Gravity and spin (split from was Newton wrong)

[DevilSolution]

I have a question regarding gravity, if you spin something really fast, i mean like spinning a rope with a rock tied to the end and im spinning it almost faster than you can see that the object is there.

 

Would there be a force from this?

 

Expanding from there, if i was spinning this rock in space (again faster than your eye could perceive but the rock is heavy and im strong) , with no air or other fluid just the vacuum of the void. If you were standing say 2m away from me would you feel any kind of force? Say were both facing each, such that were adjacent to each other and you tried walking towards me, would you feel a pull or a push or neither? And you are ovcourse made from nanotubes and decide to carry on walking towards me, not very fast, just a gentle stroll, would the spinning of the rock (thats made of nanotubed also) stop you from getting into my orbit?

 

Finally while im spinning this rock, would there be any force emitted above or below me? like a fan so to speak, without the edged rotors or air fluid, would the spinning of this rock create something you might otherwise say is polarised? like a magnet, where one end pulls and the pushes coming from circular angular motion hence spreading (i'd imagine) evenly in every direction, even being pulled back down below me.

 

Would there be any logic to that analogy at all? I'm honestly curious.

[MigL]

The only two long range forces are gravity and electromagnetism.

You didn't say the rock ( or anything else ) is charged, so the only force affecting you would be gravitational, combining the mass of the spinner, the rock and the energy ( if sizeable ) associated with spinning.

 

Any other interaction would need contact and is just the Newtonian 'equal and opposite reaction', i.e. momentum conservation.

 

You can deduce the answers to all your questions from that.

 

Sorry, answered this before the split-off.

Please move. Thank you.

Edited December 3, 2015 by MigL

[swansont]

One way that spinning could exert an additional force is that the spinning represents energy, and more energy means a greater effect of gravity. The is a relativistic effect, not a classical one.

[DevilSolution]

So then for instance, the fact that all the planets in our solar system are approximately* equidistant or within some range of each other on which ever axis we define, does that then have an amplified effect in terms of not only the amount of planets that rotate around the sun but also the fact that each also has some effect on the other. I mean if all the planets are fairly well aligned along a single axis rotating around the sun, aswell as having some minimal effect on each other, this must create some sort of vacuum. And again would this not give the "illusion" of polarisation. I imagine it like a whirlwind, where the speed of the inner planets rotate so fast even relative to the bigger giants on the edge. If you were a pebble travelling below our solar system, would this orbital attract the pebble by gravity or by the fact that the equilibrium of the planets in orbit at such high speed (say the pebble was travelling slowly) that it would suck up the space below and push it to the space above. Given it doesn't hit a planet. Infact the strange alignment of planets themselves almost lends the object a path through by counter directing it from one mass to the other eventually projecting it outwards in whatever angular motion the force dictates (relative to its interference with planets while travelling though and also its initial velocity and direction).

 

Like im probably way of track here, and thank you MigL for pointing out that gravity and EM are the only long range forces (given the other 2 are sub atomic).

But if space itself is a vacuum and we then apply aligned angular motion (to a high degree) would there not be some fundamental force created by such a system.

 

As opposed to a sun where its planets dont travel in the same direction, or on the same axis or at high speeds (i think maybe venus goes counter clockwise?) but anyway in general they go in the same direction. Like the polarisation concept is more analogous to the effect than it actually having poles but i imagine that force is partly related to gravity in so much as anything that either uses or gives motion to other objects via pure magnitude, speed and alignment could be seen to have a mass? like our solar systems mass is enlarged by this alignment of momentum.

 

Also why does angular motion around the sun delay us from just being sucked in by its mass ratio to ours or mercury for a better example. The suns mass relative as a ratio to mercury over that distance, if you applied newtons laws of physics of [math] G = \tfrac{S_M * M_M}{d^2}[/math] surely the sun shouldnt entertain this spinning as a way of changing its pull on mercury. Angular motion must then somehow exhibit some laws in relation to gravity?

 

Sorry i know i could read up on it but i guess thats why im a member of a science forum.

 

Regards.

One way that spinning could exert an additional force is that the spinning represents energy, and more energy means a greater effect of gravity. The is a relativistic effect, not a classical one.

 

So there's a direct relation between angular motion, velocity and alignment with gravity? An extension to the force it exhibits?

Edited December 3, 2015 by DevilSolution

[swansont]

I said nothing about alignment. The additional force is due to E/c^2. It will be very small - celestial bodies have limits to how fast they can rotate and stay together.

[DevilSolution]

Yeh but relatively speaking, mercury spinning around the sun is fast in comparison to pluto, so it exerts more force? and when we say force what are we describing?

Because what does the angle, direction and speed of the object have to do in relation with the speed and direction of the orbiting planet? I presume it add's to the gravitational force but then it could pull the object in and give it more momentum and velocity in another direction? Like boomerang around the planet and be thrust off with a higher velocity and maybe even give it extra angular motion?

 

Also a collection of planets in alignment must equate to the sum of some equation, given the body as a whole, the energy it can relay onto other objects must be larger than if they weren't aligned. Probably quite intricately so.

 

Or would it be the result of randomness? a sun with the same amount of planets orbiting but in different directions and totally different axis and orbit formation could potentially thrust an object in the exact same way?

 

But still the alignment as a whole would be a greater attraction force, not to mention the maths behind calculating it would be simpler than a complex arrangement.

 

Here's a question, is there any advantage to it? Having the alignment on the same axis and moving in the same direction?

Edited December 3, 2015 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

Why not try and quantify this.

According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy

The kinetic energy of the Earth due to its rotation is 2.138×10²⁹ J. This is equivalent to 2.4x10¹² kg.

 

To quote my favourite radio program: is that a big number? No.

It is about 1/10,000,000,000,000th of the mass of the Earth. It will have no noticeable effect.

[DevilSolution]

"This article is about the rotation of an object around a single axis (a one-dimensional rotation). For the kinetic energy of an object that rotates in three dimensions, see rigid rotor.:"

 

Yeh spinning on our axis? have we got our notions confused? I mean rotation around the sun not our angular momentum.

 

But even that adds to the system, if the planets also rotate the same way, as well moving in the same direction, on almost the same axis.

 

The rigid rotor was what i was after i think.

Edited December 3, 2015 by DevilSolution

[Strange]

So I make the Earth's kinetic energy due to its orbital speed about 2.6×10³³ J

(http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.5+*+%28earth+orbital+speed%29^2+*+%28mass+of+earth%29)

Which is about 3x10¹⁶ kg or about 5/1,000,000,000th of the mass of the Earth.

 

So still insignificant.

[DevilSolution]

Then add the rest of the planets and were talking. and thats without accounting for alignment and interconnections.

 

I'm not talking about just earth, im talking about the system as a whole, acting as a force.

 

Thank you for your input though.

 

I'm too tired to read through the rigid motor page right now as i've not slept and it looks pretty hard going, but just to iterate, all i've been on about is the system as a whole, its interactions and alignments relative to other bodies in space, and asking for example, does the positioning add to the systems force, as opposed to some other galaxy that doesnt have all the properties ive listed above. It would seem to me as if our solar system would act as if it has more gravitation force due to its celestial alignment.

Edited December 3, 2015 by DevilSolution

[swansont]

"This article is about the rotation of an object around a single axis (a one-dimensional rotation). For the kinetic energy of an object that rotates in three dimensions, see rigid rotor.:"

 

Yeh spinning on our axis? have we got our notions confused? I mean rotation around the sun not our angular momentum.

 

 

You said spin in the OP. That's what spinning implies — motion about an axis for an object that incorporates the axis.

[Strange]

Then add the rest of the planets and were talking. and thats without accounting for alignment and interconnections.

 

Why not work it out for yourself. My guess is that in all cases, it will be similar tiny fraction. Probably similar to the errors in estimating the mass in some cases.

 

Apart from which, our calculations of the mass of the planets must include any energy components.

[DevilSolution]

 

You said spin in the OP. That's what spinning implies — motion about an axis for an object that incorporates the axis.

 

Spinning a rock around myself, not myself spinning. Is there any need?

 

I'll read up on the wiki page tomorrow, thanks again.

Like i've asked plenty of questions, you can either answer or not, if not send me the link and ill do my own research. As i said earlier the reason for being on a science forum is to ask questions, which no one has attempted at answering.

 

Now i must really get some sleep....

[Strange]

As i said earlier the reason for being on a science forum is to ask questions, which no one has attempted at answering.

 

As far as I can tell, every response has answered some part of your questions: with science and quantitative results. As you are so ungrateful, don't expect any more help from me.

[DevilSolution]

 

As far as I can tell, every response has answered some part of your questions: with science and quantitative results. As you are so ungrateful, don't expect any more help from me.

 

21 quenstion marks not including the 2 rhetorical ones....and a link to wiki

 

Well it worth it in the end then, getting something i could have googled. Goodnight laaa.

 

and strange chill man, no one cares, just dont answer questions with wiki and sarcasm.

Why not try and quantify this.

 

 

To quote my favourite radio program: is that a big number? No.

 

Insincerity, the first is demeaning the second is a sarcastic response to some honest questions.

[andrewcellini]

 

Spinning a rock around myself, not myself spinning.

are you using "spinning" in place of "traveling in a circle?"

[DevilSolution]

are you using "spinning" in place of "traveling in a circle?"

 

I dont care for semantics, if i said rotate someone would find something else that isnt explicitly defined. It's all within context if anybody bothered reading.

[andrewcellini]

 

I dont care for semantics

it's more about clarity.

 

i don't know how you can expect a satisfactory answer without a clear question.

[DevilSolution]

Listen, i honestly dont care for pedantics or otherwise, if you cant comprehend what it is that im conveying dont reply. Actually if you cant comprehend what it is im conveying dont reply with something thats as meaningless to the conversation and now how meaningless this conversation is. There were SINCERE questions and insincere answers, thats it, nothing else.

 

 

down arrow is -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\/

Edited December 4, 2015 by DevilSolution

[andrewcellini]

dont reply with something thats as meaningless to the conversation and now how meaningless this conversation is.

i asked for clarification of what you mean. how is that meaningless to the conversation? do you expect anyone to answer your questions if they don't know what you're really asking?

 

and i never said how meaningless the conversation is, not sure where that came from. i said that your question isn't clear (really what i meant is that it's not clear to me what you're asking), but i noted that it seemed like you were talking about uniform circular motion with your rope and rock system and not that the rock and rope are spinning, which is why i asked for clarification.

Edited December 4, 2015 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

There were SINCERE questions and insincere answers, thats it, nothing else.

 

How are answers 3, 5, 7 and 9 NOT "sincere"? The physical reasons why spinning (or orbiting) would have an effect was explained and quantified. The method of calculation was shown so that you can go and do the same for the remaining planets.

 

What would a "sincere" answer be? One that says: "Why, my man, you are a total genius. How have physicists and astronomers never understood that they have got everything wrong before now. Well its back the the drawing board for them and a Nobel Prize for you, my friend."

 

Perhaps next time you should start by telling us what answer you expect and then we can guess what half-formed question you had in mind. Would that be "sincere" enough for you?

Edited December 4, 2015 by Strange

[DevilSolution]

how does a rock and a rope spin? unless im spinning them. This is pedantic and honestly tiresome.

 

HERE...... is there any advantage to it? Having the alignment of planets on the same axis and moving in the same direction?

 

How are answers 3, 5, 7 and 9 NOT "sincere"? The physical reasons why spinning (or orbiting) would have an effect was explained and quantified. The method of calculation was shown so that you can go and do the same for the remaining planets.

 

What would a "sincere" answer be? One that says: "Why, my man, you are a total genius. How have physicists and astronomers never understood that they have got everything wrong before now. Well its back the the drawing board for them and a Nobel Prize for you, my friend."

 

Perhaps next time you should start by telling us what answer you expect and then we can guess what half-formed question you had in mind. Would that be "sincere" enough for you?

 

Yeh i wont lie, its all pretty much stems from you. Your reply, no one else's admittedly, it was demeaning which was unnecessary and then after i pointed out that my WHOLE post was about the galaxy and the system as a whole you got defensive. (then it came down to semantics, like my post was incomprehensible)

 

and no, no one has answered my question regarding whether the galaxy with its alignments and planets moving in the same direction while spinning on their axis on the same axis has a gravitational proponent....i aint after prizes kid i want answers.

[MigL]

The original question asked about forces generated by spinning a rock about yourself, and I believe I included any "energy ( if sizeable ) associated with spinning".

Planets in orbit are no different.

The only way for this energy to be sizeable, I,e. non-trivial, is if the rock was being spun at relativistic speeds.

It would then add enough energy to the whole system such as to generate 'extra' gravitational force.

( yes, energy gravitates )

[DevilSolution]

Thank you mig. Do you know if the combination of factors such as the planets rotating in *mostly the same direction, the fact that they are all relatively even on which ever axis they sit and the energy of spin they each posses would contribute to a larger force that one could be defined as creating a larger gravitational force?

 

As in the specific arrangement or alignment of our solar system might suggest it has a greater attractive force due the combination of said factors?

[J.C.MacSwell]

The original question asked about forces generated by spinning a rock about yourself, and I believe I included any "energy ( if sizeable ) associated with spinning".

Planets in orbit are no different.

The only way for this energy to be sizeable, I,e. non-trivial, is if the rock was being spun at relativistic speeds.

It would then add enough energy to the whole system such as to generate 'extra' gravitational force.

( yes, energy gravitates )

Just a point. That would only be additional if the energy to create the spinning came from outside the system.