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.
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.
Does this paper describe new physics? Read the paper and decide for yourself.
Here is the paper: the mechanism of inertia.
The paper starts by mischaracterizing Newton's law of inertia, by claiming that it applies to "rectilinear motion".
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?
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:
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.
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.
This is an example of garbage in, garbage out, tell it to measure the wrong thing and you get the wrong answer.
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.
If we accept that Newton's laws were postulated for objects (regardless of their structure) analyzed by external observers
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.
For these comments I will ignore completely your future replies.
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.
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.
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.
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.Congratulations on your first post and welcome to the forum.
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.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.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.