Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671219 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-06-16 11:08 +1000 |
| Last post | 2026-06-18 10:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 66 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-16 11:08 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-15 21:33 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia *Attention - Odd Bodkin* The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-15 21:41 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-16 14:42 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-16 14:50 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-17 10:30 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 12:23 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 13:07 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 19:24 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 21:07 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 22:13 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-17 23:46 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 15:28 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-18 15:37 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-19 12:18 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-19 21:55 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 13:28 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:14 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 19:02 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 20:39 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-22 20:41 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 00:01 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 11:19 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 12:30 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 22:53 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 23:20 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 22:06 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 22:19 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-24 15:55 +0000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-24 12:49 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-18 08:17 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 10:56 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 10:21 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-18 12:17 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 01:15 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-17 22:04 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-18 10:47 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-18 14:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> - 2026-06-19 06:55 +1000
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-18 21:22 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-20 15:32 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 05:31 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 13:39 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:15 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 14:17 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-21 19:40 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-21 20:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-22 19:10 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-22 23:56 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 21:54 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 22:20 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 14:43 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 15:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 20:16 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 20:24 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 21:15 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-06-24 12:20 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 21:38 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-23 22:01 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-23 22:30 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 20:49 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 20:52 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-06-24 21:29 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-06-24 21:34 +0200
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-17 16:36 -0700
Re: The Relativity of Inertia The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-06-18 10:38 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-22 20:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <111bv66$1nt61$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #671286 |
Den 21.06.2026 20:39, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 6/21/2026 7:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> The question was: >> When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you. >> So how can you be accelerating? > > > So, is your point that according to NM a satellite > rotating around Earth is not accelerating? I am well aware of the fact that according to NM a weightless person orbiting the Earth is accelerating. But you missed the point. According to Newton's second law of motion the acceleration of a body with mass m is a = F/m where F is the force acting on the body. Example from the real world: A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before takeoff. If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of the seat is exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5)N = 280N = 63 pound. You are pushed against the backrest, so you can feel the force pushing your back. An accelerometer in your hand will show that your horizontal acceleration is 3.5 m/s². Fact: If you are accelerating horizontally on the ground, you can always feel the force that are accelerating you, and the accelerometer in your hand will show the acceleration you feel. When you are weightless orbiting the Earth, you can feel that no force is acting on you, and the accelerometer in your hand shows that your acceleration is zero. So how can NM claim that you are accelerating? Example from the real world: Sentripetal acceleration of a person in the ISS according to Newton: Orbital radius r = 6787km, orbital speed v = 7.67 km/s, centripetal acceleration a = v²/r = 8.67 m/s² That's almost 1g! A person with mass 80 kg should according to Newton's second law of motion feel the force F = ma = 693N = 156pound! But he is weightless and his accelerometer shows zero acceleration! Can you explain this paradox? Will you blame it on Einstein? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 00:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <18bb8642b47ef30a$103435$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #671292 |
On 6/22/2026 8:41 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 21.06.2026 20:39, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 6/21/2026 7:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> The question was: >>> When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you. >>> So how can you be accelerating? >> >> >> So, is your point that according to NM a satellite >> rotating around Earth is not accelerating? > > I am well aware of the fact that according to NM > a weightless person orbiting the Earth is accelerating. And you say and insist NM it's "confirmed" when velocities are much lower than c. Don't you, poor trash? Isn't it a case of velocities much lower than c? Well, your gurus lie, just like yourself. And they're too dumb to lie consequently, just like yourself. their "confirmation" bullshit is a very sorry bullshit, crumbling on touch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 11:19 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <111dim2$24li4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #671295 |
Den 23.06.2026 00:01, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 6/22/2026 8:41 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 21.06.2026 20:39, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 6/21/2026 7:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> The question was: >>>> When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you. >>>> So how can you be accelerating? >>> >>> >>> So, is your point that according to NM a satellite >>> rotating around Earth is not accelerating? >> >> I am well aware of the fact that according to NM >> a weightless person orbiting the Earth is accelerating. > > And you say and insist NM it's "confirmed" > when velocities are much lower than c. > Don't you, poor trash? Isn't it a case of > velocities much lower than c? Sure. NM predicts the orbits of satellites and planets quite precisely. It only miss on the advance of the planets' perihelion. > > Well, your gurus lie, just like yourself. And > they're too dumb to lie consequently, just > like yourself. their "confirmation" bullshit > is a very sorry bullshit, crumbling on touch. Any particular reason why you are babbling meaningless nonsense in stead of responding to what I wrote? Try again? According to Newton's second law of motion the acceleration of a body with mass m is a = F/m where F is the force acting on the body. Example from the real world: A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before takeoff. If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of the seat is exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5)N = 280N = 63 pound. You are pushed against the backrest, so you can feel the force pushing your back. An accelerometer in your hand will show that your horizontal acceleration is 3.5 m/s². Fact: If you are accelerating horizontally on the ground, you can always feel the force that are accelerating you, and the accelerometer in your hand will show the acceleration you feel. When you are weightless orbiting the Earth, you can feel that no force is acting on you, and the accelerometer in your hand shows that your acceleration is zero. So how can NM claim that you are accelerating? Example from the real world: Sentripetal acceleration of a person in the ISS according to Newton: Orbital radius r = 6787km, orbital speed v = 7.67 km/s, centripetal acceleration a = v²/r = 8.67 m/s² That's almost 1g! A person with mass 80 kg should according to Newton's second law of motion feel the force F = ma = 693N = 156pound! But he is weightless and his accelerometer shows zero acceleration! Can you explain this paradox? Will you blame it on Einstein? 😂 (GR always agree with the accelerometer.) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 12:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <18bbaf1b476a90bb$165920$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #671298 |
On 6/23/2026 11:19 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.06.2026 00:01, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 6/22/2026 8:41 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 21.06.2026 20:39, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 6/21/2026 7:02 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The question was: >>>>> When you are weightless, you can feel that no force is acting on you. >>>>> So how can you be accelerating? >>>> >>>> >>>> So, is your point that according to NM a satellite >>>> rotating around Earth is not accelerating? >>> >>> I am well aware of the fact that according to NM >>> a weightless person orbiting the Earth is accelerating. >> >> And you say and insist NM it's "confirmed" >> when velocities are much lower than c. >> Don't you, poor trash? Isn't it a case of >> velocities much lower than c? > > Sure. NM predicts the orbits of satellites > and planets quite precisely. And how about its predictions of their acceleration? >> >> Well, your gurus lie, just like yourself. And >> they're too dumb to lie consequently, just >> like yourself. their "confirmation" bullshit >> is a very sorry bullshit, crumbling on touch. > > Any particular reason why you are babbling > meaningless nonsense in stead of responding > to what I wrote? > Try again? > > According to Newton's second law of motion the acceleration > of a body with mass m is a = F/m where F is the force acting > on the body. > > Example from the real world: > A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before > takeoff. If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of > the seat is exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5)N = 280N = 63 pound. > You are pushed against the backrest, so you can feel the force > pushing your back. An accelerometer in your hand will show that > your horizontal acceleration is 3.5 m/s². > > Fact: > If you are accelerating horizontally on the ground, you can > always feel the force that are accelerating you, and the > accelerometer in your hand will show the acceleration you feel. And since when has your moronic religion cared about - some feeling? It's measurement which matters, isn't it? Now, if we measure the velocity of an Earth satellite - it will be changing, won't it? A change of velocity is called "acceleration", poor trash. Between sane people at least.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 22:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <111erb4$2gqmg$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #671299 |
Den 23.06.2026 12:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 6/23/2026 11:19 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Any particular reason why you are babbling >> meaningless nonsense in stead of responding >> to what I wrote? >> Try again? >> >> According to Newton's second law of motion the acceleration >> of a body with mass m is a = F/m where F is the force acting >> on the body. >> >> Example from the real world: >> A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before >> takeoff. If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of >> the seat is exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5)N = 280N = 63 pound. >> You are pushed against the backrest, so you can feel the force >> pushing your back. An accelerometer in your hand will show that >> your horizontal acceleration is 3.5 m/s². >> >> Fact: >> If you are accelerating horizontally on the ground, you can >> always feel the force that are accelerating you, and the >> accelerometer in your hand will show the acceleration you feel. >> >> When you are weightless orbiting the Earth, you can feel >> that no force is acting on you, and the accelerometer in your >> hand shows that your acceleration is zero. >> So how can NM claim that you are accelerating? >> >> Example from the real world: >> Sentripetal acceleration of a person in the ISS according to Newton: >> Orbital radius r = 6787km, orbital speed v = 7.67 km/s, >> centripetal acceleration a = v²/r = 8.67 m/s² >> That's almost 1g! A person with mass 80 kg should according to >> Newton's second law of motion feel the force F = ma = 693N = 156pound! >> >> But he is weightless and his accelerometer shows zero acceleration! >> >> Can you explain this paradox? Will you blame it on Einstein? 😂 >> >> (GR always agree with the accelerometer.) Why is it that you don't even try to give a sensible response? Is it too hard for you to explain why a weightless person can be accelerating? > > And since when has your moronic religion cared > about - some feeling? If you can feel the force, you can measure it. If you cannot feel the force, there is no force to measure. > It's measurement which matters, isn't it? Sure. If we measure the force acting on a satellite we find that it is zero. > Now, if we measure the velocity of an Earth > satellite - it will be changing, won't it? If the orbit is circular, the direction of the velocity changes, the speed is constant. > A change of velocity is called "acceleration", > poor trash. Between sane people at least. In this case the centripetal coordinate acceleration is towards Earth's centre. Given an accelerated frame of reference. If you have an object on which no force is acting, the coordinate acceleration of the object is equal to the proper acceleration of the frame of reference. That's why a weightless object with zero proper acceleration can have a coordinate acceleration. But this is way beyond you, so you will understand nothing. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-23 23:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <18bbd298c60438ff$185727$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #671305 |
On 6/23/2026 10:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.06.2026 12:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 6/23/2026 11:19 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Any particular reason why you are babbling >>> meaningless nonsense in stead of responding >>> to what I wrote? >>> Try again? >>> >>> According to Newton's second law of motion the acceleration >>> of a body with mass m is a = F/m where F is the force acting >>> on the body. >>> >>> Example from the real world: >>> A commercial aircraft will accelerate at a ≈ 3.5 m/s² before >>> takeoff. If your mass is m = 80kg, the force the backrest of >>> the seat is exerting on your back is F = (80⋅3.5)N = 280N = 63 pound. >>> You are pushed against the backrest, so you can feel the force >>> pushing your back. An accelerometer in your hand will show that >>> your horizontal acceleration is 3.5 m/s². >>> >>> Fact: >>> If you are accelerating horizontally on the ground, you can >>> always feel the force that are accelerating you, and the >>> accelerometer in your hand will show the acceleration you feel. >>> >>> When you are weightless orbiting the Earth, you can feel >>> that no force is acting on you, and the accelerometer in your >>> hand shows that your acceleration is zero. >>> So how can NM claim that you are accelerating? >>> >>> Example from the real world: >>> Sentripetal acceleration of a person in the ISS according to Newton: >>> Orbital radius r = 6787km, orbital speed v = 7.67 km/s, >>> centripetal acceleration a = v²/r = 8.67 m/s² >>> That's almost 1g! A person with mass 80 kg should according to >>> Newton's second law of motion feel the force F = ma = 693N = 156pound! >>> >>> But he is weightless and his accelerometer shows zero acceleration! >>> >>> Can you explain this paradox? Will you blame it on Einstein? 😂 >>> >>> (GR always agree with the accelerometer.) > > Why is it that you don't even try to give a sensible > response? > > Is it too hard for you to explain why a weightless person > can be accelerating? > >> >> And since when has your moronic religion cared >> about - some feeling? > > If you can feel the force, you can measure it. > If you cannot feel the force, there is no force to measure. A baseles assertion of a brainwashed idiot must be true, of course. Newtonian mechanics is asserting otherwise, however - and you insist it's "confirmed" in our circumstances. Anyway - there is still a change of velocity (i.e. acceleration) to measure. > >> It's measurement which matters, isn't it? > > Sure. > If we measure the force acting on a satellite > we find that it is zero. And if we measure its velocity - it's changing. A change of velocity is called "acceleration", poor trash. At least - between sane people.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 22:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <111hcua$3823d$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #671308 |
Den 23.06.2026 23:20, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 6/23/2026 10:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> If you can feel the force, you can measure it. >> If you cannot feel the force, there is no force to measure. > > > A baseles assertion of a brainwashed idiot must be > true, of course. Newtonian mechanics is asserting > otherwise, however - and you insist it's > "confirmed" in our circumstances. If you are sitting in an aircraft or car and the spring scale behind your back is showing that the force acting on you is F = 280 N and your mass m = 80 kg, then your proper horizontal acceleration is a = F/m = 3.5 m/s². You can feel this horizontal force. If you are sitting in an aircraft or car and the spring scale behind your back is showing that the force acting on you is F = 0 N and your mass m = 80 kg, then your proper horizontal acceleration is a = F/m = 0 m/s². You can feel that no horizontal force is acting on you. If you are sitting in a spacecraft orbiting the Earth and the spring scale show F = 0 N and your mass m = 80 kg, then your proper acceleration is a = F/m = 0 m/s². You can feel that no force is acting on you. Case closed. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 22:19 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <18bc1dd2f44c66de$251464$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #671324 |
On 6/24/2026 10:06 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.06.2026 23:20, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 6/23/2026 10:53 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> If you can feel the force, you can measure it. >>> If you cannot feel the force, there is no force to measure. >> >> >> A baseles assertion of a brainwashed idiot must be >> true, of course. Newtonian mechanics is asserting >> otherwise, however - and you insist it's >> "confirmed" in our circumstances. > > If you are sitting in an aircraft or car and > the spring scale behind your back is showing > that the force acting on you is F = 280 N and > your mass m = 80 kg, then your proper horizontal > acceleration is a = F/m = 3.5 m/s². > You can feel this horizontal force. > > If you are sitting in an aircraft or car and > the spring scale behind your back is showing > that the force acting on you is F = 0 N and > your mass m = 80 kg, then your proper horizontal > acceleration is a = F/m = 0 m/s². > You can feel that no horizontal force is acting on you. > > If you are sitting in a spacecraft orbiting the Earth > and the spring scale show F = 0 N and your mass m = 80 kg, > then your proper acceleration is a = F/m = 0 m/s². > You can feel that no force is acting on you. > > Case closed. Sure, sure, and a proper shark eats grass; if it doesn't want to - it must be improper. Still, about forces, NM is asserting the opposite to some of your assertions - and you insist it's "confirmed" in our circumstances.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 15:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <1782316505-12588@newsgrouper.org> |
| In reply to | #671305 |
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> posted: > Den 23.06.2026 12:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: [ Lots of junk ] > > That's why a weightless object with zero proper acceleration > can have a coordinate acceleration. > > But this is way beyond you, so you will understand nothing. > I think by now we all (including non-physicists like me) know that Maciej Woźniak is a nutter. Is it worthwhile devoting a lot of time to analysing his idiocy? -- athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-24 12:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <6A3C34CE.3492@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #671313 |
athel.cb@gmail.com wrote: > > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> posted: > > > Den 23.06.2026 12:30, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > > [ Lots of junk ] > > > > That's why a weightless object with zero proper acceleration > > can have a coordinate acceleration. > > > > But this is way beyond you, so you will understand nothing. > > > I think by now we all (including non-physicists like me) know that Maciej Woźniak > is a nutter. Is it worthwhile devoting a lot of time to analysing his idiocy? > > -- > athel As much time you yourself give it... are you one of those 'do as i say, not as i do'...you fucking hypocrite! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 08:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <eKGcnR5rHpbFkan3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #671261 |
On 06/18/2026 06:28 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 17.06.2026 23:46, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> >> According >> to NM a free-falling object is no way inertial. >> According to The Shit of your idiot guru it >> absolutely is inertial. Let me guess - both >> of these are "confirmed"? >> > > > You are free-falling in a spaceship with no windows. > You may be orbiting the Earth, be on your way to Sirrius, > or falling towards the Earth. You don't know. > Your accelerometer say your acceleration is zero. > > Are you accelerating, or are inertial? > > > Well, you're always inertial, .... "Relativity theory", as Einstein put it, is "an inertial-system". You can release a bunch of gyroscopes and eventually one of them will tip and you're in a gravity well or they won't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 10:56 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <52db9323-fae2-450e-8b59-4723bddbdc07@zenodo.com> |
| In reply to | #671244 |
On 6/18/2026 3:24 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 17.06.2026 13:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 6/17/2026 12:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> >>> Remember: >>> Newtonian mechanics from Newton's three laws of motion >>> is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds >>> are small compared to the speed of light. >> >> According to NM a free-falling object is >> no way inertial. Is it really so thoroughly >> "confirmed", poor brainwashed idiot? >> >> > > Do you claim NM is not thoroughly "confirmed"? > No. And the paper makes no such claim. Newtonian mechanics is thoroughly confirmed experimentally and the paper does not challenge that confirmation in any way. What is proposed is a system-level accounting tool built from and on top of NM (not a replacement for it, not a correction and not a challenge of NM experimental verfications). Every equation in the paper is derived from Newton's own laws. It depends on NM, not refutes it. It's a bit like Lagrangian mech in the 18th Century, which did not challenge NM, but instead offered an alternative mathematical framework for solving problems in CM. Newton's laws are the explicit foundation for Relational Inertia. Every equation in the paper is derived from them. Yanick Borg -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 10:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <oNNYR.17146$1PZ8.5705@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #671253 |
Den 18.06.2026 02:56, skrev Y: > On 6/18/2026 3:24 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 17.06.2026 13:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>> On 6/17/2026 12:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Remember: >>>> Newtonian mechanics from Newton's three laws of motion >>>> is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds >>>> are small compared to the speed of light. >>> >>> According to NM a free-falling object is >>> no way inertial. Is it really so thoroughly >>> "confirmed", poor brainwashed idiot? >>> >>> >> >> Do you claim NM is not thoroughly "confirmed"? >> > > > No. And the paper makes no such claim. Newtonian mechanics is thoroughly > confirmed experimentally and the paper does not challenge that > confirmation in any way. This was not for you, Yanick It was a response to Maciej Woźniak who yet again has shot himself in the foot. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 12:17 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <18ba257e122b59a4$15652$2300$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #671257 |
On 6/18/2026 10:21 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.06.2026 02:56, skrev Y: >> On 6/18/2026 3:24 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 17.06.2026 13:07, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >>>> On 6/17/2026 12:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Remember: >>>>> Newtonian mechanics from Newton's three laws of motion >>>>> is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds >>>>> are small compared to the speed of light. >>>> >>>> According to NM a free-falling object is >>>> no way inertial. Is it really so thoroughly >>>> "confirmed", poor brainwashed idiot? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Do you claim NM is not thoroughly "confirmed"? >>> >> >> >> No. And the paper makes no such claim. Newtonian mechanics is >> thoroughly confirmed experimentally and the paper does not challenge >> that confirmation in any way. > > This was not for you, Yanick > > It was a response to Maciej Woźniak who yet again has shot himself > in the foot. Well, since Paul B.Andersen was yet again unable to answer a simple question - he's yet again trying to substitute it with some delusional spitting. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 01:15 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <90abbf0c-1b6d-4ff4-9266-317a9c34ae11@zenodo.com> |
| In reply to | #671241 |
On 6/17/2026 8:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 17.06.2026 02:30, skrev Y: >> On 6/16/2026 10:42 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 16.06.2026 03:08, skrev Y: >>>> Below is the link to my Relativity of Inertia paper. >>>> https://zenodo.org/records/20453334 >>>> >>> >>> Quote from 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary >>> >>> "Consider two bodies, A and B, in continuous contact. >>> By Newton's Third Law, they exert upon each other an >>> equal and opposite reaction force of 500 N at their shared >>> contact boundary. Body A has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B >>> has invariant mass 3000 kg." >>> >>> Two possible scenarios: >>> >>> #1: An external force F = 633.33 N is exerted on body A >>> and both bodies will accelerate at 0.1667 m/s². >>> (Body B is accelerated by 500 N) >>> >>> #2: An external force F = 2375 N is exerted on body B >>> and both bodies will accelerate at 0.625 m/s² >>> (Body A is accelerated by 500 N) >>> >>> You can't have both at the same time. >>> >>> >>> Quote from "refutation of anticipated objections" >>> >>> "The scenario is physically equivalent to two bodies pressing >>> against each other — each exerting 500 N on the other — and >>> asking what acceleration their shared contact point undergoes >>> given their combined mass." >>> >>> One possible scenario: >>> #3: A force 500 N is exerted on body A. >>> A force 500 N is exerted on body B in opposite direction. >>> The acceleration of both bodies is zero. >>> >>> >>> You cannot have a reaction force without a force. >>> Perpetuum mobile doesn't exist. >>> >> >> >> Your point is correct as statement of Newton's third law, but it >> supports the framework, not undermines it. >> >> Newton's Third Law does not say a reaction force exists in isolation >> or as a sequence. It says that whenever a force exists between two >> bodies, there is simultaneously an equal and opposite reaction force. > > Right. > But you cannot have two forces which are reaction forces > to each other. > > Remember: > Newtonian mechanic from Newton's three laws of motion > is thoroughly confirmed as long the involved speeds > are small compared to the speed of light. > > There are only three ways you can have two equal forces > between two objects. (Or combinations of the three ways.) > > Let's see these ways in detail: > > Mass of body A: Ma = 800 kg > Mass of body B: Mb = 3000 kg > > #1: > An external force F1 is exerted on body A. > Body A exerts a force F2 on body B. > Body B exerts a force F3 on body A. > Body A exerts a force F4 on the object that exerted the force F1 on it. > > F4 is reaction force to F1. F4 = F1 > F3 is reaction force to F2. F3 = F2 > Given: F3 = F2 = 500N > > Acceleration of body B: Ab = F2/Mb = (500/3000)m/s² = 0.1667 m/s² > Acceleration of body A: Aa = 0.1667 m/s² > The force F5 accelerating body A: F5 = Aa⋅Ma = 0.1667⋅800N = 133.33N > F1 = F5+F3 = 633.33 N > > We can let an external force accelerate body B > and do the same calculations: > > #2: An external force F = 2375 N is exerted on body B > and both bodies will accelerate at 0.625 m/s² > (Body A is accelerated by 500 N) > > #3: A force Fa = 500 N is exerted on body A. > A force Fb = 500 N is exerted on body B. > Body A exerts a force Fra = 500 N on body B. > Body B exerts a force Frb = 500 N on body A. > Fra is reaction force to Fb, Fra = Fb > Frb is reaction force to Fa, Frb = Fa > Net force on body A = Fa - Frb = 0 N > Net force on body B = Fb - Fra = 0 N > Acceleration of both bodies = 0 m/s² > > >> >> A simultaneous mutual interaction. In the worked example, bodies A and >> B are in contact and interacting. The 500N force A and B are exerting >> are the same interaction described from two perspectives simultaneously. > > The three possible perspectives are described above. > >> >> The contact itself is the event; the equal and opposite forces are its >> two faces. > > The contact is permanent. Not an event. > >> >> This is why what I propose is on solid ground. It does not require an >> external driving force to be specified separately. The interaction >> between the bodies (whatever its physical origin) produces the equal >> opposite reaction force pair at the contact boundary by definition of >> Newton's Third Law. > > Nonsense. > If you put two bodies in contact with each other without > external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies. > > Quote from 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary > "Applying Newton's Second Law individually to each body in isolation: > > Body A: 500 N = 800 kg × a => a = 0.625 m/s² > Body B: 500 N = 3000 kg × a' => a'= 0.1667 m/s² > > In standard Newtonian mechanics these two results reflect > the individual free-body analysis of each mass under the > contact force." > > This is nonsense. You cannot have what you call a "contact force" > between the bodies without external forces. > (When the bodies are electrically neutral and without magnetism.) > > You are claiming that two bodies repel each other. > Free energy!! > >> >> Two classical bodies making contact do not necessarily fuse into a >> single undifferentiated lump of matter. The framework does not claim >> the two bodies become one body. It claims that for the duration of the >> force interaction at the contact boundary, they constitute a single >> dynamical system with a shared acceleration. > > Quite. > As explained in the three perspectives above. > >> >> Yanick Borg >> >> -y >> > > Sorry Yanick. > > I have not read your whole paper, I stopped at your claims about > Newton's third law in the introduction. > > With such a wrong starting point your theory can not be meaningful. > > Thankyou for taking the time to engage with the paper, and raise the objections. This kind of scrutiny is exactly what strengthens the work. You raise two points, both of which I agree needs to be made clearer in section 3. Your points as I understand them. Point 1: "If you put two bodies in contact with each other without external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies." Point 2: "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without external forces. You are claiming two bodies repel each other. Free energy!!" Both points rest on the same misunderstanding, and it is a straightforward one to correct. The paper does not claim two bodies spontaneously generate a force by being placed next to each other. The 500 N is not conjured from nothing. It is the force arising from whatever physical scenario caused the bodies to be in contact and pressing against each other, a push, a collision, a compression, a driven mechanism. The scenario presupposes an interaction is occurring. That is the whole point: the framework applies to bodies that are interacting, not to bodies sitting passively adjacent to one another. When two bodies are actively pressing against each other, for whatever reason, Newton's Third Law mandates that the force each exerts on the other is equal and opposite. That is the contact force. It is not free energy. It is not spontaneous repulsion. It is the Third Law applied to an active interaction. Maybe you read "bodies in contact" as "bodies merely touching while at rest relative to each other." ? The paper means "bodies actively exerting force upon each other at their shared boundary." The distinction needs to be stated more explicitly in Section 3. kind regards Yanick Borg -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-17 22:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <w_CYR.44461$b6%c.24378@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #671243 |
Den 17.06.2026 17:15, skrev Y:
> On 6/17/2026 8:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
https://zenodo.org/records/20453334
>> I have not read your whole paper, I stopped at your claims about
>> Newton's third law in the introduction.
>>
>> With such a wrong starting point your theory can not be meaningful.
>>
>>
>
> Thank you for taking the time to engage with the paper, and raise the
> objections. This kind of scrutiny is exactly what strengthens the work.
> You raise two points, both of which I agree needs to be made clearer in
> section 3.
>
> Your points as I understand them.
>
> Point 1: "If you put two bodies in contact with each other without
> external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies."
> Point 2: "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without
> external forces. You are claiming two bodies repel each other. Free
> energy!!"
I interpret this to mean that you have realised that according
to Newtons laws of motion:
"You cannot have a contact force between bodies without
external forces."
>
> Both points rest on the same misunderstanding, and it is a
> straightforward one to correct.
I think you know that "you cannot have a contact force between
bodies without external forces" is no misunderstanding.
>
> The paper does not claim two bodies spontaneously generate a force by
> being placed next to each other. The 500 N is not conjured from nothing.
> It is the force arising from whatever physical scenario caused the
> bodies to be in contact and pressing against each other, a push, a
> collision, a compression, a driven mechanism. The scenario presupposes
> an interaction is occurring. That is the whole point: the framework
> applies to bodies that are interacting, not to bodies sitting passively
> adjacent to one another.
Right.
The 500 N is not conjured from nothing. It is the force arising
from whatever physical scenario caused the bodies to be in contact
and pressing against each other, a push, a collision, a compression,
a driven mechanism.
In other words: The two opposing 500 N forces are caused by
external forces.
>
> When two bodies are actively pressing against each other, for whatever
> reason, Newton's Third Law mandates that the force each exerts on the
> other is equal and opposite. That is the contact force. It is not free
> energy. It is not spontaneous repulsion. It is the Third Law applied to
> an active interaction.
Right.
>
> Maybe you read "bodies in contact" as "bodies merely touching while at
> rest relative to each other." ? The paper means "bodies actively
> exerting force upon each other at their shared boundary." The
> distinction needs to be stated more explicitly in Section 3.
You said:
"The framework does not claim the two bodies become one body.
It claims that for the duration of the force interaction at
the contact boundary, they constitute a single dynamical system
with a shared acceleration."
The two bodies "constitute a single dynamical system" only if no
external forces is acting on them, and then the "shared acceleration"
is zero.
The "single dynamical system" consists of the two bodies A and B and
the external forces acting on them.
Quotation from: 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary
"Consider two bodies, A and B, in continuous contact. By Newton's
Third Law, they exert upon each other an equal and opposite
reaction force of 500 N at their shared contact boundary. Body A
has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B has invariant mass 3000 kg.
This reaction force is not an arbitrary external imposition —
it is the force mandated by Newton's Third Law as the mutual
consequence of the bodies' interaction. Applying Newton's Second
Law individually to each body in isolation:
Body A: 500 N = 800 kg × a => a = 0.625 m/s²
Body B: 500 N = 3000 kg × a' => a' = 0.1667 m/s²
In standard Newtonian mechanics these two results reflect the
individual free-body analysis of each mass under the contact force."
Applying Newton's Second Law individually to each body in isolation
is meaningless!
Either body A and body B are both accelerated at 0.625 m/s²
or both are accelerated at 0.1667 m/s².
The acceleration of body A and body B can never be different!
If body A is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is
a = (500/800)m/s² = 0.625 m/s², and the external force acting on
body B is Fb = (3000⋅0.625 + 500)N = 2375 N.
a = Fb/(3000+800)N = 0.625 m/s² Check!
If body B is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is
a = (500/3000)m/s² = 0.1667 m/s², and the external force acting on
body A is Fa = (800⋅0.1667 + 500)N = 633.33 N.
a = Fa/(3000+800)N = 0.1667 m/s² Check!
Basing a theory on that the "contact force" can accelerate two
bodies with different masses differently is hopeless.
Sorry.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 10:47 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <b016f6aa-3d5b-4d3f-8036-74462847700b@zenodo.com> |
| In reply to | #671248 |
On 6/18/2026 6:04 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 17.06.2026 17:15, skrev Y: >> On 6/17/2026 8:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > https://zenodo.org/records/20453334 > >>> I have not read your whole paper, I stopped at your claims about >>> Newton's third law in the introduction. >>> >>> With such a wrong starting point your theory can not be meaningful. >>> >>> >> >> Thank you for taking the time to engage with the paper, and raise the >> objections. This kind of scrutiny is exactly what strengthens the >> work. You raise two points, both of which I agree needs to be made >> clearer in section 3. >> >> Your points as I understand them. >> >> Point 1: "If you put two bodies in contact with each other without >> external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies." >> Point 2: "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without >> external forces. You are claiming two bodies repel each other. Free >> energy!!" > > I interpret this to mean that you have realised that according > to Newtons laws of motion: > "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without > external forces." > >> >> Both points rest on the same misunderstanding, and it is a >> straightforward one to correct. > > I think you know that "you cannot have a contact force between > bodies without external forces" is no misunderstanding. > >> >> The paper does not claim two bodies spontaneously generate a force by >> being placed next to each other. The 500 N is not conjured from >> nothing. It is the force arising from whatever physical scenario >> caused the bodies to be in contact and pressing against each other, a >> push, a collision, a compression, a driven mechanism. The scenario >> presupposes an interaction is occurring. That is the whole point: the >> framework applies to bodies that are interacting, not to bodies >> sitting passively adjacent to one another. > > Right. > The 500 N is not conjured from nothing. It is the force arising > from whatever physical scenario caused the bodies to be in contact > and pressing against each other, a push, a collision, a compression, > a driven mechanism. > > In other words: The two opposing 500 N forces are caused by > external forces. > >> >> When two bodies are actively pressing against each other, for whatever >> reason, Newton's Third Law mandates that the force each exerts on the >> other is equal and opposite. That is the contact force. It is not free >> energy. It is not spontaneous repulsion. It is the Third Law applied >> to an active interaction. > > Right. > >> >> Maybe you read "bodies in contact" as "bodies merely touching while at >> rest relative to each other." ? The paper means "bodies actively >> exerting force upon each other at their shared boundary." The >> distinction needs to be stated more explicitly in Section 3. > > You said: > "The framework does not claim the two bodies become one body. > It claims that for the duration of the force interaction at > the contact boundary, they constitute a single dynamical system > with a shared acceleration." > > The two bodies "constitute a single dynamical system" only if no > external forces is acting on them, and then the "shared acceleration" > is zero. > > The "single dynamical system" consists of the two bodies A and B and > the external forces acting on them. > > Quotation from: 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary > > "Consider two bodies, A and B, in continuous contact. By Newton's > Third Law, they exert upon each other an equal and opposite > reaction force of 500 N at their shared contact boundary. Body A > has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B has invariant mass 3000 kg. > This reaction force is not an arbitrary external imposition — > it is the force mandated by Newton's Third Law as the mutual > consequence of the bodies' interaction. Applying Newton's Second > Law individually to each body in isolation: > Body A: 500 N = 800 kg × a => a = 0.625 m/s² > Body B: 500 N = 3000 kg × a' => a' = 0.1667 m/s² > In standard Newtonian mechanics these two results reflect the > individual free-body analysis of each mass under the contact force." > > Applying Newton's Second Law individually to each body in isolation > is meaningless! > > Either body A and body B are both accelerated at 0.625 m/s² > or both are accelerated at 0.1667 m/s². > The acceleration of body A and body B can never be different! > > If body A is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is > a = (500/800)m/s² = 0.625 m/s², and the external force acting on > body B is Fb = (3000⋅0.625 + 500)N = 2375 N. > a = Fb/(3000+800)N = 0.625 m/s² Check! > > If body B is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is > a = (500/3000)m/s² = 0.1667 m/s², and the external force acting on > body A is Fa = (800⋅0.1667 + 500)N = 633.33 N. > a = Fa/(3000+800)N = 0.1667 m/s² Check! > > Basing a theory on that the "contact force" can accelerate two > bodies with different masses differently is hopeless. > > Sorry. > Dear Paul Thank you again for the continued and careful engagement — it is genuinely appreciated. You are correct on the presentation point. Section 3 does not make sufficiently explicit that the 500 N is an external force applied to the system at the contact boundary, rather than a spontaneously generated internal force. That clarification will be made in the next revision, and we acknowledge it as a legitimate observation. However, your calculations do not defeat the framework, they confirm it. You demonstrate that applying an external force to one body alone produces accelerations of either 0.625 or 0.1667 m/s² depending on which body receives it. These are precisely the individual free-body results the paper presents. What your calculations do not address is the scenario the paper actually describes: an external force applied to the system as a whole at the contact boundary, from which aP = F / M = 500 / 3800 ≈ 0.1316 m/s² follows directly from Newton's Second Law. The deeper point, however, is this. You state that the acceleration of body A and body B can never be different. We agree, and Newton's First Law tells us precisely why. Newton's First Law states that a body remains in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. The force is acting during the contact interaction. Therefore the acceleration — the change in motion — occurs during the contact, not after it. For the entire duration that the two bodies are in contact and the force is being applied, they are co-moving. They share the same change in velocity over the same interval of time. This is not an assumption of the framework. It is a direct consequence of Newton's First Law applied to the interaction phase. Two bodies that are co-moving during an applied force must share a single acceleration. Not 0.625 m/s². Not 0.1667 m/s². The system-level value aP = 0.1316 m/s². This is the value the framework derives, and it follows from Newton's own laws without any additional assumptions. The individual free-body results of 0.625 and 0.1667 m/s² are what prompted the framework in the first place — they cannot both be correct for a co-moving system, and Newton's First Law confirms they are not. The system-level acceleration is the physically meaningful quantity, and the relational inertia framework is the tool for deriving it. Yanick Borg -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 14:38 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <NyRYR.78951$_kO9.74323@fx02.ams4> |
| In reply to | #671252 |
Den 18.06.2026 02:47, skrev Y: > On 6/18/2026 6:04 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 17.06.2026 17:15, skrev Y: >>> On 6/17/2026 8:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> https://zenodo.org/records/20453334 >> >>>> I have not read your whole paper, I stopped at your claims about >>>> Newton's third law in the introduction. >>>> >>>> With such a wrong starting point your theory can not be meaningful. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Thank you for taking the time to engage with the paper, and raise the >>> objections. This kind of scrutiny is exactly what strengthens the >>> work. You raise two points, both of which I agree needs to be made >>> clearer in section 3. >>> >>> Your points as I understand them. >>> >>> Point 1: "If you put two bodies in contact with each other without >>> external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies." >>> Point 2: "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without >>> external forces. You are claiming two bodies repel each other. Free >>> energy!!" >> >> I interpret this to mean that you have realised that according >> to Newtons laws of motion: >> "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without >> external forces." >> >>> >>> Both points rest on the same misunderstanding, and it is a >>> straightforward one to correct. >> >> I think you know that "you cannot have a contact force between >> bodies without external forces" is no misunderstanding. >> >>> >>> The paper does not claim two bodies spontaneously generate a force by >>> being placed next to each other. The 500 N is not conjured from >>> nothing. It is the force arising from whatever physical scenario >>> caused the bodies to be in contact and pressing against each other, a >>> push, a collision, a compression, a driven mechanism. The scenario >>> presupposes an interaction is occurring. That is the whole point: the >>> framework applies to bodies that are interacting, not to bodies >>> sitting passively adjacent to one another. >> >> Right. >> The 500 N is not conjured from nothing. It is the force arising >> from whatever physical scenario caused the bodies to be in contact >> and pressing against each other, a push, a collision, a compression, >> a driven mechanism. >> >> In other words: The two opposing 500 N forces are caused by >> external forces. >> >>> >>> When two bodies are actively pressing against each other, for >>> whatever reason, Newton's Third Law mandates that the force each >>> exerts on the other is equal and opposite. That is the contact force. >>> It is not free energy. It is not spontaneous repulsion. It is the >>> Third Law applied to an active interaction. >> >> Right. >> >>> >>> Maybe you read "bodies in contact" as "bodies merely touching while >>> at rest relative to each other." ? The paper means "bodies actively >>> exerting force upon each other at their shared boundary." The >>> distinction needs to be stated more explicitly in Section 3. >> >> You said: >> "The framework does not claim the two bodies become one body. >> It claims that for the duration of the force interaction at >> the contact boundary, they constitute a single dynamical system >> with a shared acceleration." >> >> The two bodies "constitute a single dynamical system" only if no >> external forces is acting on them, and then the "shared acceleration" >> is zero. >> >> The "single dynamical system" consists of the two bodies A and B and >> the external forces acting on them. >> >> Quotation from: 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary >> >> "Consider two bodies, A and B, in continuous contact. By Newton's >> Third Law, they exert upon each other an equal and opposite >> reaction force of 500 N at their shared contact boundary. Body A >> has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B has invariant mass 3000 kg. >> This reaction force is not an arbitrary external imposition — >> it is the force mandated by Newton's Third Law as the mutual >> consequence of the bodies' interaction. Applying Newton's Second >> Law individually to each body in isolation: >> Body A: 500 N = 800 kg × a => a = 0.625 m/s² >> Body B: 500 N = 3000 kg × a' => a' = 0.1667 m/s² >> In standard Newtonian mechanics these two results reflect the >> individual free-body analysis of each mass under the contact force." >> >> Applying Newton's Second Law individually to each body in isolation >> is meaningless! >> >> Either body A and body B are both accelerated at 0.625 m/s² >> or both are accelerated at 0.1667 m/s². >> The acceleration of body A and body B can never be different! >> >> If body A is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is >> a = (500/800)m/s² = 0.625 m/s², and the external force acting on >> body B is Fb = (3000⋅0.625 + 500)N = 2375 N. >> a = Fb/(3000+800)N = 0.625 m/s² Check! >> >> If body B is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is >> a = (500/3000)m/s² = 0.1667 m/s², and the external force acting on >> body A is Fa = (800⋅0.1667 + 500)N = 633.33 N. >> a = Fa/(3000+800)N = 0.1667 m/s² Check! >> >> Basing a theory on that the "contact force" can accelerate two >> bodies with different masses differently is hopeless. >> >> Sorry. >> > > Dear Paul > > Thank you again for the continued and careful engagement — it is > genuinely appreciated. > > You are correct on the presentation point. Section 3 does not make > sufficiently explicit that the 500 N is an external force applied to the > system at the contact boundary, rather than a spontaneously generated > internal force. That clarification will be made in the next revision, > and we acknowledge it as a legitimate observation. > > However, your calculations do not defeat the framework, they confirm it. > You demonstrate that applying an external force to one body alone > produces accelerations of either 0.625 or 0.1667 m/s² depending on which > body receives it. These are precisely the individual free-body results > the paper presents. > What your calculations do not address is the > scenario the paper actually describes: an external force applied to the > system as a whole at the contact boundary, from which aP = F / M = 500 / > 3800 ≈ 0.1316 m/s² follows directly from Newton's Second Law. Of course I don't address what is impossible. You cannot apply an external force in the contact boundary of two bodies touching each other. You can of course put two jet engines between two objects, pushing both bodies with a force F = 500 N. So what would happen? Let's assume that both bodies initially are stationary in our frame of reference. We start the engines. Body A is accelerating at aA = F/800kg = 0.625 m/s² Body B is accelerating at aB = F/3000kg = 0.1667 m/s² The bodies are moving away from each other! How will you insert two opposing external forces both 500 N, in the boundary between the two bodies, and make the bodies accelerate at 0.1316 m/s² in the same direction? Sorry! This is nonsense! > > The deeper point, however, is this. You state that the acceleration of > body A and body B can never be different. We agree, and Newton's First > Law tells us precisely why. > > Newton's First Law states that a body remains in uniform motion unless > acted upon by a force. The force is acting during the contact > interaction. Therefore the acceleration — the change in motion — occurs > during the contact, not after it. For the entire duration that the two > bodies are in contact and the force is being applied, they are co- > moving. They share the same change in velocity over the same interval of > time. This is not an assumption of the framework. It is a direct > consequence of Newton's First Law applied to the interaction phase. Obvious trivialities! > > Two bodies that are co-moving during an applied force must share a > single acceleration. Not 0.625 m/s². Not 0.1667 m/s². The system-level > value aP = 0.1316 m/s². This is the value the framework derives, and it > follows from Newton's own laws without any additional assumptions. If the two bodies are accelerated by an external force F = 500 N, then the acceleration of the system is aP = 0.1316 m/s², obviously! If the force F is applied on body A then the force accelerating body B is Fb = aP⋅3000kg = 394.74 N The force that is accelerating body A is Fa = F-Fb = 105.26 N Fa/800kg = 0.1316 m/s² Check! The two opposing forces in the contact boundary are both 394.74 N. If the force F is applied on body B then the force accelerating body A is Fa = aP⋅800kg = 105.26 N The force that is accelerating body B is Fb = F-Fa = 394.74 N Fb/3000kg = 0.1316 m/s² Check! The two opposing forces in the contact boundary are both 105 N. > > The individual free-body results of 0.625 and 0.1667 m/s² are what > prompted the framework in the first place — they cannot both be correct > for a co-moving system, and Newton's First Law confirms they are not. > The system-level acceleration is the physically meaningful quantity, and > the relational inertia framework is the tool for deriving it. The system level acceleration is 0.1316 if the system is accelerated by an external force 500 N. The two opposing forces are then either 105.26 N or 394.74 N, not 500 N. So what's new since 1687? Give it up! You cannot reinterpret Newton's laws of motion. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-19 06:55 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <e33df4ba-07d0-4047-950c-c66e6cc45d50@zenodo.com> |
| In reply to | #671259 |
On 6/18/2026 10:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 18.06.2026 02:47, skrev Y: >> On 6/18/2026 6:04 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> Den 17.06.2026 17:15, skrev Y: >>>> On 6/17/2026 8:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> https://zenodo.org/records/20453334 >>> >>>>> I have not read your whole paper, I stopped at your claims about >>>>> Newton's third law in the introduction. >>>>> >>>>> With such a wrong starting point your theory can not be meaningful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for taking the time to engage with the paper, and raise >>>> the objections. This kind of scrutiny is exactly what strengthens >>>> the work. You raise two points, both of which I agree needs to be >>>> made clearer in section 3. >>>> >>>> Your points as I understand them. >>>> >>>> Point 1: "If you put two bodies in contact with each other without >>>> external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies." >>>> Point 2: "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without >>>> external forces. You are claiming two bodies repel each other. Free >>>> energy!!" >>> >>> I interpret this to mean that you have realised that according >>> to Newtons laws of motion: >>> "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without >>> external forces." >>> >>>> >>>> Both points rest on the same misunderstanding, and it is a >>>> straightforward one to correct. >>> >>> I think you know that "you cannot have a contact force between >>> bodies without external forces" is no misunderstanding. >>> >>>> >>>> The paper does not claim two bodies spontaneously generate a force >>>> by being placed next to each other. The 500 N is not conjured from >>>> nothing. It is the force arising from whatever physical scenario >>>> caused the bodies to be in contact and pressing against each other, >>>> a push, a collision, a compression, a driven mechanism. The scenario >>>> presupposes an interaction is occurring. That is the whole point: >>>> the framework applies to bodies that are interacting, not to bodies >>>> sitting passively adjacent to one another. >>> >>> Right. >>> The 500 N is not conjured from nothing. It is the force arising >>> from whatever physical scenario caused the bodies to be in contact >>> and pressing against each other, a push, a collision, a compression, >>> a driven mechanism. >>> >>> In other words: The two opposing 500 N forces are caused by >>> external forces. >>> >>>> >>>> When two bodies are actively pressing against each other, for >>>> whatever reason, Newton's Third Law mandates that the force each >>>> exerts on the other is equal and opposite. That is the contact >>>> force. It is not free energy. It is not spontaneous repulsion. It is >>>> the Third Law applied to an active interaction. >>> >>> Right. >>> >>>> >>>> Maybe you read "bodies in contact" as "bodies merely touching while >>>> at rest relative to each other." ? The paper means "bodies actively >>>> exerting force upon each other at their shared boundary." The >>>> distinction needs to be stated more explicitly in Section 3. >>> >>> You said: >>> "The framework does not claim the two bodies become one body. >>> It claims that for the duration of the force interaction at >>> the contact boundary, they constitute a single dynamical system >>> with a shared acceleration." >>> >>> The two bodies "constitute a single dynamical system" only if no >>> external forces is acting on them, and then the "shared acceleration" >>> is zero. >>> >>> The "single dynamical system" consists of the two bodies A and B and >>> the external forces acting on them. >>> >>> Quotation from: 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary >>> >>> "Consider two bodies, A and B, in continuous contact. By Newton's >>> Third Law, they exert upon each other an equal and opposite >>> reaction force of 500 N at their shared contact boundary. Body A >>> has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B has invariant mass 3000 kg. >>> This reaction force is not an arbitrary external imposition — >>> it is the force mandated by Newton's Third Law as the mutual >>> consequence of the bodies' interaction. Applying Newton's Second >>> Law individually to each body in isolation: >>> Body A: 500 N = 800 kg × a => a = 0.625 m/s² >>> Body B: 500 N = 3000 kg × a' => a' = 0.1667 m/s² >>> In standard Newtonian mechanics these two results reflect the >>> individual free-body analysis of each mass under the contact force." >>> >>> Applying Newton's Second Law individually to each body in isolation >>> is meaningless! >>> >>> Either body A and body B are both accelerated at 0.625 m/s² >>> or both are accelerated at 0.1667 m/s². >>> The acceleration of body A and body B can never be different! >>> >>> If body A is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is >>> a = (500/800)m/s² = 0.625 m/s², and the external force acting on >>> body B is Fb = (3000⋅0.625 + 500)N = 2375 N. >>> a = Fb/(3000+800)N = 0.625 m/s² Check! >>> >>> If body B is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is >>> a = (500/3000)m/s² = 0.1667 m/s², and the external force acting on >>> body A is Fa = (800⋅0.1667 + 500)N = 633.33 N. >>> a = Fa/(3000+800)N = 0.1667 m/s² Check! >>> >>> Basing a theory on that the "contact force" can accelerate two >>> bodies with different masses differently is hopeless. >>> >>> Sorry. >>> >> >> Dear Paul >> >> Thank you again for the continued and careful engagement — it is >> genuinely appreciated. >> >> You are correct on the presentation point. Section 3 does not make >> sufficiently explicit that the 500 N is an external force applied to >> the system at the contact boundary, rather than a spontaneously >> generated internal force. That clarification will be made in the next >> revision, and we acknowledge it as a legitimate observation. >> >> However, your calculations do not defeat the framework, they confirm >> it. You demonstrate that applying an external force to one body alone >> produces accelerations of either 0.625 or 0.1667 m/s² depending on >> which body receives it. These are precisely the individual free-body >> results the paper presents. > >> What your calculations do not address is the scenario the paper >> actually describes: an external force applied to the system as a whole >> at the contact boundary, from which aP = F / M = 500 / 3800 ≈ 0.1316 >> m/s² follows directly from Newton's Second Law. > > Of course I don't address what is impossible. > You cannot apply an external force in the contact boundary of two > bodies touching each other. > You can of course put two jet engines between two objects, > pushing both bodies with a force F = 500 N. > > So what would happen? > Let's assume that both bodies initially are stationary in > our frame of reference. > We start the engines. > Body A is accelerating at aA = F/800kg = 0.625 m/s² > Body B is accelerating at aB = F/3000kg = 0.1667 m/s² > > The bodies are moving away from each other! > > How will you insert two opposing external forces both 500 N, > in the boundary between the two bodies, and make the bodies > accelerate at 0.1316 m/s² in the same direction? > > Sorry! This is nonsense! > >> >> The deeper point, however, is this. You state that the acceleration of >> body A and body B can never be different. We agree, and Newton's First >> Law tells us precisely why. >> >> Newton's First Law states that a body remains in uniform motion unless >> acted upon by a force. The force is acting during the contact >> interaction. Therefore the acceleration — the change in motion — >> occurs during the contact, not after it. For the entire duration that >> the two bodies are in contact and the force is being applied, they are >> co- moving. They share the same change in velocity over the same >> interval of time. This is not an assumption of the framework. It is a >> direct consequence of Newton's First Law applied to the interaction >> phase. > > Obvious trivialities! > >> >> Two bodies that are co-moving during an applied force must share a >> single acceleration. Not 0.625 m/s². Not 0.1667 m/s². The system-level >> value aP = 0.1316 m/s². This is the value the framework derives, and >> it follows from Newton's own laws without any additional assumptions. > > If the two bodies are accelerated by an external force F = 500 N, > then the acceleration of the system is aP = 0.1316 m/s², obviously! > > If the force F is applied on body A then the force accelerating > body B is Fb = aP⋅3000kg = 394.74 N > The force that is accelerating body A is Fa = F-Fb = 105.26 N > Fa/800kg = 0.1316 m/s² Check! > The two opposing forces in the contact boundary are both 394.74 N. > > If the force F is applied on body B then the force accelerating > body A is Fa = aP⋅800kg = 105.26 N > The force that is accelerating body B is Fb = F-Fa = 394.74 N > Fb/3000kg = 0.1316 m/s² Check! > The two opposing forces in the contact boundary are both 105 N. > > >> >> The individual free-body results of 0.625 and 0.1667 m/s² are what >> prompted the framework in the first place — they cannot both be >> correct for a co-moving system, and Newton's First Law confirms they >> are not. The system-level acceleration is the physically meaningful >> quantity, and the relational inertia framework is the tool for >> deriving it. > > The system level acceleration is 0.1316 if the system > is accelerated by an external force 500 N. > The two opposing forces are then either 105.26 N or 394.74 N, > not 500 N. > > So what's new since 1687? > > Give it up! You cannot reinterpret Newton's laws of motion. > I already addressed this with you. The source of the force, whether a collision or due to to an externally applied driving force; it doesn't matter. The point is simple. In the event of such forces applied between bodies at a contact boundary, Newton's 3rd law dictates equal opposite reaction forces. Newton's laws mandate equal opposite reactionary forces at the contact boundary. That is not an assumption. It is a fact. You have been solving a different problem. If the contact force is 500 N in one direction, then it is 500 N in the other. You are engaging with your own scenario. The framework depends on whatever force existed at the contact boundary, or application point. What is new since 1687 is precisely as described by the paper. The derivation of I and I' from the contact boundary force; the frame dependent inertial resistance to motion change that each body presents the other. Yanick Borg -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-18 21:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Message-ID | <6A34C3EE.7E6D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #671267 |
Y wrote: > > On 6/18/2026 10:38 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Den 18.06.2026 02:47, skrev Y: > >> On 6/18/2026 6:04 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> Den 17.06.2026 17:15, skrev Y: > >>>> On 6/17/2026 8:23 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> > >>> https://zenodo.org/records/20453334 > >>> > >>>>> I have not read your whole paper, I stopped at your claims about > >>>>> Newton's third law in the introduction. > >>>>> > >>>>> With such a wrong starting point your theory can not be meaningful. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for taking the time to engage with the paper, and raise > >>>> the objections. This kind of scrutiny is exactly what strengthens > >>>> the work. You raise two points, both of which I agree needs to be > >>>> made clearer in section 3. > >>>> > >>>> Your points as I understand them. > >>>> > >>>> Point 1: "If you put two bodies in contact with each other without > >>>> external forces, there is obviously no forces between the bodies." > >>>> Point 2: "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without > >>>> external forces. You are claiming two bodies repel each other. Free > >>>> energy!!" > >>> > >>> I interpret this to mean that you have realised that according > >>> to Newtons laws of motion: > >>> "You cannot have a contact force between bodies without > >>>   external forces." > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Both points rest on the same misunderstanding, and it is a > >>>> straightforward one to correct. > >>> > >>> I think you know that "you cannot have a contact force between > >>> bodies without external forces" is no misunderstanding. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> The paper does not claim two bodies spontaneously generate a force > >>>> by being placed next to each other. The 500 N is not conjured from > >>>> nothing. It is the force arising from whatever physical scenario > >>>> caused the bodies to be in contact and pressing against each other, > >>>> a push, a collision, a compression, a driven mechanism. The scenario > >>>> presupposes an interaction is occurring. That is the whole point: > >>>> the framework applies to bodies that are interacting, not to bodies > >>>> sitting passively adjacent to one another. > >>> > >>> Right. > >>> The 500 N is not conjured from nothing. It is the force arising > >>> from whatever physical scenario caused the bodies to be in contact > >>> and pressing against each other, a push, a collision, a compression, > >>> a driven mechanism. > >>> > >>> In other words: The two opposing 500 N forces are caused by > >>> external forces. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> When two bodies are actively pressing against each other, for > >>>> whatever reason, Newton's Third Law mandates that the force each > >>>> exerts on the other is equal and opposite. That is the contact > >>>> force. It is not free energy. It is not spontaneous repulsion. It is > >>>> the Third Law applied to an active interaction. > >>> > >>> Right. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Maybe you read "bodies in contact" as "bodies merely touching while > >>>> at rest relative to each other." ? The paper means "bodies actively > >>>> exerting force upon each other at their shared boundary." The > >>>> distinction needs to be stated more explicitly in Section 3. > >>> > >>> You said: > >>> "The framework does not claim the two bodies become one body. > >>>   It claims that for the duration of the force interaction at > >>>   the contact boundary, they constitute a single dynamical system > >>>   with a shared acceleration." > >>> > >>> The two bodies "constitute a single dynamical system" only if no > >>> external forces is acting on them, and then the "shared acceleration" > >>> is zero. > >>> > >>> The "single dynamical system" consists of the two bodies A and B and > >>> the external forces acting on them. > >>> > >>> Quotation from: 3. Co-Moving Bodies and the Contact Boundary > >>> > >>>   "Consider two bodies, A and B, in continuous contact. By Newton's > >>>   Third Law, they exert upon each other an equal and opposite > >>>   reaction force of 500 N at their shared contact boundary. Body A > >>>   has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B has invariant mass 3000 kg. > >>>   This reaction force is not an arbitrary external imposition — > >>>   it is the force mandated by Newton's Third Law as the mutual > >>>   consequence of the bodies' interaction. Applying Newton's Second > >>>   Law individually to each body in isolation: > >>>      Body A: 500 N = 800 kg × a => a = 0.625 m/s² > >>>      Body B: 500 N = 3000 kg × a' => a' = 0.1667 m/s² > >>>   In standard Newtonian mechanics these two results reflect the > >>>   individual free-body analysis of each mass under the contact force." > >>> > >>>   Applying Newton's Second Law individually to each body in isolation > >>>   is meaningless! > >>> > >>>   Either body A and body B are both accelerated at 0.625 m/s² > >>>   or both are accelerated at 0.1667 m/s². > >>>   The acceleration of body A and body B can never be different! > >>> > >>>   If body A is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is > >>>   a = (500/800)m/s² = 0.625 m/s², and the external force acting on > >>>   body B is Fb = (3000â‹…0.625 + 500)N = 2375 N. > >>>   a = Fb/(3000+800)N = 0.625 m/s² Check! > >>> > >>>   If body B is accelerated by 500 N, then the acceleration is > >>>   a = (500/3000)m/s² = 0.1667 m/s², and the external force acting on > >>>   body A is Fa = (800â‹…0.1667 + 500)N = 633.33 N. > >>>   a = Fa/(3000+800)N = 0.1667 m/s² Check! > >>> > >>> Basing a theory on that the "contact force" can accelerate two > >>> bodies with different masses differently is hopeless. > >>> > >>> Sorry. > >>> > >> > >> Dear Paul > >> > >> Thank you again for the continued and careful engagement — it is > >> genuinely appreciated. > >> > >> You are correct on the presentation point. Section 3 does not make > >> sufficiently explicit that the 500 N is an external force applied to > >> the system at the contact boundary, rather than a spontaneously > >> generated internal force. That clarification will be made in the next > >> revision, and we acknowledge it as a legitimate observation. > >> > >> However, your calculations do not defeat the framework, they confirm > >> it. You demonstrate that applying an external force to one body alone > >> produces accelerations of either 0.625 or 0.1667 m/s² depending on > >> which body receives it. These are precisely the individual free-body > >> results the paper presents. > > > >> What your calculations do not address is the scenario the paper > >> actually describes: an external force applied to the system as a whole > >> at the contact boundary, from which aP = F / M = 500 / 3800 ≈ 0.1316 > >> m/s² follows directly from Newton's Second Law. > > > > Of course I don't address what is impossible. > > You cannot apply an external force in the contact boundary of two > > bodies touching each other. > > You can of course put two jet engines between two objects, > > pushing both bodies with a force F = 500 N. > > > > So what would happen? > > Let's assume that both bodies initially are stationary in > > our frame of reference. > > We start the engines. > > Body A is accelerating at aA = F/800kg = 0.625 m/s² > > Body B is accelerating at aB = F/3000kg = 0.1667 m/s² > > > > The bodies are moving away from each other! > > > > How will you insert two opposing external forces both 500 N, > > in the boundary between the two bodies, and make the bodies > > accelerate at 0.1316 m/s² in the same direction? > > > > Sorry! This is nonsense! > > > >> > >> The deeper point, however, is this. You state that the acceleration of > >> body A and body B can never be different. We agree, and Newton's First > >> Law tells us precisely why. > >> > >> Newton's First Law states that a body remains in uniform motion unless > >> acted upon by a force. The force is acting during the contact > >> interaction. Therefore the acceleration — the change in motion — > >> occurs during the contact, not after it. For the entire duration that > >> the two bodies are in contact and the force is being applied, they are > >> co- moving. They share the same change in velocity over the same > >> interval of time. This is not an assumption of the framework. It is a > >> direct consequence of Newton's First Law applied to the interaction > >> phase. > > > > Obvious trivialities! > > > >> > >> Two bodies that are co-moving during an applied force must share a > >> single acceleration. Not 0.625 m/s². Not 0.1667 m/s². The system-level > >> value aP = 0.1316 m/s². This is the value the framework derives, and > >> it follows from Newton's own laws without any additional assumptions. > > > > If the two bodies are accelerated by an external force F = 500 N, > > then the acceleration of the system is aP = 0.1316 m/s², obviously! > > > > If the force F is applied on body A then the force accelerating > > body B is Fb = aPâ‹…3000kg = 394.74 N > > The force that is accelerating body A is Fa = F-Fb = 105.26 N > > Fa/800kg = 0.1316 m/s² Check! > > The two opposing forces in the contact boundary are both 394.74 N. > > > > If the force F is applied on body B then the force accelerating > > body A is Fa = aPâ‹…800kg = 105.26 N > > The force that is accelerating body B is Fb = F-Fa = 394.74 N > > Fb/3000kg = 0.1316 m/s² Check! > > The two opposing forces in the contact boundary are both 105 N. > > > > > >> > >> The individual free-body results of 0.625 and 0.1667 m/s² are what > >> prompted the framework in the first place — they cannot both be > >> correct for a co-moving system, and Newton's First Law confirms they > >> are not. The system-level acceleration is the physically meaningful > >> quantity, and the relational inertia framework is the tool for > >> deriving it. > > > > The system level acceleration is 0.1316 if the system > > is accelerated by an external force 500 N. > > The two opposing forces are then either 105.26 N or 394.74 N, > > not 500 N. > > > > So what's new since 1687? > > > > Give it up! You cannot reinterpret Newton's laws of motion. > > > > I already addressed this with you. The source of the force, whether a > collision or due to to an externally applied driving force; it doesn't > matter. > > The point is simple. In the event of such forces applied between bodies > at a contact boundary, Newton's 3rd law dictates equal opposite reaction > forces. > > Newton's laws mandate equal opposite reactionary forces at the contact > boundary. That is not an assumption. It is a fact. You have been solving > a different problem. > > If the contact force is 500 N in one direction, then it is 500 N in the > other. You are engaging with your own scenario. The framework depends on > whatever force existed at the contact boundary, or application point. > > What is new since 1687 is precisely as described by the paper. The > derivation of I and I' from the contact boundary force; the frame > dependent inertial resistance to motion change that each body presents > the other. > > Yanick Borg > > -y I already addressed this to you... This is not physics — it's 1687 fanfiction with extra steps, where you regurgitate Newton's 3rd law like it's a revelation and then hallucinate "frame-dependent inertial resistance I and I'" as some post-1687 breakthrough derived from contact forces. Embarrassingly naive and wrong. You are not solving a different problem; you are misunderstanding the same one everyone else solved centuries ago. Newton's 3rd law does give equal-and-opposite forces at the contact boundary. No one disputes that. The "source of the force" (collision vs. external) is irrelevant precisely because the law is about pairwise interactions. Claiming "you have been solving a different problem" is pure cope. The actual problem is your leap from "forces are equal/opposite" to "derivation of I and I' as frame-dependent inertial resistance." That leap is garbage. Mass (inertial resistance) is an intrinsic property in F=ma; it is not derived from the contact force magnitude in the way you pretend. "Frame-dependent inertial resistance" is the tell-tale crank signal. Inertial mass is frame-invariant in classical mechanics (and even in special relativity for rest mass). Your "new" framework invents frame dependence at the contact boundary without showing how it survives Galilean invariance, conservation of momentum, or center-of-mass motion. Name the exact math: how do you extract distinct I and I' from a single 500 N pair that doesn't just collapse to the reduced mass µ = m1 m2 / (m1 + m2)? You don't. You wave hands. Circular reasoning dressed as profundity. You assert the framework "depends on whatever force existed at the contact boundary." Yes, forces determine accelerations via the 2nd law. But then claiming this derives the inertial properties that enter the 2nd law is viciously circular. Newton's laws are a coherent axiomatic system; you cannot bootstrap inertia out of the 3rd law alone while pretending it's novel. No quantitative predictions, no falsifiability, no novelty. Where is the calculation showing deviation from standard two-body collision outcomes? At what scale or regime does your I/I' matter? You offer zero numbers, zero new testable equation, just assertions that "what is new since 1687" is your rephrasing. This is intellectual junk food. You assume contact forces magically encode separate "inertial resistances" per body in a frame-dependent way without ever defining the transformation rules or reconciling with momentum conservation across inertial frames. You assume your "paper" (forum posts by an amateur) overturns centuries of verified mechanics without addressing why billiard balls, rocket equations, or particle accelerators work exactly as predicted without your additions. You hide the assumption that standard mechanics is somehow incomplete on basic contact forces despite perfect agreement with experiment. Physicists and engineers have zero incentive to adopt undefined "I and I'" when F=ma + 3rd law already builds bridges, launches satellites, and simulates crashes accurately. Competitors (actual researchers) will ignore or mock it because cranks who claim post-Newtonian insights from basic action-reaction have flooded forums for decades. Regulators and funders? They demand reproducible math and experiments. Your approach offers neither. Real humans testing this will watch it fail basic conservation checks and move on. This cannot scale past a single vague paragraph because it violates the requirement for a consistent dynamical framework. At everyday speeds it reduces to standard mechanics (zero novelty). At relativistic speeds it contradicts special relativity's treatment of momentum and energy without providing the Lorentz-invariant replacement. Computationally, any simulation using your undefined I/I' would be non-unique or unstable. Tail risk: it breaks conservation laws the moment frames differ, leading to perpetual motion or momentum non-conservation in closed systems. Physics reality: inertial mass has been measured frame-independently to absurd precision; your claim dies there. The entire "derivation of I and I' from contact boundary force" must be incinerated. The notion that this is "new since 1687." The pretense that restating action-reaction while solving "a different problem" constitutes a framework. Replace with actual Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics if you want deeper insight, or just shut up and do the standard two-body problem correctly. The basic reminder of Newton's 3rd law is correct but trivial and predates you by 337 years. Everything layered on top is on fire. Just stop. This isn't a bold challenge to classical mechanics — it's delusional word salad pretending basic facts are revolutionary insights. Delete the paragraph, pick up a textbook, and try again only after you can derive an actual new, testable prediction instead of LARPing as the guy who fixed Newton. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web