How Newton's Laws work.

Well, I was hoping for some clarification. I left by the same door I came in.

You have not answered the question.

"GPS systems need to correct the clocks of satellites using general relativity, or the system would not work."

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/11/29/common-misconception-9-who-disproved-einstein/

"- When Jewels Verne says that a Faraday motor violates Newton's Third law, he is incorrect. Would you agree?"

I did not say any such thing. I posted an example that nobody has ever explained.

"This is devolving from a discussion of science to a discussion of the meanings of words. This is one of the reason that Physicists use math."

Math is valid only when it describes reality. It does not prove reality. If a physicist can't explain what he knows so a barmaid understands it, he doesn't know it. (Einstein said that.) And a major problem in science is that a lot of students repeat cliches but don't know what they are saying.

I have addressed that already. Using Newton, the system would gradually lose precision, no big deal indeed.

Max is right on this one. It can be explained very simply by the fact that the wire through which an electric current flows is itself producing a magnetic field, which "pushes" the faraday apparatus, which is itself composed of wires through which an electric current flows. The whole thing is symetrical in a way.

Thank you.

You are making a weird semantic argument about whether science can ever be "correct". This revolves around the meaning of the word correct, and this discussion is philosophical.... a valid discussion perhaps, but not relevant to this thread.

This thread is on how Newton's Laws work (not on whether they are "correct"). You agree that Jewels' analysis of the faraday motor is incorrect according to what Newton's laws actually say.

That matters to this thread.

Indeed it's semantics. Define "work" and you will see that you mean the same thing as I do when I speak of a "good-enough approximation of observed values". "Good enough" = you can use it and it will "work".

Fake news work too.

There is nothing magical about the faraday apparatus (other than its place in history as the first working motor). There are two relevant scientific principles at work, both covered in high school physics.

1) To give high school students a feel for the forces in circular motion, we attach a weight to a string and have them whirl it around their head. The students can feel the string pulling their hand outwards, and the faster they whirl, the greater the pull.

Any time there is a circular motion, there is an acceleration toward the center of the circle. By Newtons second law this means that there is a force pulling the object (in this case the weight) toward the center of the circle.

Remember that Newton's third law works like this... A puts force on B, B puts "equal and opposite force" on A. I am going to use the term "reaction force" for this.

In the "whirling weight on string" experiment... the students hand puts force on the string (toward the center of the circle). The reaction force is that the string puts an equal and opposite force on the students hand. The student can feel this.

In the faraday video, since the paper clip is traveling in a circle there is a force pulling it toward the magnet. Obviously this is a magnetic force... so the magnet is putting a force on the paperclip.

The "reaction force" is the paperclip putting an equal and opposite force on the magnet. Notice that the magnet is solidly fixed in this experiment, it it were free floating (not attached) you would see it move toward the paper clip.

2) This apparatus uses magnetism to create a force between the center rod and the paperclip. The mathematics work the same as the spinning weight on a string ... except we have replaced the string force with magnetic force.

Magnetic force (like any other force) obeys Newtons third law. You can prove this with a simple experiment. Get two magnets and hold them on a table so that they attract each other. Release them both at the same time, and you will see that both of them move. Magnet A puts a force on Magnet B, Magnet B puts a force on Magnet A. You can do the same thing with only one magnet and some iron.... they will still both move.

That's elementary.

About 'correct' answers:

The following question was asked in a physics degree exam at the University of Copenhagen: 

"Describe how to determine the height of a skyscraper using a barometer." One student replied:

"You tie a long piece of string to the neck of the barometer, then lower the barometer from the roof of the skyscraper to the ground. The length of the string plus the length of the barometer will equal the height of the building." 

This highly original answer so incensed the instructor that the student was failed. The student appealed on the grounds that his answer was indisputably correct and the university appointed an independent arbiter to decide the case. The arbiter judged that answer was indeed correct, but did not display knowledge of physics. To resolve the problem it was decided to call the student in and allow him six minutes in which to provide a verbal answer, which showed at least a minimal familiarity with the principles of physics. 

For five minutes the student sat in silence, forehead creased in thought. The arbiter reminded him that time was running out, to which the student replied that he had several extremely relevant answers, but couldn't make up his mind which to use. 

On being advised to hurry up the student replied as follows:

"Firstly, you could take the barometer up to the roof of the skyscraper, drop it over the edge, and measure the time it takes to reach the ground. The height of the building can then be worked out from the formula H = 0.5g x t squared. But bad luck on the barometer." 

"Or if the sun is shining you could measure the height of the barometer, then set it on end and measure the length of its shadow. Then you measure the length of the skyscraper's shadow, and thereafter it is a simple matter of proportional arithmetic to work out the height of the skyscraper." 

"But if you wanted to be highly scientific about it, you could tie a short piece of string to the barometer and swing it like a pendulum, first at ground level and then on the roof of the skyscraper. The height is worked out by the difference in the restoring force T = 2 pi sq. root (l /g)." 

"Or if the skyscraper has an outside emergency staircase, it would be easier to walk up it and mark off the height of the skyscraper in barometer lengths, then add them up." 

"If you merely wanted to be boring and orthodox about it, of course, you could use the barometer to measure the air pressure on the roof of the skyscraper and on the ground, and convert the difference in millibars into meters to give the height of the building." 

"But since we are constantly being exhorted to exercise independence of mind and apply scientific methods, undoubtedly the best way would be to knock on the janitor's door and say to him 'If you would like a nice new barometer, I will give you this one if you tell me the height of this skyscraper'." 

The student was Niels Bohr.

I heard the story; it's a good one. I don't believe that Neil's Bohr had anything to do with it. Not everything you read on the internet is true.

Yes, it could well be apocryphal, but that doesn't matter. The point is that there's often more correct answers than expected by the teacher.

I detect that you have not read the link.

You have not explained anything.

I have. You just misunderstood it.

Your explanation seems to indicate that you have never seen a faraday motor. This flick counters your theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7JTyRBfeF4

You can suspend the entire aparatus and it will not turn, while the magnet does turn.