Klaynos Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Please go read about dimensional analysis you cannot simply fix units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 G is velocity-dependent but pure G does nothing by itself, it's just scaling things, mass and distance create the effect (through GEPs). What is "pure G"? Either gravity depends on motion or it doesn't, and you've previously said it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 What is "pure G"? Either gravity depends on motion or it doesn't, and you've previously said it does. It depends, but it depends also on masses and distance. Without motion there is no gravitation illusion no matter how large masses are or distance is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 It depends, but it depends also on masses and distance. Without motion there is no gravitation illusion no matter how large masses are or distance is. Are you being deliberately unclear? Why has the word "illusion" suddenly popped up in this? Face facts. The Cavendish experiment shows that you are wrong. You can't just "fix" the units. If you think you can, then please do so because at the moment your ideas just don't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 ! Moderator Note illuusio, you have failed to provide the necessary clarifications, derivations and other evidence requested. Also, you are introducing terminology that is not mainstream and have failed to explain its purpose. It might be wise to take a small part of your idea and start another speculative thread, but DO NOT start another thread on this exact topic to bypass this closure. Take some time to re-read some of the suggestions and arguments you've been given.Thread closed, per Speculation forum rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 ! Moderator Note This topic has been re-opened, at the request of the OP, who promises some new information and hopefully a new approach to dealing with requested evidence. Please allow the new information to be posted before replying. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 First of all, thank you for a new chance! I have used my time wisely with theory and here is the latest version. I hope we can get further this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Illuusio Could you help the members out by showing in very straight terms and here on the forum (ie not wrapped up in text on a pdf) the new evidence and how this delineates your idea from other more established theories. As a hint - they are gonna want maths and numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Still rubbish, and the promised evidence is not present in the document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) Hi, I made my own tests with rotating (smooth surfaced) objects. Pulling force was very visible. I don't have Cavendish experiment caliber equipment to measure exact force but I was impressed anyhow! Math is inside the pdf to look for. If you can't download it I can copy paste them here later. Edited August 22, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 There's no math in the paper. What you've done is simply to make up a couple of meaningless expressions by combining letters and mathematical operators. There's no evidence or derivation of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Agreed with ACG Ok this is your equation. My bicycle is upside down in front of me as I type - the back wheel is turning at 5 rotations per second, it's mass is 1.595kg, it's radius is .350m; if I position a test object 2 mm away from it what force towards the hub should I expect to measure. in other words please explain the figures you are gonna put into that equation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) Agreed with ACG Ok this is your equation. My bicycle is upside down in front of me as I type - the back wheel is turning at 5 rotations per second, it's mass is 1.595kg, it's radius is .350m; if I position a test object 2 mm away from it what force towards the hub should I expect to measure. in other words please explain the figures you are gonna put into that equation Ok, good example. 1. G = 0.5 * 5^2 = 12.5 2. F_{"gravitation"} = 12.5 * 1.595 * weight of test object, lets say 0.1 kg / (0.35 + 0.002 + test object's radius, let's say 0.005)^2) = 15.6435 N Was this any helpful? Edited August 22, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Yep, that's the sort of numerical prediction we like. 15N is a perfectly easy force to measure and, as Imatfaal has the bicycle, we can do the experiment. However, for my benefit (I'm a chemist not a physicist) can you draw me a quick sketch of the object, the bike wheel and the expected direction of the force just to make it clear? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 Yep, that's the sort of numerical prediction we like. 15N is a perfectly easy force to measure and, as Imatfaal has the bicycle, we can do the experiment. However, for my benefit (I'm a chemist not a physicist) can you draw me a quick sketch of the object, the bike wheel and the expected direction of the force just to make it clear? Thanks I certainly can! I'll do it tomorrow, now it's time to go to sleep (I live in Finland and it's night already). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 Yep, that's the sort of numerical prediction we like. 15N is a perfectly easy force to measure and, as Imatfaal has the bicycle, we can do the experiment. However, for my benefit (I'm a chemist not a physicist) can you draw me a quick sketch of the object, the bike wheel and the expected direction of the force just to make it clear? Thanks I certainly can! I'll do it tomorrow, now it's time to go to sleep (I live in Finland and it's night already). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 15 Newtons? That's as much force as a 1.53 Kg mass. The effect should be easy to see, the bike should fall over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Here is a picture of bike wheel experiment. And to ACG52, I don't think that 15 N will make any difference to the bike on the floor. Edited August 23, 2012 by illuusio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I suggest hanging the test mass from a string. That's a very sensitive test for any force acting on it because the string won't hang vertically. You should be able to get a plot of the angle from vertical vs the speed of the wheel. Ideally we would do this in a vacuum, but with 15N acting on a 0.1 Kg test mass the string should be very clearly out of vertical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I suggest hanging the test mass from a string. That's a very sensitive test for any force acting on it because the string won't hang vertically. You should be able to get a plot of the angle from vertical vs the speed of the wheel. Ideally we would do this in a vacuum, but with 15N acting on a 0.1 Kg test mass the string should be very clearly out of vertical. Since a 0.1 kg test mass has a weight of ~1N, you should be able to lift it quite easily with the rotating wheel exerting 15N. Bicycle wheels should be attracting all sorts of pebbles with that kind of force, that would fall off once you stopped. I've done that experiment countless times, and never observed this effect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 Since a 0.1 kg test mass has a weight of ~1N, you should be able to lift it quite easily with the rotating wheel exerting 15N. Bicycle wheels should be attracting all sorts of pebbles with that kind of force, that would fall off once you stopped. I've done that experiment countless times, and never observed this effect. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illuusio Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 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? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mellinia Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Ok I have set up the experiment. I have hung a 100gram weight as close as I can manage to the back wheel of my bike using what I believe will soon be considered as state of the art experimental equipment The umbrella stuffed into the back of an lcd-tv mount To the pencil held onto the umbrella with elastic bands And the 100g postal weight supported by cotton I am currently waiting for the weight to settle down and stop swinging and will post an update 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts