Ghideon

Incorrect. Please start a thread in speculations and propose a model and supporting evidence. The question does not apply since you were incorrect in the first question in the post.

In what frame of reference are you doing the analysis? Why is there a centrifugal force only in step 2? Are you using different frames of reference in steps 1 and 3?

@Swansont already answered that:

It's more complicated than you realise or at least more complicated than you describe. 1) Probably correct in ideal situation 2) not necessarily, If you just rotate faster then the rope and the ball will lag behind and curl around your hand. If the rope is free to move without your hand getting in the way (rope already almost parallel to the ground for instance) you need to analyse the difference in velocity. Increasing the rotation too fast gets you out of the rhythm and the ball may stop rotating. I have of course rotated a ball on a string faster and faster. That can be achieved by pulling the rope slightly harder while at the same time increasing the angular velocity to compensate. Turning to speed up a rotating ball by just rotating faster may or may not work. Compare a contemporary hammer throw (ball on string) vs Scottish hammer throw (ball on a shaft). If we change the laws of physics then things will change. Other than that, hard to tell. What are you trying to achieve by analysing non-physical situations? Why the focus on things that can't happen, and can't be correctly described within the laws you try to apply?

If we assume you are discussing science then your question needs to be reformulated.

Ok It depends, an almost rigid wire behaves different than a rubber band for instance. It also greatly depends on how much the speed is increased. The non-rigid rope may stretch and the tension in the rope may increase while I try to spin faster. The rope may coil around my hand for some part of a lap. It may take some time (some number of rotations) before the system is stable again. A lot more details are probably needed to make a prediction. Why such a complicated example?

Sorry, Im not following. Above my post is: You asked me about a ball on a non-rigid rope. I'm trying to read: Please clarify.

Seems to be information missing. (bold by me)

Gravity can be used to model and predict how the celestial bodies move in the solar system. Off topic. And already covered in my foot note.

or Classical mechanics does not correctly describe he internals of an atom and hence scientists are using other models. You are using an invalid approach and your results does not match experiments, observations and theoretical predictions.

It is a bad use of words, by me. Maybe better: fictitious force in a linear accelerating frame of reference (as compared to Euler and Centrifugal forces in rotating frames of reference)

Removed

Thanks. I try to figure out if the problem is understanding acceleration and fictitious forces in general or if the misunderstanding is isolated to circular motion. I'll try to post some examples of circular motion later.

But it is still about circumventing Newton? You said: Linear fictitious forces can't help us circumvent Newton but Centrifugal or Euler forces can, according to you?

Satellites sent to remote areas in solar system (and beyond) are not affected by any aether. Satellites maintain constant velocity* *) Not including possible solar wind interaction and gravitational slingshot manoeuvres etc

Your assumption is incorrect. Why circular and not linear? Why, according to your incorrect physics, are circular motion special? Understanding how you believe that may help writing a good explanation. No. (Hint: using an atomic model (that have been superseded by newer models) gives you incorrect predictions when applying the model where it is not applicable. Same mistake as when trying to use Newtonian physics for photons or for relative velocities close to the speed of light, c.)

I agree. Good list of special characters. Just an additional note @zak100: You never told us what you or your teacher uses so you need to be aware that in some cases the escaping differs among regular expression styles. Some platforms use backslash to escape parenthesis: \(regexp\).

Seems Ok to me. According to your ideas*, can any fictitious force be used to circumvent Newton? Or maybe better worded, can we use the fictitious forces occurring in linear accelerating frames of reference to circumvent Newton or does it necessarily have to be fictitious forces in rotating frame of reference? No, there is always a reaction when you analyze it in an inertial frame. Thanks. It could for instance be a reactionless drive, anti gravity or psychic powers; they have the same probability (zero). Or it could be an issue with the experiment such as vibrations, magnetics etc, something that exists in the universe as we know it according to current models. Trying to argue for the existence of a reactionless drive using videos simply does not work on this science forum. Feel free to try somewhere else. *) Disclaimer: The personal ideas presented by John2020 regarding circumventing Newton has no support in accepted physical theories. The question is an attempt sort out where the misunderstanding may come from.

There are plenty of obscure videos in speculations section here, and even more on the internet in general. The videos have zero impact regarding my view on reactionless drives. Or if you prefer an analogy; the videos 1, 2 and 3 could be videos claiming UFO's, Yetis, Loch Ness Monsters, Negative Energy, Anti gravity, Psychic powers or other non-mainstream things. I pay no attention to them from a scientific point of view. Especially not videos that posted in threads about concepts that are impossible and about devices that when analysed does not have the properties initially claimed. Regarding this one: According to your view on physics, are fictitious forces one concept as per mainstream physics or are there different kinds? Do you consider fictions forces in rotating systems fundamentally different from fictitious forces in linear accelerating systems? Reason for asking; there are different ways to answer depending on your level of understanding.

The gravity for any body is related to the mass of the body. So by recreating a scale model, the small earth you describe, your model will have a tiny fraction of earth gravity since the model has less mass. The magnetic fields, magma and the rotation does not have a great effect on the gravity here on the surface. But that said, gravity as physical concept, is the same "thing" everywhere. Gravity has different magnitude and direction, for instance the surface gravity on the moon is weak compared to earth. But it is the same kind of gravity, described by the same physical rules, even if the moon has a different internal composition. Feel free to ask follow up questions.

What kind of sources have you looked at? Earth is not the center of the solar system. And the sun is not the center of the solar system; the orbits are not circular but elliptical. And the planets masses can't be neglected so the sun would describe a tiny wobble as seen by a remote observer. The solar system is obviously not in the center of the milky way. And universe has no center. Since the idea* has been debunked consistently on earth why waste time and money on doing it again on another planet? As a comparison I would not vote for someone that wants tax money for searching for phlogiston on the moon or mars. (Searching for ether* winds in a planet atmosphere may okay though) (I guess aether is the word you mean. )

There are 14 pages, in this thread alone, explaining that in detail. There is no need to repeat so I'll go through all of the posts and figure out some new way to explain. It may take some time. Not really but feel free to share. Sometimes an explanation can be better prepared if background is known. I would for instance not try to explain the basics of atomic clocks to @swansont but maybe I would prepare a detailed answer if the question was about preparation procedures when mixing traditional Swedish red paint. (But I would on the other hand not be surprised if Swansont would step in to correct me in a thread about the second example ... ) There are plenty of obscure videos in speculations section here, and even more on the internet in general. The video has zero impact regarding reactionless drives. (edit: I initially quoted from the wrong post so it looked like swansont shared the link above. Corrected ) Ok. (I have seen metal nuts perform similar movement on my fathers old workbench, even without cables attached. It was, as far as I remember, due to vibrations from a transformer in an old , badly shielded, weld. I guess we should have claimed a Nobel prize instead of laughing)

No. Reactionless drive and tracking conservation of momentum is not possible. That statement seems to be built upon a misunderstanding. It does not imply anything regarding the question you asked. Actually kind of interesting video. And as expected nothing there to support your claims. Explaining how the cube behaviour is predicted is better handled in a separate 14+ pages thread. Personally I would be more interested in the sensors, algorithms and programming involved. It would also be interesting to see a simulation of millions of such cubes, with the ability to attach to one another, perform together governed by algorithms on a higher level. But that would be pretty far off topic. And still nothing to do with "reactionless"

Warning - Non-scientific claim: If you could create a mechanical device that does not conserve momentum, as required in a reactionless drive, I guess you could also connect the output of the device the input, harvesting the magical appearing momentum and build a perpetual motion machine. But since both perpetual motion and reactionless drives are impossible I would not try to build such a device Such forces are possibe to utilise in engineering, for instance when designing rotating constructions and calculating mechanical strength. But as source for free energy or breaking momentum conservation: no. Photons does not begin to follow Newtonian physics / classical mechanics regardless of frame of reference. I don't think the photons will acquire an invariant mass in a rotating frame.

Not necessarily true. Photons are one example in optics where using Newton gives incorrect predictions. (if that is what classical mechanics means in this context)