[Momentus (OP)]

This is a discovery I made many years ago. I think you will find it a challenge to your beliefs. It is not a theory, it does not violate Newton's basic axioms too much and of course you can replicate the experiment very easily.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Dark Motion

The diagram shows a blue ball traveling at a velocity of A-C, which is struck by a red ball traveling at a velocity of B-C.
The Blue ball is deflected with a resultant velocity C-D, the vector change is solely of direction, the red ball comes to rest its vector change is solely of magnitude.

That is all there is to see. A diagram that illustrates Newton?s equal and opposite force and momentum change.  X is the difference between the orthodox view and reality.

That is the simple part, describing Dark Motion.

Newton's laws of motion have served as the foundation for the development of further concepts, including those of symmetry and reversibility in physics, which are considered to be inviolate.

Dark Motion is neither symmetrical nor reversible. The diagram clearly shows this.


That is the discovery. Now for some speculation

Dark Motion is a natural phenomenon therefore it should appear in nature. Dark matter and dark energy are two examples where Dark Motion provides plausible solutions. It also offers tantalising glimpses of a unified theory by moving classical theory closer to quantum mechanics.

A practical use for an engineered version would be an Internally Reacted Thruster. A device that exerts constant force in one direction.

An IRT would consist of a motor and the reacting parts and would produce thrust proportional to the mass of the active elements and operation speed.
An important characteristic of the IRT stems from the fact that work done is force over distance, If the IRT does not move a load then it does not consume any power. For instance, hovering would only consume ?no load? power.

Fit an IRT in place of wheels to give vectored thrust for a flying car
Replace the rocket in a spaceship, take the wings off planes and replace the fuel hungry jet engines with electric motors. Float ocean cargo vessels over land, Cruise ships to the Grand Canyon. Every city could have an overhead platform for emergency vehicles and communication aerials.

No doubt you will think of your own applications Skiing? Sailing? Gliding?

One final thought, lifting massive loads. The IRT would act like a hydraulic jack, just lifting the load off the ground. Effectively that is anti-gravity. As the earth is rotating, the fully equipped orbital station would not be held on the surface by gravity, just held in place by the IRTs until the earth rotated away. Like a slingshot.

I originally wrote this for my Grandchildren.

I am quite jealous to think that when you are Grandparents all this will be mundane and uses of Dark Motion that I cannot imagine will be commonplace.

Your loving Grandfather, Brian.

The twin pendulum model that you played with many years ago is just a convenient way of demonstrating this.

[Bored chemist]

I have played enough pool to know that's not what happens
If the blue ball is moving right to left and hits the red ball then it will impart some momentum in that direction to the red ball.

so teh red ball will not be left stationary..
Also

the red ball comes to rest its vector change is solely of magnitude.

That depends on your point of view.

[Momentus (OP)]

In Snooker it is called a kiss, when both balls are moving. Do try it. Roll a blue ball down the table and hit it with a cue ball at right angles to its line of motion. JFD, I have and, with a bit of patience, you will hit the sweet spot.

[Origin]

That is all there is to see. A diagram that illustrates Newton?s equal and opposite force and momentum change.  X is the difference between the orthodox view and reality.

I think the difference exists because you drew the diagram incorrectly.
Do you have any mathematics to back up why you drew the diagram the way you did?  I can draw a diagram that violates physics easily that does not mean the diagram is correct.

[Origin]

In Snooker it is called a kiss, when both balls are moving. Do try it. Roll a blue ball down the table and hit it with a cue ball at right angles to its line of motion. JFD, I have and, with a bit of patience, you will hit the sweet spot.

I have never seen a billiard ball violate physics.

[Momentus (OP)]

I need help here. Please show me the correct mathematics. I can only repeat JFD. When you interact the two balls as shown, the red ball does not change the speed of the blue ball. To do so would indeed "violate physics" All of the momentum of the red ball is absorbed by the change in direction of the blue ball.
The forces are equal and opposite, the momentum exchange is equal and opposite.

[Bored chemist]

In Snooker it is called a kiss, when both balls are moving. Do try it. Roll a blue ball down the table and hit it with a cue ball at right angles to its line of motion. JFD, I have and, with a bit of patience, you will hit the sweet spot.

I have played enough pool to know that you can only do it because of the nap on the table.
Without that, what you have posted is simply wrong- for the reason I gave

You are misrepresenting physics.

Just because I can draw a free body diagram of an elephant taking off, that doesn't mean elephants can fly

[Origin]

I need help here. Please show me the correct mathematics.

The correct mathematics are found in Newtonian physics.  I'm not really sure what your diagram is all about, nothing is labeled.  The thing is you have a line going where you say the ball 'should' go and a line where you say the ball really goes.  There is no math and no explanation of how there is any deviation of the ball from what physics would predict, all we have is you claiming it does.

[Origin]

This is a discovery I made many years ago.

It would help greatly if you stated up front what your discovery is.

The diagram shows a blue ball traveling at a velocity of A-C

A-C is not a velocity, it is a direction.  So what we have is a blue ball moving at an unknown speed in a certain direction.

which is struck by a red ball traveling at a velocity of B-C.

  Again B-C is not a velocity, it is a direction.  So what we have is a red ball moving at an unknown speed in a certain direction.

The Blue ball is deflected with a resultant velocity C-D, the vector change is solely of direction, the red ball comes to rest its vector change is solely of magnitude.

There is not enough information given to have any idea where the balls would end up.  We do not know the speed of either ball nor do we know at what angle the balls hit each other.

[Momentus (OP)]

There is not enough information given to have any idea where the balls would end up.  We do not know the speed of either ball nor do we know at what angle the balls hit each other.

My mistake. I made the assumption that vector diagrams were commonplace and that anyone who would be contributing to the thread would recognise that at a velocity of A-C was referencing a vector diagram.

The diagram is drawn to scale. AC is 4 units long, BC is 3 units long, and therefore CX is 5 units long the vector sum of AC, BC. That is what you believe to be true, as it preserves symmetry and is reversible.

However Newton says otherwise. In the Principia he shows, at length, that a force applied at right angles to the direction of travel results in a change of direction and not, repeat for emphasis, not a change of speed. This forms the basis for his centripetal force concept and onwards to gravity.

When red strikes blue the forces generated are equal and opposite, bringing red to rest, and changing the direction of  blue, but crucially not the speed. Thus the position of blue is  determined by the construction of a triangle with a vertical side of  length BC and hypotenuse of length AC The positions as shown.

[Origin]

My mistake. I made the assumption that vector diagrams were commonplace and that anyone who would be contributing to the thread would recognise that at a velocity of A-C was referencing a vector diagram.

If you had the information on the graph it might make sense.  If you show a chart with no labels on the axis how are we to know what you are talking about?

The diagram is drawn to scale. AC is 4 units long, BC is 3 units long, and therefore CX is 5 units long the vector sum of AC, BC

Based on your unclear drawing there is no possible way the the blue ball would end up moving in the direction indicated.

I assume this is about an elastic collision, since you did not specify.  Could you show you work using the elastic collision formula so we can get a better idea of what you are trying to prove?  The picture you supplied is completely useless in trying to analyze the situation.

[Momentus (OP)]

I have been working on Dark Motion for a long time now. So it is easy to forget that what seems very simple to me, may not seem so when first encountered. I will try again as clearly as I can show how Newton?s laws apply to a particular two body interaction.

In the first law, an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it. In the second law, the force on an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. In the third law, when two objects interact, they apply forces to each other of equal magnitude and opposite direction.

Consider two masses, bodies, particles, ball bearings, billiard balls golf balls, one is red one is blue. For convenience we say that they have the same mass.

With reference to the drawing the vector of the red mass is shown as BC, with a speed of 3 units. The blue mass is moving as shown by AC with a speed of 4 units.

Their paths interact as shown such that the red ball is subjected to a force, directly opposed to (BC) its line of action, which changes its speed of velocity. There is no force acting at an angle to BC, there will be no change of direction

The same force acts on the blue ball at right angles to its line of action, deflecting it. and changing its direction of velocity. There is no force acting along the line of action (AC) of the blue mass, therefore there is no change in the speed of the blue mass.

Straightforward Newton. Since the same force is acting on both masses, there will be equal changes in momentum.

That change is shown in the diagram as the red mass coming to rest, no residual momentum, the blue mass moves on the line of CD an unchanged speed of 4 units and also along the line of BC at  speed of 3 units.

First law, check.
Second law check.
Third law check.

Quote
bringing red to rest, and changing the direction of  blue, but crucially not the speed.
Again, that violates all the laws. It's trivially falsified with an actual experiment instead of bogus non-mathematical assertions.
Like I said before I need help with this. If you are demanding a mathematical proof, then please show me what the mathematical description of this two mass collision should look like.
If the trivial experiment which you refer to is

I did this experiment in school, and your assertions have been falsified.

How did you measure the increase in speed of the blue mass. Please believe me when I say I really am interested in that fact as I have never ever observed it myself in the many experiments I have carried out over the years.

[paul cotter]

I can't make any sense of the diagram supplied. At a minimum you need to show conditions before and after impact annotated with speeds before I could analyse it. For the record we use vector notation on a regular basis. Also you seem confused about speed/velocity: speed is just speed, ie dx/dt while velocity is speed in a stated direction.

[Origin]

 

That change is shown in the diagram as the red mass coming to rest, no residual momentum, the blue mass moves on the line of CD an unchanged speed of 4 units and also along the line of BC at  speed of 3 units.

OK.

bringing red to rest, and changing the direction of  blue, but crucially not the speed.

You just said the speed did change!  The blue ball was moving originally at 4 units in the CD (x) direction.  After the collision it is moving those 4 units plus 3 units in the BC (y) direction.  That is an increase in speed.

[Bored chemist]

In the first law, an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it.

And an object will change its motion if a force acts on it.
What you say is the red ball stops because it experiences a force from the blue ball.
And that requires that the two are (momentarily) in contact.
But, at the moment when they are in contact, the blue ball is moving right to left.
The red ball is in contact with a thing moving right to left.
So there's a force on it from right to left.
So there's a change in motion of the red ball from right to left

Since the initial component of its motion in that direction is zero, and there's a change in that motion, the final motion must include a component in the horizontal direction.
So it can not be stationary after the  collision.

Why does the blue ball not push the red ball right to left?
How does it know that it's only allowed to push it up (to arrest that component of its motion) but not from right to left?

[Momentus (OP)]

I can't make any sense of the diagram supplied

I am sorry that you are unable to make sense of my diagram.
Perhaps you with your knowledge of vectors could describe what happens when masses collide at right angles?

[Momentus (OP)]

You just said the speed did change!  The blue ball was moving originally at 4 units in the CD (x) direction.  After the collision it is moving those 4 units plus 3 units in the BC (y) direction.  That is an increase in speed.

The momentum of the blue ball is changed by its change in direction, not by a change in speed. The change in momentum of the blue ball is equal to the change in momentum of the red ball. Newton again. To accommodate this change the blue ball moves, at its original speed but at an angle such that gives motion in the y direction of three units. As drawn.

[Origin]

The momentum of the blue ball is changed by its change in direction, not by a change in speed.

You keep saying that but your numbers say otherwise!  You appear to be arguing with yourself.
Before the collision the blue ball is moving at 4 unit in the x direction.  After the collision the blue ball is moving at 4 units in the x direction and 3 units in the y direction.  That means the blue ball is moving away from the point of the collision at 5 units.
How can you say the blue ball did not change its speed?  You prove that it did change speed with the math and then you turn around and say it didn't change speed - very strange.

[Momentus (OP)]

Why does the blue ball not push the red ball right to left?
How does it know that it's only allowed to push it up (to arrest that component of its motion) but not from right to left?

I think if you google "line of action of force? or similar you will find an explanation.
If you do the experiment you will see for yourself. Timing is difficult, if the red ball impacts too early, it strikes the front of the blue ball. This slows the blue ball down and the red ball is deflected forward. If the red ball hits too late, on the back of the blue ball, it speeds the blue ball up and is deflected to the rear.

If you hit the blue ball centrally, it neither slows down nor speeds, up and the red ball is not deflected forwards or backwards. It stops.

[Origin]

If you hit the blue ball centrally, it neither slows down nor speeds, up

Not according to Newton and not according to your analysis!?!  Do you seriously think that 4 units = 5 units?

You are not making any sense.