Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: HMLS Theory of Gravitation? (was Discrete Scale Relativity...)
Next: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
From: NoEinstein on 15 Jul 2010 22:55 On Jul 15, 8:16 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear JT: 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: > > > Dear JT: 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 -
From: JT on 16 Jul 2010 02:44 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
From: JT on 16 Jul 2010 02:48 On 15 Juli, 20:56, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/15/10 11:39 AM,JTwrote: > > > On 15 Juli, 15:22, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/15/10 7:16 AM,JTwrote: > > >>> 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?) > > >> Rotation is absolute. Laser gyro measures rotation. > > > So Sam what RPM does earth rotate with. > > >JT > > Little weak on the unit conversions,JT? > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm No certainly not i created both unit conversion applets as well as a crosslinked physic/unit database before you did wear diapers. You can find it on net it is fairly popular. Watch out for the peachy colors. JT
From: JT on 16 Jul 2010 02:51 On 15 Juli, 20:56, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/15/10 11:39 AM,JTwrote: > > > On 15 Juli, 15:22, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/15/10 7:16 AM,JTwrote: > > >>> 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?) > > >> Rotation is absolute. Laser gyro measures rotation. > > > So Sam what RPM does earth rotate with. > > >JT > > Little weak on the unit conversions,JT? > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm Oh i also noted you did not answer, admit you have no idea about earths absolute rotation velocity in RPM. You are just as slow as usual, just handwaving that is what bots are good for no critical thinking going. JT
From: JT on 16 Jul 2010 03:10
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 |