Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces

[Ghideon]

 

58 minutes ago, John2020 said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2777 (Ref. Nr.9). Check  this one. I am not an expert in all these disciplines, however from the search I did I chose those that are related to the subject. As you said may be there is a reference that does not fit to the subject. Well, I did my best, however as you see there is research on this subject and didn't popup just from my head.

Reading the initial part of the source:

Quote

Although in classical mechanics any realization of this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign

(from https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2777 ) The above is saying that your attempt is not possible in classical mechanics (=Newton). Case closed.

 

Also:

Quote

 In such a hypothetical arrangement, two interacting particles constantly accelerate each other in the same direction through a violation of the action–reaction symmetry.

Note that I already told you about a possible runaway effect of your claim. You waved that away as "exotic assumptions"*. Someone reading your article and finding that referenced sources effectively falsifies your claims probably will come to the same conclusions as we have done in this thread; there is no support for your claims.

 

 

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

The problem with the gun is not the rotation but the use of propellant that implies a real linear force is exerted upon the exhaust of the bullet outwards (action force over the ejected gas) that results in a reaction force pushing the bullet forward.

Thanks. (There are too many new issues added, I can't address them all, I'll try to focus one the vertical bold case and fig 1 device)

 

 

*) https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123261-circumventing-newtons-third-law-through-euler-inertial-forces/?do=findComment&comment=1155713

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

The problem with the gun is not the rotation but the use of propellant that implies a real linear force is exerted upon the exhaust of the bullet outwards (action force over the ejected gas) that results in a reaction force pushing the bullet forward. Here clearly applies Newton's third law. However, another action-reaction event is taking place while the projectile and the ejected gas are still  in the barrel chamber. In this case, the momentum of the gases is transferred towards the gun, resulting in its recoil. In a few words, we have a case where the momentum conservation follows Newton's 3rd law.

So what happens if we just have a nut and a bolt, where a torque is applied to the nut and the bolt is constrained to not rotate?  You seem to be claiming the nut will accelerate along the axis but the bolt remains stationary.

What force causes the nut to accelerate?

 

 

[John2020]

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The above is saying that your attempt is not possible in classical mechanics (=Newton). Case closed.

The Author uses classical mechanics as reference because he (along with the mainstream) or any other research attempt has never demonstrated a device to circumvent (in those paper they are making bolder statements that you don^t address, they speak about "violations of Newton's 3rd law and breaking of action-reaction symmetry" that is totally wrong. I make this mistake also in the Introduction (only) in my paper.). One cannot violated Newton's 3rd law but circumvent it using Inertial forces (fictitious), according to my view.

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Note that I already told you about a possible runaway effect of your claim. You waved that away as "exotic assumptions"*. Someone reading your article and finding that referenced sources effectively falsifies your claims probably will come to the same conclusions as we have done in this thread; there is no support for your claims.

Their experiment describes optical pulses that achieve the above in a controllable way. There is no runaway effect in their claims as also in my own. You misinterpret the situation.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

The Author uses classical mechanics as reference because he (along with the mainstream) or any other research attempt has never demonstrated a device to circumvent (in those paper they are making bolder statements that you don^t address, they speak about "violations of Newton's 3rd law and breaking of action-reaction symmetry" that is totally wrong. I make this mistake also in the Introduction (only) in my paper.). One cannot violated Newton's 3rd law but circumvent it using Inertial forces (fictitious), according to my view.

You need to develop a model for “your view” AND confirm it experimentally. What new laws do we allegedly have?

 

Quote

No, because Newton's laws apply everywhere as long as the interactions are rectilinear. When inertial forces come additionally into play then, there could be situations where a reaction force (based on Newton's 3rd law) will not manifest because the inertial forces are by nature, reactionless.

Where does the notion that Newton’s laws fail when there is rotation come from? 

[John2020]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where does the notion that Newton’s laws fail when there is rotation come from? 

I used "Newton's 3rd law" in brackets in order to point to an expectation that is incorrect by analysis. I mean, one cannot expect reaction when deal with inertial forces (fictitious). That is all I wanted to say.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

I used "Newton's 3rd law" in brackets in order to point to an expectation that is incorrect by analysis.

You claim it’s incorrect, but have not shown it’s incorrect.

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

I mean, one cannot expect reaction when deal with inertial forces (fictitious). That is all I wanted to say.

What is a fictitious inertial force? Another thing you made up?

 

[John2020]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

You need to develop a model for “your view” AND confirm it experimentally. What new laws do we allegedly have?

Good point. I have to improve the analysis and to re-write the first part of the paper. There are no new laws introduced, just a configuration that appears to not behave as most would expect (again expected according to Newton's 3rd law where according to my view comes from an incorrect analysis of the problem).

[swansont]

Just now, John2020 said:

Good point. I have to improve the analysis and to re-write the first part of the paper. There are no new laws introduced, just a configuration that appears to not behave as most would expect (again expected according to Newton's 3rd law where according to my view comes from an incorrect analysis of the problem).

If it makes predictions contrary to applying Newton’s laws, it’s a new law

[John2020]

Just now, swansont said:

What is a fictitious inertial force? Another thing you made up?

Fictitious are by nature inertial forces. By"fictitious inertial forces" I point to the fact that fictitious force are inertial by nature. The word "fictitious" does sit well on my understanding and this is the reason I use additionally the "inertial" definition. I should avoid it also in my paper because as you say it sounds as made up.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

If it makes predictions contrary to applying Newton’s laws, it’s a new law

It does not make predictions contrary to Newton's laws. This is assumed by all physicists, however the truth is that Newton's laws apply just when we have real collinear forces. As you know better than me, Newton's laws do not apply to spinning objects. That is all!

[joigus]

7 hours ago, John2020 said:

Obviously, this is the wrong analogy. I will explain later.

It is the right analogy as concerns the fact that it is as much of a helical motion as a nut: Not a helical motion at all.

Your nut is a rigid body. Angular momentum cannot be converted into linear momentum. The list of inconsistencies in your thinking is almost impossible to keep in check.

At least I know now that you know nothing about rigid body dynamics. It's been a lot of time down the drain for me.

Thank you very much.

You are right, we are wrong, is all that you can say. Your reasoning has changed at every step. I and others have always responded with standard physics. Different scope perhaps, but same good old reliable physics. You've taken none of it.

The very same motto that you proudly bear in your profile speaks of your ignorance of physics: "circumventing Newton's 3rd law through Euler inertial forces."

Newton's laws are only valid in an inertial frame.

You don't even know that and you make a banner or your ignorance.

Bye.

Edited October 16, 2020 by joigus

[John2020]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

You don't even know that and you make a banner or your ignorance.

Bye

You are overreacting. I wonder why you participate in this discussion if you believe I am ignorant. 

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

The very same motto that you proudly bear in your profile speaks of your ignorance of physics: "circumventing Newton's 3rd law with Euler inertial forces."

Do you know which fictitious force could mimic a rectilinear real force? This is all about Fig.1-Upper and the title of the paper is to the point.

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

At least I know now that you know nothing about rigid body dynamics. It's been a lot of time down the drain for me.

Why are you still here, then? 

[iNow]

Ignorant <> Willfully ignorant 

[John2020]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Ignorant <> Willfully ignorant 

Is that you think, too? Well done. 

[Ghideon]

20 minutes ago, John2020 said:

It does not make predictions contrary to Newton's laws. This is assumed by all physicists, however the truth is that Newton's laws apply just when we have real collinear forces. As you know better than me, Newton's laws do not apply to spinning objects. That is all!

But scientific progress did not stop when Newtonian physics was introduced. You make prediction contrary to a lot of physics, developed after Newton. Choosing to ignore it does not make it go away. 

 

 

[John2020]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

So what happens if we just have a nut and a bolt, where a torque is applied to the nut and the bolt is constrained to not rotate?  You seem to be claiming the nut will accelerate along the axis but the bolt remains stationary.

What force causes the nut to accelerate?

The non-constant magnitude of the couple (F_A and F_A') now upon the nut (according to your example). Assuming the counter torque will affect just the bolt (We put aside (which is correct) the frame of the construction rotation due to the counter torque. I have to fix this.) then although the bolt is fixed (not rotating) the angular momentum conservation still holds. The same effect is expected that is acceleration of the nut without causing a linear real reaction will result in the redeployment of the CoM (assuming the CoM of the nut coincides with that of the construction as a whole) and acceleration of the system.

[Ghideon]

17 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Why are you still here, then? 

Maybe because other members appreciate @joigus participation and contributions? At least I do, In case my opinion counts.

 

 

3 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The non-constant magnitude of the couple (F_A and F_A') now upon the nut (according to your example). Assuming the counter torque will affect just the bolt (We put aside (which is correct) the frame of the construction rotation due to the counter torque. I have to fix this.) then although the bolt is fixed (not rotating) the angular momentum conservation still holds. The same effect is expected that is acceleration of the nut without causing a linear real reaction will result in the redeployment of the CoM (assuming the CoM of the nut coincides with that of the construction as a whole) and acceleration of the system.

Is there a "minimal" shape that allows for your claimed effect to emerge? Lets say we have a thin nut with just one lap of a thread, is that enough? Is there a minimal angle that is needed? What is that angle?

 

(Still working on a simplified picture, still allowing for your claimed affects)

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Ghideon
spelling

[John2020]

27 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

But scientific progress did not stop when Newtonian physics was introduced. You make prediction contrary to a lot of physics, developed after Newton. Choosing to ignore it does not make it go away.

I am not making predictions contrary to a lot of physics. As I mention in my paper there are other disciplines in physics e.g. statistical mechanics, optics etc claiming the breaking of action-reaction symmetry. Check the References of the paper as also google "action-reaction symmetry breaking" or "violations of Newton's 3rd law", which are very bold statements. 

What I say is since there are experimental results that show a disagreement with the momentum conservation and Newton's 3rd law then why shouldn't this effect appear in classical mechanics, too? Something has been overlooked in classical mechanics and this thread is an attempt to point this out (in a poor and not satisfactory way as I see from your reactions. I accept it.)

25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Is there a "minimal" shape that allows for your claimed effect to emerge? Lets say we have a thin nut with just one lap of a thread, is that enough? Is there a minimal angle that is needed? What is that angle?

I assume when the helix angle becomes large enough by making the trajectory almost linear then, linear effects will dominate and less the other stuff I presented above.

25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Maybe because other members appreciate @joigus participation and contributions? At least I do, In case my opinion counts.

Ghideon,

I opened this thread and I placed a link to my paper in the signature. So people who would read a couple of lines in the presentation of this thread and think (from what they know by respecting what they know without doubting) they know better then this is ridiculous according to them. Normally those people shouldn't participate or in the extreme case the thread should be closed (as they do in Nasa Space Flight Forums. I tried a couple of times there lately. They didn't even let me to develop my arguments. On the other hand, I am very happy this forum gave me the freedom to speak and I really appreciate it.)

Can someone tell me why this thread is so hot by the way? Why the moderators didn't flip the switch?

Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020

[Ghideon]

12 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I assume when the helix angle becomes large enough by making the trajectory almost linear then, linear effects will dominate and less the other stuff I presented above.

Sorry, I was probalby unclear; I mean how many laps of threads around the bolt does the nut need to have? Is one lap (360°) the lower limit or some other? I think it is may be easier to analyse the simplest case. (Vibrations and frictions is not an issue in the ideal case.)

Also good to know that when the trajectory is almost linear the effect will be weaker but not suddenly disappear at some specific angle.

 

13 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Can someone tell me why this thread is so hot by the way? Why the moderators didn't flip the switch?

I have no insight behind the scenes but sometimes a moderator have commented that a thread stayed open longer when the proponent of a non-mainstream seems willing to learn and listen. Not sure that applies in this case, so there are likely other reasons. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Ghideon

[John2020]

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry, I was probalby unclear; I mean how many laps of threads around the bolt does the nut need to have? Is one lap (360°) the lower limit or some other?

Well for the theoretical analysis I assume just one lap would be enough. Practically, more laps leads to more momentum since the nut is being accelerated caused by the non-constant magnitude couple (F_A and F_A').

Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020

[Ghideon]

2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Well for the theoretical analysis I assume just one lap would be enough. Practically, more laps leads to more momentum since the nut is being accelerated caused by the non-constant magnitude couple (F_A and F_A').

Thanks. Why more momentum? Due to a more massive nut? Other Would one lap with mass=m have the same effect as 2 laps with same mass=m. Also, what momentum? Momentum of the whole drive?

[John2020]

I think it would be better to have two laps, otherwise the displacement may not manifest.

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks. Why more momentum? Due to a more massive nut? Other Would one lap with mass=m have the same effect as 2 laps with same mass=m. Also, what momentum? Momentum of the whole drive?

I just would like to mention we need as minimum two laps in order to demonstrate the displacement of the nut.

Sorry that was wrong what I said about more laps more momentum. I confused it with something else in the construction.

Edited October 16, 2020 by John2020

[Ghideon]

3 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I just would like to mention we need as minimum two laps in order to demonstrate the displacement of the nut.

Why? What happens when there is 2 laps that does not manifest itself for let's say 1.9 laps? 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

Fictitious are by nature inertial forces. By"fictitious inertial forces" I point to the fact that fictitious force are inertial by nature. The word "fictitious" does sit well on my understanding and this is the reason I use additionally the "inertial" definition. I should avoid it also in my paper because as you say it sounds as made up.

It is made up. There’s no such thing.

 

Quote

It does not make predictions contrary to Newton's laws. This is assumed by all physicists, however the truth is that Newton's laws apply just when we have real collinear forces.

You have a funny definition of truth, seeing as how you have not (and can’t) substantiate your assertions 

Quote

As you know better than me, Newton's laws do not apply to spinning objects. That is all!

Of course Newton’s laws apply to spinning objects. You’re the only one here who thinks they don’t

32 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I am not making predictions contrary to a lot of physics. As I mention in my paper there are other disciplines in physics e.g. statistical mechanics, optics etc claiming the breaking of action-reaction symmetry. Check the References of the paper as also google "action-reaction symmetry breaking" or "violations of Newton's 3rd law", which are very bold statements. 

Irrelevant, seeing as your example is purely a classical mechanics problem

Quote

I assume when the helix angle becomes large enough by making the trajectory almost linear then, linear effects will dominate and less the other stuff I presented above.

Why, and where’s your derivation? Otherwise this sounds like a dodge, where you realize there’s a point you can’t deny that Newton’s laws work

[John2020]

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Why? What happens when there is 2 laps that does not manifest itself for let's say 1.9 laps? 

I just picked an integer number as minimum. Use 1.9 laps no problem (I suppose).

[Ghideon]

18 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Well for the theoretical analysis I assume just one lap would be enough.

 

13 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I just would like to mention we need as minimum two laps in order to demonstrate the displacement of the nut.

 

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

I just picked an integer number as minimum. Use 1.9 laps no problem (I suppose).

You mean that you have no clue how your circumventing of Newtons laws using helical shapes is supposed to work?

May I use half a lap? 3/4 of a lap?