Laws of Motion
What Was Newton Talking About?
I’ve covered thermodynamics, or the Laws of Eternal Matter in Motion, with the luxury of detail in Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory. Now let’s take a brief look at Newton’s Laws of Motion.
Thermodynamics relates to energy and energy is what something is doing, therefore it is always about motion of objects. When we think of thermodynamics we naturally think about heat. Heat is a type of motion; atomic and molecular motion. Atoms vibrate and molecules bounce into each other, as in boiling water. What "kinds of motion" are there? Positive Kinetic energy, Negative Potential energy, or any other type of “energy” is merely motion of any given object being measured. For some discussion on kinetic and potential energy see the HubPage article; Mass and Energy.
Before we talk about motion further, let’s define it: two or more locations of an object
All motion ultimately falls into one of these categories:
- Straight: extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.
- Curvular: roundish, curvy; not straight
Looking at Newton’s Laws of motion we see these as “a body at rest, or traveling in a straight line; inertia. Add acceleration, and we have more than one force at play so we may end up with centripetal or circular motion
Considering the rope and thread of Rope Hypothesis we have pumping, or quantum jumping along with the accompanying torquing of rope, and spin of the atom along with accompanying sweeping of threads; and vibration.
These all fall into one of the two categories of motion mentioned above. Are there others?
WHAT NEWTON ACTUALLY SAID
“Every object exists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.”
“Force is equal to the change in momentum (mV) per change in time. For a constant mass force equals mass times acceleration.”
“For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.”
These are called Newton’s Three Laws of Motion.
The first is about inertia. It is really the second law with out any external force applied. It deals with vectors and frames of reference. The second is about external force being applied where there is no change of mass (you may recognize this formula F=ma) , and the third says that all forces come in pairs. If you push something it pushes back.
An example of the first law might be a caballero swinging his bolo around and then letting it go. When he releases the bolo it travels straight towards his target providing nothing gets in the way or wind doesn’t affect its trajectory.
The second law, we are told, is only applied when there is a net external force. If the object is gaining or losing mass, as in parts of the bolo break off, or if the Caballero accelerates the bolo to near the speed of light and relativistic effects come into play. And, by the way, it is not applied at the atomic level where quantum effects occur.
The third law comes into effect when the Cabellero’s bolo hits its target. The force of the bolo and the force of the target are equal but opposite in direction.
We see that if all the external forces remain the same then an object will stay put or continue along it current path. In other words, push and pull on the object are equal. There are only two forces, after all; push and pull.
So the laws are; what we can expect an object to do if no force acts upon it; what is the relationship between force and acceleration; and every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
All of these deal with measurement and calculations, and are quite useful for lobbing hand grenades, designing rockets and making planes fly, but have nothing to do with explaining what the forces actually are. In other words, what physical entity mediates push and pull.
In point off fact Newton, in the same work where he described these Laws, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, said this:
“It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro’ a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.”
This admission clearly tells us that we should remove the “Laws of Motion” from the realm of science and place it squarely in engineering, for, science explains and mathematics describes. F=ma allows us to calculate the apple falling and 9.8 m^2 but says nothing about what causes the apple to fall down towards the earth instead of into the sky.
There really are no laws of motion, but there are models that we can use to explain motion and what model better explains the forces of push and pull than that provided by the Rope Hypothesis?
We can clearly see the physical mechanisms behind how objects exist in a “state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line” why an apple falls 9.8 meters per second per second and why “for every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.”
We can easily visualize the pull of gravity, the push of proton against proton without any quantum magic. No need to have separate conflicting divisions of physics to account for this, none of the quantum or relativistic nonsense at the atomic and sub atomic level.
The rope model embodies push and pull, unifies The Laws of Thermodynamics and The Laws of Motion, weak and strong nuclear forces, electricity and magnetism, light and gravity.
The Rope Hypothesis and Thread Theory is available on Amazon