Newton's "Action-Reaction" Law is WRONG!

[pawelkolasa]

Newton's "Action-Reaction" Law is mathematically incorrect and logically INVALID.

 

If for every action there was "an equal an opposite reaction", no action would be possible. A force countered with equal and opposite force would cause NO net result.

 

 

Newton's law is only true for ONE specific situation of collision of equal-mass balls.

 

This law is actually:

 

"For every action there is an OPPOSITE reaction that, varies from minimal to equal".

 

E.g train hitting a fly will experience minimal reaction. A fly hitting a train will experience equal reaction.

 

Do you understand that, a train hitting a fly is NOT encountering AN EQUAL reaction?

 

Cowardice is an enemy of science. Most people are mediocre and therefore follow established "authorities" in science, regardless of merit.

 

Grow up and spread the news. It's YOUR responsibility to expose ignorance and defend the truth.

 

When you die, dies as heroes. When ignorants die, they die as swines.

Edited August 4, 2012 by pawelkolasa

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Newton's "Action-Reaction" Law is mathematically incorrect and logically INVALID.

 

If for every action there was "an equal an opposite reaction", no action would be possible. A force countered with equal and opposite force would cause NO net result.

False. You misunderstand Newton's law. The equal and opposite reaction is not applied to the same object as the original force.

 

For instance, if you push a box, there is not an equal and opposite reaction pushing the box back towards you. No, there is an equal and opposite reaction pushing on you. There's one force applied on the box and one force applied backwards on your hands.

 

Freshman physics students apply this law all the time in free-body diagrams quite successfully.

 

Do you understand that, a train hitting a fly is NOT encountering AN EQUAL reaction?

I'm sure you will agree that it takes a very small force to smash a fly. The train will apply a small force to the fly, and the fly will apply a very small force to the train's windshield, causing no noticeable damage whatsoever.

[Phi for All]

Do you understand that, a train hitting a fly is NOT encountering AN EQUAL reaction?

But the forces are exerted on different objects. The size of the force on the fly equals the size of the force on the train, and the direction of the two forces are opposite as well.

 

The train is affected by the fly's force in a very small way, and the fly is affected by an opposite and equally very small portion of the train's force.

 

Cowardice is an enemy of science. Most people are mediocre and therefore follow established "authorities" in science, regardless of merit.

 

Grow up and spread the news. It's YOUR responsibility to expose ignorance and defend the truth.

 

When you die, dies as heroes. When ignorants die, they die as swines.

I have a T-shirt like this.

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Thread moved to the speculation forum.

Grow up and spread the news. It's YOUR responsibility to expose ignorance and defend the truth.

Actually, as the person making the claim, it is your responsibility to support it. We have an open mind, but there are quite an extensive amount of evidence to show you are wrong -- and the only way to convince us that the physical laws (that are extensively described mathematically, and are predictable and repeatable) are false, you need to show it.

We can predict exactly what would happen if we drop object X towards object Y and/or throw two objects towards one another. If you ever played pool or snooker, you probably experienced some of it yourself. We can accurately predict these things with established equations that work consistently.

Can they be wrong? Sure, maybe, but you would need to show us (a) how they're wrong, (b) what describes that force better, namely how you propse that it works and © why is it they worked so far when your proposed theory seems to be completely reversed to the existing one.

Just saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. You need to show it physically and mathematically.

Go ahead.

~mooey

[Greg H.]

Newton's "Action-Reaction" Law is mathematically incorrect and logically INVALID.

 

 

No it's not. It's perfectly consistent both logically and mathematically. Your failure to understand it does not make it incorrect.

[juanrga]

Newton's "Action-Reaction" Law is mathematically incorrect and logically INVALID.

 

If for every action there was "an equal an opposite reaction", no action would be possible. A force countered with equal and opposite force would cause NO net result.

 

 

Newton's law is only true for ONE specific situation of collision of equal-mass balls.

 

This law is actually:

 

"For every action there is an OPPOSITE reaction that, varies from minimal to equal".

 

E.g train hitting a fly will experience minimal reaction. A fly hitting a train will experience equal reaction.

 

Do you understand that, a train hitting a fly is NOT encountering AN EQUAL reaction?

 

Cowardice is an enemy of science. Most people are mediocre and therefore follow established "authorities" in science, regardless of merit.

 

Grow up and spread the news. It's YOUR responsibility to expose ignorance and defend the truth.

 

When you die, dies as heroes. When ignorants die, they die as swines.

 

Apart from revealing your misconceptions of Newton law, are you aware it is not a mathematical or logical law, but a physical law tested in experiments since it was formulated more than 300 years ago?

 

And continuing with the experimental part, are you aware that action-reaction law is the reason why you can sit in front of your computer and write all this nonsense?

Edited August 4, 2012 by juanrga

[pawelkolasa]

!

Moderator Note

Thread moved to the speculation forum.

 

 

 

Actually, as the person making the claim, it is your responsibility to support it. We have an open mind, but there are quite an extensive amount of evidence to show you are wrong -- and the only way to convince us that the physical laws (that are extensively described mathematically, and are predictable and repeatable) are false, you need to show it.

 

We can predict exactly what would happen if we drop object X towards object Y and/or throw two objects towards one another. If you ever played pool or snooker, you probably experienced some of it yourself. We can accurately predict these things with established equations that work consistently.

 

Can they be wrong? Sure, maybe, but you would need to show us (a) how they're wrong, (b) what describes that force better, namely how you propse that it works and © why is it they worked so far when your proposed theory seems to be completely reversed to the existing one.

 

Just saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. You need to show it physically and mathematically.

 

Go ahead.

 

~mooey

 

 

Newton said that for MY action there is an EQUAL reaction. Period.

 

You are just desperately trying to make sense of his incorrectly worded "law", which makes no sense.

 

When I push box, the BOX is supposedly pushing me back with the SAME force as I do, therefore I wouldn't be able to push it.

 

The principle is actually that for every action, there is an OPPOSITE reaction.

 

That reaction VARIES from minimal, to maximum of the ACTION.

 

e.g physicists, not being able to get out of this confusion, only insist on collision of balls with the same size and weight.

 

All other situations make no sense, because it's mathematically impossible for a fly to resist a TRAIN with the SAME and OPPOSITE action that the TRAIN DOES.

 

 

 

 

300 years of shameful testimony to human fear of reasoning...

 

 

 

 

I criticize Newton because I DO UNDERSTAND the Law and therefore I am able to tell you that, in its wording it's incorrect.

 

Yet Fear of Ridicule is working like a hypnotic spell, preventing people from standing up for what is TRUE. Truth always wins, because it's what really exists. Truth is not imaginary.

 

Even if Devil was the last person in the Universe, HE would know the truth anyway, lol. So you do know that Newton's Law is incorrect.

 

 

.... Not to mention that his law for "work" contains "time", therefore a mover that moves your fridge twice faster than you, performed MORE work.

 

Try to sell this idea to people who get paid for "piece work" lol.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

When I push box, the BOX is supposedly pushing me back with the SAME force as I do, therefore I wouldn't be able to push it.

Suppose you apply a force of five Newtons to the box, horizontally.

 

Net horizontal force on the box: five Newtons, from your push.

 

Net horizontal force on your hands: five Newtons from the box, plus additional forces from your arms and other body parts as your feet push against the floor and keep you in place.

 

The net horizontal force on the box is not zero, and therefore it moves. That is the simple application of Newton's laws.

 

The equal and opposite reaction pushes on you, not the box, and so it cannot prevent the box from being moved.

 

This is a lesson applied by any freshman physics student who constructs a free-body diagram. It is successfully applied to predict the behavior of physical systems, from the simplest to the most complex.

 

You may argue with the interpretation of Newton's laws; however, you cannot argue against the experimental evidence contained in every freshman physics lab course.

[mooeypoo]

Newton said that for MY action there is an EQUAL reaction. Period.

 

You are just desperately trying to make sense of his incorrectly worded "law", which makes no sense.

He did not say this, and your misunderstanding of the laws do not make them false.

 

I'm not going to argue elementary physical facts here. Newton's laws are clear, and are being used routinely and consistently in elementary technology, as well as being solved routinely in high school classes -- successfully and consistently.

 

You expect me to take your word for it over repeated evidence. That's not going to happen.

 

 

I don't mind explaining how the laws work and getting to the bottom of your misunderstanding of it; I've done it in the past quite a lot in tutoring sessions. That said, you need to be able to consider the explanation given, and from what you're typing so far, it's getting to be quite clear you are only here to insist you're right despite of available evidence.

 

Do you want us to really get into the crux of the laws? We will be happy to do that, but you'll need to stop stomping your feet on the ground and insist we're wrong just 'cause you want us to be.

 

[[[edit]]] Egh, on second thought, I'm going to remove this explanation for now seeing as Capn made a great basic explanation and did not get into friction and inertia. Take it one step at a time, I guess.[[[/edit]]]

 

~mooey

 

I criticize Newton because I DO UNDERSTAND the Law and therefore I am able to tell you that, in its wording it's incorrect.

Not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.

 

Yet Fear of Ridicule is working like a hypnotic spell, preventing people from standing up for what is TRUE. Truth always wins, because it's what really exists. Truth is not imaginary.

 

Sure, but you need to have some way of discerning what's really true and what you might want to think is true but is actually a misleading truth.

 

Things might LOOK like A, but actually be B after careful examination. How do you know what's true if you don't have proper ways to verify?

 

Even if Devil was the last person in the Universe, HE would know the truth anyway, lol. So you do know that Newton's Law is incorrect.

Biblical arguments do not belong in scientific discussions, not even speculative ones.

 

.... Not to mention that his law for "work" contains "time", therefore a mover that moves your fridge twice faster than you, performed MORE work.

 

Try to sell this idea to people who get paid for "piece work" lol.

Work is dependent on distance -

 

W = F*d (force *distance).

 

Here's the representation of the force as an integral:

 

Work-energy principle connects the idea that work done by all forces acting on an object/particle equals the change of kinetic energy.

 

So, yes, if I move something twice as fast (that is, I bring its initial velocity from 0 to 2v, while you bring it from 0 to v) I will exert more energy.

 

It's also more tiring to push something twice as fast. You spend more energy.

 

 

~mooey

[granpa]

its easier to understand newtons laws in the context of kirchhoffs circuit laws

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws

[pawelkolasa]

He did not say this, and your misunderstanding of the laws do not make them false.

 

I'm not going to argue elementary physical facts here. Newton's laws are clear, and are being used routinely and consistently in elementary technology, as well as being solved routinely in high school classes -- successfully and consistently.

 

You expect me to take your word for it over repeated evidence. That's not going to happen.

 

 

I don't mind explaining how the laws work and getting to the bottom of your misunderstanding of it; I've done it in the past quite a lot in tutoring sessions. That said, you need to be able to consider the explanation given, and from what you're typing so far, it's getting to be quite clear you are only here to insist you're right despite of available evidence.

 

Do you want us to really get into the crux of the laws? We will be happy to do that, but you'll need to stop stomping your feet on the ground and insist we're wrong just 'cause you want us to be.

 

[[[edit]]] Egh, on second thought, I'm going to remove this explanation for now seeing as Capn made a great basic explanation and did not get into friction and inertia. Take it one step at a time, I guess.[[[/edit]]]

 

~mooey

 

 

Not understanding something doesn't make it wrong.

 

 

 

Sure, but you need to have some way of discerning what's really true and what you might want to think is true but is actually a misleading truth.

 

Things might LOOK like A, but actually be B after careful examination. How do you know what's true if you don't have proper ways to verify?

 

 

Biblical arguments do not belong in scientific discussions, not even speculative ones.

 

 

Work is dependent on distance -

 

W = F*d (force *distance).

 

Here's the representation of the force as an integral:

 

Work-energy principle connects the idea that work done by all forces acting on an object/particle equals the change of kinetic energy.

 

So, yes, if I move something twice as fast (that is, I bring its initial velocity from 0 to 2v, while you bring it from 0 to v) I will exert more energy.

 

It's also more tiring to push something twice as fast. You spend more energy.

 

 

~mooey

 

Sorry mooey, but according to CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW, moving something TWICE faster doesn't require TWICE the energy. it's the same work, the same energy.

 

Moving the SAME weight over the SAME distance TWICE faster doesn't require TWICE more energy. It's just FASTER.

 

Where would the ENERGY GO just because, you move something faster? It's puzzling, how you try to desperately prove wrong theory using WRONG equation.

 

Mind boggling.

 

 

It's like saying that there ARE pink elephants because... Wizzard of Oz told me so!

 

 

Lol.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sorry mooey, but according to CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW, moving something TWICE faster doesn't require TWICE the energy. it's the same work, the same energy.

False. It requires four times as much energy to move something twice as fast. Kinetic energy grows with the square of velocity.

 

You could easily observe this by, say, using batteries to accelerate a small device, and recording how much battery charge it takes. Or using rubber bands to launch something and observing the number of rubber bands required to launch a certain mass at different velocities.

 

Why don't you try a test and tell us?

[pawelkolasa]

Sorry mooey, but according to CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW, moving something TWICE faster doesn't require TWICE the energy. it's the same work, the same energy.

 

Moving the SAME weight over the SAME distance TWICE faster doesn't require TWICE more energy. It's just FASTER.

 

Where would the ENERGY GO just because, you move something faster? It's puzzling, how you try to desperately prove wrong theory using WRONG equation.

 

Mind boggling.

 

 

It's like saying that there ARE pink elephants because... Wizzard of Oz told me so!

 

 

Lol.

 

INSANITY - inability to tell truth from falsehood (Pawel Kolasa)

 

Insane people don't know that, they are insane. They know that they make no sense, but they still insist on being right. They have NO evidence to support their theories. If I tell them truth in short and logical terms, they still will deny it.

 

If for every action, there was an equal an opposite reaction NO ACTION WOULD BE POSSIBLE. Now, too hard to comprehend?

 

Nothing would be possible. No action would succeed because it would be countered with an equal an opposite reaction.

 

Now, tell it to children, they DO understand. They are NOT hypnotized yet!

 

cheers.

[mooeypoo]

We're not going to argue facts, it's meaningless. If you claim you're right, test it, tell us what you tested and what it ACTUALLY came out to be -- not what you guess it would be, not what you insist it should be -- what it actually was in the test.

 

Do it. Report back. Until then, I think we're pretty much done here.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

pawelkolasa,

I suggest you have a good read of the general forum rules as well as the speculation forum rules before posting in this thread again. You are required to back up your claims with evidence. You are also required to respond to rather than ignore posts that disagree with what you are saying. Disregarding these rules and this warning will result in your thread being closed.

Please do not respond to this mod note within the thread. You are welcome to use the report feature (bottom left corner of every post) or to PM me if you have any concerns.

[John Cuthber]

There seems to be some confusion here.

Whether or not the energy required to move something depends on the speed at which you move it is determined by what energy you are looking at.

 

If I want to pick up a rock and put it on a table then I need to do two things.

I need to provide the potential energy (Mgh) that the rock gains as a result of its position and also I need to lend some kinetic energy to the rock while it is in transit.

The faster I move it the more kinetic energy I need to give it.

 

that kinetic energy depends on the square of the velocity.

But here's the important part.

I can get that energy back when I bring the rock to a halt when it gets to the level of the table top

 

Anyway, back to the original absurd assertion.

 

pawelkolasa,

When I push a heavy rock across a table with my finger I can see that my finger is bent.

If it isn't the reaction force from the rock bending it, what is it?

It can't be the force from my finger because that is a force towards the rock but my finger is bent back towards the wrist.

The only thing that pushes my finger back is the reaction force.

It's real: I can see its effect and I can feel it.

 

Unless you can tell me what other force bends my finger you have to accept that it is the reaction force, physics has been right for the last 400 years or so and that you are mistaken.

 

http://xkcd.com/675/

[Greg H.]

INSANITY - inability to tell truth from falsehood (Pawel Kolasa)

 

Insane people don't know that, they are insane. They know that they make no sense, but they still insist on being right. They have NO evidence to support their theories. If I tell them truth in short and logical terms, they still will deny it.

 

If for every action, there was an equal an opposite reaction NO ACTION WOULD BE POSSIBLE. Now, too hard to comprehend?

 

Nothing would be possible. No action would succeed because it would be countered with an equal an opposite reaction.

 

Now, tell it to children, they DO understand. They are NOT hypnotized yet!

 

cheers.

Do you know why helicopters have tail rotors? (And yes, this is relevant).

[D H]

INSANITY - inability to tell truth from falsehood (Pawel Kolasa)

 

Insane people don't know that, they are insane. They know that they make no sense, but they still insist on being right. They have NO evidence to support their theories. If I tell them truth in short and logical terms, they still will deny it.

I strongly suggest that you apply your own definition of insanity to yourself. You are the one who is making no sense but is still insisting upon being right. You are the one that has no evidence to support your nonsense. You are the one who has been told what Newton's third law means, but still deny it.

 

 

If for every action, there was an equal an opposite reaction NO ACTION WOULD BE POSSIBLE. Now, too hard to comprehend?

 

Nothing would be possible. No action would succeed because it would be countered with an equal an opposite reaction.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over does not suddenly make it sensible.

 

Only the external forces acting on some object contribute to that object's acceleration. The forces exerted by that object on other objects are external forces acting on those other objects. They are not external to the object in question.

 

 

Had you come to this forum and asked whether Newton's third law is always true in light of electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, and relativity, the answer would have been no. However, that is not what you did. You instead came here with the typical crackpot attitude of someone who doesn't know one iota about physics, but yet thinks that all of physics is wrong. That is insane.

[kevingarcia117]

As many people have said before me, you misunderstand Newton's third law.

 

The meaning of the term "re-action" has changed drastically between the time of the writing of the laws and today.

 

The law's true meaning is as follows: "If object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force on object A of equal magnitude, but in the opposite direction."

[Daecon]

The fact that "recoil" exists proves your assumption to be wrong.

 

 

(...And I Just noticed that this is a thread from 2012.)

Edited February 7, 2017 by Daecon

[Einstein's Uncle]

Well, Im not gonna disagree with this. I personally think there is something fishy about the third law. Yeah yeah I get it, Im not claiming to be smarter than every physicist in the past few hundred years, Im just saying that I think it is faulty.

And yes I know all about Newton's third law. Im not some confused 3rd grader coming this this thread to deny stuff I know nothing about. This isn't a "differential equations are false because they are too hard" kind of thing. Im just saying that there is something logically "weird" about this law. Just thinking about my chair currently pushing me up into the air is really really weird. 

Now correct me if Im wrong. Force is defined as energy as an attribute of physical interaction. What I dont get is how something that is stationary and has absolutely no energy of any kind (ignore gravitational potential) can suddenly get enough force to push back with an equal force no matter how hard something pushes against it. Is force energy? Because if it is than there is something really wrong going on here. Energy is apparently being created just because it has to be. So... is Law of Conservation of Energy false? 

Another example. Lets say I try pushing a box that weighs 10 kilograms across a flat friction-less surface. I push with a force of 100 Newtons. The box is apparently pushing back with 100 Newtons. So why the hell doesn't the net force equal zero? Where is the energy that pushes the box coming from? As for the finger bending argument. My finger is bending because it cant pass through molecules and the molecules are resisting being compressed. 

The third law works if energy comes from outside a closed system. This stops a car from driving forward if you push forward against it while inside. So that brings me to the EmDrive. The impossible engine breaks both the third law and law of conservation of momentum. It is a closed cavity and does not produce any exhaust. It is a closed system with no output. And yet it produces thrust. Yeah, so a closed system can now generate thrust. Bye bye Newton. 

[beecee]

29 minutes ago, Einstein's Uncle said:

So that brings me to the EmDrive. The impossible engine breaks both the third law and law of conservation of momentum. It is a closed cavity and does not produce any exhaust. It is a closed system with no output. And yet it produces thrust. Yeah, so a closed system can now generate thrust. Bye bye Newton. 

No it's not bye bye Newton.  Tests are at this time being carried out by a unit of NASA and the jury is still out. Most likely it is resulting from some as yet to be discovered, undefined mechanism. Plans are I think also afoot to test it in space. 

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/emdrive-news-rumors/

Edited September 29, 2017 by beecee

[Strange]

35 minutes ago, Einstein's Uncle said:

Is force energy?

No. Energy is force x distance. If there is no movement, then there is no energy. So applying a constant force to something (e.g. the chandelier hanging from my celling) requires no energy.

37 minutes ago, Einstein's Uncle said:

Where is the energy that pushes the box coming from?

From whatever it was you ate for breakfast.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Einstein's Uncle said:

Now correct me if Im wrong. Force is defined as energy as an attribute of physical interaction. What I dont get is how something that is stationary and has absolutely no energy of any kind (ignore gravitational potential) can suddenly get enough force to push back with an equal force no matter how hard something pushes against it. Is force energy? Because if it is than there is something really wrong going on here. Energy is apparently being created just because it has to be. So... is Law of Conservation of Energy false? 

Another example. Lets say I try pushing a box that weighs 10 kilograms across a flat friction-less surface. I push with a force of 100 Newtons. The box is apparently pushing back with 100 Newtons. So why the hell doesn't the net force equal zero? 

The net force is the sum of all forces acting on an object. The force exerted by the object is not part of that.

IOW, both components of an action-reaction force pair never show up in the net force calculation.

[John Cuthber]

14 hours ago, Einstein's Uncle said:

Now correct me if Im wrong. Force is defined as energy as an attribute of physical interaction

You are wrong.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force