Newton's 'gravitational alternative': what meaning may be assigned to it?

[JAK]

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.

Spiral Path

I just finished reading a recent biography about Isaac Newton, and several times it noted that he was extremely reluctant to promote an idea until he had experimental proof to support it. If Newton just highlights an idea with no in-depth support, he likely was unable to provide experimental results. This is not to say that the idea could not work, but only that he had no proof at the time.

Further, not all of Newton's idea were "golden". According to the biography, Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer, he spent much of his life investigating alchemy and searching for the Philosopher's Stone which could turn lead into gold.

Spiral Path, if you have evidence to support your idea regarding a bidirectional gravitation, it would be most interesting for all of us. Please work to resolve your access issue and then start a thread with your material.

Thanks! -JAK

[Mikal]

Hi Jak...thought I should tell you that its been some time since Spiral Path has been logged in here. I spoke with her about seven months ago and she was not doing good and gave me every indication that she had reached the point where she could no longer stay alone and survive on her own. She basically said goodbye to me and has not been back so I have a feeling she had to go into a home for the aged....she told me leaving Toe was breaking her heart....it was kind of a sad goodbye...


Regards Mikal

[MJA]

Dear RP,

Be it impelled or repelled, evolved or revolved, as we have previously agreed, they are simply One or the same.
It was only the flaws of man and measure that divide gravity as well as the universe into uncertain parts.
Newton would have liked that thought,
a truer philosophy that Is!

=
MJA

[paradigm]

Excellent work in digging out the original words of Newton.

Gravity involves repulsion through bodies having an equivalence of emission. Attraction only occurs when bodies have an inequivalence of emission.

If two planets had a precise equivalence of emission, they would repel each other.

The simply fact is that electrostatic attraction and repulsion is also gravitational attraction and repulsion.

A gravitational field is an emission field and everything has
an emission field.

The Earth is attracted to the Sun through absorbing the emission of the Sun via the Earth's emission field.

To measure the wavelengths of emission of the Sun is to measure the gravity waves of the Sun.

Nuclear binding (the nuclear force) as an internal process is wrong. Nuclear binding involves the attraction between the atomic particles within a context of impacting emission.

In fact nuclear binding can only be sustained within parameters of the density of the impacting emission.

The construction of matter involves the absorption of emission within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission. This is the nuclear fusion process which results in the construction of planets and stars.

paradigm

[jag]

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

Thank you RP for the opportunity to respond to this "gravitational alternative" even though it took me a while, and thank you for seeing it in '59...I was 9 years old when you saw it.

I'm sure that when Sir Isaac Newton wrote "that" in the Principm Mathematica it was not inconsequential to him. He sensed some kind of duality in the force of gravity. He realized that the particles of a body needed some impelling force to stay together. In other words this unknown force is mutually impelled (drawn upon) by the particles in a body just to maintain themselves in their present state.

My problem is with the either/or statement. (how could you reconcile the two).
I think it is both at the same time. Take the example of an apple falling to the earth. The apple is caught in the mutually impelling force between the earth and gravity. Even though the apple is repelled or pushed to the ground the integrity of it's body of particles remains intact because of it's mutual impelling force with gravity at the same time it is falling.

I don't think, as has been suggested, that Sir Isaac Newton was predicting electromagnetism. He was thinking on another level...he was thinking about the force that causes electromagnetism and does it impell or repel? Both I say!

Now that we know about Dark Matter maybe we can take it to another level and try like hell to think on his level...It'll just take a small rewire job.

In my wanderiing I have incountered many scientists who think they are beyond Sir Isaac Newton in their understanding of his laws. But I will tell you they are just now catching up.

The man was beyond us all. Don't ever doubt that.

jag

[RascalPuff]

The subjected Newtonian excerpt and several other key inspirations motivated Truly Yours to pursue and accumulate further information, culminating in the writing of the (in progress) book, accessible to be read on line at:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/toetheory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html.

Any commentary on - and especially contributions to - this work will be very gratefully received and considered. Any and all contributions will - of course - be properly and duely accredited.

Post Script:
Brad Templeton: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html


Respecfully thanking you I am,
- RP (aka Kai)

[MJA]

Thanks RP for knowledgable thoughts of Newton.

I like his thought of finding a truer philosophy. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as truer, for what we know is either true or false not truer or less true.
And in this regard, Newton's Principals were built on the shoulders of rather than giants, it would be better to say: truths or falsehoods.
And furthermore if his principals were true then he or you would no longer search as he says in vain, for truth has no doubt.
Then the later must be true, that his as well as mankinds knowledge of nature or ourselves is built on what is false, for the truth surely and absolutely, simply and clearly stands alone.
If your going to build a castle of wisdom start with the truth, or you'll end up like Newton, still seaching for a truer philosophy in vain.


=
MJA

[RascalPuff]

Thanks RP for knowledgable thoughts of Newton.

I like his thought of finding a truer philosophy. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as truer, for what we know is either true or false not truer or less true.

And in this regard, Newton's Principals were built on the shoulders of rather than giants, it would be better to say: truths or falsehoods.

And furthermore if his principals were true then he or you would no longer search as he says in vain, for truth has no doubt.


Then the later must be true, that his as well as mankinds knowledge of nature or ourselves is built on what is false, for the truth surely and absolutely, simply and clearly stands alone.

If your going to build a castle of wisdom start with the truth, or you'll end up like Newton, still seaching for a truer philosophy in vain.

=
MJA

Dear MJA:
Your expressed discernment of what is true or not ('there is no such thing as truer') disallows any intermediate graduations of what may be more or less - nearer or further from or to - truth (accurate, and more accurate). There is a universal and anthromorphic condition referred to as 'the existential division (brachiation, or split)' - where, for example, it was true that the round earth was inhabited by a majority of residents who perceived it to be flat. Viz., there were two realities, two 'truths', side by side, in mutual - non sequiturial - conflict. Your 'all or nothing' station apparently does not acquire, accumulate, collect, store or otherwise accomodate Newton's (or any other) allotment for necessary intermediacy or compromise.


It would appear that you have transposited contexts in aligning Newton's metaphor of his work being based on the shoulders of giants - transposing that intention to the exclusively polarized import of truths and falsehoods. Whereas, preempting or otherwise editing Newton's written implication(s) is an intention to be taken under guarded advise. The existence of 'truth' is ubiquitous, while the discovery of it (en toto) will likely (if not inevitably) remain ever on the (mortal) horizon in one form or another.

You would have Newton ('force or forces hitherto unknown') in 1687, privvy to the knowledge of Maxwell in the late 1800's?

Your condescension of reasoning is also anachronistic; that is to say, it 'equals anachronism'.


I presume by 'later' you intend to spell out 'latter' - while your perhaps *reticent allusion to 'the truth' is also characteristically redundant in context of your historically familiar allusions to the 'truth' and 'equals', *as though you are excessively pleased with yourself for access to a reality that you simply choose not to reveal.

Your exhibited obsession with 'truth' and 'equals' is tantamount to the intransient declaration that 'everything is everything', i.e., everything equals everything, and, that is the truth. Indeed...


A vacant statement of the obvious - no matter how tenaciously reiterated - does not constitute a rewarded pursuit.


"...which forces, being unknown, philosophers (physicists) have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain": are Newton's words on an issue that wouldn't be resolved until the emergence of man's knowledge of EM forces, as pioneered by Franklin, Faraday, Hertz, Maxwell, and of course, many others, since.

'Starting with the truth', as you ostentatiously prescribe, is comparable to arriving at your destination: before leaving your point of departure.


Best regards,
- RP (aka Kai)

[MJA]

"The existence of 'truth' is ubiquitous, while the discovery of it (en toto) will likely (if not inevitably) remain ever on the (mortal) horizon in one form or another."

Dear RP,

I do hope you find the truth.

=
MJA

A tip: The truth is much more simple than you think.
And never say never or "ever".

[labelwench]

"The existence of 'truth' is ubiquitous, while the discovery of it (en toto) will likely (if not inevitably) remain ever on the (mortal) horizon in one form or another."

Dear RP,

I do hope you find the truth someday too.

=
MJA

A tip: The truth is much more simple than you think.
Try to simplify!

I cannot help but observe, MJA, that you use the equal sign with frequency.

Besides it's use in mathematics, it is also the logo of the Human Rights Campaign. Are you, perchance, a member of the organization?
I am curious about the 'truth' which you espouse. Not interested if it is religion, yet if it is something other, respond if you choose, on a thread or by PM, as suits you.

Regards,

LW