Abstract maths does not mean anything. Your cat does not occupy its own 'space-time' with its own 'clock'. Nor, when it swats a mouse, is there an 'equal and opposite reaction' from the mouse.
There is a physical reality to the third law. The arrow that hits something can get splintered, the bullet deformed, the hammer bounces back off a wall, if you punch someone you can break your hand etc etc.
These engineers are disagreeing with you because they use this law when they do free body diagrams -- if you don't put in the reaction forces, it won't match reality. This is how buildings, structures, mechanical systems etc are designed, it is definitely real.
I honestly think you should delete that part, because my takeaway is, if I can't trust his reasoning on the stuff I understand such as Newton's laws, then why should I trust him on the things which I don't understand, such as relativity? I don't want to be mean, this is just how it comes across to me. I think alternative physics theories are great because clearly there are issues with the current theories, keep doing what you're doing :)
Yes Einstein the stage performer. He pulled more than just rabbits from his hat. He conjured up complete fantasy worlds, all proven by his maths :) None of these fantasies are falsifiable. I wonder why Popper never applied his axiom to the Einstotle cult.
I applaud your scholarly evisceration of Einsteinian “space-time” nonsense, but your hubris in impugning Newton’s 3rd law astonishes me. As an engineer, I can assure you Newton’s 3rd law will be working in the cases you describe, despite your inability to ‘model’ the penetration, deformation and damage done to the various ‘targets’ (face, body, wall, target) by the ‘missiles’ (fist, arrow, hammer, bullet) you threw at them.
• Your difficulty lies in not being able to model the rapid changes in the motions, dynamic distortions, changing contact areas, and structural damage of each object in real time.
Given sufficient time and money, each impact could be modelled in a supercomputer. With a Finite Element Model (FEM) of your various missiles and targets, a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) program would handle the dynamic changes in the anisotropic properties of each body as it moves, deforms, or fractures during the brief interaction period. That FEA would apply Newton’s 3rd law as a ‘boundary condition’ where the Elements of each FEM were in contact and ensure equal and opposite Force Elements act perpendicular to Contact Elements and allow equal and opposite friction effects to act on (and parallel to) those Contact Elements, as they slide.
• Your sense of the word “reaction” seems to refer to the huge difference between the EFFECTS an impact has on your selected ‘stationary’ objects, and the EFFECTS of the same impact on your selected ‘moving’ objects. That huge difference seems to have distracted you from the mutual contact FORCE itself, which occurred before (and caused) all those subsequent EFFECTS. But that difference relates to the huge differences between the colliding bodies, not to a flaw in the 3rd law.
Newtonian ‘actions’ and ‘reactions’ are ‘mirror images’ of each other and are as inextricably linked as you and your image in a mirror are linked. One may seem to be ‘causal’ and the other its ‘effect’, due solely to our human awareness of sequential time. But inanimate objects have no perception of time; each simply ‘reacts’ to the other, and that common ‘reaction’ force acts equally in both directions at the same instant. Whether its EFFECT is insignificant or devastating depends solely on the NATURE of each object.
There is a physical reality to the third law. The arrow that hits something can get splintered, the bullet deformed, the hammer bounces back off a wall, if you punch someone you can break your hand etc etc.
These engineers are disagreeing with you because they use this law when they do free body diagrams -- if you don't put in the reaction forces, it won't match reality. This is how buildings, structures, mechanical systems etc are designed, it is definitely real.
I honestly think you should delete that part, because my takeaway is, if I can't trust his reasoning on the stuff I understand such as Newton's laws, then why should I trust him on the things which I don't understand, such as relativity? I don't want to be mean, this is just how it comes across to me. I think alternative physics theories are great because clearly there are issues with the current theories, keep doing what you're doing :)
Thanks - there is a difference between kinematic energy exchange and a reaction :)
Newton’s Third Law may not fit your macro model of the universe, but it’s never once let me down for engineering purposes.
Kinetic energy is different than Newton's idea of a reaction.
It’s all Scientism. I’m waiting for Einstein to pull a rabbit from his hat.
Yes Einstein the stage performer. He pulled more than just rabbits from his hat. He conjured up complete fantasy worlds, all proven by his maths :) None of these fantasies are falsifiable. I wonder why Popper never applied his axiom to the Einstotle cult.
I applaud your scholarly evisceration of Einsteinian “space-time” nonsense, but your hubris in impugning Newton’s 3rd law astonishes me. As an engineer, I can assure you Newton’s 3rd law will be working in the cases you describe, despite your inability to ‘model’ the penetration, deformation and damage done to the various ‘targets’ (face, body, wall, target) by the ‘missiles’ (fist, arrow, hammer, bullet) you threw at them.
• Your difficulty lies in not being able to model the rapid changes in the motions, dynamic distortions, changing contact areas, and structural damage of each object in real time.
Given sufficient time and money, each impact could be modelled in a supercomputer. With a Finite Element Model (FEM) of your various missiles and targets, a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) program would handle the dynamic changes in the anisotropic properties of each body as it moves, deforms, or fractures during the brief interaction period. That FEA would apply Newton’s 3rd law as a ‘boundary condition’ where the Elements of each FEM were in contact and ensure equal and opposite Force Elements act perpendicular to Contact Elements and allow equal and opposite friction effects to act on (and parallel to) those Contact Elements, as they slide.
• Your sense of the word “reaction” seems to refer to the huge difference between the EFFECTS an impact has on your selected ‘stationary’ objects, and the EFFECTS of the same impact on your selected ‘moving’ objects. That huge difference seems to have distracted you from the mutual contact FORCE itself, which occurred before (and caused) all those subsequent EFFECTS. But that difference relates to the huge differences between the colliding bodies, not to a flaw in the 3rd law.
Newtonian ‘actions’ and ‘reactions’ are ‘mirror images’ of each other and are as inextricably linked as you and your image in a mirror are linked. One may seem to be ‘causal’ and the other its ‘effect’, due solely to our human awareness of sequential time. But inanimate objects have no perception of time; each simply ‘reacts’ to the other, and that common ‘reaction’ force acts equally in both directions at the same instant. Whether its EFFECT is insignificant or devastating depends solely on the NATURE of each object.