Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Jul 2010 17:03 On 7/16/10 2:48 PM, JT wrote: > On 16 Juli, 20:49, JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 16 Juli, 20:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 7/16/10 12:53 PM, JT wrote: >> >>>> Well i can see an idiot ***trying*** to answer our rotation relative >>>> the sun as RPM, but the idiot said he could give us the absolute >>>> rotation of earth in RPM. >> >>>> But however i am still curious how you draw the conclusion. >> >>>> 360 / (24 * 60) = 0.25 degrees /min >> >>>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.25+degrees+/min+to+RPM >> >>>> 6.94x10^-4 rpm (revolutions per minute) >> >>>> JT >> >>> The Earth's angular velocity = 0.72921158553 X 10**-4 Rad/s >>> which comes out to be 86164.0905 seconds for a 2π (360°) rotation >>> and 239.344696 seconds for every 1° or rotation. >> >> Is that angular velocity versus what sun fixed stars........ or what? >> Is it also the absolute rotation? >> >> JT > > Sam? > GRAVITATION AND INERTIA > by Ignazio Ciufolini and John Archibald Wheeler > Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995 > QC173.59.G44C58 1995 530.1'1--dc20 94-29874 CIP > ISBN 0-691-03323-4 > > > In the first chapter Ciufolini and Wheeler introduce concepts and ideas > of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which are developed in the > book. Part of the introductory material is reproduced here. > > "Gravity is not a foreign and physical force transmitted through space > and time. It is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime." That, > in a nutshell, is Einstein's theory. > > What this theory is and what it means, we grasp more fully by looking > at its intellectual antecedents. First, there was the idea of Riemann > that space, telling mass how to move, must itself--by the principle of > action and reaction--be affected by mass. It cannot be an ideal > Euclidean perfection, standing in high mightiness above the battles of > matter and energy. Space geometry must be a participant in the world of > physics. Second, there was the contention of Ernst Mach that the > "acceleration relative to absolute space" of Newton is only properly > understood when it is viewed as acceleration relative to the sole > significant mass there really is, the distant stars. According to this > "Mach principle," inertia here arises from mass there. Third was that > great insight of Einstein that we summarize in the phrase "free fall is > free float": the equivalence principle, one of the best-tested > principles in physics, from the inclined tables of Galilei and the > pendulum experiments of Galilei, Huygens, and Newton to the highly > accurate torsion balance measurements of the twentieth century, and the > Lunar Laser Ranging experiment. With those three clues vibrating in his > head, the magic of the mind opened to Einstein what remains one of > mankind's most precious insights: gravity in manifestation of spacetime > curvature. > > Euclid's (active around 300 B.C.) fifth postulate states that, given > any straight line and any point not on it, we can draw through that > point one and only one straight line parallel to the given line, that > is, a line that will never meet the given one (this alternative > formulation of the fifth postulate is essentially due to Proclos). This > is the parallel postulate. In the early 1800s the discussion grew > lively about whether the properties of parallel lines as presupposed in > Euclidean geometry could be derived from the other postulate and > axioms, or whether the parallel postulate had to be assumed > independently. More than two thousand years after Euclid, Karl > Friedrich Gauss, Jnos Bolyai, and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobacevskij > discovered pencil-and paper geometric systems that satisfy all the > axioms and postulates of Euclidean geometry except the parallel > postulate. These geometries showed not only the parallel postulate must > be assumed in order to obtain Euclidean geometry but, more important, > that non-Euclidean geometries as mathematical abstractions can and do > exist. > > Consider the two-dimensional surface of a sphere, itself embedded in > the three-dimensional space geometry of everyday existence. Euclid's > system accurately describes the geometry of ordinary three-dimensional > space, but not the geometry on the surface of a sphere. Let us consider > two lines locally parallel on the surface of a sphere. They propagate > on the surface as straight as any lines could possibly be, they bend in > their courses one whit neither to left or right. Yet they meet and > cross. Clearly, geodesic lines (on a surface, a geodesic is the > shortest line between two nearby points) on the curved surface of a > sphere do not obey Euclid's parallel postulate. > > The thoughts of the great mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss about > curvature stemmed not from theoretical spheres drawn on paper but from > concrete, down-to-Earth measurements. Commissioned by the government in > 1827 to make a survey map of the region for miles around Gttingen, he > found that the sum of the angles in his largest survey triangle was > different from 180. The deviation from 180 observed by Gauss--almost 15 > seconds of arc--was both inescapable evidence for and a measure of the > curvature of the surface of Earth. > > To recognize that straight and initially parallel lines on the surface > of a sphere can meet was the first step in exploring the idea of a > curved space. Second came the discovery of Gauss that we do not need to > consider a sphere or other two-dimensional surface to be embedded in a > three-dimensional space to define its geometry. It is enough to > consider measurements made entirely within that two-dimensional > geometry, such as, would be made by an ant forever restricted to live > on that surface. The ant would know that the surface is curved by > measuring that the sum of the internal angles of a large triangle > differs from 180, or by measuring that the ratio between a large > circumference and its radius R differs from 2 pi. > > Gauss did not limit himself to thinking of a curved two-dimensional > surface floating in a flat three-dimensional universe. In an 1824 > letter to Ferdinand Karl Schweikart, he dared to conceive that space > itself is curved: "Indeed I have therefore from time to time in jest > expressed the desire that Euclidean geometry would not be correct." He > also wrote: "Although geometers have given much attention to general > investigations of curved surfaces and their results cover a significant > portion of the domain of higher geometry, this subject is still so far > from being exhausted, that it can well be said that, up to this time, > but a small portion of an exceedingly fruitful field has been > cultivated" (Royal Society of Gttingen, 8 October 1827). The > inspiration of these thoughts, dreams, and hopes passed from Gauss to > his student, Bernhard Riemann. > > Bernhard Riemann went on to generalize the ideas of Gauss so that they > could be used to describe curved spaces of three or more dimensions. > Gauss had found that the curvature in the neighborhood of a given point > of a specified two-dimensional space geometry is given by a single > number: the Gaussian curvature. Riemann found that six numbers are > needed to describe the curvature of a three-dimensional space at a > given point, and that 20 numbers at each point are required for a > four-dimensional geometry: the 20 independent components of the > so-called Riemann curvature tensor. > > In a famous lecture he gave 10 June 1854, entitled On the Hypothesis > That Lie at the Foundations of Geometry, Riemann emphasized that the > truth about space is to be discovered not from perusal of the > 2000-year-old books of Euclid but from physical experience. He pointed > out that space could be highly irregular at very small distances and > yet appear smooth at everyday distances. At very great distances, he > also noted, large-scale curvature of space might show up, perhaps even > bending the universe into a closed system like a gigantic ball. He > wrote: "Space [in the large] if one ascribes to it a constant > curvature, is necessarily finite, provided only that this curvature has > a positive value, however small.... It is quite conceivable that the > geometry of space in the very small does not satisfy the axioms of > [Euclidean] geometry.... The curvature in the three directions can have > arbitrary values if only the entire curvature for every sizable region > of space does not differ greatly from zero.... The properties which > distinguish space from other conceivable triply-extended magnitudes are > only to be deduced from experience." > > But as Einstein was later to remark, "Physicists were still far removed > from such a way of thinking: space was still, for them, a rigid, > homogeneous something, susceptible of no change or conditions. Only the > genius of Riemann, solitary and uncomprehended, had already won its way > by the middle of the last century to a new conception of space, in > which space was deprived of its rigidity, and in which its power to > take part in physical events was recognized as possible." > > Even as the 39-year-old Riemann lay dying of tuberculosis at Selasca on > Lake Maggiore in the summer of 1866, having already achieved his great > mathematical description of space curvature, he was working on a > unified description of electromagnetism and gravitation. Why then did > he not, half a century before Einstein, arrive at a geometric account > of gravity? No obstacle in his way was greater than this: he thought > only of space and the curvature of space, whereas Einstein discovered > that he had to deal with spacetime and the spacetime curvature. > > Einstein could not thank Riemann, who ought to have been still alive. A > letter of warm thanks he did, however, write to Mach. In it he > explained how mass there does indeed influence inertia here, through > its influence on the enveloping spacetime geometry. Einstein's > geometrodynamics had transmuted Mach's bit of philosophy into a bit of > physics, susceptible to calculation, prediction, and test. > > Let us bring out the main idea in what we may call poor man's > language. Inertia here, in the sense of local inertial frames, that is > the grip of spacetime here on mass here, is fully defined by the > geometry, the curvature, the structure of spacetime here. The geometry > here, however, has to fit smoothly to the geometry of the immediate > surroundings; those domains, onto their surroundings; and so on, all > the way around the great curve of space. Moreover, the geometry in each > local region responds in its curvature to the mass in that region. > Therefore every bit of momentum-energy, wherever located, makes its > influence felt on the geometry of space throughout the whole > universe--and felt, thus, on inertia right here. > > The bumpy surface of a potato is easy to picture. It is the > two-dimensional analogue of a bumpy three-sphere, the space geometry of > a universe loaded irregularly here and there with concentrations and > distributions of momentum-energy. If the spacetime has a Cauchy > surface, that three-geometry once known--mathematical solutions as it > is of the so-called initial-value problem of geometrodynamics--the > future evolution of that geometry follows straightforwardly and > deterministically. > > In other words, inertia (local inertial frames) everywhere and at all > times is toally fixed, specified, determined, by the initial > distribution of momentum-energy, of mass and mass-in-motion. The > mathematics cries out with all the force at its command that mass there > does determine inertia here. > > One exciting experiment to be performed by the turn of the century will > be the measurement of frame-dragging by the Earth as it rotates. It is > estimated that the gravitational effect of the rotating Earth on the > local spacetime nearby is a measurable effect [330 milliarcsec per > year]. The mass of the Earth has about 0.698 billionth total voting > power as the rest of the universe on our local spacetime! >
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Jul 2010 17:00 On 7/16/10 1:25 PM, JT wrote: > Well i did Sam it is the time it takes for the Earth to complete one > rotation relative to the vernal equinox. And i guess that would be > relative a fix star, so you say basicly that absolute rotation is > relative fixed stars in the sky, i will buy that when you propose a > force from those stars that is able to create the centripetal and > centrifugal forces that a disc that spin relative them will produce. While you wait for the "magical force" I assume you will ignore the empirical evidence of pendulum, gyro, and direct observation?
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Jul 2010 17:00 On 7/16/10 1:49 PM, JT wrote: > On 16 Juli, 20:40, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/16/10 12:53 PM, JT wrote: >> >>> Well i can see an idiot ***trying*** to answer our rotation relative >>> the sun as RPM, but the idiot said he could give us the absolute >>> rotation of earth in RPM. >> >>> But however i am still curious how you draw the conclusion. >> >>> 360 / (24 * 60) = 0.25 degrees /min >> >>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.25+degrees+/min+to+RPM >> >>> 6.94x10^-4 rpm (revolutions per minute) >> >>> JT >> >> The Earth's angular velocity = 0.72921158553 X 10**-4 Rad/s >> which comes out to be 86164.0905 seconds for a 2π (360°) rotation >> and 239.344696 seconds for every 1° or rotation. > > Is that angular velocity versus what sun fixed stars........ or what? > Is it also the absolute rotation? > > JT Rotation is absolute in this universe.
From: JT on 16 Jul 2010 17:19 On 16 Juli, 22:17, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 16, 2:44 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > JT: Einstein was the only BAD genius, because his IQ was 85, > maximum. Ha, ha, HA! NE > > > > > > > On 15 Juli, 22:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 14, 4:51 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Juli, 01:27, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > > > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > > > > > >news:WEq_n.205263$k15.183421(a)hurricane... > > > > > > > "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote in message > > > > > >news:i1d9b3$ele$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's not moving. > > > > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you - it goes directly > > > > > > | to the person across from you. > > > > > > | > > > > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's rotating. > > > > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you (directly toward > > > > > > | the person opposite) - it curves away toward someone else. > > > > > > | > > > > > > | Not trying to be a troll - I just don't understand the physics. > > > > > > | It seems clear to me that this demonstrates that the merry-go-round > > > > > > | is (absolutely) rotating in the second case. > > > > > > | > > > > > > You are already "out in space" riding the merry-go-round called "Earth". > > > > > > There is a thin layer of air above you for 100 km (65 miles) straight up > > > > > > and if you ride up in a balloon to that height you'd see the blackness of > > > > > > space. The blue you see in daylight is scattered sunlight. It is scattered > > > > > > by dust. At night you will be in the Earth's shadow, and if your view is > > > > > > clear (no clouds) you'll see stars. As you turn, you'll see the stars > > > > > > cross > > > > > > the sky until you turn toward the Sun. Then it will be dawn, and as you > > > > > > watch, you'll turn with the Earth and the Sun will appear to rise in the > > > > > > sky > > > > > > and then set in the west, but it is really not moving at all, you are as > > > > > > you > > > > > > ride the Earth. Thus the Sun crossing the sky is RELATIVE motion. There is > > > > > > no absolute motion. Go outside and look up until you understand you are on > > > > > > a > > > > > > merry-go-round called Earth and the universe is standing still while *you* > > > > > > are moving. Pick any star, then look where it is every hour of the night. > > > > > > Do > > > > > > this at least once in your life. I've done it many times, as do all > > > > > > amateur > > > > > > astronomers. If you get bored, do some night fishing. Be alone with Nature > > > > > > for company, for just one night. You may get to like it, I know I do. Get > > > > > > away from city lights, get away from people anywhere and enjoy the > > > > > > universe > > > > > > you live in the way that people did before there was such a thing as > > > > > > electricity to spoil the glory of the heavens. I can't do it for you, only > > > > > > you can do it for yourself. If you have some impediment that prevents you, > > > > > > overcome it. I don't know you or anything about you, I can only suggest > > > > > > you > > > > > > learn to live alone for one night without TV, radio or people telling you > > > > > > what to do, how to think. Listen to the insects, look at the sky, catch a > > > > > > fish. Do not light a fire, stay in the dark and *see*. > > > > > > Unfortunately, this is a typical answer that ignores the basic question. It > > > > > seems to me that rotation proves that absolute motion exists, and I > > > > > can't seem to find a coherent explanation otherwise. When something > > > > > is rotating, objects on it and part of it are forced to the outside by > > > > > something we typically call 'centrifugal force', a term I'm aware is > > > > > controversial. When something isn't rotating, objects on that > > > > > something don't experience that 'force'. > > > > > > Please, if you know of a coherent way of explaining this, point me > > > > > to it and I'll try to understand it, because I want to understand it. > > > > > If you're tired of typing, just point me to a link. > > > > > I and many others realize there are a lot of smart physicists who > > > > > state there is no absolute motion, and many laymen who are > > > > > directly aware that a rotating object is quite different from a > > > > > non-rotating object. Unlike the speed of light issues (which > > > > > all make sense to me) the difference between rotating and > > > > > non-rotating objects can be experienced by anyone, providing > > > > > compelling and immediate evidence that absolute motion exists.- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about > > > > physic > > > > This seems to be a significant improvement in your self-assessment > > > skills.- Dölj citerad text - > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > It is all true but i am a bad genius on deductive reasoning. > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - Put another +100 and -7 and you close in on reality.
From: JT on 16 Jul 2010 17:21
On 16 Juli, 22:21, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 16, 3:10 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Ha, ha, HA! NE > > > > > > > On 16 Juli, 04:55, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 15, 8:16 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > DearJT: Are you drunk? Rotation much beyond 60 per minute would > > > incapacitate everyone on board. Get off the sauce, man! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > On 15 Juli, 01:46, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:51 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > DearJT: You preface by saying that you know nothing about physics. > > > > > Then, you claim that physical rotating a space ship 10,000 RPM won't > > > > > impose stress on the occupants. So, you prove your own point: You > > > > > don't know anything about physics! The laws of physics don't require > > > > > closeness to mass for their existence. In most likelihood, every > > > > > person on your spaceship would be dead, from draining their blood from > > > > > their brain, or stopping their heart because of the compressive forces > > > > > put on the bodies. The best way for you to learn physics is to > > > > > observe what happens in real life. Put a rat in a cage and spin it > > > > > 10K rpm, and the rat dies. Of course that same thing will happen > > > > > halfway between galaxies. NoEinstein > > > > > So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at > > > > 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, > > > > so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you > > > > do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) > > > > > The rotation of earth is measured against a fixed point origo, namely > > > > our sun in euclidian space, using a Cartesian cordinate system if > > > > earth never would change face relative the sun we would still have an > > > > orbit but earth would be a nonerotating object by definition. > > > > > Do you propose that our sun is the origo of the nonerotating Euclidian > > > > space we travel? > > > > > OR what is the nonerotating frame of the universe do you try to say > > > > there is an absolute nonerotational frame in the the universe, i think > > > > everyone is keen to now what you propose it is. > > > > > I say rotational forces is only present when something breaks out from > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > In deepspace the body will not experience any g-forces, the only thing > > > > that will let you know that you rotate is the background stars, If you > > > > propose that there is a g-forces relative these foreign starts you > > > > will have to invent a new longdistance gravitational force, i am all > > > > pro that many have proposed such a force. > > > > > But your handwaving doesn't do it for me. > > > > > JT > > > > > > > On 12 Juli, 01:27, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > > > > > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > > > > > > > >news:WEq_n.205263$k15.183421(a)hurricane... > > > > > > > > > "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote in message > > > > > > > >news:i1d9b3$ele$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's not moving. > > > > > > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you - it goes directly > > > > > > > > | to the person across from you. > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's rotating. > > > > > > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you (directly toward > > > > > > > > | the person opposite) - it curves away toward someone else.. > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > | Not trying to be a troll - I just don't understand the physics. > > > > > > > > | It seems clear to me that this demonstrates that the merry-go-round > > > > > > > > | is (absolutely) rotating in the second case. > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > You are already "out in space" riding the merry-go-round called "Earth". > > > > > > > > There is a thin layer of air above you for 100 km (65 miles) straight up > > > > > > > > and if you ride up in a balloon to that height you'd see the blackness of > > > > > > > > space. The blue you see in daylight is scattered sunlight. It is scattered > > > > > > > > by dust. At night you will be in the Earth's shadow, and if your view is > > > > > > > > clear (no clouds) you'll see stars. As you turn, you'll see the stars > > > > > > > > cross > > > > > > > > the sky until you turn toward the Sun. Then it will be dawn, and as you > > > > > > > > watch, you'll turn with the Earth and the Sun will appear to rise in the > > > > > > > > sky > > > > > > > > and then set in the west, but it is really not moving at all, you are as > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > ride the Earth. Thus the Sun crossing the sky is RELATIVE motion. There is > > > > > > > > no absolute motion. Go outside and look up until you understand you are on > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > merry-go-round called Earth and the universe is standing still while *you* > > > > > > > > are moving. Pick any star, then look where it is every hour of the night. > > > > > > > > Do > > > > > > > > this at least once in your life. I've done it many times, as do all > > > > > > > > amateur > > > > > > > > astronomers. If you get bored, do some night fishing. Be alone with Nature > > > > > > > > for company, for just one night. You may get to like it, I know I do. Get > > > > > > > > away from city lights, get away from people anywhere and enjoy the > > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > you live in the way that people did before there was such a thing as > > > > > > > > electricity to spoil the glory of the heavens. I can't do it for you, only > > > > > > > > you can do it for yourself. If you have some impediment that prevents you, > > > > > > > > overcome it. I don't know you or anything about you, I can only suggest > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > learn to live alone for one night without TV, radio or people telling you > > > > > > > > what to do, how to think. Listen to the insects, look at the sky, catch a > > > > > > > > fish. Do not light a fire, stay in the dark and *see*. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, this is a typical answer that ignores the basic question. It > > > > > > > seems to me that rotation proves that absolute motion exists, and I > > > > > > > can't seem to find a coherent explanation otherwise. When something > > > > > > > is rotating, objects on it and part of it are forced to the outside by > > > > > > > something we typically call 'centrifugal force', a term I'm aware is > > > > > > > controversial. When something isn't rotating, objects on that > > > > > > > something don't experience that 'force'. > > > > > > > > Please, if you know of a coherent way of explaining this, point me > > > > > > > to it and I'll try to understand it, because I want to understand it. > > > > > > > If you're tired of typing, just point me to a link. > > > > > > > I and many others realize there are a lot of smart physicists who > > > > > > > state there is no absolute motion, and many laymen who are > > > > > > > directly aware that a rotating object is quite different from a > > > > > > > non-rotating object. Unlike the speed of light issues (which > > > > > > > all make sense to me) the difference between rotating and > > > > > > > non-rotating objects can be experienced by anyone, providing > > > > > > > compelling and immediate evidence that absolute motion exists..- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > > I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about > > > > > > physic but to me it seem like the centrifugal and centripetal force > > > > > > only is adjacent when you have rotation within a gravitational field. > > > > > > So rotational forces is the result of a body trying to break out from > > > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > > > > A ship in deepspace rotating at a 100 000 RPM versus earth will put no > > > > > > strain or forces upon the inhabitants nor the ship.......... > > > > > > It is only when the ship get close to a big gravitational body the g- > > > > > > forces will start to act upon both ship and its inhabitants. > > > > > > > This could all be wrong, but then there probably is a centra of > > > > > > gravity in the universe so absolute rotation can be measured even in > > > > > > deep space far away from gravitational attractors. > > > > > > >JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > Bullshit you have no clue about what rotation is, rotation is not > > measured RPM an objects absolute rotation is measured by tension and > > stress forces within the material. > > > And as i told you there will not be any on an object rotating in deep > > space, unless you invent some new type of gravitational force working > > over vast distances. > > > Centrifugal and centripetal forces is created when an object moving > > within a gravitational field, so when you spinn it is trying to break > > lose from the stronger gravitational field. > > > But what is this force you seem to think exist that work over deep > > space and still manage to hold your object from not rotating, and will > > create the centripetal force, centrifugal force when it start rotate. > > > And what create that force do you suggest it is mass, it can not be > > inertia because that only work during the acceleration face. > > > What is your suggestion for none rotation and creation of the > > ****absolute rotational forces**** that you seem to imply exist? > > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - Well i will beat any monkey bot named NoEinstein in any IQ test. |