Is Newton's Law At Risk?

[gravityblock]

Below are a few excerpts and screenshots from Kanarev's publication on mechanodynamics, which is key in understanding how there is no counter torque between the induced flywheel and the motor.

In old dynamics, an inertial component of deceleration b_i was a part of a deceleration b_p being generated by the forces of mechanical resistances to motion.  This hindered an analysis of the forces acting on all types of motions (accelerated motion, uniform motion and decelerated one). It was considered that the inertia force F_i, which also hindered the accelerated motion of the body, was not a part of the sum of all forces of mechanical resistances. It is the main fundamental error of Newtonian dynamics, which has remained unnoticed during 322 years.  Automatically, the inertia force was a part of the aggregate force of mechanical resistances, but everybody thought that it was not there. As a result, all experimental coefficients of mechanical resistances to body motion prove to be erroneous.

If a sum of the body motion resistance forces is determined during its accelerated motion, the inertia force F_i is automatically included in the sum of the motion resistance forces, and a result of the determination of resistance forces will be completely erroneous.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Below are a few excerpts and screenshots from Kanarev's publication on mechanodynamics, which is key in understanding how there is no counter torque between the induced flywheel and the motor.

In old dynamics, an inertial component of deceleration b_i was a part of a deceleration b_p being generated by the forces of mechanical resistances to motion.  This hindered an analysis of the forces acting on all types of motions (accelerated motion, uniform motion and decelerated one). It was considered that the inertia force F_i, which also hindered the accelerated motion of the body, was not a part of the sum of all forces of mechanical resistances. It is the main fundamental error of Newtonian dynamics, which has remained unnoticed during 322 years.  Automatically, the inertia force was a part of the aggregate force of mechanical resistances, but everybody thought that it was not there. As a result, all experimental coefficients of mechanical resistances to body motion prove to be erroneous.

If a sum of the body motion resistance forces is determined during its accelerated motion, the inertia force F_i is automatically included in the sum of the motion resistance forces, and a result of the determination of resistance forces will be completely erroneous.

Gravock

Webby pointed out earlier that the current draw is higher in the flywheel test than in the free hanging test.  I then pointed out that the current draw during the flywheel test was slowly dropping during the entire duration of this test.  This continuous drop in current is evidence of a decrease in the acceleration rate of the unbalanced purple gears.  In other words, the device never reached uniform motion and was undergoing acceleration during the entire test, albeit slowly.

Due to the additional resistance forces in the flywheel test, it takes much longer to achieve uniform motion than it does to achieve uniform motion during the free hanging test which has less mechanical resistance and has more mechanical freedom to take the path of least resistance as it freely oscillates in free space.

The inertia force is part of the sum of all forces of mechanical resistance during acceleration.  However, during uniform motion, the inertia force is no longer a resistant force, and it will then be pointing in the same direction to that of the constant active force or prime mover.  Below is a snapshot shot of Kanarev's publication for a quick reference.

Don't confuse the mechanical resistance in the device as a counter torque from the flywheel to the motor.  If a sum of the body motion resistance forces is determined during its accelerated motion, the inertia force is automatically included in the sum of the motion resistance forces, and a result of the determination of resistance forces will be completely erroneous.  This is the error Webby is making.  Webby is making a determination of the resistance forces during an accelerated motion, which includes the inertia force, and erroneously coming to the conclusion that this inertia force is a counter torque from the induced flywheel to the motor.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

I will read this paper in due time,, I have not read it yet.

The assumption is not really correct,,

Again I will strongly suggest that you build and test,, when you do you will see that there is indeed a feedback due to f=ma,, those weights do not just spin force-less.

I have built and tested these kind of systems,, I know that the load is reflected back onto the prime mover,, BTDT

What assumption are you referring to that isn't really correct?  Once again you have put the cart  (effect) before the horse (cause) by assuming Newton's laws are correct! 

Newton's first law violates the principal of cause and effect!  Newton's first law of dynamics states, "Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change this state by forces impressed upon it".  In this statement, we see at once a violation of the principle of the cause and effect relationships.

Any motion is a cause of an action of a force, but it is missing in Newton's first law; there is no mathematical model of this law, which describes its constant movement in space, but a body ignores it and moves with constant velocity V. The discrepancies being described are a cause of a violation of the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. This principle requires a description of the process or the phenomenon from its very beginning, not from the middle. 

An accelerated motion is the beginning of any motion, and a uniform motion is its cause. Thus, in order to return the principle of the cause and effect relationships into the former Newtonian dynamics, it is necessary to put the law of the accelerated motion of a body to the first place.  As a result, we'll get a new dynamics. In order to differentiate it from the old dynamics, Kanarev calls it "Mechanodynamics".

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Webby,

My statement isn't an assumption.  It's based on logic, common sense, and rational reasoning.  Your belief that we should start in the middle and not from the very beginning in order to violate the principal of cause and effect is based on nothing more than some kind of nutbar logic and irrational reasoning.  Newton's inverted way of thinking has persisted for more than 322 years, and your a co-conspirator in perpetuating this nutbar logic in order to bamboozle and hoodwink the general population.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

You aserted that my assumption isn't really correct , and you won't even say what that assumption was.


Gravock