 # Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces

## Recommended Posts

Dear moderator @Phi for All,
Thanks to the valuable feedback of the members of this forum (especially thanks to @swansont, @joigus and @Ghideon) I realized where I was wrong (use of wrong definitions and unclear arguments) and I am asking for a third and final round (revised work) regarding the same discussion about the possibility of triggering motion in an isolated system through internal forces (Euler Inertial Forces). Again, I would be thankful to show me where I could possibly be wrong.

The revised paper (abstract, first two pages and References. Check the new paper in my profile) is now named "Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces". My research through the years upon this subject led me to the following obvious but mostly overlooked conclusions:
1.    Newton’s 3rd law always holds
2.    Utilizing collinear forces, one can never build a reactionless drive (see (1))
3.    Are there real forces that possess no reactions? No.
4.    Are there fictitious forces that possess no reactions? Certainly, yes!
5.    There are three type of fictitious force: Coriolis, Centrifugal, and the Euler force.
6.    For these fictitious forces to manifest in a system, either the entire system must be a rotating frame or a mixture of an inertial with a rotating one.
7.    The next step is what we are going to do with the acknowledged reactionless inertial force. What is the working principle that will make a system move through fictitious internal forces?
8.    We may answer (7) as follows: When a body or system accelerates because of an external force, the center of mass moves along with it. Could we influence just the center of mass of a system to trigger its acceleration?
9.    The answer to (8) requires two things: a) a reactionless inertial force (Euler force), b) an internal mass transfer that will lead to the redeployment of the center of mass and acceleration of the system.

FIG. 1: Proof of concept. Internal forces in isolated systems. Upper: Ideal machine. Creation of an artificially directed (translation screw) and enhanced (mechanical advantage) Euler inertial force. The accelerating rotation of the translation screw (threaded rod) frame induces an Euler inertial force (F_I) that causes the acceleration of mass m_T, leading to the redeployment of the center of mass (cm) and system’s acceleration as a whole. Lower: Collinear internal forces. The action exerts a force F_A upon mass m_T that slides over the non-rotating unthreaded rod. At the same moment, a reaction exerts a force F_R upon the rest of the system resulting in no system’s acceleration because of Newton’s third law.

FIG.1 - Upper is a typical linear actuator device. It consists of a translation screw, a drive nut (mass m_T) attached on the translation screw, two linear guides, a front, and a rear housing that, besides holding the translation screw, they have a motor and a power supply enclosed (hidden).

In terms of physics, the linear actuator is classified as a rotating frame inside an inertial one. In general, a rotating frame induces three different types of inertial forces, as seen from an external inertial observer. So,
$\sum \vec{F}_\mathrm{Inertial} = -\vec{F}_\mathrm{Coriolis} -\vec{F}_\mathrm{Centrifugal} -\vec{F}_\mathrm{Euler}.$

The construction in FIG.1 - Upper is driven by a couple $$\vec{F}_{\mathrm{A}} \text{ and } \vec{F}_{\mathrm{A}^{\prime}}$$, where the motion of mass $$m_{\mathrm{T}}$$ is restricted along the axis of rotation of the translation screw. Consequently, the resulting motion of mass $$m_{\mathrm{T}}$$ can be attributed just to the Euler force. Thus,
$\vec{F}_{\mathrm{A}} = - \vec{F}_{\mathrm{A}^{\prime}}, \\ \vec{F}_{\mathrm{A}} \neq \text{const.} \text{ and } \vec{F}_{\mathrm{A}^{\prime}} \neq \text{const.} \Rightarrow \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{\omega}}{\mathrm{d} t} \neq \vec{0}, \\ \sum \vec{\tau} = \vec{\tau}_\mathrm{A} + \vec{\tau}_\mathrm{A^{\prime}} = \left(\vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A} \right) + \left(-\vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A^{\prime}} \right), \\ \sum \vec{\tau} = 2 \vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A}, \\ \vec{r}: \text{translation screw radius}, \\ \vec{F}_\mathrm{Coriolis} = \vec{0} \text{ and } \vec{F}_\mathrm{Centrifugal} = \vec{0}, \\ \vec{F}_\mathrm{I} = \sum \vec{F}_\mathrm{Inertial} = -\vec{F}_\mathrm{Euler} = - m_{\mathrm{T}} \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{\omega}}{\mathrm{d}t} \times \vec{r}.$

An alternative way to derive the inertial force that causes the acceleration of mass $$m_{\mathrm{T}}$$ is through the conservation of angular momentum. Hence,
$\sum\vec{\tau}_\mathrm{ext} = \vec{0} \text{ and } \vec{F}_{\mathrm{A}} = - \vec{F}_{\mathrm{A}^{\prime}}, \\ \sum\vec{\tau}_\mathrm{int} = \left(\vec{\tau}_\mathrm{A} + \vec{\tau}_\mathrm{A^{\prime}}\right) + \vec{\tau}_\mathrm{Inertial} =\vec{0}, \\ \left(2 \vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A} \right) + \vec{\tau}_\mathrm{Inertial} =\vec{0}, \\ \overbrace{\left(2 \vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A}\right) }^{\curvearrowleft} + \overbrace{\vec{\tau}_\mathrm{Inertial}}^{\curvearrowright} = \vec{0}.$

At this point, developing a general expression for the inertial force requires the introduction of the dimensionless factor $$n_\mathrm{r}$$ (ideal mechanical advantage) along with a definition of the inertial torque. Thus,
$\mathrm{d} \vec{\omega} = \vec{0} \Rightarrow n_\mathrm{T} = \frac{\vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}}{\vec{u}_\mathrm{T}} = \frac{2 \pi \vec{r}}{\vec{l}_\mathrm{T}}, \\ \mathrm{d} \vec{\omega} \neq \vec{0} \Rightarrow n_\mathrm{r} = \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{\omega} \times \vec{r}}{\mathrm{d}\vec{u}_\mathrm{T}} = \frac{2\pi \mathrm{d}\vec{r}}{\mathrm{d}\vec{l}_\mathrm{T}}, \\ \overbrace{n_\mathrm{r}\left(2 \vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A}\right) }^{\curvearrowleft} + \overbrace{n_\mathrm{r} \vec{\tau}_\mathrm{Inertial}}^{\curvearrowright} = \vec{0}, \\ \vec{\tau}_\mathrm{I} = n_\mathrm{r} \vec{\tau}_\mathrm{Inertial}, \\ \overbrace{n_\mathrm{r}\left(2 \vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A}\right) }^{\curvearrowleft} + \overbrace{\vec{\tau}_\mathrm{I}}^{\curvearrowright} = \vec{0}.$

Dividing by the position-vector magnitude $$2|\vec{r}|$$ yields
$\frac{n_\mathrm{r}\left(2 \vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A}\right)}{2|\vec{r}|} + \frac{\vec{\tau}_\mathrm{I}}{2|\vec{r}|} = \vec{0}, \\ n_\mathrm{r} \frac{\left(2 \vec{r} \times \vec{F}_\mathrm{A}\right)}{2|\vec{r}|} = n_\mathrm{r}\cdot m_{\mathrm{T}} \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{u_{\mathrm{T}}}}{\mathrm{d}t}, \\ \vec{F}_\mathrm{I} = \frac{\vec{\tau}_\mathrm{I}}{2|\vec{r}|} \Rightarrow \vec{F}_\mathrm{I} = - n_\mathrm{r} \cdot m_{\mathrm{T}} \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{u_{\mathrm{T}}}}{\mathrm{d}t} = -m_{\mathrm{T}} \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{\omega}}{\mathrm{d}t} \times \vec{r}.$

The above equation reveals the inertial force does not possess reaction; therefore, it enables the acceleration of mass $$m_{\mathrm{T}}$$ that leads to the redeployment of the center of mass and acceleration of the system as a whole. Thus,
$\frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{p}}{\mathrm{d}t} = \vec{F}_\mathrm{I} = - m_{\mathrm{T}} \cdot n_\mathrm{r} \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{u_{\mathrm{T}}}}{\mathrm{d}t} = -m_{\mathrm{T}} \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{\omega}}{\mathrm{d}t} \times \vec{r}, \label{eq33} \\ m\left(\vec{u}^{\prime} - \vec{u} \right) = - m_\mathrm{T} \left(\vec{u}^{\prime}_{\mathrm{cm}} - \vec{u}_{\mathrm{cm}}\right) , \\ \mathrm{d} \vec{u_{\mathrm{T}}} \neq 0 \Rightarrow \vec{u}_\mathrm{rel} = \vec{u}^{\prime}_{\mathrm{cm}} - \vec{u}_{\mathrm{cm}} \neq \vec{0}, \\ \vec{u}^{\prime} \neq \vec{u} \Rightarrow \vec{u}^{\prime}_{\mathrm{cm}} \neq \vec{u}_{\mathrm{cm}} \Rightarrow \vec{a} \neq \vec{0}, \\ \vec{u}_\mathrm{rel}: \text{system's center of mass relative velocity.}$

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The revised paper (abstract, first two pages and References. Check the new paper in my profile) is now named "Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces". My research through the years upon this subject led me to the following obvious but mostly overlooked conclusions:
1.    Newton’s 3rd law always holds
2.    Utilizing collinear forces, one can never build a reactionless drive (see (1))
3.    Are there real forces that possess no reactions? No.
4.    Are there fictitious forces that possess no reactions? Certainly, yes!

Since all real forces have reactions, you can’t have a reactionless drive.

If you want to apply Newton’s laws you must be in an inertial reference frame. There can be no fictitious forces. Conversely, if you aren’t in an inertial frame, the third law doesn’t apply, so there is no concept of “reaction” to apply.

You can only make a valid analysis of an alleged reactionless drive from an inertial frame perspective.

##### Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since all real forces have reactions, you can’t have a reactionless drive.

If you want to apply Newton’s laws you must be in an inertial reference frame. There can be no fictitious forces. Conversely, if you aren’t in an inertial frame, the third law doesn’t apply, so there is no concept of “reaction” to apply.

You can only make a valid analysis of an alleged reactionless drive from an inertial frame perspective.

The construction in Fig.1-Upper consists of a rotating frame inside an inertial one. The fictitious force (in our case just the Euler Inertial Force) manifests just in the rotating frame (translation screw). If you read carefully the description of Fig.1-Upper, shows the following: The accelerating rotation of the translation screw induces an Euler Inertial Force (since the motion of m_T is restricted along the axis of rotation of the translation screw). This has as result (we are still in the rotating frame) the acceleration of mass m_T without triggering a reaction (since the Euler force is not a real force). The acceleration of mass m_T (is an intrinsic part of the inertial frame), leads to the redeployment of system's (inertial frame) center of mass that eventually affects the momentum of the inertial frame (having the rotating frame enclosed) as a whole due to the conservation of linear momentum (in our case due to the redeployment of the center of mass).

As you see we do not even touch real forces in the above description. All the job is done by the rotating frame (reactionless accelerating internal mass transfer) being enclosed in the inertial one (the reactionless accelerating internal mass transfer leads to the redeployment of the center of mass of the system (inertial frame)).

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites

As Swansont says, non-inertial forces only appear in a non-inertial reference frame. If you want to analyse whether momentum can appear for the COM frame, you must set yourself on an inertial frame. And you'll see it can't. These reciprocal Newton pairs disappear from the overall motion. The Lagrangian treatment makes all this very transparent.

In this paper, either you, or someone who's of the same mind than you, try to extend the concept to special relativity. It doesn't work either. In the realm of SR, neither Newton's third law is valid, nor the concept of force is useful anymore. But the impossibility of getting COM motion from internal actions persists. So you're up against something very deep and very robust.

I don't know what an "Euler inertial force" is. But googling for it produced this pre-print and a handful of other results (only 2 Google pages.) It doesn't seem that the scientific community is very much aware of this concept.

Inertial (fictitious) forces are relevant when you have external fields (centrifugal barriers come to mind.) But the planet that's falling in the grav. field of a star is not an inertial reference frame --consistently with Swansont's assertion.

They are also relevant if you try to walk on a merry-go-round (centrifugal and Coriolis), but again, you're not in an inertial reference system.

A merry-go-round's COM cannot start moving as a whole as a consequence of (internal) Coriolis and centrifugal forces.

A spinning top can move, but it's subject to external forces (friction.)

What you suggest would require to totally rethink the concept of space. This goes deep.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John2020 said:

The revised paper

I checked it briefly. In the earlier threads your claims were easily dismissed by analysing the proposed system using Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian) mechanics. To get your device to work you need a new model of space, a model where the current laws of conservation does not apply. As @joigus said, this goes deep. Your revised paper does not seem to address that with means that we know it is wrong.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John2020 said:

The construction in Fig.1-Upper consists of a rotating frame inside an inertial one.

So analyze it from the inertial frame.

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

The fictitious force (in our case just the Euler Inertial Force) manifests just in the rotating frame (translation screw).

Which goes away when you analyze it from the inertial frame.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joigus said:

As Swansont says, non-inertial forces only appear in a non-inertial reference frame. If you want to analyse whether momentum can appear for the COM frame, you must set yourself on an inertial frame. And you'll see it can't. These reciprocal Newton pairs disappear from the overall motion. The Lagrangian treatment makes all this very transparent.

As I mentioned to swansont, the construction consists of a rotating frame inside an inertial one. Please check again Fig.1-Upper. The COM is relevant for the inertial frame (having enclosed the rotating one). The rotating frame creates the Euler Force (Inertial Force) due to $$\frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{\omega}}{\mathrm{d}t} \neq \vec{0}$$ being the cause of the acceleration of mass m_T (without creating a reaction upon the rest of the system). Consequently, the acceleration of mass m_T (being also an intrinsic part of the inertial frame) will cause a change in momentum of COM of the system as a whole (inertial frame).

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Yes.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

In this paper, either you, or someone who's of the same mind than you, try to extend the concept to special relativity. It doesn't work either. In the realm of SR, neither Newton's third law is valid, nor the concept of force is useful anymore. But the impossibility of getting COM motion from internal actions persists. So you're up against something very deep and very robust.

If Fig.1-Upper may work then it will work for quasiparticles (not for bare particles, I clearly distinguish this in my paper) too. For bare particles holds Einstein's special relativity (the wider framework I present there, it automatically reduces to Einstein's special relativity that means there is no contradiction with Einstein's special relativity). In case of the theoretical quasiparticle  e.g. an electron entrapped in the nodes of a standing wave, we have a system and not a bare particle anymore. This means the quasiparticle may move by means of an Euler Force in essence (applying a frequency shift or $$\frac{\mathrm{d} \vec{\omega}}{\mathrm{d}t} \neq \vec{0}$$ on the standing wave (seeing it classically) results in a shift in nodes position that leads to the redeployment of the COM of the quasiparticle as a whole.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I don't know what an "Euler inertial force" is. But googling for it produced this pre-print and a handful of other results (only 2 Google pages.) It doesn't seem that the scientific community is very much aware of this concept.

I stress the fact an Euler Force is actually an Inertial Force that means it doesn't possess reaction. That is all! You should google either "Fictitious force" or "Euler force".

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Inertial (fictitious) forces are relevant when you have external fields (centrifugal barriers come to mind.) But the planet that's falling in the grav. field of a star is not an inertial reference frame --consistently with Swansont's assertion.

They are also relevant if you try to walk on a merry-go-round (centrifugal and Coriolis), but again, you're not in an inertial reference system.

Here we have (see Fig.1-Upper) a rotating frame inside an inertial one. We like or not, there are fictitious force on the rotating frame as seen while the observer is sitting on the inertial frame (non-rotating frame of the system). Your assertion sounds like "linear actuators do not exist". The today's application of a linear actuator (positioning system, lifting weight etc) is by design restricted to work with constant angular velocity.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

A merry-go-round's COM cannot start moving as a whole as a consequence of (internal) Coriolis and centrifugal forces.

A spinning top can move, but it's subject to external forces (friction.)

Of course a merry-go-round COM cannot start moving as a whole because there is no accelerating mass transfer on its surface being  additionally an intrinsic part of the system (merry-go-round). In other words, no mass transfer (along with its acceleration), results in no change in momentum of COM. Please check Fig.1-Upper.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

What you suggest would require to totally rethink the concept of space. This goes deep.

What you indirectly assume, it has also occured to me. If what I shared above proves to be true then, there is a high probability the space (or the Universe) to have also an angular velocity that increases as we go towards the center of the Universe. The fact that we haven't measure any such effect is probably the angular velocity is extremely small. A further consequence of it (hypothetically based on the findings of this work) leads to a reduction of the speed of light towards the center of the Universe (there it will be exactly null). Check eq.64 as applies to the quasiparticle. There the propagation of the em wave (speed of light) may drop up to zero (the quasiparticle becomes essentially undetectable).

38 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I checked it briefly. In the earlier threads your claims were easily dismissed by analysing the proposed system using Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian) mechanics. To get your device to work you need a new model of space, a model where the current laws of conservation does not apply. As @joigus said, this goes deep. Your revised paper does not seem to address that with means that we know it is wrong.

a) When @joigus applies the Euler force inside the Lagrangian of COM then, he will have a non-zero result.

b) I cannot present a new model of space, instead I presented a mechanical device that utilizes two frames in one, a rotating frame inside an inertial one.

c) "About going deep". Well, I am not a physicist. A physicist being good in math may start more abstract than me and may propose a new model for space. This is not my strength. Instead I present  my arguments using classical mechanics. I don't see a problem with this. If the device may work then, we have to revise our understanding about the concept of space. Starting in reverse, it is more difficult and more controversial from my point of view.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

So analyze it from the inertial frame.

The inertial frame does nothing in the entire concept. It is just being affected by the enclosed rotating frame as being the cause of the redeployment of the center of mass of the inertial frame.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which goes away when you analyze it from the inertial frame.

You are confusing with what an observer sees while being on board of a rotating frame. See here:

The inertial frame in Fig.1-Upper is the non-rotating skeleton of the construction. The rotating frame is just the translation screw. An external observer watching from an inertial frame of reference (away from the construction) sees a non-rotating skeleton with an enclosed rotating frame (translation screw). It implies the external observer sees mass m_T as being propelled by a "real" force (but fictitious in nature), however its cause is in essence the Euler Force (which is fictitious).

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, John2020 said:

a) When @joigus applies the Euler force inside the Lagrangian of COM then, he will have a non-zero result.

Internal forces and rotations were accounted for. Maybe you just need to understand how the analysis works? Feel free to open a thread in mainstream sections, asking for advice about Lagrangian mechanics.

19 minutes ago, John2020 said:

About going deep". Well, I am not a physicist. A physicist being good in math may start more abstract than me and may propose a new model for space. This is not my strength. Instead I present  my arguments using classical mechanics. I don't see a problem with this.

The problem is that you seem to fail to understand the arguments and helpful comments. How do you know that all the physics beyond what you have studied is incorrectly modelled in the current theories? On what grounds do you dismiss not only Newton but also much of the work done after Newton?

27 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I cannot present a new model of space, instead I presented a mechanical device that utilizes two frames in one, a rotating frame inside an inertial one.

Ok. The device will act according to current laws of physics and remain stationary.

##### Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Internal forces and rotations were accounted for. Maybe you just need to understand how the analysis works? Feel free to open a thread in mainstream sections, asking for advice about Lagrangian mechanics.

This is a wrong assumption from your part. We do not speak about real forces causing a change in momentum of the COM but fictitious one that possess no reaction. The fictitious force (Euler force) manifests in the rotating frame where the latter is enclosed in the inertial one.

40 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The problem is that you seem to fail to understand the arguments and helpful comments. How do you know that all the physics beyond what you have studied is incorrectly modelled in the current theories? On what grounds do you dismiss not only Newton but also much of the work done after Newton?

I dismiss nothing and nobody. I made it quite clear how the construction may acquire an acceleration. Now if this has further implications (as I show it in the relativity and Lorentz transformations section in my work), it is another story and another discussion.

40 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. The device will act according to current laws of physics and remain stationary.

The device acts according to the current laws of physics, I didn't add something new and the result is obviously an acceleration of the system (see the math above). I stressed the only overlooked fact that an Inertial Force that possess no reaction, can be utilized for the internal mass transfer in a system that consists of a rotating frame (being the cause of the internal mass transfer) inside an inertial one. It needs just the proper understanding and no new physics.

There are the following simple observations that indicate the construction in Fig.1-Upper will acquire an acceleration:

a) There is an accelerating internal mass transfer due to the Euler force (it is clear there is no real force here)

b) Due to (a), we have no reaction upon the rest of the system

c) Mass m_T is an intrinsic part of the system (mass m)

d) Due to (c) the reactionless internal mass transfer of mass m_T will inevitably cause a change in COM along with its momentum

e) Conservation of linear momentum always holds

f) Due to (c), (d) and (e) the system will acquire an acceleration (having the same direction as the momentum of mass m_T) because its COM has been changed due to the acceleration of mass m_T

Is there any objections on the above?

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, John2020 said:

This is a wrong assumption from your part.

It is not an assumption. It is an application of mainstream physics.

26 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I dismiss nothing and nobody.

Indirectly you dismiss quite a lot of physics.

32 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Is there any of the above points that is not true according to your opinion (anyone)?

Yes. But as you have neglected all counter arguments and mathematics I'll try another angle in addition to the list of in previous threads.

First a question: Your device, operating according to your claims, is put inside a box* and device is started. If we hold the box above ground, tilt it vertically and let it go it will hover in mid air? Given of course that the acceleration that the device provides is adjusted so that it is matches the gravitational pull. Correct?

*)as in earlier discussions the box mass can be neglected

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, joigus said:

In this paper, either you, or someone who's of the same mind than you, try to extend the concept to special relativity.

I was wondering why you stated the above. I just would like to mention, all of its content and ideas/concepts come from me (I am the only Author of this paper).

Do you know Ricardo Carezani? I read his work (there is a book on the web), however we agree only in two things. We conclude the same momentum and total energy (in my case about the quasiparticle) if I set nr = 1. Ricardo Carezani made some assumptions in Lorentz transformations that resulted on these new relativistic equations.

Here is how he derives the new relativistic energy (eq.65 in my paper when one sets nr = 1):

In the older version of my paper, I had his work as reference but on the new one, I removed it. The reason was besides he does not speak about things related to circumventing Newton's 3rd law or about action-reaction symmetry breaking (see References in my work), my work is currently under review by a Springer Journal and I wanted to keep the references as clean as possible (to be just relevant to the subject I present).

30 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

It is not an assumption. It is an application of mainstream physics.

As I said, the Lagrangian will work if one takes into account the Euler Force.

30 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Indirectly you dismiss quite a lot of physics.

I was strictly following mainstream classical mechanics. Nothing dismissed.

30 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Yes. But as you have neglected all counter arguments and mathematics I'll try another angle in addition to the list of in previous threads.

This is only you. I would suggest you to first read the observations from (a) to (f) I shared above and please tell me if you have any objections.

30 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

First a question: Your device, operating according to your claims, is put inside a box* and device is started. If we hold the box above ground, tilt it vertically and let it go it will hover in mid air? Given of course that the acceleration that the device provides is adjusted so that it is matches the gravitational pull. Correct?

Correct.

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John2020 said:

What you indirectly assume, it has also occured to me. If what I shared above proves to be true then, there is a high probability the space (or the Universe) to have also an angular velocity that increases as we go towards the center of the Universe. The fact that we haven't measure any such effect is probably the angular velocity is extremely small. A further consequence of it (hypothetically based on the findings of this work) leads to a reduction of the speed of light towards the center of the Universe (there it will be exactly null). Check eq.64 as applies to the quasiparticle. There the propagation of the em wave (speed of light) may drop up to zero (the quasiparticle becomes essentially undetectable).

First, there is no centre of the universe. The universe is pretty much homogeneous and isotropic on the scale of super-clusters. What you say contradicts GR, which we know to be a very good approximation to the large-scale structure of the universe.

Second, if such "centre" existed, and the angular velocity increased as you approached it, there would be noticeable optical effects, as well as on the CMB.

Third, a null speed of light anywhere is inconsistent with relativity, which you use in your paper.

Fourth, how you relate quasi-particles (the domain of which are many DOF systems) with your 2 DOF system is completely obscure to me. Is this a new physical concept? If so, how do you define it in such a way that it doesn't coincide with the common concept of quasi-particles?

46 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I was wondering why you stated the above. I just would like to mention, all of its content and ideas/concepts come from me

I stated it because the impossibility to obtain momentum "for free" is valid even in contexts where Newton's 3rd law is no longer valid. You seem to be forced to appeal to cosmological models that you haven't justified or mentioned, but in passing, and after you were pressed for explanation. If you're going to change the very concept of space and claim the existence of a special "centre of the universe", why not mention it from the start? Conservation of total momentum is a consequence of the action for the system not depending on COM coordinates. I'm not aware that your model depends on cosmic coordinates. Where in your diagram are those cosmic coordinates? It doesn't show up in the model. Your mentioning of coordinates relative to a "centre of the universe" came from out of the blue when you were pressed to explain your model as relates to general conservation principles.

Edited by joigus

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John2020 said:

The inertial frame does nothing in the entire concept. It is just being affected by the enclosed rotating frame as being the cause of the redeployment of the center of mass of the inertial frame.

A frame of reference doesn’t “do” anything. It’s not supposed to do anything. It’s a frame of reference.

##### Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Correct

Ok. Leaving Newton aside for a moment, your claim is not compatible with general relativity. Can you explain?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joigus said:

First, there is no centre of the universe. The universe is pretty much homogeneous and isotropic on the scale of super-clusters. What you say contradicts GR, which we know to be a very good approximation to the large-scale structure of the universe.

Second, if such "centre" existed, and the angular velocity increased as you approached it, there would be noticeable optical effects, as well as on the CMB.

Let's put aside the cosmological stuff because I cannot support through my work. They are just assumptions, OK. Consider, the telescopes cannot observe down to the big bang where there even GR is expected to break. So as long an angular velocity is so negligible even at a distance several thousands of light years from the center of the Universe, GR will still work. Again, let this subject for another thread and another paper (that derives, the mass, the radius (approx. 1E28m much larger from what is assumed today), the acceleration of the Universe, the quantum length (it is much smaller (approx. 1E-58 m) than planck length), the thermodynamic temperature of the Universe approx. 2.76 Kelvin just from the fundamental constants and the concept of this work, without using the hubble constant.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Third, a null speed of light anywhere is inconsistent with relativity, which you use in your paper.

If you read the paper, it doesn't claim that. When you read the extended version of the Lorentz transformations that apply just for the quasiparticle case, there you will see the speed of light in regards to spacetime is constant everywhere, except in the vicinity of the quasiparticle frame where there the speed of light (propagation speed of the em waves) reduces as the velocity of the quasiparticle increases. Consequently, we speak about a local reduction of the speed of light that presupposes the presence of the theoretical particle being propelled by means of Euler Forces. The reduction of the speed of light occurs within the quasiparticle frame.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Fourth, how you relate quasi-particles (the domain of which are many DOF systems) with your 2 DOF system is completely obscure to me. Is this a new physical concept? If so, how do you define it in such a way that it doesn't coincide with the common concept of quasi-particles?

I use the definition of the quasiparticle just to distinguish the equations of the wider framework from those of the bare particle (Einstein's special relativity). In other words, the theoretical quasiparticle I mention in my work must have such a structure that can be propelled by means of Euler Forces. Bare particles have no inner structure e.g. electron therefore they cannot be propelled using internal forces.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I stated it because the impossibility to obtain momentum "for free" is valid even in contexts where Newton's 3rd law is no longer valid. You seem to be forced to appeal to cosmological models that you haven't justified or mentioned, but in passing, and after you were pressed for explanation. If you're going to change the very concept of space and claim the existence of a special "centre of the universe", why not mention it from the start? Conservation of total momentum is a consequence of the action for the system not depending on COM coordinates. I'm not aware that your model depends on cosmic coordinates. Where in your diagram are those cosmic coordinates? It doesn't show up in the model. Your mentioning of coordinates relative to a "centre of the universe" came from out of the blue when you were pressed to explain your model as relates to general conservation principles.

Forger about the cosmological assumptions I mentioned previously. From the moment they are not referred in my work, I cannot support them.

Here I have some statements that indicate the construction in Fig.1-Upper will acquire an acceleration:

a) There is an accelerating internal mass transfer due to the Euler force (it is clear there is no real force here)

b) Due to (a), we have no reaction upon the rest of the system

c) Mass m_T is an intrinsic part of the system (mass m)

d) Due to (c) the reactionless internal mass transfer of mass m_T will inevitably cause a change in COM along with its momentum

e) Conservation of linear momentum always holds

f) Due to (c), (d) and (e) the system will acquire an acceleration (having the same direction as the momentum of mass m_T) because its COM has been changed due to the acceleration of mass m_T

Is there any objections on the above? If not then, the Lagrangian you provided for the COM in a previous thread should show a non-null result if the Euler force is taken into account. You said the Lagrangian takes everything internal into account because it essentially assumes that all internal forces are collinear. In the construction in Fig.1-Upper, we have an Euler force that has no counter part (no reaction). So, if one uses the right kind of Lagrangian that considers the Euler force then it should be possible to demonstrate/prove a change in momentum of the COM.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. Leaving Newton aside for a moment, your claim is not compatible with general relativity. Can you explain?

I didn't. Who said that? If you are referring to those cosmological assumptions above, just ignore them. I cannot support something that I am not addressing in my work. I can tell you about the Special Relativity where I address in my work as also the Lorentz transformations. However, this will require first to have no objections about the 6 points above.

I have to go to sleep: It is 01.30 in the morning. Good Night everybody!

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A frame of reference doesn’t “do” anything. It’s not supposed to do anything. It’s a frame of reference.

You speak about the external observer being away from the construction in another frame of reference. When I wrote about the Inertial Frame above, I was speaking about the skeleton of the construction that has the rotating frame (translation screw) enclosed.

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites

This is ridiculous

In a non-inertial reference frame - the situation where you have a fictitious force - the frame has some sort of acceleration.

You do not account for the source of this acceleration.

That’s the source of the “reactionless” motion. An object does not e.g. spontaneously veer away from a straight line. It only appears to do so in a rotating frame. We attribute it to a Coriolis force, which isn’t real, so we can get on with our analysis and pretend we have an inertial frame.

There is no point in entertaining a discussion based in a non-inertial frame of reference. It has to be analyzed using an inertial frame.

27 minutes ago, John2020 said:

You speak about the external observer being away from the construction in another frame of reference.

Did I speak of an observer? Did I say anything about being “away from the construction”?

I don’t think you understand what a frame of reference is.

27 minutes ago, John2020 said:

When I wrote about the Inertial Frame above, I was speaking about the skeleton of the construction that has the rotating frame (translation screw) enclosed.

It doesn’t matter if a rotating object is included. “has the rotating frame enclosed” makes no sense. A frame of reference is your coordinate system. (technically it’s a set of coordinate systems, because the origin is arbitrary)

You can analyze rotating objects in an inertial frame. You won’t have any fictitious forces.

##### Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is ridiculous

In a non-inertial reference frame - the situation where you have a fictitious force - the frame has some sort of acceleration.

You do not account for the source of this acceleration.

I don't think you follow the entire conversation from the beginning as also you haven't look at Fig.1-Upper carefully. The frame is being accelerate by the couple F_A and F_A' whom are both not constant (see Fig.1-Upper as also the expressions I share on my first post) that implies a varying angular velocity dω/dt ≠ 0.

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s the source of the “reactionless” motion. An object does not e.g. spontaneously veer away from a straight line. It only appears to do so in a rotating frame. We attribute it to a Coriolis force, which isn’t real, so we can get on with our analysis and pretend we have an inertial frame.

There is no point in entertaining a discussion based in a non-inertial frame of reference. It has to be analyzed using an inertial frame.

I don't think you follow this discussion. I have more than once refer to this. In order to help you understand how the construction works, please verify the 6 statements below:

a) There is an accelerating internal mass transfer due to the Euler force (it is clear there is no real force here)

b) Due to (a), we have no reaction upon the rest of the system

c) Mass m_T is an intrinsic part of the system (mass m)

d) Due to (c) the reactionless internal mass transfer of mass m_T will inevitably cause a change in system's COM along with its momentum

e) Conservation of linear momentum always holds

f) Due to (c), (d) and (e) the system will acquire an acceleration (having the same direction as the momentum of mass m_T) because its COM has been changed due to the acceleration of mass m_T

Is there any objections on the above?

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

It doesn’t matter if a rotating object is included. “has the rotating frame enclosed” makes no sense. A frame of reference is your coordinate system. (technically it’s a set of coordinate systems, because the origin is arbitrary)

You can analyze rotating objects in an inertial frame. You won’t have any fictitious forces.

I address the concept my own way and leads to the 6 points conclusion I shared above. Do you confirm them or not? If not then tell us why?

You are right in the inertial frame you don't have fictitious forces but just on the rotating frame. Here is the key to your understanding: The rotating frame is an intrinsic part of the inertial frame. The rotating frame causes the rise of the Euler force that is the cause behind the acceleration of mass m_T. From the moment the rotating frame is an intrinsic part of the inertial frame, the acceleration of mass m_T has effectively change the COM of the inertial frame along with its momentum.

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I don't think you follow the entire conversation from the beginning as also you haven't look at Fig.1-Upper carefully. The frame is being accelerate by the couple F_A and F_A' whom are both not constant (see Fig.1-Upper as also the expressions I share on my first post) that implies a varying angular velocity dω/dt ≠ 0.

I don't think you follow this discussion. I have more than once refer to this. In order to help you understand how the construction works, please verify the 6 statements below:

I haven’t bothered with the details because the basis of the argument is invalid.

Once you posit that the moon is made of cheese, I don’t need to delve into the subsequent analysis. It would be a waste of time.

Quote

If you insist about having no fictitious forces then it is like you are denying the existence of the linear actuator devices. You have to choose.

Not at all. You can analyze linear actuators with newtonian physics in an inertial frame. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

Not at all. You can analyze linear actuators with newtonian physics in an inertial frame. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

I will make you a simple question: What is the cause behind the acceleration of mass m_T, a real or a fictitious force?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

I haven’t bothered with the details because the basis of the argument is invalid.

Once you posit that the moon is made of cheese, I don’t need to delve into the subsequent analysis

I am still waiting to verify the 6 points I shared above. Please show me what is invalid in the above 6 points ((a) to (f)).

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John2020 said:

I didn't. Who said that? If you are referring to those cosmological assumptions above, just ignore them. I cannot support something that I am not addressing in my work. I can tell you about the Special Relativity where I address in my work as also the Lorentz transformations.

You missed the point. When your device of mass m is operating and placed in free fall the path your device follows is not predicted by general relativity. I'll explain more later

6 hours ago, John2020 said:

I am still waiting to verify the 6 points I shared above. Please show me what is invalid in the above 6 points ((a) to (f)).

Lets check the six points in detail.

7 hours ago, John2020 said:

There is an accelerating internal mass transfer due to the Euler force (it is clear there is no real force here)

I assume that initially when the device is not running and we observe it from the outside. When the device is started the screw starts to rotate, correct? Assume the screw rotates clockwise. Due to conservation of angular momentum the whole device, seen from our outside frame of reference, starts rotating counter clockwise, Ok?

##### Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John2020 said:

a) There is an accelerating internal mass transfer due to the Euler force (it is clear there is no real force here)

Here's the essence of mass transfer as applied to obtaining thrust: In your system. Where does delta(m) go?

If delta(m) stays in the system. How does it cyclically go back while the net result being to impinge some momentum to the whole system in every cycle?

The three of us, @swansont, @Ghideon , and myself, have expressed interest in this question, at some point, and I think all of us sense an underlying confusion between two very different kinds of so-called "reactions." Can you, please, address this in some detail so that we can proceed to other points?

Edit: I took a quick screenshot from the Wikipedia image,

as the SVG format doesn't display well.

Edited by joigus
Edit image

##### Share on other sites

I will address this question and that of Ghideon in a moment.I have to finish some uncompleted task and I will be back in an hour or so.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joigus said:

In your system. Where does delta(m) go?

If delta(m) stays in the system. How does it cyclically go back while the net result being to impinge some momentum to the whole system in every cycle?

The three of us, @swansont, @Ghideon , and myself, have expressed interest in this question, at some point, and I think all of us sense an underlying confusion between two very different kinds of so-called "reactions." Can you, please, address this in some detail so that we can proceed to other points?

Well, here we have to clarify something that was not shared in my initial post because it goes a bit further. I would speak about it when we would have clarified and acknowledged how the construction in Fig.1-Upper accelerates by means of the Euler Inertial Force. From the moment you are asking about this now then I have to share more. See eq.37 and 38 in the paper and the justification about them which is the following: "However, the way Eq.(33) is formulated, it appears as a momentum exchange that points to a separation between the moving part (m_T) and the rest of the system, which is not valid. The mass m_T is an inseparable intrinsic part of the system. To agree with the construction’s integrity and the observations from an external inertial frame of reference, Eq.(33) may have a different and more general form."

1.delta(m) stays in the system and in our case corresponds to m_T. In order to use the internal mass transfer rate notion, we have to keep the relative velocity u_rel (du_T) constant but not zero. Then we have to correspond m_T -> dm/dt

2.Crucial point: The internal accelerated mass transfer is conducted without causing a reaction upon the rest of the system. This is justified from the fact that mass m_T is propelled by the Euler Inertial Force that by nature does not possess a reaction (in contrast to collinear forces. See Newton's 3rd law). As you may see in Fig.1-Lower we have the case where the contact collinear forces F_A and F_R does not let system to accelerate because any action (pushing mass m_T) will be counteracted by the F_R upon the rest of the system.

3.Due to (2) and since the mass m_T is an intrinsic part of the system (skeleton of the construction), this has as consequence the COM of the system to change and accelerate.

4.Linear momentum conservation always hold and applies for the COM which is intrinsic to the system, too.

5.Because of (3) and (4), the system will start to accelerate.

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I assume that initially when the device is not running and we observe it from the outside. When the device is started the screw starts to rotate, correct? Assume the screw rotates clockwise. Due to conservation of angular momentum the whole device, seen from our outside frame of reference, starts rotating counter clockwise, Ok?

No. What you are saying would happen when there were external torques in the system and the translation screw would extend beyond the housings (in order the construction to advance counterclockwise).

In Fig.1-Upper, we have just internal torques that means the translation screw accelerates clockwise while mass m_T advances counterclockwise. But as you may see there are two linear guides that restrict a counterclockwise rotation of mass m_T. This restriction forces mass m_T to advance to the right (that is inherently counterclockwise). In other words, when one removes the linear guides and holds the drive nut (m_T) with his hand, when the linear actuator is powered and the translation screw accelerates clockwise, the construction will advance to the left while the drive nut (m_T) to the right (conservation of angular momentum).

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, John2020 said:

[...]

4.Linear momentum conservation always hold and applies for the COM which is intrinsic to the system, too.

5.Because of (3) and (4), the system will start to accelerate.

Do you realise that, provided the total system maintains its mass, and none is ejected to space, statements 4. and 5. are in mutual contradiction?

Edited by joigus

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, joigus said:

Do you realise that, provided the total system maintains its mass, and none is ejected to space, statements 4. and 5. are in contradiction?

It would be a contradiction if one attempts to describe the motion of the construction based on the rocket concept, which is wrong. As I explained the construction motion mechanism is not related to the rocket concept but to a reactionless internal mass transfer because of the rise of the Euler Force which is in essence, inertial (no counter part = no reaction).

The above implies although the system maintains its mass, its effective inertia reduces (the effect is attributed to the redeployment of COM and acceleration of the system) while being accelerated. This is the new effect my work predicts, namely the reduction of inertia.

Crucial question: Does the acceleration of mass m_T is attributed to a real or to a fictitious force (Euler Force)?

Edited by John2020

##### Share on other sites This topic is now closed to further replies.

×