[RascalPuff]

In 1959, Truly Yours encountered the following statement by Newton. This post requests that Readers please say what they think of it.

( Google: Preface Principia Mathematica: )

Last sentence of first paragraph, verbatim, translated to English from the Latin (Italicized & underlined in bold):

"Since the ancients (as we are told by Pappas), made great account of the science of mechanics in the investigation of natural things; and the moderns, lying aside substantial forms and occult qualities, have endeavoured to subject the phænomena of nature to the laws of mathematics, I have in this treatise cultivated mathematics so far as it regards philosophy. The ancients considered mechanics in a twofold respect; as rational, which proceeds accurately by demonstration; and practical. To practical mechanics all the manual arts belong, from which mechanics took its name. But as artificers do not work with perfect accuracy, it comes to pass that mechanics is so distinguished from geometry, that what is perfectly accurate is called geometrical; what is less so, is called mechanical. But the errors are not in the art, but in the artificers. He that works with less accuracy is an imperfect mechanic; and if any could work with perfect accuracy, he would be the most perfect mechanic of all; for the description of right lines and circles, upon which geometry is founded, belongs to mechanics. Geometry does not teach us to draw these lines, but requires them to be drawn; for it requires that the learner should first be taught to describe these accurately, before he enters upon geometry; then it shows how by these operations problems may be solved. To describe right lines and circles are problems, but not geometrical problems. The solution of these problems is required from mechanics; and by geometry the use of them, when so solved, is shown; and it is the glory of geometry that from those few principles, brought from without, it is able to produce so many things. Therefore geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring. But since the manual arts are chiefly conversant in the moving of bodies, it comes to pass that geometry is commonly referred to their magnitudes, and mechanics to their motion. In this sense rational mechanics will be the science of motions resulting from any forces whatsoever, and of the forces required to produce any motions, accurately proposed and demonstrated. This part of mechanics was cultivated by the ancients in the five powers which relate to manual arts, who considered gravity (it not being a manual power, no otherwise than as it moved weights by those powers. Our design not respecting arts, but philosophy, and our subject not manual but natural powers, we consider chiefly those things which relate to gravity, levity, elastic force, the resistance of fluids, and the like forces, whether attractive or impulsive; and therefore we offer this work as the mathematical principles of philosophy; for all the difficulty of philosophy seems to consist in this – from the phænomena of motions to investigate the forces of nature, and then from these forces to demonstrate the other phænomena; and to this end the general propositions in the first and second book are directed. In the third book we give an example of this in the explication of the System of the World; for by the propositions mathematically demonstrated in the former books, we in the third derive from the celestial phænomena the forces of gravity with which bodies tend to the sun and the several planets. Then from these forces, by other propositions which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phænomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy." - Sir Isaac Newton 1687

_____________________________________

"...particles of bodies... either mutually impelled towards each other... or are repelled and recede from each other..."

Upon having this statement brought to their attention, some people have denied that it exists in the Preface to the Principia. Upon having it proved to them, the same deniers have called it obscure and inconsequential.

Others have said that I have assigned a meaning to it that Newton did not intend...

Some consternated witnesses have described it as being among the most profound revelations they've experienced...

This thread is intended to evoke Reader's responses - regarding, how any published statement by Sir Isaac Newton can be reasonably described as 'obscure'... Particularly when that statement occurs in the 3 page Preface to the Principia Mathematica.

Moreover, what meaning does the Reader assign to (what I call) Newton's 'gravitational alternative' (that gravity may be an impelling or a repelling force, in those words...)?

Is Newton allowing for an opposite vector for the conventionally considered impelling force of attraction, or, is such an interpretation the assignment of a meaning that Newton did not intend; and, if Newton did not intend that gravity may be a repelling force, what did he intend in writing that alternative - in those words - in his Preface to the Principia?

Please tell me what you think of this ('gravitational alternative').

Thank you.
- RP

[Spiral Path]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff In 1959, Truly Yours encountered the following statement by Newton. This post requests that Readers please say what they think of it. ; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy." - Sir Isaac Newton 1687[/i][/size] _____________________________________ [/left] "...particles of bodies... either mutually impelled towards each other... or are repelled and recede from each other..." Upon having this statement brought to their attention, some people have denied that it exists in the Preface to the Principia. Upon having it proved to them, the same deniers have called it obscure and inconsequential. Others have said that I have assigned a meaning to it that Newton did not intend... Some consternated witnesses have described it as being among the most profound revelations they've experienced... This thread is intended to evoke Reader's responses - regarding, how any published statement by Sir Isaac Newton can be reasonably described as 'obscure'... Particularly when that statement occurs in the 3 page Preface to the Principia Mathematica. Moreover, what meaning does the Reader assign to (what I call) Newton's 'gravitational alternative' (that gravity may be an impelling or a repelling force, in those words...)? Is Newton allowing for an opposite vector for the conventionally considered impelling force of attraction, or, is such an interpretation the assignment of a meaning that Newton did not intend; and, if Newton did not intend that gravity may be a repelling force, what did he intend in writing that alternative - in those words - in his Preface to the Principia? Please tell me what you think of this ('gravitational alternative'). Thank you. - RP

Hello, RascalPuff -

In my opinion Newton's idea of what you call the "gravitational alternative", i.e. that gravitation is both an impelling and repelling force, is exactly right. I have tried to explain this phenomenon both in my blog as well as in my article on how earthquakes are triggered, but to really understand it, I suggested a few paradigm shifts - and that is probably just as difficult as becoming a true scientist after having been raised to only believe what the Bible says and not what your eyes see...

Anyway, in our High School physics classes we are taught that mass is a scalar - i.e. it just sits there quietly and does nothing unless acted upon by some force. Newton's "law of inertia" even specifically mentions "a body at rest". And this view is justified if we only consider what happens in our immediate surroundings on the surface of the Earth - to which, of course, people in Newton's time were always confined. But nowadays, in the age of space travel, we are slowly discovering that gravitation is something more and something slightly different than the simple force of attraction we always thought it was.

In short, thanks to our progress in astrophysics, we are now capable of visualizing much better the workings of the universe, in which, of course, one can never find a mass, either a star or a single speck of dust, which is "at rest". This is why I first introduced the most important necessary change in our way of thinking, namely the paradigm shift from the lazy couch potato of a "scalar mass" to the busily rushing around of the "vector mass". A vector mass is, of course, nothing else but an active scalar mass - i.e. a momentum with direction - but is a shorter and more precise designation. Don't you agree?

And just like a socially active person, the active vector mass likes to interact with other active vector masses and - lo and behold - it does so in the same way as we humans do in dancing waltzes, namely twirling around while holding on to each other. This is essentially gravitation in orbits. The attractive and repelling forces between two vector masses depend on their mass and velocity ratios as well as the distance from each other. Gravity itself is caused by an imbalance in the said ratios.

Well, I guess I could go on and on with my explanation, but perhaps you can get the gist of my ideas out of my blog and article. I would be interested to know what you think of this my interpretation of Newton's "alternative gravitation".

Congratulations on reading Newton's words so carefully and warm regards,
Spiral Path

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff ....... we in the third derive from the celestial phænomena the forces of gravity with which bodies tend to the sun and the several planets. Then from these forces, by other propositions which are also mathematical, we deduce the motions of the planets, the comets, the moon, and the sea. I wish we could derive the rest of the phænomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles here laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy." - Sir Isaac Newton 1687

Dear Rascal ..... I have read your other posts regarding Gravity

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Exerpt (as posted at another location on this forum) follows: When Einstein's 'curvature of space-time' is a Geodesic Straight Line (illustrated) - Today, 12:37 AM... I wish to cite another accordance of the General Theory; which states that a thrown baseball or a fired bullet does not actually describe a curved or parabolic path to the earth, when projected horizontally above its surface. Instead, they actually move in straight lines which only appear to be curves and parabolas. The reason for this says Einstein, is that, 'What is 4-Dimensionally straight gives the illusion of being curved or parabolic when projected on the 3 recognized Dimensions Of Space'. These quasi 3-D parabolas and curves which are not really parabolas and curves, but instead are 4-D straight lines, are called 'geodesics'.

In your above post .... Einstein's 'curvature of space-time' is a Geodesic Straight Line ... Your drawing is not very clear ... It only seems to refer to the expansion of space as the geodesic .. while time remains linear. But, because I do not know enough I have hesitated to question it before. Also it seems, my emphasis is on 'seems', that you have not allowed for mass increase. Surely this could be used to determine the difference at any point ?

As to the question on the Principia .... my opinion is that Newton refers to the 'forces of gravity' which he describes as acting on 'the particles of bodies'.

He then postulates 'other forces' also acting on 'the particles of bodies'. For example he may be referring to the 'positive & negative' relationship inherent in the Electromagnetic force which 'cohere in regular figures'.

His reasoning underlying the words, I feel, is as follows

'Here we have Gravity, this is a concept which is understandable now that our minds encompass it. It does not explain everything, other forces, unknown, must also exist and must be explainable by similar premises, some of these must act in equal or opposite ways, there is no other way for a force to act. As Galileo has shown by his explanation of mass in freefall all these forces must be atomic in nature'

Please forgive my arrogance in presuming to read Newtons mind. However, tho I may not be correct, my explanation, (as from the Latin ) could be just as correct as yours ??

cool bananas ... greg

[RascalPuff]

Dear Graybeard:
No sighted or sensed arrogance is evident to me in your post, which has stimulated the interest of several thoughtful people I am privileged to know. I'm still thinking about it. As you are apparently aware, the approach we are moving on is notably less traveled. Hope to hear more from you.
Best regards
- RP

[RascalPuff]

(response to spiral path)

http://www.toequest.com/forum/forces...html#post31410

[MJA]

Thanks for the stimulating thread RP.

Nature can be mathematically defined by the reduction of any equation to it's most simple, beautiful, unified, foundation. Nature mathematically is =. If only Newton had seen the truth, we would be free.

MJA

[neutralino]

Moderator Note: I've moved two posts in here that were a reply to this thread, but posted in the now closed "ask a question" forum. Hopefully this thread still reads correctly.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff "...particles of bodies... either mutually impelled towards each other... or are repelled and recede from each other..." Please tell me what you think of this ('gravitational alternative'). Thank you. - RP

The passage in question is profound - it expresses insights which could not be fully formulated at that time - it's poignant to me.

I'm not too sure Newton was proposing an actual 'gravitational alternative' but to me it prophetically anticipates such things as the discoveries of electricity, electromagnetism and atomic structure.

[Tina]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff [size=3] Please tell me what you think of this ('gravitational alternative'). Thank you. - RP

One of our members, Spiral Path, has PM me explaining that she cannot post on Forums from her computer she can read forums though and only send PM's. She has asked me to copy her message onto this forum:

Hello, Tina = Unfortunately my computer doesn't seem to allow me to reply to any forum threads, but apparently I am still able to send private messages. So this is my reply to your post in the above mentioned thread: In my opinion, Newton knew exactly what he was taking about when he said that gravitation could be an impelling as well as a repelling force, but I guess he didn't elaborate because he didn't know what kind of forces were involved - as he himself admitted. - Well, after 30 years of studying the problem, I think I have found the solution to it - it's the angular velocity around the other body, coupled with the mass ratio and the distance between the two centers of mass. This law is valid for all particles and accumulatios of particles within the Milky Way galaxy and presumably also beyond. I can't go any further than this in a private message as my explanation would be much too long for it. But if you look at my blog (Spiral Path's blog "Check my logic and my math") as well as my member article on the triggering of earthquakes you may find some clues about my reasoning. I wonder, Tina, would you possibly be kind enough to copy this my message to you into the above thread so that other people who might be interested in this subject can read it too? Thank you! Spiral Path

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Tina One of our members, Spiral Path, has PM me explaining that he cannot post on Forums from his computer he can read forums though and only send PM's. He has asked me to copy his message onto this forum:

That's a bit weird. I'll contact SP and see if I can do anything about this problem.