Dear Dieu,

"A professor's story about his students' reaction when first encountering Newton's Third Law touched me and inspired me to keep on fighting for the truth.

He wrote: "During 1st and 2nd years of graduate school, grad students were required to spend a few hours per week in a large conference room to supply tutorial help for undergraduate students... the biggest issue by far was Newton's 3rd law. The most common question was "If the force and reaction force are equal and opposite, then how can there be any motion if the net force is always zero?"

This legit question and many others..."

The undergraduate students were showing confusion about when Newton's Second, and Third Laws apply. I am sure the grad students explained the differences clearly. The Third Law and the Second Law can apply simultaneously for the same overall action although at different physical points. An example is when one pulls horizontally on a rope that is attached to a block that is sliding horizontally. If the block is increasing its speed, then both the Second and Third Laws apply. One needs to know where in the example each applies.

James Putnam

Dear James,

Please explain to me where the Newton's Third Laws applies in the two examples:

airbags and empty cardboard boxes.

Dieu Le

    Dear James,

    Since you're already there, in a teaching position, would you please answer this question:

    "HOW, WHERE and WHEN does the phenomenon of 'the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal' can insert itself into that solid chain of events that turned an old car into a small block of metal, or bullet - meeting no body armor - easily proceeded through human body?"

    I believe all the undergraduate students in the world who are confused by Newton's Law would be grateful for your clear explanation.

    Dieu Le

    Dear Dieu,

    I read both of your messages. There will be nothing more coming.

    James Putnam

    Dear James,

    Understood. Many thanks for paying attention, and spending time to read my posts.

    Dieu Le

    10 days later

    HOW GRAVITY READS WEIGHT

    How does gravity recognize that a steel ball is heavier than a same size aluminum ball?

    After discovering what produces an object's inertia, solving a big mystery of the century, (and having a modest victory lap,) I continued on, searching for an answer to the above question - "Never stop questioning" as Einstein advised.

    A correct answer would reveal many more understandings about the operation and structure of the Universe.

      7 days later
      2 months later

      Why do two balls with the same size but different masses falling from the same height have the same acceleration (in the absence of air resistance)?

      We experienced that these two balls (one heavier than the other) arrived to the ground at the same time as they would have the same weight. How does this happen? What is the reason behind this mysterious phenomenon?

      Professor Viktoria Nyamadi, while participating in the search for an answer to my question: "How does Gravity read weight?" came up with the above question.

      I hope someone out there already has a physically sound answer.

      Note to FQXi

      Call to reason (analogous to "call to arms")

      Information is not something out there, existing in the universe. Information is something you form in your mind.

      Therefore, no information could leak out of a black hole. Only some physical fact could leak out, but I don't know if that happens (that is up to you to determine).

      Complexity is the same thing. The only complexity exists in our minds (because we are so stooopet - which is how one of my daughters spelled it some years ago).

      So what I want you to realize is that there is no such thing as information (or complexity). We will never achieve AI. There is no such thing as entanglement (you will have to figure out something else to explain the correlations).

      And for our ontologists, I have this to say. Existence has no attributes. You cannot say that because of this and this something exists. We perceive attributes of things, but we do not perceive their "existence." I am only writing this for the best and the brightest of you. We perceive the characteristics of things, but never their existence.

      Our sun will not expire for some time yet, and we can stumble to our greater understanding.

      I could tell you more, but for now it might be enough.

      En

      Oh, I forgot something,

      You cannot have reverse-time causality, nor the universe splitting into many. Just forget about those things.

      Are we so daft?

      You can figure it out. Just go back to where we went off with QM. We went off the rails. I cannot do it, but you can.

      I should not say this (and my wife would advise me against this), but I cannot share certain things with you because you cannot handle them.

      En

      • [deleted]

      • Post #121

      Gravity does not read weight! Weight is mass acted upon by gravity causing a measurable output on a weighing device that can be thought of as the force acting on the body due to gravity.

      There is an Einsteinian and a Newtonian explanation of gravity -take your pick.

      Einsteinian: Gravity is not recognizing the objects, treating them differently or actively doing anything, the objects are just obeying Newton's first Law as best they can. The Objects are in free fall, just following the curvature of space-time, (I would like to call that space imagined over time to be consistent with my own explanatory framework).

      From the reference frame of the falling object and an accelerometer of same mass falling with it it has no (proper)acceleration BUT that is an apparent acceleration when not viewed from the reference frame of the falling object itself. Gravity is, using Eisenstein's reasoning, a pseudo force.

      However if you wish to consider it a force, thinking like Newton, it acts with 1G on each mass giving enough force for both to accelerate so that they fall at the same rate. Assuming both have even mass distribution and same shape,as these factors could affect the outcome. F=MG but a small mass will accelerate more easily than a larger mass so it doesn't matter that the force is smaller for the small mass and larger for the large mass.Once again Gravity is not recognizing the objects or treating them differently.

      Both explanations are well known to mainstream physics. Sometimes the first explanation will be most useful for the problem being tackled and sometimes the second.It isn't that one is right and the other wrong but they are different ways of considering the phenomenon. The first does not regard gravity as a force and there is no proper acceleration in the second it is regarded as a force causing the (perceived) acceleration.

      25 days later

      HOW GRAVITY READS MATTER'S DENSITY

      AND CREATES WEIGHT

      Here's my answer to the question:

      "How does gravity read weight? How does it recognize that a steel ball is heavier than an aluminum ball with the same size?"

      http://www.einsteinerrs.com/creating-weight.html

      or see the attachment.

      DieuAttachment #1: HOW_GRAVITY_READS_-FV1.doc

      I added the following paragraphs to my essay:

      "PHYSICS AND NOTHING BUT PHYSICS

      In summary, the process of creating weight is simple: A moving Earth presses on objects that, in turn, press on Dark Matter, meeting DM's resistance. That resistant force, applying individually on objects, creates the objects' weights.

      An aluminum ball, for example, with its low mass's density, allows a great number of DM's units go through its body, meeting a WEAK resistant force, say, a two-pound pushing force.

      A steel ball, with its mass's higher density, has a stronger blocking power - many DM's units are being partially or totally blocked, or have to slow down while going through the ball's body - and will meet a much more forceful DM's resistance, say, a ten-pound pushing force.

      The aluminum ball should weigh two pounds. The steel one's is ten.

      An object's weight is exactly the resistant force that DM pushed back against it.

      That's why we need an equal or greater force to lift it up."

      Please review the revised version at:

      http://www.einsteinerrs.com/creating-weight.html

      4 months later

      Greetings,

      I was able to defend or add answers to my new gravitational theory on a debate against creditable astrophysicists on Cosmoquest.org in the following areas without the use of dark matter or dark energy:

      - the perihelion precession disparity

      - the gravitational light bending

      - the galactic rotation curve using the mass distribution of the galaxy

      - part of the Pioneer 10 anomaly

      - the GPS time dilations cancellation altitude

      - the expansion of the universe

      - the black holes

      - the time dilation of speeds < 40% c

      - solving the mass of the visible universe based on the value of kappa

      - the FEL experiment (derivation is unknown but should be easy to solve)

      The code of my new simulator can be downloaded and run on your Linux (Ubuntu preferably) with:

      $ svn co https://github.com/philippeb8/finite-theory

      Please make sure Qt5 is installed on your system and then you can simply type:

      $ cd finite-theory/trunk

      $ qmake

      $ make

      $ ./ft

      Sincerely yours,

      Phil Bouchard

      www.UnifiedFieldTheoryFinite.com

      21 days later
      a month later

      God particles, without Nobel Prize. / by Socratus/

      ==..

      To discover so-called God - particle ( Nobel Prize in 2013)

      was needed two conditions : deep vacuum and high energy.

      But if the vacuum were deeper and energy were higher then

      it would be possible to discover some kind of a new God - particles.

      Question: what is the deepest vacuum in the Universe?

      My answer:

      the deepest vacuum in the Universe is the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K.

      Question: what can be the highest energy?

      My answer:

      the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K continuum is itself some kind

      of infinite energy continuum.

      Using these parameters, I say that the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K

      can create primary God - particles and their names are

      "potential molar -masses (k) particles."

      ==..

      Question:

      Why potential molar - masses (k) particles are primary God particles?

      Because:

      a)

      Heat is result of some kind of chaotic movements of particles.

      In thermodynamics the heat is explained by the formula: E=kT (logW)

      It means that chaotic movements of molar-mass (k) particles create heat.

      b)

      In 1905 Einstein wrote "quantum of action" as: h=kb

      It means that molar-mass (k) particles know some kind of another

      movement which can create "quantum of action" with energy E=(kb)*f.

      My conclusion.

      Without heat the Universe is an Absolute Cold Kingdom.

      Without "quantum of action" the Universe is dead continuum.

      The molar-mass (k) particles can take part in these two phenomenons:

      E=kT (logW) and E= (kb)*f. And therefore the molar-mass (k)

      particles are primary elements from the First Instant (T=0K) of the

      Universe's creation. Not " the famous Higgs Boson" (with the low

      energy and prestige Prize) but the old and modest well-known

      molar-mass k-particles are real "God particles"

      #

      k-particles have two forms of modifications: as a heat E=kT (logW)

      and as an energy E=(kb)*f . The interaction between energy and heat

      created everything in the Universe but . . . . but until today nobody

      explained the interaction between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW).

      =====....

      Best wishes.

      Israel Sadovnik Socratus.

      ========....

      5 months later

      Please excuse my sophomoric question but I am very, very curious and passionate about the subject of .

      The Framework

      For a moment, let us assume that the framework of context always controls output content, i.e. function precedes form. Let us assume that it is the "Contextual Dimension of Singularity" ... that sets and controls the unfolding Precursor Principles of Superposition ... within Duality ... that in turn . . . "Manifest the Time-Space-Energy Content" of quantum wave coherence and particle quantum entanglements .

      The Question

      With this simplistic Meta cause-effect assumption, what might researchers discover if they were to assume that the Meta Contextual Framework of Singularity is the core essence of Consciousness ... that gives birth to the Duality of time-space-conscious-energy states of inter and intra-relationships that in turn gives rise to the Superposition Principles of both quantum wave coherence and particle quantum entanglements.

      If all energy is in fact conscious - which would be mirrored by the fact that all states of consciousness are energetic- then perhaps we should now be attempting to uncover the metrics of ... the very "Synergistic Attributes" of consciousness.

      I Need Help

      Will someone please contact me as I am now looking for a research institution to empirically test my hypothesis "On Understanding the Ontology of the Conscious Operating System of the Universe?

        Lawrence C II,

        What do you mean with Singularity? While I don't hope for helping you, I distinguish between the not capitalized mathematical term, its unwarranted use in physics, and the even more deviating meaning in AI.

        ++++