[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Energy is either spinning to the left or to the right

This is true only for square of energy not for first degree energy.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao This is true only for square of energy not for first degree energy.

Are you talking about primal energy here?



regards michael.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Are you talking about primal energy here? regards michael.

Dear Antonio & Michael:

Might it be that this conversation would invert to approximately the same dialogue if it were entitled 'attractive forces'?
('For every action there is a reaction, equal and opposite')

Best regards,
- RP

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff if it were entitled 'attractive forces'?('For every action there is a reaction, equal and opposite')

Newton's 3rd law of motion is still quite enigmatic for me. The only purely attractive force is gravity. Newton never gave any good reason why there have to be two force laws: his 2nd law of inertial force and inertial mass and his law of universal gravitation for gravitational mass. As far as modern physics is concerned both inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent, principle of equivalence. This is the key for Einstein's theory of general relativity.

[RascalPuff]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(Redirected from Newtons law)

• Ten things you may not know about images on Wikipedia •

Jump to: navigation, search

Newton's First and Second laws, in Latin, from the original 1687 edition of the Principia Mathematica.


Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws which provide relationships between the forces acting on a body and the motion of the body, first compiled by Sir Isaac Newton. Newton's laws were first published together in his work Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687). The laws form the basis for classical mechanics. Newton used them to explain many results concerning the motion of physical objects. In the third volume of the text, he showed that the laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
Briefly stated, the three laws are:

1. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a net force.
2. Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.
3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Contents

[hide]

• <LI class=toclevel-1>1 The statements of the laws
  • <LI class=toclevel-2>1.1 Newton's first law: law of inertia <LI class=toclevel-2>1.2 Newton's second law: law of acceleration
  • 1.3 Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions
  <LI class=toclevel-1>2 Importance and range of validity <LI class=toclevel-1>3 Relationship to the conservation laws <LI class=toclevel-1>4 See also <LI class=toclevel-1>5 References
• 6 External links

[edit] The statements of the laws

Newton's laws of motion describe the acceleration of massive objects. The modern understanding of Newton's three laws of motion is that,,:
First Law If no net force acts on a particle then the particle moves without any change in velocity (When observed from a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames). Second Law (When observed from a set of reference frames, called inertial reference frames) The net force on a particle is proportional to the time rate of change of its linear momentum. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. (This law is often stated as F = ma (the force on an object is equal to its mass multiplied by its acceleration).

*Third Law Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction, these two forces act along the same line.

__________________________________________________ _

*Isn't this an equal and opposite reaction?

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Isn't this an equal and opposite reaction?

Thanks for the recapitulations. The question is if the force does not exist to begin with would then the opposite force exists? The sudden coming into being of the first force implies the sudden simultaneous coming into being of the opposite and equal force. But if both were primary equal magnitude repulsive forces then a tiny difference would transform the weaker force into a secondary attractive force.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Thanks for the recapitulations. The question is if the force does not exist to begin with would then the opposite force exists? The sudden coming into being of the first force implies the sudden simultaneous coming into being of the opposite and equal force. But if both were primary equal magnitude repulsive forces then a tiny difference would transform the weaker force into a secondary attractive force.

Surely though there is but one force,primal as it is,and "appears" to be secondary but is
not really,it is all the same one primal energy.



regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick there is but one force,primal as it is

At the beginning there is not one primary force but infinity of primary forces which are all equal in magnitude but not in its quantized direction and they all repel each other, expanding, shall we say.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao At the beginning there is not one primary force but infinity of primary forces which are all equal in magnitude but not in its quantized direction and they all repel each other, expanding, shall we say.

Are you then saying that there is an actual beginning?




regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick there is an actual beginning?

Maybe not for an Ouroboros. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros