Universal Physics Journal
Author's Log



February 5, 2004
    Today my focus is on answering the question: Do reaction forces exist in non-accelerational events?  Newton certainly thought so as he described in LAW III how when pushing with an action force against a stone, the stone pushed back against his finger with a reaction force.  His description certainly fits with a non-accelerational event.  But then I think in order to push with any steady force against the stationary stone, his body would have to be braced against something such as the ground below.  And in order to push back with a force against his finger, the stone would also have to be braced against the ground.  If this is a frictionless event, both Newton and the stone would accelerate in opposite directions along the "icy" ground as soon as he began to apply an action force against the stone.  If this were to happen then I begin questioning which force is the action force, action being the one that is causing acceleration.  Newton's force against the accelerating stone is clearly an action force causing the stone's acceleration away from Newton.  But then is the stone's force against Newton the cause of his acceleration away from the stone?  Probably not for when viewed from above, in order for Newton to accelerate the stone his hand must also accelerate in the stone's direction at an equal rate.  Meanwhile his torso will accelerate in the opposite direction meaning to me that his arm is providing generally equal and opposite action forces in both directions.  So his arm is providing a Type 3 bipole external stacking force, one exterior head against the stone and the opposite exterior head against his torso.  But then I have gotten away from the question about reaction forces in non-accelerational events.  Perhaps I need a different event to consider.

     Suppose I stand balanced on one foot in a door frame.  I turn my body so that my back is lightly in contact with one side of the frame.  Then I push hard with both hands against the other side of the frame.  Now my back is pushing equally hard against the side of the frame behind me.  So is the force impressed by my hands the action force?  I think so.  But what about the force impressed by my back against the frame behind me?  If it is my intent to use my hands to brace against the one side so that I can push hard with my back against the other side then I find it easy to accept that this force from my back is also an action force. 

     Now let's say that the door frame, complete with threshold and header, is merely resting vertically on an icy surface.  My back is pushing with an action force in one direction that amounts to a tension force in the same direction shared equally by the threshold and header.  Meanwhile the action force of the push by hand in the opposite direction amounts to a tension force in that direction shared by the threshold below and the header above.  This means that the header is withstanding equal and opposite action forces as is the threshold.  I see all horizontally-directed forces in this event being fully accounted for by either the action force of my hands in one direction or the action force of my back in the other direction.  I do not see any role left open and available for reaction forces to fill.

     Another way to look at this event is to consider that the action force from my back is looping around through the threshold and header to cause the other frame to press with an action force against my hands.  Conversely, my hands are pushing with an action force that is looping around through the threshold and header to cause the frame behind me to press with an action force against my back.  Here I see the truth being that these four mutual action force loops account for all horizontally directed forces present.  Again I do not see any role left open and available for reaction forces to fill.

    So when Newton pushed against the stone with an action force, he also pushed in the opposite direction against the ground with an equal action force.  Through action forces looped in part between his feet and the stone, his action force against the ground became an action force within the stone impressed against his finger.  Conversely, through action forces looped in part in the opposite direction between the stone and Newton's feet, his action force against the stone became an action force impressed against his feet.  Through the mechanism of mutual action force loops, all horizontal forces are accounted for meaning that no reaction forces are present in this second non-accelerational event.

    Conclusion: No reaction forces exist in any non-accelerational event.  This conclusion is borne out by the experiments herein described.  This means that reaction forces exist only in accelerational events.  Such acceleration/Reaction forces are truly recognized first right here in the Universal Physics Journal.

    This conclusion will necessitate a number of changes to Article XI: Reaction Forces and Article IV: The Nature of Force.

    Ethan Skyler


February 29, 2004
    Today I am concerned by difficulties encountered while explaining as Type 3 the external (contact) forces involved in the action force loops identified in the previous entry.  The problem is that these external forces are serial transfer forces that provide opposition for each other in a looping fashion.  Like a rubber band, there is really no obvious beginning (origination) nor end (termination) of these non-accelerational looping action forces.

     On the other hand external (contact) forces are also present in linear events that are fundamentally caused by monopole internal forces such as gravitation.  Weigh yourself on a scale.  The external forces present between your feet and the scale are the cumulative total of all the Type 2 monopole internal gravitational forces being generated within each component of your non-accelerating (or nearly so) matter.  Below the scale, the same set of Type 2 monopole internal forces are being generated within each component of Earth's matter.  This is a linear force event with forces of origination, stacking and termination running in both upward and downward directions. 

    I see the solution here is to separate external forces into two types.  Type 3 will become the external bipole stacking forces with internal force origins that are present in linear events.  Type 4 will be the external bipole looping forces that are present in both directions around action force loops.

    Conclusion: Type 1 monopole internal forces are opposed or supported exclusively by other Type 1 monopole internal forces within the same component of matter.  Type 2 monopole internal forces cause by stacking or provide termination for Type 3 bipole external stacking forces in linear force events.  Type 3 bipole external stacking forces are fundamentally caused by and stack up or down against  Type 2 monopole internal forces in linear force events.  Type 4 bipole external looping forces are the action forces present in both directions in action force loops.  In Type 4 action force loop events, reaction forces are absent.

    It will take some time to add the role of Type 4 forces to Article XI: Reaction Forces and Article IV: The Nature of Force.  It is at times like these that I am grateful that I have not presented incomplete works in printed form.  A book is so final.  I am content to wait until everything is worked out before releasing any book.  In the meantime getting the Universal Physics Journal right is my goal.  Thanks for your support in this effort.

    Ethan Skyler


March 8, 2004
    This morning I added comments in the Background section on Rules 2, 3 and 5 in Article X: Rules for Force and Motion.  I realize that some difficulty may be experienced while absorbing the absolute concept of rest-motion.  We like to think that a cannon ball, seen to travel horizontally at the speed of 100 miles per hour will, through the power of its "momentum" and/or "kinetic energy" of motion, cause great damage to a solid brick wall upon impact.  Surely the cannon ball carries with it this great and obvious destructive power due solely to its speed of motion. 

    An impartial Universal Physics observer will ask that the cannon ball be suspended by wire from an overhead support so that it will collide with the same solid brick wall which is now mounted on a flat car that is approaching the suspended cannon ball's position of suspension at a speed of 100 miles per hour.  Here the ball is still relative to Earth and the wall is moving at 100 miles per hour toward the ball.  By all accounts, relative to Earth, the ball's relative kinetic energy rating and relative momentum rating are both equal to zero.  No wall-busting power here.  So what do you think will happen when the speeding wall impacts with the lame duck, powerless, momentum-less, kinetic energy-less  cannon ball?  Do you think the wall will just sail on past the cannon ball's position with no or little damage?

    In the first event where the speeding ball impacts the stationary wall, Newton's formula Force =mass * acceleration applies telling us that the wall's job is to apply an acceleration/Action force to accelerate (change) the ball's motion from 100 mph to 0 mph.  This negative acceleration will take a great force from the wall.  The shorter the distance over which the cannon ball is accelerated, the greater the force required of the wall.  It's structural strength has its limits.  So in the process of slowing (negative acceleration) the cannon ball to a stop, a longer distance is required to stop the cannon ball resulting in a great hole being blasted through the wall.  During its blast through the wall, the cannon ball will be causing acceleration for components of the wall as well.  No simple bounce here.  To bounce the cannon ball over the shortest distance back the way it came with no damage to the wall would require the highest force from the wall.  A force too high for the brick wall to provide.  So destruction of the wall occurs.

    What then of the hanging ball and speeding wall event?  With all its "powers" of destruction-causing "momentum" and "kinetic energy" stripped, will not the lame duck cannon ball be a pushover when colliding with the speeding wall?  Will the resulting collision be way different, rather like the wall colliding with a large low-mass ping-pong ball?  The absence of "kinetic energy" and "momentum" has to account for some difference in the collision don't you think.  If no difference actually occurs and the damage to the wall is identical, then a logical mind will have to conclude that these two conceptual rating schemes are not actually real in that the ball is not in possession of any value of "kinetic energy" or "momentum", don't you think?

    You are in possession of a logical mind, that is a given.  So what do you think of this hanging ball and speeding wall event?  Will the speeding wall carry a power of collision into this event that will protect its structure while causing the hanging cannon ball to spit out of its way like a damp pumpkin seed?  This time will the powerless cannon ball be the one to suffer all the damage?  If "momentum" and "kinetic energy" are real surely some difference in these two collisions will become obvious.

    Are you ready for the truth?  Newton's formula for acceleration is quite impartial.  The ball's state of rest-motion is identical in both events.  The ball thought to be traveling at a straight and steady 100 mph at the moment of impact is identical in every way to the second ball thought to be stationary at impact.  Each ball has the same mass rating and therefore requires the same magnitude of acceleration/Action force from the wall to cause the same 100 mph change in the ball's motion.  In this second event, the wall's job is again to provide the acceleration/Action force required this time to cause the ball to accelerate from zero up to the wall's speed of 100 mph.  The same absolute force applied over the same absolute distance will result in the same rate of absolute acceleration in each event.  After the acceleration of the ball and components of the wall, the ball will have sustained the same amount of damage as in the first event.  Likewise for the wall. 

    The truth of the equality of these two events, as dictated by Newton's formula F=ma, reveals the absolute and true nature of rest-motion, force, mass, distance, acceleration and time.  Also revealed is the false and unreal nature of the man-invented concepts of "momentum" and "kinetic energy".  Their "presence" is undetectable in either event.  Equally shared by these two events is the impartial truth of Newton's great formula Force = mass * acceleration.

    It is an honor to be a soldier in the battle to restore as true the great works of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton.  Anytime we generally set aside their understandings is a time when we become strangers to the truth.  Such a time can never last for the truth is always true and thus will always prevail.                    

    Ethan Skyler


March 16, 2004
    I added the clause "when compared to a non-accelerating frame of reference" twice to Rule 1 of Article X: Rules for Force and Motion.  I am beginning to address the many Coriolis-style observations where an accelerating observer attempts to determine an object's "relative acceleration" while the observer's own absolute acceleration is ignored.  Such observations abound in the scientific writings of Modern Physics.  They are often used as support for the invention of a "force" as the cause of the "relative acceleration" when in fact no absolute acceleration nor absolute acceleration/Action force exists for the test object which remains in or close to the non-accelerational state of rest-motion.  An accelerometer is never employed in making these determinations for such a device will provide evidence contrary to the desired "relative acceleration" conclusion.  The unprovable concept of "relative acceleration" may be traced back to the works of Ernst Mach and later on, Albert Einstein.  

    Currently I am working on answering a question posed some time ago on the subject of Coriolis-style observations.  Question 14: Coriolis Confusion will be posted soon (hopefully).


October 18, 2004
    After considerable attention over a tornado-filled summer, Event 4 regarding the operational Physics of a tornado is complete.   Having the calculation of the required acceleration/Action force come so close to prediction on the first try was quite a thrill.  Will the conclusions reached in Event 4 one day become "news" for the main-stream media?  Will the Uniform Building Code be revised for the construction of structures in tornado-prone areas?  Not any time soon, I fear.

Ethan Skyler