Re: F before ma?

["Bernard G. Cleyet & Nancy Ann Seese" <georgeann@REDSHIFT.COM>]

bc with neck stuck out:

one atm. applies force to an adjacent atm, which then applies force to the next,
etc. It is done by mutual repulsion of electrons (and Pauli exclusion if at
relativistic speed?) this transmission is < C.  Since the atm. (even the
nucleus) has extent, can the A and the F be simultaneous.  Perhaps, for the
portion of the atm. that is being "pushed", it's instantaneous -- over what
resolution?  Help!

(could Heisenberg help us here?  maybe the resolution demanded is with in the
uncertainty, and, therefore, one can not show it's simultaneous or not?)

(does special relativity "break down" at distances < say 10^-13 cm?)

bc

P.s. do memorisms abound above?

P.p.s. bc's initial definition for p & p:  push: force applied in direction away
from source.  pull the reverse. So though one is pushing the inside of the
drawer pull, one is pulling the drawer open.

John Denker wrote:

> I said:
>
> > "There is every reason to believe [F and ma] are
> > simultaneous, and no reason to believe otherwise.  If anybody has
> > theoretical or experimental evidence to the contrary, please let us
> > know."
>
> At 10:31 AM 10/15/00 +1100, Brian McInnes wrote:
>
> > In the model we expect the unbalanced applied net force (John
> > Clement's push) and the acceleration of the point particle or the
> > rigid body to be simultaneous.
> >
> > However in the real world, where elastic forces come into play as
> > existence of the unbalanced force is "communicated" to all parts of
> > the non-rigid body, simultaneity is not obvious.
>
> In the same vein at 05:21 PM 10/14/00 -0700, Bernard G. Cleyet & Nancy Ann
> Seese wrote:
> > Instantaneous is also limited by special relativity.
>
> =========================
>
> We're getting some pretty wild speculations here.
>
> If the "ma" were not exactly contemporaneous with the "F", it would violate
> conservation of momentum.
>
> Special relativity complicates the accounting slightly, but still
> conservation of momentum is required.
>
> Again:  If anybody has theoretical or experimental evidence to the
> contrary, please let us know.  Some semblance of a quantitative assertion
> would be nice, such as "F precedes ma by ___ nanoseconds".