Re: Newton's 3rd law? was Re: inertial forces (definition)

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

> > I must ask, how do you account for the momentum component in the
> > gravitational field in the laboratory? I know of no term used in
> > elementary physics which does this. I am thinking of a term
> > analogous to the energy term mgh. It is possible to use the law
> > of conservation of energy in the Earthbound laboratory by
> > adopting this (do you call it fictitious?) energy term in the
> > reckoning. I don't recall hearing about a momentum counterpart.
> > Leigh
>
> We have the Force Impulse theorem for that!
> This speaks to the effect of external forces on our system.
>
> But when you use this with an inertial force you hide under the table the
> fact that this external force does not involve another object.  The
> Newtonian Force concept is an interaction between OBJECTS.

I realize that's what it is. There is no good reason to keep it
that way. A simpler model exists. It is more accurate than the
"force between objects" model. It doesn't have the action at a
distance problem. It doesn't make it necessary to introduce
centrifugal force to explain the real world.

It is clear that I am not engaging in a discussion here so much
as I am hearing affirmations of faith. I've got work to do, and
I would be glad to continue discussion with anyone genuinely
interested by private correspondence.

Leigh