Jump to content
John2020

Reactionless Drive and Newton's 3rd law

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

 Why you cannot see what I see?

It may very well be that it is because you are not seeing the whole picture. As I noted earlier, your drawings are missing notations. You also have not responded to some of my requests for clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

But perhaps we could return to discussing the physics, rather than this sideshow?

I agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Thinking on your feet is more important than knowledge. Eibstein used the word"imagination".

And Feynman improved upon it: "Science is imagination in a straight jacket."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, swansont said:
1 hour ago, John2020 said:

 Why you cannot see what I see?

It may very well be that it is because you are not seeing the whole picture. As I noted earlier, your drawings are missing notations. You also have not responded to some of my requests for clarification.

I believe that when one finds the other keys, everything will become clear.

Don't worry I will answer to your questions in time.

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

And Feynman improved upon it: "Science is imagination in a straight jacket."

I believe Einstein, use that quote to encourage people think out of maths first since that way you are more free to think (even outside the box).

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

You're standing outside the device. Your coordinate system is inertial. A rotating object in an inertial frame follows Newton's laws.

Correct, however the rotating frame delivers something useful that can be utilized in Newton's laws. Maybe I am wrong but Fig.1-Upper exposes it we like it or not. Should I disclose what I have in mind? I can be wrong as I said, however if I disclose it, the surprise will be ruined.

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, John2020 said:

 Correct, however the rotating frame delivers something useful that can be utilized in Newton's laws. Maybe I am wrong but Fig.1-Upper exposes it we like it or not. Should I disclose what I have in mind? I can be wrong as I said, however if I disclose it, the surprise will be ruined.

The only way to apply Newtons 2nd and 3rd law in a rotating frame is if you include fictitious forces. You don't seem to have included any. So any answer you get from such analysis is wrong. 

A net force that exists in a rotating frame in this kind of scenario should disappear when analyzed in an inertial frame. A reactionless drive has to work in an inertial frame to be classified as reactionless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, swansont said:

The only way to apply Newtons 2nd and 3rd law in a rotating frame is if you include fictitious forces. You don't seem to have included any.

You just found the key. Well, the way I presented my work it seems there is none, however the named from me induced forces F_AI and F_RI are in essence fictitious. I have to remove those definitions from my paper because as I see are quite confusing and to use clearly the definition "fictitious". The image in Fig.1-Upper exposes clearly the fictitious force at play (see how mass m_T moves to the right).

In 30 secs, you will have the whole story. It is ready!

Proof of concept in a list of statements

 

OK, here is what according to my view how the construction in Fig.1-Upper may work (start to accelerate) . I will present it as a list of statements (like a test procedure) in order to become clearer :

1.Rotating frame inside an inertial frame

2.The inertial frame is governed by Newton's laws

3.The rotating frame is governed by Fictitious forces (I shouldn't call them induced, however they are somewhat induced too, as compared with action force F_A)

4.All the internal forces in the isolated system (Fig.1-Upper) participate in the rotating frame

5.A pair of non-constant (varying) F_A and F_A' forces are exerted on the surface of the translation screw, resulting in a torque and varying angular velocity of the translation screw

6.The translation screw starts to rotate clockwise

7.The coupled mass m_T starts to evolve counterclockwise due to the conservation of angular momentum (typical linear actuator application)

8.The motion of mass m_T, although evolves counterclockwise, appears an additional fictitious linear momentum

9.Mass m_T is in essence pushed to the right by the fictitious force F_AI

10.Fictitious forces do not possess reactions (I presented a mathematical proof without attributing the result to the fictitious forces)

11.The Newtonian Action force acts upon mass m_T and the Newtonian reaction upon the translation screw, however both are perpendicular to the Fictitious force and fictitious linear momentum of mass m_T

12.As one may see in Fig.1-Upper there is no reaction force being developed while m_T moves to the right since m_T is propelled by the fictitious force

13.The fact that fictitious forces do not possess reactions (Newton's 3rd law does not hold here), they are ideal to transfer mass from one point to another but inside the isolated system, causing a change in CoM

14.IF F_A and F_A' are constant then the angular velocity is constant as also the fictitious force is constant resulting in a constant fictitious mass m_T linear momentum

15.Due to (14) the mass m_T was transferred with constant momentum, the CoM changed but the system cannot accelerate (momentum conservation). Here we have no change in mass m_T momentum (since constant)

16.IF F_A and F_A' are not constant (see (5)) then the angular velocity is not constant as also the fictitious force is not constant resulting in a non-constant fictitious mass m_T linear momentum (change in momentum)

17.Due to (16) we have an accelerating mass transfer (accelerating change in CoM)

18.Due to (17) the CoM changes and system accelerates (momentum conservation). This statement may sound exotic and never experienced before in a real device. In a few words and following the assumed consistency of the previous statements, the system as a whole will be accelerated due to a fictitious force F_RI caused by the accelerating change in CoM.

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John2020 said:

believe Einstein, use that quote to encourage people think out of maths first since that way you are more free to think (even outside the box).

I actually did that. Finding issues in your device took a few seconds but from there I assumed your idea to be correct. Then I looked at the big picture; what profound consequences would your idea have on the current states of physics and the universe as we know it. The result of that outside the box thinking was that your claims seems incompatible with the universe and our models. That was the quick part and no math was used.

My struggle now is to find a suitable explanation that fits your current level of understanding and/or helps raising understanding of physics to a required level. My first attempt at that was to look at the whole system and to use a simple formula; F=ma, unfortunately that seems to have failed to add clarity.

 

39 minutes ago, John2020 said:

OK, here is what according to my view how the construction in Fig.1-Upper may work (start to accelerate) . I will present as a list of statements (like a test procedure) in order to become clearer :

You miss the big picture. Conservation of momentum (linear and angular) always holds. And when the device is from the outside you start with zero momentum p=0 and at a later time there is p>0. You need to explain the new physics that allows that. The big picture is that we already know that the current laws of physics makes your proposed device impossible. No amount of details about the device will ever change that. You need to present the new physics that supports the claims and allows total momentum to not be conserved. Compare to Einstein if you wish; Special relativity is not derived from within Newtonian physics. SR has separate postulates and applies to scenarios outside the applicability of Newton's laws. But Newton is a good approximation at low relative velocities. It sounds like you have a postulate something like "Total momentum is not conserved"?

 

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Conservation of momentum (linear and angular) always holds. And when the device is from the outside you start with zero momentum p=0 and at a later time there is p>0.

In my first post I mentioned "The mathematical description assumes the reactionless drive (see Fig.1.Upper) is internally powered (motor and power supply on board (appears hidden in Fig.1 - Upper)) ", if it is that you think. The device has power on board although it is not shown, otherwise what I presented would be nonsense. The rest about how the device works I shared it above (18 statements in a row).

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You need to explain the new physics that allows that. The big picture is that we already know that the current laws of physics makes your proposed device impossible.

As you may have seen up to now, there is no need to introduce new physics to create a reactionless drive but just to embrace and understand something that was up to now underestimated and this is nothing else than the nature of the fictitious force (known established Physics since centuries). Fictitious forces do not possess reactions, this is the golden key to reactionless drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, John2020 said:

As you may have seen up to now, there is no need to introduce new physics to create a reactionless drive but just to embrace and understand something that was up to now underestimated and this is nothing else than the nature of the fictitious force (known established Physics since centuries). Fictitious forces do not possess reactions, this is the golden key to reactionless drive.

I asked you earlier what the outcome will be if we analyse use some of the development that happened after Newton. "No new physics" means that Lagrange and Hamiltons formulations hold. They give you the equations of motion for the system and does so without requiring fictitious forces. 

 

 

Edited by Ghideon
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I asked you earlier what the outcome will be if we analyse use some of the development that happened after Newton. "No new physics" means that Lagrange and Hamiltons formulations hold. They give you the equations of motion for the system and does so without requiring fictitious forces. 

As I told you previously, I have no knowledge about Lagrange and Hamilton formulations. The question that arises now is, if Lagrange and Hamilton formulations always hold and assuming what I shared above is true then, could Lagrange and Hamilton formulations predict motion by means of fictitious internal forces? 

IF Lagrange and Hamilton formulations do not require fictitious forces then they cannot describe the motion of a reactionless drive. Whatever the so called advanced maths may one use, if the fundamentals are not met (see fictitious forces) then there is no chance to describe a reactionless drive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The question that arises now is, if Lagrange and Hamilton formulations always hold and assuming what I shared above is true then, could Lagrange and Hamilton formulations predict motion by means of fictitious internal forces? 

They always hold as long as you claim that no new physics is required to describe the motion of your device. They also describe physics where reactionless devices* are impossible, regardless of how such a device is constructed. Your question is a contradiction. 

 

29 minutes ago, John2020 said:

IF Lagrange and Hamilton formulations do not require fictitious forces then they cannot describe the motion of a reactionless drive.

They describe the motion of the reactionless drive: they predict that the device will remain at rest.

 

29 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Whatever the so called advanced maths may one use, if the fundamentals are not met (see fictitious forces) then there is no chance to describe a reactionless drive.

The advanced maths progress in physics made after Newton is more fundamental than the fictitious forces. 

 

*) Your variant and all other versions I've looked at in the past

Edited by Ghideon
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

They always hold as long as you claim that no new physics is required to describe the motion of your device. They also describe physics where reactionless devices* are impossible, regardless of how such a device is constructed. Your question is a contradiction. 

If reactionless drives are impossible according to Lagrange and Hamilton formulation then, this is an indication they do not utilize fictitious forces.

7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

They describe the motion of the reactionless drive: they predict that the device will remain at rest.

Could you address the statements below?

1.Does Newton's 3rd law permits the existence of reactionless drives? Obviously, no.

2.Does Newton's 3rd law holds for fictitious forces? From the moment they do not possess reactions, the answer is again no.

3.Does Fictitious Force=Reactionless Force. Obviously, yes.

So, by seeing the three statements above how one could change the CoM in order to trigger motion in an isolated system (power on board, translation mechanism etc.) without having a reaction force as result? Isn't that obvious the answer is the (3)?

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The advanced maths progress in physics made after Newton is more fundamental than the fictitious forces. 

I think you confuse the tools with the essence of the foundations of physics. Advance maths are mathematical tools that are used to solve complex problems. They cannot introduce new physics or affect the foundations of physics. It always depends how one uses the tools. Again, if the tool apply to regular forces (non-fictitious) then forget about the reactionless drive. 

As you are probable aware about Lagrange and Hamilton formulations then, apply them to the construction I presented. Hint: Use fictitious forces, otherwise nothing will occur and you will waste your time.

I have to go to sleep it is about 22.30 local time. See you tomorrow!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, John2020 said:

If reactionless drives are impossible according to Lagrange and Hamilton formulation then, this is an indication they do not utilize fictitious forces.

It is more like an indication that the scientific community have moved on since the days of Newton and discovered new phenomena, developed new models and made observations and experiments supporting (or falsifying) the models. 

Let's sum up what we have so far:
-We started with a simple thought experiment with the device in a box. You rejected analysis claiming F=ma does not apply. 
-Next was the measurement using a dynamometer. The contradictions in your explanations are still unresolved but that is less important at this time.
-We looked at internal rotations and fictitious forces. That is addressed by using more fundamental formulations where those forces are not necessary to predict the correct equations of motion.
-If necessary, we can move on to have a look at how the conservational laws appear (Noether's Theorem etc) and move into the realms of physics where my comfort zone comes to an end and @joigus is ready to take over*. Note that this is not just tools or fancy mathematics. There are physical laws backed by observations.

 

Let's think outside the box (using your words here) for a while. You claim to have found something that all the scientists working on the concepts above have failed to observe, something that deep down means that space itself is fundamentally different from what observations has shown. How could they all possibly have missed this? How could everyone have failed to see what you claim regarding fictitious forces? What are the odds? Could it be because physics have moved on since Newton? Could it be that the answer lies somewhere in the parts of physics you say you have not studied? The answer that the fictitious forces reactionless drive is not a neglected concept, it is an impossible concept in the universe we live in. A universe described by theories and supported by experiment ahead of what Newton could produce. The key is not fictitious forces, the key is the physics that extends beyond them.

 

*) If you are still active in the thread please feel free to fact-check my passage from Hamilton via Noether to your domain, this was a quick attempt at a 3-sentence summary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

*) If you are still active in the thread please feel free to fact-check my passage from Hamilton via Noether to your domain, this was a quick attempt at a 3-sentence summary.

Yes, your analysis is correct. The Hamiltonian formalism is not so efficient for this discussion, however. Noether's theorem is relevant in the Lagrangian formalism. The Lagrangian can be written in terms of the COM coordinates plus a couple of angle variables. There are obvious constraints between the axial rotation angle of what I've called the "nut" and the axial rotation angle of what I've called the "bolt" and the linear motion of both moving pieces, but there's no potential energy involving the COM coordinates (actually, no potential energy at all), so the problem is a one-liner in the Lagrangian formalism:

\[\dot{P}_{\textrm{cm}}=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{X}_{\textrm{cm}}}\right)=0\Rightarrow P_{\textrm{cm}}=\textrm{const.}\]

End of story.

The beauty of the Lagrangian formalism is that you don't have to think about forces ever again, if your professional situation allows for that. Engineering works do require the Newtonian analysis very often, though.

Whenever you have a constraint, you include it in a very straightforward way without thinking about forces. Internal forces "vanish" into constraints.

Fictitious forces can also be dealt with very easily. They are relevant when there are external fields. They are all summarized in the constraints and they just don't appear in the formulation (they have to do with the use of curvilinear coordinates), if what you want to describe is the COM motion, which I think is the OP's primary interest.

Edited by joigus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ghideon said:

You miss the big picture. Conservation of momentum (linear and angular) always holds. And when the device is from the outside you start with zero momentum p=0 and at a later time there is p>0. You need to explain the new physics that allows that. The big picture is that we already know that the current laws of physics makes your proposed device impossible. No amount of details about the device will ever change that. You need to present the new physics that supports the claims and allows total momentum to not be conserved. Compare to Einstein if you wish; Special relativity is not derived from within Newtonian physics. SR has separate postulates and applies to scenarios outside the applicability of Newton's laws. But Newton is a good approximation at low relative velocities. It sounds like you have a postulate something like "Total momentum is not conserved"?

I couldn't have put it more clearly. This big picture Ghideon is talking about saves you a lot of needless work. And believe you me, when you're working on difficult problems you need to have these tools handy, so you can save yourself a lot of workload.

My background is that of a theorist. In theoretical physics you want to use powerful mathematical tools that allow you to treat problems that otherwise would be intractable. When you go back to simpler problems, like this, it feels as if you had X-rays to see the physics in them. Your system won't move.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, joigus said:

but there's no potential energy involving the COM coordinates (actually, no potential energy at all), so the problem is a one-liner in the Lagrangian formalism:

This is where you overlook the action of the fictitious force upon mass m_T. Could you please check Fig.1.Upper and reformulate your answer by considering the 18 points I shared above? Although I have never used or know about Langrangian formalism, I can understand some things about it (partial derivatives and stuff).

I am almost arrivimg to my workplace. See you later!

7 hours ago, Ghideon said:

You claim to have found something that all the scientists working on the concepts above have failed to observe, something that deep down means that space itself is fundamentally different from what observations has shown. How could they all possibly have missed this? How could everyone have failed to see what you claim regarding fictitious forces? What are the odds? 

Have you ever see a device like I presented to have been tested as a reactionless drive candidate? I haven't as also there is nothing in the Internet, I checked it except from a patent (year 2016) I found recently. This patent utilizes several linear actuators for motion in space. It is the only patent found for such application.

From my 20 years research on the subject of reactionless drive, the hundreds of papers, patents, web site content I read and some experiments conducted, wrote countless crackpot papers (yes real crackpot papers), this is the best and most satisfactory result I ever reached. I will upoad the link to my paper this weekend after correcting some definitions thanks to all of you. If the construction cannot work after conducting the experinent then what I shared above is nonsense.

I have three controversial videos of a pure electromagmetic device I created 10 years ago. They were a couple of times in Youtube but since long I removed them. The system is a ferromagnetic ring that may pushes a car while being on board. I can share them on this thread if you wish as also with all the technical details. Again I found nothing similar in the entire web.

8 hours ago, Ghideon said:

You claim to have found something that all the scientists working on the concepts above have failed to observe, something that deep down means that space itself is fundamentally different from what observations has shown. How could they all possibly have missed this? How could everyone have failed to see what you claim regarding fictitious forces? What are the odds? 

Have you ever see a device like I presented to have been tested as a reactionless drive candidate? I haven't as also there is nothing in the Internet, I checked it except from a patent (year 2016) I found recently. This patent utilizes several linear actuators for motion in space. It is the only patent found for such application.

From my 20 years research on the subject of reactionless drive, the hundreds of papers, patents, web site content I read and some experiments conducted, wrote countless crackpot papers (yes real crackpot papers), this is the best and most satisfactory result I ever reached. I will upoad the link to my paper this weekend after correcting some definitions thanks to all of you. If the construction cannot work after conducting the experinent then what I shared above is nonsense.

I have three controversial videos of a pure electromagmetic device I created 10 years ago. They were a couple of times in Youtube but since long I removed them. The system is a ferromagnetic ring that may pushes a car while being on board. I can share them on this thread if you wish as also with all the technical details. Again I found nothing similar in the entire web.

I have to work. See you later in the evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two_Gears_with_Chain_and_mass_m_T.thumb.png.693dbea3334b40e1d5b2460bd49497b1.png

1) Gears have a constant angular velocity.
   (a) Would the CoM change?
   (b) Would the isolated system (m) start to accelerate?
2) Gears have an increasing (non-constant) angular velocity.
   (a) Would the CoM change?
   (b) Would the isolated system (m) start to accelerate?

Could someone develop simple classical mechanics equations or even Lagrange formulations to answer the above questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John2020 said:

This is where you overlook the action of the fictitious force upon mass m_T.

I have overlooked nothing that is relevant. Ficticious forces inside the ship can never result in acceleration of the COM.

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

Could someone develop simple classical mechanics equations or even Lagrange formulations to answer the above questions?

No one can write equations for variables that haven't been specified. What are the degrees of freedom of the system?

Your new dynamical system looks very different now. It reminds me of a conveyor belt now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Use the simplest possible description. e.g   1 degree of freedom, angular velocity ω , mass m_T, mass m, linear velocity  u_T (for m_T) and linear velocity u (for m).

Yes the construction is an isolated conveyor belt system.

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had an external field that acted on the COM coordinates, then you would have a potential energy depending on such coordinates.

The Lagrangian is,

\[L=T-V\]

with T the kinetic energy and V the potential energy. The generalized momentum for the COM coordinates is,

\[\boldsymbol{P}_{\textrm{cm}}=\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{X}_{\textrm{cm}}}\]

and the evolution equation for X_cm is,

\[\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{X}_{\textrm{cm}}}\right)=\dot{P}_{\textrm{cm}}=\frac{\partial L}{\partial X_{\textrm{cm}}}=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial X_{\textrm{cm}}}\]

Instead, you have,

\[-\frac{\partial V}{\partial X_{\textrm{cm}}}=0\]

So the equation of motion for the COM coordinates is,

\[\dot{P}_{\textrm{cm}}=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{X}_{\textrm{cm}}}\right)=0\Rightarrow P_{\textrm{cm}}=\textrm{const.}\]

Doesn't depend on internal details. You could have a whole civilization of tiny beings living inside. It's not gonna change anything. I'm sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, joigus said:

Doesn't depend on internal details. You could have a whole civilization of tiny beings living inside. It's not gonna change anything. I'm sorry

a) This assertion has to be demonstrated mathematically.

b) You treat the problem as Newton did, meaning assuming just null external forces.

c) If Langrangean cannot by design consider the inner parts of the system then it is not the right tool for this problem.

d) The fictious force that acts on m_T as being reactionless has to be taken into consideration.

Could you write down the momentum conservation for the above system without using Langrangean?

I forgot something. I am sorry, too.

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, John2020 said:

b) You treat the problem as Newton did, meaning assuming just null external forces.

What external forces do you wish to consider?

So far it's the first time you mention any external forces. If you consider external forces, the problem changes completely and it's the first case I've discussed which applies.

Make up your mind, please.

The rest of your points only show you should study classical mechanics thoroughly before you make such assertions.

I have a busy afternoon. Maybe later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, joigus said:

What external forces do you wish to consider?

No external forces apply on the system. I meant you treat the problem like being a classical one with null external forces by ignoring what happens inside. That was all. Take your time I am also busy. See you in the afternoon!

I will try to use the Langrangean you provided to find a solution to the problem, later in the evening. Be well!

Edited by John2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, John2020 said:

If Langrangean cannot by design consider the inner parts of the system then it is not the right tool for this problem.

The point is that jogius has incorporated all of the internal forces in his analysis, fictitious and on fictitious. it's just that they do not need to be written out explicitly. I would recommend you to take a closer look at Lagrange and Hamilton before dismissing them. 

I think we have used four different ways of explaining and highlighting the issues in your idea so far; 1: F=ma, 2: measurement, 3: Lagrange & Hamiltonian and 4: current fundamental knowledge about space itself. You have dismissed all of them. I'll try to get back later today to add number 5 to the list above. 

 

11 hours ago, John2020 said:

From my 20 years research on the subject of reactionless drive, the hundreds of papers, patents, web site content I read and some experiments conducted, wrote countless crackpot papers (yes real crackpot papers), this is the best and most satisfactory result I ever reached.

 Ok. And the result is:

21 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Finding issues in your device took a few seconds

Makes me wonder; If you had instead spent 20 years, using the enthusiasm and dedication you display in this thread, how ,much would you have achieved in mainstream physics?

 

 

17 hours ago, joigus said:

Yes, your analysis is correct.

Thanks, I appreciate your answer. Your explanation has helped to slightly expand my comfort zone regarding theoretical physics.

Edited by Ghideon
clarifications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

John2020, I would suggest you go back through the thread and pay close attention. You've had three pages of objections and problems with your device that haven't been addressed adequately for the Speculations section. You need to support your ideas with evidence, and address the reasonable objections you're getting. The people involved are only trying to help, but you seem more interested in teaching something wrong than in learning something right.

I hid your last post with the links to past experiments, since it was completely off-topic. If you're going to swim against the mainstream, you need to be more rigorous. Thread closed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.