Yes, indeed longitudonal forces a playing a role here but Boskovic is no fan of actual contact as in an mechanical collision, he also denies impulsive actionSolar wrote:I think you were correct to include Rudjer Boskovic in the picture. A suggestion. There are areas wherein Boskovic speaks to what has become known as longitudinal forces. When you read it consider this aspect of force also.
Pg 45 sec 17 & 17 is he speaking of longitudinal forces here via “velocity” and the “precussion” of particles?
It is in those sections around section 17 that he's trying to show the Law of Continuity which he's advocating, and which Law is that which is most significant of Boskovic's , the point also where he differs from "mechanicians" and such
Let me be so bold to place the first 11 sections below,
Personally I think it is this principle or Law of Continuity is important to go with Faraday and Tesla, as well as the resolving of forces in one force (also a continuity), expressing itself in different magnitude and propensity depending on distance
Farady was not talking about the same lines of force that Maxwell was talking about, not only did Faraday take the lines/strings purely as an analogy and Maxwell as actual physical things (the famous field lines as elucidated by Donald Scott), but also the actual concept of force was as different as that Boskovic is different from Newton
For Tesla also the talk about centres of oscillation might have been important maybe
Yes Aetherometry does that indeed, Tesla himself spoke of radiations, more people have noticed this and tried to use it, have defined it in a certain way that have a certain resemblance in properties, though I think as long as people as the Correas are not sincere about scientific and philosophic history it does not only do injustice to the giants on whos shoulders they stand upon but also to the knowledge they are trying to pursue as wellSolar wrote:Aetherometry works directly with Tesla radiation (both massfree ambipolar electric and massbound electric). I think you're spot on here.
but let me quote PLN2BZ from the end of the Meyl-thread as he said something very nice
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 2419#p2419There needs to be a reading guide that introduces people to Wal's neutrino sea, Meyl's Scalar Vortex Theory, quantum mechanics and David Thomson's APM. This is the project that I'm working on right now, but it's going to take many months to finish it. Each of these ideas has their own pluses and minuses. All of them can legitimately claim legitimacy. We cannot, and should not, attempt to generate consensus on which is correct. The only consensus we need is with regards to the arguments themselves. Once we learn all of these paradigms, then we can try to figure out tests to evaluate them.
1. The following Theory of mutual forces, which I lit upon as far back as the year 1745, whilst I was studying various propositions arising from other very well-known principles, & from which I have derived the very constitution of the simple elements of matter, presents a system that is midway between that of Leibniz & that of Newton ; it has very much in common with both, & differs very much from either ; &, as it is immensely more simple than either, it is undoubtedly suitable in a marvellous degree for deriving all the general properties of bodies, & certain of the special properties also, by means of the most rigorous demonstrations.
2. It indeed holds to those simple & perfectly non-extended primary elements upon which is founded the theory of Leibniz ; & also to the mutual forces, which vary as the distances of the points from one another vary, the characteristic of the theory of Newton ;in addition, it deals not only with the kind of forces, employed by Newton, which oblige the points to approach one another, & are commonly called attractions ; but also it considers forces of a kind that engender recession, & are called repulsions. Further, the idea is introduced in such a manner that, where attraction ends, there, with a change of distance, repulsion begins ; this idea, as a matter of fact, was suggested by Newton in the last of his ' Questions on Optics ', & he illustrated it by the example of the passage from positive to negative, as used in algebraical formulas. Moreover there is this common point between either of the theories of Newton & Leibniz & my own ; namely, that any particle of matter is connected with every other particle, no matter how great is the distance between them, in such a way that, in accordance with a change in the position, no matter how slight, of any one of them, the factors that determine the motions of all the rest are altered ; &, unless it happens that they all cancel one another (& this is infinitely improbable), some motion, due to the change of position in question, will take place in every one of them.
3. But my Theory differs in a marked degree from that of Leibniz. For one thing,because it does not admit the continuous extension that arises from the idea of consecutive, non-extended points touching one another ; here, the difficulty raised in times gone by in opposition to Zeno, & never really or satisfactorily answered (nor can it be answered), with regard to compenetration of all kinds with non-extended consecutive points, still holds the same force against the system of Leibniz. For another thing, it admits homogeneity amongst the elements, all distinction between masses depending on relative position only, & different combinations of the elements ; for this homogeneity amongst the elements, & the reason for the difference amongst masses, Nature herself provides us with the analogy. Chemical operations especially do so ; for, since the result of the analysis of compound substances leads to classes of elementary substances that are so comparatively few in number, & still less different from one another in nature ; it strongly suggests that, the further analysis can be pushed, the greater the simplicity, & homogeneity, that ought to be attained ; thus, at length, we should have, as the result of a final decomposition, homogeneity & simplicity of the highest degree. Against this homogeneity & simplicity, the principle of indiscernibles, & the doctrine of sufficient reason, so long & strongly advocated by the followers of Leibniz, can, in my opinion at least, avail in not the slightest degree.
4. My Theory also differs as widely as possible from that of Newton. For one thing,because it explains by means of a single law of forces all those things that Newton himself,in the last of his Questions on Uptics , endeavoured to explain by the three principles of gravity, cohesion & fermentation ; nay, & very many other things as well, which do not altogether follow from those three principles. Further, this law is expressed by a single algebraical formula, & not by one composed of several formulae compounded together ; or by a single continuous geometrical curve. For another thing, it admits forces that at very small distances are not positive or attractive, as Newton supposed, but negative or repulsive ; although these also become greater & greater indefinitely, as the distances decrease indefinitely. From this it follows of necessity that cohesion is not a consequence of immediate contact, as I indeed deduce from totally different considerations ; nor is it possible to get any immediate or, as I usually term it, mathematical contact between the parts of matter. This idea naturally leads to simplicity & non-extension of the elements, such as Newton himself postulated for various figures ; & to bodies composed of parts perfectly distinct from one another, although bound together so closely that the ties could not be broken or the adherence weakened by any force in Nature ; this adherence, as far as the forces known to us are concerned, is in his opinion unlimited.
5. What has already been published relating to this kind of Theory is contained in my dissertations, De Viribus vivis, issued in 1745, De Lumine, 1748, De Lege Continuitatis,1754, De Lege virium in natura existentium, 1755, De divisibilitate materia, y principiiscorporum, 1757, & in my Supplements to the philosophy of Benedictus Stay, issued in verse,The same theory was set forth with considerable lucidity, & its extremely wide utility in the matter of the whole of Physics was demonstrated, by a learned member of our Society, Carolus Benvenutus, in his Physics Generalis Synopsis published in 1754. In this synopsis he also at the same time gave my deduction of the equilibrium of a pair of masses actuated by parallel forces, which follows quite naturally from my Theory by the well-known law for the composition of forces, & the equality between action & reaction ; this I mentioned in those Supplements, section 4 of book 3, & there also I set forth briefly what I had published in my dissertation De centra Gravitatis. Further, dealing with the centre of oscillation, I stated the most noteworthy methods of others who sought to derive the determination of this centre from merely subsidiary principles. Here also, dealing with the centre of equilibrium, I asserted :" In Nature there are no rods that are rigid, inflexible, totally devoid of weight & inertia ; & so, neither are there really any laws founded on them. If the matter is worked back to the genuine & simplest natural principles, it will be found that everything depends on the composition of the forces with which the particles of matter act upon one another ; & from these very forces, as a matter of fact, all phenomena of Nature take their origin." Moreover, here too, having stated the methods of others for the determination of the centre of oscillation, I promised that, in the fourth volume of the Philosophy, I would investigate by means of genuine principles, such as I had used for the centre of equilibrium, the centre of oscillation as well.
6. Now, lately I had occasion to investigate this centre of oscillation, deriving it from my own principles, at the request of Father Scherffer, a man of much learning, who teaches mathematics in this College of the Society. Whilst doing this, I happened to hit upon areally most simple & truly elegant theorem, from which the forces with which three masses mutually act upon one another are easily to be found ; this theorem, perchance owing to its extreme simplicity, has escaped the notice of mechanicians up till now (unless indeed perhaps it has not escaped notice, but has at some time previously been discovered & published by some other person, though, as may very easily have happened, it may not have come to my notice). From this theorem there come, as the natural consequences, the equilibrium & all the different kinds of levers, the measurement of moments for machines, the centre of oscillation for the case in which the oscillation takes place sideways in a plane perpendicular to the axis of oscillation, & also the centre of percussion ; it opens up also a beautifully clear road to other and more sublime investigations. Initially, my idea was to publish in a short esssay merely this theorem & some deductions from it, & thus to give some sort of brief specimen of my Theory. But little by little the essay grew in length, until it ended in my setting forth in an orderly manner the whole of the theory, giving a demonstration of its truth, & showing its application to Mechanics in the first place, and then to almost the whole of Physics. To it I also added not only those matters that seemed to me to be more especially worth mention, which had all been already set forth in an orderly manner in the dissertations mentioned above, but also a large number of other things, some of which had entered my mind previously, whilst others in some sort obtruded themselves on my notice as I was writing & turning over in my mind all this conglomeration of material.
7. The primary elements of matter are in my opinion perfectly indivisible & non-extended points ; they are so scattered in an immense vacuum that every two of them are separated from one another by a definite interval ; this interval can be indefinitely increased or diminished, but can never vanish altogether without compenetration of the points themselves ; for I do not admit as possible any immediate contact between them. On the contrary I consider that it is a certainty that, if the distance between two points of matter should become absolutely nothing, then the very same indivisible point of space, according to the usual idea of it, must be occupied by both together, & we have true compenetration in every way. Therefore indeed I do not admit the idea of vacuum interspersed amongst matter, but I consider that matter is interspersed in a vacuum & floats in it.
8. As an attribute of these points I admit an inherent propensity to remain in the same state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, (a) in which they are initially set, if each exists by itself in Nature. But if there are also other points anywhere, there is an inherent propensity to compound (according to the usual well-known composition of forces & motions by the parallelogram law), the preceding motion with the motion which is determined by the mutual forces that I admit to act between any two of them, depending on the distances & changing, as the distances change, according to a certain law common to them all. This propensity is the origin of what we call the ' force of inertia ' ; whether this is dependent upon an arbitrary law of the Supreme Architect, or on the nature of points itself, or on some attribute of them, whatever it may be, I do not seek to know ; even if I did wish to do so, I see no hope of finding the answer ; and I truly think that this also applies to the law of forces, to which I now pass on.
9. I therefore consider that any two points of matter are subject to a determination to approach one another at some distances, & in an equal degree recede from one another at other distances. This determination I call ' force ' ; in the first case ' attractive ', in the second case ' repulsive ' ; this term does not denote the mode of action, but the propensity itself, whatever its origin, of which the magnitude changes as the distances change ;this is in accordance with a certain definite law, which can be represented by a geometrical curve or by an algebraical formula, & visualized in the manner customary with Mechanicians. We have an example of a force dependent on distance, & varying with varying distance, & pertaining to all distances either great or small, throughout the vastness of space, in the Newtonian idea of general gravitation that changes according to the inverse squares of the distances : this, on account of the law governing it, can never pass from positive to negative ; & thus on no occasion does it pass from being attractive to being repulsive, i.e., from a propensity to approach to a propensity to recession. Further, in bent springs we have an illustration of that kind of mutual force that varies according as the distance varies, & passes from a propensity to recession to a propensity to approach, and vice versa. For here, if the two ends of the spring approach one another on compressing the spring, they acquire a propensity for recession that is the greater, the more the distance diminishes between them as the spring is compressed. But, if the distance between the ends is increased, the force of recession is diminished, until at a certain distance it vanishes and becomes absolutely nothing. Then, if the distance is still further increased, there begins a propensity to approach, which increases more & more as the ends recede further & further away from one another. If now, on the contrary, the distance between the ends is continually diminished, the propensity to approach also diminishes, vanishes, & becomes changed into a propensity to recession. This propensity certainly does not arise from the immediate action of the ends upon one another, but from the nature & form of the whole of the folded plate of metal intervening. But I do not delay over the physical cause of the thing at this juncture ; I only describe it as an example of a propensity to approach & recession, this propensity being characterized by one endeavour at some distances & another at other distances, & changing from one propensity to another.
10. Now the law of forces is of this kind ; the forces are repulsive at very small distances, & become indefinitely greater & greater, as the distances are diminished indefinitely,in such a manner that they are capable of destroying any velocity, no matter how large it may be, with which one point may approach another, before ever the distance between them vanishes. When the distance between them is increased, they are diminished in such a way that at a certain distance, which is extremely small, the force becomes nothing. Then as the distance is still further increased, the forces are changed to attractive forces ; these at first increase, then diminish, vanish, & become repulsive forces, which in the same way first increase, then diminish, vanish, & become once more attractive ; & so on, in turn, for a very great number of distances, which are all still very minute : until, finally, when we get to comparatively great distances, they begin to be continually attractive & approximately inversely proportional to the squares of the distances. This holds good as the distances are increased indefinitely to any extent, or at any rate until we get to distances that are far greater than all the distances of the planets & comets.
11. A law of this kind will seem at first sight to be very complicated, & to be the result of combining together several different laws in a haphazard sort of way ; but it can be of the simplest kind & not complicated in the slightest degree ; it can be represented for instance by a single continuous curve, or by an algebraical formula, as I intimated above.A curve of this sort is perfectly adapted to the .graphical representation of this sort of law, & it does not require a knowledge of geometry to set it forth. It is sufficient for anyone merely to glance at it, & in it, just as in a picture we are accustomed to view all manner of things depicted, so will he perceive the nature of these forces. In a curve of this kind, those lines, that geometricians call abscissae, namely, segments of the axis to which the curve is referred, represent the distances of two points from one another ; & those, which we called ordinates, namely, lines drawn perpendicular to the axis to meet the curve, represent forces. These, when they lie on one side of the axis represent attractive forces, and, when they lie on the other side, repulsive forces ; & according as the curve approaches the axis or recedes from it, they too are diminished or increased. When the curve cuts the axis & passes from one side of it to the other, the direction of the ordinates being changed in consequence, the forces pass from positive to negative or vice versa. When any arc of the curve approaches ever more closely to some straight line perpendicular to the axis and indefinitely produced, in such a manner that, even if this goes on beyond all limits, yet the curve never quite reaches the line (such an arc is called asymptotic by geometricians), then the forces themselves will increase indefinitely.