# Modifying Newton's First Law of Motion

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by hansda, Jun 8, 2017.

1. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
The concept of "Instantaneous Force" will not harm the concept of "Impulse of Force". http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html

3. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Newton's Law of Inertia has a great potential to explain any change in the state of motion of a particle. But Newton used this Law only to develope F=ma. Subsequently, this Law was not used for any other purpose, other than F=ma.

While trying to answer the question in II.6 of my paper, I used this Law. I reworded this Law to explain my answer. Later on I realised that, this statement itself can be considered as "Instantaneous Law of Inertia" or a Modification of Newton's First Law of Motion. This Instantaneous Law can be used to discover all unknown forces being applied to a particle.

danshawen likes this.

5. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
It almost certainly can.

I always wondered what it would be like to meet a real Isaac Newton in real life, discuss physics with him.

So, what's next for you, Hansda? Are you writing the sequel to the Principia yet?

7. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546

Dan, he didn't get the hint.

danshawen likes this.
8. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Principia is exhaustive. I dont think any sequel is needed. My paper at the most can bridge Newtonian Model with Einstein's GR.

danshawen likes this.
9. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Follow Newton's Law of Inertia. This Law basically implies that a particle can not change on its own. For any change to the particle, something external is to be applied to the particle. This external thing can be considered as 'force' here. This external thing can be $F=ma$ or 'curvature of spacetime' or something else which can change the state of motion of a particle.

10. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
Good.
So change means time, conclusion is application of force and it's effect thereof must be duration specific, thus leading to further conclusion that 'instantaneous force of Hansda' has no meaning.

(Pl do not confuse with force at any instant.)

11. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Consider $F=ma$. If $a$ is Instantaneous Acceleration; $F$ can be considered as Instantaneous Force.

12. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
Then what is acceleration ?
The rate of change of..........

So what is the meaning of instantaneous acceleration? Nothing.

You are confusing with values at any instant...

13. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Why dont you look up at the net. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acca.html

See above...

Instead of relying on memory, you can rely on net. See above link...

Seems you are still confused.

14. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
I am not....and I don't have to see text for force or acceleration.

When will you learn that for application of force to be meaningful requires duration? It is F*dt, which is the first step towards understanding effect of force.

15. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Time happens instant by instant. Time does not happen duration by duration. Neither a duration of time happens at a single instant of time.

16. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
This thread, started in Physics & Math, at best advanced an "Alternative theory". But as it has progressed, pseudoscience has also crept into it, so that most of it is just nonsense.

I could easily have issued warnings for posting pseudoscience to our Science sections. Instead, I have chosen to move the thread to "Alternative Theories", though I think even the legitimacy gained by putting it there rather than in "pseudoscience" is generous.

17. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
I mean, let's look at this:

Newton's first law says that a force is necessary to change the state of motion of a particle (i.e. to accelerate it). As such, it is part of the definition of what we mean by the term "force".

Actually, it is arguably most useful in defining the concept of an inertial reference frame, which is any reference frame in which particles with no net force on them travel in straight lines at constant speed.

Newton started with his three laws of motion as postulates. The second law was not developed from the first.

I don't see how your rewording is a modification.

That's a bizarre claim, to say the least.

How does your law allow the discovery of any unknown force at all on a particle, let alone all of them? Give us an example.

Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
18. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
Your formulation is unhelpful, since you have not defined the term "instant of time", or how time progresses from one "instant" to the next. It sounds like you want time to be a countable quantity: this instant, then the next one, then the next one etc., just like counting natural numbers 1, 2, 3... But in physics time is typically treated as a continuous variable, not as a quantised quantity.

It could be that you can justify your quantisation of time somehow, but as far as I can see you haven't made any attempt to do that here so far.

What does "instantaneous force" mean? That's another undefined term, right there. Is it a force that acts at only one of your quantised "instants" of time? Can you give a real-world example of an "instantaneous force"?

On the one hand, you claim to be modifying Newton's first law, but on the other hand you're saying that your law is equivalent to Newton's first law (because Newton's first law can be derived from it). So which is it? Is your law something new, or just a re-statement of Newton's law?

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
danshawen:

Are you trolling hansda, or do you really believe he is a genius revolutionising physics?

20. ### Michael 345Bali in Nov closerValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,225

Well MY law lets me think about a particle and then think about an unknown force acting on it and then think about looking for it and then think about finding it and then think about really found it and then think about give it my name and then think about Nobel Prize

and then I wake up

As soon as I get out of this Hudini jacket and rubber room I will publish my mathmatical results on my abacus

21. ### river

Messages:
11,058
Wrong

Instant by instant , is duration . Time , the value of , depends on duration .

Duration has NO set measurement of velocity .

Because the object(s) have different qualities , of which both duration and time depend .

Time is the measurement of duration .

Last edited: Jul 10, 2017
22. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
James R,
Thanks for your views and interest with my theory.

Consider above two statements. Do you think Newton's First Law and Second Law of Motion are independent?

Consider Lorentz transformation of length. We know that when a mass travels at a relativistic speed, its length will change as per Lorentz Transformation. In Newtonian Model this effect can be considered as if a compressive force is applied to the mass at relativistic speed and changing its length.

23. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
Seems you have not read my paper.

Consider force as a function of time. So at every instant of time t, the force F(t) will be having some value. This t can be considered as an instant of time. You can also see II.6 of my paper https://www.academia.edu/31457696/A_Mathematical_Theory_of_Success .

If you consider force as a function of time, at every instant of time you will get some force value. This can be considered as an Instantaneous Force at that instant of time. This is also explained in II.6 of my paper. As an example consider reflection of photon particle. Or you can also consider trajectory of a football when it is played among the teams. The players apply force instantly to change its trajectory.

Can you explain the change of trajectory of a photon particle with Newton's Laws?