Problems with Newtonian Mechanics

Some problems are presented below on Newtonian Mechanics.

Problem 3 Furthermore, the problems within the gravity formula become more evident when we notice the use of the formula in the above example, whereby gravity is said to conform with Newtons third law, stated as "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". This law determines that where there is a two body system, F₁₂ = -F₂₁. Therefore 

1) mass m₁causes the gravity force F₁₂ on mass m₂, and

2) m₁ causes a gravity force <-- -F₂₁ --->on mass m₁, with a vector direction opposite of <-- F₁₂.

The manner of using m₁ within the gravity formula, means m₁ is both -

i) a cause of gravity acting by m₂ attracting m₁ towards m₂.

ii) a cause of gravity acting by m₁ attracting m₂ towards m₁.

The simultaneous use of m₁ as a single principle, causing two opposing forces is fundamentally at odds with the nature of causation, which requires 

1) a single principle produces only one effect 

2) contrary principles produce contrary effects.

3) a single principle does not produce contrary effects. This is contrary to what Newtonian mechanics posits for the action of m₁ in F₁₂ and -F₂₁.

Similar conclusions can be made about the use of m₂ within the gravity formula. 

Question - How does a Newtonian defend the notion of Newtonian Gravity in light of mass producing contrary gravitational effects, disconcordant with the laws of causation?

Problem 3b

Eq 1) F12 = Gm1m2/r^2

Eq 2) F21 = Gm1m2/r^2

Newtonian mechanics says that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Within the acceleration fields caused by m1 and m2, each field is said to accelerate with vectors in opposite directions. But in equations 1 and 2, the vector opposition of the fields must be ignored, and thereby not considered under the principle of action and reaction. For example F12 = Gm1m2/r^2 assumes the field of Gm1/r^2 alone is relevant to m2. Likewise F21 = Gm1m2/r^2 assumes the field of Gm2/r^2 alone is relevant to m1. Both formulas ignore the opposing field of acceleration and thereby, do not apply the principle of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". In doing so, the fields are not consistently used in equations 1 and 2 as an action and opposing reaction.

Hence Newtonian Mechanics is inconsistent with its own principle of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", making the theory invalid.

Problem 4 The application of multiplying m₁ with m₂, along with the gravity constant indicates the force of gravity is simply not caused by mass attraction as we are told in Newtonian mechanics. As gravity is both far greater than an individual mass, (as indicated by multiplying the masses) and far less than any individual mass magnitude (as indicated by multiplying the masses by G), then the subsequent disproportion of individual mass values to gravity force calculated by -

i) multiplying the masses to find the value of F, and

ii) multiplying the masses with the very small constant G, to find the value of F

indicate gravity is a force that is simultaneously far greater than any individual mass (i) and far smaller than any individual mass (ii). The manner of using mass in the gravity formula, along with the gravity constant indicates gravity is not caused by mass attraction as assumed within Newtonian mechanics.

Question - How does a Newtonian defend the postulate that gravity is caused by mass attraction, when the force of gravity is an effect that is disproportionate to any particular mass as shown in (i) and (ii)?

Problem 5 We also note the incongruity of the Newtonian gravity formula when we apply the above two body example and make m₁ = 1/2 m₂. In this example, combined with Newton's third law, we note that F₁₂ = -F₂₁, whereby -

1) mass m₁ is a cause of the same magnitude of gravity force, at both centers of mass at m₁ and m₂.

2) mass's m₁ and m₂ cause of the same magnitude of gravity force, yet because m₁ = 1/2 m₂, mass m₁ should attract m₂, less than m₂ attracts m₁, but does not.

Therefore if Newtonian gravity is caused by attraction of the masses, the masses m₁ and m₂ are unequal and therefore should cause unequal attraction of the opposing mass, but do not according to Newtons third law. The incongruity within Newtonian mechanics (NM) means Newton's third law must be used inconsistently with the principle that Newtonian gravity is caused by mass attraction. The problem is further outlined if we note the simple example of a man standing on the earth. According to NM, both -

1) the man and the earth are mutually and equally attracted to each other according to Newton's third law, whereby the gravity force F_man = -F_earth, where F_man = Gm_manm_earth/r²_{man, earth} and -F_earth = Gm_earthm_man/r²_{earth, man}, yet

2) the man and the earth unequally attract each other, whereby the man will always fall towards the earth and never the earth towards the man.

The inconsistency of laws within NM means 1) NM requires the gravity force within the man-earth system to be equal, but also requires the bodies to fall towards each other unequally. The convoluted, illogical and therefore almost unintelligible use mass, center of mass and distance within the Newtonian gravity formula, along with Newton's third law means Newtonian gravity is almost completely unintelligible. 

Question - How does a Newtonian defend the notion of Newtonian Gravity in light of the inconsistent application of the gravity as caused by the masses and Newtons third law, when the masses are not equal?

Problem 6 The gravity formula supposes gravity is caused by mass attraction. As mass is a property of a body, then the principle of mass attraction is a cause intrinsic to the nature of a body. If we assume the formula is consistent with the Newtonian principle of mass attraction, then -

1) the formula contains two mass variables m₁ and m₂.

2) the two mass variables indicate gravity is caused by two masses.

3) the formula F₂₁ = -Gm₁m₂/r²₂₁ describes the force caused by m₂ on m₁

According to the principle of mass attraction, gravity force caused by m₂ on m₁ must be from a principle intrinsic to m₂. For a cause intrinsic to a body must be derived as a cause only from that singular body. Yet according to F₂₁, the gravity force caused by m₂ on m₁ involves the additional causes of -

1) m₁, whereby the m₁ mass is extrinsic to m₂ according to principle (as one body is extrinsic to another body), but intrinsic to m₂ according to magnitude of F₂₁ (whereby the quantity of m₁ is assumed to interact along with the quantity of m₂ as indicated in the variables of m₁ and m₂ in the F₂₁ equation).

2) the universal gravitational constant G.

As both (i) m₁ and (ii) G are extrinsic to m₂, the formula for F₂₁ which describes the force of gravity by m₂ on m₁, then includes causes of the gravity force that are foreign to the fundamental principle of Newtonian gravity as caused by mass attraction. As these two (i and ii) causes are extrinsic to the body containing a mass m₂, then a truer principle of Newtonian gravity is gravity is caused by -

1) intrinsic mass attraction of m₂, 

2) extrinsic magnitude of mass attraction m₁ supplemental to that of mass m₂, and 

3) a universal constant of G, which is extrinsic to the mass, m₂.

Question - How does one defend the Newtonian definition of gravity as mass attraction ( as a property intrinsic to the body of m₂), when the formula for universal gravity contains variables of a foreign mass, and a gravity constant, that are both extrinsic to the mass of a body m₂?


Problem 7 The universal law of gravity is said to be derived by Newton, based upon -

1) the law of 1/r², derived in Newton's Principia, using geometry. This method is deductive using the principles of geometry to arrive at a conclusion that is certain, assuming there is a centripetal force acting from the mass to the ellipse focus. If the assumption of centripetal force is true, then it follows from geometry that gravity force is proportional to 1/r².

2) Kepler's laws of proportion concerning orbital period in relation to orbital radius, deduced inductively from observation and stated as "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. P² = k r³. Kepler's law is formulated as deduced inductively from observations of the planetary motions. If the observations and assumed elliptical motions are both correct, then the planets move according to the proportions given.

The weaknesses in this method are -

i) It is never proven that neither mass, nor centripetal force are real causes in relation to gravity. Both mass and centripetal force are assumed to be true within the model and derivation of the gravity formula F=GMm/r². If mass does not cause gravity, then centripetal force is not real. If centripetal force is not real, then mass attraction is not real either.

ii) There is no mechanism to cause the centripetal force within the Newtonian model.

iii) The method isolates the motions of the planet and sun as a two body systems and does not justify this isolation with any self checking mechanism within the model.

iv) The mathematical conclusions reached by 1) and 2) are by diverse methods, with each method containing its own assumptions that are independent of either point 1) or 2).

It is said that the formula is derived from the maths of the proportions given in 1) F= k/r² and 2) P² = k r³ above. Yet such proportions may be determined by making other assumptions such as the following -

A) Gravity is caused by the interaction of space between bodies. Or is caused by the local flow of space.

B) centripetal force is not required between a body and the ellipse focus.

C) gravity should account for the local system and thereby account for the universality and the locality of gravity.

In making these assumptions contrary to Newtonian mechanics, we would arrive at a different maths model for gravity. 

Question - How confident can one be that NM is a true model of gravity when i to iv above may well be wrong?

Some Points on the Problematic Nature of Newtonian Mechanics.


We can discover the problematic nature of Newtonian gravity from inspection of the two body problem of m₁ and m₂. The problems are exposed in the points as follows -

1) If F₁₂ is caused by m₂ acting on m₁, how is F₁₂ acting at m₁ then proportional to both m₁ and m₂?

2) Wouldn't it be more logical for the gravity force F₁₂ from m₂, to be only proportional to m₂?

3) If F₁₂ and F₂₁ are gravity forces caused by m₁ and m₂, how are those forces both equally dependent upon the magnitudes of m₁ and m₂, when the forces are at a distance of r, and acting in opposite directions?

4) If there is no real basis for the magnitudes of m₁ and m₂ being multiplied to attain the values of F₁₂ and F₂₁, what confidence can there be for the reality of G and any experiment performed to calculate G? After all, the gravity equation is said to be mathematically derived from Kepler's third law and Newton's 1/r² law. Yet such derivation is based upon the assumptions of centripetal force, action at a distance, and mass attraction, which are never proven.

5) Newtonian orbital mechanics is based upon the assumption that inertia is an innate property of a body whereby the body will have a tangential velocity that is always constant. These two assumptions are fundamental to Newtonian orbital mechanics, but are never proven to be real. In fact (from memory) Newtonian mechanics posits that centripetal force is a fictional force. Hence the entire Newtonian orbital mechanics system requires at least one fictional force for the system to be mathematically viable. Hence the Newtonian system is problematic.

6) The third Newtonian law that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction may well be a principle that does not apply to gravity. Such a conclusion may be found by comparing the forces F₁₂ and F₂₁, which are said to be equal and opposite, even when

i) m₁ and m₂ are unequal. 

and

ii) F₁₂ and F₂₁ are at distance r, apart and therefore cannot truly be said to be an action and opposing reaction. Typically a force and its opposing re-action are tightly united, as say in a body hitting a wall. Yet with gravity, the force is assumed to not act in a similar, tight manner.

As i) and ii) are problematic, then the assumed universality of Newtons third law should only be applied after demonstrating that the law applies to gravity. Of course the validity of the law is merely assumed and then applied to the gravity force, but never demonstrated.

7) When Newton's third law and mass attraction are combined, masses m₁ and m₂ are then the causes of gravity forces, F₁₂ and F₂₁ acting in opposing directions. Doesn't anyone at least question the veracity of two masses causing forces in opposite directions, when a singular mass can only attract in one direction? How is such a leap of logic even possible, let alone viable?

8) Mass attraction means a physical cause within a body must act within another body. Such a force is almost like a magical -

i) action at a distance, and

ii) a pseudo, qualitative compenetration of bodies, whereby mass attraction as a quality caused by the mass of the first body, then passes from the first body to act in the second body, to attract the second body to the first. Such a physical mechanism certainly requires an amount of faith to believe really does exist. 

Of course according to Newtonian mechanics, this quality of mass attraction within the first body, somehow interacts to multiply with the magnitude of the same quality of mass attraction found in the second body, which in turn causes the same gravity force in the second body (but in the opposite direction to the first body), even if the second body has only half the mass of the first body. Such a property within physical bodies seems to require the Newtonian universe to have bodies know what they are attracted to and thereby cause A) an exact quality of attraction to satisfy Newtons third law, and B) which then causes an attraction within the second body, in the opposite direction in the second body in proportion to the magnitude of both body masses. What a mind bending system is Newtonian gravity. The exacting nature of the forces required to balance the Newtonian system and the quasi knowledge of all matter, tends to promote a physics animism based gravity force within matter. Its as though matter must intuitively know what amount of quality to cause within each individual body and to correctly interact with other bodies to produce the forces required to satisfy Newtons laws and equations.

The problematic nature of Newtonian Mechanics lends support to posit another form of physical cause of gravity in local aether flow, which avoids the problems exposed above.

JM