Comments on: NEWTON’S FORCES, ALPHA PARTICLES AND ATOMIC STRUCTURE http://www.protoquant.com/2009/08/15/newtons-forces-alpha-particles-and-atomic-structure/ What WAS there before... Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:11:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Nicolae Mazilu http://www.protoquant.com/2009/08/15/newtons-forces-alpha-particles-and-atomic-structure/#comment-647 Nicolae Mazilu Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:39:42 +0000 http://www.protoquant.com/2009/08/15/newtons-forces-alpha-particles-and-atomic-structure/#comment-647 There is a fundamental misunderstanding dear Miguel. I am not angry with anybody, least of all yourself! I wish you the best luck and, by the way, thank you for the book! Forget about everything. There is also a fundamental misunderstanding about the forces: Bertrand's theorem from 1873 is referring to central forces with magnitude depending exclusively on the distance between the material points. The Earth, the Moon, the Sun are not material points in all instances. As a matter of fact the Moon and the Earth can never be considered material points with respect to each other. In order to better understand the point of view take a reading in the following order and - if possible - find and read the references: 1) Glaisher's Argument on Newton 2) Yvon Villarceau on Binary Stars 3) Cassini Ovals vs Kepler Ellipse Newton gave an expression for the central force which depends exclusively on distance only in cases where the attraction point is in special positions (focus, center of orbit and such). For double stars this is not the case anymore. One of the fundamental consequences is that such forces are not conservative anymore. Least of all are they conservative if we take the pain to think that celestial bodies are extended. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that a central force should have the magnitute depending exclusively on distance! But you are not alone in this! This was not what Newton "invented". (See Principia Book I Section 2). By the way: I have a book almost ready for English readers: "New Testament Principles of Natural Philosophy". Still interested?! There is a fundamental misunderstanding dear Miguel. I am not angry with anybody, least of all yourself! I wish you the best luck and, by the way, thank you for the book! Forget about everything.
There is also a fundamental misunderstanding about the forces: Bertrand’s theorem from 1873 is referring to central forces with magnitude depending exclusively on the distance between the material points. The Earth, the Moon, the Sun are not material points in all instances. As a matter of fact the Moon and the Earth can never be considered material points with respect to each other. In order to better understand the point of view take a reading in the following order and - if possible - find and read the references:
1) Glaisher’s Argument on Newton
2) Yvon Villarceau on Binary Stars
3) Cassini Ovals vs Kepler Ellipse
Newton gave an expression for the central force which depends exclusively on distance only in cases where the attraction point is in special positions (focus, center of orbit and such). For double stars this is not the case anymore. One of the fundamental consequences is that such forces are not conservative anymore. Least of all are they conservative if we take the pain to think that celestial bodies are extended.
You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that a central force should have the magnitute depending exclusively on distance! But you are not alone in this! This was not what Newton “invented”. (See Principia Book I Section 2).
By the way: I have a book almost ready for English readers: “New Testament Principles of Natural Philosophy”. Still interested?!

]]> By: miguel iradier http://www.protoquant.com/2009/08/15/newtons-forces-alpha-particles-and-atomic-structure/#comment-646 miguel iradier Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:42:16 +0000 http://www.protoquant.com/2009/08/15/newtons-forces-alpha-particles-and-atomic-structure/#comment-646 Hello, my dear friend! I hope you won't be angry with me! I am glad seeing you continue adding material to this extraordinary web. Althought stupid, I am one of its most dedicated readers. But my first reservations, as with Dewey Larson, arise with your questioning of central forces -with light as with gravity- and the associated problems of energy conservation. Really I believe that central forces per se don't exist in nature, but, what about Bertrand's theorem, which state that only central forces produce stable and closed orbits? I don't understand clearly your position about this. I question it humbly and sincerely, answer it for pity sake, I beg you. Best, Miguel Hello, my dear friend!

I hope you won’t be angry with me!

I am glad seeing you continue adding material to this extraordinary web. Althought stupid, I am one of its most dedicated readers.

But my first reservations, as with Dewey Larson, arise with your questioning of central forces -with light as with gravity- and the associated problems of energy conservation. Really I believe that central forces per se don’t exist in nature, but, what about Bertrand’s theorem, which state that only central forces produce stable and closed orbits? I don’t understand clearly your position about this.

I question it humbly and sincerely, answer it for pity sake, I beg you.

Best,

Miguel

]]>