Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671266

Re: The Relativity of Inertia

Show all headers | View raw

Y wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >  Â By Newton's Third Law, they exert upon each other an
> >  Â equal and opposite reaction force of 500 N at their shared
> >  Â contact boundary. Body A has invariant mass 800 kg; Body B
> >  Â 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.
> >  Â Â Â  (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
> >  Â Â Â  (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
> >  Â asking what acceleration their shared contact point undergoes
> >  Â given their combined mass."
> >
> > One possible scenario:
> > #3: A force 500 N is exerted on body A.
> >  Â Â Â  A force 500 N is exerted on body B in opposite direction.
> >  Â Â Â  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.
> 
> 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 contact itself is the event; the equal and opposite forces are its
> two faces.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Yanick Borg
> 
> -y


This is sloppy freshman-level physics cosplaying as a profound
“framework,” built on a category error so basic it would get laughed out
of any intro mechanics classroom.

“Shared acceleration” is flatly false
You assert that during contact the two bodies “constitute a single
dynamical system with a shared acceleration.” Bullshit. Unless the
contact is perfectly rigid, sticky, or otherwise constraining their
relative motion (which you never specify), the bodies have different
accelerations determined by their individual masses and the net force on
each. The 500 N pair is equal and opposite, but a1 = F_net_on_A / mA and
a2 = F_net_on_B / mB. They are emphatically not the same unless mA = mB
and external forces are symmetric in a very specific way. Your “shared
acceleration” claim is not a consequence of Newton 3; it’s an extra
assumption you smuggled in.
Treating the contact pair as automatically making them “one dynamical
system” for kinematics
The system of A+B is useful for center-of-mass motion because internal
forces cancel in the total momentum equation. That does not mean the two
bodies share the same acceleration vector. This is the classic mistake
students make when they want action-reaction forces to “cancel” inside
one object. You’re doing the mirror-image error: pretending the pair
magically glues their kinematics together. It doesn’t.
“The interaction itself produces the pair by definition” dodges the
actual dynamics
Yes, Newton 3 gives you the pair for whatever contact force exists. That
is tautological and useless. The real physics question is: what
determines the magnitude of that 500 N? Is it elastic deformation,
friction, electromagnetic repulsion at the atomic scale, etc.? Your
framework offers zero predictive power for that magnitude or the
resulting motion. It’s just relabeling the interaction while pretending
the labeling solves the problem.
Simultaneity doesn’t rescue you
“Simultaneous mutual interaction” is true but irrelevant. Relativity of
simultaneity is a non-issue at classical speeds, and even then it
doesn’t grant the bodies identical acceleration. You’re confusing the
existence of the pair with the consequences for each body’s equation of
motion.


You assume contact magically enforces kinematic compatibility (same
velocity and acceleration at the boundary) without modeling deformation,
rigidity, or constraints. You assume no relative motion at the contact
point persists. You assume “the framework” adds something beyond
standard free-body diagrams and system analysis. It doesn’t. This is
just verbose hand-waving around F=ma applied to each body separately
plus the third-law pair.

Incentive & Human-Behavior Landmines
Physicists and engineers will ignore this because it adds complexity and
zero explanatory or predictive power. Students who adopt it will fail
exams when they have to calculate actual accelerations or collision
outcomes. Reviewers will shred any paper attempting to dress this up as
novel. The only audience that survives is people who enjoy philosophical
reinterpretations over calculation—exactly the crowd that produces crank
physics.
At the scale of two billiard balls colliding, your “shared acceleration”
lasts zero time in the elastic case and requires you to solve the actual
compression dynamics. At macroscopic rigid-body approximations, we
already have better tools (impulse, coefficient of restitution,
constraint forces). At atomic scale your picture collapses because
contact is electromagnetic and your “boundary” is fuzzy. Nowhere does
this survive quantitative scrutiny beyond the trivial statement “forces
come in pairs.”

The entire “single dynamical system with shared acceleration” claim.
Any suggestion this is a novel or deeper insight into Newton 3.
The conflation of force-pair symmetry with kinematic unity.
Replace it with standard treatment: draw separate FBDs for each body,
apply F=ma to each, use Newton 3 to relate the interaction forces, and
add constitutive relations (Hooke’s law, friction model, etc.) if you
need the force magnitude.
The basic reminder that action-reaction forces act on different bodies
and the contact force is mutual is correct—but that’s 17th-century
textbook material, not “the framework.” It survives only as the most
banal part.
You didn’t defend a framework; you performed an interpretive dance
around a standard law while inventing consequences it doesn’t have. This
isn’t solid ground—it’s quicksand with better vocabulary. 


 

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web