Anti-Gravity invented and car running on water

[Acme]

I am aware of the corrosive effects of salt water, how does that drive a car?

I don't know what Sensei had in mind, but you can make a saltwater battery. One of the grandkids had a little robot that ran on one.

 

Aluminum Can, Saltwater and Charcoal Battery

[swansont]

I don't know what Sensei had in mind, but you can make a saltwater battery. One of the grandkids had a little robot that ran on one.

 

Aluminum Can, Saltwater and Charcoal Battery

The salt water is not the source of the stored energy, though. It's the electrolyte which allows the current to pass. The energy is there because of the potentials of the materials used, in the aluminum and the carbon.

[Sensei]

I am aware of the corrosive effects of salt water, how does that drive a car?

I never said it drives a car..

[Acme]

The salt water is not the source of the stored energy, though. It's the electrolyte which allows the current to pass. The energy is there because of the potentials of the materials used, in the aluminum and the carbon.

Acknowledged. I did not mean to imply otherwise; my bad for the ambiguity.

[Professional Strawman]

nec, that's just centrifugal forces[fictitious forces] holding the wheel in that position. The same effect that causes a top to stay erect [or a bicycle wheel] when it spins. [Draw an fbd to understand this yourself]. This is also related to frame dragging also known as Lense-Thirring effect, which is a rotating body's orbit will be slightly different or dragged because of centrifugal forces. Therefore, I am thinking that a rotating body might not drop at the same rate as a non-rotating body. By the way, according to e=m, a rotating body weighs heavier than a non-rotating body. A hotter body weighs heavier than a colder body. Of course there are no experiments that support this aspect of e=m, but there are many experiments that show the opposite.

[swansont]

nec, that's just centrifugal forces[fictitious forces] holding the wheel in that position. The same effect that causes a top to stay erect [or a bicycle wheel] when it spins. [Draw an fbd to understand this yourself]. This is also related to frame dragging also known as Lense-Thirring effect, which is a rotating body's orbit will be slightly different or dragged because of centrifugal forces. Therefore, I am thinking that a rotating body might not drop at the same rate as a non-rotating body.

Lense-Thirring is a tiny effect on our scale, and it affects precession.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense–Thirring_precession

As an example the latitude of the city of Nijmegen in the Netherlands is used for reference. This latitude gives a value for the Lense–Thirring precession of:

 

 

So no, not really.

 

By the way, according to e=m, a rotating body weighs heavier than a non-rotating body. A hotter body weighs heavier than a colder body. Of course there are no experiments that support this aspect of e=m, but there are many experiments that show the opposite.

The increase in mass with the absorption of a photon was been demonstrated. An excited state of Fe-65 was measured to be more massive than the ground state.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278

[Professional Strawman]

"According to the standard cliche, these experiments were done, “to test the velocity dependence of longitudinal and transverse masses” actually they tested the velocity dependence of momentum."

 

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/~des/Phys2320/concept%20of%20mass.pdf

 

The dragging due to centrifugal forces that Lense-Thirring are referring to might be a small value in the context of an earth orbit. But this dragging should show up in free fall experiments. A rotating body's free fall will be dragged compared to a non-rotating body, which falls without a drag. I see there are a few papers documenting this Newtonian effect.

 

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6367.pdf

[swansont]

"According to the standard cliche, these experiments were done, “to test the velocity dependence of longitudinal and transverse masses” actually they tested the velocity dependence of momentum."[/size]

 

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/~des/Phys2320/concept%20of%20mass.pdf

 

What does this have to do with the discussion?

 

 

The dragging due to centrifugal forces that Lense-Thirring are referring to might be a small value in the context of an earth orbit. But this dragging should show up in free fall experiments.

 

How big would it be? Can you derive the expression, or show where it's derived?

 

A rotating body's free fall will be dragged compared to a non-rotating body, which falls without a drag. I see there are a few papers documenting this Newtonian effect.

 

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6367.pdf

 

Bad link, but I did find it eventually. No mention of Lense-Thirring or frame dragging. Apparently not published in any journal, either; if it was, you might expect the info to be given in his publication list.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alexander_Dmitriev/publications

[Professional Strawman]

Lev's paper was in reference to your claim that mass increase has been observed in the context of e=m.

 

There is no mention of Lense-Thirring because everybody knows that Lense-Thirring are referring to centrifugal forces. And this is so because Einstein redefined Centrifugal forces in terms of curvature of spacetime, based on a misunderstanding of the Newton's Bucket experiment. His redefinition of "inertia/centrifugal forces" listed under Speculative Ideas in Wikipedia.

 

This paper is about free fall experiments and rotors. Here he reports a discrepancy, which I think is a manifestation of the centrifugal forces causing a drag on the projectile. He also reports other experiments that show that the weight/gravity of an object drops when it is heated, just the opposite of e=m.

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/48194960_Frequency_Dependence_of_Rotor%27s_Free_Falling_Acceleration_and_Inequalityof_Inertial_and_Gravity_Masses [accessed Mar 21, 2015].

Edited March 21, 2015 by Professional Strawman

[swansont]

Lev's paper was in reference to your claim that mass increase has been observed in the context of e=m.

 

But they weren't testing the velocity dependence of momentum. Mass increase was observed for an excited state using a Penning trap. Try again.

 

There is no mention of Lense-Thirring because everybody knows that Lense-Thirring are referring to centrifugal forces. And this is so because Einstein redefined Centrifugal forces in terms of curvature of spacetime, based on a misunderstanding of the Newton's Bucket experiment. His redefinition of "inertia/centrifugal forces" listed under Speculative Ideas in Wikipedia.

 

This paper is about free fall experiments and rotors. Here he reports a discrepancy, which I think is a manifestation of the centrifugal forces causing a drag on the projectile. He also reports other experiments that show that the weight/gravity of an object drops when it is heated, just the opposite of e=m.

 

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/48194960_Frequency_Dependence_of_Rotor%27s_Free_Falling_Acceleration_and_Inequalityof_Inertial_and_Gravity_Masses [accessed Mar 21, 2015].

 

You think it's a manifestation, but you have not shown it. Also, heating should have no effect on freefall, since it's unaffected by m. If you want to overthrow the equivalence principle, it's going to take more than a couple of unpublished papers by a single author, claiming to have measured an effect that is so small, there's no way he should have been able to measure it in a lab. (IOW, citing crackpots isn't the least bit convincing)

[Professional Strawman]

No thanks. I know you said you're a Physicist and stuff, but I will go with Lev B on this. A real test of e=m, needs an experiment that verifies an increase in the weight/gravity of a test-mass when it is heated or when it is made to spin. Do you have a link on such experiments?

[swansont]

No thanks. I know you said you're a Physicist and stuff, but I will go with Lev B on this.

As do I. You're just misinterpreting what the experiment was testing. It was not testing what happens when the particle speeds up.

 

 

A real test of e=m, needs an experiment that verifies an increase in the weight/gravity of a test-mass when it is heated or when it is made to spin. Do you have a link on such experiments?

 

I provided one where the mass is shown to increase when the internal energy is higher.

 

You are not likely to find an experiment where a macroscopic object is measured, because the mass change is smaller than the possible precision of the experiments. It pretty much has to be on an atom or ion, or on that scale. Spinning or heating a macroscopic object doesn't add all that much energy to it, relative to its existing mass energy. c² is big and so is Avogadro's number. A nuclear excitation, OTOH, is MeV for a particle with a mass of several tens of GeV. It's around a part in 10⁵ change.

[Professional Strawman]

You are free to interpret that experiment as you see fit. I still go with Lev B, on this.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Professional Strawman