Author Topic: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment  (Read 3963 times)

Offline Reactionless2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
    • Reaction Inversion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« on: 07/26/2020 11:31 am »
The following paper assumes that Newton's 3rd law is incomplete and proposes a very simple mechanical construction (linear actuator) to prove it.

Paper: https://vixra.org/abs/2007.0027

Or check the following Thought Experiment that is along the lines of the paper claims:
1.Isolated system A (in absence of external forces e.g. in outer space) is powered internally (power and motor on board). See Fig.2. Lower
2.The internal parts of system A are linearly entangled (through a straight metallic thick thread) with each other
3.An internal action force applies to a part of system A, leads to the development of a collinear reaction force (opposite to action) to the rest of the system
4.Due to (3) the system cannot acquire a momentum (Newton's 3rd law of motion holds)
5.Isolated system B (in absence of external forces e.g. in outer space) is powered internally (power and motor on board)
6.Isolated system B is a real linear actuator (nothing to do with collinear forces). See Fig.2. Upper
7.The internal parts of system B are helically entangled (through a straight metallic leadscrew) with each other
8.A clockwise rotation of the screw, creates a counterclockwise (conservation of angular momentum) induced internal action force
9.Because of 8, the internal part starts to accelerate to the right
10.Because of 8, it is allowed only unidirectional induced forces to be developed
11.Because of 10 the induced internal reaction force will be also counterclockwise
12.Because of 11, Newton's 3rd law of motion breaks (doesn't hold) and the system starts to accelerate in the same direction as the internal part (9)

There are two ways to falsify the above claims (and the theory as a whole):
1.Find what is wrong from eq.1 to eq.20
2.Conduct the proposed experiment as seen in Fig.2. Upper

Could you help me debunk (if possible) the above claims (or the theory)?

A Final Note
Newton's third law of motion would be the cornerstone of physics were it not for certain experimental results that demonstrate a conflict with conservation of momentum under certain special circumstances. The breaking of action-reaction symmetry (Newton’s 3rd law) is a subject being addressed by various disciplines in physics as in statistical mechanics, optics and others. Indicative research on this subject can be found below (or see Paper References):

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0031-8949/84/05/055004 (On Newton's third law and its symmetry-breaking effects)

https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011035 (Statistical Mechanics where Newton’s Third Law is Broken)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05168 (Non-reactive forces and pattern formation induced by a nonequilibrium medium)

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2777 (Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.08123 (The origin of the energy-momentum conservation law)

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2786 (Negative reaction)


Some of the above-mentioned research is not only theoretical but experimental that means under certain conditions it has been already observed/measured that Newton’s 3rd law doesn’t hold. From the moment the breaking of Newton’s 3rd law is experimentally verified by various disciplines in physics then why it is not evident in classical mechanics (Newton’s laws of motion). The above paper is an attempt to address this apparent however assumed inconsistency along with its implications.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2020 02:38 pm by Reactionless2020 »

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 733
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #1 on: 07/26/2020 11:41 am »
Can't wait see what meberbs will say about this one  :)

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 733
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #2 on: 07/26/2020 12:05 pm »
So I looked at the "paper" and it doesn't need meberbs, though his reaction would be a joy to read. It's just the usual confusion between changing the center of mass of a system and the rocket equation. There was another of these just a few weeks back, same fallacy.

Turning the screw causes the center mass to move in a straight line, which changes the center of mass of the system, but that's all. It doesn't add or subtract momentum from the system unless the mass is ejected. As long as it's firmly attached to the system, there's no overall momentum change.

Since it's an isolated system, no external forces acting on it, changing the center of mass will not even cause it to change its orientation. BTW, objects in outer space are not isolated. Just because they're not touching anything doesn't mean that there are no forces acting on them. In fact, the only way that there can be no forces acting on the object is if there are no other object in the entire universe, in which case what's the frame of reference that the motion is supposed to be taking place in?

Anyway, this paper is the usual rookie mistake with lots of math based on a fundamental misunderstanding, then dressed up with polysyllabic window dressing to sound like what the author thinks physics papers sound like.

meberbs will say all this much better.


Offline Reactionless2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
    • Reaction Inversion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #3 on: 07/26/2020 12:23 pm »
Quote
So I looked at the "paper" and it doesn't need meberbs, though his reaction would be a joy to read. It's just the usual confusion between changing the center of mass of a system and the rocket equation. There was another of these just a few weeks back, same fallacy.

You read the paper but you understood nothing. No, this has nothing to do with changing the center of mass (it looks like so but it is not based on this). Please don't jump to conclusions.

Quote
Turning the screw causes the center mass to move in a straight line, which changes the center of mass of the system, but that's all. It doesn't add or subtract momentum from the system unless the mass is ejected. As long as it's firmly attached to the system, there's no overall momentum change.

It would be careless to utilize Newton's 3rd law (as is today) to present a construction that could move using internal forces. Your comment addresses the Fig.2.Lower that has to do with collinear forces (action-reaction are always collinear). Fig.2.Upper, does not work like that.

Before one proceeds with the paper, I would recommend the following (for you own understanding):
-Read carefully the claims of the Thought Experiment (easier to debunk (if possible))
-IF clarification is required, don't hesitate to ask
-Proceed with Fig.2 and try to understand how it works (Fig.2.Upper, is essentially a linear actuator)
-Start reading the paper up to eq.20, at least

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 733
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #4 on: 07/26/2020 12:53 pm »
You read the paper but you understood nothing.

That was the missing component - the standard reply. It's now an official reactionless drive post  :)

Seriously though, both setups work the same way. There is no induced force. Helical vs. collinear entanglement is a meaningless fictitious concept. That is one misunderstanding. The other misunderstanding is :

Consequently, any change in momentum of mass mA results in the non-zero change in momentum of system as a whole.

Since mass mA is physically part of the system and is never released, its momentum is part of the momentum of the entire system. The paper ignores the corresponding momentum change (angular and linear) of the rest of the device that compensates for the motion of mA.

EDIT - added (angular and linear) to last sentence.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2020 01:01 pm by laszlo »

Offline Reactionless2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
    • Reaction Inversion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #5 on: 07/26/2020 01:36 pm »
Quote
Seriously though, both setups work the same way. There is no induced force. Helical vs. collinear entanglement is a meaningless fictitious concept.

If one doesn't mention the inner parts are collinearly or helically entangled with each other then all mechanical forces are of the same type and the discussion is over. Please visit the following link in wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_(simple_machine)

It is crucial to understand:
-Animated .gif
-Frictionless mechanical advantage (which is the essence about the induced force).

Induced force: The input force is perpendicular to the resulting force where the latter evolves over the helix that means is essentially an induced mechanical force (since not collinear to input force).

Quote
Consequently, any change in momentum of mass mA results in the non-zero change in momentum of system as a whole.

The above sentence addresses the behavior of system B (Fig.2. Upper).

Quote
Since mass mA is physically part of the system and is never released, its momentum is part of the momentum of the entire system.

Your statement addresses the case where Newton's 3rd law holds. You cannot use the same argument when Newton's 3rd law does not hold. In Fig.2. Upper, Newton's 3rd law breaks that means the induced internal reaction force has the same direction with the induced internal action force that corresponds to a different momentum conservation of what we knew up to now. In other words, Newton's 3rd law should always agree with the momentum conservation.

Quote
The paper ignores the corresponding momentum change (angular and linear) of the rest of the device that compensates for the motion of mA.

See eq.21 to 26 for collinear forces (Fig.2. Lower), where there is no change in system's momentum (as you mentioned above). The total sum of the collinear forces is zero therefore no system motion may occur.

See eq.27 to 30 for induced forces (Fig.2. Lower), where there is a change in system's momentum (it does not conform with Newton's 3rd law). Here the total sum of the induced internal forces are not zero, which is the reason of system's motion.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2020 01:38 pm by Reactionless2020 »

Online whitelancer64

Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #6 on: 07/26/2020 02:10 pm »
*snip*
Quote
Since mass mA is physically part of the system and is never released, its momentum is part of the momentum of the entire system.

Your statement addresses the case where Newton's 3rd law holds. You cannot use the same argument when Newton's 3rd law does not hold. In Fig.2. Upper, Newton's 3rd law breaks that means the induced internal reaction force has the same direction with the induced internal action force that corresponds to a different momentum conservation of what we knew up to now. In other words, Newton's 3rd law should always agree with the momentum conservation.

Quote
The paper ignores the corresponding momentum change (angular and linear) of the rest of the device that compensates for the motion of mA.

See eq.21 to 26 for collinear forces (Fig.2. Lower), where there is no change in system's momentum (as you mentioned above). The total sum of the collinear forces is zero therefore no system motion may occur.

See eq.27 to 30 for induced forces (Fig.2. Lower), where there is a change in system's momentum (it does not conform with Newton's 3rd law). Here the total sum of the induced internal forces are not zero, which is the reason of system's motion.

Where you are going wrong is assuming you have broken Newton's 3rd law, when you have not. The mechanisms as shown in Fig. 2 can move the center of gravity and cause the mechanism to rotate, but that movement does not violate conservation of momentum.

You've obfuscated this error with a lot of words and math, but it's still an error.

I agree with laszlo that mberbs can point out where you've gone wrong with greater detail.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Reactionless2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
    • Reaction Inversion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #7 on: 07/26/2020 02:27 pm »
Quote
Where you are going wrong is assuming you have broken Newton's 3rd law, when you have not. The mechanisms as shown in Fig. 2 can move the center of gravity and cause the mechanism to rotate, but that movement does not violate conservation of momentum.

I presented my arguments but you and laszlo are stuck in Newton's 3rd law without having examined/understood what is different with Fig.2. Upper.

The Thought Experiment I presented above follows exactly the mathematical arguments of the theory as also about the construction (Fig.2. Upper) itself. If you are interested to debunk the theory, I will give you a hint (1): attempt to debunk the claims of the Thought Experiment. Or hint (2): Suspend a linear actuator by a thread and power it.

Quote
You've obfuscated this error with a lot of words and math, but it's still an error.
I agree with laszlo that mberbs can point out where you've gone wrong with greater detail.

Nothing is obfuscated. I will be happy to point me (you or mberbs or whoever) where I am wrong (up to now none did it). That way I will stop losing my time (and yours).
« Last Edit: 07/26/2020 02:28 pm by Reactionless2020 »

Offline Reactionless2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
    • Reaction Inversion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #8 on: 07/26/2020 02:44 pm »
I just updated my initial post with some References where the theory is based on.

As you may see Newton's 3rd law has been already broken in other disciplines of physics (see first post or paper References) and it is very logical for one to conclude why it is not evident in classical mechanics?

Are Newton's laws of motion incomplete?

The paper assumes they are incomplete and uses the construction in Fig.2.Upper with the corresponding math to prove it.

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • uk
  • Liked: 331
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #9 on: 07/26/2020 03:07 pm »
Newton's laws are sound.
When you have a high mass ir high speed they have to be adjusted to compensate.
The twi together are perfect.

Offline Reactionless2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
    • Reaction Inversion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #10 on: 07/26/2020 03:20 pm »
Quote
Newton's laws are sound.
When you have a high mass ir high speed they have to be adjusted to compensate.
The twi together are perfect.

I would suggest you to read this thread from the beginning and especially my first post.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 733
  • Likes Given: 265
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #11 on: 07/26/2020 03:29 pm »
Quote
Where you are going wrong is assuming you have broken Newton's 3rd law, when you have not. The mechanisms as shown in Fig. 2 can move the center of gravity and cause the mechanism to rotate, but that movement does not violate conservation of momentum.

I presented my arguments but you and laszlo are stuck in Newton's 3rd law without having examined/understood what is different with Fig.2. Upper.

The Thought Experiment I presented above follows exactly the mathematical arguments of the theory as also about the construction (Fig.2. Upper) itself. If you are interested to debunk the theory, I will give you a hint (1): attempt to debunk the claims of the Thought Experiment. Or hint (2): Suspend a linear actuator by a thread and power it.

Quote
You've obfuscated this error with a lot of words and math, but it's still an error.
I agree with laszlo that mberbs can point out where you've gone wrong with greater detail.

Nothing is obfuscated. I will be happy to point me (you or mberbs or whoever) where I am wrong (up to now none did it). That way I will stop losing my time (and yours).

Thank you for your hints. I did hint one, by pointing out the fallacies, but since it doesn't agree with the premise (newton's 3rd law is broken) it was ignored.  Hint 2, suspending a linear actuator by a thread has no connection whatsoever to the thought experiment because it's not an isolated system. Gravitation, air resistance, thread torsion, etc. all violate the thought experiment's premise of an isolated system.

Regarding figure 2, upper - it is identical with figure 2 lower except for the threaded drive, right? Do we at least agree on that? If so, there is no difference from a 3rd law point of view. If you "unwrap" the threaded rod to account for the mechanical advantage, upper becomes lower, just longer.

The angular momentum disappears, true, but that was already net zero even with the threaded rod. The framework and masses acquired exactly enough opposite angular momentum to cancel the momentum of the rotating threaded rod.

Here's something that may help you visualize it - in your truly isolated system, move the motor driving the rod from the end of the frame to the center of mass mA and work the equations again. See if there's any difference in the results when the moving mass spins the threaded rod instead of the fixed framework spinning it.

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3372
  • Likes Given: 770
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #12 on: 07/26/2020 04:05 pm »
meberbs will say all this much better.
Really you said all of the important things here, the only thing I can do is say the same things in different words, and add some replies to more recent incorrect replies from the OP (which are as usual with these threads roughly paraphrased as "I assumed that physics is wrong so physics must be wrong.")

The following paper assumes that Newton's 3rd law is incomplete and proposes a very simple mechanical construction (linear actuator) to prove it.
Proving something by assuming the conclusion is simply bad logic. The existence of conservation laws has been proven in Noether's theorem which does not assume the conclusion. The

2.The internal parts of system A are linearly entangled (through a straight metallic thick thread) with each other
"linearly entangled" is a nonsense phrase. It is one of multiple such terms used in the paper to handwave into existence forces that don't exist that are simply contrary to conservation laws.

6.Isolated system B is a real linear actuator (nothing to do with collinear forces). See Fig.2. Upper
Incorrect statement that nonsensically assumes that forces are not equal and opposite when they are.

7.The internal parts of system B are helically entangled (through a straight metallic leadscrew) with each other
"helically entangled" another nonsense phrase which has no use other than to obfuscate the incorrect claims being made.

8.A clockwise rotation of the screw, creates a counterclockwise (conservation of angular momentum) induced internal action force
9.Because of 8, the internal part starts to accelerate to the right
10.Because of 8, it is allowed only unidirectional induced forces to be developed
to push the blue part to the right, the red part gets pushed to the left.

11.Because of 10 the induced internal reaction force will be also counterclockwise
Gibberish statement, a torque can be described as counterclockwise, a force cannot. Torques and forces are different things with different units. A torque does not balance a force. There is a balancing torque and a balancing force and there is no breaking of any conservation laws.

There are two ways to falsify the above claims (and the theory as a whole):
1.Find what is wrong from eq.1 to eq.20
Equation 2 only accounts for energy in linear motion, equation 15 only accounts for rotational motion (in some situations described both are present) both equations do not account for the power source.

Equations 2 and 6 both bring in an undefined _int force or torque which magically comes from nowhere and is unbalanced.

Further pointing out of details is a waste of time, instead you need to take a course on introductory physics, because nearly every phrase you have stated is wrong, you need to learn what the words you are using mean from scratch. If you are actually willing to learn something I should be able to point you to some online materials as a starting point.

A Final Note
Newton's third law of motion would be the cornerstone of physics were it not for certain experimental results that demonstrate a conflict with conservation of momentum under certain special circumstances. The breaking of action-reaction symmetry (Newton’s 3rd law) is a subject being addressed by various disciplines in physics as in statistical mechanics, optics and others. Indicative research on this subject can be found below (or see Paper References):
This list is what could be considered a gish gallop, it is not worth the time to go through all of them to point out al of
what are either fundamental flaws in them or misunderstandings on your part.

For example:
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.011035 (Statistical Mechanics where Newton’s Third Law is Broken)

What they say in the very first paragraph of the introduction:
Quote
Of course, Newton’s third law holds for the complete “particles-plus-environment” system.
They say the exact opposite of what you try to make it sound like they are saying. They are talking about systems where there is some sort of continuous external force such as from relative motion to the environment (think of the aerodynamic forces on a car driving down the highway.) The rest of the papers will similarly not support your point (or are just nonsense like the original paper, there is plenty of nonsense available online). Clearly you did not get as far as reading the introduction and just looked for titles that sound like they support your point. Since you did not read these, there is no reason anyone else should go through them one by one either.

As you may see Newton's 3rd law has been already broken in other disciplines of physics (see first post or paper References) and it is very logical for one to conclude why it is not evident in classical mechanics?
No, it is not.

Are Newton's laws of motion incomplete?
Only in the sense that they do not apply exactly at relativistic velocities. Instead you have to use relativity which follows equivalent rules to Newton's laws, and still conserves momentum. It allows the existence of massless particles travelling at the speed of light and carrying momentum, which is important to account for if you were looking at certain electrodynamic systems. None of this has any relevance to the original paper.

The paper assumes they are incomplete and uses the construction in Fig.2.Upper with the corresponding math to prove it.
I already said this, but you have repeated this mistake multiple times and been corrected on it multiple times already: you cannot disprove Newton's laws by first assuming that they are wrong.

Offline Reactionless2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
    • Reaction Inversion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #13 on: 07/26/2020 04:12 pm »
@laszlo
Quote
Thank you for your hints. I did hint one, by pointing out the fallacies, but since it doesn't agree with the premise (newton's 3rd law is broken) it was ignored.

No it was not ignored. As I mentioned above, you are using the arguments that hold just for collinear forces, something that is not the case in Fig.2. Upper. In other words, one has to answer to the claims (7) to (12).

Quote
Hint 2, suspending a linear actuator by a thread has no connection whatsoever to the thought experiment because it's not an isolated system. Gravitation, air resistance, thread torsion, etc. all violate the thought experiment's premise of an isolated system.

I follow the ideal case (theoretical) in my paper just for the sake of simplicity and math. Practically one could suspend the linear actuator, attach a small mass (about 0.5 Kgr for more momentum) on the inner part and to power it. Expected Results: When the inner part (blue) starts  moving, the entire construction will start moving in the same direction the inner part is moving. IF NOT then Newton's 3rd law still holds and the discussion is over.

Quote
Regarding figure 2, upper - it is identical with figure 2 lower except for the threaded drive, right? Do we at least agree on that? If so, there is no difference from a 3rd law point of view. If you "unwrap" the threaded rod to account for the mechanical advantage, upper becomes lower, just longer.

Yes, we agree in all these except "If so, there is no difference from a 3rd law point of view". Here is the key: When the leadscrew starts to rotate clockwise, a counterclockwise momentum (blue part) starts to evolve over the screw thread (it advances to the right). This acquired momentum is caused by the induced internal action force. Since the direction of the induced internal force is leadscrew direction of rotation depended then, the induced internal reaction force (exerted on the rest of the system) will have the same direction (it becomes co-directional with the induced action force).

Quote
The angular momentum disappears, true, but that was already net zero even with the threaded rod. The framework and masses acquired exactly enough opposite angular momentum to cancel the momentum of the rotating threaded rod.

This is a very good point and thank you for mentioning it. Well, what you just wrote would be true if and only if the construction would be a closed loop or would have a horseshoe topology. In our case the leadscrew ends are attached on the ends of the linear construction e.g. a line with start and end points that means they cannot evolve over the screw threads in opposite direction because there are no screw thread beyond the end points. In other words, two things help to achieve this result: a) the topology of the construction, b) the nature of the used forces (induced) that are helix or leadscrew direction of rotation depended (induced action and induced reaction evolve in the same direction and not oppose each other).

Quote
Here's something that may help you visualize it - in your truly isolated system, move the motor driving the rod from the end of the frame to the center of mass mA and work the equations again. See if there's any difference in the results when the moving mass spins the threaded rod instead of the fixed framework spinning it.

The working principle is exactly how a linear actuator works. Well, check the below Youtube link just to get the picture:
« Last Edit: 07/26/2020 04:27 pm by Reactionless2020 »

Offline Frogstar_Robot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • Liked: 723
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #14 on: 07/26/2020 04:15 pm »


2.The internal parts of system A are linearly entangled (through a straight metallic thick thread) with each other
"linearly entangled" is a nonsense phrase. It is one of multiple such terms used in the paper to handwave into existence forces that don't exist that are simply contrary to conservation laws.

Yeah, that's where I stopped reading. "Entangled" sounds so quantumy. Like my boss who kept saying we need to make a quantum leap :)

I guess that Reactionless2020 is the author of the paper? Anyway, I can wait for the Nobel to be awarded.  ::)
Rule 1: Be civil. Respect other members.
Rule 3: No "King of the Internet" attitudes.

Offline daedalus1

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • uk
  • Liked: 331
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #15 on: 07/26/2020 04:16 pm »
Reactionless2020 you are putting yourself against some learned people on this site plus Newton and Einstein yet you won't concede that you are wrong lol.
You are very stubborn.

Offline Reactionless2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
    • Reaction Inversion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #16 on: 07/26/2020 04:26 pm »
I am not going to respond to provocations. It seems you were waiting the lead to start dancing, right?

Anyway, this is your problem. I can answer any questions regarding the paper.

@meberbs, you are running too fast and it seems you cannot keep your cool. Have a little patience and I will answer to all those you quoted. Take a deep breath, first and drink some water, please.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8112
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 4785
  • Likes Given: 41248
Re: Breaking Newton's 3rd law: A Thought Experiment
« Reply #17 on: 07/26/2020 04:41 pm »
Moderator:
Thread locked. Original poster not discussing, only seeking validation. Does not meet NSF forum discussion standards.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.)
My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!"

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1