Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems in Newtonian Mechanics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by hansgeorg View Post
    oxmix - did you quote wrong one for your answer?
    No, John has posted numerous 'problems' with newtonion mechanics, almost all of which can be shown to be bogus with the simple observation I point him to. And he can pick any of pluto, neptune, uranys, saturn, jupiter, or Mars as his subjects of observation. Or, if he so desires, any of the numerous binary and trinary asteroid systems

    I just picked this post. John doesn't really understand any of it very well, as can be evidenced by these comments on centrifugal force.


    Jim
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      No, John has posted numerous 'problems' with newtonion mechanics, almost all of which can be shown to be bogus with the simple observation I point him to. And he can pick any of pluto, neptune, uranys, saturn, jupiter, or Mars as his subjects of observation. Or, if he so desires, any of the numerous binary and trinary asteroid systems

      I just picked this post. John doesn't really understand any of it very well, as can be evidenced by these comments on centrifugal force.


      Jim
      Alternatively Jim doesn't understand centrifugal force, because nobody understands centrifugal force. Jim's post is so vague and non centrifugal force specific that he could have been answering anything and nothing I've posted on this thread. Jim hasn't answered the problems posed for centrifugal force. Jim wants to reduce elliptical orbits down to the generalisation of the inverse square law of attraction, which includes the problematic notion of the fictional centrifugal force. Jim ignores the problematic notion of the fictional centrifugal force and focuses on something else.

      JM

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
        Alternatively Jim doesn't understand centrifugal force, because nobody understands centrifugal force.
        Physicists understand centrifugal force quite well. You have demonstrated a purpose to deliberately misunderstand and misapply centrifugal force, as demonstrated by your refusal to even begin to understand the difference and relationship between centrifugal force and centripetal force, and how the two are applied in physics. If you had any real understanding of centrifugal force, you wouldn't be trying to mangle it so badly.

        You are disproving only your own bungled versions of principles of physics. This has no effect on actual principles in physics.
        Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
          Physicists understand centrifugal force quite well. You have demonstrated a purpose to deliberately misunderstand and misapply centrifugal force, as demonstrated by your refusal to even begin to understand the difference and relationship between centrifugal force and centripetal force, and how the two are applied in physics. If you had any real understanding of centrifugal force, you wouldn't be trying to mangle it so badly.

          You are disproving only your own bungled versions of principles of physics. This has no effect on actual principles in physics.
          This is the standard approach at Tweb for those who have no answer. Avoid the problems posed and make allegations about the one proposing the problem. No substantial response is ever entered into. The problems with centrifugal force remain unanswered.

          JM

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
            This is the standard approach at Tweb for those who have no answer. Avoid the problems posed and make allegations about the one proposing the problem. No substantial response is ever entered into. The problems with centrifugal force remain unanswered.
            It was answered. The real force you're looking for is centripetal force, not centrifugal force. That's the rebuttal. I've said it several times now, and it's not registering in your brain. Your "problem" is meaningless, because you're misapplying the forces.
            Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
              It was answered. The real force you're looking for is centripetal force, not centrifugal force. That's the rebuttal. I've said it several times now, and it's not registering in your brain. Your "problem" is meaningless, because you're misapplying the forces.
              Your claim that centrifugal force does not answer any part of the problems focused upon centrifugal force. You merely stated centrifugal force is the real force. So what. The problems are never concerned with the matter of centrifugal force as a real force or not. The problems remain unanswered.

              JM

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                Your claim that centrifugal force does not answer any part of the problems focused upon centrifugal force. You merely stated centrifugal force is the real force. So what. The problems are never concerned with the matter of centrifugal force as a real force or not. The problems remain unanswered.
                Fine, John. Go ahead and prove that centrifugal force doesn't work in an inertial frame of reference. Let everybody in the world know. This might come as a great shock to anyone who has no understanding of physics, which says that centrifugal force doesn't exist in an inertial frame of reference. (Since the force that you feel is really the centripetal force.)
                Last edited by Yttrium; 01-01-2017, 04:17 PM.
                Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                  Fine, John. Go ahead and prove that centrifugal force doesn't work in an inertial frame of reference. Let everybody in the world know. This might come as a great shock to anyone who has no understanding of physics, which says that centrifugal force doesn't exist in an inertial frame of reference. (Since the force that you feel is really the centripetal force.)
                  Still the problems with centrifugal force remain. Moving the focus attention from centrifugal force to centripetal force does not address or answer the problems.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    Still the problems with centrifugal force remain. Moving the focus attention from centrifugal force to centripetal force does not address or answer the problems.
                    Why not? If you're going to use the wrong force, of course it's not going to work.
                    Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                      Why not? If you're going to use the wrong force, of course it's not going to work.
                      You haven't demonstrated anything directly from post 83. Nor have you answered any problem directly from the same post 83.

                      Problems with centrifugal force.

                      centrifugal force - a force, arising from the body's inertia, which appears to act on a body moving in a circular path and is directed away from the centre around which the body is moving.
                      For a supposed circular orbit of say the earth around the sun, the centrifugal force Fc is said to equal gravity force Fg.

                      Part A

                      The equation of -

                      Fg = Fc

                      Yet Fg of the earth has already been set up to have its opposite force in the opposing mass to equate to the Fg of the sun. Fc is then a false equation that does not account for the Newtonian law of every action has an equal and opposite re-action. For 1) the centrifugal force has no opposite reaction centrifugal force, 2) and Fg of the earth already has an opposite reaction force of gravity at the sun. The use of the centrifugal force is in breach of Newton's law of force in the two manners exposed.

                      Also one may object and say Fg = Fc is only a local equation that can ignore Fg at the sun. But ignoring Fg at the sun means the forces within the sun earth system never balance in breach of Newtons laws that every action has an equal and opposite re-action.

                      Part B

                      The equation of -

                      Fg = Fc

                      assumes Fc is said to be derived from the acceleration of the object in its orbit path around the sun. Yet the acceleration of the earth at any point in its orbit is always zero at any instant. For at any point in the orbit, the object is assumed to be moving in a straight line in accord with the law of inertia. This is so, because the Fc is said to arise "from the body's inertia", hence the body's inertia assumes a straight line motion in accord with Newton's definition of inertia -

                      "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
                      Fc is then derived from an acceleration over a discrete time beyond any instant when the objects constant straight line velocity is known. Hence the centrifugal force is never known at any singular point according to inertia, but is calculated over a discrete time and then applied to the same singular point. The centrifugal force is then known by a method that is foreign to inertia and thereby inconsistent with the nature of inertia. The centrifugal force is then a mathematical fiction, making the Newtonian system a fiction.

                      Part C

                      The centrifugal force Fc in a circular orbit is said to act perpendicular to the objects velocity. Yet a force can never both act perpendicular to a velocity and be caused by the velocity. Hence the notion of the centrifugal force Fc in a circular orbit is problematic.

                      Part D

                      The derivation of the centrifugal force Fc from a vector sum over a discrete time infers the derived acceleration never has a vector direction perpendicular to the objects orbit velocity, contrary to the Newtonian definition of centrifugal force as "directed away from the centre around which the body is moving". Hence the centrifugal force has a force vector direction contrary to the force definition given in Newtonian mechanics. Consequently, the centrifugal force never aligns with the centripetal force in a circular orbit.

                      Part E

                      The centrifugal force Fc is said to be a fictional force, yet the force is real enough when a body is placed in rotation. Hence the term "fictional force" is contrived, for the force is said to be fictional, but is real as known through experience.

                      Part F

                      An orbiting body is said to be falling from its straight line path. But if the object is falling then the object need not have a centrifugal force. For falling objects, such as a fired canon ball do not use centrifugal force in the calculations. Hence the union of the notions of a falling object and fictional centrifugal force is a mindless confusion.

                      Conclusion - the false assumption that inertia is caused by a property of a body causes Newtonian mechanics to arrive at multiple problems within its own system. Inertia is really caused by a local aether flow, which would avoid such problems.

                      JM
                      JM

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        You haven't demonstrated anything directly from post 83. Nor have you answered any problem directly from the same post 83.
                        Of course I didn't. Congratulations! You successfully demonstrated that centrifugal force doesn't work the way physics says it doesn't! Amazing! Publish that baby! In a book! You can fill a book up with that, can't you? I suggest lots of graphs and pictures. It will be amazing. Go for it.
                        Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                          You haven't demonstrated anything directly from post 83. Nor have you answered any problem directly from the same post 83.
                          Well, actually, I did answer Part E directly.

                          The centrifugal force Fc is said to be a fictional force, yet the force is real enough when a body is placed in rotation. Hence the term "fictional force" is contrived, for the force is said to be fictional, but is real as known through experience.
                          The force you experience is the centripetal force. That's the real force, while the centrifugal force is a fictional force. Therefore the rest of your post isn't a problem, because you're showing that a fictional force is fictional. Yay.
                          Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
                            You haven't demonstrated anything directly from post 83. Nor have you answered any problem directly from the same post 83.
                            Well, actually, I did answer Part E directly.

                            Part E

                            The centrifugal force Fc is said to be a fictional force, yet the force is real enough when a body is placed in rotation. Hence the term "fictional force" is contrived, for the force is said to be fictional, but is real as known through experience.
                            The centrifugal force Fc is said to be a fictional force, yet the force is real enough when a body is placed in rotation. Hence the term "fictional force" is contrived, for the force is said to be fictional, but is real as known through experience.

                            John, look up "centripetal force". That's the real one.

                            Centrifugal force is a perceived force. You can only use it if you're looking at a rotational frame of reference, which is complicated. It doesn't exist in an inertial frame of reference. Feel free to debunk centrifugal forces in an inertial reference frame. We won't mind. It's kind of a waste of time, though.
                            Sit in the rotating reference frame of a child sitting on a rotating horse in the carousel and see which direction the child leans. Centrifugal force looks like a real force to me.

                            The centrifugal force Fc is said to be a fictional force, yet the force is real enough when a body is placed in rotation. Hence the term "fictional force" is contrived, for the force is said to be fictional, but is real as known through experience.

                            The force you experience is the centripetal force. That's the real force, while the centrifugal force is a fictional force. Therefore the rest of your post isn't a problem, because you're showing that a fictional force is fictional. Yay.
                            The centripetal force on the carousel is taken by the steel structure of the carousel. The centrifugal force causes one to move outward. Therefore the rest of my posts shows the fictional force is problematic as a force, which infers the fictional force is not a force in accord with Newton's laws. Hence the so called fictional force is a Newtonian aberration, not in accord with Newton's laws of force. Fictional forces are then not fictional and not forces. Newtonian physics is flawed in this regard.

                            JM
                            Last edited by JohnMartin; 01-01-2017, 11:42 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              Sit in the rotating reference frame of a child sitting on a rotating horse in the carousel and see which direction the child leans. Centrifugal force looks like a real force to me.



                              The centripetal force on the carousel is taken by the steel structure of the carousel. The centrifugal force causes one to move outward. Therefore the rest of my posts shows the fictional force is problematic as a force, which infers the fictional force is not a force in accord with Newton's laws. Hence the so called fictional force is a Newtonian aberration, not in accord with Newton's laws of force. Fictional forces are then not fictional and not forces. Newtonian physics is flawed in this regard.

                              JM
                              Invincible ignorance is ... well ... invincible!
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                The centripetal force on the carousel is taken by the steel structure of the carousel. The centrifugal force causes one to move outward. Therefore the rest of my posts shows the fictional force is problematic as a force, which infers the fictional force is not a force in accord with Newton's laws. Hence the so called fictional force is a Newtonian aberration, not in accord with Newton's laws of force. Fictional forces are then not fictional and not forces. Newtonian physics is flawed in this regard.
                                The centrifugal force does not cause you to move outward. That's why it's fictional, and centripetal force is real. But at this point, I'll just leave you with your delusions.
                                Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X