Circumventing Newton's third law through Euler Inertial Forces

[Ghideon]

2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

This is not an argument. You have to explain yourself. Could you tell us what General Relativity predicts?

This is your idea. You provide the answers how your device works. "I don't know what General Relativity predicts" is not an argument that makes the device work. It is just yet another reason to dismiss it as an invalid idea built upon misconceptions.

Anyway let's provide a simplified answer covering the important parts*:
-General relativity: mass (and energy) curves spacetime. 
-Two bodies (such as the body and the drive in this example) initially at rest at some distance apart will, due to the curvature, get closer and eventually collide.

What you claim is just not possible in General Relativity. Need more details?

 

*) there is a risk that the answer will be imprecise but at this time I think the discussion can move forward even without details. This is not a thread about GR after all.

[John2020]

24 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What you claim is just not possible in General Relativity. Need more details?

Have you ever thought that General Relativity is probably incomplete or better a subset of a wider framework like I did in my work about Special Relativity?

The only problem in this discussion is whether we have a reactionless mass transfer or not? If it is possible then, General Relativity becomes automatically incomplete (better a subset of a wider framework) as I show this for Special Relativity and the Lorentz transformations.

Edited October 12, 2020 by John2020

[Ghideon]

24 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Have you ever thought that General Relativity is probably incomplete or better a subset of a more wider framework

Yes. A framework that would unify gravity and quantum mechanics would be nice to have.

But you are avoiding the question. I'll add some detail:

Mass* is what curves spacetime. Internal moving parts does not change that. The curvature tells mass how to move  In order for the drive to remain stationary and not move (or move towards) the other body of mass m the drive needs to stop curving spacetime. That can be done by being massless when operating. 
How you claim the drive to suddenly become massless? 

 

23 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The only problem in this discussion is whether we have a reactionless mass transfer or not?

I think that has been answered with a "no" several times already. 

 

Note: Claiming that you do not know GR does not help. GR and it's supporting observations does not go away. 

*) and energy 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Ghideon

[John2020]

53 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Yes. A framework that would unify gravity and quantum mechanics would be nice to have.

But you are avoiding the question. I'll add some detail:

Mass* is what curves spacetime. Internal moving parts does not change that. The curvature tells mass how to move  In order for the drive to remain stationary and not move (or move towards) the other body of mass m the drive needs to stop curving spacetime. That can be done by being massless when operating. 
How you claim the drive to suddenly become massless? 

You are asking things that I am not aware of. What I may support (as much as I can) is what I share in my work. I cannot address General Relativity.

Your thought experiment is flawed (better I would say, yours justification) for the following reason:

The body creates a gravitational field (similar to earth's gravitational field) affecting the curvature of spacetime. The device cannot create a field of such gravitational intensity as the body e.g. earth, however it may counteract body's gravitational acceleration through an inertial acceleration by means of a reactionless internal Euler force in the opposite direction. Besides my device,  counteracting the gravitational acceleration can be done through external forces (see rockets).

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by John2020

[Ghideon]

23 minutes ago, John2020 said:

You are asking things that I am not aware of.

Ok, that can be fixed by studying. Then you will also realise reasons why those that are familiar with physics disagrees with your ideas.

 

23 minutes ago, John2020 said:

What I may support (as much as I can) is what I share in my work. I cannot address General Relativity.

General Relativity is one (of many ways) to show how your work is wrong according current understanding. Failure to address GR means nothing regarding the validity of GR. 

23 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The body creates a gravitational field (similar to earth's gravitational field) affecting the curvature of spacetime. The device cannot create a field of such gravitational intensity as the body e.g. earth, however it may counter body's gravitational acceleration through an inertial acceleration by means of a reactionless internal Euler force in the opposite direction.

 You just said " I cannot address General Relativity". Now you address General Relativity with an analysis that is incorrect. Need more details?

 

24 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Besides my device,  counteracting the gravitational acceleration can be done through external forces (see rockets).

Rockets are real, based on correct application of physics and supported by observations.

 

[John2020]

10 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You just said " I cannot address General Relativity". Now you address General Relativity with an analysis that is incorrect. Need more details?

I addressed GR based just on the information you provided. Now you are avoiding to address my answer. The way you presented the thought experiment is flawed because a gravitational acceleration can be counteracted by an inertial acceleration (even if we are not at the same page regarding the reactionless drive). If the reactionless drive concept is true in general (not because of my device) then, a gravitational acceleration can be counteracted by an inertial acceleration by means of a reactionless internal Euler force (this is what I can imagine to be possible based on known physics).

Edited October 12, 2020 by John2020

[swansont]

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

I am almost finished with the drawing that shows all forces (friction, normal and torque forces) in detail (I hope). What I don't understand on yours drawing is from where F came from. I haven't such in my drawing (pushing the nut from the left, only in Fig.1-Lower there is such situation).

It’s not your drawing, it’s my drawing. 

The black block pushes on the blue block. There is a force in the +x direction.

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

 

@swansont

Note: The device is found in outer space (no gravitational fields are present)

Here are my observations:

a) The normal forces Fnut and Fscrew correspond to the Action-Reaction pair.

b) The Action-Reaction pair is obviously not along the axis of rotation.

Where did you get the drawing?

 

[John2020]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

The black block pushes on the blue block. There is a force in the +x direction.

You should have drawn the force between the two parts. The way you have drawn it appears as both being pushed by the force F. Check the drawing I posted (at the end of the 3rd page of this discussion) an hour ago having a magnified thread with all the forces that appear between the screw and the nut. Moreover, there is a contactless (no contact forces) magnetic leadscrew that needs to be discussed.

Edited October 12, 2020 by John2020

[Ghideon]

28 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I addressed GR based just on the information you provided. Now you are avoiding to address my answer. The way you presented the thought experiment is flawed because a gravitational acceleration can be counteracted by an inertial acceleration (even if we are not at the same page regarding the reactionless drive). If the reactionless drive concept is true in general (not because of my device) then, a gravitational acceleration can be counteracted by an inertial acceleration by means of a reactionless internal Euler force (this is what I can imagine to be possible based on known physics).

You are free to study GR and add your own explanation. I deliberately use a simple experiment in an attempt to not introduce unnecessary details. @joigus and others could probably present the mathematics if required. I guess you will just dismiss all of it as was the case with Lagrange. 

I did not claim a rocket can't lift. If the rocket has a running rocket engine that performs according to spec it will lift. My thought experiment says a rocket, without an engine providing thrust, will fall down. If you want to discuss how a rocket works may I suggest opening a separate thread?

If your reactionless drive would by some yet unexplained way keep a constant distance* from the body with mass m the reactionless drive still has a mass m. (unless you claim it to somehow be massless). That mass m curves the spacetime according to GR. The body will follow that curvature and get closer to the reactionless drive. But the reactionless drive keeps the distance constant. That leaves some options:

-Some kind of anti gravity acts on the body, keeping it stationary, not moving towards the drive.
-There is a runway motion. The reactionless drive slowly accelerates and the body follows the curvature at a constant distance. 

 

None of the above will actually happen. As per GR the body and the reactionless drive will slowly move closer to one another and eventually collide. 

 

*) Again, constant distance is just to simplify the discussion. I assume the drive to be ideal so that its imagined force can be tuned.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Ghideon
format

[John2020]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where did you get the drawing?

The drawing on the left, I drew it based on some other drawings found on the internet. The other on the right I made a screenshot from an online manual having some tests and description of how a magnetic lead screw works.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

The drawing on the left, I drew it based on some other drawings found on the internet. The other on the right I made a screenshot from an online manual having some tests and description of how a magnetic lead screw works.

OK. What is the source of F_A?

“Action force” isn’t a kind of force.  

[John2020]

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That leaves some options:

-Some kind of anti gravity acts on the body, keeping it stationary, not moving towards the drive.
-There is a runway motion. The reactionless drive slowly accelerates and the body follows the curvature at a constant distance. 

 

None of the above will actually happen. As per GR the body and the reactionless drive will slowly move closer to one another and eventually collide.

You don't need to make such exotic assumptions. A gravitational acceleration can be always counteracted by an inertial one. The only problem is if we may accept the possibility of a reactionless drive doing the job.

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

OK. What is the source of F_A?

“Action force” isn’t a kind of force.  

This is the one of the two forces of the couple that creates the torque which applies perpendicular to the axis of rotation (exactly as it is shown on my first post). The source is provided by a brushless motor (and power) inside the housings. 

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, John2020 said:

This is the one of the two forces of the couple that creates the torque which applies perpendicular to the axis of rotation (exactly as it is shown on my first post). The source is provided by a brushless motor (and power) inside the housings. 

How does the motor exert a force on the nut? I’m talking about the actual force. There’s a normal force, and friction, as one might expect of surfaces in contact. There is no category called “brushless motor force”

[John2020]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

How does the motor exert a force on the nut? I’m talking about the actual force. There’s a normal force, and friction, as one might expect of surfaces in contact. There is no category called “brushless motor force”

The motor exerts a couple (FA and FA') on the translation screw and not on the nut. The nut is pushed by the action-reaction pair, namely the normal forces (you spoke about those in a previous post, so here they are).

See you tomorrow I have to go to sleep (00:00 local time).

[Ghideon]

22 minutes ago, John2020 said:

You don't need to make such exotic assumptions. A gravitational acceleration can be always counteracted by an inertial one. The only problem is if we may accept the possibility of a reactionless drive doing the job.

Reactionless drives are not accepted and will never be accepted*. I just use various different concepts in physics to highlight the impossible consequences of what you claim, in case you came here to learn. Before moving on to next step with new ways to tell how the device fails, is the following how this discussion will move on?

Rule 1: Reactionless drives, as described in opening post (OP) of the thread, are physically sound and works as claimed in the OP. 
Rule 2: Presenting valid and scientifically supported arguments against a reactionless drive in general and/or the design in OP are to be dismissed. See rule 1.

 

(Rule 1 and 2 are a condensed interpretation of the thread(s) so far)

* Until some really new exotic physics emerge in some future time. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Ghideon
grammar. opening post =OP

[John2020]

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

OP

What is OP?

[Ghideon]

Just now, John2020 said:

What is OP?

Short for opening post.

(I'll edit to clarify) 

[John2020]

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Reactionless drives are not accepted and will never be accepted*.

I shared an hour ago a drawing of a thread and the forces that act upon it. The action-reaction pair is not along the axis of rotation. On the other hand, there is a drawing of a magnetic leadscrew which contactless. These two subjects need to be addressed from your side.

I have to go to sleep is late midnight. See you tomorrow and thank you all for the today discussion. Be well!

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The motor exerts a couple (FA and FA') on the translation screw and not on the nut.

So it’s irrelevant to the discussion, since we’re interested in the force on the nut

10 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The nut is pushed by the action-reaction pair, namely the normal forces (you spoke about those in a previous post, so here they are).

See you tomorrow I have to go to sleep (00:00 local time).

But you have the normal force already labeled. And in a different direction than F_A.

[Ghideon]

6 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I shared an hour ago a drawing of a thread and the forces that act upon it. The action-reaction pair is not along the axis of rotation. On the other hand, there is a drawing of a magnetic leadscrew which contactless. These two subjects need to be addressed from your side.

Sorry, that is not how it works. You need to clarify how your device can operate in contradiction to what GR predicts. 

[John2020]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you have the normal force already labeled. And in a different direction than F_A

The normal forces (action-reaction pair) are those behind the pushing of nut as you also have mentioned in a previous post of yours. As you see these forces are not along the axis of rotation, however they help the nut to advance to the right. The drawing shows all the forces that appear between the screw and the nut. Make a search on the web and you will see. It didn't come out of my mind.

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry, that is not how it works. You need to clarify how your device can operate in contradiction to what GR predicts.

I am here to discuss my work and not how this may affect GR or not. I am not the person who can judge this. Again, the problem the subject of this discussion is whether the device is a reactionless drive candidate. You need to address the last drawing I posted which is the heart of the problem.

Good night!

Edited October 12, 2020 by John2020

[joigus]

1 hour ago, John2020 said:

You don't need to make such exotic assumptions.

What about this for exotic assumptions?:

On 10/10/2020 at 9:39 PM, 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). 

I must confess I'm in awe as to the amount of detailed analysis that wiser folks than me are willing to offer you to explain why your idea cannot work. I'm far lazier. That's why I go for the arguments why your idea is a non-starter because it is ill-conceived from the get go, instead of going into the details.

Energy can be hidden inside a system and suddenly be released. But momentum is a vector quantity, so it doesn't work that way. Momentum cannot be hidden "under the rug" of internal variables. It also must be conserved for very robust, absolutely fundamental reasons that have been explained to everybody's satisfaction but yours. It is not only a mathematical theorem about symmetries and conservations laws. It has been checked ad nauseam experimentally. It is valid across different theories. It is quite simply how Nature works.

The errors have been pointed out to you from every which direction. You are mixing forces that are only valid in a non-inertial frame with forces that are only valid in an inertial frame so that, in your mind, your system can do what you want it to do, never mind it's known to be impossible.

When pressed about a fundamental point, you claim that maybe general relativity is wrong, that maybe there is a special place in the universe where the speed of light is null. You use concepts like "quasiparticle" or "bare particle" (that make no sense in the context you're using them) so that your nut-and-bolt system can produce momentum. Nothing in your system can be sensically considered a quasiparticle.

Also, you use a mathematical term like dm/dt (a varying mass term implying m(t), only justifyable if there is a continuous mass jettison of some kind) for a mechanical element which actually stays in your system and thus keeps contributing inertia, internal forces, and torques; so it cannot be represented by such term. Neither your system's mass, nor its parts' can be represented by a mass that is a function of time, as all your masses are constants.

Now suddenly magnetic fields make an appearance. This looks more and more like one of those open-ended problems, constantly morphing, of which only the conclusions remain constant. What's next? The Dirac equation must be corrected?

 

Edited October 12, 2020 by joigus

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The normal forces (action-reaction pair) are those behind the pushing of nut as you also have mentioned in a previous post of yours. As you see these forces are not along the axis of rotation,

Is there only one point of contact? This is a screw and a nut. Go around one turn, and all points are in contact. If you integrate around 360 degrees if rotation, the radial component cancels, leaving only a force along the axis.

(alternately, for every force as you have shown, there is one on the other side, such that the radial components cancel)

51 minutes ago, John2020 said:

however they help the nut to advance to the right.

more than help. This is the force that advances the nut.

51 minutes ago, John2020 said:

The drawing shows all the forces that appear between the screw and the nut. Make a search on the web and you will see. It didn't come out of my mind.

 

No, this is on you. It’s your drawing. Why is F_A not identical to the normal force, if that’s the action? (hint: your drawing is incorrect. F_A should not be there)

[John2020]

6 hours ago, swansont said:

No, this is on you. It’s your drawing. Why is F_A not identical to the normal force, if that’s the action? (hint: your drawing is incorrect. F_A should not be there)

F_A is  the action meaning the input force that creates the torque. The N_nut is the corresponding action and the N_screw is the corresponding reaction in Newton's 3rd, these are the contact forces (action-reaction) and not F_A (this is the input force). See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine (mechanical advantage). I use the notation _A to show it (perpendicular t0 the axis of rotation that implies is a torque force) in contrast with where it applies in regards to Fig.1-Lower (along the axis of the non-rotating unthreaded rod).

I am late, I have to go to work. See you later in the evening.

6 hours ago, joigus said:

Energy can be hidden inside a system and suddenly be released. But momentum is a vector quantity, so it doesn't work that way. Momentum cannot be hidden "under the rug" of internal variables. It also must be conserved for very robust, absolutely fundamental reasons that have been explained to everybody's satisfaction but yours. It is not only a mathematical theorem about symmetries and conservations laws. It has been checked ad nauseam experimentally. It is valid across different theories. It is quite simply how Nature works.

a) Keep it simple then. Instead of a hidden motor and energy, just imagine there is someone that creates a torque by using his two figures (F_A and F_A' couple) on the surface of the screw.

b) Regarding the action-reaction symmetry, please check the references on my paper. They all speak about experimental evidence where the action-reaction symmetry breaks, especially in statistical mechanics and optics. This are the cases where "simply Nature does not work as we experience on a daily basis".

6 hours ago, joigus said:

The errors have been pointed out to you from every which direction. You are mixing forces that are only valid in a non-inertial frame with forces that are only valid in an inertial frame so that, in your mind, your system can do what you want it to do, never mind it's known to be impossible.

I am not mixing anything. Use an inertial frame of reference and put the center of mass of the device to coincide with the beginning of the coordinate system (0,0,0). Then put an observer at the right end of the system (not on the rotating object) and describe what he sees.

 

6 hours ago, joigus said:

When pressed about a fundamental point, you claim that maybe general relativity is wrong, that maybe there is a special place in the universe where the speed of light is null. You use concepts like "quasiparticle" or "bare particle" (that make no sense in the context you're using them) so that your nut-and-bolt system can produce momentum. Nothing in your system can be sensically considered a quasiparticle.

-About the cosmological stuff, let them for a future thread.

-Bare particles means, no inner structure. Quasiparticle means a particle with something e.g. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles) else that results in a new object.

6 hours ago, joigus said:

Also, you use a mathematical term like dm/dt (a varying mass term implying m(t), only justifyable if there is a continuous mass jettison of some kind) for a mechanical element which actually stays in your system and thus keeps contributing inertia, internal forces, and torques; so it cannot be represented by such term. Neither your system's mass, nor its parts' can be represented by a mass that is a function of time, as all your masses are constants.

constant mass -> constant inertia or constant inertia -> constant mass 

variable mass -> non-constant mass (rocket) -> variable inertia

variable inertia -> it can be constant mass with inertia imbalance (regarding the COM) that appears as being reduced

I am late I have to go.

 

The construction could be the mechanical analog of a Polariton (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton).

Translation screw -> strong coupling of an electromagnetic wave

Mass m_T (along with the rest of the system) -> with an electric or magnetic dipole carrying excitation.

[joigus]

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

a) Keep it simple then. Instead of a hidden motor and energy, just imagine there is someone that creates a torque by using his two figures (F_A and F_A' couple) on the surface of the screw.

Keep it simple? How more simply could I have put it? You cannot have a force producing an acceleration on x_com because you don't have any dependence on x_com in the potential energy. It cannot come from fictitious forces because ficticious forces are obtained by dependence on corresponding coordinates in the kinetic energy. The Lagrangian formalism also allows you to obtain fictitious forces quite simply:

\[ \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\frac{1}{2}mr^2\dot{\theta}^2=mr\dot{\theta}^2 \]

The kinetic energy acting to these effects pretty much as an effective potential energy. As you have no dependence on the COM coordinates anywhere (neither kinetic, nor purely potential terms), you can have no force on them, and thereby no acceleration. Simpler it can't be, but you need to understand it, which you don't.

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

I am not mixing anything.

You are mixing everything. Inertial, non-inertial frames, particles, rigid bodies and deformable mechanical elements, changing mass, cosmology, the speed of light. There is practically no field of physics whence you haven't taken some magical word to help you reason the unreasonable. Including "bare particle", which is a concept from quantum field theory and is playing no role there.

Rigid solids have 6 degrees of freedom, so they are not particles in any sense. That's why they have moments of inertia characterized by certain integrals of their mass density.

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

variable inertia -> it can be constant mass with inertia imbalance (regarding the COM) that appears as being reduced

 

2 hours ago, John2020 said:

Mass m_T (along with the rest of the system) -> with an electric or magnetic dipole carrying excitation.

"Variable inertia", a magnetic dipole "Carrying excitation"?

You don't make any sense.

Do you mean a magnetic-dipole-carrying excitation?

I'm completely sure the laws of electromagnetism don't allow you to obtain COM momentum either. You shouldn't play that game, if you don't know how to play it.

You're playing chess, you announce check mate in three moves, and you're doing it by having the rook move along a diagonal.

Don't you understand nobody who knows anything about chess can be cheated with that? It doesn't help if you say: "keep it simple," or "you overlook something."

You overlook something: physics.

Edited October 13, 2020 by joigus