In <1133398558.208459.28260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>   . . .

 <deletes>

O'Barr wrote:   . . .
>>   When using the appropriate constant (G), one can
>> certainly assume that the resulting force might be
>> proportional to the mass of the object causing the
>> attraction, and the mass of the object responding
>> to the attraction.  But again and again, there are
>> no physical reasons or causes given to establish
>> any of this.  I have to stand with what I
>> originally said!

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And once again you miss the point.

O'Barr comments:
   And what point did I miss?  And how many points
did you miss?  There was no physical explanations
offered by Newton or anyone else as to how this force
of gravity was physically causes or created or
established.

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
G has nothing to do with this conclusion.

O'Barr comments:
   And what a waste of time to argue over this.  G
has nothing to do with what conclusion?  It has
everything to do with making the math work.

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Newton made a generalization that all forces occur
>as an interaction between pairs of things, and the
>the force that A exerts on B is identical in
>magnitude to the force that B exerts on A. This is
>his 3rd law, which he presumed applies to *all*
>forces, but was not developed with gravity
>specifically in mind.  Thus, if A exerts a
>gravitational force on B that is proportional to the
>mass of B (see observation 1) then it must also be
>proportional to the mass of A. The only way it can
>be proportional to both masses is if it is
>proportional to the product of the masses. You see,
>there is *no* assumption about the mathematical form
>of the force involving G -- it is a conclusion from
>already determined laws. It is a pity that you have
>not appreciated how this law came to be.

O'Barr comments:
   But don't you see, not one step above actually
include any causes.  No physical explanations what so
ever.  These are all just math relationships, and no
matter how correct they are, how beautiful they are,
how much you might understand them all, they offer no
explanations of the cause of this force, and they
thus cannot tell anyone why it has the nature that it
has.  You are a waste of time.

<deletes>

O'Barr wrote:
>>    The question is not how easy or logical all the
>> guessing might have been.  The point being made
>> was that there were no physical reasons provided
>> by Newton why all these things were physically
>> true.  The math was not derived from any physical
>> theory that was producing these force, it was only
>> the application of math that matched what was
>> observed.

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ah, so you are unhappy with a physical law that
>describes *how* nature works unless it is coupled
>with an underlying mechanism that describes
>why it is that way and no other way.

O'Barr comments:
   I have never met a reasonable person who did not
want to know such things.
   Your use of the words 'a physical law' sure seems
funny.  Is there a reason why you used these words
when you could have just said 'an explanation?'

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And since you are happy with the microscopic
>explanation of the ideal gas law (even though the
>ideal gas law was not developed with the microscopic
>explanation at hand), then I'm assuming that you
>think that all physical laws should involve the
>banging of little particles against each other.

O'Barr comments:
   I am very happy with the ideal gas law.  Most
reasonable people are.  But I am also happy in my
studies of electricity, thermal dynamics, earth
science, in fact I am happy in all my studies, except
when I go into studies where no physical explanations
are made.  And do I need to tell you what studies
these are?  And you are sick if you do not understand
that these studies that have no physical underlying
explanations are weak theories.
   The very fact that you take note of my comments
shows that something is funny!  Why would anyone
waste time on such a subject unless they feel
threatened by it!  Why are you so threatened that you
have to even note that I have said such simple and
reasonable things?

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And yet, when someone asked you about the
>assumptions that are specifically required about the
>microscopic explanation of the gas law, and in
>particular about the nature of the collisions of the
>little particles, you easily dismissed it as being
>irrelevant whether they collided by virtue of actual
>contact or by virtue of an interstitial field
>between them.

O'Barr comments:
   Maybe it is because I understand the theory.  And
the details are not important in the theory, as long
as kinetic energy is preserved.  You are tying to
make problems where none exists!  And the real
question is again, why are you doing all this?  There
is no cause for you to be this way.  Why are you
making all these points that have no scientific
merit?  Are you just dumb?

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Somehow, though, I get the impression that you would
>not find the field form of the explanation behind
>Newtonian gravitation satisfactory.  That is,
>interaction via fields of the collisions of little
>particles in a gas is ok, but the interaction via
>fields of two bodies gravitationally
>attracting is not ok.  Why is that, Gerald?

O'Barr comments:
   I am happy with any interactions of little
particles as long as those particles do not consist
of imaginary properties, negative mass, jumps in
directions and energies etc.  I can tell when you are
being stupid, and ignorant, and silly.  Just because
you can take something that is silly, and make it
mimic something else, it is still silly.  And you
know it, just as I know it.  You are a mess!
   The at theory does not do one thing that is not
normal, reasonable, and realistic.  And yet it is
able to accomplish all the things necessary.


Now I am only going to address one or two more
points.  Your long post is just too much for me to
take.  You make no effort to be reasonable.

You stated about me:
> . . . you are fundamentally no closer to a
>*physical* explanation of the ideal gas law than you
>are to a *physical* explanation of gravity.  Your
>line in the sand, the place where you say "Good
>enough for me!", is arbitrary and capricious.

O'Barr comments:
   I am sorry, but it has nothing at all to do with
me.  It does not matter what I like or do not like.
The power of a physical theory is impossible to
ignore.  You yourself mentioned that long before the
physical kinetic theory of gases existed, they
mathematically knew how temperature and pressure were
related, and how volume and pressure were related,
and how amount of gas and volume and pressure were
related.  But any fool knows that when you take the
physical approach, you tie all these points together!
This is scientifically significant!  It makes the
physical approach superior.  And you are insane not
to mention this.  You are no scientist!
   The physical approach might have many areas where
more might need to be known, but this has nothing to
do with what it can do as far as it is now known.
And you will not be allowed to make fun of me for
believing and accepting it, for what it can now do.
It makes you one silly person, and as unscientific as
you can be.
    And these exact things are also associated with
LET and SR.  The physical approach of LET provides to
us a supportive correlations of concepts, a
definition for all the math that is used, the proper
math limits, the proper explanations so that there
are no jumps in times, or back in times, or breaks in
symmetry.  And it removes all these apparent
paradoxes, all these imagined paradoxes.  It allows
everyone to understand, not just those who lie about
their understanding.  The very fact that you and
other SR experts are unwilling to even admit that
there are differences between just a math theory and
a physical theory proves to me that you are
dishonest.  You will not be scientific about any of
this.  You even lie about PV = nRT to support your
evil theories.

PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The fundamental problem is that *all* physical
>theories are like this.  They peel back another
>layer of "how" but there is *always* a follow-up
>question of "why that 'how' and not another 'how'?".
>This is true for any physical theory you can cite.
>It is not special to special relativity, nor is it
>different for LET or the kinetic theory of gases.

O'Barr comments:
   And you are scum!  The very act of peeling back
any layer, no matter how many might be below it, is
called progress!  How dare you say that we should not
want progress because progress brings additional
questions!  That is why progress is so important, to
get to more questions that need to be addressed!
As I said, you are no scientist!

   Until I see more honesty in your responses, there
is no reason for me to answer more.  You have no
desire except to confuse and to twist the facts.
There really are theories that are only math
theories, such as SR and GR, and there are other
theories that are stronger theories, such as PV = nRT
and LET, that are physical theories, and provide a
more clear understanding of the math and the limits
that must be applied to that math.  

 
Gerald.