On Jun 30, 5:42 am, "Pmb"
somewhere.com> wrote:>> On Jun 28, 9:38 am, pmb
hotmail.com> wrote:>>> On Jun 27, 9:45 am, "Y.Porat"
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> On Jun 26, 9:36 pm, "Pmb"
somewhere.com> wrote:>
>>>>> "Sanny"
hotmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>> Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws.
>
>>>>> Not always. Newton stated that before the theory of electrodynamics
>>>>> was in
>>>>> place. This law does not hold in EM.
>
>>>>>Pete
>
>>>> ------------
>>>> it holds everywhere !!
>
>>> That is wrong. The fact that Newton's 3rd law doesn't work in all
>>> circumstances is a well known fact. Most basic EM texts expain this.
>>> Merely consider two charged particles which are traveling along paths
>>> which are at right angles with respect to the observer. It is readily
>>> seen by a simple calculation that the forces are not equal and
>>> opposite.
>
>>>> *provided you know all the details to scratch
>>>> !!
>>>> (in the EM case
>>>> you dont really know anything to scratch !!)
>>>> iow
>>>> if some of your theory contradict it
>>>> it is the best clue or profe - you dont know
>>>> reality good enough !!
>
>>> I see no reason for you to start insulting me. In actuality it is you
>>> who doesn't know the physics.
>
>>> Stop insutling and start listenting.
>> -------------
>> while i said 'you dont know' it was not personally
>> **
>> ** against you
>
> Ah. Okay. Sorry if I jumped the gun then. It seemed as if you were insulting
> me.
>
>> **it was against all of us !!**
>> my idea was that we (repeat we (:-))
>> dont know to scratch about all the particles and sub sub particle
>> that took place in the scene !!
>
> But we are able to observe the physical world and make statements about it.
> We can state what the forces are on charged particles and we can state what
> directions they are moving in etc
-----------------
any collission phenomenon can be involving
charged and **uncharged particles**
that you dont know about them
-------
. And this applies not only to charged
> particles but also to macrosopic charged bodies too. One can construct two
> charged macroscopic bodies and set them into relative motion and then
> observe the forces which act on them. They will not be equal and opposite.
-----
again
aprticularly if you talk about macroscopic objects
you can understand it better :
if you collide two tennis balles
and the collision is not 100 percent elastic
your observation is not complete
because some of the energy was turned to heat
and that changes the 'elastic' expected results
but it is not Newtons fault
it is the 'complexity of the problem s .fault " (:-)
---------
>
>>.. fo r instance you probably think that energy has no mass do you ??
>
> Energy is not a thing which can have a property like mass.
so there is were our disagreement starts !!!!
the fact that you and me dont know all cases of mass
does not mean that you know it !! (to scratch !!)
self delusion is worse and more harmful than self declared
ignorance
-----------
-------
Energy is a
> property itself. So no. I don't think that energy has mass.
imho very bad that you still didnt get it
i actually even proved it
by looking into the dimensions of h
looking into E=mc^2 etc
---------
I think that
> quantities which have energy may also have mass. A photon *has* energy and
> by virtue of that energy also has (relativistic) mass.
good
we are doing some advance
you had no choice but to invent a new kind of mass
relativistic one !!! (:-)
but who gave you the permission to INVENT
new kinds of mass ??
do you think that anyone can invent new kinds of mass
just to adjust his new theory ??
2
please remember what i told you :
**there is jsut one kind of mass!!**
if you **invent** a new kind
it is the burdain of prove on you
btw i have already explained an showed many times that
that it is not mass that is growing
but the needed force or energy needed to add velocity
that is growing and i am not going to repeat it endlessly
--------
>> or you can 'see' all the sub particles forces and energies that
>> were involved
>> soif you think you know about all the picture
>> it is you who has to learn that we still dont know everything
>
> Nobody said that I know everything. Good Lord that will never be true.
> Nobody knows everything and never will. Who said otherwise????
>
>
>
>> so i hope you agree with me at last about that last recognition
>> ps
>> acording to the best i could gather during my few years of living
>> all forces are done by collision of some sub particles
>> 9that includes electromagnetism)!!
>> while those still unknown basic particles
>> collide in a perfectly elastic collision
>> while in anelestic colission as such
>> action must be exactly as reaction
>> or else .... guess what
>> there would not be ,for instance, the law of
>> conservation of energy
>> or conservation of MOMENTUM .....!!
>> Newtons third law is the base of the above !!!
>> (not to mention that in 'Statics and dynamics
>> it i s **more** than bread and butter .)..
>
> When two charged particles interact and don't obey Newton's third law it is
> because there are photons which take up the momentum that seems to be
> missing. However this does not validate Newton's 3rd law.
-----------
no Sir
if you invalidate the third law it is the burden of prove
ON YOU !!
you cant just declare invalidity of a basic law without prove
and just by words !!
and you have to prove that you took into your account
ALL THE INVOLVED FACTORS !!
----------
That law refers to
> equal and opposite forces and they are not so. But this does not present a
> problem with the conservation of momentum.
why
because you just say so ??
do you want to say that two colliding bodies
no matter if charged or not
DO NOT OBEY THE CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM LAW ??!!
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------------
>
> Pete
