NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: Aurelian on 11/26/2019 12:39 am
-
By definition, inertia defines the capacity of an object to move perpetually without using external forces. What is the mechanism maintaining such perpetual motion? Can we replicate it? The answers to these questions would help to improve our understanding of motion and to build new technologies for space and other domains.
A new view on inertia is presented in the paper linked below this text. The paper describes an experiment which provides clues on how inertia works. It includes also simple math which explains the operation of the device described in the experiment. The results indicate that inertia of an object is an emergent phenomenon which arises from the variable inertia of the constituents of the object.
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia (http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0333v2.pdf).
-
By definition, inertia defines the capacity of an object to move perpetually without using external forces. What is the mechanism maintaining such perpetual motion? Can we replicate it? The answers to these questions would help to improve our understanding of motion and to build new technologies for space and other domains.
A new view on inertia is presented in the paper linked below this text. The paper describes an experiment which provides clues on how inertia works. It includes also simple math which explains the operation of the device described in the experiment. The results indicate that inertia of an object is an emergent phenomenon which arises from the variable inertia of the constituents of the object.
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia (http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0333v2.pdf).
Congratulations on your first post and welcome to the forum.
-
The paper starts by mischaracterizing Newton's law of inertia, by claiming that it applies to "rectilinear motion" The word rectilinear should not be used there, and is repeated multiple times in places where it is literally meaningless.
Newton's laws clearly indicate that the average motion of the a closed system would be equivalent to the vector sum of the momentum of all of the individual parts in the system. There is nothing special about a box containing spinning waits, it could contain bouncing balls or gas molecules, or fluids and pistons. Concluding that circular motion is fundamental because writer chose a system with spinning objects is not logical.
An example of a wrong statement that shows a basic misunderstanding from the bottom of page 6:
When the weights are released, device 1is at rest in the reference system. Since no other external or internal forces will act on it, the device will remain at rest while the two weights will fly out continuing to move uniformly with speed v.
This may appear to violate Newton's third law of motion because the device remains at rest after it throws out mass without moving in the opposite direction. But for an external observer, his perception is dependent on either he sees(measures)the motion of device 1 as sinusoidal or uniform prior the release of the weights.
There is nothing in this that violates Newton's laws or appears to violate Newton's laws. The plate is at rest when the balls are released, since the release of the balls means that no further forces act on the plate and therefore it remains at rest. The balls are moving at that time, so they remain moving. Newton's third law is trivially satisfied because there are no forces and therefore zero is equal and opposite to zero. The author (you?) appears to misunderstand and think that there must be a force because the balls move away from the plate, but that is not true, the forces had already been applied before that instant, and no further forces exist.
Contrary to the statement in the paper, figure 3 does not show quantization of inertia, it actually shows continuous momentum, which is not surprising for a paper based on Newtonian physics. Claims later in the paper to explain wave-particle duality are simply wrong, as nothing in the paper addresses these at all. The paper purports to present a "theory." Nothing in the paper amounts to a theory. There are some (as far as I have checked) correct descriptions of how a relatively simple system moves in Newtonian mechanics. These are surrounded by a bunch of words that incorrectly generalize this behavior and make unsupported assertions.
Quantum mechanics is a real thing, many physical quantities are quantized (though there is more than one meaning for that, some people colloquially interpret it in ways that there is not evidence for.) I won't try to explain quantum mechanics here, it is weird and non-intuitive, but supported by countless experiments.
-
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia (http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0333v2.pdf).
This paper appears to be written by you.
If so, NSF is not the place to get purported science papers peer reviewed.
Also, the science of physics is very well proven, so have you researched peer reviewed papers on this topic?
-
To Coastal Ron:
The header of the forum says that this "New Forum Section" is" for space technology concepts that rely on non-conventional physics". My understanding was that posts in this subforum can bring to discussion non-conventional experiments and models which can be discussed openely. I agree that a forum is not for "peer-review". It was not my intention anyway to request peer review. Obviously the paper (my paper) is not peer reviewed. Consider it a post in which for the benefit of time and space I linked it to a document describing an experiment and a mathematical model for it. If I am wrong feel free to point out mistakes.
-
To meberbs:
The paper starts by mischaracterizing Newton's law of inertia, by claiming that it applies to "rectilinear motion".
Newton himself uses the words "straight line" (i.e. "movendi uniformiter in directum" in Latin) in his definition of the first law of motion. Most textbooks on physics (if not all) use "uniform rectilinear motion" in their description of Newton's first law of motion. I am not sure how can you say that I mischaracterized Newton's first law and that I should not use that word. Clarify that before I address the other comments in your reply. I could just add that, from your comments, I noticed that you missed the essence of the experiment and its math. Is anything wrong with them?
-
To meberbs:
The paper starts by mischaracterizing Newton's law of inertia, by claiming that it applies to "rectilinear motion".
Newton himself uses the words "straight line" (i.e. "movendi uniformiter in directum" in Latin) in his definition of the first law of motion. Most textbooks on physics (if not all) use "uniform rectilinear motion" in their description of Newton's first law of motion. I am not sure how can you say that I mischaracterized Newton's first law and that I should not use that word. Clarify that before I address the other comments in your reply.
Newton's laws apply to all motion. If all you wanted to do was say straight line, then you could say that, in this context it sounded like you were using "rectilinear" to refer to an orthonormal cartesian coordinate system.
I could just add that, from your comments, I noticed that you missed the essence of the experiment and its math. Is anything wrong with them?
Try reading my post again. I stated that as far as I could tell you correctly describe the behavior of a relatively simple system in Newtonian mechanics, but that this is surrounded by a bunch of incorrect statements claiming things contrary to Newtonian mechanics. The essence of the experiment is that Newtonian mechanics is just fine, and there is nothing quantized about it.
-
We agree then: rectilinear means straight line; always.
I stated that as far as I could tell you correctly describe the behavior of a relatively simple system in Newtonian mechanics, but that this is surrounded by a bunch of incorrect statements claiming things contrary to Newtonian mechanics. The essence of the experiment is that Newtonian mechanics is just fine, and there is nothing quantized about it.
The system is simple indeed. Before we clarify the meaning of quantization let's discuss the Newtonian aspect of the system.
The operation of the system can be analyzed if we look at a simulation performed using Algodoo which I'll include in a short video below.
In the video we see a blackbox set near a wall. The graph displays the change of device's speed with time.
When the simulation begins, the object starts moving away from the wall. That is complying perfectly with Newton's 3rd law of motion, assuming that the object pushed the wall by magnetic, electrical or mechanical means. We, the external observers, don't know what is inside the box.
After that moment we observe the following non-Newtonian pattern in object's motion:
1. It accelerates without any external force acting on it. Note, that gravity and air resistance were disabled in Algodoo scene.
2. After the object reaches the maximum speed, the external observers see the object slowing down under no influence of external force.
3. The object stops by itself (no external force acts on the device) when speed on the graph is zero. That is seen on object's movement as well.
4. The object starts by itself to accelerate.
5. The previous cycle continues forever.
6.The object moves on a straight line non-uniformly (i.e. no constant speed), but with variable speed. Its motion goes in distinct "packets" of energy between two consecutive stops when its kinetic energy is null. That can be called quanta of inertia.
Here is the simulation for the blackbox:
https://youtu.be/-skFf34GvJ8.
Note that the above example describes the operation of the device shown inside the paper referenced in my initial post. Here is the simulation for that device without the blackbox around it:
https://youtu.be/Ev-FvqKeD5w
Note as well that the graph plotted by the simulator confirms the math described in the paper.
-
We agree then: rectilinear means straight line; always.
I stated that as far as I could tell you correctly describe the behavior of a relatively simple system in Newtonian mechanics, but that this is surrounded by a bunch of incorrect statements claiming things contrary to Newtonian mechanics. The essence of the experiment is that Newtonian mechanics is just fine, and there is nothing quantized about it.
The system is simple indeed. Before we clarify the meaning of quantization let's discuss the Newtonian aspect of the system.
The operation of the system can be analyzed if we look at a simulation performed using Algodoo which I'll include in a short video below.
In the video we see a blackbox set near a wall. The graph displays the change of device's speed with time.
When the simulation begins, the object starts moving away from the wall. That is complying perfectly with Newton's 3rd law of motion, assuming that the object pushed the wall by magnetic, electrical or mechanical means. We, the external observers, don't know what is inside the box.
After that moment we observe the following non-Newtonian pattern in object's motion:
A simulation based on Newton's laws does not give a non-Newtonian result. If you think otherwise, your understanding is lacking.
1. It accelerates without any external force acting on it. Note, that gravity and air resistance were disabled in Algodoo scene.
No it doesn't, the outside of the box is not the center of mass of the box because things inside the box are moving. The center of mass is not accelerating. If you want to track the box separately from the stuff inside it, then you have to look at the forces occurring between the box and its contents.
2. After the object reaches the maximum speed, the external observers see the object slowing down under no influence of external force.
Same as previous statement.
3. The object stops by itself (no external force acts on the device) when speed on the graph is zero. That is seen on object's movement as well.
ditto.
4. The object starts by itself to accelerate.
ditto
5. The previous cycle continues forever.
The continuous uniform motion of the center of mass of the system does in fact continue forever.
6.The object moves on a straight line non-uniformly (i.e. no constant speed), but with variable speed. Its motion goes in distinct "packets" of energy between two consecutive stops when its kinetic energy is null. That can be called quanta of inertia.
Here is the simulation for the blackbox:
Nope, that is not what quantization means. The only "special" thing that happens in this system is that the exterior of the box oscillates relative to the center of mass of the system.
Note that the above example describes the operation of the device shown inside the paper referenced in my initial post. Here is the simulation for that device without the blackbox around it:
...
Note as well that the graph plotted by the simulator confirms the math described in the paper.
It shows that the if you track something that is not the center of mass of the system you don't get what is expected when tracking the center of mass of the system. This is an example of garbage in, garbage out, tell it to measure the wrong thing and you get the wrong answer. As I already said, I saw nothing wrong with the equations in your paper, but everything wrong with your conclusions. Newton's laws work just fine, and anyone who looks at this system and thinks it shows non-Newtonian behavior does not understand Newton's laws.
-
1. It accelerates without any external force acting on it. Note, that gravity and air resistance were disabled in Algodoo scene.
No it doesn't, the outside of the box is not the center of mass of the box because things inside the box are moving. The center of mass is not accelerating. If you want to track the box separately from the stuff inside it, then you have to look at the forces occurring between the box and its contents.
Yes, the center of mass follows uniform motion, but that's not what the external observer measures.
An external observer sees just an object accelerating-decelerating-stopping. That was the assumption stated above. That is consistent with the assumptions for the laws of motion. If we accept that Newton's laws were postulated for objects (regardless of their structure) analyzed by external observers, then we must be consistent and test their validity under the same assumptions. It is not only logical, but practical as well. For example, when we look at the night sky and see an object accelerating then stopping we have no ideea of its structure (or its center of mass). Similarly, for microscopic particles if we measure their kinetic energy and get random numbers then such results won't follow laws of uniform motion. The math and the results of the experiment described above point out towards the observations listed in the paper even if you disagree disagree with them.
This is an example of garbage in, garbage out, tell it to measure the wrong thing and you get the wrong answer.
For these comments I will ignore completely your future replies.
-
1. It accelerates without any external force acting on it. Note, that gravity and air resistance were disabled in Algodoo scene.
No it doesn't, the outside of the box is not the center of mass of the box because things inside the box are moving. The center of mass is not accelerating. If you want to track the box separately from the stuff inside it, then you have to look at the forces occurring between the box and its contents.
Yes, the center of mass follows uniform motion, but that's not what the external observer measures.
It is only what an external observed measures if they aren't trying to compare against Newton's laws.
An external observer sees just an object accelerating-decelerating-stopping. That was the assumption stated above. That is consistent with the assumptions for the laws of motion. If we accept that Newton's laws were postulated for objects (regardless of their structure) analyzed by external observers, then we must be consistent and test their validity under the same assumptions.
No, you are again claiming that Newton's laws say something they don't.
It is not only logical, but practical as well. For example, when we look at the night sky and see an object accelerating then stopping we have no ideea of its structure (or its center of mass).
Which is why in such cases conclusions have to be drawn assuming that the center of mass is at the center of what we see. For celestial objects, gravity ensures that this is a good assumption. The limitations of this assumption need to be considered, but for things like stars, it isn't much of one. Making this assumption in a case where you know it is very wrong is just bad physics, and makes your conclusions wrong.
Similarly, for microscopic particles if we measure their kinetic energy and get random numbers then such results won't follow laws of uniform motion. The math and the results of the experiment described above point out towards the observations listed in the paper even if you disagree disagree with them.
For the third time, I have never disagreed with the math in the paper, but the incorrect and illogical conclusions that you made which are not supported by the math.
This is an example of garbage in, garbage out, tell it to measure the wrong thing and you get the wrong answer.
For these comments I will ignore completely your future replies.
I did not invent that phrase. If you are going to ignore basic advice about computer modelling that any decent teacher would provide on the first day of class, then I don't know what your purpose here is.
-
If we accept that Newton's laws were postulated for objects (regardless of their structure) analyzed by external observers
I don't accept that. Nor does anyone else with a good understanding of high school physics. That's simply not what Newton's laws say. Newton's laws don't say how an object looks to an external observer regardless of how masses are moving within an object. They only tell you how centers of mass move.
This is an example of garbage in, garbage out, tell it to measure the wrong thing and you get the wrong answer.
For these comments I will ignore completely your future replies.
You would be strongly advised not to ignore meberbs or be rude to him. meberbs is a highly respected member of this forum. He has taken his time to read your paper and to try in multiple posts to explain to you what its issues are. You should count yourself very lucky to have someone of his caliber trying to help you.
-
Let me reinforce that last statement. Demonstrate a fundamental grasp of physics and be excellent to everyone responding to your thread or I will lock it.
-
Reiterating what D_Dom said...
For these comments I will ignore completely your future replies.
If your goal is improvement in your understanding of physics, and improvement of your idea, that is a grave mistake. While meberbs may not have the best bedside manner, they are very good at dissecting and identifying issues. You would be well served to heed their input.
If your goal is something else, such as promotion of your idea, or feeding your ego... it's off topic here.
Either of us can lock the thread if things don't improve.
-
The center of mass is an imaginary point in which we assume that we concentrate the mass of the entire object. For that imaginary point, we agree that moves uniformly. However, there is not one single subpart or atomic particle of the object (blackbox) described in the above experiment that moves uniformly in the direction of movement (that is the y-axis described in the paper). All parts of the object, including the spinning components, move according to the sinusoidal equation described in the paper. Then we can say that the object as a whole moves sinusoidally in the direction of its movement since every material entity which composes it moves sinusoidally. If you all believe that a single material component of the object moves uniformly then please prove it mathematicaly.
I made this post because the posts on this forum talk about Emdrive and Woodward effect which discuss about the cause of inertia and Newtonian laws. I brought the findings of the experiment and the math from my paper in order to get some insight on how inertia behaves which may help find out where Emdrive and MET devices get their thrust from.
With regards to the "garbage" comments thrown towards my post I don't think I was "rude" in any way to decide to ignore their author. Anyone who uses or accepts that offense is disqualifying himself. I don't accept that discourse. I prefer to talk on the topic itself without any ad-hominem, innuendo, appeals to authority etc.
If you feel like blocking or deleting this entire thread or myself because I don't accept offenses like the above one, then do it.
-
The center of mass is an imaginary point in which we assume that we concentrate the mass of the entire object. For that imaginary point, we agree that moves uniformly. However, there is not one single subpart or atomic particle of the object (blackbox) described in the above experiment that moves uniformly in the direction of movement (that is the y-axis described in the paper). All parts of the object, including the spinning components, move according to the sinusoidal equation described in the paper. Then we can say that the object as a whole moves sinusoidally in the direction of its movement since every material entity which composes it moves sinusoidally.
False. This is the core mistake that invalidates the conclusion, as has been pointed out above.
I made this post because the posts on this forum talk about Emdrive and Woodward effect which discuss about the cause of inertia and Newtonian laws. I brought the findings of the experiment and the math from my paper in order to get some insight on how inertia behaves which may help find out where Emdrive and MET devices get their thrust from.
[This is a 'begging the question' fallacy, as it assumes something that has not been proven (anomalous thrust) and uses it as the reason for a claim.
With regards to the "garbage" comments thrown towards my post I don't think I was "rude" in any way to decide to ignore their author. Anyone who uses or accepts that offense is disqualifying himself. I don't accept that discourse. I prefer to talk on the topic itself without any ad-hominem, innuendo, appeals to authority etc.
'Garbage in garbage out' is not an insult, it is a standard technical term. It means you will get wrong outputs if your inputs are wrong. Your assumption that Newtons laws of motion mean anything beyond what they describe about the behaviours of centres of masses is the wrong input that produces your wrong conclusions.
-
With regards to the "garbage" comments thrown towards my post I don't think I was "rude" in any way to decide to ignore their author. Anyone who uses or accepts that offense is disqualifying himself. I don't accept that discourse. I prefer to talk on the topic itself without any ad-hominem, innuendo, appeals to authority etc.
If you feel like blocking or deleting this entire thread or myself because I don't accept offenses like the above one, then do it.
You get one more try to stay on the topic. Play the ball, not the man. As has been explained multiple times, GIGO is not a personal insult. Internalise that and up your game. Up to you if this thread is locked or not. But if I find any further comments from you about others, of any sort, anything at all that isn't physics, it will be.
-
By definition, inertia defines the capacity of an object to move perpetually without using external forces. What is the mechanism maintaining such perpetual motion? Can we replicate it? The answers to these questions would help to improve our understanding of motion and to build new technologies for space and other domains.
A new view on inertia is presented in the paper linked below this text. The paper describes an experiment which provides clues on how inertia works. It includes also simple math which explains the operation of the device described in the experiment. The results indicate that inertia of an object is an emergent phenomenon which arises from the variable inertia of the constituents of the object.
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia (http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0333v2.pdf).
Congratulations on your first post and welcome to the forum.
No!
Inertia is a force that resists acceleration of an object of mass... :-)
-
By definition, inertia defines the capacity of an object to move perpetually without using external forces. What is the mechanism maintaining such perpetual motion? Can we replicate it? The answers to these questions would help to improve our understanding of motion and to build new technologies for space and other domains.
A new view on inertia is presented in the paper linked below this text. The paper describes an experiment which provides clues on how inertia works. It includes also simple math which explains the operation of the device described in the experiment. The results indicate that inertia of an object is an emergent phenomenon which arises from the variable inertia of the constituents of the object.
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia (http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0333v2.pdf).
Congratulations on your first post and welcome to the forum.
No!
Inertia is a force that resists acceleration of an object of mass... :-)
That includes its ability to move uniformly on a straight line when undisturbed by external forces.
-
By definition, inertia defines the capacity of an object to move perpetually without using external forces. What is the mechanism maintaining such perpetual motion? Can we replicate it? The answers to these questions would help to improve our understanding of motion and to build new technologies for space and other domains.
A new view on inertia is presented in the paper linked below this text. The paper describes an experiment which provides clues on how inertia works. It includes also simple math which explains the operation of the device described in the experiment. The results indicate that inertia of an object is an emergent phenomenon which arises from the variable inertia of the constituents of the object.
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia (http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0333v2.pdf).
Congratulations on your first post and welcome to the forum.
No!
Inertia is a force that resists acceleration of an object of mass... :-)
That includes its ability to move uniformly on a straight line when undisturbed by external forces.
No! Inertial force is only present when acceleration force acts on a body of mass... :-)
Inertial force is zero if an object moves with constant linear velocity... :-)
-
By definition, inertia defines the capacity of an object to move perpetually without using external forces. What is the mechanism maintaining such perpetual motion? Can we replicate it? The answers to these questions would help to improve our understanding of motion and to build new technologies for space and other domains.
A new view on inertia is presented in the paper linked below this text. The paper describes an experiment which provides clues on how inertia works. It includes also simple math which explains the operation of the device described in the experiment. The results indicate that inertia of an object is an emergent phenomenon which arises from the variable inertia of the constituents of the object.
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia (http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0333v2.pdf).
Congratulations on your first post and welcome to the forum.
No!
Inertia is a force that resists acceleration of an object of mass... :-)
That includes its ability to move uniformly on a straight line when undisturbed by external forces.
No! Inertial force is only present when acceleration force acts on a body of mass... :-)
Inertial force is zero if an object moves with constant linear velocity... :-)
I think that common understanding of inertia presented in textbooks include object's ability to stay in uniform motion when no external forces act on it. A good and concise summary of inertia's definition is on Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia.
-
By definition, inertia defines the capacity of an object to move perpetually without using external forces. What is the mechanism maintaining such perpetual motion? Can we replicate it? The answers to these questions would help to improve our understanding of motion and to build new technologies for space and other domains.
A new view on inertia is presented in the paper linked below this text. The paper describes an experiment which provides clues on how inertia works. It includes also simple math which explains the operation of the device described in the experiment. The results indicate that inertia of an object is an emergent phenomenon which arises from the variable inertia of the constituents of the object.
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia (http://vixra.org/pdf/1911.0333v2.pdf).
Congratulations on your first post and welcome to the forum.
No!
Inertia is a force that resists acceleration of an object of mass... :-)
That includes its ability to move uniformly on a straight line when undisturbed by external forces.
No! Inertial force is only present when acceleration force acts on a body of mass... :-)
Inertial force is zero if an object moves with constant linear velocity... :-)
I think that common understanding of inertia presented in textbooks include object's ability to stay in uniform motion when no external forces act on it. A good and concise summary of inertia's definition is on Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia.
Uniform motion is relative so your assumed property as ability of perpetual motion is useless... :-)
How do you know that object is moving in space?
-
By definition, inertia defines the capacity of an object to move perpetually without using external forces.
Didn't Newton say something about a body in motion? Briefly, what's new in this link? That we get to ignore the force that put the body in motion in the first place?
-
The paper starts by mischaracterizing Newton's law of inertia...
I knew Newton had something to do with this!
-
From the paper:
"Inertia is emerging at macroscopic level from the variable inertia of the microscopic particles which compose an object."
"Variable" inertia? Push heavy, pull light? I've only read the first sentence of meberbs' post after your OP.
"The first law of motion is a definition of inertia that does not provide a mechanism of inertia to explain how an object keeps moving when no force acts on it." You will never be able to come up with a definition of inertia until you understand the well known forces acting in the universe at this very moment. "Since inertia is continuous motion in lack of external forces..." Repeating the same misguided notion does not make it true.
"We assume that all weights start rotating in the same time and with the same constant speed..." No. You cannot make this assumption. You have to apply a force to accelerate the weights from rest to the constant speed.
"If we split [the] system along the OO' axis, disconnecting the devices from each other at the moment when the weights pass through their starting position, then the system will lose its equilibrium..." You have to be introducing a new force, either mechanical or electromagnetic, to the system by disconnecting the devices and that disconnection takes place over a finite time interval. It doesn't look like "Algodoo" correctly accomodates the reality of your initial setup.
-
NSF is not the place to get purported science papers peer reviewed.
Meberbs is performing a welcome community service.
-
It accelerates without any external force acting on it. Note, that gravity and air resistance were disabled in Algodoo scene.
You cannot accelerate anything without applying a force to it. Algodfoo appears to be a toy in this regard.
The object starts by itself to accelerate.
The only reason you can say that, I think, is because it's a free country. You have not yet properly accounted for the forces required to bring the spinning discs up to speed.
-
I have never disagreed with the math in the paper...
Here, if ya don't mind, I could use a bit of a math lesson from you. I substituted Aurelian's Csub1 of equation (3) back into equation (2) and couldn't understand the result.
-
It accelerates without any external force acting on it. Note, that gravity and air resistance were disabled in Algodoo scene.
You cannot accelerate anything without applying a force to it. Algodfoo appears to be a toy in this regard.
The object starts by itself to accelerate.
The only reason you can say that, I think, is because it's a free country. You have not yet properly accounted for the forces required to bring the spinning discs up to speed.
The first example in the paper talks about the devices connected back to back. The method of putting the discs in rotation was ignored since either method is used - electric, magnetic, someone pushing the levers - it would create equal and opposing forces on each devices which will cancel each other out. Once the discs are up to speed, after the devices are disconnected, they will move away from each other under the influence of the y-components of the centrifugal forces.
The equation of speed shows that periodically the device will have speed equal to zero in the chosen reference system. Right after those moments the device accelerats without any external force acting on them, but only under the influence of their internal centrifugal forces.
In the Algodoo simulation the spinning discs are put in motion by motors set in the pivoting points.
-
I have never disagreed with the math in the paper...
Here, I ya don't mind, I could use a bit of a math lesson from you. I substituted Aurelian's Csub1 of equation (3) back into equation (2) and couldn't understand the result.
I checked again. Substituting C1 in equation 2 leads to equation 4. Let me know what needs to be clarified.
-
The paper starts by mischaracterizing Newton's law of inertia...
I knew Newton had something to do with this!
I and meberbs clarified this statement which was related to meaning of the "rectilinear" word in my paper.
The general disagreement from several users with my paper is over the interpretation of the experiment and math. That is mainly related to the role of the center of mass in the interpretation of the results.
-
I have never disagreed with the math in the paper...
Here, if ya don't mind, I could use a bit of a math lesson from you. I substituted Aurelian's Csub1 of equation (3) back into equation (2) and couldn't understand the result.
As I tried to make clear before, I didn't thoroughly check the details of every equation, and it looks like there is a mistake in equation 2 that I had missed. This is clear when you look at the units, because you end up with acceleration rather than velocity. A factor of 1 over omega should have appeared when taking the integral. I haven't checked the rest of that term to make sure it accounts for everything correctly, all I had checked before was that the general form was correct.
The result is as expected given the initial conditions of starting with the boxes next to each other and the masses already in motion. If you want to track the buildup of momentum through forces between the boxes you can do so. A simple version is to start with the spinning masses at rest and 90 degrees behind the release point in the diagram. vertical components of forces cancel out with the 2nd ball in each box. As the balls are accelerated up to speed, the reaction force the motor in the box experiences from doing so pushes the boxes together. The horizontal component of the centrifugal force interaction has the same effect. In this way, the boxes continue to apply forces to each other, exchanging momentum, but they remain in contact since the momentum all ends up in the spinning masses. At the release point, the balls are now at speed and the motors stop applying force (friction is ignored) the horizontal component from the centrifugal force switches directions at that point, so past there, the balls transfer their outward momentum to their respective box, and the boxes move apart. Each system then has its center of mass move with constant velocity from that point on since there are no more forces between the boxes. The individual components of the system have some oscillation due to the balls spinning, but that is of course irrelevant.
The general disagreement from several users with my paper is over the interpretation of the experiment and math. That is mainly related to the role of the center of mass in the interpretation of the results.
It is not so much a disagreement, as you asserting that a result derived from Newton's laws is somehow non-Newtonian. There is no question what Newton's laws mean. The description for the motion above and all of those steps are exactly what Newtonian mechanics predicts. There are forces between the boxes and the balls and therefore the motion of those individual objects acts as if there are forces acting on them, since there are, making them consistent with Newton's laws. If you define your system to instead be the combination of the box and the balls, then if you track the center of mass of that, you will see it moving with constant velocity. At no point do Newton's laws claim that the outside shell of a box will not move regardless of what objects inside do. Newton's laws in fact say the opposite. If an object inside the box moves, applying a force to the box, it makes the box move in the opposite direction.
There is also the matter of the talk about "quantization" in the paper, when nothing discussed has anything to do with quantization at all.
-
I have never disagreed with the math in the paper...
Here, if ya don't mind, I could use a bit of a math lesson from you. I substituted Aurelian's Csub1 of equation (3) back into equation (2) and couldn't understand the result.
As I tried to make clear before, I didn't thoroughly check the details of every equation, and it looks like there is a mistake in equation 2 that I had missed. This is clear when you look at the units, because you end up with acceleration rather than velocity. A factor of 1 over omega should have appeared when taking the integral. I haven't checked the rest of that term to make sure it accounts for everything correctly, all I had checked before was that the general form was correct.
Yes, the 1 over omega should be there (lost it from my paper notes). However, the equation of the speed remains sinusoidal; just the amplitude changes. Therefore the device still moves sinusoidally.
As I said previously, if we consider the center of mass or point like objects, the device moves uniformly on straight line. But the proposed device moves sinusoidally; its speed is not constant.
-
The general disagreement from several users with my paper is over the interpretation of the experiment and math. That is mainly related to the role of the center of mass in the interpretation of the results.
I have a slightly more fundamental problem.
Your Figure 2 is a diagram of your device at rest (but with the arms and masses spinning). More precisely, it is a diagram of the device in the specific inertial frame of reference in which the centre of mass of the device is at rest. You then show the four rotating masses each being acted upon by a centrifugal force F, the four F's being at 90 degrees to each other. You show no other forces.
Centrifugal force does not exist in an inertial reference frame. It is an artefact which appears when one describes motion in a rotating frame of reference. The common example is the perceived tendency for a person to be flung off a playground roundabout when it is spinning. Although that force appears "real" to the person on the roundabout, in the inertial frame of reference of the playground itself, it does not exist. If the person lets go of the roundabout, no force throws them off. They simply continue in a straight line along the tangent to the edge of the roundabout at the time of release. The roundabout continues to rotate, the planks and bars of which it is made being held in circular motion by tensional forces in its structure.
Returning to your example, in the frame of the device, each of your masses, m, have a centripetal force F acting on them at 180 degrees to the force F you show. That is balanced by an equal and opposite force F acting on the arm applied by its axle. The in turn is balanced by a force from the plate in which the axle turns and a force is applied in reaction to the plate.
Because of the symmetry of the initial conditions when spins were set in motion, the x-components of these forces from each pair of mass/arm/axle arrangements on each plate will balance out, and each plate will be left subject to a force along the y-axis. with a sinusoidal variation in amplitude.
However, the further symmetry with the other plate generates an equal and opposite force on its plate. As the two plates are attached, the boundary between them will be in tension or compression depending on where the masses are in their rotations, but the combined system will remain at rest.
If the attachment between the plates is severed, then as soon as the force at the boundary becomes tensive, the two plates will move apart. The centre of mass of the entire two-plate, four-mass system will however remain stationary.
As the masses continue to spin, the plates will undergo an oscillatory motion in opposition to the rotating masses. I am inclined to believe that the plates will return to contact with each other periodically, but I freely admit that the exact motion has now become complex, as the masses and the plates trade rotational and kinetic energy.
However, this is a straightforward piece of classical mechanics - someone more current in the subject than I and with more time on their hands may care to do the analysis.
But to return to my original point - centrifugal forces do not exist in inertial frames. Centripetal forces do, and in any analysis of any mechanical system it is key to understand all the actions and reactions at play between all the components. It is also key to ensure that your analysis contains only forces that exist in the frame of reference you are working in. Many people have neglected these constraints and used rotating masses to allegedly create anti-gravity and perpetual motion machines. None have worked.
Sir Isaac still remains supreme! (Well, in the macroscopic and low velocity realms anyway. We turn to the Mighty Albert and his contemporaries in other contexts... ;D)
-
As I said previously, if we consider the center of mass or point like objects, the device moves uniformly on straight line. But the proposed device moves sinusoidally; its speed is not constant.
The question remains: so what? Newton's laws apply for center of mass or for rigid objects where forces are applied through the center of mass. (you can also get sinusoidal results by simply spinning a rigid object and tracking the position of the end points.)
This is not a new or enlightening result, as it has been known for hundreds of years. Your paper takes this and jumps to other completely unsupported conclusions, which are all negated by the simple fat that the described motion is exactly what Newton's laws predict.
-
Many people have neglected these constraints and used rotating masses to allegedly create anti-gravity and perpetual motion machines. None have worked.
I do not claim the device is anti-gravity or perpetuum mobile.
It's analysis is much simpler if you consider one device with two arms connected to pivoting points, but without any spinning discs connected to them. If someone from the ground throws into the device two discs which will be connected magnetically (or somehow else) to the arms of the device, then the device should start moving to conserve momentum. But it will start not moving uniformly, but gradually accelerate as the spinning discs begin rotating on the arms of the device.
[Zubenelgenubi fixed quote]
-
As I said previously, if we consider the center of mass or point like objects, the device moves uniformly on straight line. But the proposed device moves sinusoidally; its speed is not constant.
The question remains: so what? Newton's laws apply for center of mass or for rigid objects where forces are applied through the center of mass. (you can also get sinusoidal results by simply spinning a rigid object and tracking the position of the end points.)
This is not a new or enlightening result, as it has been known for hundreds of years. Your paper takes this and jumps to other completely unsupported conclusions, which are all negated by the simple fat that the described motion is exactly what Newton's laws predict.
That rigid spinning object will not have periodic full stops (zero speed) as the proposed device nor variable kinetic energy.
-
As I said previously, if we consider the center of mass or point like objects, the device moves uniformly on straight line. But the proposed device moves sinusoidally; its speed is not constant.
The question remains: so what? Newton's laws apply for center of mass or for rigid objects where forces are applied through the center of mass. (you can also get sinusoidal results by simply spinning a rigid object and tracking the position of the end points.)
This is not a new or enlightening result, as it has been known for hundreds of years. Your paper takes this and jumps to other completely unsupported conclusions, which are all negated by the simple fat that the described motion is exactly what Newton's laws predict.
That rigid spinning object will not have periodic full stops (zero speed) as the proposed device nor variable kinetic energy.
If the center of mass is also moving at just the right velocity (i.e. you pick just the right frame to do the calculations), then there will be points where it balances out and tracking a specific dot on that object will show the dot is instantaneously stationary, as the momentum is located in other parts of the object.
Your device also has constant kinetic energy. You only get different results if you look at the box while ignoring that there is continuous energy and momentum exchange between the box and the balls. But, it should be clear that ignoring that interaction is wrong.
-
As I said previously, if we consider the center of mass or point like objects, the device moves uniformly on straight line. But the proposed device moves sinusoidally; its speed is not constant.
The question remains: so what? Newton's laws apply for center of mass or for rigid objects where forces are applied through the center of mass. (you can also get sinusoidal results by simply spinning a rigid object and tracking the position of the end points.)
This is not a new or enlightening result, as it has been known for hundreds of years. Your paper takes this and jumps to other completely unsupported conclusions, which are all negated by the simple fat that the described motion is exactly what Newton's laws predict.
That rigid spinning object will not have periodic full stops (zero speed) as the proposed device nor variable kinetic energy.
If the center of mass is also moving at just the right velocity (i.e. you pick just the right frame to do the calculations), then there will be points where it balances out and tracking a specific dot on that object will show the dot is instantaneously stationary, as the momentum is located in other parts of the object.
Your device also has constant kinetic energy. You only get different results if you look at the box while ignoring that there is continuous energy and momentum exchange between the box and the balls. But, it should be clear that ignoring that interaction is wrong.
Tracking the imaginary massless point called center of mass for a rigid object does not produce the same effects as with the device proposed in my paper.
For example, when the device stops, it really stops for external users (let's say the people on ground - the reference system). They could just jump on it (if they are quick enough...). Or better example, if a train uses such propulsion it could stop at the stations by just hooking its frame to the track (mechanically, magnetically etc.) whenever its speed is zero. It's propellers will still spin, but the train is at rest. There are other examples and applications of sinusoidal inertia.
The center of mass is an imaginary point. It is a good to model motion for point like masses and rigid objects, which have no rotating entities. The device that I described provides an example for which the center of mass model is totally irrelevant.
-
Tracking the imaginary massless point called center of mass for a rigid object does not produce the same effects as with the device proposed in my paper.
Calling a point "imaginary" or "massless" isn't really meaningful. Points are abstractions. No point is more or less imaginary than any other point. And points never have mass. That's not part of what a point is. A point is a geometric concept.
You seem to just be repeating that the center of mass doesn't move as the outside box of your proposed device. Again, as others have said, there's nothing new or surprising here. It's a pretty trivial result that such a device can be built.
For example, when the device stops, it really stops for external users (let's say the people on ground - the reference system). They could just jump on it (if they are quick enough...). Or better example, if a train uses such propulsion it could stop at the stations by just hooking its frame to the track (mechanically, magnetically etc.) whenever its speed is zero. It's propellers will still spin, but the train is at rest.
The amount of time a part of the device would be at rest without losing the overall momentum of the system would be tiny if the speed of the entire system was anything practical. So such a train would be completely impractical.
There are other examples and applications of sinusoidal inertia.
The term "sinusoidal inertia" is not appropriate for what you are talking about. It's not sinusoidal inertia at all. It's plain old inertia with some rotation causing sinusoidal motion of some parts.
If you think there are other uses for this, please specify them and we can discuss the specific ideas.
The center of mass is an imaginary point. It is a good to model motion for point like masses and rigid objects, which have no rotating entities. The device that I described provides an example for which the center of mass model is totally irrelevant.
It's not totally irrelevant. The concept of the center of mass is useful for many purposes for your device, including reasoning about the total momentum and energy of the system.
Anyway, it's clear you're not claiming anything having to do with new physics any more.
Could we close this thread in the "New Physics" section and if you have ideas for practical uses of your device or something like it, could you create new threads for these ideas in the "Advanced Concepts" section?
-
Thank you for the civility in the final replies of this thread.
As my first act as a moderator, I deem any fruitful discussion has run its course. Thread locked.