Quote:
|
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
In my opinion, referring to Newton’s “laws” of gravity as “laws” is misleading, despite the universal use of such a term. The relationship of F = g m1 m2 / D^2 is based upon observation rather than a theory or model. This is in contrast with E = mcc which was established from a theoretical model and then experimentally verified. E = mcc, is therefore, in my opinion, a law, F =gmm/dd is not.
|
In fact, Newton was troubled by the fact that he couldn't find the underlying motion of which the gravitational force is a property, and refused to propose a hypothesis without it. Today, however, modern investigators seem to have no such qualms. In fact, we have pretty much forgotten that force is a property of motion, and have permitted ourselves to accept autonomous forces that can exist by themselves without an underlying motion. The similarity of Newton's second law of motion to the gravitational law is intriguing, but it does not attract much attention in the mainstream community these days. Yet, Larson's opinion was that forces cannot exist as independent entities. In chapter 13 of the second volume of his work,
The Basic Properties of Matter, he writes:
Quote:
|
For application in physics, force is defined by Newton's second law of motion. It is the product of mass and acceleration, F = ma. Motion, the relation of space to time, is measured on an individual mass unit basis as speed, or velocity, v, (that is, each unit moves at this rate), or on a collective basis as momentum, the product of mass and velocity, mv, formerly called by the more descriptive name "quantity of motion." The time rate of change of the magnitude of the motion is dv/dt (acceleration, a) in the case of the individual unit, and m dv/dt (force, ma) when measured collectively. Thus force is, in effect, defined as the time rate of change of the magnitude of the total quantity of motion, the "quantity of acceleration" we might call it. From this definition it follows that a force is a property of a motion. It has the same standing as any other property, and is not something that can exist as an autonomous entity.
|
However, Newton's first and second laws are more often regarded as hypotheses that explain why massive objects move (or don't move), and thus are called laws because they are confirmed by all observations. Whereas, as you point out, the universal law of gravitation is observed, but it does not explain why objects are attracted to each other gravitationally. The gravitational force just exists, it cannot be applied, or manipulated, by an outside agency, as can other foces studied by Newton. Nevertheless, Newton realized that where there is a force, there must be an underlying motion, even if it hasn't been found. Larson's point is that we need to keep this in mind. Motion is prior to force.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by antoniseb
We had someone on the Universe Today forum start to tell us about Dewey Lasron's ideas, but we didn't get very far.
Can you start us off with something simple and show how Larson would describe something that to me would look like a billiard ball traveling at 3 meters per second striking head-on another billiard ball that had been at rest?
|
I think the reason it's been hard to introduce Larson's ideas is that those who have attempted it have tried to present it as a new theory, when, as I have tried to establish in the initial post, it's much more than that. Hopefully, I will be able to get further with this new approach.
I'm glad you asked the question above concerning the billiard ball, because it gives me the chance to clarify an important point: Larson's new definition of motion introduces a new type of motion he called scalar motion, which is the only entity that exists in the theoretical universe that he develops in his works. This means that the theorectical universe based on the Reciprocal System, is a universe of motion; that is, it is a universe of nothing but motion, as defined in the system. In other words, matter is emergent in the universe of motion.
However, once matter exists in the universe, a spatial coordinate system may be used to identify locations that these physical entities occupy, or may occupy, and the change of locations, as a function of time, x(t), then defines the motion of these entities as has been developed under Newton's program of research. These motions, referred to as "vectorial motions," are distinquished from scalar motion in the system, as we shall see.
Therefore, Larson's new system, does not replace Newton's system, but actually subsumes it. Hence, the principles of classical mechanics, and even special relativity still apply in the new system, albeit time and the speed of light are treated in a manner that is different than the way Einstein treats them. Therefore, the answer to your question as to how Larson would describe the moving billiard ball is that he would describe it just as mainstream physicists describe it.
Having said that, however, there are some important caveats as to the currently accepted limits of the relative velocity of matter, which I will eventually explain.