration of the bodies, ... absolute space without violating any of the three laws of motion." ... and the delay of emission is not the delay of reception ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Absolute or relative space? Newtons Laws
    ... either solely on the relative configuration of the bodies, ... that Newton ever related to velocity is momentum. ... absolute space without violating any of the three laws of motion." ...
    (sci.physics)