Third Law of Motion

“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

We all know it. Newton defined it. We can see it when we press against a wall, or gravity drags us toward earth. It tells us that when we push on the wall, it pushes back.

I want to know why. Who can tell me the mechanism by which this principle operates? Much like his theory of gravity for which he proposed no mechanism, his Third Law seems ever so incomplete. Newton himself stated that he did not know what gravity was or where it came from, h just knew that it existed.

Now there is a problem with a widely accepted concept: Newton knew that there always is an equal and opposite reaction, but why?

I guess no one likes my question.


Newton was hypothetical. That is as simple as I can put it. His first law is unrealistic as such a scenario is impossible in reality. It cannot be tested.

As for his third law, there is no singular action to cause a reaction. There is alot more going on than meets the human eye.

Um…no. How about that big thing in the sky we call space? Once a spaceship is at it’s desired speed, it takes no fuel to keep it moving.

For every action there is an equal and opposite result. This is pretty self-evident. Sure, there are a lot of factors, but all factors can be found somewhere on both sides of the equation.

I want to know why. I want to know why when you press on the stone it presses back. I want to know why there is a such thing as, “Normal Force.” Hypothetically or otherwise.

Incorrect. The quanta we call space is not constant or consistent. What you say is hypothetical, as is Newton’s work.

I’m going to assume that your first language isn’t english because this whole statement lacks any meaning. Space is not constant or consistent? On the quantum level, I would agree with you but on the larger scale it is quite the opposite. Are suggesting that the idea of space is hypothetical or my example? As for the former, now that’s just ludicrous. And for the latter, it has been proven and observed. That’s how all of Nasa’s ships are designed to fly in space.

Nowhere in reality is there an environment without an external force. Newton’s first law is hypothetical, it would truly be a law if there were such an environment but there is not one. ‘Space’ has external forces. Dark energy is compressing due to a force. Quasars are under compression, gamma ray bursts are due to external forces.
Anything that NASA sends into space is held in space because of structural forces.

Well if you’re going to get hung up on technicalities, then what’s the point of even posing theories? That’s like saying gravity is only hypothetical because there will always be wind resistance. Nothing can be proven 100% but with multiple observations and experiments, we can be pretty sure. Space is as close as we can come to proving it and it’s done a fairly accurate job in my opinion.

Because Newton’s work is not considered to be theory, it is called law. His work has changed how scientists view the Universe and it is wrong.
One of the first steps to figuring out how the Universe operates is to toss out Newton’s ‘laws’.
When you do this you have to re-work what a force is and when you dig into it you see that gravity is a structural force, when you do that; everything changes. And the results are without paradox.

Essentially, they were “tossed out”; Einstein revised them. I do agree that the idea of forces needs to be changed. Even though Einstein radically changed our concept of gravity, in that it is a warp of space-time, it didn’t seem to change anything outside the concept of gravity itself. If our concept of gravity has changed drastically, then perhaps all of our prenotions of forces are incorrect.

The standard model doesn’t have a real concept of gravity. Most physicists have no clue how gravity works or what it even is. They are incorrect in believing it is a force that pulls, this is why they are developing nothing but problems with their model. This is why they cannot and will not find gravitational waves- they do not exist.
Kip Thorne at Caltech is wasting one billion dollars chasing a pipedream.

Gravity is a structural force, it pulls nothing. There is no such force that pulls. Pulling requires a reach, a grab and a pull. No such force.

Although the turn this topic has taken does not answer my question in the least, it is still interesting.

There is no place in outer space where no external force exists BECAUSE every thing causes gravity. Everything warps spacetime, and the effects of this reach infinity. This is true in that:

The Earth puts a dimple in spacetime. The edges of this dimple never even back out, it is like a collection of parabolas which never reach the assymtote (sp?). The effects of Earth’s gravity are felt, even if infinitessimaly, all across the Universe. If you apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative, then Newton’s Laws of Motion are indeed laws.

The issue still remains: I don’t ask if the laws are flawed, I ask the mechanism by which the third one operates. Just as the mechanism for gravity is the distrotion of spacetime, what mechanism causes every equal and opposite reaction?

An equal and opposite reaction is hypothetical, Newton was far from being correct.
How does everything cause gravity? Earth putting a dimple in spacetime is pure theory, and could only be true provided gravity is what the standard model presumes it is.
Everything in SM is wrong if gravitational waves are not found. This has to be understood by everyone who cares about the subject.
I would suggest keeping a close eye on Kip Thorne’s work at Caltech as he looks for these waves.
The starting point for defining the Universe is gravity. SM has it wrong.

Just arguments sake, pretend gravitational waves to do not exist; what then?
Say goodbye to the big bang, black holes and SM’s model of time.

You are left with what many physicists have already developed.

Please prove your response. Please do not make claims that you have no backing for. Please respond to the subject at hand, that is why I started this question.

Newton’s laws OF MOTION are easily applied. They are not hypothetical. For example, “Objects that are in motion remain in motion unil acted upon by an external force.” If space consists of dark energy, then the force of friction is part of the equation. There is nothing ‘hypothetical’ about that.

If Einstein’s theory of gravity is wrong, please propose why. I will accept this argument if and only if it is coupled with an answer to my original question.

It is due to the conservation of momentum. Before any force is applied, there is no or zero momentum. So when a force is applied, according to the conservation of momentum, the resulting momentum should be equal to the original momentum. Let’s say you push on a wall. According to the third law, the wall is pushing back on you with equal magnitude (opposite sign) and opposite direction. Your force magnitude and direction are cancelled out by the walls force magnitude and direction thus resulting in zero momentum which was the present momentum before you pushed on the wall.

Now we’re on the right subject, Yay!

Okay. Conservation of Momentum. Why?

Conservation of momentum should work in the same direction, should it not? Much like the cliche billiard ball example, the conservation of momentum propels the next ball forward, but it does not account for the force exerted AGAINST the first ball.

I think we’re on the right track, but WHY is the momentum exerted AGAINST the original force?

It depends what the original momentum is. If the original momentum is positive/negative/zero then the resulting momentum will be positive/negative/zero.

Let’s use your billiard ball example. Momentum is equal to the mass times velocity (p = mv). The original momentum of the two balls is just the sum of the momentum of the two balls. The momentum of the moving ball is positive and to the right (we need to attach a direction because it’s a vector). The momentum of the ball at rest is zero.
So the sum of these to is positive and to the right. The resulting momentum is the sum of the momentums after the collision. The moving ball is now at rest thus its momentum is zero. The ball at rest is now moving thus its momentum must be positive and to the right because the sum of the original momentum is equal to the sum of the original momentum.

I see what you are saying.

It’s a good idea, but I still do not see how this Conservation of Momentum tells us why there is a force back AGAINST the object pressing on the second. It seems, by the example:

“If one were to press a finger against a wall, the wall exerts an equal and opposite force against the finger.”

That the wall would allow the momentum to continue through the wall and transfer to the other side in air, or it would absorb the momentum because the wall’s velocity will always be zero, and ‘m(0)=0’.

Motion begins way before we perceive movement. What’s the reaction to dissipation? What’s causing the dissipation to ‘move’ quaquaversally, and more importantly, what is going against it?
Newtons laws of motion do not apply here, and they do not apply anywhere; especially in a exact sense. They are a primitive concept at best.

The reaction to the quaquaversal is what gravity is perceived to be.

Can anyone tell me where electromagnetic waves go and what they cause? Think about it for a bit…Newton’s work is 100% disproven with the answer.