CHAPTER FOURTEEN

SERVING NEWTON

At the start of the year's University Physics 1 degree course, the Physics Professor looked at the motley crew filling the lecture theatre. He knew some students were destined to survive, while others would drop-out. In a rather callous way, the professor wrote-off the previous twelve years of the students' scientific education before introducing the course. Writing on the board just four symbols, he continued saying "The single most important equation in the Universe is,"

" F = m a " 

The experience could be likened to watching the rector at church, singing the praises of the most exalted one. "From this equation" he said, "everything else, all other forces are derived, forces including motion, gravity, electrostatics and magnetism. This can be experimentally proven over-and-over again as a Law of Nature, as a Universal truth. " But this was no rector, this was the bishop, the professor himself outlining Newton's laws of motion, showing the magic relationships that exist in the sciences. The Universe seemed to make sense at that moment, but then his reverent attitude turned. He introduced into this overview scheme of things, three body gravitational systems. At this point, he stated that Newton's laws failed, for "this is where Einstein's approximations come into their own, for only they can accurately predict and solve the forces that exist between three or more bodies in the Universe." 

Something appeared to be very incorrect; for this did not ring true. It seemed impossible that a law of Nature, a known Universal Truth, could be wrong? The professor was expressing the common cosmological opinion that Newton's laws of gravity are deeply troubled, if not wrong, yet he found it amusing that cosmologists could not suggest any mechanism to explain gravity or to improve gravitational theory. To conclude his introduction to Physics 1, the professor said, "Terrestrially, the laws of Physics work, but when one talks about matters cosmological, Newton's laws fail miserably, giving-way to Einstein's relativity. " This statement appeared to be more contradiction than Science. The Earth exists as a tiny speck of dark matter, orbiting with the Moon around a rather common star. As the Earth is part of the Solar System, located in The Galaxy, situated in the Universe, what then, makes the Earth so different to any other cosmological body? How can Newton's laws only apply here? Surely, if Newton's laws fail miserably in the rest of the cosmos, they must fail here? For any law to be a Natural law, then the law must apply universally, throughout the entire cosmos, where-ever there is matter. How can Newton's laws be called Natural laws when they fail? Only one theory can be true, or the accepted theories must be wrong. If both are incorrect then some other law must universally apply.

It is important to contemplate some historical facts about Newton's laws of motion. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1747) was a man and as such made mistakes, not just in life, but also in his mathematics, language and science. At the start of his academic career, the Great Plague (1666) closed the Universities, so he left Cambridge to work on his own in the country. Newton taught himself mathematics from just four books and within a year, was making valuable contributions to mathematics and science. When it came to logarithms and The Calculus, Newton had to invent them, developing his own ideas and concepts, or he had to encompass, correct and modify the works of others. Words like mass and energy were not contemplated in this period. There was no one available to teach Newton how to use these methods and equally, there was no-one who could correct or confirm his work. Newton sourced much theory from the works of others and when they seemed true, accepted such mistakes as well. He modified their concepts and ideas into his own constructs. His laws of motion corrected the discoveries of Galileus Galileus (the English xenoym is Galileo Galilei), using deduction and fluxions (The Calculus). Galileus did not include the object's initial motion "u.t" when he wrote the distance equation s = ½ at 2. Newton's correction made sense, where a minor change , s = ut + ½ at 2 , bestowed credit on him.

Prior to Galileus' discovery, the belief was that when a cannon fired a shot, the shell was given impetus by the detonation of the gunpowder. The shell would use up all this impetus as it rose, then fall to the ground when the impetus ran out. Galileus corrected this view by explaining the path of such a projectile as a parabola, where a continual downward motion acts on the object, that being the pull of gravity. Newton furthered Galileus' argument in showing mathematically, that the impetus was not used up, rather gravity restricted the cannon's range by altering the shape to that of a parabola. Newton would argue that when sufficient force is given to the shell, the projectile would fall all the way around the Earth, never touching the ground, prescribing an elliptical orbit. But here is a contradiction. The trajectory of a projectile must follow the arc of an ellipse, not that of a parabola. The curve of a parabola is totally different to an ellipse, so, why then, does Science maintain such a basic false belief? Newton did not realise that he copied an error. It is obvious he did not understand the effects of atmospheric drag, cross-winds, tail winds, chemical behaviour, supersonic melting, and the rotation of the Earth, (the Coriolis effect) because these effects were scientific mysteries at that time..

Since Newton's time, much has been discovered and alterations made to Newton's theory. But these changes were at great cost. Although new words and definitions clarified Newton's laws, the nineteenth century scientists and mathematicians who resolved Newton's initial mistakes and omissions, feared scientific outrage, for Newton, the legend, grew more powerful in death. Many who although correct and for the correct reasons, attacked The Great Newton, became ostracised by the scientific community. Credit was rarely bestowed on them, leaving them in history's void. One can pick up virtually any Physics book (this one included) to discover unique translations and understandings of Newton's laws by each author. In Newton's "Principia" (1726) , the three laws of motion are written as;

Law 1. Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by force impressed thereon.

Law 11. The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

Law 111. To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

The second law is perhaps the most changed through translation. There are so many interpretations of this law that the situation becomes rather confusing. The following are three common variations on Newton's theme.

"The force required to accelerate a body is proportional to the product of its mass and its acceleration." (Various authors)

"that if an unbalanced force acts upon a body, the body will be accelerated; the magnitude of the acceleration is proportional to the magnitude of the unbalanced force, and in the direction of the acceleration is in the direction of the unbalanced force." (H. Semat)

"The acceleration caused by one or many forces acting on a body is proportional in magnitude to the resultant of the forces, and parallel to its direction, and is inversely proportional to the mass of the body." (Resnick & Halliday)

But these translations seem to have different meanings. In the "Principia", Newton's words describe this second law with "If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subducted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both."

Newton's second law seems to be in contradiction to his third law, though there is something in the third law which many fail to see. Again, from Newton's "Principia", the description of the third law is " If a body impinges upon another, and by its force change the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, towards the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motion of bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made towards contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies."

Both Newton and Galileus noticed that the outcome bore an inverse proportionality to the body (the mass) of the object. Yet, none of the equations involve the square root of the mass, or the mass squared. In mathematics, when two or more variables are proportional, then the mathematics reflects that concern by the use of the symbol α . Normally, Newton calls equal proportions, equal, but here he does not and none of the translations do. Universally, they must use the word proportional, not equal. The equation written as F = m a, does not state any proportionality, rather the emphatic is bluntly stated using the operand equals. This equation fails to imply proportionality or that the force is directly proportional, or for that matter, that there is a reciprocity in proportions between the components.

Should not the equation be written as

F α m a

or perhaps, F = m2 a

If F = m2 a happens to be true, it would create a disaster in many areas, for it does not answer (at this moment) any questions, rather it would create a million problems. Proving such as true, would mean that the standards and definitions currently accepted by Physics and the other sciences, (those that rely on the accuracy of Newton's equation F = m a ) would need to be replaced and reworked.

Newton's laws of motion relate to linear motion, to all motion in a straight line, when such motion is not found, not possible on the Earth. The cosmological planet Earth is turning on its axis in 23 hours 56 minutes 4.1 seconds, a rotational speed of 0.0000116057615 rps. This may be slow, but it is rotating, for even Galileo's last words "And the Earth still moves" made this message clear. The rotation on the Sun is much slower for one revolution takes about 28 days, giving a rotational speed of 0.0000004145 rps. Jupiter's rotation is the most rapid of all the planets completing a single rotation in 9 hours 50 minutes, a rotational speed of 0.0000282485875 rps. The equatorial tip-speed of astronomical objects, even at low rotational speeds can be an awesome number, due to the radius of the object. A galaxy just a thousand light years across, having a circumference of 3,141.59 light years does not need to rotate very quickly for the tip-speed to present a red-shift approaching light speed. An annual difference in position of a light year would need to equal the distance light travels in that year, so, the galaxy would need to turn just once in 3,141.59 years, at which point the outer stars and nebulosity would reach light speed.

Generally, galaxies rotate very slowly, but this does not make them any different to normal matter, for the Laws of Nature apply across and throughout the Universe. The major forces involved in a galaxy are rotational. Although magnetism and gravity are far less powerful forces, they shape the galaxy, promoting other fantastic effects. The source of cosmological rotational energy can originate from near-miss gravitational interactions, such as when a galactic body of stars is pulled towards a passing galaxy, the gravitational disturbance produces a sling-shot-effect and the distribution of energy causes both galactic bodies to respond to such motion. But to understand a galaxy means understanding rotation.

Join now!

Foucault's gyroscope is the most amazing scientific toy to observe rotational energy. The toy can be purchased from most toy stores, newsagents and educational supply companies for less than $20. The basic gyroscope can be made for less than a dollar from odds and ends, constructed by attaching a small shaft through the centre of a balanced disk. All spinning objects are gyroscopes; a truck's spinning tyre; a spinning thumb tack; a child's top; a motor; the flywheel and the turbine. As a disk is spun at a high rotational speed, several strange events will be noticed, but be careful, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay