PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-28, 21:36:51
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Inertia Drive  (Read 17682 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
@Smudge
You make some good points and I would agree it is inconceivable that Inertia is solely an internal property. In fact the known laws of physics and common sense dictate mass cannot act against nothing thus there must be  something filling all space we are unaware of.

I believe the real issue concerning inertia is that it is a constant and if we were to link it with gravity then we create more problems. First we would have to explain why inertia remains constant and gravity diminishes by the inverse square law.

But we don't know that inertia remains constant.  Yes it appears to remain constant within the confines of our galaxy but it could have a different value at far distant regions of the universe.  The apparent expansion of the universe could be an artifact where distant atomic oscillators have a different frequency simply because inertia is not constant.  As to gravity diminishing by the inverse square law that only applies to gravitational force or field and that is the gradient of the potential.  The actual potential diminishes by the inverse 1/R law.  And our earth's gravity adds so little to the potential we have here that to all intents and purposes it is a constant potential value hence a constant inertia value.  We are all besotted by gravity being a local effect whereas the potential we live in is far from local, it comes from distant stars.  Mach had the right idea there.

Quote
Then we have a problem with science which generally uses one undefined term such as (Gravity) to explain another undefined term (Inertia). Generally speaking when we link more terms which are in themselves undefined we do not gain any more understanding.

I don't see that as a problem.  It is a known effect in electromagnetics where we have interacting effects such as a time-changing electric field causing a magnetic effect and vice versa.  To me linking gravity and inertia explains things that are known but not obvious, such as why the reference frame for a gyro is not the earth, nor the sun, nor even our galaxy but is to the best of our knowledge the distant stars.  I agree that this does not yield the exact mechanism by which space applies forces on mass, but that is a different ball game.  As an EM engineer I am aware of photons whizzing through space at light velocity, but what is a photon?  What else is whizzing around us?  Well there are neutrinos having zero rest mass but having spin, and these can go right through the earth and out the other side.  Could these be the building blocks for photons?  Could we not live withing a highly dense (in respect of number density) aether of these particles some of which will impact with our mass particles and that is the mechanism that supplies inertia?  To me that is an obvious and highly possible scenario.

Quote
Knowing this I opted for a different route and solved the issue of what the primary fields are fundamentally first which then led to the understanding of secondary effects such as inertia. I tend to do things backwards and start at the most fundamental level then work my way out.

AC

I'd be interested in seeing your solution.

Smudge
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2765


Buy me a cigar
How can it hit one end without being pushed from the other or pulled from that end? C.C

Unless you can create a suction in space-time I think Newton will still take the prize.

Don't think I don't want you to get that prize before Newton. He has won all too often  :-\

Dear WaveWatcher.

Please study the attached png file.

Could this bend dear old Newton's law ??  ;)

Your comments, as always, gratefully received.

Cheers Grum.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   
Group: Guest
Your drawing, if I understand it, shows the energy to move the mass perpendicular to the mass travel but there will still be an equal and opposite reaction to the propelled mass.
The support for the wedges will feel the reaction to the mass being propelled.

   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Over in the TPU thread I offered a paper showing the possibility that we could get some electrodynamic inertia separate from mass inertia.  In particular acceleration of a magnetic pole in the scalar magnetic potential of the earth should create measureable inertia, and this could be the basis for a thrust machine.  In corresponding with someone on this subject I wrote the following which might add credence to the idea.

If my theory about accelerating magnetic poles is correct then there should be an electric vector potential created by pole movement, similar to how a magnetic vector potential is created by charge movement.  Then acceleration of the pole creates a time-varying electric vector potential which should create a magnetic field, similar to how a time varying magnetic vector potential creates an electric field.  If we use C as the electric vector potential then we should see H = -dC/dt (or it might be B = -dC/dt) in the same way that we have E = -dA/dt.  That means the accelerating pole radiates a B or H field.  In the presence of a scalar magnetic potential from the earth, the inertia effect is that radiation then trying to move the magnetic pole(s) responsible for the scalar potential.  IOW if we can obtain thrust in this way the reaction to that thrust tries to move the earth's magnetic dipole, which in effect is moving the earth itself.  Then our thrust machine is not pushing against nothing, it is pushing against the earth, which makes it far more a possibility.  As regards using the effect for gaining energy I am not sure that I can offer an explanation for where the energy comes from. but if it tries to slow down the earth's enormous core of rotating molten iron then maybe that is the source.

Smudge
   
Group: Guest
Smudge,

That sounds like a partial solution to my findings on falling magnetized objects.

basic experiment:

Drop a coin shaped, axially polarized powerful magnet into something which will prevent damage to the magnet and prevent bounce. A tin can filled with sand works well.

Note how often one of the poles faces the same direction upon impact. It should always be the same even if you allow a little spin when dropping it.

Shoulder height works fine.

My conclusion: A magnetic field, in motion within and ambient magnetic field, acts very similar to a point charge in motion within that same ambient magnetic field. An easier way to think of the falling magnet is as a spinning gyroscope with two rotating masses on the same shaft. The masses spinning in opposite directions. If you do this with such a gyroscope that gyroscope assembly will also have a preferred vertical shaft alignment.

   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee

Now let's do a thought experiment, I am floating in outer space and I push on an object which has the same mass as I do. The conservation of momentum/energy states the action and reaction must be equal and opposite thus the object and I move away from each other with an equal velocity. My momentum (mass velocity) is equal to the objects momentum (mass velocity).

Here comes the tricky part, when I pushed on the object it resisted the applied force because of it's inertia just as my motion in the opposite direction was equally resisted because of my inertia. Now we know a force cannot act against nothing because this violates the laws of physics so how exactly did the object resist my applied force?. You see if I apply a force to the object and it resists this force then there must be a counter-force and low and behold there is nothing for the object to act upon which violates the laws of physics.
 

AC

I see no violation at all AC. You do not need a force acting against a mass to feel resistance.The resistance comes from accelerating that mass-N2,and has nothing to do with a resistance acting against that mass. It takes a force to accelerate mass,wether in the vacume of space,or here on earth. This is how rocket engines produce thrust in space,and that thrust has nothing to push against-but still it produces thrust. It get's it's thrust from accelerating mass-mass ejection.

Once the mass has reached is max speed(in space),then it will continue on at that speed until it meets a resistive force-and only then it will slow down.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
Hi Tinman,

At OU: Reed & think in "Clem-Engine", liquid at boiling transition temp departing uit of the nozzle in to gas makes a huge wall to ...........

Thanks for building & doing!

Regards, Johan
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Tinman
Quote
I see no violation at all AC. You do not need a force acting against a mass to feel resistance.The resistance comes from accelerating that mass-N2,and has nothing to do with a resistance acting against that mass. It takes a force to accelerate mass,wether in the vacume of space,or here on earth. This is how rocket engines produce thrust in space,and that thrust has nothing to push against-but still it produces thrust. It get's it's thrust from accelerating mass-mass ejection.
Once the mass has reached is max speed(in space),then it will continue on at that speed until it meets a resistive force-and only then it will slow down.

I had to read through your post a few times to understand what you were getting at but I think I found the issue were having.

An acceleration can be positive(increasing velocity) or negative (decreasing velocity) ie. deceleration but both are considered to be an acceleration.

It may also help to go through the process--
1)A force is applied to a mass and it accelerates (a change in velocity) and if there was no applied force then obviously it could not accelerate, the force is the fundamental cause of an acceleration or deceleration.
2)If the mass is accelerating then this acceleration is resisted by a counter-force we call Inertia which is defined as a resistance to changes in velocity or an acceleration.
3)If a real force is acting on a mass to accelerate it and this force is resisted by Inertia then inertia must be considered a force because the only thing which may act on a mass is a force.
4)We now have two forces present, an applied force and Inertia a counter-force acting in opposite directions which we feel as one force, logically speaking if the object had no mass then it has no inertia and we wouldn't feel anything.
5)If we apply a force A to an object to accelerate it forward the force A acts forward on the object and backwards on us equal and opposite. Now we do not move backwards because our feet are on the ground and the ground also feels this backward force. However we have a problem because the force we feel is transfered to the ground but the force the object we are pushing on feels is transfered into nothing but empty space. Imagine a bolwing ball hanging from a string .... where is the the force it applies to you transferred to?... apparently nowhere.

A rocket is really no different but more confusing because we now have two masses which apply a force to one another and they both move in opposite directions. Now instead of a rocket imagine we have two bowling balls with a coiled spring between them and we release the spring. Each end of the spring applies a force to each bolwing ball equally accelerating each ball in opposite directions however while each ball is being accelerated the acceleration is being resisted by a counter-force we call Inertia. We could call them ball A and ball B, now the only reason ball A is accelerating is because ball B is resisting it's acceleration which acts on A and likewise the only reason ball B is accelerating is because ball A is resisting it's acceleration which acts on B. Yes they are pushing off of one another however the standard reasoning to explain it is circular in nature because it still relies on the fact that it is impossible that A or B can act on themselves in themselves.

For instance let's say ball B is now a wall attached to the Earth at which point the force accelerating ball A is transferred to the wall B...simple enough. Then ball B is not a wall but a ball again so where does the force accelerating ball A get transferred to? Well to ball B which isn't attached to anything but it is still resisting the force to accelerate ball A. The inertia of ball B is resisting the force accelerating ball A but it is not attached to anything tangible and is floating in empty space. At which point we may understand that what we call inertia requires that a mass act on themselves in themselves which violates damn near every law of physics.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
@AC

Your making no sense.

Quote: )If we apply a force A to an object to accelerate it forward the force A acts forward on the object and backwards on us equal and opposite. Now we do not move backwards because our feet are on the ground and the ground also feels this backward force. However we have a problem because the force we feel is transfered to the ground but the force the object we are pushing on feels is transfered into nothing but empty space. Imagine a bolwing ball hanging from a string .... where is the the force it applies to you transferred to?... apparently nowhere.

The force isnt transfered into nothing but empty space,it is transformed into kinetic energy-KE=1/2 mv2-. Being that your feet are on the ground,we can asuum you are here on earth,in which case there is also a gravitational and atmospheric force being applied to  and acting against the ball on the string. If we push the ball in space,the energy of the ball becomes kinetic,and the force you applied is given back when that ball reaches a resistance. The kinetic energy remains until a resistance is met by the ball.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Tinman
Quote
The force isnt transfered into nothing but empty space,it is transformed into kinetic energy-KE=1/2 mv2-.

I understand what your saying however I would ask, does your simplistic explanation lead to a greater understanding?. Well no you simply inserted a few textbook terms which does not require anyone to actually think about what happens and why at the most fundamental level.

I think the ball and string may be leading to confusion, Now I apply a force to an object however before the object starts moving anywhere it is resisting my applied force with a counter-force we call inertia. There is no transformation to kinetic energy and the terms are meaningless because the where how and why of the transformation are never defined nor is the term kinetic energy. I see this a great deal where people try to explain something by not really explaining anything that matters.

Again, I apply a force to an object and my applied force is resisted by a counter-force before the object has started moving. This counter-force is a real force and must come from somewhere and act from somewhere on the applied force. No transformation to KE is not an acceptable answer because it does not answer anything.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Tinman
I understand my posts can be overly critical sometimes however my intent is to add constructive criticism so we might move forward. With that I would like to share some things I have learned along the way which may help.

To be honest I cannot see how whirling weights around in any configuration could ever amount to anything mainly because it involves a center of rotation, a fulcrum, and a center of mass, another fulcrum. This essentially ensures the system remains closed within itself however this may not mean it may always remain closed to external forces.

Another aspect is that what we call tangible objects are supposedly 99% empty space and are simply particles bouncing about their fields interacting with other fields, field on field. Thus the translation of force is solely through field interactions and fields may be manipulated or distorted. As I said we have to get past the concept of simple objects described with vague if not meaningless terminology.

So how could we effect the inertia of an object?, I believe the force model must operate as a step function, that is logically it operates in discrete steps. There is an applied force, a counter-force(inertia), motion, a decrease in force, a decrease in the counter-force, less motion, more force, more counter-force, motion and so on. I believe this because the translation of force is acting field on field through what is considered empty space but logically must contain fields. Now what we do know of fields is that there is some resiliency in them and some delay in time as nothing can act instantaneously so far as we know.

It may be that if an object ever came under a condition of pure resonance in which the whole of an object was in oscillation in itself then the internal fields may oscillate on some level. This may be our gate way to acting on the fields internal to matter, an object, because we are not producing a simple surface effect but acting on the most fundamental level which dictates the properties of matter. There is some literature to suggest this may be the case such as ancient civilizations which supposedly levitated large rocks with sound. I think we all know it is impossible that sound could be powerful enough to do this however it is not a matter of a simple force acting on a simple object. It may be that the sound projected caused internal resonant oscillations in the material which led to a change in the internal field interactions which distorted the internal fields relative to the external fields(gravity) which then caused the object to move.

Thus we are left with the notion that a simple force acting on a simple object is a lesson in futility however utilizing an intermittent non-dampened force (resonant) to cause every singular part of an object to interact within itself which then interacts with the environment doesn't seem so far fetched. We can then see a logical chain of cause and effect, a step function, of one thing acting on another which acts on something else changing it in some way which causes other interactions with a defined degree of separation between the initial action and the result.

It is not the primate like application of force with a club which we tend to see today but a little finesse to cause one thing to interact with something else, to cause them to use their own energy to act on one another rather than energy we input into the system. It's not unlike the art of war, why wage war on someone when it is much easier to cause two other parties to wage war on themselves.

AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
@Tinman
I understand what your saying however I would ask, does your simplistic explanation lead to a greater understanding?. Well no you simply inserted a few textbook terms which does not require anyone to actually think about what happens and why at the most fundamental level.

I think the ball and string may be leading to confusion, Now I apply a force to an object however before the object starts moving anywhere it is resisting my applied force with a counter-force we call inertia. There is no transformation to kinetic energy and the terms are meaningless because the where how and why of the transformation are never defined nor is the term kinetic energy. I see this a great deal where people try to explain something by not really explaining anything that matters.

Again, I apply a force to an object and my applied force is resisted by a counter-force before the object has started moving. This counter-force is a real force and must come from somewhere and act from somewhere on the applied force. No transformation to KE is not an acceptable answer because it does not answer anything.

AC

This is nothing more than resistance to change,and there is a force on the ball,and it takes a certain amount of force to overcome the force acting on the ball.Im guessing we are still here on earth,where gravity is that force you have to overcome. The ball is being pulled toward the center of gravity,so it takes a cetain amount of force before you can create motion. The same with the ball sitting on the ground. If that ball on the ground weigh's 10 pound's,and you apply a lifting force of 9.9 pounds,the ball will not rise of the ground.But if this same ball with the 10 pound mass is floating in space,and you throw a feather at it,you can bet ya ass it will move,and keep on going until it meets a resistance.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
At this point in time,the mechanical version of my inertia drive project has been put on the back burner-due to a recent discovery thats shows a far greater potential.

Who here knows all about fluid dynamics O0.
Preliminary test show that fluids can be manipulated to offset the equal and opposite force-by up to 90*.
Due to these result's,i will be going back to the start of my testing,with a far better and more accurate test bed setup.
The pictures below shows my test bed base for the next 3 test i will be carrying out this weekend.

In short.
I have found that 2 jets of water intersecting at right angles,do not show any force placed or imposed on the other.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
I am in the process of joining all the test video's together-i think your going to like the result's.
I have also completed the first test of second stage test,where as the pressure cleaner wand is now mounted on the pendulum. I think your going to like that test even more.

The first test video result's(as depicted a post ago) should be up within 1 to1 1/2 hours. Once we discus those test,and eliminate any faults with the test i may have made,then i will post the second video showing the result's of the completed unit so far.

I also believe there is a better way than using the high pressure water jet,and would give a much better result. This would eliminate the need for the high pressure cleaner,and use only an electric motor. This new system could also be driven off the back side of the pump motor,thus meaning we need only the one motor to do the job. I will start the build on the new part of the device tomorrow.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4728


Buy me some coffee
Here is the test carried out today. I also worked out why i was getting a negative reading when running just the ejection nozzle. Turns out when i put the pipe at the back of the pedulum board,it pulled the hose a bit tighter. This resulted in the hose pulling on the pendulum board,and thus showing the negative 30-40 grams. this has been corrected,and we now get a stedy 120 to 125 gram pull on the scales-this is a unidirectional pull.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8as20q1CYE&list=UUsLiBC2cL5GsZGLcj2rm-4w


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Guest
Hmmm,

Here's an avenue of exploration:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJDQwHnItA[/youtube]
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
I've been wanting to carry out this type of experiment for a while now but haven't yet.    What results did you get?

I would say that dropping a magnet in the earths magnetic field should produce results pretty close to what's expected from a non magnetized object.  The reason is that the earths magnetic field is slightly divergent and so it affects the magnet's fall just a tiny bit.    In a perfect divergence-less magnetic field  (parallel magnetic flux lines with no gradient) the only force experienced by a small magnet placed in this field would be a torque, which tries to align it to the external field, but no net force in any direction.  

I would hazard a guess that WW's experiment used the vertical component of the earth's magnetic field to align the magnet.  Unless of course if WW lives at the equator O0.

Smudge
   
Group: Guest
My results were as I stated.

Amazing.... Such a simple experiment and no one does it.

Requirements:
 1. a strong axially polarized coin shaped magnet. You can use almost any magnet but the suggested magnet needs very little fall time to align itself.
 2. gravity
 3. space

I recall a well known (by us) experimenter allowing such a magnet to slide down a copper bar. With one polarity facing up it slid down the bar very slowly, as most would expect. With the other polarity facing up the magnet insisted on flipping itself while sliding down that bar.

It was a WTF? moment for that experimenter and all others, it seemed. For me, it was a DUH! moment.

Such a basic and profound experiment and result denied, ignored and blown-off.

One of my fears is that the many saying that there is nothing left to discover or invent are partially correct.

It should instead be that there are no real inventors or discoverers left. All those claiming those titles are only capable of assembling Lincoln Logs, Legos or white papers from others into different combinations.

There is plenty of very base info left for discovery. We don't know it all and what we know must always be questioned.
 
« Last Edit: 2014-10-02, 12:12:02 by WaveWatcher »
   
Group: Guest
@wavewatcher
"I recall a well known (by us) experimenter allowing such a magnet to slide down a copper bar. With one polarity facing up it slid down the bar very slowly, as most would expect. With the other polarity facing up the magnet insisted on flipping itself while sliding down that bar."

that makes sense to me, because a magnet that free falls in the tube slowly, and I've done the experiment myself, is also free to move and rotate, so it aligns with the magnetic field of the earth, just like a compass.

That is what most conclude but it isn't so. Which direction it slides related to the Earth's magnetic poles makes no difference. Do you really think the Earth's magnetic field is strong enough to cause the magnet to take a short vertical leap, flip and continue sliding down the bar?
   
Group: Guest
@Matt Watts
thanks for sharing that video of Jeffrey Cook.   He seems to say there is no reaction on the ring magnet base, when the small disk magnet is pushed out the other side.    If that is true, it's truly amazing and worth exploring.  However,  from the video I'm not convinced his set up is adequate to observe such kickback reaction force, because he pushes down on the big plastic frame of the ring magnet, so friction holds it fixed to the table, or he could just be holding it with his hands.    

This type of experiment should be done on a low friction air table, like in the physics classes.    And the velocity and position of the two masses measured after separation.  Only then can an accurate determination of the conservation of momentum, or it's violation, be achieved.   (of course, he will have to implement some remote control trigger so he doesn't have to touch the masses)

To do this properly, my suggestion would be to set this up so the projectile points straight up and put everything on a very sensitive weight scale that can collect measurements at least 100 times per second and have a means to record that data.  The trigger mechanism should be a small motorized cam drive similar to what precision bench rest shooters use, connected to a timer or wireless receiver so that no wires leave the platform.

IF

If the projectile is launched and we see ZERO recoil on the scale, we can take this experiment further.  What we should see if the theory is correct, is an immediate loss in weight equaling that of the projectile.  We should not get a single sample showing an increase in weight or displacement downward.

If this experiment can be done successfully, it tells us the recoil of the projectile is actually pushing against the Ether and not the base from which it was launched.  I think you would agree this to be a profound conclusion with wide implications.  Just imagine a motor that has no counter-torque.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
A question for you all.

Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy.But could it just be a case that the law has been misunderstood.

So my question is this--> Who here can accurately explain this law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
\
Give an example for each
1-What is the action?
2-What is the equal reaction?
3-what is the opposite reaction?

I want you to think very carefully about Q3.

"Most(if not all) here,will be of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of energy."

--rather,  "of the opinion that an inertia drive that provides a uni directional thrust or force in one direction(or most there of),is not achievable-it would break the law of the conservation of MOMENTUM"

I taught Newtonian mechanics for many years, along with other subjects and would be happy to take a shot at these questions (as I have time).

Newton's third law is basically a re-statement of the law of conservation of momentum.

Consider two masses in space, say an astronaut or spaceman S (mass M) and a space rock R (as big or small as you like, but call its mass m).  They are at rest with respect to (wrt) each other, and we (observer) are also at rest.  This is selected as a simple case; the momentum of both S and R  = zero.

Now the astronaut pushes R away and finds that he moves in the opposite direction.  Take the direction of the rock to be the + x direction, then,

Before the push:   MV= 0 = mv, and the sum (called the total momentum) = zero
After the push:  -MV = mv  (equation 1)

and the total momentum is still zero, MV + mv = zero.  S has a negative velocity since it moves in the - x direction. (Try not to get hung up on the negative sign, it is a matter of convention trying to keep the directions straight.)
 Note that the velocities are equal in magnitude only if the masses are equal.  In any case, the equation
 -MV = mv allows us to determine the V of the astronaut if we know v of R and the masses M and m.

Inertia is simply an inherent OBSERVED quality in physical objects to resist acceleration.  WHY masses resist acceleration (ie., inertia) is not well understood IMHO.

AC - note that your wall is attached to the earth, which is really just a BIG space rock, not fixed.  If the astronaut pushes on the wall, he goes one way and the earth goes the other way -- but it DOES move, it is not fixed.

To get the acceleration, assuming the astronaut gives a steady push (constant force), we simply divide both sides of equation 1 by the TIME (duration) during which the push occurs, until contact ends. I will call this t or often we use delta-t, but start the clock at zero and its simply t.

Then, Equation 2 is -MV/t = mv/t .
Now we add a definition of acceleration (constant in this simple case) as velocity/(time interval), and we have
Equation 3  -MA = ma , where A is the acceleration of the astronaut and a is the acceleration of the space rock.
Finally, we follow Newton's second law and recognize that force = mass x acceleration, so that
Equation 4   -F (on astronaut) = f (on the rock), and following from Eq 3 and Eq 4, we can say:

The forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, which is Newton's Third law.
 
The force on the rock (action) and the force on the astronaut (reaction) -- these are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.  Please note that the action and the reaction ALWAYS act on DIFFERENT objects (i.e., never on the same object).

To be brief (but potentially more confusing IMO):
Every action has an equal-and-opposite-in-direction reaction.

This is Newton's Third Law, and we see how it is derived from conservation of momentum.
« Last Edit: 2014-10-04, 05:33:26 by PhysicsProf »
   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-28, 21:36:51