Register to reply

Newton's First Law of Motion is Wrong (Proven Wrong in This Thread)

by NewtonWasWrong
Tags: motion, newton, newtoniswrong, proven, wrongisnewton
Share this thread:
NewtonWasWrong
#1
Mar17-14, 10:06 AM
P: 2
Please note this is a very serious thread.

Please note Newton's First Law:

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.


Here is an experiment to prove this First Law wrong.
Consider two balls rolling at a constant velocity directly toward each other on a frictionless plane. Ball A is heading due east at 5 m/s and Ball B is heading due west at 5 m/s. The balls engage in an inelastic collision. The balls will both come to rest. This can be proven experimentally.

Please note that Newton's Second Law describes Force = Mass * Acceleration. Neither ball has an acceleration, meaning that neither ball has any force associated with it. So despite not being acted upon by any FORCE, during the collision, the balls change velocity from 5 meters/second to zero. This simple experiment clearly shows that an object will not necessarily stay in motion at a constant velocity despite not being acted upon by an external force.
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
'Comb on a chip' powers new atomic clock design
Quantum leap in lasers brightens future for quantum computing
Enhanced NIST instrument enables high-speed chemical imaging of tissues
Doc Al
#2
Mar17-14, 10:10 AM
Mentor
Doc Al's Avatar
P: 41,300
Quote Quote by NewtonWasWrong View Post
Please note that Newton's Second Law describes Force = Mass * Acceleration. Neither ball has an acceleration, meaning that neither ball has any force associated with it. So despite not being acted upon by any FORCE, during the collision, the balls change velocity from 5 meters/second to zero. This simple experiment clearly shows that an object will not necessarily stay in motion at a constant velocity despite not being acted upon by an external force.
This is silly. When the balls collide they exert forces on each other!
NewtonWasWrong
#3
Mar17-14, 10:17 AM
P: 2
Quote Quote by Doc Al View Post
This is silly. When the balls collide they exert forces on each other!
Please note Newton's Second Law of Motion:

Second law: The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object; thus, F = ma.

Please note that the acceleration of both balls are equal to 0. Please note that mass*0=0. Consequently, neither ball produces a force (or rather, produces a force equal to 0).

Doc Al
#4
Mar17-14, 10:20 AM
Mentor
Doc Al's Avatar
P: 41,300
Newton's First Law of Motion is Wrong (Proven Wrong in This Thread)

Quote Quote by NewtonWasWrong View Post
Please note that the acceleration of both balls are equal to 0.
Only before they collide! Once they collide, they certainly have a non-zero acceleration. You indicated such yourself!
Nugatory
#5
Mar17-14, 10:23 AM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
P: 3,419
Quote Quote by NewtonWasWrong View Post
Please note Newton's Second Law of Motion:

Second law: The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object; thus, F = ma.

Please note that the acceleration of both balls are equal to 0. Please note that mass*0=0. Consequently, neither ball produces a force (or rather, produces a force equal to 0).
In the collision, both balls change their speed from five meters/second to zero meters per second. That's an acceleration, and you can even calculate its average value throughout the collision: If the time between when the balls first touch andwhen they stop moving is ##\Delta{t}## seconds, the average magnitude of the acceleration will be ##\frac{\Delta{v}}{\Delta{t}} = \frac{5}{\Delta{t}} m/sec^2##.

Non-zero ##a##, non-zero ##m##, gotta be a non-zero ##F##.
DaleSpam
#6
Mar17-14, 11:00 AM
Mentor
P: 16,945
Quote Quote by NewtonWasWrong View Post
Please note this is a very serious thread.
Next time, before posting an obviously wrong and completely ignorant challenge to an established theory it might be good to exercise a little humility and actually learn enough of the theory to be able to use it correctly.

You completely failed to recognize the obvious forces acting on the objects, and therefore completely failed to correctly apply the theory. Furthermore, you arrogantly assumed that you were the only person in the last 300 years smart enough to have correctly analyzed an inelastic collision using the theory.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Will string theory ever be proven wrong? Beyond the Standard Model 51
Has General relativity been proven wrong ? Special & General Relativity 5
Horava Gravity proven wrong, ruled out, etc. Beyond the Standard Model 20
Has anything in mathematics ever been proven wrong? General Math 6