From: kado on
I had a fair night's sleep, but really did not sleep
well because I kept thinking of what topics I
should bring up and how I should word these
in this thread.

The topic of the mistranslations and misconstruing
of Newton's Laws of Momentum are addressed in
my book after a lot of background is presented on
how modern scientists think. I came to the
conclusion that any logical elaboration on this
subject of Newton's Laws will fail without this
background info.

So I will bite the bullet and present what I think
are the most important in a condensed, so not
necessary complete way.

I see that no one has yet argued about my idea
that light is a force, not particles, waves, or
energy, radiation, etc. This is encouraging.

I did not include that all forces are nonphysical in
nature in the original response to C. J. Countess,
because I knew this would generate a
tremendous howl from the readers of this
newsgroup.

I also did not include that modern science does
not yet truly understand mass, force and time.
More shouting and hand waving.

Nevertheless, I do justify these seemingly audacious
claims in my book, and will try to do so in a synopsis
manner herein. So here goes, and I hope that I lose
all those that Uncle Al chooses to insult, because
most of this will just zip well over their heads.

A philosophy is a concept of reality and the truths.
Philosophy separates into the sciences, metaphysics,
and theology. The sciences deal with the natural.
Metaphysics address the unnatural. Theology pertain
to the supernatural. The ancient Greeks formulated
many different philosophies, e.g., The Philosophy of
Stoicism, Realism, Idealism, etc. It was during
these very early days that the Philosophy of
Idealism became the dominate philosophy of the
sciences. The fundamental tenets of the Philosophy
of Idealism basically maintains that:

Since every phenomenon, object, entity, event,
thing, etc., exists only in the the mind of man,
and as the universe is the sum of its parts, the
universe does not exist except as the perception
of human (i.e., my,and/or me myself and I, the
human observer's, the human looker's, the
human knower's, etc.,) understanding.

The Philosophy of Idealism places the human
above God and/or Nature. Therefore this
philosophy devised by the arrogance of man
cannot be right.

Furthermore, the Philosophy of Idealism is better
suited for the scope of schizophrenia than the
realm of logical and rational thinking. So if reality,
and what is real and what is not are not fixed by
human perceptions, how is reality determined?

True reality is dictated by what is demonstrated
by God and/or Nature as Natural Phenomenon
(i.e., the phenomenon of Nature in the
vernacular of Newton).

The philosophy of Idealism distorts reality and
all the concepts of what is real and what is not.
The only giants within the scope of physics to
reject the Philosophy of Idealism in the past
400 years were Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton.
These two based their physics on the Natural
Phenomena demonstrated by Nature,
supplemented these with empirical
experiments and the Natural Phenomena
exhibited during and as a result of these
empirical experiments, not the suppositions
of man.

Aristotle was a believer of the Philosophy of
Idealism, so supposed that heavier bodies fall
faster than lighter bodies. This supposition based
on the Philosophy of Idealism was demonstrated
as false by Galileo's empirical experiments.

Nevertheless, all modern thinking is still based
on the false Philosophy of Idealism, so all read
what Issac Newton presented in Principia
through the foggy and distorting lens of the
Philosophy of Idealism.

So to get to the true understanding of Newton's Third
Law of Momentum, read on.

On Jan 6, 9:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia has:

snip

> 3 Whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body
> exerts a force ?F on the first body. F and ?F are equal in magnitude and
> opposite in direction.
>
> And also

snip

> 3 To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>
> And also

snip

> 3 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. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two
> forces act along the same line. --action-reaction law
>
> Another site has
>
snip
>
3 To every action there is always opposed an equal and opposite
reaction: or
> the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and
> directed to contrary parts. snip
>
> Another site has

snip

> 3 For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.
>
> Another site has

snip

> 3 For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
>
> Its the same concept in all cases .. the difference is in how one chooses to
> word it (as english, like most languages, is now very precise, and things
> can be expressed in numerous ways). Fortunately, expressing the formulas
> mathematically helps resolve any ambiguities of language. That's why 'laws'
> in physics are expressed mathematically.

Again I say Bullshit.

Only the 4th site quotes from Motte's or Cajori's translations.
The 1st and 3rd imply in different words that the Third
Law is only 'to or for every action there is an equal opposite
reaction', and the balance of the sites blatantly state so.
There are many more sites on the internet that also
parrot this belief. In fact all the current text and reference
books maintain that FAPP, Newton's Third Law of
Momentum is only 'To every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction' and leave off all the text and so
all the ideas following the colon found in the quote of
the 4th site.

This omission has a tremendous impact on the true
understanding of the Third Law. The first part, i.e.,
'To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'
is only a sort of preamble to the real crux of the
Third Law. Newton employed this first part only to
justify the second part, just as he used the first part
of the First Law, i.e., 'Every bodies continues in its
state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line
(i.e, the effect of inertia that he defined in Definition III),
as sort of a preamble to clarify 'unless it is compelled
to change that state (of inertia) by FORCES
IMPRESSED upon it.

In other words; it is the the notion that 'the mutual
actions of two bodies upon each other are always
equal, and directed to contrary parts' is the real
message of the Third Law.

There are many reasons why mainline science got
this Law so screwed up. The first is that Motte
mistranslated Newton's use of the Latin word 'sive' to
be 'or' rather than 'therefore, consequently, thus', etc.,
and James C. Maxwell further muddied the Third Law
by stating " Law III - Reaction is also always equal
and opposite to reaction, that is to say, the actions
of two bodies upon each other are always equal and
in opposite directions."

So modern science thinks the that the forces
APPLIED by each of any two interacting bodies
are equal and opposite.

This is not what the Third Law maintains. Newton
maintained that the forces ACTING on each of
any two interacting bodies are equal and opposite.
So the correct, but due to all the existing dogmas,
a cumbersome interpretation of Newton's Third Law
is:

As the action of any body (body A) upon any
interacting body (body B) is the force applied by this
body A to change the momentum of the subject
body B; and for every action force applied by body
A, there is always an equal and opposite reactive
effect placed upon this same body A due to the
inertia of body B resisting any change of its
momentum: Therefore (consequently) whenever
any two bodies interact and apply action forces
(that need not necessarily be, and seldom is equal
magnitude, nor always exactly opposite in direction)
upon each other, the total motive force (i.e., the
cause for the effect [i.e., the change of momentum]
described by the Second Law) upon either specific
one of any two interacting bodies is the vector
sum of the equal and and opposite reaction to the
action of this particular one (i.e., the force to change
the state of inertia [i.e. momentum] of the other
interacting body as explained by the second part
of Newton's First Law) and the ACTION OF THE
OTHER, and this total impressed motive force is
always equal in magnitude and opposite in
direction of that directed upon the other.

So a true restatement of Newton's Third Law of
Momentum in plain English is:

LAW III

To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction:
consequently the total motive force acting upon either
one of any two interacting bodies is the vector sum
of the reaction to the action of this one and the action
of the other, and this is always equal and opposite that
directed upon the other.

There are many other points, ideas, concepts, etc.,
of the Classical Newtonian Mechanics that deviate
from those presented in Principia. These are covered
in detail the treatise 'The Search for Reality and the
Truths'. This book addresses even more about
Newton's Second Law.

But these will have to wait. I'm going to just sit back
for now, and read all the flack that this post is bound
to generate.

D. Y. Kadoshima

From: cjcountess on
On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct
> > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress.
>
> The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant
> degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd. The idea
> that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening
> is even more absurd.
>
> Uncle Al is intelligent. And does not suffer fools gladly.
>
> It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to
> that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible.
>
> What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do
> physics. It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"?
>
> The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed
> of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is
> somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit
> conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units
> where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face.

I don’t care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your
case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made
him look foolish and so now you want to join him.
When I first encountered Al here: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en

He stated:

> Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same
> predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place -
> as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature. You can't have
> it both ways, buddy boy. Either the equations are parity-even scalars
> and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and
> pseudotensors with spacetime torsion.
>
> Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force.
Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force,
which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into
spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated.
Just because you cannot see that “c^2”, is not just a mathematical
conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level,
where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it
takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense.
I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and
statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it,
except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow
your foolish pride.
Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it.
I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to
be confident.
I don’t blame anyone if they don’t see this right away because it is a
new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for
itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face.

And oh yea, as for “advancing physics on sci physics”, even Al is
trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream
physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his link:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

And if you think that the so called big boys like “Stephen Hawkings”,
don’t have teams “data mining”, sites like these for ideas, than your
a fool. And furthermore, if they truly don’t than they are fools.
Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box
thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the
greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to
enjoy proving it.

You both think your so smart.

I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise.

Conrad J Countess

Remember my name
From: cjcountess on

Planck discovered E=hf previously E=hv for photons
Einstein discovered E=m/c^2 for photons and E=mc^2 for matter
deBrolie discovered E=hf=mc^2 for electrons of -1 charge and that
electron is also a wave
Bohr discovered wavelength of electron = circumference of circle with
angular momentum of a multiple integer of h/2pi

Therefore it follows from this and other geometrical evidence that
(E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) with wavelength = (cx2pi as energy in circular
motion with momentum inversely proportional of h/2pi)
and (c = natural unit sqrt-1, of natural unit -1 charged electron)

Analogous to a line of 1” in linear direction x a line of 1” in 90
degree angular direction to = 1 square inch, c in linear direction x c
pointing straight up in 90 degree angular direction giving rise to 90
degree counter clockwise rotation which if constant creates a circle
already matches geometrical description of sqrt-1 given in reference:
An Imaginary Tale: The Story of the Square Root of -1
 
by Paul J. Nahin
page 53 paragraph  2:
“square root of -1 is directed line segment of length 1 pointing
straight up along the vertical  axis
or at long last, [i = sqrt-1 = 1 ∠ 90 degree angle]. This is so
important a statement that it is the only mathematical expression in
the entire book that I have enclosed”

page 54 paragraph 2:
“multiplying be square root of -1 is geometrically, simply a rotation
by 90 degrees in the counterclockwise sense
Because of this property square root of -1 is often said to be rotator
operator, in addition to being an imaginary number.”

page 104 paragraph 2:
“In a revealing article criticizing Einstein's and Minkowski's c x
sqrt-1 , a national bureau of Standards physicist admitted that
Square root of -1 has a legitimate application in pure mathematic,
where it forms a part of various ingenious devices for handling
otherwise intractable situations”

And if I further point out that, just as momentum = (h/2pi) and
wavelength = (cx2pi), the radius of the circle or (r = c = h). And
still further, if the amplitude is constant, wave will make 2
rotations at 90 degree angle, to complete one wave cycle, making it a
standing spherical wave, of (spin 1/2) and momentum of (h/2pi/2). Its
reduced Compton wave length or (wavelength / 2pi) = its radius, and
also its, Schartzchild radius or (r=Gm/c^2). Its diameter as a
spherical particle, = its radius, as a circle, and squeezing it below
this, is said to give rise to “Black Hole”, according to “General
Relativity”, or “Particle Creation”, according to “Quantum Theory”.

Reduced Compton Wavelength and Swartzchild radius, are equal here
because the true Planck equality is, (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (c = h=
i=2pi = r)

(E=mc^2) = (F=mv^2) and (E=hf/c^2) = (F=mv/r^2) on quantum level and
they are directly proportional on macro level
The same force that compresses energy into matter due to Lorentz
contraction turning to space-time curvature is the same that pushes
matter into each-other as gravity. Inertia mass = gravity mass =
accelerated motion = (a=v^2/r) = (a=c^2/c), on quantum level.
Although gravity on earth does not = gravity on moon gravity on earth
= inertia on earth and gravity on moon = inertia on moon
And last but not least Einstein and Minkowskie's (cti) = (E=mc^2)

Quantum Gravity is found in simplicity not complexity.

Conrad J Countess
From: Y.Porat on
On Jan 3, 10:01 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Look “h”,  is the constant kinetic or relativistic, call it what you
> prefer, “mass/energy”, of the photon due to constant velocity of  “c”.
> It is still mass, and it is mass due to motion. And as I demonstrated,
> even rest mass, is relative mass, in circular and or spherical
> rotation. They are two aspects of the same thing. The whole universe
> is in constant motion, and one might say that motion is more of a
> constant than anything at rest. All mass come from energy in motion,
> even rest mass, which is energy in rotation.
> Like I said earlier, in equation (E=hf/c^2), “h” is constant mass/
> energy due to constant velocity of, “c” and, “f” is variable mass/
> energy, due to variable frequency. And higher  mass/energy is due to
> higher kinetic energy of motion, because higher frequency come from
> higher motion of higher cycles per time unit, and translates to more
> speed,.and correspondingly higher kinetic energy. In the old days the
> equation (E=hf), was written as (E=hv), showing its direct
> correspondence to (F=mv), as indeed they are equal on the quantum
> level and directly proportional on macro level. And they updated
> equation E=hf/c^2 is equal to F=mv/r^2.
> Earlier I stated that E=hf/c^2 did not pertain to rest mass but it
> does at the high end of the EM spectrum because when E=hf=c^2 or as
> deBrolie stated E=hf=mc^2 as 1/1 = 1x1 = 1 /c^2 = x c^2.
>
> On Dec 30 2009, 6:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "cjcountess" <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:bdd1649a-aa33-4ac9-b17c-38428f2ede65(a)37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > 1) Planck discovered E=hf for photons
> > > 2) Einstein discovered E=mc^2 for electron's/matter
> > > 3) deBroglie discovered (E=hf) = (E=mc^2) for electron of -1 charge,
> > > and that electron was also a wave.
> > > 4) Bohr discovered that the wavelength of electron is equal to
> > > circumference of circle with angular momentum of a multiple integer of
> > > h/2pi
> > > 5) Therefore it follows  from this and other evidence, that (E=mc^2) =
> > > (E= mc^circled) and c=(square root of -1)
>
> > You were going well up until you started with that last line of nonsense.
>
> > If c=(square root of -1), then c is no longer a real number, and cannot be
> > the speed of anything measured.  Further, if c=(square root of -1), then c^2
> > = -2, so E = mc^2 becomes E = -m, and that is absolute nonsense.
>
> c =  the natural unit, sqrt of the natural unit -1, and is no longer
> just an imaginary number, but a real natural unit just as the electron
> is the real natural unit -1.
> And yes E= -m in this special case.
> Ever heard of the unity of the constants? As everything in the
> universe come from a unified source as we get to the constants in
> nature we find that they too extend from a unity.
> (c^2 = G = h/2pi) and (h = c=  i = 2pi) so far I’ve found that all
> constants can be traced to a unity with c
> In equation E=hf/c^2 and F=mv/r^2, c = r
>
> Conrad J Countess

-----------------------
good for you Countless !!
anyway i forgot whop said it first that

'ENERGY IS MASS IN MOTION!!
EVEN IN MICROCOSM' !!

can you remember who said it first (:-)

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
From: Y.Porat on
On Jan 9, 9:37 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2:56 pm, jbriggs444 <jbriggs...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 4:51 pm, cjcountess <cjcount...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In light of what Al just said, we can extend the ideas that obstruct
> > > progress in physics, to people who obstruct progress.
>
> > The idea that progress in physics is engendered to any significant
> > degree on sci.physics is somewhere to the left of absurd.  The idea
> > that Uncle Al is a key stumbling block preventing that from happening
> > is even more absurd.
>
> > Uncle Al is intelligent.  And does not suffer fools gladly.
>
> > It is no service to "progress in physics" or to an idiot to pretend to
> > that idiot that his or her ideas are sensible.
>
> > What's the saying -- "it's pointless to try to teach a cat how to do
> > physics.  It only frustrates you and annoys the cat"?
>
> > The idea that c^2 has an interpretation in terms of rotating the speed
> > of light by 90 degrees and taking a vector cross product that is
> > somehow more fundamental than its interpretation in terms of a unit
> > conversion factor required when using an un-natural system of units
> > where c != 1 is, to me, ludicrous on its face.
>
> I don’t care about your personal feelings toward me, just state your
> case for what you have claimed. The same goes for Al. I already made
> him look foolish and so now you want to join him.
> When I first encountered Al here:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c3d2094579aeee47?hl=en
>
> He stated:
>
> > Tell us how affine/teleparallel gravitation makes exactly the same
> > predictions - qualitative and quantitative to the lst decimal place  -
> > as metric gravitation but without spacetime curvature.  You can't have
> > it both ways, buddy boy.  Either the equations are parity-even scalars
> > and tensors with spacetime curvature or parity-odd pseudoscalars and
> > pseudotensors with spacetime torsion.
>
> > Go ahead, tell us how a curvature looks like a Lorentz force.
>
> Since than I have shown how a wave is compressed by Lorentz force,
> which is = to Doppler effect measured as E=hf/c^2 or E=m/c^2 into
> spacetime curvature measured as E=hf=mc^2 as deBroglie stated.
> Just because you cannot see that “c^2”, is not just a mathematical
> conversion factor, with not physical structure, at quantum level,
> where E=hf=mc^2, and energy equals, and turns into matter, because it
> takes on a circular and or spherical form, shows your lack of sense.
> I have analogical, logical, mathematical, geometrical, and
> statistical, evidence to back it, and there is no way around it,
> except to deliberately close your eyes, because you refuse to swallow
> your foolish pride.
> Just keep on believing what you do and make your case for it.
> I will do same and enjoy it. When you know you are right it is easy to
> be confident.
> I don’t blame anyone if they don’t see this right away because it is a
> new discovery, but to deny evidence that is so clear it speaks for
> itself, and is right in your face, is itself ludicrous on its face.
>
> And oh yea, as for “advancing physics on sci physics”, even Al is
> trying to advance physics on sci physics, and thinks that mainstream
> physicist are obstructing its path, did you see his link:http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
>
> And if you think that the so called big boys like “Stephen Hawkings”,
> don’t have teams “data mining”, sites like these for ideas, than your
> a fool. And furthermore, if they truly don’t than they are fools.
> Truth is, some of the greatest ideas come from the out of the box
> thinking of non professionals and my idea- discovery is one of the
> greatest, (E=mc^2 = E=mc^circled) and (c=sqrt-1), and I am going to
> enjoy proving it.
>
> You both think your so smart.
>
>  I am also going to thoroughly enjoy proving you otherwise.
>
> Conrad J Countess
>
> Remember my name

-------------------
Good for you Countless !!!!

dont let all the imbecile parrot gangsters
hold you back
we are going to win not them!!
(that is why they are in panic !!)

ATB
Y.Porat