You are just lying now.
Speed of Force or 'Transfer of Momentum'
- Thread starter hansda
- Start date
- Status
You are just lying now.
If you dont believe me, it is upto you; how do you take it.
OK, so you do understand that maintaining a force requires no continuous expenditure of energy.
Your understanding is still wrong, jut not as wrong as I thought, due to your poor communication skills....in addition to repeatedly contradicting yourself.
First give me your example of an action-reaction as per Newton's Third Law. Identify the action. Also identify reaction. Then wrt that example speak.
It can be mathematically proven that, action and reaction as per Newton's Third Law are not simultaneous.
Oy. You're really dodging but at least you're back to the issue of the thread!
It is your claim though so it is still your responsibility to prove it. At this point I'm starting to think the whole issue is your poor language and math skills. And asking me for examples is laughable when you've repeatedly declined to address previous examples.
You can start by addressing the fact - pointed out weeks ago - that your statement explicitly contradicts N3 as stated by sources I linked and you ignored. Can you acknowledge the fact that the word "simultaneous" or its synonyms appears in the statements of N3 I linked?
It is your claim though so it is still your responsibility to prove it. At this point I'm starting to think the whole issue is your poor language and math skills. And asking me for examples is laughable when you've repeatedly declined to address previous examples.
You can start by addressing the fact - pointed out weeks ago - that your statement explicitly contradicts N3 as stated by sources I linked and you ignored. Can you acknowledge the fact that the word "simultaneous" or its synonyms appears in the statements of N3 I linked?
Maximum_Planck
Registered Member
Newton's third law is equivalent to action and reaction. Provide the math proof then.
hansda
I have no idea what that means, but my guess is that that's an admission that you have poor language skills? And also perhaps that this is all a troll game to you?
Not clear why they aren't banning this piece of prejudiced trash. Why don't you report him?
As per Newtonian Physics, when a force "F" applies to a mass "M" it causes an acceleration "a"; provided there is no frictional force. So, F=M*a. a= (d/dt)(dx/dt); where dx and dt are infinitesimal distance and time. Consider energy "E" applied to mass "M" by force "F" is F*dx. So, E=F*dx.
Suppose there are two identical mass, mass A and mass B. There is no frictional loss. Consider action-reaction of mass A and mass B.
Now say as an action, mass A applies a force F to mass B. So, energy applied by mass A to mass B is F*dx. This energy(F*dx) can be considered as input energy.
If reaction is happening simultaneously, same force F will be applied by mass B to mass A. Here energy applied by mass B to mass A is F*dx.
So, considering action force and reaction force at the same time, we are getting twice the input energy. This is violation of "conservation of energy" and can not be true.
So, applying "conservation of energy" to "Newton's Third Law of Motion"; it can be said that action and reaction are not simultaneous.
Doesn't seem to me that this is a very strict forum.
Er, no Max, since they are in opposite directions, all N3 interactions and conservation of energy statements sum to zero.
Lol.
hansda, you have misinterpreted CoE to mean that only one change can happen at any one time. There is no "double input energy" here.
Ball A loses energy by that amount and Ball B gains it. CoE.
So, you mean to say, due to action-force ball/mass B gains energy and due to reaction-force ball/mass A loses energy. Correct?
Now consider this example of action-reaction forces for a swimmer.
Who is gaining energy and who is losing energy here?
Both are gaining energy.
Do you know where this energy comes from, hansda?
What do you think is different between the swimmer pushing on the water and the colliding balls?
(Hint - what would happen if you replaced the swimmer with a ball?)
Well, of course the beach ball will move by itself through the water at a constant velocity. Duh.
That is true but are they gaining energy at the same time(simultaneously) or there is some time delay?
You are opposing "eram's logic in post # 253". As per eram's logic in post #253(in reply to my post #250), the swimmer should lose energy and water should gain energy.
The external source for this energy is the swimmer.
As far as action-reaction of Newton's Third Law of Motion is concerned, both are same case ie the case of action and reaction.
Are you implying that the ball will sink?
There is no time delay.
No, post 253 was about a situation with no external source of energy.
Have you read my post #250?
Can action-reaction happen at the same time with conservation of energy?
Apply the principle of "conservation of energy" to "Newton's Third Law of Motion" and try to find out whether action and reaction are simultaneous or not?
Isn't 'conservation of energy' violated here?
Say, swimmer applied some energy E to the water. Consider this is input energy.
If water is also simultaneously applying energy E to the swimmer, Then we are having total 2E additional energy in the system, due to input energy E. Is this possible? Is this not violation of conservation of energy?
- Status