Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #671267
| From | Y <Yborg@zenodo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: The Relativity of Inertia |
| Date | 2026-06-19 06:55 +1000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <e33df4ba-07d0-4047-950c-c66e6cc45d50@zenodo.com> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <110ts5j$1pd4g$1@dont-email.me> <90abbf0c-1b6d-4ff4-9266-317a9c34ae11@zenodo.com> <w_CYR.44461$b6%c.24378@fx17.ams4> <b016f6aa-3d5b-4d3f-8036-74462847700b@zenodo.com> <NyRYR.78951$_kO9.74323@fx02.ams4> |
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
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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