Absolutes

[Brian]

Okay.  I have a grasp on all three of to laws except for the following:

 

And the more mass the object has, the acceleration decreases.

 

This is illogical if we consider the object is in a vacuum and experiences no resistance.

 

The big ball and the small fall from the tower of Pisa at exactly the same rate - never increasing or decreasing their acceleration individually.

Sounds like you need to take a step further back to the concepts of mass, force & acceleration. Without understanding them, you would understand the relationships between them.

 

BTW, Newton didn't express his first law as "F=ma" as is the common statement in modern usage but in word which would be expressed mathematically as "a=F/m" or, in words as something like "an object acted upon by a force will accelerate in proportion to the magnitude of the force and inversely proportional to the object's mass." I think this is more useful for describing the motion.

[Marblehead]

Sounds like you need to take a step further back to the concepts of mass, force & acceleration. Without understanding them, you would understand the relationships between them.

 

BTW, Newton didn't express his first law as "F=ma" as is the common statement in modern usage but in word which would be expressed mathematically as "a=F/m" or, in words as something like "an object acted upon by a force will accelerate in proportion to the magnitude of the force and inversely proportional to the object's mass." I think this is more useful for describing the motion.

I don't have a problem with what you said that I highlighted above except the "inversely proportional to the object's mass".

 

That is a problem for me.  If it is in a vacuum and no forces are acting upon it and there is no other resistance there is no reason why an object with more mass would decrease its acceleration at all.

 

When Newton dropped his two balls they both maintained the same speed and hit the ground at the same time.

 

When what's his name dropped the ball and the feather they fell at difference rates because the feather experienced more resistance than did the ball (or whatever it was).

[Brian]

When you drop two objects of different masses and they accelerate due to the force of gravity, they experience different forces, forces proportional to their masses. If this were not the case, two objects of different mass would weigh the same.

[Marblehead]

When you drop two objects of different masses and they accelerate due to the force of gravity, they experience different forces, forces proportional to their masses. If this were not the case, two objects of different mass would weigh the same.

Now you put me where I cannot argue with you because of my (mis)understanding of gravity.

 

I just remembered:  That experiment with the ball and the feather was conducted by the astronuts when they were on the moon and both fell at the same speed.

 

I suspect that what you are saying may well be true over great distances - millions of miles.

 

But remember, my position is that we have eliminated gravity as a force acting on the two balls.

[Karl]

Yeah, but don't lets talk about how much force is required to get the big ball moving at the same speed as the little ball.  If they both are already accelerating at the same speed in a vacuum with no resistance they both will continue to move at the exact same speed - forever - and that's a very long time.

 

Yes, until they strike another object and then the conservation of energy kicks in. The larger accelerated mass has proportionally more kinetic energy to shed.

 

On a planet you must first raise the two objects to the same height and so the energy needed to lift them varies. The larger mass takes more effort than the smaller. When they are released they continue to fall at the same rate, but their impacts are proportionality different.

 

That's why, at rest, the masses are actually accelerating which gives them weight, in free fall they are both weightless.

 

It's the same as the lift shaft experiment. You can't jump up at the last moment to avoid the falling lift car. Both car and passenger weigh differently, but fall at the same rate. The impact of the lift has differing forces to the passenger on impact.

 

 

[Jetsun]

Jed McKenna used to say in order to get enlightened all you have to do is get a pen and paper and keep writing until you can write something which is completely true. If you stick at it then in a maximum of two years you will be enlightened or understand the nature of truth. No need to meditate or go to the Himalayas, just do that simple exercise. 

[Brian]

Now you put me where I cannot argue with you because of my (mis)understanding of gravity.

 

I just remembered:  That experiment with the ball and the feather was conducted by the astronuts when they were on the moon and both fell at the same speed.

 

I suspect that what you are saying may well be true over great distances - millions of miles.

 

But remember, my position is that we have eliminated gravity as a force acting on the two balls.

The magnitude of the force of gravity is proportional to the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The direction of the force of gravity is along the line connecting the two objects (the centers of mass, to be more precise, and the locations of the centers retarded along their paths by the time it would take light to travel that distance, to be even more precise -- but I'd recommend ignoring this whole parenthetical reference for now...)

Edited March 10, 2016 by Brian

[Marblehead]

The magnitude of the force of gravity is proportional to the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The direction of the force of gravity is along the line connecting the two objects (the centers of mass, to be more precise, and the locations of the centers retarded along their paths by the time it would take light to travel that distance, to be even more precise -- but I'd recommend ignoring this whole parenthetical reference for now...)

I actually understand and agree with you regarding the above.

 

I don't do the math stuff but my twisted logic indicates that it would be true.

[Brian]

I actually understand and agree with you regarding the above.

 

I don't do the math stuff but my twisted logic indicates that it would be true.

Notice that no esoteric math is needed here. Newton used simple astronomical observations of the positions of planets and plane geometry to show that an apple falling from a tree and the motions of the solar system follow the same principles.

[Brian]

Feynman diagrams frequently show particles moving backward in time. However, on the macroscopic level, things are bound to move forward in time, that is, from a state of lower to higher entropy. I believe there can be exceptions to this, but it isn't what we commonly observe.

For those who are interested:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html

[Nikolai1]

I strongly disagree with this.  I really do know the difference between the present and the past.  I confess, though, to not knowing the future.

The difference between the present and the past is one of attribution.  It is a judgement imposed upon the mental imagery.  The broken cup is on the floor; the intact counterpart is a mental image.  But this mental image can be said to be from the future or the past, either works and both make perfect sense.  

 

To say that a mental image of the cup is from the past is exactly the same as saying that the coffee it contained was too strong.  It is a judgement.

 

To the individual with true perception, retrocausality is the same as causality.  But to the physicist who assumes (totally on faith!) a cosmos that started at moment X, and has grown older ever since, retrocausality will be a blatant impossibility.

 

But as I often point out: we aren't physicists here.  We are sages and our wisdom goes higher than physics is capable of.  Therefore live retrocausality; see the truth of it; feel how the present can and does shape the past.  

[Marblehead]

The difference between the present and the past is one of attribution.  It is a judgement imposed upon the mental imagery.  The broken cup is on the floor; the intact counterpart is a mental image.  But this mental image can be said to be from the future or the past, either works and both make perfect sense.

You may have contradicted yourself there.

 

Time/space has nothing to do with any images in my mind. 

 

I might say that time is passing too slowly or too quickly but really, time doesn't give a shit what I think or any of my value judgements.  It just keeps ticking along.  More reliable than the Energizer Bunny. 

 

To say that a mental image of the cup is from the past is exactly the same as saying that the coffee it contained was too strong.  It is a judgement.

Disagree.  The cup was a physical object.  The judgement of its strength is only a mental valuation.

 

To the individual with true perception, retrocausality is the same as causality.  But to the physicist who assumes (totally on faith!) a cosmos that started at moment X, and has grown older ever since, retrocausality will be a blatant impossibility.

Well, I'm not a physicist but I would agree with those who view time as linear.

 

But as I often point out: we aren't physicists here.  We are sages and our wisdom goes higher than physics is capable of.  Therefore live retrocausality; see the truth of it; feel how the present can and does shape the past.  

Okay, you go ahead and rewrite the history books and change the past.  That's the only way you will manage it.

[Marblehead]

Oh, and BTW,

 

If y'all can change the past would you please consider unmarrying me the three times I was married?  I have found that I am a much happier man when I'm not married than I ever was when I was married.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Marblehead

[Nikolai1]

Oh, and BTW,

 

If y'all can change the past would you please consider unmarrying me the three times I was married?  I have found that I am a much happier man when I'm not married than I ever was when I was married.

The trouble is that we think the past is something that actually happened.  Reality isn't like this.  Your marriages are created afresh each time you think of them.  It's more accurate to say that your marriages are still happening, than to say that they have happened and ended.

 

Reality is much more fluid than our notions of time allow.  Nothing was ever fixed in the history books.  History is a project being undertaken in the present moment, and as Emerson said, 

 

History is an impertinence and an injury if it be anything more than a cheerful parable of my being and my becoming

We must taken ownershiop of time, and stop being its slave.  If you wish to cancel your marriages you may, but perhaps the furthest you can go is to never think of them.

[Brian]

The difference between the present and the past is one of attribution. It is a judgement imposed upon the mental imagery. The broken cup is on the floor; the intact counterpart is a mental image. But this mental image can be said to be from the future or the past, either works and both make perfect sense.

 

To say that a mental image of the cup is from the past is exactly the same as saying that the coffee it contained was too strong. It is a judgement.

 

To the individual with true perception, retrocausality is the same as causality. But to the physicist who assumes (totally on faith!) a cosmos that started at moment X, and has grown older ever since, retrocausality will be a blatant impossibility.

 

But as I often point out: we aren't physicists here. We are sages and our wisdom goes higher than physics is capable of. Therefore live retrocausality; see the truth of it; feel how the present can and does shape the past.

Some of us here are physicists, BTW, and no physicist worth his or her salt believes either time or space is really linear.

[Nikolai1]

Some of us here are physicists, BTW, and no physicist worth his or her salt believes either time or space is really linear.

So phycicists don't believe that the universe commenced with a big bang and then proceeded from there?

[Marblehead]

Some of us here are physicists, BTW, and no physicist worth his or her salt believes either time or space is really linear.

Oh!, No!  You have just destroyed the Big Bang, the creation of stars and the creation of our solar system and yourself.

 

I'm still here thought.

[Wu Ming Jen]

I have heard of Absolute Vodka and I have studied Greek philosophy who thought there are absolutes but nature kept proving them wrong maybe that is why they had stars in their eyes hoping there was another world above ours.

 

When physics come into play its all about dead matter and not intelligent force that can move a thousand pounds with four ounces.

[Marblehead]

So phycicists don't believe that the universe commenced with a big bang and then proceeded from there?

They believe the particle and the wave created themselves but both have dual personalities and sometimes the one acts like the other and both fell in love with shoe strings.

[Wu Ming Jen]

There are two days a year we can do nothing they are called yesterday and tomorrow.

 

moving back and forth right and left, up and down all at the same time, I do this physically so the universe has to be the same or I would only be able to move liner and in one direction.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, tomorrow is full of potential.  I'm not sure what yesterday is full of.

[Brian]

So phycicists don't believe that the universe commenced with a big bang and then proceeded from there?

The arrow of time is a very interesting topic, as is the relativity of simultaneity, but most in this thread are still struggling with Newton.

 

Let's just say that most phenomena in mundane and macro experience are relatively linear and oriented towards entropy.

[Marblehead]

 

... macro experience are relatively linear ...

Yea!

 

... and oriented towards entropy.

That's an interesting thought.  I don't know whether to "Yea!" it or "Boo!" it.

[Marblehead]

... but most in this thread are still struggling with Newton.

Well, at least I know where I am and am not lost in space.

[Brian]

Yea!

 

That's an interesting thought. I don't know whether to "Yea!" it or "Boo!" it.

As to linearity, consider this -- materials contract and expand with changes in temperature and different materials experience these dimensional changes at different rates. In fact, not every material will change in the same direction over a given temperature range. For instance, the fact that metals change at different rates has long been used to create thermometers and thermostats which employ bi-metallic strips while liquid water contracts as it cools until a few degrees above standard freezing point, at which point it begins to expand -- even before it starts to freeze (this is why ice skates work, BTW...)

 

We typically don't worry about the fact, for instance, that the distance to the grocery store changes with temperature but the engineers designing the roads we drive on are well aware of it.

 

The physicist is generally pretty good at taking duality in stride, using aspects of reality which may seem in conflict to those who haven't done the kung fu themselves while understanding that "the truth" is far more nuanced and interesting. Useful simplifications and generalizations need to be kept in context and assumptions must be kept in mind lest one develops unfortunate attachments to "facts."

 

I have long suggested, BTW, that the structure of reality is such that it simply cannot be discovered in its entirety (a philosophical extension of the work of Planck and Heisenberg) and one of the links I posted earlier in this thread speaks to this idea, too.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Brian