John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 1 hour ago, John2020 said: In an accelerating rotating system one may create an Euler force that appears along the axis of rotation that does not trigger a reaction along the axis. Isn't this correct? This is not correct when this applies to a mass being on the surface of a rotating system. It could be possible for a non-rigid body being the rotating system without interacting with a mass on its surface, right?
Ghideon Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, John2020 said: In a non-rotating system they are linear velocity dependent and on rotating system are angular velocity dependent. Both are inertial forces, however in linear case is required a linear acceleration/deceleration of the object to trigger the inertial effect e.g. acceleration of a car that pushes the passenger to the back. Seems Ok to me. According to your ideas*, can any fictitious force be used to circumvent Newton? Or maybe better worded, can we use the fictitious forces occurring in linear accelerating frames of reference to circumvent Newton or does it necessarily have to be fictitious forces in rotating frame of reference? 2 hours ago, John2020 said: In an accelerating rotating system one may create an Euler force that appears along the axis of rotation that does not trigger a reaction along the axis. Isn't this correct? No, there is always a reaction when you analyze it in an inertial frame. 2 hours ago, John2020 said: I understand, I will not insist. Thanks. 2 hours ago, John2020 said: How could someone explain the behavior of the ring that seems to exert a force coming from its interior (internal force). It could for instance be a reactionless drive, anti gravity or psychic powers; they have the same probability (zero). Or it could be an issue with the experiment such as vibrations, magnetics etc, something that exists in the universe as we know it according to current models. Trying to argue for the existence of a reactionless drive using videos simply does not work on this science forum. Feel free to try somewhere else. *) Disclaimer: The personal ideas presented by John2020 regarding circumventing Newton has no support in accepted physical theories. The question is an attempt sort out where the misunderstanding may come from. Edited October 19, 2020 by Ghideon
swansont Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 17 hours ago, John2020 said: I ask to judge the experiments not me. I am able to give all the technical details. I know very well what I have done. I don't think you know "very well what I have done" since you have not developed the skills necessary to evaluate what you've done. Quote Are you interested to know my background? Not really. Either it's relevant and it will be a disappointment, or we will be left wondering why e.g. a plumber thinks he can do brain surgery. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You don't understand physics, and don't seem interested in learning. You have latched on to a simple answer that is wrong. The whys and wherefores really don't matter too much, since that won't change anything.
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 2 hours ago, Ghideon said: Trying to argue for the existence of a reactionless drive using videos simply does not work on this science forum. Feel free to try somewhere else. OK, forget about the videos as also I don't have the intention to argue about things we already cleared out. 5 minutes ago, swansont said: You don't understand physics, and don't seem interested in learning. You have latched on to a simple answer that is wrong. The whys and wherefores really don't matter too much, since that won't change anything. I have to say that I realize now where I was wrong thanks to all participants feedback. Circumventing Newton's 3rd law is impossible for Rigid Bodies (joigus as also others mentioned that but back then I didn't understand the reason behind it), but I assume it should be possible for non-rigid ones. Two things are required in order to have no reaction: a) Non-Rigid body b) Inertial forces (Centrifugal or Euler) Controllable (angular velocity, direction and application time) Inertial forces may enable the deformation (since non-rigid) of a non-rigid body without triggering a reaction (since there is no interaction with other bodies, as also the non-rigid body is influenced by the inertial forces as a whole), leading to the redeployment of CoM and acceleration of the system. The notion of a rigid body according to my understanding, normally does not exist, it is an ideal condition (at the level of classical mechanics and daily human experience) that ignores the atomic structure. Solid matter would be really rigid if there were not electrons orbiting around the atom hold by electric forces. Consequently, a sudden acceleration of the electrons (due to an external field) for just 1/10 of radian (1/10*2*π), will result in a change of its orbit (more elliptical) creating such a centrifugal force that essentially moves the CoM of the atom, resulting in the acceleration of the atom as a whole for that small amount of time. Isn't this a reactionless drive? Certainly, yes.
Ghideon Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, John2020 said: but I assume it should be possible for non-rigid ones. Your assumption is incorrect. 25 minutes ago, John2020 said: Two things are required in order to have no reaction: a) Non-Rigid body b) Inertial forces (Centrifugal or Euler) Why circular and not linear? Why, according to your incorrect physics, are circular motion special? Understanding how you believe that may help writing a good explanation. 25 minutes ago, John2020 said: Isn't this a reactionless drive? Certainly, yes. No. (Hint: using an atomic model (that have been superseded by newer models) gives you incorrect predictions when applying the model where it is not applicable. Same mistake as when trying to use Newtonian physics for photons or for relative velocities close to the speed of light, c.) Edited October 19, 2020 by Ghideon grammar
swansont Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 29 minutes ago, John2020 said: OK, forget about the videos as also I don't have the intention to argue about things we already cleared out. I have to say that I realize now where I was wrong thanks to all participants feedback. Circumventing Newton's 3rd law is impossible for Rigid Bodies (joigus as also others mentioned that but back then I didn't understand the reason behind it), but I assume it should be possible for non-rigid ones. Two things are required in order to have no reaction: a) Non-Rigid body That doesn't get you where you want to go. Momentum will still be conserved. 29 minutes ago, John2020 said: b) Inertial forces (Centrifugal or Euler) These are not present in inertial frames. They are fictitious. They appear to cause an acceleration, because your analysis is ignoring an acceleration. IOW, there will be a force you aren't accounting for in your analysis. 29 minutes ago, John2020 said: Controllable (angular velocity, direction and application time) Inertial forces may enable the deformation (since non-rigid) of a non-rigid body without triggering a reaction (since there is no interaction with other bodies, as also the non-rigid body is influenced by the inertial forces as a whole), leading to the redeployment of CoM and acceleration of the system. Deformation requires a force, which has a reaction. 29 minutes ago, John2020 said: The notion of a rigid body according to my understanding, normally does not exist, it is an ideal condition (at the level of classical mechanics and daily human experience) that ignores the atomic structure. Lots of physics uses ideal conditions. Nothing special here. 29 minutes ago, John2020 said: Solid matter would be really rigid if there were not electrons orbiting around the atom hold by electric forces. Consequently, a sudden acceleration of the electrons (due to an external field) for just 1/10 of radian (1/10*2*π), will result in a change of its orbit (more elliptical) creating such a centrifugal force that essentially moves the CoM of the atom, resulting in the acceleration of the atom as a whole for that small amount of time. Isn't this a reactionless drive? Certainly, yes. No. Electrons do not have planetary-like orbits. Acceleration for 1/10 of a radian of what? If you accelerate the electrons there is a force, so of course the atoms accelerate. But for whatever causes this acceleration, it's an electromagnetic interaction, so the electrons will exert a reaction force. EM interactions make things more complicated, but doesn't get you a reactionless system. If you look at Noether's theorems, they show that momentum conservation holds owing to translation symmetry (the physics is the same under a translation of the coordinate system). You're making arguments without regard to the fact that we already know momentum has to be conserved, which means reaction forces are always there.
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 24 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Why circular and not linear? Why, according to your incorrect physics, are circular motion special? Understanding how you believe that may help writing a good explanation Simply because we are interested in to achieve a linear acceleration and a linear inertial force requires to push the system with an external force and then stop again over an external force in order to create the inertial effect upon a mass inside the system, in the direction the system ravelled. But this has nothing to do with the requirement of a reactionless drive.
Ghideon Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 8 minutes ago, John2020 said: Simply because we are interested in to achieve a linear acceleration and a linear inertial force requires to push the system with an external force and then stop again over an external force in order to create the inertial effect upon a mass inside the system, in the direction the system ravelled. But this has nothing to do with the requirement of a reactionless drive. But it is still about circumventing Newton? You said: 54 minutes ago, John2020 said: Circumventing Newton's 3rd law is impossible for Rigid Bodies (joigus as also others mentioned that but back then I didn't understand the reason behind it), but I assume it should be possible for non-rigid ones. Two things are required in order to have no reaction: a) Non-Rigid body b) Inertial forces (Centrifugal or Euler) Linear fictitious forces can't help us circumvent Newton but Centrifugal or Euler forces can, according to you?
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, swansont said: You're making arguments without regard to the fact that we already know momentum has to be conserved, which means reaction forces are always there. Using again the classical model of the atom (replace it with whatever mechanical non-rigid body equivalent) this is how according to my view the atom will behave: 1.electron accelerates 2.the orbit becomes more elliptical 3.the electron does not leave the atom due to the electric force that holds it orbiting around the core 4.at this moment the electron creates an accelerating CoM 5.the reaction from the core (in order to bring the balance back in the atom) will force the core to follow the electron. Otherwise the electron could never be able to accelerate. Note: The above situation depicts a non-rigid body. The classical model in the case of hydrogen orbiting electrons) still holds. I am not addressing QM. 1 minute ago, Ghideon said: Linear fictitious forces can't help us circumvent Newton but Centrifugal or Euler forces can, according to you? Yes. Isn't that obvious? I have to go back to work. See you at the evening
swansont Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, John2020 said: Using again the classical model of the atom (replace it with whatever mechanical non-rigid body equivalent) this is how according to my view the atom will behave: 1.electron accelerates 2.the orbit becomes more elliptical 3.the electron does not leave the atom due to the electric force that holds it orbiting around the core 4.at this moment the electron creates an accelerating CoM 5.the reaction from the core (in order to bring the balance back in the atom) will force the core to follow the electron. Otherwise the electron could never be able to accelerate. Note: The above situation depicts a non-rigid body. The classical model in the case of hydrogen orbiting electrons) still holds. I am not addressing QM. How is this reactionless? You pushed on the electron. The electron pushes back. 4 minutes ago, John2020 said: Yes. Isn't that obvious? No, other than being obviously wrong. "It's obvious" is not evidence, and not a model (which is required if you are trying to supplant an existing model)
Ghideon Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, John2020 said: Yes. Isn't that obvious? Thanks. I try to figure out if the problem is understanding acceleration and fictitious forces in general or if the misunderstanding is isolated to circular motion. I'll try to post some examples of circular motion later.
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 9 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Linear fictitious forces can't help us circumvent Newton Because linear fictitious forces that appear in the interior of the system presuppose an external linear force to accelwrate the system. The requirement of the reactionless drive is to work by means of internal forces. 3 minutes ago, swansont said: How is this reactionless? You pushed on the electron. The electron pushes back. That would be possible if the electron wouldn't follow a more elliptical orbit due to acceleration.
swansont Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, John2020 said: Because linear fictitious forces that appear in the interior of the system presuppose an external linear force to accelwrate the system. The requirement of the reactionless drive is to work by means of internal forces. What is a linear fictitious force? Quote That would be possible if the electron wouldn't follow a more elliptical orbit due to acceleration. I don't see how that follows. Is there any physics you can present, rather than hand-waving? if I have two charges, do they not exert force on each other? Your example seems to rely on this happening in the atom. Why not outside of it, too?
Ghideon Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, swansont said: What is a linear fictitious force? It is a bad use of words, by me. Maybe better: fictitious force in a linear accelerating frame of reference (as compared to Euler and Centrifugal forces in rotating frames of reference) 21 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Linear fictitious forces can't help us circumvent Newton but Centrifugal or Euler forces can, according to you? Edited October 19, 2020 by Ghideon
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, swansont said: if I have two charges, do they not exert force on each other? Your example seems to rely on this happening in the atom. Why not outside of it, too? Because the electron is on orbit around the core that implies a centrifugal force is at play that accelerates the electron by putting in a more elliptical orbit. This centrifugal force is in essence an inertial force next to the action reaction between the two charges. The reason probably this is not mentioned in the literature is because the effect is small due to the mass of the electron (mp/me = 1836) or even worse they ignore the inertial effects Edited October 19, 2020 by John2020
Ghideon Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 39 minutes ago, John2020 said: The reason probably this is not mentioned in the literature is because the effect is small due to the mass of the electron (mp/me = 1836) or even worse they ignore the inertial effects or Classical mechanics does not correctly describe he internals of an atom and hence scientists are using other models. You are using an invalid approach and your results does not match experiments, observations and theoretical predictions.
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 16 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Classical mechanics does not correctly describe he internals of an atom and hence scientists are using other models. You are using an invalid approach and your results does not match experiments, observations and theoretical predictions. As I said above replace the atom classical model (Bohr model) with a classical mechanics situation. Take a non-rigid rope with a small mass attached. Start to apply a constant angular velocity by spinning it above your head. After some secs and when the small mass is at your left or right shoulder, increase the angular velocity until you reach the. What will happen? Let us ask @joigus.
swansont Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 1 hour ago, John2020 said: Because the electron is on orbit around the core that implies a centrifugal force is at play that accelerates the electron by putting in a more elliptical orbit. This centrifugal force is in essence an inertial force next to the action reaction between the two charges. The reason probably this is not mentioned in the literature is because the effect is small due to the mass of the electron (mp/me = 1836) or even worse they ignore the inertial effects Centrifugal (outward-seeking) force? The electron is attracted to the nucleus. It is a centripetal (inward-seeking) force. The force that attracts the two to each other is the electrostatic force. They attract each other. Action. Reaction. There is no other force present.
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 19 minutes ago, swansont said: Centrifugal (outward-seeking) force? The electron is attracted to the nucleus. It is a centripetal (inward-seeking) force. The force that attracts the two to each other is the electrostatic force. They attract each other. Action. Reaction. There is no other force present. I am aware about the electrostatic force and the centripetal in an electron orbiting the nucleus. I think you just lost me. I mentioned earlier an external field would cause electron's acceleration that implies next to centripetal, a centrifugal force comes into the picture that has direction outwards, forcing the electron to follow a more elliptical orbit. Obviously next to the electrostatic attraction (action-reaction) between the nucleus and the electron, there is an inertial force (centrifugal) that must be taken into consideration (due to the external field I mentioned earlier).
joigus Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 27 minutes ago, John2020 said: As I said above replace the atom classical model (Bohr model) with a classical mechanics situation. Take a non-rigid rope with a small mass attached. Start to apply a constant angular velocity by spinning it above your head. After some secs and when the small mass is at your left or right shoulder, increase the angular velocity until you reach the. What will happen? The Bohr model is a quantum mechanical (not classical) model of sorts. You can get a good fit for the dynamics of the ground state for the hydrogen atom with semi-classical arguments. But the "centrifugal force" is supplied by uncertainty momentum. That's not really a "force." You can actually calculate quite a good approximation to the ground-state energy by means of HUP. But that's as far as it goes with half-classical arguments AFAIK. You must use quantum mechanics to solve quantum mechanical problems. I need more time to look at the previous arguments. That's all I can say now. Swansont can handle it perfectly.
swansont Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 2 hours ago, John2020 said: I am aware about the electrostatic force and the centripetal in an electron orbiting the nucleus. I think you just lost me. I mentioned earlier an external field would cause electron's acceleration that implies next to centripetal, a centrifugal force comes into the picture that has direction outwards, forcing the electron to follow a more elliptical orbit. Obviously next to the electrostatic attraction (action-reaction) between the nucleus and the electron, there is an inertial force (centrifugal) that must be taken into consideration (due to the external field I mentioned earlier). The only place for a centrifugal force could come from would be the nucleus. How would you do that? An external field would exert a force on the electron opposite the direction of the field. It would similarly exert a force on the proton in the direction of the field. There is nothing centrifugal about that.
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, swansont said: The only place for a centrifugal force could come from would be the nucleus. How would you do that? An external field would exert a force on the electron opposite the direction of the field. It would similarly exert a force on the proton in the direction of the field. There is nothing centrifugal about that. It is just a theoretical exercise even if not practically feasible. So again, let us assume theoretically for a moment the field strength between the nucleus and the electron may suddenly increase (for unknown reason) to a new value and remains there. The transition occur while the electron ascribes an arc of 1/100 rad. How this will affect the electron and the system (atom) as a whole? Edit (1): suddenly increase (for unknown reason) to a new value and remains there. Edit (2: The transition occur while the electron ascribes an arc of 1/100 rad Edited October 19, 2020 by John2020
Ghideon Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 3 hours ago, John2020 said: Take a non-rigid rope with a small mass attached. Start to apply a constant angular velocity by spinning it above your head. After some secs and when the small mass is at your left or right shoulder, increase the angular velocity until you reach the. What will happen? Seems to be information missing. (bold by me)
John2020 Posted October 19, 2020 Author Posted October 19, 2020 Just now, Ghideon said: 3 hours ago, John2020 said: Take a non-rigid rope with a small mass attached. Start to apply a constant angular velocity by spinning it above your head. After some secs and when the small mass is at your left or right shoulder, increase the angular velocity until you reach the. What will happen? Seems to be information missing. (bold by me) I edited the text I did a mistake. See above your post.
Ghideon Posted October 19, 2020 Posted October 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, John2020 said: I edited the text I did a mistake. See above your post. Sorry, Im not following. Above my post is: 24 minutes ago, John2020 said: field strength between the nucleus and the electron may suddenly increase You asked me about a ball on a non-rigid rope. I'm trying to read: 3 hours ago, John2020 said: As I said above replace the atom classical model (Bohr model) with a classical mechanics situation. Take a non-rigid rope with a small mass attached. Start to apply a constant angular velocity by spinning it above your head. After some secs and when the small mass is at your left or right shoulder, increase the angular velocity until you reach the. What will happen? Please clarify.
Recommended Posts