NEWTON’S THIRD LAW OF MOTION – Equal and Opposite or Action/Reaction
Cosmic Evolution’s Claim:
Our vast universe exploded or inflated into existence from a point of singularity. All the matter and energy, was concentrated in a region smaller than a coin or the head of a needle. You have read this and seen the pictures.
Given:
All scientific laws and theories must be compatible. Two scientific theories that are incompatible mean that one is incorrect or both.
This article compares these theories:
- The theory of cosmic evolution and
- The third law of conservation of motion – equal and opposite
Note that the theory of evolution is not just about biological evolution. It is about cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, vertical, and horizontal evolutions. For this discussion, we look at Newton’s third law of motion and cosmic evolution.
Definition of the Law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the “action” and −F the “reaction”. The action and the reaction are simultaneous.
Question:
If all matter and energy was in a point of singularity, what force overcame the gravitation of what we call a black hole. Black holes are defined as an area in space where gravity is so strong that nothing—not even light—can get out. Surely the point of singularity was a black hole since all matter and energy was in this one little location the size of a coin or smaller. This assumes cosmologist were correct with their claim that all matter and energy inflated from singularity via the Big Bang.
Is the expansion of the universe in conflict with Newton’s Third Law of Motion? What force started the universe expansion moving it from zero speed of the state of nothingness into a high-speed expanding universe overcoming the gravity of black hole?
Discussion:
Speaking of the force of gravity, I notice this third law when I am sitting in my easy chair watching a game. Not when I am watching the game silly. Gravity is the force pulling me deep into that soft cushioned chair. When I want to get up out of the easy chair, I will be fighting that force called gravity.
Imagine you in your easy chair and wanting to change your position. Do you push a button for the electricity to go to a motor which is the force against gravity’s pull or your body? Do you grab a handle and throw it down to release a spring that launches your body from gravity’s force? Or are you old school and have to use your arm to push on the arm rest to fight that force of gravity. The point here is that you are using a force F to counter the -F force of gravity.
For this chair example, we are using some type of force or energy to change the position of gravities pull from horizontal to vertical.
Most adults have tried to move a refrigerator or stove around. The force you exert is countered by the friction of the appliance. The action reaction is your pushing or pulling against a force of friction caused by the weight of the appliance against the flood. If that appliance was light, the force required to push it would be less.
Note that the initial force to get the appliance moving is more than keeping it moving. The initial force is called inertia which is Newton’s first law and the continues force is Newtons second law. This third law is about equal and opposite forces. The force you use to push an appliance across the floor is equal to the friction of the appliance with the floor.
Conflict:
It seems to me that there is a conflict between what cosmologist say about the pull of gravity on a point in space and the universe’s beginning point of singularity. Could that beginning point of the universal, with all of its visible matter, usable energy, dark matter, and dark energy be a black hole? That is by definition a black hole. I cannot see otherwise since cosmologist say the universe begin as a point of singularity contained all matter and energy. And we know where there is matter, there is gravity.
Albert Einstein proposed that light possesses matter and predicted in his theory of general relativity that its path would be influenced by a massive star or planet. British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington proved that light is influenced by gravity during a solar eclipse off the island of Príncipe, off the coast of West Africa, May 29, 1919.
Conclusion:
I choose the most reasonable explanation. This means I choose the Laws of Nature and put the theory of evolution back into the “hypothesis” category. Unless cosmologist want to redefine the point of singularity from containing matter and its associated gravity to containing only energy without gravity.
Harry’s Engineering Logic Check:
This point of singularity is very puzzling. We know that physicist can turn matter into energy. An atomic explosion is an example of this. As far as turning energy into matter, it takes a large facility like the 27-kilometer ring of superconducting magnets in Meyrin, Switzerland called the CERN Large Hadron Collider to smash subatomic particles together at nearly the speed of light.
That does not feel like turning energy into matter. The point is that the point of singularity had matter in it and the force that tore it apart is like tearing a black hole apart or a super nova and that force is up for question.