tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post8802458893673615367..comments2024-03-28T10:25:22.825+01:00Comments on Robert's Stochastic thoughts: Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-25918950379942309312007-10-23T00:55:00.000+02:002007-10-23T00:55:00.000+02:00In particular, in the wikipedia, the possibility t...In particular, in the wikipedia, the possibility that mass changes is introduced before Newton's discussion of how acceleration is force divided by something.<BR/><BR/>Thus the paragraph used to justify the idea that Newton's views are consistent with special relativity is not only a brief quote but one which removes the relevant statement (a context whose meaning is distorted by removal of the statement). Newtons thoughts on the subject were in word to word translation<BR/><BR/>"The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the 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 toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies." <BR/><BR/>Motion is now called momentum and the bodies are the masses of the bodies. Newton clearly did not consider "the bodies" to depend on the relative velocity of the observer. I mean "the bodies" has to be an intrinsic property of the bodies. Thus Newton did not anticipate special relativity. <BR/><BR/>The physicist from about a hundred years ago would have been much clearer to us than Newton (I mean by googling I could find a quote in English).Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-77345957649620664562007-10-23T00:45:00.000+02:002007-10-23T00:45:00.000+02:00I sure didn't expect to end up arguing about trans...I sure didn't expect to end up arguing about translations from Latin here. In any case, the physicist from about a century ago would have agreed that all physicists think f=ma which is false and one paragraph from a book written by Newton doesn't change that.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3621026.post-51058146729618947562007-10-23T00:33:00.000+02:002007-10-23T00:33:00.000+02:00Actually, Newton didn't get it wrong: he said forc...Actually, Newton didn't get it wrong: he said force equals the time derivative of momentum, which is true whether mass is constant or not. I'm not claiming he thought the mass would change, but his formulation is consistent with special relativity. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_second_law:_law_of_acceleration" REL="nofollow">Here's</A> a reference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com