Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum I'm looking for special research group

I'm looking for physics lab which can do special research my physics hypotheses from this site.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
I'm not physics scientist and hypotheses form this site wasn't written as scientific research document.
I have a doubt about classical mechanic motion principle. The modern physics say the nature has two main translational and rotational motions with their own law of momentum conservation. My hypotheses introduces the nature has just one main rotational and translational motion with it's own law of momentum conservation and rotational motion and translational motion are part of this main motion.
The modern physic says net off all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will be a zero after repulsive action.
My hypotheses says net off all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will be a zero after repulsive action if all objects of isolated system will conduct translational motion only. If one of the object after repulsive action will conduct a translational and rotational motion then the net of all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will not equal to zero. I made some experiment which it shown on my site. However, it is not enough to show good result without physics lab environment. I want to check it and spend some money for it and prove or disapprove this modern physics motion concept. I'm looking to physics lab which can do custom research and produce this experiment. Would it possible to do this in your lab? I would appreciate if you look into my site.

Thank you

Can't you just do the pencil experiment they describe?

However I don't think this is something to bother with experiments for. I'm sure it can be resolved by purely theoretical work. You can always test the results of the theory by referring to existing experiments or just making sure that the new theory produces exactly the same predictions as the classical one.

I'm not entirely sure what the new idea is tho. Classical mechanics can easily describe that combined linear and rotational motion. The linear and rotational momentum conservation laws can still be applied and still work without contradictions. The net angular momentum of the two rods is zero even tho one is spinning. Similarly the net linear momentum is also zero.

I perfectly understand modern classical mechanics. Actually, how I got degree without that . However, I would like to test modern physics motion principle by this experiment. I would like to see how law of momentum conservation works for objects which conduct different type of motion. Translational and rotational and translational motions.

The experiment is very simple.
Ideally, two objects aligned differently from repulsive point. One of them will conduct translational motion. Another object will conduct rotational and translational motion. The result of experiment is measure horizontal velocities of these objects from repulsive point and calculate their translational momentums.
Base on modern classical mechanics these momentums must have same value with opposite directions.

I have a doubt about this, because base on my motion concept these momentums will have same value if objects will have translational motion only. If one of the objects will have rotational and translational motion then part of the energy will be spend for rotation of this object and horizontal velocities of these objects won't have same value. My concept about main rotational and translational motion may be wrong. However, I would like to see an experiment which will prove modern physics motion concept about two main independent motions.

I think you could design it yourself. If need be have it built by a mechanical workshop.

A potential problem I see with the pencil experiment is the air resistance being different for the spinning and non-spinning pencils. You could overcome that by using denser material, like metal rods. Also by measuring the decrease in speed with time to make sure it's not decelerating more.

Can you explain a bit more about this energy thing? I can see the rotating one would have an extra rotational kinetic energy. But that doesn't mean the translational velocities will be different. It could mean the two rods simply have different amounts of energy. Which they do - the rotating one has been subject to the same linear force, but also a moment as well.

What's motivated you to pursue this? Have you ever noticed any inconsistincies in the classical theory, or incorrect predictions?

The modern physics has no problem with that. It's just apply extra energy to rotation part with postulating law of translational momentum conservation. However, it's say nothing about where is another opposite angular momentum. The modern physics give center of mass (COM) of rotation of all applied objects which will collide with something and will stop moving relatively to COM. It's kind of post processing virtual events which should be added to equate missing opposite angular momentum.



I have a few motivations.
1. Rotational and translational motion is standalone natural phenomenon because it may be initiated from one event and it should have it's own law of momentum conservation.
2. What will happen if there repulsed objects will never collide with other objects? The energy will divided asymmetrically between two sides.
3. Dark matter. I think it's a miscalculation and this hypotheses could explains it.
4. My doubts I always check on practice

That's what classical physics does too. Except the part about another opposite angular momentum. They both say the whole system (both rods) have a net zero angular momentum.


I'm sure you can formulate it so they're a single concept. Actually when I was in school I always imagined rotational motion to be a special case of translational motion that they just used because it made things simpler.

Suppose you had a massless rod with a point mass on each end. If it's rotating you could consider it as having angular momentum. Alternatively you could just use the translational momentum of the point masses. It'd get a bit complicated because they're changing direction as it rotates, but that's OK, the rod provides a force which causes them to change direction.




Yes, but so what? Who says they both have to have the same energy?

Once the human make a ruler, he will use it always. Why? Because it's easy. Same with laws and equations on physics. However, I would like to test this "ruler". I would like to see an experiment and good science result for this. Let's say, I just want to a spend a money. May I?

Sure. If it was me I'd rather design the equipment myself and get a workshop to build it. Then you don't need any specialist science guys.

But while you're at it. Why not test the law of conservation of energy? And of linear momentum with purely linear motion? And Newton's laws. All these things could just as easily be wrong.

Unfortunately, my home is not a good research lab. The experiment required some high precision environment which I don't have it.


If you look on my hypotheses then you will see there is no problem with law of momentum conservation for linear motion. I have a doubt about modern physics motion principle where postulated two main independent motion. Independent rotational motion and independent translational motion. I think, the nature has only one main rotational and translational motion with it's own law of momentum conservation. This I want to test it. I especially designed an experiment where two objects conduct motions differently.

====================

Anyway, I would try to find a lab who can make this experiment for me. May be this hypotheses is not very interesting for them. However, the money what I would pay them will support and help for their other researches.

There's also no problem with the combined linear and rotational momentum. You suspect there's a problem, but it seems like you lack the pleasure of problem solving to think it through, and would rather just let the machine tell you the answer.

Well go for it, but it sounds horribly unsatisfying. Will the experiment conclusively tell you there's no problem? Or will it leave you with the same doubts, and no more understanding?

I would like to see it on experiment.



Book is good, but I'd like to check my doubts by the experiment.

This could be used for new experiment

One more thing to defend my hypotheses about single main rotational and translational motion.
The law of momentum conservation works well for both motions as translational and rotational. But how about case when body conducts rotational and translational motion together. Let imagine case where body with rotational with velocity W and translational with velocity V motion collide with wall by it's on center of mass. What will happen? Base on modern motion concept all translational and translational momentums body will transfer to the wall separately from each other. This is correct, because center mass collision point of body will have normal velocity V relativity to the wall. But how about case where collision of body will be away from it's own center of mass? The velocity of collision point will be V + W*R relativity to the wall. In this case the translational momentum of body cannot be count as simple formula mV. because velocity is different.
On my site I described hypotheses about main single rotational and translational motion with it's own law of momentum conservation.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
Please read it.

Hello again ABV.

I think you need a way to control for air resistance, or at least confirm that it's low enough not to affect the results.

I still don't understand why you want to do it when you're only confirming very old and well-tested theory. You expect the same result as theory predicts.

It would be nice to formulate rotational and translational momentum conservation as a single concept. But how will this experiment help you do that? It will confirm the classical result and leave you having to develop the general momentum theory in exactly the same way you'd have had to do it anyway.

Well, I don't want to jump up to conclusion without real experiment results. If result will show identical value of translational velocities then it will prove modern physics motion concept. If not then modern physics does not cover all natural phenomenons yet and motion concept should be corrected. At first, I want to get results from real experiment.

OK cool. What are the issues holding you up at this stage? Is it the equipment needed for that experiment?


Have you considered using heavy trollies rolling/sliding on a hard surface? This would have a few of advantages:

- The low speed may mean air resistance won't matter

- You can track their motion with a conventional video camera, or even chalk marks/etc so not need the LEDs.

- You can release the spring with a mechanical hook, so eliminate all the electronics entirely.


A possibility might be using small ice cubes to support them. The ice should maintain a melted layer of water to lubricate the contact points very well.

Or do you need them to be in freefall for it to be useful??

I made some analysis for my experiment and made model for rolling bodies. This model shows the rolling bodies will have different translational velocities.
Please take a look.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
Thank you

I don't mean entirely rolling, but just objects having small wheels. Or they could have no rolling parts and just slide on a low-friction surface.

That should be equivalent to the falling experiment of your picture in here. But possibly easier/cheaper to set up.

If take 2 rolling bodies on surface and spring between them.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
These objects with same mass and radius and different moment of inertia through the spring are repulsing on surface. Base on kinematics equations, these objects will take a different translational velocities relatively to repulsing point. However surface wont take any movements during repulsing action, because these rolling bodies share same spring. What is wrong? The law of momentum conservation wasn't discovered for rotational and translational motion of physics kinematic calculation should get correction?

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the rolling bodies, but don't forget the floor will take an asymmetrical force pushing it in one direction.

What's stopping you doing a decisive experiment? Some equipment you don't have?

What do you mean asymmetrical forces? Rolling resistance force does not depend on velocity. Just from mass, radius, material. In my case, radius, mass and material are equivalent. The reaction force for both bodies must be identical, because they repulse from each other. The spring has identical forces on both sides. All these symmetric forces are covering by Newtons third law.

I don't have a high precision equipment and vacuum room for clear experiment. I don't think my experiment is unique case for nature. The rolling bodies on surface with same mass and different moment of inertia is pretty similar case. It would be easy to reproduce. However, even on kinematic equation I see different translational velocities for rolling bodies relatively to repulsing point. What is it? Mistake or paradox?

The roller with the higher rotational inertia will transmit a greater force to the floor through its friction. So the floor will be pushed in that direction.

If you calculate the total linear momentum of the system, including the floor (and earth), it'll be zero. Same for angular momentum.

High precision equipment won't help because you haven't made a quantified, testable hypothesis (that I know of). If you do it in an evacuated room with frictionless parts and high speed cameras, and the results are consistent with computer simulations, then what will that tell you? Maybe the effect you hope for is too small to detect with that equipment. So it's a probably-pointless experiment.

Here is rolling resistance force explanation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance
No any dependencies from velocity.



I used normal kinematic equation from physics book. Great example of this is a rolling body along incline.
http://cnx.org/content/m14312/latest/
I don't see any errors on my kinematic equation yet. I would appreciate if you find one.



I made hypothesis about standalone natural phenomenon as rotational and translational motion.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
I don't think effect is too small. I think, the main problem is simplification of physics calculation.

Ok. Back to model for rolling bodies.
This model is not equivalent to experiment on my site, because rolling bodies contact to surface all the time and both have a rotation. The rolling body with higher moment of inertial will have bigger reaction force to the surface. Which should be compensated by spring through surface. However the surface has it's own mass and will keep reaction forces for rolling bodies difference. Unfortunately I have to disregard my model from my site. However, I'm still working for exact model for my experiment and will publish it in a future.

Maybe you haven't expressed it in the way you're thinking of it. But I don't think the hypothesis "The Rotational and Translational motion is standalone natural phenomenon." is testable. You should specify quantitatively what result of the experiment would support it, and what result would disprove it. That'll tell you how much accuracy is required. It may show that a home-made experiment is adequate, or it may show that a fancy vacuum-room experiment is still not enough.

However it sounds like you're not expecting any results to differ from the classical predictions. In that case no experiment can be of any use, other than to confirm the existing theory. But again, how accurately do you want to confirm it? If you get too accurate you'll run into relativistic or quantum effects which disprove the classical theory, so in a way you're forced to do it only roughly.

kallog, I made new model of my experiment. This model use rolling body on surface. Please take a look.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#

This site shows the physics problem.
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#

Two wheels locate on weightless platforms. These platforms repulsing from each other through weightless spring. These wheels start conduct rotational and translational motion without friction on it's own platforms. These wheels don't have a rolling resistance also.
Using force Fs1 spring repulse platform with wheel 1 with translational acceleration a3 relatively to repulsing point. Wheel 1 with mass m, moment inertia I1 and radius R has translational acceleration a1 relatively to repulsing point and angular acceleration alpha 1.
Using force Fs2 spring repulse platform with wheel 2 with translational acceleration a4 relatively to repulsing point. Wheel 2 with mass m, moment inertia I2 and radius R has translational acceleration a2 relatively to repulsing point and angular acceleration alpha 2.
These wheels have same mass and radius.

Find out kinematic equations of motions for wheel 1 and wheel 2. Compare theirs translational and angular accelerations.

I assume you mean there is non-slipping friction between the platform and wheel 2? Like a lossless rack and pinion.



Two issues:

1. I don't like this equation:
Fs2 = Fl + Fr
It suggests that only part of Fs2 contributes to translational motion, but in fact all of it does. However I might be misunderstanding your meaning.

2. You seem to have neglected the angular acceleration of object 1. To balance angular momentums you have to sum all the angular momentums in the system, taken about the same axis.



Translational motion of wheel 1:
Fs1 = m * a1

Translational motion of wheel 2:
Fs2 = m * a2

Rotational motion of wheel 2 about its center:
Moment = I * angular acceleration:
Fs2 * R = I * alpha

Rotational motion of wheel 1 about the same point. +ve is clockwise:
Here I_1 means rotational inertia of object 1 about the center of object 2 for the type of motion it has, which includes no rotation of itself, so it's own 'I' must be ignored: I_1 = m * R^2

Moment = I_1 * angular acceleration:
Fs1 * R = I_1 * alpha_1
Fs1 * R = m * R^2 * alpha_1
What's alpha_1? Depends on the linear acceleration:
alpha_1 = a1 / R
Fs1 * R = m * R^2 * a1 / R
Fs1 = m * a1
This agrees with the linear motion equation, so no problem.





Qualitatively:

Translational:
Linear momentums easily cancel out.

Rotational:
If m is very high compared to I, then object 2 will spin up fast and get some angular momentum (high alpha, low I).

The objects will drift apart slowly because of their large masses. Object 1's angular momentum about the center of object 2 is also the same (low alpha, high I). I is high because it's proportional to the high m. Alpha is low because it's proportional to the low linear velocity.

So the two angular momentums can cancel out.

Thank you for answer with equations. Let's look closelly on it.



Why? Please look on standard problem - a rolling body on incline.
http://cnx.org/content/m14312/latest/
There you'll see 2 forces


I don't need to do it, because it's simple wheel, which has standard equation. Kind of flywheel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel


I disagree, because just part Fs is using for translational motion. It would be

Fs1_part1 = m * a1
Fs2_part1 = m * a2


Same thing.
Fs1_part2 * R = I1 * alpha (wheel 1)
Fs2_part2 * R = I2 * alpha (wheel 2)


I'm not follow this suggestion. However, nothing should be ignored. Extra rotation around center mass of isolated system may be compensated by gyroscope or symmetrical process.


I would divide this problem to two simple ones. If look perspective from platforms, their accelerations can be described like virtual gravity. Objects on these platforms will start experience kind of gravity force. After that easy to see these objects will have simple kinematics equations, which was described before.
Here's my solution:
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#

It's good question about center of mass. I'll think about it. Thank you.

Here is no problem with center mass. System won't move till any forces are applying to the system. For example if something initially move inside isolated system(empty sphere for example) without applied forces then system change own center of mass but system is not moving till object hit the wall of isolated system (for example). So, I don't see any problems with that.

It's quite a different problem. However the entire force of gravity is applied to the roller, then there are reaction forces pushing it other ways too.

I treat your roller on the platform as having a horizontal force applied to its center (equal to spring force), and additionally a moment applied about its center. That's fine. You can do that. Who says you can't?


You need it if you're summing angular momentums to apply the law of conservation of momentum. When you do that you have to include the angular momentum of every part, all measured about the _same_ axis. The simple flywheel formula only applies to angular momentum about the wheel's own axis. Even tho it's not rotating it still has angular momentum about the other wheel's center, and it has a different rotational inertia about that axis too.

I think this is a crucial part which needs to be incorporated. You can't just ignore the angular momentum of wheel 1 because it's not rotating.



Imagine you break the connection between wheel 2 and the platform. Then install a lever fixed to the center of the wheel, and its other end is pin-jointed to the platform. From this it's obvious that the entire force is transmitted to the center of the wheel - there's nowhere else it can go. It also shows there's an additional moment applied about the center of the wheel.




Hmm I kind of got a bit lost, sorry.

This is the same classics mechanics kinematic problem. The difference is gravity force substituted by force which come from platform acceleration. The solution is very close to rolling body along incline.


The spring doesn't push rolling object to theirs center of mass. Therefore the force of spring should no be fully spend to object translational motion. The spring force push platforms with rolling objects. Here's different case.



Please look on solution of problem a rolling body along incline. There is just operate with forces which should equate to projection of gravity force. One oh them is translation motion force. Another came from torque with radius multiplication.



What do you mean is not rotating? The spring is connecting to platforms. These platforms have acceleration and wheel is free moving on them. Both wheels have reverse motion relatively to platforms.


You're correct with your model. However, the wheels have a free move on platforms. It means part of spring force with spend to translational motion of rolling object. Another part of force will spend to rotate this object which equate to torque and radius of object multiplication.


It's fine It's hard to understand from first look


P.S.
Thank you for you meaningful answers. I know a lot of forums where opponents know physic but don't understand that. This forum is complete different. Thank you again.

Alex

A few words about frames of reference.

Newton's Laws hold only with respect to a certain set of frames of reference called Newtonian or inertial reference frames.[1]
The first Newton's law is: "Every body remains in a state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is acted upon by an external unbalanced force. This means that in the absence of a non-zeronet force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant speed in a straight line.[1]
However Newton's laws don't deny free move center of mass of isolated system. Second and third laws describes bodies forces interaction. Otherwise, bodies knows nothing about each other and center of mass of isolated system is meaningless without bodies forces interaction. Base on symmetric bodies forces during interaction, the center of mass of isolated system should hold same position. It's true for simple motions, where force has simple meaning. However, for rotational and translational motion force can have two components from simple motions. In this case, net force may achieve same value by different components variation. For example 3+4=7 and 4+3=7. Where first number is translational force component and second number is rotational angular force by radius projection component. Therefore, center of mass of system for bodies forces interaction in rotational and translational motion can move. Otherwise, bodies during interaction should get additional extra forces from nowhere which will help to hold center of mass of isolated system on same position. Energy for these additional extra forces should come from nowhere too. Unfortunately, the modern classical mechanics equalize holding same position of center of mass of isolated system with symmetric forces for any cases of bodies forces interaction, because rotational and translational motion is a product of sum of two simple motions.
This solution will follow free move center of mass of isolated system for single standalone rotational and translational motion, because no strong description about it in Newton's laws. This solution won't include any additional extra forces to helping to hold center of mass of isolated system on same position.

Refernce:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#

Perhaps, but the linear momentum conservation law does deny that possibility, even when there's rotation.


Now you're talking about reactionless propulsion. This is certainly impossible, partly because many people have tried many times, and all completely failed to show any result. And partly because it leads to paradoxes.

Here's nothing about reactionless propulsion. I'm trying to explain where modern physic got mistake.
If repulse rotated and non-rotated objects with same mass then base on modern physics these objects will have same translational velocity after repulsing action. Because rotational and translational motion is a sum of two simple motion. Whole force during repulsing should create a translational motion for rotated and non-rotated objects. Base on this force induct internal forces inside rotated object which will bring it's rotation during repulsing action. How come, Huh? Internal forces for rotation. From where this force? Where energy for this force came from? This is modern classical mechanics now. You don't believe me? You could ask any physics scientist
My opinion, I don't believe to any magical internal forces inside rotated object. Otherwise, object should loose temperature, because internal forces are getting energy from object. The nature is doing simple thing. The repulse force inside rotated objects split for two forces for two motions of this object. Therefore net of these forces for two motions is equal to force which is applying to non -rotated object during repulsing action(Third Newton's law). However it's impossible for modern physics now, because rotational and translational motion is sum of simple two motion for modern classical mechanic now which each of these motions must execute it's own law of momentum conservation.
My solution is postulate rotation and translational motion as standalone motion with it's own law of momentum conservation.
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
The model of rotated object on weightless platform fully describes rotated object during repulsing object.
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#

Therefore, the classical mechanic has just one generic rotational and translational motion. Simple translational and rotational motions just a trivial cases of one main motion only. Sir Newton described both trivial cases of one main motion which simplified understanding about motion. However,excluding main rotational and translational motion brings mistake on nature motion description. I hope my experiment reproduction will prove it.

I hope it helps.

P.S.
I don't think, I'm a first one who see this paradox. A few reasons could be don't discover it now. You can imagine

I think, I found more simplest solution for this rotational and translational motion explanation.
Rotational and translational motion description should include rule:
Base on modern classical mechanic where rotational and translational motion is a product of sum of two simple motions as rotational motion and translational motion, each of these simple motions must have own force which induct this kind of motion.
Then F=F1+F2. where F - full force, F1,F2 - forces for inducting simple motions.
Each of these motion will follow it's own law of momentum conservation where product of sum of these momentum will equal to full momentum which applied to this object.
Then P=P1+P2. where P - full momentum, P1,P2 - momentums for inducting simple motions.
After that translational motion will follow F1 and P1 and rotational motion will follow F2*R and P2*R.
That's it.

I understood what was happened. Modern physics use static model for forces which applied to an object. This is the same model if calculate loads in civil engineering.
If you this logic for physics problem "a rolling body along incline" then object has two reaction forces. In static mode each of this forces equal to gravity force projection on incline. However, solution of this problem use dynamic model where rotational and translational motion is a sum of two motion and sum of forces which conducted certain type of motion equal to net force(i.e. gravity force projection on incline)
The physics problem for rotational and translational motion in free move doesn't use dynamic model and substitute physics process by static model where torque as add-on(not part of it) for force in linear direction. This is mistake. The model should be the same as modern physics use for rolling objects on surface

Rotational and translational motion can be described as a sum of 2 simple motions, which conducted in two separate events.

Then for translational motion equation is:
F_1=ma
Work for this type of motion which equal objects kinetic energy translational part is
E_k_t=mv^2/2
Base on third Newtons law symmetric force -F_1 is present for this event

Same for rotational motion with fixed axis equation is
F_2R=Ia
Work for this type of motion which equal objects kinetic energy rotational part is
E_k_r=Iw^2/2
Base on third Newtons law symmetric force -F_2 is present for this event

====

Base on sum of two motions the full kinetic energy which is work of 2 forces is equal:
E_k_f=mv^2/2+Iw^2/2
Therefore sum of two symmetric forces for each simple motion necessary to initiate rotational and translational motion:
-F=(-F_1)+(-F_2)

===

However, the modern classical mechanics says if force applied away from center mass of object then just force [tex]F_1[/tex] with symmetrical force -F_1 is enough to initiate rotational and translational motion with energy:
E_k_f=mv^2/2+Iw^2/2
How this part of force do this part of work Iw^2/2 - mystery.

This paradox base on suggestion what law of momentum conservation works always and adding symmetric force -F_2 is crashing this law.
If use little rule where each motion law of momentum conservation should adequate force which induct this certain type of motion and all law of momentum conservation works locally, then not necessary hide force -F_2.
Center mass of isolated system is not the same as center of mass of objects and doesn't follow same rule.

Dark matter is not a mystery anymore. Just a miscalculation

http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18

The third Newton’s law and law of momentum conservation.

The third Newton’s law declares what each reaction of forces should be symmetrical.
-F=F
where: F - reaction forces of objects

The consequence of this is law of momentum conservation.

-F=F
-mv*t=mv*t
-mv=mv
-P=P

where: F - reaction forces of objects, m - mass of objects, v - velocity of objects, t - time trame of action, P - momentums of objects.

This consequence should be used for case where objects induce same identical motions and this does not cover the case where objects induce different type of motions. In experiment 2 thin cylinders induce different type of motions and this simple consequence should not cover this objects repulcing action. Therefore, for correct explanation of experiment 2 needs to use prime third Newton’s law and identify all reaction forces by this law. The consequence law of momentum conservation where objects have symmetrical behavior should not be used for this objects repulsing case.

Another interesting point is a symmetrical angular momentum. During repulsing action just one object has an angular momentum. Base on law of momentum conservation the isolated system should have the symmetrical angular momentum. However no any other physical objects have it. Base on modern classical mechanic, this symmetrical angular momentum is exist potentially if calculated distance between center mass of isolated system and center of mass of objects. But here both objects induce together this symmetrical angular momentum from theirs translational momentums cancel and their linear kinetic energies conversion to rotational kinetic energy. But where is another energy which came form symmetrical repulsing action for angular momentums when symmetrical forces repulse objects?

Or, if repulse two objects symmetrically away from theirs center of mass then both objects will have same linear momentums and same angular momentums.
However, another unpaired potential asymmetrical angular momentum is exist between center of mass of isolated system and objects center of mass during their linear momentum cancel. This could be explained by same sentence. The consequence law of momentum conservation where objects have symmetrical behavior should not be used for this objects repulsing case.

The previous post is not correct.
If objects have symmetrical actions then the consequence from third Newton's law works always. However, the consequence form third Newton's law where objects have asymmetrical behavior must be confirmed by experiment.

http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
For example, the rotated object gets more kinetic energy on experiment 2 rather than this non rotated object on experiment 1. It means, for this rotated object, like on experiment 1 one force is conducting work for translational motion only and another force(torque) is conducting work for rotational motion only. Base on third Newton’s law, these forces must have symmetrical reaction forces. These symmetrical reaction forces are applying to other non rotated object which conducts translational motion only. Unfortunately, the modern classical mechanics use trivial consequence from third Newton’s law where objects have symmetrical behavior. Base on this model, look through center of mass of isolated system these two objects are getting symmetrical linear and angular momentums with symmetrical behavior on repulsing action. However, different objects alignment brings asymmetrical behavior of these objects. The non rotated object does not conduct rotational motion around center of mass of isolated system. Therefore, these objects asymmetrical behavior cannot be described by trivial consequence of third Newton’s law.

Return back to Wheels problem
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#

This figure shows more realistic model where rolling objects with same mass have different velocities after repulsing action.

Do they really? The wheels on the left receive more energy because the spring applies the same force for the same time, but moves through a greater distance. That extra energy can just go into spinning them faster than the wheels on the right.

Ok.
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#
This problem description use weightless spring and platforms.
You can't count problem backwards from consequence. It must counted directly from third newton's law. Base on this law the net forces of both sides must be identical. The more realistic digram doesn't let platforms conduct rotational and translational motion. Just translational motion only. Base on kinematic equations for rolling bodies on surface, the net force of each side will be the sum of force which applied for translational motion of rolling objects plus torque which apllied for rotation motion divided by radius of rolling bodies. It shows on my solution. Base on this equation the rolling bodies with different moment of inertia have a different translational and rotational accelerations.
For instance, classic problem for rolling bodies on incline shows, the rolling bodies with same mass and different moment of inertia have a different translational acceleration on the end of incline.
Here's same situation. The rolling bodies with same mass and different moment of inertia have different translational acceleration during repulsing action.
This problem shows paradox of classical mechanics where third newton's law of symmetry of interactions does not follow into consequence of simple law of momentum conservation. The modern law of momentum conservation in simple form works just for trivial cases where objects have symmetrical motion behavior. On other objects asymmetrical behavior during interaction, the law of momentum conservation has a complex form.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
This is not unique mistake on physic. Similar mistake into quantum mechanics, where trivial consequence of supersymmetry doesn't work for generic experiment.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/45182

kallog, one more thing.
Your mistake is a third newtons law consequence of modern classical mechanics where translational momentum must be equal. For simple form where objects have same translational motion - yes.
However in our case it doesn't work.
Ok. Let's imagine simples case where objects are rolling on one side only. Let's assume the translational momentums for our case equal. Then, forces which induce translational motion must be equal too. But which force induce rotational motion? Yes, the objects rotation in both direction are equal. But what force? We don't any spring inside subset of rolling objects. Just weightless platform between them.

Repulsion objects using laser.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#Repulsion_objects_using_laser(2E)

All explanation of this effect has a little problem. The spring should have very little weight.The ideal spring may have mass zero, but it's just an ideal model Is it possible make the spring is weightless on real world?
The answer is - YES. it just need replace mechanic spring by photons. The photons have and impulse, however the stationary mass of them is zero.
This diagram shows this repulsion using laser ray.

The laser itself has two rays with same intensive in opposite detections to each other. The net momentum for for laser is equal zero. However, these rays hit two cylinders with different alignment relatively to rays position.
Is it was described before these cylinders with same mass will have a different translational velocities.

This article came form this site
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/repulsing-objects-by-photons/1xmqm1l0s4ys/23#

Repulsing objects by photons

Base radiation pressure or light pressure phenomenon, the the particle photon with stationary mass zero has a momentum which can be transfered to an object. The good example is a light mill.
The light radiation and objects repulsion must be follow by law of momentum conservation. The figure1 shows repulsing two identical objects with mass m. After a period of time the objects are utilizing photons momentums and start conduct a translational motion. If laser system has identical ray intensity in both directions then objects will have translational momentums P with same value.

Other words, the objects with same mass m will have same velocities v1.

The laser system with identical ray intensity in both directions has zero net momentum.

However, the objects will utilize less photon momentums when these objects increase it's own velocities relatively to laser. The speed of light is constant. However, base on Doppler effect the photons will increase wavelength which reduce photons momentum.


Other words, the objects linear velocities will gain in non-linear mode.

How photons will repulse objects if one of them is rotating?
The figure2 shows repulsing objects by photons where one of them conducts rotation around it's own center of mass.



In this case, this objects will utilize photon momentum differently. After some period of time, the non-rotated object will utilize photons momentums on velocity v. However, the rotated object will utilize photons momentums on velocity v+wR. Base on Doppler effect the rotated object will utilize photons momentums less then non-rotated object. Therefore, after some period of time the rotated and non-rotated objects will have different translational velocities v1 and v2.

Will it work into air environment ?
The goal of this article is transfer translational momentum without mass transfer. Would it possible to do it into air environment? What if transfer momentums to objects through air wave? The Doppler effect for rotated object will be a plus.


Conclusion
Base on Doppler effect and particles(photons) with zero stationary mass, the repulsed objects may have different translational velocities by value inside isolated system.

http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-concept-of-wave-propulsion-system/1xmqm1l0s4ys/24#

This propulsion concept use ideal models like:
1. The wave source produce pure directional waves which transfer momentum only in particular direction.
2. The wave receivers completely utilize directional wave and don't reflect secondary waves back.
3. The known wave which can transfer momentum without mass - photon.

The figure1 shows first concept of wave propulsion system.



The wave doesn't transfer mass. However, the wave may transfer momentum. Base on Doppler effect, the rotated wave receivers utilize waves with different wavelength. Base on this wavelength difference the receivers will utilize momentum of wave with different values. This momentum difference let system move in particular direction.

The figure 2 shows second concept of wave propulsion system.



Here's wave path through a curve channel and hits wave receivers into one direction.
The utilized by receivers momentums of waves let system moves into particular direction.

One more time.
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#
Base on trivial case of problem, the figure 4 shows a model for experiment where wheels and solid block covers by another platforms on wheels.


The wheel1_1 and wheel1_2 connect with cover by axis.
For easies calculation, all doted elements, platforms and spring are weightless.

Let's assume the law of momentum conservation always works in simplest form. In this case, the forces on both sides of spring are equal by value and induce translational motions for solid block and rolling objects on both platforms. However, which force induce rotational motion for rolling objects on one platform? The solid block doesn't conduct rotational motion on other platform. On one platform, the rolling objects rotate on opposite direction for each other and have same angular momentum by value and opposite direction. However, need a force to induce this rotation. The asymmetrical force cannot exist during interaction. Therefore, the assumption where law of momentum conservation exist in simple form during complex interaction is wrong.

Back to original problem.
The Noether's theorem talks about symmetrical interaction.
Is this action symmetrical or asymmetrical?
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#

You don't show that the force must be asymetrical. It isn't. But the energy transmitted by the force is assymetrical.

The asymmetrical force is presenting on physics problem solution.
Anyway.

The experiment for this physics problem:
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#The_Experiment






The video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjYsQnaocws&feature=player_embedded

If the carts are getting different momentums, as they appear to be, then they must be experiencing different impulses. That's in contrast to your idealized diagram where the impulses would be the same.

Can you explain how the spring works. It doesn't look anything like the diagram. The high speed parts are a concern because they'll carry a lot of momentum that's assumed to be zero in the diagram.

Could you look into problem solution, please.
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#
"Let's assume the law of momentum conservation always works in simplest form. In this case, the forces on both sides of spring are equal by value and induce translational motions for solid block and rolling objects on both platforms. However, which force induce rotational motion for rolling objects on one platform? The solid block doesn't conduct rotational motion on other platform. On one platform, the rolling objects rotate on opposite direction for each other and have same angular momentum by value and opposite direction. However, need a force to induce this rotation. The asymmetrical force cannot exist during interaction. Therefore, the assumption where law of momentum conservation exist in simple form during complex interaction is wrong."


Actually same. The one cart repulses form another through spring. It does not what spring shape is. The spring must have same forces on both sides on ideal model.
==
BTW.
This is the force resistance test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsQ9GsRThwQ&feature=player_embedded
If you see there both carts mostly have same distance.

I see. Yea I realized afterwards that it doesn't matter about the details of the spring.

Still, you need to determine errors and control for factors that might make it unfair. For example friction. I know the friction seems low, but the friction of a swivelling office chair also seems low, yet you can propel or rotate yourself on it without pushing against the desk.

You seem to be confusing force with energy. The cart with the wheels receives more energy. It ends up with translational as well as rotational energy. But it doesn't receive more force or more implulse - those must be the same, as you said.

How can you have more energy with the same force and impulse? W=Fd. The cart with wheels has the force applied over a greater distance. That give it more energy with the same force.

I wish you could be clearer on what exactly you think is wrong. Do you mean the law of translational momentum conservation is wrong? Is it an internal contradiction, or disagreement with experiment? Don't say both. We only need to focus on one.

The carts path length difference is about 6 inches (~15centimeters) with full path length 7 and 13 inches. Do you really think the standard deviation can cover this?


Again, the kinetic energy of object is result of work which force do for particular object. The force for one object do whole work just for translational motion. However, the force for another object do work for rotational and translational motions. Base on 3-rd Newtons law force for translational motion of one object is equal to net force for translational and rotational motions of other object. This is what is showing on experiment. The force is equal to net(sum) force. However, the forces for translational motions of these carts are not equal.

This is a good question. Do you realize one of the object just move, but on another cart moves and flywheels rotate on it. What force is rotating these flywheels? Where energy came from?


I mean the simple trivial consequence from 3-rd Newtons law as law of momentum conservation in simple form doesn't cover a complex objects interaction. The experiment shows that. The carts with same mass can have different translational momentums after asymmetrical repulsing action.

I added an experiment2 into my site.
http://knol.google.com/k/alex-belov/the-wheels/1xmqm1l0s4ys/18#The_Experiment_2
The result shows something. What is something? It's a big question

Hello ABV, I missed your replies so I'm a bit slow sorry.



It may not be a random error. Can you reduce friction and see if the difference becomes less? Or even easier, increase friction and see if it becomes more. You're saying it should remain unchanged with small changes in friction.


Yes. A single force can be applied to several different things which all receive the entire force.


Yes, but the total force isn't the sum of the forces for translational and rotational motions. All 3 forces are the same (or rotational can be a bit less due to imperfections).


Again you're confusing force with energy. Two identical forces can transfer different amounts of energy. Work=force*distance. You can change distance to get different amounts of work (energy) from the same force. This is what you're doing.

The effect observed in experiment one has nearly disappeared! Where did it go? Sure, the one with rotation goes a shorter distance than the non-rotating one, but much less shorter than before!

Hello ABV

I think I've found a simpler experiment which should show part of what you're claiming without any rotation.



Both "halves" receive the same force, just as in your wheels experiment.

In the 2nd state, the left-hand cart has stored energy in the spring, but the right-hand cart doesn't.

Do they have the same speed???