swansont Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Challenging an accepted conclusion will always be open to... you are wasting your time, and here's why... And for want of an example from the past... What on earth were Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman thinking when they they thought they could devise a secure public key encryption method? It is obvious that no such method can exist, for whatever rules can be devised to encrypt a message, the rules can simply be reversed to reveal the message. Meanwhile, nobody has ever created a perpetual motion machine. There's a difference between conventional wisdom of something being hard to the point of not being feasible to have a solution, and something that violates well-established physics. And if you want to re-write the laws of physics, you need a pile of experimental evidence. Not drawings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Maybe - just maybe - you could assume I know a little about what I'm talking about and read in that context, instead of assuming that omission of unneeded detail implies misunderstanding. I see no evidence whatsoever that I assumed anything. I was (and remain) quite sure you understand Physics very well, which is why I am surprised at your rather casual dismissal of my attempt to show Mike that the mechanical dynamics of fluids under loads is different from that for solids. Consequently the bucket of water is a very poor analogy. In particular Mike asked "Why does the water not fall out?". I cannot identify a clear and concise answer to this question, couched in the proper language of Physics. If, for instance, you reached up an seized the bucket at the moment it was above your head, and held it there, the water would indeed fall out and you would get wet. If the water was ice then you would (in theory) be able to hold it up there indefinitely. The short answer to Mike's question about the bucket is nothing more exotic than that the time is too short for it to fall. However you should not dismiss air pressure so lightly either. It was a victorian party trick to place a card over a full beaker of water, invert the assembly and show that air pressure could prevent the water falling out. If one wished one could calculate a time, related to the angular speed, from say about 30o from one side of the vertical to 30o on the other, during which the water would be at risk of falling out and would indeed fall slightly. If this time was short enough (ie the angular speed was high enough) the water would simply slump a bit rather than fall out. If the time was too long, water would spill. And why would the water iinitially remain as a body? For the same reason it does when it falls out of your tap in a stream tube. There are no disruptive forces in action. But I repeat my point that all this is entirely different from the proposed action of Mike's Mechanism (I think they did a Gig at my university in the 1960s , or was it the 1860s I can't quite remember ). So let us return to consideration of all the forces acting on these oscillating bodies and, when then the reasons why it won't work should immediately become apparent. Edited March 10, 2015 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 In particular Mike asked "Why does the water not fall out?". I cannot identify a clear and concise answer to this question, couched in the proper language of Physics. I can't find where he asked that question. So one should not expect an answer because "Why does the water not fall out" was not asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I can't find where he asked that question. So one should not expect an answer because "Why does the water not fall out" was not asked. he asked something to that effect So how is the water staying up there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 he asked something to that effect Possibly, but it was a quote. The quoted question is nowhere to be found. However, the issue was addressed, at least by me in post#12, and by others. At a level that should be sufficient for someone who said he used to teach physics. edit: andrewcellini, you answered that particular question in the very next post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewcellini Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 (edited) Possibly, but it was a quote. The quoted question is nowhere to be found. pg 4 #79 However, the issue was addressed, at least by me in post#12, and by others. At a level that should be sufficient for someone who said he used to teach physics. fair enough Edited March 10, 2015 by andrewcellini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I was (and remain) quite sure you understand Physics very well, which is why I am surprised at your rather casual dismissal of my attempt to show Mike that the mechanical dynamics of fluids under loads is different from that for solids. ... If, for instance, you reached up an seized the bucket at the moment it was above your head, and held it there, the water would indeed fall out and you would get wet. If the water was ice then you would (in theory) be able to hold it up there indefinitely. That is not a difference between solids and liquids. It is entirely due to the ice, in your example, being attached to the bucket. Admittedly, you can't attach a fluid in that way. But if the material in the bucket were a solid that wasn't stuck to the bucket then you could no more hold it stationary over your head than you could the water. I don't think you are being pedantic. Your are just dragging in irrelevancies ("what if the water was replaced with oobleck", "what if the bucket was porous", "what if ...") Mike's antigravity machine cannot work. And he will discover this when he goes away and builds one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 That is not a difference between solids and liquids. It is entirely due to the ice, in your example, being attached to the bucket. Admittedly, you can't attach a fluid in that way. But if the material in the bucket were a solid that wasn't stuck to the bucket then you could no more hold it stationary over your head than you could the water. Exactly. Which is a reason why I used a brick in my example. But a brick in a bucket, rather than a brick instead of a bucket, or attached to the bucket, since I assumed the casual reader would consider the analogous situation, and not add new restrictions on the problem. Apparently I underestimated the amount of confusion (or obtuseness) my posts would cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) Exactly. Which is a reason why I used a brick in my example. But a brick in a bucket, rather than a brick instead of a bucket, or attached to the bucket, since I assumed the casual reader would consider the analogous situation, and not add new restrictions on the problem. Apparently I underestimated the amount of confusion (or obtuseness) my posts would cause.If we were to change the shape of the bucket ,during its overhead arc bit , of it's swinging above our head , in such a way as the bottom of the bucket circumscribes a partial arc whose radius is that of the radius of the earth during that short partial arc ' portion' . And the bucket at that portion travelled at 17,700 mph . That the water will be in orbit at 8 ft above the surface of the earth . If we then have a second bucket going in the opposite direction , doing the same thing . It. Also will be in orbit , but in the opposite . Direction . Link the two , and we have a theoretical system , where the two centrifugal forces , give orbit at near the surface of the earth , in theory . Mike Two relevant free body diagrams . FBD 's . Force of bucket on the water centripetal force Force of water on the bucket. Centrifugal force Mike If we were to change the shape of the bucket ,during its overhead arc bit , of it's swinging above our head , in such a way as the bottom of the bucket circumscribes a partial arc whose radius is that of the radius of the earth during that short partial arc ' portion' . And the bucket at that portion travelled at 17,700 mph . That the water will be in orbit at 8 ft above the surface of the earth . If we then have a second bucket going in the opposite direction , doing the same thing . It. Also will be in orbit , but in the opposite . Direction . Link the two , and we have a theoretical system , where the two centrifugal forces , give orbit at near the surface of the earth , in theory . Mike Two relevant free body diagrams . FBD 's . Force of bucket on the water centripetal force image.jpg Force of water on the bucket. Centrifugal force image.jpg Mike It could be argued , that if this theoretical model could be translated to an actual dual device :- Then a mass attached to the twin device , provided it was a couple of orders of magnitude less than the mass of the two waters , then :- Such an attached mass would be supported aloft ( few feet above ground level ) , with no visible means of support other than by supplied tangential oscillating angular momentum . Thus is illustrated the tuning fork principle device as a crude schematic diagram. Mike Edited March 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 If the water is in orbit at 8 feet above the surface (or at any distance), then the only force on it is gravity. That's what we mean by an orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) If the water is in orbit at 8 feet above the surface (or at any distance), then the only force on it is gravity. That's what we mean by an orbit... I think the word ' orbit ' might be an arbitrary definition. Agreed the force acting on the water is gravity. But by newtons , law and indeed Galileo 's observation . The strait line inertia / momentum of the mass of water is modified by this force towards the centre( centripetally ) and newtons law says " every action has an equal and opposite reaction. " And although it appears to be very unpopular . This equal and opposite relation is none the less than ( this inertia/ momentum fighting back to stay in a strait line. And is overthrowing the force of gravity to create this centrifugal ( away from the centre ) force . No mater how it is named ' fictitious ' or otherwise . It may not be a generating force , but it surely can be an ' opposing force'. And seeing as the only force in the direction and attitude is gravity . It opposes gravity Centrifugally . Moving in a way ' away from the centre ' thus opposing gravity. If Einstein's general theory proved gravity distorts space , then it follows opposing gravity in this particular way must have ' adjusted the distortions in space ' .! In reversal to gravity. Newtons three laws ( third law ) :- http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html If one took pushing a block of concrete along a surface . There can clearly be seen in the horizontal direction a force doing the pushing ( perhaps oneself ) . Newtons law says there will be an equal an opposite reaction ( frictional force ) . So we can reach a stage where this frictional force is so strong as to preventing you from moving the stone . So by similar reasoning we can by inertia ( caused by movement and thus momentum ) reach a sufficiently fast movement in the case of the gravity experiment . ( usually approx 17,700 mph ) where the centrifugal force is sufficiently strong so as to oppose gravity. In the way the frictional force for other reasons increased in value so as to completely overcome the pushing force . Neither the frictional force or the centrifugal force can be larger than the originating force , it is assumed. Otherwise concrete blocks would be moving about under there own steam ! And presumably the universe would be drifting apart! Eek ! It is of course . Drifting apart ! Maybe the angular momentum is too big ? Mike Edited March 21, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Strawman Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Mike, the answer to your question in the OP is centrifugal force since Einstein redefined inertia/centrifugal-force as a distortion of spacetime. In your bucket example, water does not fall to the ground because of centrifugal forces which is also a distortion of spacetime. How this distortion looks or works is irrelevant since GR is not a mechanical theory, it's only a mathematical assertion, way too complicated compared to Newton's math. And Einstein's redefinition of inertia/centrifugal-force comes from his misunderstanding of Newton's Bucket experiment. He believed that centrifugal-forces are the result of an action-at-a-distance force, when it is clearly the result of a contact-force. This is why Einstein's new definition of "inertia/centrifugal-force" is listed under speculative ideas in Wikipedia. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 22, 2015 Author Share Posted March 22, 2015 Welcome home ! Centrifugal force seems to be getting a ' come back ' , I am pleased to see ! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Strawman Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 Mike, I am not sure I understand your idea. But I have seen Prof Laithwaite's video and I understand that the item feels lighter when it spins because the centrifugal forces literally hold the flywheel in that position. This is pretty much why a top stands erect when it spins. Angular momentum is a manifestation of centrifugal forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 . . I think the word ' orbit ' might be an arbitrary definition. Agreed the force acting on the water is gravity. But by newtons , law and indeed Galileo 's observation . The strait line inertia / momentum of the mass of water is modified by this force towards the centre( centripetally ) and newtons law says " every action has an equal and opposite reaction. " And although it appears to be very unpopular . This equal and opposite relation is none the less than ( this inertia/ momentum fighting back to stay in a strait line. And is overthrowing the force of gravity to create this centrifugal ( away from the centre ) force . No mater how it is named ' fictitious ' or otherwise . It may not be a generating force , but it surely can be an ' opposing force'. And seeing as the only force in the direction and attitude is gravity . It opposes gravity Centrifugally . No, this is wrong. The correct physics has been explained to you several times, by different people. I'm not sure what happened to I will return with :- Experiments . Results Observations Evidence Because that's what is required, not flashbacks to the conceptual errors of a physics 101 classroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 22, 2015 Author Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) What's happened to ... m.[/font][/color] .Coming. Soon .. Have two days ago finalised on house move , which has spread over last few weeks , including moving all my lifelong possessions ,to new house . And remember I am surrounded by seven women , wife , four daughters two female granddaughters ( that's enough women ,to send any man stark staring insane ! Also Everything and I mean everything is all jumbled up! It's really stressful .experience . I just do not know everything is ! So not forgotten , rearing to go . Just trying desperately to bring myself back to some form of sanity But things are moving forward on the centrifugal force subject in the mean time ! Mike Edited March 22, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Mike, I am not sure I understand your idea. But I have seen Prof Laithwaite's video and I understand that the item feels lighter when it spins because the centrifugal forces literally hold the flywheel in that position. This is pretty much why a top stands erect when it spins. Angular momentum is a manifestation of centrifugal forces. As I may or may not have told you, I have been just now been moving house so my personal files and stuff is all jumbled up all over the place and can find nothing , even my brain , very well . I will try and find my thesis ,I did during a mature Degree , about centrifugal forces. I obviously have it in my head , but the evidence , Swansont , is asking for is partly in that thesis. Basically , I have been seeking a way to ' extract' the possible UNI directional benefit of centrifugal force . In other words not loosing the instantaneous effect of centrifugal force over a small arc , by loosing its overall effect around a complete circle .( where the sum total benefit is effectively zero. ) Laithwait noticed ,as many people do that there is some useful effect in a gyroscope , but never fully developed it into a linear ' usefulness ' . He did with the electro- magnetic motor , by designing the linear motor. This has later been taken up by the Japanese and Continental railways as the 'mag-Lev -'. High speed railway . He never completed it with his gyroscope idea. While he was exploring the gyroscope , I was exploring the Tuning Fork as it appeared to have a part arc reciprocating oscillation , which by my reckoning , was half way to a linear development for centrifugal force. I communicated with Laithwait , but although prepared to discuss , really wanted to go on with his gyroscope idea. I tried putting a patent on the tuning fork idea back in the 1980's 1990' s but the patenting agents could not get their head around it , any more than others nowadays seem to be able to get their head around it . I pressed on with my tuning fork idea , doing experiments and theory at a degree level project , while conducting a mature degree in satellite communications around 2002, bringing up four daughters and general married life and work rather stalled work on the project. Now in retirement I am trying to rekindle interest. In the mean time many others have been trying different issues mainly around complete circular motion , like gyroscopes . I still believe we will not ' crack' the problem until we break out of the complete circle namely ' the partial arc motion ' that I keep bleating on about . I drew this conclusion from my work as an Electrical/ electronic engineer , where here we convert oscillating AC electrical signal to DC unidirectional electrical energy by a clever means of ' rectification ' . Laithwait reckoned I had no right to draw such conclusions , so we went our separate ways . He died . Now I am trying to complete the task before I get too much older. If one cracks the problem then :- We have movement upwards and into motion about the near earth environment without rocket fuel , air propulsion or manipulation of air over a wing by high speed. We just lift according to the energy we put into the ' Tuning Fork style oscillator ' true we are talking largish numbers like. 40 kHz over 4 inches on both sides . But away we go . That's roughly what it is about ! Mike Edited March 23, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professional Strawman Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Mike, thanks for your reply. I sort of understand your idea but I did not understand the electrical connection to it all. But I have a better idea of what you're trying to do with regard to centrifugal forces. Sounds interesting. Edited March 23, 2015 by Professional Strawman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Well I am quite happy for the two threads to be merged. But Capt refreshment . Suggested it might be sensible to start another thread . ! Moderator Note Separate threads don't make sense if we're just going to have the same discussion in two places. Merged. And waiting for evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 You want levitation try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OqpPi8wNed8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 You want levitation try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OqpPi8wNed8 I thought about mentioning acoustic levitation too, however Mike is talking about the oscillator lifting itself and that is not what acoustic levitation does. The levitators far outweigh the levitatees. Ultimately here, the idea of 'anti-gravity' drive is misbegotten. Who ya gonna call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) You want levitation try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OqpPi8wNed8 Very interesting video , some good background , Tesla practically vibrating a building to bits , by hitting the wavelength or half wavelength natural frequency of the building . Also some very impressive acoustic vibration levitation through node identification. And the development of a magnetic and attractive combination based on some wings of an insect . Impressive . BUT However the vibration I am suggesting should be invoked is NOT those in the video but those of an ultra sonic frequency , primarily so it does not blow human eardrums apart and that the 4 inch amplitude in the opposing masses of the tuning fork device , will produce a 17,700 RMS MIles per hour when running at 40,000 cycles per second or hertz . Also the devise I am putting forward invokes centrifugal action /force direct in the fabric of space . Mike I thought about mentioning acoustic levitation too, however Mike is talking about the oscillator lifting itself and that is not what acoustic levitation does. The levitators far outweigh the levitatees. Ultimately here, the idea of 'anti-gravity' drive is misbegotten. Who ya gonna call? I believe I am ' on the case' with the long radius ( to centre of earth ) , RMS SPEED in both directions , by the two tuning fork extremities. The joining apparatus must keep the force lines instantaneously present . Mike Edited March 23, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Tesla practically vibrating a building to bits So when are you going to change your handle to Joshua? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted March 23, 2015 Author Share Posted March 23, 2015 So when are you going to change your handle to Joshua? Why Joshua ? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Jerico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts