## 237Re: The third Newtons law and law of momentum conservation.

Expand Messages
• Mar 11, 2011

Base on trivial case of problem, the figure 4 shows a model for experiment where wheels and solid block covers by another platforms on wheels.

The wheel1_1 and wheel1_2 connect with cover by axis.
For easies calculation, all doted elements, platforms and spring are weightless.

Let's assume the law of momentum conservation always works in simplest form. In this case, the forces on both sides of spring are equal by value and induce translational motions for solid block and rolling objects on both platforms. However, which force induce rotational motion for rolling objects on one platform? The solid block doesn't conduct rotational motion on other platform. On one platform, the rolling objects rotate on opposite direction for each other and have same angular momentum by value and opposite direction. However, need a force to induce this rotationThe asymmetrical force cannot exist during interaction. Therefore, the assumption where law of momentum conservation exist in simple form during complex interaction is wrong.
--- In gravitationalpropulsionstevenson@yahoogroups.com, "abelov0927" <abelov0927@...> wrote:
>
> The third Newton's law and law of momentum conservation.
> The third Newton's law declares what each reaction of forces should
> be symmetrical.
> [-\vec F=\vec F]
> where: F - reaction forces of objects
>
>
> The consequence of this is law of momentum conservation.
> [-\int \vec Fdt=\int \vec Fdt\\-m \int d \vec v=m \int d \vec v]
> [-m\vec v=m \vec v]
>
> [-\vec P=\vec P]
> where: F - reaction forces of objects, m - mass of objects, v -
> velocity of objects, dt - time trame of action, P - momentums of
> objects.
>
>
> This consequence should be used for case where objects induce same
> identical motions and this does not cover the case where objects induce
> different type of motions. In experiment 2 thin cylinders induce
> different type of motions and this simple consequence should not cover
> this objects repulcing action. Therefore, for correct explanation of
> experiment 2 needs to use prime third Newton's law and identify all
> reaction forces by this law. The consequence law of momentum
> conservation where objects have symmetrical behavior should not be used
> for this objects repulsing case.
>
>
> Another interesting point is a symmetrical angular momentum. During
> repulsing action just one object has an angular momentum. Base on law of
> momentum conservation the isolated system should have the symmetrical
> angular momentum. However no any other physical objects have it. Base on
> modern classical mechanic, this symmetrical angular momentum is exist
> potentially if calculated distance between center mass of isolated
> system and center of mass of objects. But here both objects induce
> together this symmetrical angular momentum from theirs translational
> momentums cancel and their linear kinetic energies conversion to
> rotational kinetic energy. But where is another energy which came form
> symmetrical repulsing action for angular momentums when symmetrical
> forces repulse objects?