This is true only for square of energy not for first degree energy.Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
This is true only for square of energy not for first degree energy.Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Time independence: [∂E(g)]˛=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c˛
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus
"Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein
"Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
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.Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Time independence: [∂E(g)]˛=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c˛
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Newtons law)
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:Contents
- An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a net force.
- Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration.
- To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
[hide][edit] The statements of the laws
- <LI class=toclevel-1>1 The statements of the laws
<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
- <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
- 6 External links
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
(George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus
"Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein
"Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
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.Originally Posted by RascalPuff
Time independence: [∂E(g)]˛=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c˛
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.Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Time independence: [∂E(g)]˛=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c˛
Maybe not for an Ouroboros. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OuroborosOriginally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Time independence: [∂E(g)]˛=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c˛
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)