Mellinia

I think that there was a little yips on orientation of driller and that caused test object's movement away from driller. With attached driller you get very nice phenomenon without any unwanted movements. But as you can see, I managed to balance that harmonic motion at last. Covering rotating part with something smoother, like duct tape, will improve phenomenon.

 

If you want even better result you can attach small metal ball into driller. And ofcourse, best result is achieved in vacuum.

Post the experiment done in the vacuum, please, it achieves a greater effect of demonstrating your theorem, showing that it isn't air flow that saved your theory from failing.

You still haven't explained how your theorem fails to explain the gravitational force caused by things that are not rotating. e.g. you jumping and falling on to the ground when you are not rotating with respect to the Earth.

Ok, here is my video -> https://www.youtube....h?v=-C9H10YAm0w

 

Obviously pulling force overpowers air flow resistance. Smoother driller's rotating part would decrease air flow resistance. In vacuum, effect is great.

 

That previously linked video is really indeed a crap, sry about that one!

Illuusio. I saw the video. The thing swung, dude, it was not attracted to the powertool. Besides, it didn't really stayed there...

Ok, here is one -> http://www.sea3000.n...81009181348.php

I have done also my own experiments with high rotation frequency objects. After that I realized that rotation is very much involved.

 

You like very mich picturing things. Picture this, you have two balls of lead (radius 0.1 m, 47.54 kg) hanging side by side, say 1 mm apart. How much force there should be by Newton. Mmm... by Newton there will be roughly force of 3.7e-6N and because of two object total pulling force is 7.4e-6N. Shouldn't you find that those two balls get contact with that force? You can image densier objects than lead if you will.

 

And for curiosity, increase the gap between balls, but give like 1/s rotation frequence for both of them

So, I plugged in the numbers, m₁=47.54kg=m₂, and distance between them, 0.001m, into Newton's F=Gm₁m₂ / r^2 and got myself 0.15 N, where G is the universal gravitational constant.

Yup! They would get contact, however slowly though. I believe you have tried it, in a vacuum, perhaps hung by very light strings?

Now according to your theory, n=0, thus G=0, thus they don't get contact.

When you start spinning them though, did you do this in a vacuum?

Did you ensure that they underwent constant spinning before allowing them to be put together, so that external forces can be eliminated?

And that the lead balls continue to stick together after their contact? Um, let assume they spun in different directions so kinetic energy-causes-flying off could be eliminated.

mmm... nice set up!

 

 

 

This is easy one, I'm right.

 

Actually there is few odd phenomenon which can state that Newton was wrong. Like some binary stars and galaxy's odd spiral movements.

Um, how? Please show that Newton is wrong...using your own equations perhaps?

Of course, unless you're trying to use experimental evidence to show that Newton is wrong on the twin balls that are not rotating...then I really don't know what to say...Don't we have the Cavendish Experiment for that?

Again, picture this. You're standing on Earth. You jump. Why do you fall down to Earth?

For one, the earth is not rotating with respect to you. (That's why our ancestors thought that the Earth was flat.)

So, once again, the calculated G value is zero. So there is no pulling force towards the ground.i.e. No gravitation?

Um, Newton was wrong on some binary stars and galaxy's odd spiral movements. Heck, his equations were wrong to predict Pluto's orbit.

And...that's when Einstein showed up.

Still nothing on rotation though.

I'm still amazed. What phenomena did you observe that led to your theory?

Hi Mellinia!

 

Pebbles don't come near the wheel from great distances, they are very light same as wheel is light (compared to Earth) . But stuff that gets attached (for any reason) will be flown away quickly because of the kinetic energy.

 

My equations come across from observations, experiments and from need to explain anomalous phenomenon with simpler explanations. Newton's laws are absolutely valid, only problem is gravitation constant. It is not a constant nor universal.

But that's a prediction by classical physics. Your theorem predicted an attractive force due to an rotating object. Unless of course you're stating that anything that gets pulled in by the rotating object flies off so fast we can't see it....

Amazing! How did you observe these phenomena?

Hmm. The First law of ToEbi showed how to calculate G. So...picture this. There are two balls in space. One has a billion times the mass of the second ball. They are not rotating. According to Newton, they will experience an attractive force to each other. According to you, both balls are not rotating, so the rounds per second ends up zero, and G=0, and they will not experience an attractive force to each other. Who is right?

Experiments show Newton is right. Though you can say that the two balls are rotating with respective to some other thing, the laws of physics are same in any reference frame...unless you also intend to show that that's wrong too?

You mean riding your bike as your experiment? In that case wheels are rotating but when stuff is attached to the wheel it gets so much kinetic energy that it flies away.

but the pebbles doesn't even come near the wheel when I ride my bike. They don't get 'attached to the wheel'.

Your equations come across as...."magic"?

I believe you believe that we should believe your equations just as we believed Newton's "F=ma"(which was slightly off by the way). However...aren't you using the same system as Newton's in your equation?

Where should your 'G' be used to calculate the gravitational force?

If it is used in Newton's law of gravitation, shouldn't your 'G' be accountable for that too?

Two plane mirrors inclined at an angle [latex]\theta [/latex] to each other, with an object placed between them will create [latex](n-1) \frac {360 ^o}{ \theta } [/latex] of images. Is this because of the repeated reflection of the images?

Are we allowed to produce a mirror lengthwise to show a reflection of an object that would otherwise cannot be located? see attachment.

go.bmp

How does that lead to Mass curving Space? How does Euclidean geometry or Riemannian geometry give Matter the abilty to bend Space? And give the Space the property of bending?

Now length contraction in this case is showed to be applied to curved space. This shows Mass/ Energy curves space.

Ah, geometry doesn't show how mass is given the ability to bend space, it merely shows us how it curves it. That problem is left to philosophers to ponder. We don't know why space can be "bent" (it's empty!), or why time can be "warped" (time fabric?!) or why mass can affect it (why should it?) because basically, we haven't discovered enough.

Why do you wish to reconcile it with Euclidean geometry? And by that how would you establish that Space gets curved?

Nice one swansont. Euclidean geometry only works on plane surfaces. Now Riemann geometry works on curve surfaces, reducing to Euclidean when the space in question is planar. So, I guess you can figure out the rest.

I meant the same thing. The equivalence principle.

 

 

Gravitational field can be given any name. But,

 

it is absolutely not,

 

Space & Time integrated together.

 

It cannot be.

 

 

There is no bend.

 

We are able to see a star directly behind the Sun because the motion of light is acted upon by Sun's Gravitational field.

 

 

 

--------------------------*************************

Sorry this came late. Your first few posts analysed both gravity and acceleration and determined that their characteristics weren't the same.

I don't understand why "it cannot be"...though what I can comment is that SR and GR provided us with plenty of counter-intuitive examples of life: length contraction?! time dilution?! these shouldn't happen but they do. Mad logic permeate physics but they are proven by nature.

Can you please elaborate on the characteristics of your "gravitational field". Does it work on energy? How does it changes the direction of light? How is "the motion of light is acted upon by Sun's Gravitational field"? Is it the same as the Newtonian gravitational field? I believe you didn't provide the details of your "gravitational field" in the forum enough. GR explains it as the curvature of spacetime.

 

 

1. Einstein did not equate "gravitation" with "acceleration". He equated "acceleration due to gravity" with "acceleration due to external forces that gives the same acceleration as the former". (Sorry, but i need to be precise.) This meant that taking the acceleration due to Earth's gravity to be 9.87ms^-2, your weight balance reading on Earth would be the same as your weight balance reading when you're on a rocket with 9.87ms^-2 acceleration.

2. Spacetime is not just "three dimensions of space and one dimension of time". What you refer to as"gravitational field", a "medium", "like the atmosphere of the Earth" has a name, it's called spacetime. Space and time integrated together. Manipulating time affects space and vice versa.

3. "Warping" is not attributed to space. Sometimes you might see people discussing about "warping space" because space is much more easier to imagine than time. You can "imagine the 'warping' of space" but not time. Space is where everything's happening and time is the sequence in which everything's happening.

4. Mathematics allow us to "see" the "bend". "Bending of spacetime"caused us to be able to see a star directly behind the Sun because light travels on a "curved spacetime" caused by the Sun.

Most words have various meanings.

 

We would be doing justice to the purpose of the usage of any word only when we consider, purely the intended meaning.

 

I didn't say it is a medium.

 

I said it is like a medium.

 

I used the word 'Medium' for lack of a better word. And to filter out the unintended meanings from being taken, I particularly stated that 'Medium does not mean here an intermediating medium. It means something like an atmosphere around earth'. Which I suppose, rules out the word 'medium' meaning- the one required for propagation, like ether. But again don't say Atmosphere is a medium for propagation of sound. I don't mean that. What I am indicating here is the 'presence' around the body.

 

I also gave analogies of the Magnetic & Electric fields, to facilitate the meaning of the ability of Gravitational field to act at a distance.

 

I hope that my intended meaning is clear, and from this point on the word 'field' would be sufficient, instead of using the word 'medium' to avoid superfluous meanings.

 

 

 

 

 

Is GR replacing a Physical entity with an abstraction?

 

And the Geometry of the abstraction says that another entity is bent.

 

Accordingly, that entity has to bend, irrespective of whether that entity has the ability to bend or not.

 

Is this a question of semantics?

 

 

 

 

 

How can I not conflate spacetime with Space, while

 

spacetime has the ingredients of space.

 

 

 

 

 

The spacetime has four dimensions, out of which, three dimensions represent Empty space.

 

And you say spacetime is not equal to Space.

 

Who is making a straw man argument?

 

 

--------------------------*************************

 

 

 

Mathematics is a tool with which a given data is processed.

 

It will never make a mistake in the processing of a given data.

 

Irrational abstractions & concepts can also be converted into data and given.

I do suggest reading up on general relativity. Spacetime may have the word space in it, and it does concern spatial dimensions but it isn't really just taking "three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension" together. I'm not even sure it only has three spatial dimensions. Space and time are "integrated" together. Affecting space affects time and vice versa. I don't know why, but it does.

Isn't spacetime the "medium" that you call "gravitational field"? Einstein described the gravitational field as spacetime curvature. Spacetime which is present around everything. "Acceleration" and "Gravitation" both curve spacetime the same way, affecting the temporal dimension thus is equated. It doesn't mean that gravitation is substituted with acceleration. Einstein done away with gravitation by explaining that actually, the curvature of spacetime is gravity and that curvature is caused by mass/energy.

Side note: Mass warps space time...at times :"only time is warped".

Given the universality of free fall, there is no observable distinction between inertial motion and motion under the influence of the gravitational force. This suggests the definition of a new class of inertial motion, namely that of objects in free fall under the influence of gravity. This new class of preferred motions, too, defines a geometry of space and time—in mathematical terms, it is the geodesic motion associated with a specific connection which depends on the gradient of the gravitational potential. Space, in this construction, still has the ordinary Euclidean geometry. However, spacetime as a whole is more complicated. As can be shown using simple thought experiments following the free-fall trajectories of different test particles, the result of transporting spacetime vectors that can denote a particle's velocity (time-like vectors) will vary with the particle's trajectory; mathematically speaking, the Newtonian connection is not integrable. From this, one can deduce that spacetime is curved.

~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

just in case

So what behaviors are observed to evoke pride?

ah. That clears up a bit. Thanks!

 

As I said in my first post, pride is a product of the 'thinking ego' and you can't do much with out that 'ego', it is this which plays with us, I think this 'thinking ego' is present in everyone so it must be common to all cultures and societies.

 

Our Social Interaction and internal desires are like raw materials for the thinking ego it can go on and turn you into something ugly or suppress the feeling of pride completely.

The thinking ego is just...there?!

It is because our society is constructed that way, everyone tries to develop a status or image or identity of their own, it our wants and desires which defines our identity and high status mean other people will treat you well, you have more luxury, you'll get what ever you want but you're not the only one competing for the resources there are other individuals too and they see that you're a hinderance in the path to achieve their glory and your mind keeps bringing his picture infront of you everytime you think of your goals and projects him as your enemy and you'll think if I eliminate him or derail him then your path becomes easier and this is when people take revenge on others even if they had done no harm to you. So it is a subjective thing, you can let go and find peace, some fight for their country and some fight for glory.

 

I think sexual selection is one of the major reasons for wide span of revenge mechanisms in our cultures where organisms compete to become Alpha males to breed with the best in the gene pool and revenge mechanisms start to work and decide who gets what.

 

 

So basically pride is a product of the society and our desires?

Yes there were few pacifists who had this view mainly Jesus Christ and Mahatma Gandhi. Displaying an act of humility even when being treated very badly by someone.

 

Turning the other cheek

 

What does it mean?

Do humans want to regain lost pride? Why does the 'revenge' mechanism seem to be span most cultures?

Please give use the other thread. We could use with some on topic reading.

To find out if two objects fall at the same rate, you have to find their final velocity. To do this I used the equation V₂²=(V₁²)+2(a)(d). If I recorded that object 1 fell at 5 m/s and had an initial velocity of 0 and fell a distance of 30 meters then:

 

V₂²=(0)+2(5m/s)(30m)

V₂²=300m/s

 

Now say Object 2 is double the weight and has double the acceleration than Object 1 then,

 

V₂²=(0)+2(10m/s)(30m)

V₂²=600m/s

 

This clearly shows that if an object with 2x the weight falls 2x faster. This shows that all objects fall at the same RATE (not accelerate) according to their weight (not density).

If Object 2 has double the weight, why does it have double the acceleration? If you are suggesting that this is resulted from gravitational acceleration, gravitational acceleration is the same for both objects, assuming that you are doing both experiments at the same location on Earth, probably in a vacuum. Weight takes no part in your equations...

So the '2x' acceleration has to come from somewhere. Why can't I say Object 3 has the same weight as Object 1 and has double the acceleration instead?!

That would depend on where you would slap me, in public or a private room, also on your gender and other conditions. An egoistic person will obviously urge towards you with the aim of inflicting pain to you since his self-image was scrutinized under a wide public I bet he would really want to kill you but he controls since he knows that the public is watching him and doesn't like to destroy his self-image, if he is humble then he would show you his other cheek so that you can slap him again. It seems people act differently during different situations making a judgement on one's own personal image of how others think of them.

I mean the initial urge, the instant moment after you realised someone slapped you but yeah I see that a person would still evaluate his or her surroundings before making a decision. Though I can't see why a "humble" person would allow you to slap him again. Are there cases of this happening?

Take this anology: If I slap you, would you have the initial urge to inflict pain to me?

Can the human notion of "pride" be defined as the "recognization of the ability to live"? The human need for continuity of existence of self, country, race, etc seem to be predominant in our daily decisions.

When light passes a large body in the universe the gravity of the said mass causes the light to bend and curve around the mass.

 

so in theory the light adjacent to the light that has just curved around the mass will be travelling faster as the curved light has travelled a greater distance.

 

so there for one or the other would have had to of travelled at a different speed,

 

its not possible for some thing travelling at a constant to cover a greater distance eg the straight line is say 500.000miles and the curved line is 510.1740 miles.

 

how can something with the same speed and velocity cover two different distances at the same time and speed QED

 

 

But the reason why light is curved is because spacetime is curved so that light speed is constant....to light, there is no curve, to us, there is...

Hello,

 

I want to know more about buoyancy.

 

How ship floats? We know that ship is much denser than water. Somebody had told me that it floats because it is open and therefore there are air on it and air is less denser than water.

 

However, I don't know the formula on how to get the overall density if the air already involves. Would somebody give me the formula on how to get the overall density wherein air involves, like the overall density of ship?

 

Basically they make the ship to occupy as much volume as possible, while still the same mass. The density of both air and ship can be calculated by the density equation, just get their total mass and total volume. According to density equation: density= mass/volume. Density is inversely proportional to the volume. The total mass of the ship and the air is approximately near the mass of the ship, but the volume that a ship-sized piece of metal occupies (because it is hollow) is more than a same piece of metal that is not hollow. Thus, the overall density is decreased....Anyone has got numbers?