Newton’s Third Law
Wiki: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Rail Guns don’t recoil
No equal and opposite reaction
“An interesting debate in rail gun research circles is the location, magnitude, and cause of recoil forces, equal and opposite to the launched projectile. The various claims do not appear to be supported by direct experimental observation. . . . The research is ongoing but we have observed that the magnitude of the force on the armature is at least seventy times greater than any predicted equal and opposite reaction force on the rails.”
AN ACADEMIC INVESTIGATION OF THE STATIC FORCE BALANCE OF A MODEL RAILGUN by Matthew K. Schroeder, June 2007. Read it all here: Railgun naval investigationADA473387
scripturalphysics.org: “In other words, there seems to be some “missing recoil” in connection with radial electromagnetic forces. Investigating, I found this comment (quoted in part) on the Internet”
“There is very little room for skepticism about the paper (above). Large scale tests performed by the US Navy of a prototype rail gun involved a 3.35 Kg projectile with a muzzle velocity of 2520 meters/sec. This gives a momentum in excess of 8000 Kg-meters/sec, enough to send a 200 Kg rail gun backward at over 40 meters per second. A conventional gun with similar performance would require a massive and extensive recoil absorption apparatus. There is none needed with a rail gun. . . .The lack of recoil in rail guns has disastrous consequences for physics; it is a direct and unequivocal demonstration that the law of conservation of momentum is incorrect.” (“Rail Guns don’t recoil”), Canup, Robert E., December 2008)
Thanks to: http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/ADVPROP.html#RailGunRecoil
Note: There is a world of difference between the use of math as a tool and the use of math as a form of religious dogma. To blindly accept a three centuries old LAW is naive and it’s hardly surprising that anomalies appear. But sadly, science prefers the math to the experiment – contrary to what we are told that science actually does. See Moon: gravitational anomalies
The Navy’s Giant New Electric Railgun
By ‘Popular Science’ July 2015 p. 49 states that a rail gun being tested by the Navy accelerates a shell , which weighs about 35 pounds, from zero to 5,000 miles per hour in 1/100 of a second. “It can strike with 32 megajoules of energy, roughly equal to the force of a locomotive smashing into a wall.” http://www.popsci.com/future-war-new-ships-will-determine-control-contested-waters
Like so many technologies in these pages (thought to be new) the history of the railgun dates back to the 19th century.
Newton’s Third Law (NASA quoting Newton) states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects. The third law can be used to explain the generation of lift by a wing and the production of thrust by a jet engine.
Unlike NASA, Newton had an excuse; he knew nothing about electricity.
Wiki: “Recoil (often called knockback, kickback or simply kick) is the backward momentum of a gun when it is discharged. In technical terms, the recoil caused by the gun exactly balances the forward momentum of the projectile and exhaust gases (ejecta), according to Newton’s third law.”
But this appears not to be the case for the railgun, so Newton’s law is not a law. But then Newton only knew about gun powder cannons and nothing at all about electricity.
The more than a hundred year old theory regarding such things as the repulsion of the railgun can be found here: Introduction to Dielectricity & Capacitance
Newton’s First Law
NASA Spaceflight Systems, Education says: “Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.”
Not only is the first law wrong but just about every word written in the first law is wrong. When we examine Newton’s first law in the light of critical thought, we realise that nothing in the universe is in a state of rest – everything is moving. Everything is also moving in orbit about something else and so nothing moves in a straight line. eg If you are asleep in a chair, the chair and you are orbiting with the Earth around the Sun. The Sun is orbiting the galaxy and the galaxy has its own movement relative to other galaxies. Additionally, every body in the universe is affected by the gravity of every other body in the universe. One would need to be outside of the universe to test Newtons law; therefore it is impossible to check the validity of the first law. It begins to become apparent why it was so difficult to land the first probes on the Moon using 300 years-old science. Readers are encouraged to check these facts for themselves. See also: Moon: Gravitational Anomalies
Newton’s laws of motion were devised more than 300 years ago and contrary to what may be assumed by those who think Einstein solved the problem, NASA still uses them in their exact original form. I can find no evidence that any attempt has been made to include modern updates or improvements such as those of Einstein. Moon and Mars missions have been and are conducted with the original version of Newton’s laws. Check it out for yourself!
From the original Latin of Newton’s Principia:
“ Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare. ”
Translated to English, this reads:
“ Law I: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
NASA not only exclusively uses Newton’s 300 year old law but states it with almost the exact words used by Newton.
Neutral point of gravity Earth Moon
“Houston We’ve Had A Problem”
Click Moon: Gravitational Anomalies for more
Was Newton Right?
Newtonian gravity problems and answers to lunar gravitational anomalies are discussed at the website referenced below, specifically with regard to the Neutral point of gravity; the point between Earth and Moon where the gravity of the two bodies cancel each other out.
The Living Moon – A Question of Lunar Gravity The Neutral Point
I have chosen the neutral point because mathematicians and scientists are typically and deliberately unforthcoming on the subject. If they don’t refuse to answer (something they often do when confronted with an awkward question), they tend to change the subject to the Lagrangian points, something quite different. If one is insistent they calculate the neutral point using Newtons formula. This is a strawman and neither of these will do if astronauts have experienced the neutral point in a position different from that of Newton and this is exactly what has happened.
Experience supersedes theory and this means that Newton’s theory of gravity is wrong. It also tells us that either scientists know about this and are reluctant to admit the truth of the matter or that they are so enamored of Newton that they cannot see him do any wrong.
Newton’s Second Law
The second law states that the rate of change of momentum of a body, is directly proportional to the force applied and this change in momentum takes place in the direction of the applied force.
Put simply, this means if you push something it will probably move in the direction and speed you pushed it. It may look simple but the mathematicians go into raptures over it.
The Legend of Big G,
Physicists describe gravitation with Newton’s Law of Gravitation, which incorporates the Gravitational Constant G. Here’s where the embarrassment arises. Many other constants of nature, such as the charge on the electron, are known to eight significant figures. We only know G to three. What’s worse, modern attempts to refine the measurement of G come up with wildly different answers. Torsion-pendulum experiments in the U.S., Germany, and New Zealand are far apart in their G-measurements. And physicists are perplexed — to put it mildly…. “If experiments find that G is changing slowly over time, for example, physicists would have to rethink how space and time are stitched together in a single fabric. Einstein would groan in his grave.
(Kestenbaum, David; “The Legend of Big G,” New Scientist, p. 39, January 17, 1998.)
From Science Frontiers #116, MAR-APR 1998. © 1998-2000 William R. Corliss
Experimental Evidence for a Violation of Newton’s Inverse-Square Law of Gravitation
Two experiments reported at the 1988 meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco can be added to the others that question Newton’s venerable Law of Gravitation. The abstracts of these papers are short and to-the-point, so we quote them:
“We have performed an experimental test of Newton’s inverse-square law of gravitation. The test compared accurately measured gravity values along the 600 m WTVD tower near Raleigh, North Carolina, with upward, continued gravity estimates calculated from ground measurements. We found a significant departure from the inverse-square law, asymptotically approaching -547 ± 36 microGal at the top of the tower. If this departure is derived from a scalar Yukawa potential, the coupling parameter is alpha = 0.023, the range is lambda = 280 m, and the Newtonian Gravitational Constant is G = (6.52 ± 0.01) x 1011 m3 kg-1 s-2. We do not yet have adequate resolution to discriminate this scalar model from a scalarvector model.”
(Eckhardt, D.H., et al; “Experimental Evidence for a Violation of Newton’s Inverse-Square Law of Gravitation,” Eos, 69:1046, 1988.)
Results from the 1987 Greenland G Experiment
“In the late summer of 1987, an experiment was performed to determine the value of the Newtonian gravitational constant, G, by measuring the variation of the earth’s gravity, g, with depth in the Greenland icesheet. The site for the experiment – the radar station at Dye-3, Greenland – was selected because of the existing 2000- m-deep ice borehole there. Previous analysis of ice-cores from the borehole indicate that the ice density can be accurately modeled. Gravity measurements were made to a depth of 1673 meters in the ice, the sub-ice topography was mapped with high-precision radar echo sounding over a 10-km-diameter region, and a series of 24 locations in a 32-km-diameter network around the hole were surveyed with gravity, leveling, and GPS positioning.
“When corrected for the sub-ice topography, a gravity anomaly that accumulated to nearly 4 mGal in 1.4 km was observed. We find measured anomalies can be taken as evidence for non-Newtonian gravity, but can also be accounted for in terms of Newtonian physics if a suitable distribution of high densiity masses exist beneath the borehole.”
(Zumberge, Mark Al, et al; “Results from the 1987 Greenland G Experiment,” Eos, 69:1046, 1988.)
Fifth Force’ Update
The paper on the Greenland experiment led to a short article in Science in which differing opinions among the re-search team members about the experiment’s significance were aired. Some opted for an unusual density distribu-tion of the rock beneath the experiment to explain the results; others thought that the required density distribution was too unlikely and contrived and consequently favored a modification of Newton’s inverse-square law.
(Poole, Robert; “‘Fifth Force’ Update: More Tests Needed,” Science, 242:1499, 1988.)
More to come on this…