| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Donald G. Shead" |
| Date: |
13 Aug 2003 10:20:49 AM |
| Object: |
Newton's folly |
If Newton had just followed Galileo's example: That the ratio of a net force
[f] exerted on and/or by an object, body or mass, to the rate of
displacement [s/t²] that it causes is a constant; equal to the ratio of the
weight [w] of the object, body or mass, divided by the rate that it free
falls [s/t² = (about) 16'/sec²]; then he could have combined the ratios of
net force to rate of displacement; as ft²/s, with the ratio of weight to the
rate of free fall; as wsec²/16; so that _ft²s = wsec²/16_; as a "first
approximation"! It would have saved us all a heap of trouble: He wouldn't
have had any good reason to invent the calculus.
He could have seen _more easily_ that all objects, bodies, and masses free
fall in vacuum at the same rate: [s/t²= about 16'/sec²]; so that: s =
(16'/sec²)1"²= 16'; (16'/sec²)2"² = 64'; (16'/sec²)3"² = 144';
(16'/sec²)4"²= 256'; (16'/sec²)5"² = 400'; (16'/sec²)6"² = 576'... _in
vacuum_!
The ratio ft²/s applies anytime, anywhere! The ratio wsec²/16' applies only
on the terra firma surface of a planet like Earth or the moon where a weight
scale can be used; only where the rate of free fall is 16'/sec²: On the moon
the rate of free fall is about 2.666'/sec², and we'd have:
ft²/s = wt²/2.666'
Follow me?
.
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Newton's folly |
19 Aug 2003 10:33:22 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <u10889@snet.net> wrote in message news:<lHs_a.24501$Vx2.10985039@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
If Newton had just followed Galileo's example: That the ratio of a net force
[f] exerted on and/or by an object, body or mass, to the rate of
displacement [s/t²] that it causes is a constant; equal to the ratio of the
weight [w] of the object, body or mass, divided by the rate that it free
falls [s/t² = (about) 16'/sec²]; then he could have combined the ratios of
net force to rate of displacement; as ft²/s, with the ratio of weight to the
rate of free fall; as wsec²/16; so that _ft²s = wsec²/16_; as a "first
approximation"! It would have saved us all a heap of trouble: He wouldn't
have had any good reason to invent the calculus.
He could have seen _more easily_ that all objects, bodies, and masses free
fall in vacuum at the same rate: [s/t²= about 16'/sec²]; so that: s =
(16'/sec²)1"²= 16'; (16'/sec²)2"² = 64'; (16'/sec²)3"² = 144';
(16'/sec²)4"²= 256'; (16'/sec²)5"² = 400'; (16'/sec²)6"² = 576'... _in
vacuum_!
The ratio ft²/s applies anytime, anywhere! The ratio wsec²/16' applies only
on the terra firma surface of a planet like Earth or the moon where a weight
scale can be used; only where the rate of free fall is 16'/sec²: On the moon
the rate of free fall is about 2.666'/sec², and we'd have:
ft²/s = wt²/2.666'
-----------------------
Newton also didnt know while coining his first law of movement
that there are in microcosm, basic particles that .....
move *naturally* in a closed circle.
actually at his time- there was no way for him to know it
at our time its different, we have too many evedence for it
just to brush a llitle the rusty minds with their rusty
paradigma.
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Follow me?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Newton's folly |
13 Aug 2003 02:49:39 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
If Newton had just followed Galileo's example: That the ratio of a net force
Newton had the insight to create what we now call the calculus, Shead.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Calculus.html
And went for beyond Galileo with
Newton's Laws
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsLaws.html
Gravitational Constant
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalConstant.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AShead
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pyriform" |
|
| Title: Re: Newton's folly |
13 Aug 2003 05:57:34 PM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
Follow me?
I'd rather not.
--
Pyriform
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
