Newton, gravitation and second law

[quiet]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

People were doing calculation based on the concept, for many years before GR, so clearly it is not.

Einstein included it in GR, but that does not mean the idea was new.

 

What you say is true. The word alien is not the best way to express the concept.

I only try to remark that in newtonian physics, only for convenience, was used the setup corresponding to equality of the values of both terms. This, like you say, works perfectly in applications.

When the point under discussion is the structure of the foundations of the physics, the convenience have nothing to do. The main issue is the recognition of what is postulated, and what is choosed conventionally.

Like I have pointed out in a previous post, you can measure the action and the angular mentum, both, in [math]joule.second[/math], this is, you can choose the same dimensions for both. What you can't do is believe that both are the same kind of physical property. In analog way, you can choose for the gravitatory property and for the inertial property the same dimensions and, if you wish, can too choose the same value. But you can not believe, without well proved reasons, that both have the same nature, both comes from the same intimate phenomenon, both are subject to the same influence, etc.

You have mentioned the satellital orbit. In this case, gravitatory mass is independent respect the tangential velocity. The inertial mass is dependent, like Lorentz transformation shows. Intentionally I say Lorentz transformation and not SR, because the increasing of the mass with the velocity was known and formulated in 19th century, before the publication of SR.

Back to the main point. The satellital orbit is a nice example of the natural difference between both terms.

Know you that the astronomers have finded EM waves with wavelength of astronomical size? When this kind of detection begins, a wavelength compatible with Earth-Moon distance was detected. What if an electromagnetic phenomenon is responsible for gravity? Oh!!! No!!! This is impossible because GR stablish spacetime warping!!! But, if the equality of both types of "masses" is not impossed by the physics previous to GR, and for create GR you stablish the equality like a new postulate, then, GR is just the thing under discussion, and we can not invoke GR to reject the possibility of an EM origin of the gravitation. 

There is somthing that here, in speculations, is not misplaced. Assuming an enough reasonable hipothesys, you can start a development that reaches various interesting results. One is to obtain, like a first aproximation, a formula for gravitatory force with the same format of Newton's formula. This fact is more or less obvious, because EM field vary with [math]r^2[/math].

Other result exhibit the intimate form of G in EM terms. Other shows that G is a fuction, not a constant. In special conditions G varies in very little proportion, in a way that allow take a little error if G is treated like a constant.

Oh!!! GR assumes that G is  true constant!!! I don't believe how someone can think that G is a function!!! 

Newton's formula have an error compatible with not taking in account the cotribution of the electrons to the gravitational action, and, only take in account the contribution of nucleons. The chaotic behavior of electrons cloud gives a little net contribution, because the cloud don't align in a preferent direction, like nuclons do. The error calculated using the EM model is in the order measured by Eotvos experiments, and subsequent experiments of that kind.

Eotvos have find too that chemical composition intervenes in little proportion. The EM model just implies such fact.

Remember the astronomers, today, are not sure respect to accuracy of GR in all cases. The worst thing we can do, into this theme, is to held rigidly that equality of both types of "masses" is an undoubtable natural law.

---------

If both properties are not the same, then, we can't replace [math]m^2[/math] in equation (2) of the initial post. So, absurd is impossible. And if we, like Einstein, postulate the equality, the absurd is unavoidable.

Edited December 22, 2018 by quiet

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, quiet said:

If both properties are not the same, then, we can't replace m2 in equation (2) of the initial post. So, absurd is impossible. And if we, like Einstein, postulate the equality, the absurd is unavoidable.

We clearly can use the same m in both cases. And the results are not absurd; in fact they are consistent with experiment. Which suggests that, within the limits of measurement, gravitational and inertial mass re the same thing.

After all, you are not the first person to have wondered whether they are the same and so people have performed experiments to test the equivalence.

20 minutes ago, quiet said:

What if an electromagnetic phenomenon is responsible for gravity? Oh!!! No!!! This is impossible because GR stablish spacetime warping!!!

It is impossible because gravity and electromagnetism have very different properties.

Adding more exclamation points doesn't make your claims any more plausible.

22 minutes ago, quiet said:

Other shows that G is a fuction, not a constant.

A function of what?

And: Citation needed.

23 minutes ago, quiet said:

Newton's formula have an error compatible with not taking in account the cotribution of the electrons to the gravitational action, and, only take in account the contribution of nucleons.

Citation needed

26 minutes ago, quiet said:

Eotvos have find too that chemical composition intervenes in little proportion.

Citation needed.

27 minutes ago, quiet said:

The worst thing we can do, into this theme, is to held rigidly that equality of both types of "masses" is an undoubtable natural law.

No one does that. But experiments, such as the Eotvos experiments, show that they are the same. I am sure people will continue to test this to higher accuracy.

[quiet]

Thank you strange for your post. The way in which you have criticized each concept has been precise and, for that reason, I have been able to follow your thought.

You have exposed reasonable objections, which are a nice summary of what has been discussed. I think it's a good idea to leave your post as a thread closure.

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, quiet said:

 .Newton's formula have an error compatible with not taking in account the cotribution of the electrons to the gravitational action, and, only take in account the contribution of nucleons. The chaotic behavior of electrons cloud gives a little net contribution, because the cloud don't align in a preferent direction, like nuclons do. The error calculated using the EM model is in the order measured by Eotvos experiments, and subsequent experiments of that kind.

Newton didn’t know about electrons and nucleons. It’s just mass, and everything contributes

55 minutes ago, quiet said:

Eotvos have find too that chemical composition intervenes in little proportion. The EM model just implies such fact.

Remember the astronomers, today, are not sure respect to accuracy of GR in all cases. The worst thing we can do, into this theme, is to held rigidly that equality of both types of "masses" is an undoubtable natural law.

There is no experimental evidence that GR is inaccurate 

 

If your point is that Newton didn’t explicitly point out that gravitational and inertial mass are the same, fine. We figured that out afterwards. Similar to how we figured out that light was an EM wave after Maxwell’s equations had been assembled. I don’t see how it makes any difference 

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, quiet said:

Thank you strange for your post. The way in which you have criticized each concept has been precise and, for that reason, I have been able to follow your thought.

You have exposed reasonable objections, which are a nice summary of what has been discussed. I think it's a good idea to leave your post as a thread closure.

I am disappointed that you are not willing to either support your claims or admit that you made them up.

[quiet]

Thanks swansont pot the post. Also you have exposed reasonable objections, which deserve to be visible at the conclusion of the thread.

---------

---------

---------

47 minutes ago, Strange said:

I am disappointed that you are not willing to either support your claims or admit that you made them up.

Dear strange, you know that I dislike the fray. It is very easy to write citation needed. The hard part is to retrieve the titles of the publications inside a repository of old papers, search for those titles on the internet, find the exact paragraph within the extension of the publication and bring it here. They are many hours of work to serve on a tray plus gunpowder, which will be used to prolong the war.

It really is good that post yours that I have praised. And I admit that I have omitted those appointments. Then, as we are in speculations, I give you my affirmation that all these are speculative ideas of mine, that you will never be able to read in sources related to those authors. I solemnly affirm that I have invented all that whimsically. I solemnly affirm that the important thing is not to dialogue calmly. The important thing is to cut sentences and show them isolated from the context, where the sentences are paralyzed and we can easily charge the gun and shoot. This, advantageously, takes seconds. What the other forum member wrote has taken good fractions of hours. And adding up everything he wrote, he has taken many hours in more than a day.

In seconds we managed to get something from the legitimate discussion to the trash can, without doing anything other than putting empirical data as "proofs" apt to refute a methodological analysis. It is like trying to refute Herodotus about the existence of Atlantis, saying that if Atlantis had ever existed, the ruins would have been found, as were the ruins of other ancient civilizations. And in seconds write: ruins needed. Very easy and very profitable to explode in the middle of the room something that tries to be shown as an objection, without the least care to analyze the context to do it in a legitimate way.

I solemnly declare that I am capitulating in the war that you have created, dear strange. I sign the surrender and I put it into a golden tray. And I repeat, that post of yours that I have praised is good.

Edited December 22, 2018 by quiet

[Strange]

1 hour ago, quiet said:

Dear strange, you know that I dislike the fray. It is very easy to write citation needed. The hard part is to retrieve the titles of the publications inside a repository of old papers, search for those titles on the internet, find the exact paragraph within the extension of the publication and bring it here. They are many hours of work to serve on a tray plus gunpowder, which will be used to prolong the war.

It is very easy to say "G is a function". As you say, it is much harder to justify it.

So I would suggest that if you can't provide any support for your claims, then don't make them.

And if you don't want a "fray" (discussion) then don't post claims that you can't support.

1 hour ago, quiet said:

I give you my affirmation that all these are speculative ideas of mine, that you will never be able to read in sources related to those authors

So you lied about having to and search through publications to find the paragraph where it is said.

And if they are claims you are making then it is up to you to provide evidence for them (as required by the rules of the forum).

1 hour ago, quiet said:

The important thing is to cut sentences and show them isolated from the context, where the sentences are paralyzed and we can easily charge the gun and shoot. This, advantageously, takes seconds.

And it only takes a second to falsely claim that Eotvos found that chemical composition changed the relationship between inertial and gravitational mass.

If you don't want your false claims challenged, then don't make them. 

Luckily, it only takes seconds to point out you are wrong, so I am going to continue it.

1 hour ago, quiet said:

I solemnly declare that I am capitulating in the war that you have created, dear strange.

I did not create a "war". (That is a bit like blaming the police for creating a disturbance because they are chasing a thief.) I like to think that pointing out that your claims are false is a public service.

At least you are willing to admit that it is just invented nonsense. So thank you for that. Maybe you will think a bit harder before making stuff up again.

[quiet]

By the state that now it is, I think the best place for this thread is trash can ...

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, quiet said:

By the state that now it is, I think the best place for this thread is trash can ...

Why? Are you embarrassed? When people read this, they will learn from the responses provided to you. Why rob them of that by tossing it into the trash?

[J.C.MacSwell]

59 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why? Are you embarrassed? When people read this, they will learn from the responses provided to you. Why rob them of that by tossing it into the trash?

+1

And quiet, while your line of thought may have been incorrect, it was not an unreasonable one. My favourite posts are often ones where I have an error in my thinking (after I realize it)