Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: RESET of F=ma and operational definitions of force.



At 16:36 10/19/01 -0500, Joel Rauber wrote:
Part I

...
I think it will be helpful to restart the discussion and hopefully narrow it
down in a slow methodical fashion to the pertinent points.
... regarding how to
interpret Newton's 2nd Law; (F = m*a for short.)

This immediately means we are using a Newtonian paradigm...

It strikes me that this is also a discussion about the foundations of
mechanics and is therefore epistemological in origin and therefore of little
consequence.
...
For part II, I wish to restrict the discussion to equilibrium measurements
of force and whether or not they avoid acceleration measurements (in the
context of Newtonian Physics).


As Joel has lauded the virtues of 'slow and methodical', and as a
sizable fraction of the entire list readership has already
spoken to the issue, or in some way visibly ridden off in
all directions, this must be my cue to speak; so I will....

Physicists, confronted by an invisible or remote acting force,
invoke either or both of the following models.

1) Forces are associated with fields. That is, if there
is a force with no obvious mediation, then ipso facto,
they will ascribe the force to a field.
That's how you define a field, in fact.

2) Forces are associated with exchange particles, and there
is no action at a distance, because all forces are locally
conveyed.


I will mention a slightly amusing line of thought associated
with the first model style, the field.

Consider two masses closely spaced. Lacking other forces
(i.e conflicting fields) they will move towards each other.

It is considered evident that such masses lose potential energy
as they approach, and it is considered sensible to suppose
that two such masses moved very far apart, have no potential
energy with respect to each other.

Generalizing this simple function of distance, we easily arrive
at the conclusion that if all mass is at a mutually infinite
remove, the gravitational potential energy is zero.

Taking these two concepts together, we see that all gravitational
potential energy we can see is in an absolute sense, negative.

If we visualize the most lossy way of transforming energy of
this kind i.e by heating the local matter, we might suppose that
if the universal mass aggregates, its natural state is ...hot,
while if it is at infinite regress, it is cold.

Oh, but that's just the heat death of the universe
brought about by contraction is it not?

Oh well, I feel much better now. Thank you for your tolerance.
:-)




brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net> Altus OK
Eureka!