swansont

I guess it would have been too much trouble to provide that info in the OP

You asked for an example and I gave it. You can’t assume force and velocity are in the same direction. Full stop. There is a force. There are two main issues here: 1) how Newton’s laws apply to the problem, and 2) what your abomination of physics says about the problem Your version of physics is untested and unsupported. You can’t use it to rebut case #1. We know your version says this is reactionless, and we’re telling you what Newton says. If you think Newton does not say that, you have to use Newton’s laws to rebut. Not your crackpot physics. Actual physics shows a net force along the axis, and a reaction force. I posted the free-body diagram already.

AFAIK condensed matter physics does not apply to the big bang “A variety of topics in physics such as crystallography, metallurgy, elasticity, magnetism, etc., were treated as distinct areas until the 1940s, when they were grouped together as solid state physics. Around the 1960s, the study of physical properties of liquids was added to this list, forming the basis for the new, related specialty of condensed matter physics.” No crystals, or metals, etc.

An object moving in a circle at constant speed has a force directed to the center of the circle, perpendicular to the velocity. The reaction force is in the opposite direction (e.g. you pull on a rope, the rope pulls you, the mass swings in a circle.)

There is a real force. You’re just denying it’s there. Because of some nonsense you made up. No. The screw actually pushes on the bolt. In Narnia, perhaps. Meanwhile, in this universe, Newton’s 3rd law holds, and there is a reaction force that pushes mass in the other diarection. Go ahead and build your device and prove your fictional scenario. That’s the only way to show you’re right. The center of mass does not move in a helix. Force and velocity don’t have to be in the same direction, but I’ve already shown the force diagram giving a net force along the axis. Newtonian physics says there’s a force. If you say there isn’t, you need to show how Newton fails You can stop bringing this up. Nobody is discussing this. Nobody cares. Stop distracting from the physics you’re getting wrong.

You want to discuss cosmology, not condensed matter physics

Repeating your claim isn’t evidence that you’re right. (you aren’t) Also, changing the question is not a good faith argument. Answer what I asked, not some other question, please.

That doesn’t answer the question. “condensed matter” has specific implications, not the least if which that matter is involved. You even capitalized the label. Were you not aware of condensed matter physics, or what is studied? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensed_matter_physics

Yes, you are, when you say it’s reactionless. The reaction force is why there’s a recoil, which moves the other mass. The two are connected. Deny one, and you deny the other.

No, since they give different answers and only one answer can be correct. Anything with its CoM moving has momentum and KE. To say otherwise is a fabrication, not physics

You keep responding Not sure what needs to be “collinear” here. A block on an incline have action-reaction forces, even though angles are involved. Same as for threads on a nut and bolt. The action and reaction forces are collinear in all cases. But you’re arguing one is nonexistent

It is made up. There’s no such thing. You have a funny definition of truth, seeing as how you have not (and can’t) substantiate your assertions Of course Newton’s laws apply to spinning objects. You’re the only one here who thinks they don’t Irrelevant, seeing as your example is purely a classical mechanics problem 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

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

You claim it’s incorrect, but have not shown it’s incorrect. What is a fictitious inertial force? Another thing you made up?

What is the evidence we were formed from condensed matter?

You need to develop a model for “your view” AND confirm it experimentally. What new laws do we allegedly have? Where does the notion that Newton’s laws fail when there is rotation come from?

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 context being what it is, the comparison regarding the earth is to an earlier state, in which average temperature was roughly constant.

Not necessarily useful, true. It’s like the joke about the statistician whose head was in the oven and feet were in an ice bath, who declared “On average, I’m comfortable” But it doesn’t mean that applies to other situations. If you want to rebut the usefulness as applied to climate, you’ll have to analyze the actual problem. Your analogy is poor, and not a substitute for science. If the average temperature is going up, it means more energy is coming in than going out. Where exactly this is temperature increase is happening is unimportant if that’s what you are trying to determine.

Saying it does not make it so. This isn’t magic. What physics principles lead you to this conclusion? You need to back up your argument. Why does a gun recoil?

Many a crackpot thinks magnets will give free energy. This sounds dangerously like that

Then the whole thing moves. “bolted to the housing” just makes the system mass bigger. It doesn’t stop the recoil. The recoil will be related to the ratio of the mass of the part you are translating, and the rest of the mass if the system. You can make that ratio small, but the recoil doesn’t disappear.

So the earth recoils, because you’ve bolted the system down. That doesn’t mean the is no mass transfer, it just means the displacement is small because of the mass disparity Much like if you walk eastward, you slow the rotation rate of the earth, but the change is imperceptible

But mass will be displaced. Asserting that it won’t isn’t a substitute for an actual physics analysis. That’s how this works - you have to back things up with physics. Bald assertions mean nothing.

Science already considers a magnetic field to have energy, and a generator does not tap into this energy. A generator converts mechanical work into electricity. You won’t get anything out if you don’t put anything in.