John2020

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, we are in a rotating frame of reference where fictitious forces may apply. Why is there a centrifugal force only in step 2? 

There is no point in analysing this slightly more complicated example until there is some common baseline regarding the basics.

As I mentioned previously, when the ball rotates with constant angular velocity, you have just the tension and the centripetal force -> action-reaction. On increasing the angular velocity for a short time (step 2), a centrifugal force will additionally rise that pushes the mass radially outwards. Finally, on step 3 the angular velocity is kept constant (after the increase) that will imply again, we have just tension and centripetal force -> action-reaction.

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. Then there is no centrifugal force.

OK and when you rotate with the man in the same direction.

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

In what frame of reference are you doing the analysis? (You do know what a frame of reference is?) Are we looking at the man from a stationary position beside him or are we rotating along with the man so that the string is attached in origo and the ball appears at rest when angular velocity is constant?

Why is there a centrifugal force only in step 2?

In step 2 there is a centrifugal force because we have to do with a non-rigid rope that implies when the angular velocity increases, a centrifugal force will take place.

We are seeing the rotating man and ball from a stationary position.

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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?

Let us say that both are rotating in outer space, while the ball rotates counterclockwise , the man rotates clockwise.

Edit: changed the rotation direction.

26 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Increasing the rotation too fast gets you out of the rhythm and the ball may stop rotating. 

The idea is that you are in sync with the rotating ball (in rhythm). Or imagine the rope cannot curl (being rigid) but is non-rigid radially. Would you agree with the conclusion I shared above?

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

What QM says about this, to the extent it can, is that you would have a new energy level structure, and the electron would make a transition to a lower energy state and give off a photon. The atom is neutral, so there's no net force on it. You do get an induced electric dipole moment in the atom, though.

Let us say instead of increase, we have decrease in field intensity, however the electron has not enough energy to go to the next quantized energy level, thus it will not give off a photon. Wouldn't the electron and the atom behave as the classical example above (rotating a mass with a non-rigid rope)? 

19 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Why such a complicated example? 

Complicated? I don't think so. I just would like to point out the following behavior (please check it):

1.constant angular velocity -> Tension equals to centripetal force -> Action-Reaction  -> small mass zero radial velocity

2.Transition to larger angular velocity -> A centrifugal force makes its presence (since the rope is non-rigid) affecting the small mass (inertial effect) radial velocity (it was previously zero)

3.Constant angular velocity after transition -> Tension equals to centripetal force -> Action-Reaction -> small mass zero radial velocity

All the above will have as result during the transition time (increase in angular velocity), the small mass will accelerate radially and due to the conservation of momentum the same will be felt by the man rotating the small mass that means it will feel an attraction force towards the displaced mass.

I have experienced the above, haven't you? If not then try it, is very easy.

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Please clarify

I apologize, I was referring to the example with nucleus and electron. About the example with the rope the missing part is "until you reach the right or left shoulder" meaning it ascribes an arc equals to π or better let us say just an arc of 1/100 rad (very small)

53 minutes ago, swansont said:

The only place for a centrifugal force could come from would be the nucleus. How would you do that?

An external field would exert a force on the electron opposite the direction of the field. It would similarly exert a force on the proton in the direction of the field. There is nothing centrifugal about that.  

It is just a theoretical exercise even if not practically feasible.

So again, let us assume theoretically for a moment the field strength between the nucleus and the electron may suddenly increase (for unknown reason) to a new value and remains there. The transition occurs while the electron ascribes an arc of 1/100 rad. How this will affect the electron and the system (atom) as a whole?

Edit (1): suddenly increase (for unknown reason) to a new value and remains there.

Edit (2: The transition occur while the electron ascribes an arc of 1/100 rad.

Just now, Ghideon said:

3 hours ago, John2020 said:

Take a non-rigid rope with a small mass attached. Start to apply a constant angular velocity by spinning it above your head. After some secs and when the small mass is at your left or right shoulder, increase the angular velocity until you reach the. What will happen?

Seems to be information missing. (bold by me)

I edited the text I did a mistake. See above your post.

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

The only place for a centrifugal force could come from would be the nucleus. How would you do that?

An external field would exert a force on the electron opposite the direction of the field. It would similarly exert a force on the proton in the direction of the field. There is nothing centrifugal about that.  

It is just a theoretical exercise even if not practically feasible.

So again, let us assume theoretically for a moment the field strength between the nucleus and the electron may suddenly increase (for unknown reason) to a new value and remains there. The transition occur while the electron ascribes an arc of 1/100 rad. How this will affect the electron and the system (atom) as a whole?

Edit (1): suddenly increase (for unknown reason) to a new value and remains there.

Edit (2: The transition occur while the electron ascribes an arc of 1/100 rad

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

Centrifugal (outward-seeking) force? The electron is attracted to the nucleus. It is a centripetal (inward-seeking) force.

The force that attracts the two to each other is the electrostatic force. They attract each other. Action. Reaction.

There is no other force present.

I am aware about the electrostatic force and the centripetal in an electron orbiting the nucleus.

I think you just lost me.

I mentioned earlier an external field would cause electron's acceleration that implies next to centripetal, a centrifugal force comes into the picture that has direction outwards, forcing the electron to follow a more elliptical orbit. Obviously next to the electrostatic attraction (action-reaction) between the nucleus and the electron, there is an inertial force (centrifugal) that must be taken into consideration (due to the external field I mentioned earlier).

16 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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. 

As I said above replace the atom classical model (Bohr model) with a classical mechanics situation. Take a non-rigid rope with a small mass attached. Start to apply a constant angular velocity by spinning it above your head. After some secs and when the small mass is at your left or right shoulder, increase the angular velocity until you reach the. What will happen?

Let us ask @joigus.

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

if I have two charges, do they not exert force on each other? Your example seems to rely on this happening in the atom. Why not outside of it, too?

Because the electron is on orbit around the core that implies a centrifugal force is at play that accelerates the electron by putting in a more elliptical orbit. This centrifugal force is in essence an inertial force next to the action reaction between the two charges.

The reason probably this is not mentioned in the literature is because the effect is small due to the mass of the electron (mp/me = 1836)

or

even worse they ignore the inertial effects

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Linear fictitious forces can't help us circumvent Newton

Because linear fictitious forces that appear in the interior of the system presuppose an external linear force to accelwrate the system. The requirement of the reactionless drive is to work by means of internal forces.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

How is this reactionless? You pushed on the electron. The electron pushes back.

That would be possible if the electron wouldn't follow a more elliptical orbit due to acceleration.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

You're making arguments without regard to the fact that we already know momentum has to be conserved, which means reaction forces are always there.  

Using again the classical model of the atom (replace it with whatever mechanical non-rigid body equivalent) this is how according to my view the atom will behave:

1.electron accelerates

2.the orbit becomes more elliptical

3.the electron does not leave the atom due to the electric force that holds it orbiting around the core

4.at this moment the electron creates an accelerating CoM

5.the reaction from the core (in order to bring the balance back in the atom) will force the core to follow the electron. Otherwise the electron could never be able to accelerate. 

Note: The above situation depicts a non-rigid body. The classical model in the case of hydrogen orbiting electrons) still holds. I am not addressing QM.

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Linear fictitious forces can't help us circumvent Newton but Centrifugal or Euler forces can, according to you?

Yes. Isn't that obvious?

I have to go back to work. See you at the evening 

24 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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

Simply because we are interested in to achieve a linear acceleration and a linear inertial force requires to push the system with an external force and then stop again over an external force in order to create the inertial effect upon a mass inside the system, in the direction the system ravelled. But this has nothing to do with the requirement of a reactionless drive.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

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.

OK, forget about the videos as also I don't have the intention to argue about things we already cleared out.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don't understand physics, and don't seem interested in learning. You have latched on to a simple answer that is wrong. The whys and wherefores really don't matter too much, since that won't change anything.

I have to say that I realize now where I was wrong thanks to all participants feedback. Circumventing Newton's 3rd law is impossible for Rigid Bodies (joigus as also others mentioned that but back then I didn't understand the reason behind it), but I assume it should be possible for non-rigid ones.

Two things are required in order to have no reaction:
a) Non-Rigid body
b) Inertial forces (Centrifugal or Euler)

Controllable (angular velocity, direction and application time) Inertial forces may enable the deformation (since non-rigid) of a non-rigid body without triggering a reaction (since there is no interaction with other bodies, as also the non-rigid body is influenced by the inertial forces as a whole), leading to the redeployment of CoM and acceleration of the system.

The notion of a rigid body according to my understanding, normally does not exist, it is an ideal condition (at the level of classical mechanics and daily human experience) that ignores the atomic structure.

Solid matter would be really rigid if there were not electrons orbiting around the atom hold by electric forces. Consequently, a sudden acceleration of the electrons (due to an external field) for just 1/10 of radian (1/10*2*π), will result in a change of its orbit (more elliptical) creating such a centrifugal force that essentially moves the CoM of the atom, resulting in the acceleration of the atom as a whole for that small amount of time. Isn't this a reactionless drive? Certainly, yes.

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

In an accelerating rotating system one may create an Euler force that appears along the axis of rotation that does not trigger a reaction along the axis. Isn't this correct?

This is not correct when this applies to a mass being on the surface of a rotating system. It could be possible for a non-rigid body being the rotating system without interacting with a mass on its surface, right?

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Do you consider fictions forces in rotating systems fundamentally different from fictitious forces in linear accelerating systems?

In a non-rotating system they are linear velocity dependent and on rotating system are angular velocity dependent. Both are inertial forces, however in linear case is required a linear acceleration/deceleration of the object to trigger the inertial effect e.g. acceleration of a car that pushes the passenger to the back.

In an accelerating rotating system one may create an Euler force that appears along the axis of rotation that does not trigger a reaction along the axis. Isn't this correct?

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

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. 

I understand, I will not insist. Just a side note 

Exp2:A ferromagnetic ring is loaded on the back of a Lego car and when is powered, a tangential force coming from the ring appears pushing the car for a few centimeters.

Exp3; the ferromagnetic ring rotates counterclockwise on frequency decrease and clockwise on frequency increase.

I can share all the technical details as the used material  B-H Curve, dimensions, current etc.

How could someone explain the behavior of the ring that seems to exert a force coming from its interior (internal force).

I have to go to work. See you later.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

Torques can cancel each other, kinetic energy can cancel potential energy, but kinetic energies can never cancel each other. Kinetic energy is positive by definition.

You are right, my mistake. I should have used the work done by a force in all circumstances since they are cancellable.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

The video has zero impact regarding reactionless drives. (

First of all there are three videos showing directional motion and not just vibrations. Of course, friction comes also into play. Let us ignore exp.1 (complex description) and tell me what you see on exp.2 and exp.3, especially on exp.2.

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That statement seems to be built upon a misunderstanding. It does not imply anything regarding the question you asked. 

Why?

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’m not interested in going down that rabbit hole.

Frankly, given your demonstrated level of acumen, I have no confidence you could carry out and properly report an experiment. 

I ask to judge the experiments not me. I am able to give all the technical details. I know very well what I have done.

Are you interested to know my background?

19 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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.

Wouldn't be possible to transfer mass without reaction? The fictitious forces appearing in a rotating frame are by nature reactionless.

A modification of this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551YI

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If it’s not reactionless in an inertial frame, it’s not reactionless. There is no free lunch.

Ten years ago I conducted the following experiments:

Exp1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aTQ7eHj5_9Lz1loLo5QW5IaYdapYH7um/view?usp=sharing

Exp2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fEbkXAinY8rsKNyvlZkAWgD3g-MblnR4/view?usp=sharing

Exp3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cBrWbwyjuDwe1lWd0zY8ZlI5A5_al9F3/view?usp=sharing

How can you justified the motion we observe on those experiments?

In an accelerating spinning chair will appear centrfugal and Euler forces. They should be possible to be  utilized.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. There is always a reaction when you analyze it in an inertial frame.

Then it has to be utilized in a rotating frame. Creation of an Euler force.

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

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) 

Then it has to be utilized in a rotating frame.