michel123456

I had a problem with login. I managed through the "forgotten password" procedure, and it works well now. Wonderful site. Good job. ---------------------- Using the full editor, the fonts appearing when writing are different from those when posted, leading to some confusion.

Isn't repelling gravity the basis of inflation theory?

So I understand that you all agree upon the idea that physical laws of motion are asymmetric as concern the attractive-repulsive instance.

I made the experiment. The walls do play a role. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedfrom wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_leaf_paradox Explanation Stirring the liquid makes it spin around the cup, causing a centrifugal force outward. However, near the bottom and outer edges the liquid is slowed by the friction against the cup. There the centrifugal force is weaker and the pressure differences become more important for the water flow. This is called a boundary layer or more specifically an Ekman layer.[3] Because of the centrifugal force, the pressure is higher along the rim than in the middle. If all the liquid rotated as a solid body, the inward (centripetal) force would match the outward (centrifugal) force from the rotation and there would be no inward or outward movement. In a teacup, where the rotation is slower at the bottom, the pressure gradient takes over and creates an inward flow along the bottom. Higher up, the liquid flows outward instead. This secondary flow travels inward along the bottom bringing the leaves to the center, then up, out and down near the rim. The leaves are too heavy to lift upwards, so they stay in the middle. Combined with the primary rotational flow, the leaves will spiral inward along the bottom.[1][2] _I don't see any mention of deceleration. Clearly, the "tea leaf" phenomenon appears when the input stops (when the spoon is taken out the cup and the system is left free).

There are no roads in the antipods.

I was not aware of the tea-leaf paradox. I use to drink coffee. I think it has to do with vector decomposition. It is not a system in regular rotational motion. Since the system comes to a stop, it is accelerated (decelerated) rotational motion. Under regular rotation, the stuff is under acceleration caused by the change in direction. Under accelerated rotation, we are talking about acceleration of acceleration, in this case, deceleration of acceleration. Equations and vector analysis must exist somewhere, but i couldn't find anything about it. I am gonna make the experiment in a large pool this weekend, to see whether the container walls play a role.

Actually, if you observe carefully the video, stuff don't float but stays at the bottom of the casserole. You'll notice that when the camera goes away for a moment & then goes back. The more dense goes to the center. ------------------------------------------------ and so is the Earth.

You are a smart and educated person. As such, you have no need to relax under the umbrella of knowledge of other people smarter than you. When people say that reality is not easy to grasp, it is too often an excuse for unintelligible explanations. Theory predicts observations, and yes, Relativity is right because experimental observations correspond to Theory. The point is not on whether Relativity is right or wrong. The point is on the way one interprets what observation is. When you say that observation is exactly the same thing as reality, what you obtain is insanity (IMHO). From multiple observations, you obtain multiple realities. You are at the same time yourself & a pancake, and because some observator far away decides so, you can not step into your car and accelerate for the simple reason that in his FOR it is physically impossible to observe. But when you say, as I do, that there is a gap between observation & reality, nothing weird happen. Still you are a pancake for the other observator, and Relativity applies on all his observations. But you know better, because you are your own FOR, and you know that no law of nature can stop you to sit in your car and go for a trip.

?? That's what I ment. Yes. While spinning at regular rotational speed, or under accelerated rotation. And inward when decelerating. Yes. That does not explain why the stuff floating on the surface is going to the center.

No kidding.

Agree. and when V gets to xero, F gets to zero too. And as shown in the experiment, matter goes to the center. It is a visualization of a concentration process, without any modification of mass.

I just cannot accept on basis on logic that reality has a multiple essence.

We touched the cornerstone of our disagreement. An astronomer somewhever on another planet observes you flat as a pancake and having a mass of billions tons. You say that both reality of this astronomer and your reality are correct. In some sense, you say that reality is dependent of the observer, that reality is frame dependent, that physical reality is multiple. I say it is utter nonsense. I say reality is unique, that reality is correct where the observator is in the same FOR of the observed object. In other words, that you are not flat as a pancake and that your mass is not increasing, that all those effects are only a question of appearence & measurement.

You are not aware of the worldwide known . (1) there was a thread about it on this forum. (1) at the time i made it, i thought it was representing a spiral galaxy.

Unique. ------------ The question was addressed to DH.

That was my question. Here?

underlying mathematics have been mentionned by DH. Surely he knows better. It is not in [math] F = m a [/math] and not in [math] F = \frac{d}{dt} (mv) [/math] Maybe in [math] F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/math] As I see it, there is no "obvious" orbital path coming from these equations.

Amazing. I say: Reality is one. Or do you disagree even on this simple statement?

After some deep reflexion... The day gets longer means the rotation slows down. And when a body in rotation slows down (decelerates), it gives rise to a centripetal force.

It is obvious to you, not to me. from Wiki laws of motion "First Law: Every body will persist in its state of rest or of uniform motion (constant velocity) in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.[2][3][4] This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity. Second Law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body. Third 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". Where is it obvious?

Could you give an example?

Yes. That's why I believe direction is not so important. The same laws must apply. Intuitively speaking.

Are you suggesting that the laws of motion are not symmetric?

Why are you so angry? We are in speculations, aren't we? What is that makes the idea so outrageous? I don't have the background to judge a Professor of any University. And I don't make a judgment on the basis of nationality. There are some russians around who can answer. This post was not intended to raise any other comment, that's the reason I wrote "to put in the drawer". And I don't understand what the uncertainty principle has to do here, nor why do you get annoyed when I declare myself an evolutionist. The contrary would be much more disturbing. What I ment is that IMHO everything evolutes. Nothing stays the same. The philosoph said "ta panta rei". That's all. And i read all your post. That makes sense.

To put in the drawer. http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/985/