Is Newton's 3rd law incorrect?

[lightarrow]

Newton's 3rd Law is an expression of an underlying conservation law...

Then it's not a "mathematical trick" as stated in post #23.

--
lightarrow

 

[lightarrow]

The 3rd law conserves momentum but not angular momentum. That would be the case if the forces between two bodies always act parallel to their displacement vector (as jbriggs444 already told you) but Newton's laws of motion do not include such a condition.

I know, infact I wrote that is an additional condition required. Nonetheless, the fact: F_A = -F_B is required for the law of conservation of angular momentum.

In fact they do not say anything about angular momentum. Momentum and angular momentum are completely different things.

You insist on "momentum" (and/or momentum conservation law) but that is not the topic, according to your reasoning: it's "Newton's 3d law".

The fact that the 3rd law can be used to prove something else does not mean that something else is the same topic.

That's wrong. Everything related to Newton's 3d law, especially what you can prove using that law is the same topic.
Anyway I see we can't go anywhere keeping on our discussion, so it's terminated for me and I won't reply to you again here.
Regards.

--
lightarrow

 

[DrStupid]

Nonetheless, the fact: F_A = -F_B is required for the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Could you please provide a prove for this fact?

You insist on "momentum" (and/or momentum conservation law) but that is not the topic, according to your reasoning: it's "Newton's 3d law".

What do you think Newton's 3d law is about if not conservation of momentum?

Everything related to Newton's 3d law, especially what you can prove using that law is the same topic.

I would not even agree if you would show me such a prove because that would open the floodgates to thread-highjacking.