# Inertial Drive

## Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, John2020 said:

No, you misunderstood me. I presented a reasoning. When the cause of vibration comes from internal forces then the system (ring) should be able to move or vibrate due to Newton's 3rd law. It is Newton's 3rd law that does not allow motion by means of internal forces, not me.

Regarding the net work of internal forces, it is clear the net work of internal forces (since it is zero) cannot trigger system's motion. Everybody knows this. It is derived by Newton's 3rd law: ΣW = WA + WR = 0 (work of action pus the work of reaction equals zero).

When you jump in the air, you use your muscles. There are connected only to your bones, i.e. they act purely internally.

How do you account for your ability to jump in the air?

• Replies 103
• Created

#### Posted Images

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Action and reaction forces act on different bodies, so it’s nonsensical to do this math.

It’s like saying energy is conserved, so nothing can move.

We speak again for an isolated system. An action exerted upon a part will create a reaction upon the rest of the system. Consequently, due to Newton's 3rd law the isolated system cannot acquire a momentum by means of internal forces.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I don't understand what you mean here? I consider the ring as an isolated system being influenced only by the internal magnetostrictive strain that means an isolated system powered by internal forces, according to Newton's 3rd law will never acquire a momentum. It is the same when one tries to lift himself by its hair or pushing a car while being inside (see LEGO car with the ring).

But it's not an isolated system, that's the point.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

We speak again for an isolated system. An action exerted upon a part will create a reaction upon the rest of the system. Consequently, due to Newton's 3rd law the isolated system cannot acquire a momentum by means of internal forces.

So you keep saying, while repeatedly ignoring my request to reveal where you “learned” this (part of the issue: is the ring an isolated system?)

Also ignoring examples you can see, e.g. a person jumping into the air

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

When you jump in the air, you use your muscles. There are connected only to your bones, i.e. they act purely internally.

How do you account for your ability to jump in the air?

By contracting and expanding your body that means by redeploying the center of gravity of your body which creates a force that is in essence external to the body.

##### Share on other sites

Just now, John2020 said:

By contracting and expanding your body that means by redeploying the center of gravity of your body which creates a force that is in essence external to the body.

How can the centre of gravity of your body move, just by the action  of internal forces? Haven't you spent the last fortnight telling us Newton's laws say that can't happen?

##### Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

But it's not an isolated system, that's the point.

In terms of what force is being exerted on the ring, we agree that is internal (magnetostrictive strain). Consequently, the cause of ring's motion is essentially internal that means its motion can be justified as being an isolated system although is found inside a gravitational field and upon a table that both does not make sense of being the cause of system's motion (from the moment the cause is internal), as I described above.

7 minutes ago, exchemist said:

How can the centre of gravity of your body move, just by the action  of internal forces? Haven't you spent the last fortnight telling us Newton's laws say that can't happen?

Yes, I did when I was speaking about motion of an isolated system powered by internal forces. The body of a person can never propel itself e.g. if being suspended by a thread or in absence of gravity or by not touching a surface (in order to take advantage the reaction force from the surface).

Edited by John2020
##### Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, John2020 said:

We speak again for an isolated system. An action exerted upon a part will create a reaction upon the rest of the system. Consequently, due to Newton's 3rd law the isolated system cannot acquire a momentum by means of internal forces.

The system is not isolated. As I wrote earlier you have metal items around and the table may not be perfectly horizontal, so the magnetic and/or gravitational forces may be responsible for the slide/momentum.

##### Share on other sites

Why nobody says anything about the LEGO car experiment? I am curious.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John2020 said:

Why nobody says anything about the LEGO car experiment? I am curious.

Because, unlike you, we like to get one thing at a time straight, instead of continually lobbing in yet more complicating factors in order to obscure the analysis of the problem.

##### Share on other sites

Just now, DanMP said:

The system is not isolated. As I wrote earlier you have metal items around and the table may not be perfectly horizontal, so the magnetic and/or gravitational forces may be responsible for the slide/momentum.

This is out of question because I did the experiment (see first posts). As a direct proof of not being the case you have to watch besides the LEGO car experiment, the rotating ring which its rotation is absolutely controllable (increasing frequency -> clockwise rotation, decreasing frequency -> counterclockwise rotation). Consequently, it has nothing to do with your claims.

##### Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, John2020 said:

In terms of what force is being exerted on the ring, we agree that is internal (magnetostrictive strain). Consequently, the cause of ring's motion is essentially internal that means its motion can be justified as being an isolated system although is found inside a gravitational field and upon a table that both does not make sense of being the cause of system's motion (from the moment the cause is internal), as I described above.

Yes, I did when I was speaking about motion of an isolated system powered by internal forces. The body of a person can never propel itself e.g. if being suspended by a thread or in absence of gravity or by not touching a surface (in order to take advantage the reaction force from the surface).

OK, so does that mean you recognise your body, when you jump into the air, is not an isolated system? And that, when a system is not isolated, internal forces can cause it to move?

##### Share on other sites

Just now, exchemist said:

Because, unlike you, we like to get one thing at a time straight, instead of continually lobbing in yet more complicating factors in order to obscure the analysis of the problem.

The most complicating factors exist on the ring moving across the table which brings much controversy. This is the reason I suggest to check the other two which are clearer as set up and observed effects.

##### Share on other sites

Just now, John2020 said:

The most complicating factors exist on the ring moving across the table which brings much controversy. This is the reason I suggest to check the other two which are clearer as set up and observed effects.

No dice. I am still trying to get you to be clear about what happens when you jump in the air. So far, you are not managing even that.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

OK, so does that mean you recognise your body, when you jump into the air, is not an isolated system? And that, when a system is not isolated, internal forces can cause it to move?

I just make a parallelism regarding the cause of motion. According to Newton's laws of motion, a body or a system may move by means of external forces. According to my understanding regarding the experiments and what we have agreed so far my personal conclusion is that the system moves by means of internal forces as being an isolated system. That is all!

2 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No dice. I am still trying to get you to be clear about what happens when you jump in the air. So far, you are not managing even that.

This is your point of view and it seems you don't like to confront the issues because you are focused of what I cannot manage, so you think let us take advantage of it and nail him down, right? I don't care. I am not a physicist and I do not claim physics is wrong. On the contrary, I put the material on YouTube and open a thread here in order to discuss it. Each one of us besides knowledge and expertise in our fields, we have some brain and can think in our feet by presenting logical arguments.

##### Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Why nobody says anything about the LEGO car experiment? I am curious.

In this case the vibration is less important (the car has wheels) and it hints that magnetic forces (from the metal items around) are more probably involved.

Edited by DanMP
##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DanMP said:

In this case the vibration is less important (the car has wheels) and it hints that magnetic forces (from the metal items around) are more probably involved.

The third experiment also suggests that the magnetic forces are responsible for the slide and not (or much less) the gravitational force.

About the LEGO car: If you watch closely, you may identify the ring attempts to rotate and while doing that it is blocked by a LEGO piece in front of it. What happens at that moment, the ring seems to push the LEGO piece (being a part of the entire car) that leads to entire LEGO car motion. How Newton's laws may explain this? I cannot find an explanation according to Newton's laws. The only thing I may confirm is the ring attempts to rotate that means a tangential force is at play originated from inside the ring. This can be proven by the Exp #3 with the controllable rotation of the ring.

In Exp #3 we may clearly identify the tangential force created by the ring, otherwise the ring wouldn't rotate. Again, there is no interaction with nearby metals or table feet. Note: We speak about a 200 grams ring with high a magnetic permeability (almost all magnetic lines are found inside the ring). See datasheet in my initial posts.

##### Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Why nobody says anything about the LEGO car experiment? I am curious.

Because making the system more complicated will not clear up your misconceptions

58 minutes ago, John2020 said:

By contracting and expanding your body that means by redeploying the center of gravity of your body

Now replace “body” with “ring” and you’re one step closer

54 minutes ago, John2020 said:

In terms of what force is being exerted on the ring, we agree that is internal (magnetostrictive strain).

No, “we” did not agree. The vibration is caused by an external magnetic force, and the table is exerting a force.

##### Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because making the system more complicated will not clear up your misconceptions

You took it wrong. The simplest system is that with the LEGO car since it does not touch the table and just pushing the car. So, how something may push the car while being inside? What Newton's laws of motion say about it?

Edited by John2020
##### Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, John2020 said:

According to my understanding regarding the experiments and what we have agreed so far my personal conclusion is that the system moves by means of internal forces as being an isolated system. That is all!

And you are wrong, “we” have not agreed to this

It’s not an isolated system

2 minutes ago, John2020 said:

You took it wrong. The simplest system is that with the LEGO car since it does not touch the table and just pushing the car. So, how something may push the car while being inside? What Newton's laws of motion say about it?

A simpler system has fewer components, not more.

44 minutes ago, John2020 said:

I am not a physicist and I do not claim physics is wrong.

Then stop saying Newton’s laws don’t allow the motion you observe. That’s the same as saying the laws of motion are wrong.

##### Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

And you are wrong.

It’s not an isolated system

I have explained myself how I put it. If I am wrong, tell me how the LEGO car is moving and what Newton's 3rd law says about it? Gravity and table vibrations have nothing to do with the LEGO car therefore, those claims cannot hold as main cause of motion.

##### Share on other sites

Just now, John2020 said:

I have explained myself how I put it. If I am wrong, tell me how the LEGO car is moving and what Newton's 3rd law says about it? Gravity and table vibrations have nothing to do with the LEGO car therefore, those claims cannot hold as main cause of motion.

No, I will not examine the complicated system when you will not acknowledge the analysis of the simpler system. This is a version of the Gish gallop, and is a bad faith argument, which we won’t tolerate. Deal with the simple system, or we close the thread.

##### Share on other sites

1 minute ago, swansont said:

No, I will not examine the complicated system when you will not acknowledge the analysis of the simpler system. This is a version of the Gish gallop, and is a bad faith argument, which we won’t tolerate. Deal with the simple system, or we close the thread.

Again it is not a complicated system in terms of demonstrating the effects. You haven't answered my question regarding the force that comes from inside the ring is internal and then I put another argument that the ring shouldn't vibrate according to Newton's 3rd law and nobody said anything about. Something else is happening or something else obscures the effect according to my view. Therefore, I suggest you to watch the example with the LEGO car, it is clearer (no table vibrations, no gravity influence etc).

So, who is in bad faith? In front of experimental evidences that need serious discussion, your only interest is to close the thread because someone presented some logical arguments that do not comply with what you serve (physics). Do whatever you like.

##### Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, John2020 said:

About the LEGO car: If you watch closely, you may identify the ring attempts to rotate and while doing that it is blocked by a LEGO piece in front of it. What happens at that moment, the ring seems to push the LEGO piece (being a part of the entire car) that leads to entire LEGO car motion.

9 minutes ago, John2020 said:

In Exp #3 we may clearly identify the tangential force created by the ring, otherwise the ring wouldn't rotate. Again, there is no interaction with nearby metals or table feet.

Well, I'm not sure, but it still may be the gravitational force to blame. It seems that when friction tends to zero, due to vibration, the ring is sliding to the right, in all experiments.

The rotation may be caused by the red tape: the friction appears to be greater between the tape and the table than between the metal and the table ... There are also some forces from the cables ...

In order to understand it better, you should: use a bubble level meter (to be sure that the surface is horizontal), reduce the tape/cable rotating effect by "gluing" the ring on a "plate" and minimizing the tension from the cables, and last but not least, remove the metal items around.

##### Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Again it is not a complicated system in terms of demonstrating the effects. You haven't answered my question regarding the force that comes from inside the ring is internal and then I put another argument that the ring shouldn't vibrate according to Newton's 3rd law and nobody said anything about.

I asked “Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring?”

33 minutes ago, John2020 said:

Something else is happening or something else obscures the effect according to my view.

You have no credibility so “your view” is pretty much impact-free

33 minutes ago, John2020 said:

So, who is in bad faith?

You

33 minutes ago, John2020 said:

In front of experimental evidences that need serious discussion, your only interest is to close the thread because someone presented some logical arguments that do not comply with what you serve (physics). Do whatever you like.

You have been given serious discussion, which you ignore or reject, and you have not presented logical arguments; your posts are a parade of argument by personal incredulity fallacies.

“comply with what you serve (physics)” is what we mean by “general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic” in our rule on bad faith arguments.

10 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Well, I'm not sure, but it still may be the gravitational force to blame. It seems that when friction tends to zero, due to vibration, the ring is sliding to the right, in all experiments.

The rotation may be caused by the red tape: the friction appears to be greater between the tape and the table than between the metal and the table ... There are also some forces from the cables ...

In order to understand it better, you should: use a bubble level meter (to be sure that the surface is horizontal), reduce the tape/cable rotating effect by "gluing" the ring on a "plate" and minimizing the tension from the cables, and last but not least, remove the metal items around.

!

Moderator Note

As I said before, we’re not discussing this. What he should do is learn Newton’s laws of motion by investigating simple systems

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×