PDA

View Full Version : antigravity for kids



raaaid
03-21-2006, 04:40 AM
you are in the top of a tower and you shoot two cannons under you horizontally, left and right

the cannonballs are united to a cable united to a spool that you are holding

when the cannonballs are shot you give away as much cable as needed to keep the tension(force that pulls you down minimal)

when the cannonballs reach your altitude or horizontal you start recovering cable making the tension or force that pulls you up maximum

you keep repeating the process when the cannonball are underneath your horizontal you give away cable(minimal pull or tension), when its above your horizontal you recover cable (maximum pull or tension)

this is a mechanical vortex and explains why the schauberger ones produced lift

substitute the guy for a nucleus and the cannonballs for pairs of electrons(they counterotate in pairs) make the electrons go by electricity in the explained trajectory voila you can go from 0 to light speed in one second feeling 0 g while accelerating

Max.Power
03-21-2006, 04:49 AM
I think you need to do a better job of explaining this because if you shot two cannon balls in opposite directions, they would reach the end of the chain and stop, losing massive amounts of energy to heat and sound and the production of shockwaves through the (indestructable, I'm assuming) chain.

tigertalon
03-21-2006, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you are in the top of a tower and you shoot two cannons under you horizontally, left and right

the cannonballs are united to a cable united to a spool that you are holding

when the cannonballs are shot you give away as much cable as needed to keep the tension(force that pulls you down minimal)

when the cannonballs reach your altitude or horizontal you start recovering cable making the tension or force that pulls you up maximum

you keep repeating the process when the cannonball are underneath your horizontal you give away cable(minimal pull or tension), when its above your horizontal you recover cable (maximum pull or tension)

this is a mechanical vortex and explains why the schauberger ones produced lift

substitute the guy for a nucleus and the cannonballs for pairs of electrons(they counterotate in pairs) make the electrons go by electricity in the explained trajectory voila you can go from 0 to light speed in one second feeling 0 g while accelerating

Ok, you caught me this time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Firstly, please explain it some more: you say you are above the cannons that fire horisontaly. So, balls will never reach your altitude, even if there is no gravity.

However, if they are fired upwards, you forgot the momentum that is produced in the moment when balls are fired, and it is a big one.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 04:56 AM
ROFLOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


You are the only reason I visit the PF-Forum, raaaid. And once again you light up my day. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

WB_Outlaw
03-21-2006, 04:59 AM
Hey raaaid, is this the thread where you will post a free body diagram of the system components?

--Outlaw.

raaaid
03-21-2006, 04:59 AM
yes but remember you are in a tower, you are not at the same height than the cannonballs, so if you give away cable after them shot theyll make a spiral

in the perfect example the cannonballs make an outwards spiral during the first quarter an inwards one during the second quarter and a circle during the last half

its obvious than in the half circle the tension that pulls down is the same that pulls up

but is as obvious thatn in the spiral part the inwards spiral quarter that pulls up has much more force than the spiral quarter that pulls down

you would have force to hold the spool while the cannonball reaches your horizontal if you gave away much cable during the first quarter but once then to recover the cable you would have to be a superhero, but if you were and you were able to recover the spool you wouldnt need to fly because you would be virtually shot up everytime you recovered cable and you hardly would be pulled down evrytime you gave away cable

raaaid
03-21-2006, 05:02 AM
they will reach your horizontall because you are apllying a little tension with the cable you are holding with a spool, is not like if they were not united to you but that tension can be of just grams

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 05:08 AM
Despite the fact that your post is complete nonsens:

1. As it was allready said: Firing a cannon horizontal, they won't gain altitude at all.
2. Let's assume they fire vertically. That means you cannot give away cable to keep up the tension, as the projectiles fly towards you.
3. Pulling the cables in, when they are at your altitude leaves you at the altitude, leaving out of perspective the projectiles will immediately fall back down, pulling you with them.
4. As Electrons have no mass, they are not capable to producing any lift at all. At the same time, taking a nucleus instead of a proton, you'd have relatively no effect at all.
5. Schauberger's Vortex drive worked with rotating air, that produced lift by generating different pressures, not very much unlike a conventional turbine or simply a wing (taken by the principle) - this vortex was induced by a turbine.

Nevertheless - a good laugh. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

raaaid
03-21-2006, 05:35 AM
ill try to explain it with forces:

all force the guy feels is normal to the trajectory of tha ball or has the same direction than the cable holding the ball, like there are two cbles and two forces that are simetric the resultant force will either be up or down

when the balls are shot you aply a tension of grams in the cable till the balls reach your horizontall so the force that pulls you down are just of grams, the balls WILL reach your horizontal because you are applying a constant tension in the cable of grams, you have given away though km of cable

in the second quarter the force up is of thousand of newtons because the tension in the cable is huge, you have to beat the centrifugal force that you didnt in the first quarter

in the last half that is a circle the tension that pulls up is equal to the tension that pulls down so they nullify each other

so i have a repeatable prcess in which in the first quarter the force that pulls up is much minor than in the second quarter that pulls up and in the last two quarters they nulify each other

you can neglect gravity or put my set up horizontal

you need to have some imagination first to neglect gravity and second that if you shoot a bullet horizontally underneath you and you hold it with a spoll by making almost no effort it wiil reach at some time your horizontal, then with a litle imagination youll see that to recover all the cable will take a big effort and you are holding on somthing to pull yourself up, then reapeat the process to be pulled as much as desired

raaaid
03-21-2006, 05:37 AM
consider that the spool has some friction that causes a slight tension in the cable that eventually will slowly change direction of the cannonballs

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you need to have some imagination first to neglect gravity and second .../...
You just need to have some imagination to neglect all the multiple factors and phenomena that would prevent this from working in the real physics world. Once you have managed to neglect all that, then it's just easy-beezy... for kids indeed

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 06:08 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
4. As Electrons have no mass
Actually, electrons do have a finite mass, even if very small.
"Electrons have a negative electric charge of ˆ'1.6 Ӕ 10ˆ'19 coulombs, and a mass of about 9.11 Ӕ 10ˆ'31 kg (0.51 MeV/c2), which is approximately 1/1836 of the mass of the proton"

Photons don't have mass.

Cheers,
S.

WB_Outlaw
03-21-2006, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you need to have some imagination first to neglect gravity and second that if you shoot a bullet horizontally underneath you and you hold it with a spoll by making almost no effort it wiil reach at some time your horizontal...

What a joke. You claim to be taking a course in physics yet you can't even draw a simple free body diagram of a system with 3 particles. Now you are trying to PROVE a point by stating we should IMAGINE it working by neglecting the forces that would apply in the real world. I can't believe how much lottery money I've missed out on simply b/c I didn't go pick it up. I have imagined myself winning so many times I am easily a multi trillionaire. I'm heading to Austin today to demand my money.


--Outlaw.

BSS_Goat
03-21-2006, 06:53 AM
I LLLLLOOOOOOOVVVVVVEEEEE YYYYYYYOOOOOOOOUUUUUUU RRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIDDDD. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 07:18 AM
Compared to nuclei, electrons have a very much neglible weight, like comparing weight of earth and a pea - throwing a pea probably won't lift earth from pure gravity. That was my point.

A photon has no mass, as it is a particle with the attributes of a ray, but a proton has. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Max.Power
03-21-2006, 07:27 AM
Oh! Now I can see how this is antigravity... you just ignore gravity, and the system works!

SeaFireLIV
03-21-2006, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:


you need to have some imagination first to neglect gravity and...

I wasn`t going to bother, but... If we ignore this very important real life facter ( gravity)... then what`s the point? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Nevermind, the whole thing was well beyond me anyway...

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 07:31 AM
LOL - since when do raaaids threads have a point other than making us laugh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

No, wait - you think he's serious about that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Actually, being a big fan of raaaids twisted reality, I gotta point out that the exact theory was allready posted here half a year ago - okay, it were circling stones then, but the same conclusion.

SeaFireLIV
03-21-2006, 07:35 AM
Yea, I know he`s working from some parrallel universe (even I do, but they stay rigidly in my picture stories, not real-life), but I like to try and instill some down-to-earth common sense...

djetz
03-21-2006, 07:46 AM
I think the important question here is where do we get some kids to test it out on?

BSS_Goat
03-21-2006, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by djetz:
I think the important question here is where do we get some kids to test it out on?

Give me your address ....I'll FedEx you mine... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

tigertalon
03-21-2006, 09:10 AM
Ok, Raiiid, I finaly got your point. Again, you forgot the momentum that your feet are applying to tower and planet in the first quarted of circle... Balls are pulling you down, and you resist, you redirect the movement of balls from horisontal into vertical one, so you have to apply force to the ground... Inertia conservation law still holds. What you described, is just another form of jumping.




Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
4. As Electrons have no mass,


Oops, longeranger, I guess it's time to refresh highschool physics... it changed a lot during last 50 years. (http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif it's 0.51 MeV)

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 09:14 AM
@tigertalon

Please read all my posts, then eat my shorts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Davinci..
03-21-2006, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Despite the fact that your post is complete nonsens:

1. As it was allready said: Firing a cannon horizontal, they won't gain altitude at all.

4. As Electrons have no mass, they are not capable to producing any lift at all.

Dont get me wrong, i think Raaid is a compelete moron, and ranks right up there with Krashan(the anti-Newton) in terms of physics knowledge and understanding.

but i have to point out the obvious, and not so obvious. Electrons of course have mass, and it is important that they do. Though you've allready explained what you meant(fair enough), but its still wrong. people saying electrons dont have mass, is about as accurate as saying light does have mass, and drives me bonkers(so i had to speak up, for my own sanity's sake) hope you dont mind.

second, the cannonball would indeed gain altitude, its hard to understand at first, because of the way he words it(took me a minute to decipher what he ment). But think of it like playing "tether-ball". if the ball is hanging there by a string, and you give it a good smack(horizontaly), it will of course rise because of the tension caused by the string its hanging from.

its hard to undersand him, because there is so much complete gibberish mixed in with his posts, that its hard to read anything. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
A photon has no mass, as it is a particle with the attributes of a ray, but a proton has. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Of course a proton has mass, I was pointing at the difference between a mass-less particle (photon) and a massive one (electron). About the electron's mass being negligible... try staying in the path of some accelerated electrons, you'll see how it feels different from light, visible or not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,
S.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 09:56 AM
@ DaimonSyrius
Stand in front of a laser and tell me the difference between an accellerated electron and a photon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

As I allready pointed out, the problem is not, that the electron has a mass itself. The problem is, that an electron cannot accellerate a proton, especially not a whole nucleus (considering most of them consist of more than a single proton). That was my point and I'm glad to see at least some people consider the play of masses. Looking at his equation of an electron accellerating a proton is like Münchhausens story of pulling himself out of a swamp, by pulling his own collar up.

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 10:07 AM
I agree about Munschaussen being a very relevant reference when discussing raaid's theories http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
@ DaimonSyrius
Stand in front of a laser and tell me the difference between an accellerated electron and a photon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
I'll try to explain what I mean. You said earlier

Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Compared to nuclei, electrons have a very much neglible weight, like comparing weight of earth and a pea
Let's consider the simplest nucleus, that of the simplest atom: hydrogen. Nucleus is one proton, and there's one electron somewhere around it. Mass of the electron=1/1836 mass of the proton.

What kind of peas do you eat, that makes eating 1836 of them equivalent to eating the Earth? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Even if we would consider californium or roentgenium, or any of the most massive transuranium elements, it still would amount to uncommonly massive peas in your dish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Also, don't they collide electrons against nuclei in cyclotrons? I've heard that all kinds of interesting things happen when they do, including sending protons and neutrons all over the place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
S.

Dean3238
03-21-2006, 10:36 AM
Dang it... I've been trying all morning to tie a cord to an electron to try this out. The pesky little buggers just won't keep still. Just when I think I have it, they just disappear like they were never there and show up someplace else.

If anybody has managed to tie a cord to one, let me know how to do it, it has given me a headache. :-)

(The whole topic is killing me :-)

Dean

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by Dean3238:
Just when I think I have it, they just disappear like they were never there and show up someplace else.
Blame Heisenberg, he loves teasing you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Cheers,
S.

Dean3238
03-21-2006, 10:51 AM
I've got this German cat around here someplace that causes me the same fits http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Luckily, I've never gotten into any elevators with that Einstein chap...

Dean

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 10:56 AM
I've heard that Einstein disliked playing dice because of a similar problem he used to have...

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: Btw, how's your cat doing, Dean? You never know with them german cats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Dean3238
03-21-2006, 11:05 AM
I've heard that Einstein disliked playing dice because of a similar problem he used to have...

He can still be seen, in Vegas, bent over a craps table, the old coot. Daddy needs a new pair of shoes...

Dean3238
03-21-2006, 11:06 AM
The Cat? Oh, he's just fine... I just can't keep him in the house because he can be both inside and outside at the same time...tricky little beast.

Dean

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 11:07 AM
@ DaimonSyrius

As you still don't get me:

1. If the electron was infact able to accellerate a positron, we wouldn't need energy to cook. The atoms would turn and bounce all over the place, especially hydrogene, but even worse with those with more than one electron.
2.
Also, don't they collide electrons against nuclei in cyclotrons?

No. They collide atoms (or to be more exact: nuclei) - the reason is simple: An electron is simply an electron and too small to even locate. Actually the only method of knowing where it is, is by mathematics. You can see the hull of the atom, as this is the orbit of the electron, but not an electron itself. The nucleus, even if consisting of a single neutron, however, is made up of smaller particles, called quarks. When they are collided in a particle accellerator, also called cyclotron (not electron-accellerator - hint, hint), both nuclei are annihalated. Not only the bursting nuclei are destroyed, but also the particles: protons and neutrons. They burst out a lot of energy and particles, including photons and quarks.

However, this doesn't work with electrons, AFAIK, as their mass simply is too small. Besides that, electrons travel at speeds just below lightspeed. Any further energy-input leads to the ETP-phenomenon (ElectronTunnelPhenomenon) - this is actually the source-theory of StarTreks warp-drive. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Also, don't they collide electrons against nuclei in cyclotrons?

No. They collide atoms (or to be more exact: nuclei) - the reason is simple: An electron is simply an electron and too small to even locate.
.../...
However, this doesn't work with electrons, AFAIK, as their mass simply is too small. Besides that, electrons travel at speeds just below lightspeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Check the far-fetchedness of what you know, for instance in this brief Cyclotron article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron) at the Wikipedia:


A cyclotron accelerates charged particles with a high-frequency, alternating voltage (potential difference).
.../...
How the cyclotron works

The electrodes shown at the right would be in the vacuum chamber, which is flat, in a narrow gap between the two poles of a large magnet.

In the cyclotron, a high-frequency alternating voltage applied across the "D" electrodes alternately attracts and repels charged particles.
.../...
The particles move in a circle, because a current of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">electrons</span> or ions, flowing perpendicular to a magnetic field, experiences a perpendicular force. The charged particles move freely in a vacuum, so the particles follow a circular path.
.../...

You'll find some illustrations there too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: For additional, interesting readings, see also Particle Accelerator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator) and, on a related subject, Electron Microscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope). On a more everyday and also related phenomenon (electrons colliding things), Cathode Ray Tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube) (think oscilloscope or TV set, pre-LCD)

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Dean3238:
The Cat? Oh, he's just fine... I just can't keep him in the house because he can be both inside and outside at the same time...tricky little beast.
I never owned one of those, but I've always wondered what they do during mating season http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 11:49 AM
The particles move in a circle, because a current of electrons or ions

Please read and understand your own links.

The PARTICLES are accellerated by a constant flow of electrons and ions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The electron-microscope is infact a very good support for my point: Electrons are charged and accellerated and "shot" through a specimen. If it was true what YOU say, they'd obliberate the atoms of the specimen, literally exploding it.
But infact BECAUSE they are that small and have such a little mass, they actually pass through the specimen or are repelled/deflected, shaping a picture on a screen.

But you don't have to go into a laboratory, as you said: If electrons infact had such a result of exploding particles, you'd have a real hazardous time, sitting in front of your TV or CRT-monitor. It would simply explode each time you switch it on, when the electrons obliberate the screen - atoms, that are actually only glowing from the little energy, if my interpretation of micro-physics are correct (electron is attached to the atoms, then detatched, emitting energy)

I'm not a phyisics professor, though.

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The particles move in a circle, because a current of electrons or ions
Please read and understand your own links.
The PARTICLES are accellerated by a constant flow of electrons and ions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're scaring me, LoneRanger, you're starting to think with raaid-like logic too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


A cyclotron accelerates charged particles with a high-frequency, alternating voltage (potential difference)). A perpendicular magnetic field causes the particles to go almost in a circle. The beam spirals out to the edge of the container, as the particles' speeds increase. At this point, the particles' speed approaches the speed of light.
(mark the 'at this point' bit; the electrons don't go at ultrafast speeds until you actually have accelerated them in a cyclotron or other high-energy, high speed, particle accelerator type)

So that charged particles are what the cyclotron accelerates. How does the cyclotron do that? by using a constant flow of themselves to accelerate themselves, as you were saying? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

No, the cyclotron uses a low energy linear accelerator to emit the particles, and then a potential difference across two electrodes to accelerate the charged particles. And what particles are those? That's right, they're either electrons or protons, or ions (wich is an atom that has either lost or gained one or several electrons, so that it has an electric charge). Let's consider the case where we choose to accelerate electrons (emitted by a CRT-like anode, an electron source; it's a similar thing, similar source too in electron microscopes).
So we have this flow of electrons that have been accelerated... then a magnetic field is used to force them to go in a circle.

Now, let's look at that quote, but let's not just edit the bit you showed above:

The particles move in a circle, because a current of electrons or ions, flowing perpendicular to a magnetic field, experiences a perpendicular force. The charged particles move freely in a vacuum, so the particles follow a circular path.
This means that the charged particles (electrons, protons or ions that are accelerated by the high-frequency, alternating voltage) are forced to travel along a circular path (instead of just going straight, which is what they do in linear accelerators) because of the effect of a perpendicular magnetic field. So:
1. Accelerate electrons (or other charged particles) by means of a high-frequency alternating voltage, applied at a pair of electrodes.
2. By means of a perpendicular magnetic field, force them along a circular path, in order to:
3. Accelerate them again when they go through the alternating voltage electrodes in the next turn
...
n. High-speed, high energy electrons are then released by the cyclotron when we switch off the magnetic field


Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
But you don't have to go into a laboratory, as you said: If electrons infact had such a result of exploding particles, you'd have a real hazardous time, sitting in front of your TV or CRT-monitor. It would simply explode each time you switch it on, when the electrons obliberate the screen - atoms, that are actually only glowing from the little energy, if my interpretation of micro-physics are correct (electron is attached to the atoms, then detatched, emitting energy)
I might be in trouble if the electrons emmited by the CRT had been accelerated too much, to some (excessively) high-energy level, that is to say, to a very high speed. But they are not (however, even at low-energy levels that's the reason for concerns about whether it is really safe to stay too long or too close before a CRT).

Let me just quote the description in the article on Particle Accelerators that maybe you didn't read completely:

Linear particle accelerators
(Main article: Linear particle accelerator)
In a linear accelerator (linac), particles are accelerated in a straight line, with a target of interest at one end. Linacs are very widely used - every cathode ray tube contains one
Linear accelerators like the CRT are low-energy (the point of circular paths in cyclotrons is to accelerate them repeteadly, many times, in order to achieve the high-energy near-light speeds )
So here the electrons are not forced to go along a circular path, they are just accelerated linearly a little (we don't need nor want too much energy, because we're using a sensitive material for the screen) and then projected on the phosphor screen, the sensitve material which, in turn, emits light when excited by the impact of incoming electrons.

Now let's go back at the bit we marked at the beginning:

At this point, the particles' speed approaches the speed of light.
This point is after the cyclotron has completed its task. A CRT is a low-energy linear accelerator, but a CRT is not a high-energy cyclotron. That's why we can watch TV for years (yes, boring, I know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)

The whole point is that electrons have a finite mass, which is small, but is not negligible at all, particularly when you're considering its effects at the sub-atomic scale. As I said before, the mass of the electron is 1/1836 that of the proton. Small, but definitely massive, massive enough to have considerable effects on nuclei when you use a high-energy accelerator (like a cyclotron) to bomb the nuclei with electrons, wich definitely have mass and are travelling at such large speeds ---> high energy, really high, in the gigaelectronvolt (GeV) range or even higher.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Waldo.Pepper
03-21-2006, 12:58 PM
I am convinced that Raaaid is someone else just masquerading as Raaaid and having a laugh at all of us.

Perhaps someone who dissapeared at the same time that Raaaid first appeared.

Dean3238
03-21-2006, 01:01 PM
I never owned one of those, but I've always wondered what they do during mating season

I could say... but then this topic does say "for kids" in it. Best left to the imagination, kinda like the twin beds in the Duck Van **** Show...

<S>
Dean

Dean3238
03-21-2006, 01:02 PM
high energy, really high, in the gigaelectronvolt (GeV) range or even higher

Is that enough to get the Flux Capacitor on my DeLorean to fire up?

Just trying to get home, doc...

Dean

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 01:35 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

I will wonder in silence how a particle that is an electron at the same time is accellerated by a constant stream of electrons or ions but okay - if that is the true nature of physics, that's it.

It actually is explained the opposite at the posted links, but well, be that as it may, I guess you and raaaid are right.

A mass 1836 times smaller than earth (Moon is about 4 times smaller) will be able to accellerate earth out of orbit and you're soon gonna die from x-ray burns from your monitor.

Oki doki & outa here before the rays toast me, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Dean3238:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">high energy, really high, in the gigaelectronvolt (GeV) range or even higher

Is that enough to get the Flux Capacitor on my DeLorean to fire up?

Just trying to get home, doc... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Might be enough to fire your cat up, but it will depend critically on where exactly it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Cheers,
S.

Dean3238
03-21-2006, 01:44 PM
Might be enough to fire your cat up, but it will depend critically on where exactly it is

Damn. What good is a time machine if all I do with it is send on a cat I can't control anyway???

Anybody want to buy it off me? Works great (for cats), only used once, I'll try to clean the diet coke stain off the seats before purchase. I did drive it off the lot, but that lot hasn't been built yet, so does it really count?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Dean

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
I will wonder in silence how a particle that is an electron at the same time is accellerated by a constant stream of electrons
Particle accelerator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator)

A particle accelerator is a device that uses electric and/or magnetic fields to propel electrically charged particles to high speeds.

In a particle accelerator, electrons (or other charged particles) are accelerated by the potential difference, which establishes an electric field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field), and not by a flow of electrons as you are imagining. A flow of electrons is an electric current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current), and that isn't the same thing as an electric field... An electric field is one case of the more general concept of a force field. You surely know what a Force field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_%28physics%29) is, don't you? Look at the electricity sockets on your wall (but just look): even if nothing is plugged to the socket, so that there is no electric current flow there, so electrons are not flowing across the poles, there is an electric field there! it's not a huge one, but it's there, across and near the poles of a socket when you have nothing plugged in it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
A mass 1836 times smaller than earth (Moon is about 4 times smaller) will be able to accellerate earth out of orbit and you're soon gonna die from x-ray burns from your monitor.

Consider meteorites and what they did to dinosaurs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Or to the Earth itself, if you wish. Or to the Moon, have you ever looked at those funny holes on its surface? You surely must be wondering what on earth (what on moon) caused them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

You better stay away from something like that... Even if something is small, it will carry a lot of energy when it's moving fast enough. Momentum, kinetic/potential energy, do those ring some bell to you...?

Or consider what a 40 gram bullet may do to a 73.44 kilogram man. That's right, this bullet's mass is 1/1836th of that man's mass. I'm guessing you believe it's negligible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 03:47 PM
ROFLOL - you must be raaaid, Daimon.

The Dinosaurs did not die from the explosion, but from the so-called "atomic winter", which is caused by the dust and vapured water in the atmosphere, not from the mass.

The asteroid that caused the angle of earth was caused by an object about the size of the moon - and still the earth was in orbit.

Same is for the magic bullet. Except for Hollywood the cinetic energy is really neglible to the mass of the body and won't knock anybody of his feet. Though it might cause death from shock and bleeding, the passed on momentum is neglible - and thats, what this is all about.

And the thing you call an electric field in reality is a magnetic field induced by electrons. And this magnetic field is far from "not hughe" - it is infact many times stronger than that of a CT, which, just for example, is infact strong enough to let a fireman with an oxygene-tank fly through a room, as it happened in a town near where I studied, just a few years ago. And this amount of power is used to accellerate electrons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 03:58 PM
And just for a small hint, what we're actually talking about: Look up for the difference between a cyclotron, what we are actually talking about, and a betatron. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Should bear some surprises for you...

Zeus-cat
03-21-2006, 04:10 PM
Or consider what a 40 gram bullet may do to a 73.44 kilogram man. That's right, this bullet's mass is 1/1836th of that man's mass. I'm guessing you believe it's negligible

They did this on Mythbusters. The effect IS almost negligible. They hung up a pig carcass and blasted away at it with various weapons. Almost none of the weapons moved the pig any noticeable amount until they got to the really big guns, like a .50 caliber rifle. Even then, the deflection from the bullet's impact was very small.

People flying bacwards when they got shot, like Hollywood always shows, is a bunch of ****. Think about it, the recoil on the shooter as he fires the weapon has to be greater than the impact on the target.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 04:19 PM
Thanks, Zeus-cat. Common sense returns to this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The effect of the Cal50 was spectacular, though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Max.Power
03-21-2006, 04:32 PM
Regarding bullet energy and effects:

What is the forum rules regarding linking to explicit media?

I'm not talking porn, but I stumbled across a video that is

a) uncannily gruesome (albeit hard to make out at such a range)

b) makes no physical sense what-so-ever

I did some rudimentary calculations on it but I would like to have some more expert opinions on what I was seeing. This forum community seems to have some big brains. So, if I'm not allowed to link, and you are not faint of heart, contact me if you want to help me figure this thing out.

edit: I've read the rules and I'm going to play it safe and not post a link here, but you may still contact me. I must really emphasize tho, without trying to hype this thing up, that what's depicted in there is pretty aweful/ absurd.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-21-2006, 04:43 PM
Actually bullet wounds and the body being moved by a bullet really are 2 different things. And I'm glad you didn't post a link or picture here.

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 05:34 PM
The point is, LoneRanger, that a comparatively small mass can transfer a huge amount of mechanical energy, of momentum, to a comparatively large mass when the small mass is moving fast enough, with heat being generated in the process. Now seriously, I'm amazed that you're insisting in saying that because a mass is comparatively small it has to be necessarily negligible, no matter the scale at which the phenomenon is happening.


Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
The Dinosaurs did not die from the explosion, but from the so-called "atomic winter", which is caused by the dust and vapured water in the atmosphere, not from the mass.
Its mass*velocity, geez... momentum. Or if you prefer to calculate the kinetic energy , that would be 0.5mv^2. Or what do you think caused the "atomic winter" as you call it? It wasn't an atomic bomb. It was the impact of a comparatively small mass on the Earth, and very likely it rocked the whole Earth to some amount.

Kinetic energy: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy)

Rigorous definitions

http://www.infonegocio.com/daimon/img/Ekinetic.png

This equation states that the kinetic energy (Ek) is equal to the integral of the dot product of the velocity (v) of a body and the infinitesimal change of the body's momentum (p). It is assumed that the body starts at rest (motionless).

Even if a mass is as small as that of an electron, when you get it to a speed that approaches that of light, it will have a very large amount of kinetic energy, that will be converted to mechanical work on impact, with the remaining energy being dissipated as heat.

Electronvolt: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt)

An electronvolt (symbol eV, or, rarely and incorrectly, ev) is the amount of kinetic energy gained by a single unbound electron when it passes through an electrostatic potential difference of one volt, in vacuum. The one-word spelling is the modern recommendation although the use of the earlier electron volt still exists.

One electronvolt is a very small amount of energy:

1 eV = 1.602 176 53 (14)Ӕ10ˆ'19 J

.../...

Using electronvolts to measure mass

Einstein reasoned that energy is equivalent to (rest) mass, as famously expressed in the formula E=mc² (1 kg = 90 petajoules). It is thus common in particle physics, where mass and energy are often interchanged, to use eV/c² or even simply eV as a unit of mass.
Now, think GeV, TeV.
It's surprising that this still needs to be argued, in the XXI century.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Cheers,
S.

P.S.:

Originally posted by Zeus-cat
They did this on Mythbusters. The effect IS almost negligible
I bet they didn't ask the pig what was its opinion about what's negligible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

They didn't ask the pig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I've watched that video, and while the pig wasn't thrown away by the bullet (which was the point of the video), it certainly got a nice hole going all the way through it, of course, and then the bullet impacted somewhere and in the end released all the energy it was carrying, which isn't negligible at all. If it's that hard to grasp, think of the bullet impacting someone wearing an armoured coat, it will do some pushing in that case. Or just imagine the bullet impacting on your thigh bone: negligible?

Would you call getting a bullet hole through yourself a 'negligible' effect? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I wonder why people use guns at all, in that case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 06:07 PM
Some more reading:

LEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Electron_Positron)


The Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP) is one of the largest particle accelerators finished so far. It was built at CERN, a multi-national center for research in nuclear and particle physics. LEP is a giant evacuated ring with a circumference of 27 kilometers built in a tunnel under the border of Switzerland and France. It was used from 1989 until 2000

History

When the LEP collider started operation in 1989 it accelerated the electrons and positrons to a total energy of 45 GeV each to enable production of the Z Boson, which has a mass of approximately 91 GeV. The accelerator was upgraded later to enable production of a pair of W Bosons, each weighing approximately 80 GeV. LEP collider energy eventually topped at 104 GeV at the end in 2000. At the end of 2000, LEP was shut down and then dismantled in order to make room in the tunnel for the construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Operation

The Super Proton Synchrotron (an older ring collider) is used to accelerate electrons and positrons to nearly the speed of light. These are then injected into the ring.
.../...


Enjoy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
S.

DaimonSyrius
03-21-2006, 06:27 PM
Just as a reminder of how the point about accelerating electrons and getting them to collide other particles was raised, LoneRanger said on p.2 that this couldn't be, because:


Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
No. They collide atoms (or to be more exact: nuclei) - the reason is simple: An electron is simply an electron and too small to even locate. Actually the only method of knowing where it is, is by mathematics. You can see the hull of the atom, as this is the orbit of the electron, but not an electron itself. The nucleus, even if consisting of a single neutron, however, is made up of smaller particles, called quarks. When they are collided in a particle accellerator, also called cyclotron (not electron-accellerator - hint, hint), both nuclei are annihalated. Not only the bursting nuclei are destroyed, but also the particles: protons and neutrons. They burst out a lot of energy and particles, including photons and quarks.

However, this doesn't work with electrons, AFAIK, as their mass simply is too small. Besides that, electrons travel at speeds just below lightspeed. Any further energy-input leads to the ETP-phenomenon (ElectronTunnelPhenomenon) - this is actually the source-theory of StarTreks warp-drive. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif
How does that fit with the LEP operating during more than a decade? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
03-21-2006, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you are in the top of a tower and you shoot two cannons under you horizontally, left and right

the cannonballs are united to a cable united to a spool that you are holding

when the cannonballs are shot you give away as much cable as needed to keep the tension(force that pulls you down minimal)

when the cannonballs reach your altitude or horizontal you start recovering cable making the tension or force that pulls you up maximum

you keep repeating the process when the cannonball are underneath your horizontal you give away cable(minimal pull or tension), when its above your horizontal you recover cable (maximum pull or tension)

this is a mechanical vortex and explains why the schauberger ones produced lift

substitute the guy for a nucleus and the cannonballs for pairs of electrons(they counterotate in pairs) make the electrons go by electricity in the explained trajectory voila you can go from 0 to light speed in one second feeling 0 g while accelerating I pulled the biggest hair out of my nose today! I sware, why does all the hair juice go to your nose as you get older instead of your head?

Max.Power
03-21-2006, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Actually bullet wounds and the body being moved by a bullet really are 2 different things. And I'm glad you didn't post a link or picture here.

You don't understand, man. I'm talking about bodies being moved to say the very least. The motion is absolutely ABSURD.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-22-2006, 12:44 AM
I have a video of what Cal50s does to living rabits. Yes, they do move, if you want to put it that way, but this is because a body is consisting of water to an extend larger than 60%. The energy of the impact is causing the tissue to rupture at some point, causing sort of an explosion, if you want to put it that way. It is however, physically speaking, not the momentum of the bullet that is moving the object, but the indirect, channelled energy.

Max.Power
03-22-2006, 01:04 AM
Haha. Energy channelling...

I think they call that energy transfer.

But regardless, the momentum of a bullet is a function of the kinetic energy it posesses. Energy transfer expends its momentum. If a bullet expended all of its energy on the surface of your skin, it would directly push you. As a bullet travels through your body, it crushes tissue before it, and pushes the flesh beside it in a direction perpendicular to its path. Moreover, most bullets exit the body with energy left over. This is why the pig bodies don't move.

Know that the bullet does not create energy as it is 'channeled.' Momentum from the bullet is indirectly transfered to elastic flesh, where it is absorbed. The only energy or momentum that is at play is what the bullet brings with it- or, more precisely, what it leaves behind.

Now, you are attempting to comment on a phenomenon that I have not even described. Respectfully, if you want to see the video, ask for it. If you don't, don't try to tell me what's going on in it. What you're saying is not really relevent.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-22-2006, 01:09 AM
Daimon, the point is not, that I don't believe the ammount of energy a small object can have. That is not the point here. You're speaking of a completely different phenomenon than everybody else here, don't you see that?

YOU are talking about the energy a small mass can get by accellerating it to a very high speed. There's absolute no doubt about that. Look at the sand-corn-sized particles in space that punch through a satelite or space-shuttle, if the armor was not thick enough.

What everybody else, including myself, is talking about, however, is how the cinetic energy of an object of that size, physically speaking of a momentum, is transfered onto an object about 1800x the size of the accellerated object.

And however often you repeat anything else that makes no sense to the actual matter, the passed on momentum has very much more to do with the actual mass of the object, rather than it's speed itself.


Let's go into some detail:

1. The energy of the asteroid that caused the atomic winter that (probably) killed the dinosaurs had a mass of several tons, according to astronomers, but a very high velocity. As you correctly stated, this leads to a imense amount of energy, called "cinetic energy". You stated the formula yourself correctly.
However, my only point is, that however fast this object was and with a cinetic energy high enough of causing an explosion with the strength of thousands of Megatons TNT equivalent, it was NOT able to transfer this energy to the object EARTH. In other terms: The static weight of earth was still tremendously higher than that of the asteroid. And THIS is actually, what *WE* are talking about.

2. An LEP is the abbreviation for Large Electron-Positron Collider, as you stated. This is not the same as a cyclotron, the actually machinery we were talking about before and that you claimed was able to accellerate either ions or electrons. Thanks for supporting me on this point.

3. a. Just because you cannot locate an electron doesn't mean you cannot control it. Look at your computer being driven my electrical energy, which is basically electrons floating along metal alloys. Though it is impossible to actually locate a single electron, be sure, they're there.
The thing with the LEP-Systms is the same. They are using electrons, but, if you read the whole text, you'd know, that colliding electrons and positions is a far more complicated task than to collide 2 atoms or nuclei. The reason comes down to 2 major facts: 1. the electron lives through a relatively high increase in mass, as it is accellerated(acutally, that is the reason why it cannot be successfully accellerated and controlled in a cyclotron - it has to be done in a special designed LEP) 2. the electron is so much smaller in size and so much more affected by other potentials, that making it collide is actually a more difficult (and energy-consuming) task as the processes in a cyclotron. Besides that, you only know WHEN the electron hit, when the atom is destroyed.

3.The pig....
And again, just as the asteroid impacts, you are mixing up effect on a body and cinetic energy passed on to an object.

Hope you get our point this time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kraayy
03-22-2006, 02:31 AM
Why are you so hung up on mass? It's clearly shape and composition that are throwing you off (hint: elastic and inelastic collisions).

None of your arguments about small masses make any sense at all.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-22-2006, 03:13 AM
I guess that is because electrons and protons don't have these attributes, Kraayy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-22-2006, 03:36 AM
LoneRanger,

*sigh* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
a cyclotron, the actually machinery we were talking about before and that you claimed was able to accellerate either ions or electrons. Thanks for supporting me on this point.
See if this supports you on that point:
Cyclotron (Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University) (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/cyclot.html)

The cyclotron was one of the earliest types of particle accelerators, and is still used as the first stage of some large multi-stage particle accelerators. It makes use of the magnetic force on a moving charge to bend moving charges into a semicircular path between accelerations by an applied electric field. The applied electric field accelerates electrons between the "dees" of the magnetic field region. The field is reversed at the cyclotron frequency to accelerate the electrons back across the gap.
When the cyclotron principle is used to accelerated electrons, it has been historically called a betatron. The cyclotron principle as applied to electrons is illustrated below.
It's complete with simple, easily understandable illustrations. As you may notice, cyclotron is a generic name for the earlier types of devices used to accelerate charged particles (electrons or other), betatron is just the specific name that has been used for cyclotrons when specifically designed or used to accelerate electrons. If you don't believe the Dept. of Physics, GSU, maybe you would like to check the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center's page about cyclotrons and synchrotons (http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/accelerators/circular.html).

Now, the point about particle accelerators we (you and I) have been discussing lately, arose when you said that, because electrons are so tiny and negligible, they can't be accelerated in particle accelerators, and you also said that they couldn't be accelerated anyway, because they would be already travelling at near-light speed, to start with. Remember that? You said all this in this post (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/3941003524/r/8121034524#8121034524):

Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Also, don't they collide electrons against nuclei in cyclotrons?
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">No.</span> They collide atoms (or to be more exact: nuclei) - the reason is simple: An electron is simply an electron and too small to even locate. Actually the only method of knowing where it is, is by mathematics. You can see the hull of the atom, as this is the orbit of the electron, but not an electron itself. The nucleus, even if consisting of a single neutron, however, is made up of smaller particles, called quarks. When they are collided in a particle accellerator, also called cyclotron (not electron-accellerator - hint, hint), both nuclei are annihalated. Not only the bursting nuclei are destroyed, but also the particles: protons and neutrons. They burst out a lot of energy and particles, including photons and quarks.

However, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">this doesn't work with electrons</span>, AFAIK, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">as their mass simply is too small</span>. Besides that, electrons travel at speeds just below lightspeed. Any further energy-input leads to the ETP-phenomenon (ElectronTunnelPhenomenon) - this is actually the source-theory of StarTreks warp-drive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I hope you eventually may be able to see that, actually, electrons have a non-negligible mass and they defintely can be, and are, accelerated in cyclotrons (which may be called betatrons as just a more specific label, but still operate on the very same principle: a betatron is an electron-specific variety of the, more generic, cyclotron design).

And how did we come to talk about particle accelerators? Let's recap:

-In your initial reply (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/3941003524/r/4571003524#4571003524) to the fantasy by raaid that started the thread, you made several points, even numbering them. One of the points you made, nr.4, was based on:

Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
4. As Electrons have no mass, .../...
Several users (including me) pointed out that this was, actually, not true, and then you started your argument about 'mass of the electron is tiny, hence it is negligible'

Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Compared to nuclei, electrons have a very much neglible weight, like comparing weight of earth and a pea

-At this stage, when I replied mentioning accelerated electrons and cyclotrons (and extremely dense and heavy peas in your dish), my point was that the mass of the electron cannot be neglected when we're considering what happens at the sub-atomic scale. At this stage, we were not discussing anymore whether electrons might or might not operate in the way raaid proposed in his 'invention', by transferring momentum or not. Of course raaid's invention wouldn't work. At this point we were discussing whether the electron's mass is or is not negligible, and you were saying that it is indeed so small that this is the very reason why electrons couldn't possibly be accelerated in a particle accelerator: "However, this doesn't work with electrons, as their mass simply is too small". That was the point you were trying to sustain, at this stage, about how particle accelerators work; and that's what I have been disputing.

Now the debate has completed at least one full circle, and since I have already said what I wanted to say about it, and have reasoned my opinions (and provided additional references for further explanations), I'm not interested in staying in that circular trajectory, so I'm leaving the circle here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I can only hope that you will not encounter anything major in your life that might depend on whether the mass of the electron is or isn't negligible, or on whether electrons can or cannot be accelerated in cyclotrons, since you're insisting in displaying a persistant denial about that point.

Have a nice, non-negligible (or otherwise) forum session http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
S.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-22-2006, 03:50 AM
If you'd understand, that our points don't differ that much at all, at least as far as particle-physics and nomenclature reach, and if you wouldn't take it as you personal mission to counter my posts, rather than reading them, this could have been solved after page2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

...but you're still insisting on things I didn't say, quote things out of the context and implicitly insisting on discussing about declarations and formulas instead of conservation of momentum and the things me and everybody else here try to show you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Yes, maybe it's better you decided to leave the discussion here, so we can go back to where everybody, excluding you, started http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-22-2006, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
you personal mission to counter my posts, rather than reading them
Heh, that's a funny one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
But enough of that.

Nevertheless, once again, one of raaid's threads has provided the starting point for an interesting (for me, up to the points I made in my previous post, anyway) discussion. So, to all the angry young men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Young_Men) (pun intended, see ref.) that appear to repeatedly and bitterly complain about raaid's threads (by posting on them and, apparently, after persistently reading them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif) I would tell that it can be said, in several senses, that they're -raaid's threads- actually fantastic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Could we agree about that, LoneRanger? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

raaaid
03-22-2006, 05:24 AM
thanks tigertalon for your effort, youve made made me change the example:

you are not above a tower but floating without gravity above the cannons

in the first quarter(outwards spiral) the tension pulling donw is of grams so the guy goes 1 meter down

in the second quarter(inwards spiral) the tension is of tons so the guy goes 1 km up

in the last two quarters being a circle the same force that pulls up pulls down so theres no altitude gain

so you go down 1 m and then up 1km, 1m down 1 km up just by letting the cannonball go and winding an unwinding the spool at the right times

im sure i could make a kid see this why nobody else here sees it or at least point me to my mistake

DaimonSyrius
03-22-2006, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
thanks tigertalon for your effort, youve made made me change the example:

you are not above a tower but floating without gravity above the cannons
.../...
im sure i could make a kid see this why nobody else here sees it or at least point me to my mistake
raaid,

What would be the use of an 'antigravity device' that needs gravity to be suppressed in the first place, in order to (according to you) even think of it as a conceptual design?

If you see the point of my question, then: what's the use of the conceptual design itself (that is, ellaborating about it)?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: As an additional, although less fundamental, question, if you are 'floating without gravity...' what would above in '...above the cannons' mean? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

raaaid
03-22-2006, 06:34 AM
all right if you dont want to neglect gravity imagine my set up horizontally over a frictionless very big table

youd be propelled in the direction of the inwards spiral(tons of tension in the cable) while the oposite simetrical outwards spiral will just propell you the oposite sense with a force of grams

oh my god is so simple why nobody understands

Dean3238
03-22-2006, 06:51 AM
oh my god is so simple why nobody understands

Then build one, we'll all go to the ceremony to see you get your Nobel Prize.

...now, where did I stick that tux of mine??

Dean

DaimonSyrius
03-22-2006, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
all right if you dont want to neglect gravity
It's not that I don't want to neglect gravity, but rather that I don't see the rationale for doing so, as I explained in my previous question. So the point is apparently, rather than my choices or wishes, whether you raiid choose or want to neglect gravity in order to build in your mind a conceptual antigravity device http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

About frictionless tables... disregarding the fact that this is, again, neglecting something that you could never neglect so easily in reality; would you mind to provide one (or a few, but not too many), diagram to show graphically how would you work it out, the arrangement of everything? You are saying it 'is so simple' yourself, after all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

WB_Outlaw
03-22-2006, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
all right if you dont want to neglect gravity imagine my set up horizontally over a frictionless very big table

youd be propelled in the direction of the inwards spiral(tons of tension in the cable) while the oposite simetrical outwards spiral will just propell you the oposite sense with a force of grams

oh my god is so simple why nobody understands

OK raaaid, neglecting everythihng important, you are correct in that you would observe the behavior you describe. The point is that it's impossible to build such a device, which makes the whole concept useless.

Using your logic, I can truthfully say a go-kart running on a rail and powered by a 5 pound static thrust rocket can easily reach a speed of 500000 mph simply by neglecting drag, neglecting friction in the wheel bearings and between the rail and the wheels, and imagining an infinitely large fuel tank. Yes it's true, but the whole concept is stupid b/c it can't be built.

Also, by pointing out that you get the same effect on a flat frictionless table, you have just shown that you HAVE NOT DESCRIBED ANTI-GRAVITY BEHAVIOR. All you have shown is that F=ma and the fact that neglecting all losses and a significant portion of the mass of the system, a body in motion will stay in motion forever. What a genius you are. You have also shown the conservation of energy concept in that circular motion has been transformed into linear motion.


--Outlaw.

Kraayy
03-22-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
I guess that is because electrons and protons don't have these attributes, Kraayy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

They have other properties. Regardless, bullets, pigs, satellites, micrometeorites, the earth, and asteroids do "have these attributes." So those examples are not particularly informative...

Consider looking up inelastic collisions in almighty Wikipedia:

"In nuclear physics, an inelastic collision is one in which the incoming particle causes the nucleus it strikes to become excited or to break up. Deep inelastic scattering is a method of probing the structure of subatomic particles in much the same way as Rutherford probed the inside of the atom (see Rutherford scattering). Such experiments were performed on protons in the late 1960s using high-energy electrons at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC). As in Rutherford scattering, deep inelastic scattering of electrons by proton targets revealed that most of the incident electrons interacted very little and pass straight through, with only a small number bouncing back. This indicates that the charge in the proton is concentrated in small lumps, reminiscent of Rutherford's discovery that the positive charge in an atom is concentrated at the nucleus. However, in the case of the proton, the evidence suggested three distinct concentrations of charge and not one."

That nicely explains away the electron microscope example.

NonWonderDog
03-22-2006, 10:07 AM
That's pretty poor terminology, actually, because elasticity is a consequence of intermolecular bonds.

I'm not a quantum physicist, though. I could never understand anything those guys do.

squadldr76
03-22-2006, 10:17 AM
I like peanut butter.

Z4K
03-23-2006, 03:46 AM
I wrote a proof that raaaid's cannonball-antigravity machine would work, but accidentally defined its momentum so precisely that I can't find it anywhere.

raaaid
03-23-2006, 05:47 AM
first ill try to give a more convincing explanation for gravity than gravitons:

check out how an orbit of a planet or of an electron is an ellipse(composed of two halfs an inwards and an outwards spiral)

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/satellites.html

imagine you are a nucleus and you are holding two counterotating electrons with a cable and a spool. in one half you give away cable in the other half you recover cable

now please some imagination, you put a dinamometer in the cable and measure the tension in both halfs

wont be the tension much bigger in the inner spiral?

wont this result in a bigger pull in this direction and a smaller pull in the oposite direction?

so the gravity field of the earth orientates the maximum eccentricity of the ellipse made by the electrones in such a way that the inwards spiral is under the outwards spiral pulling the atom down(youve agreed electrons have momentum)

you want to reverse gravity reverse the eccentricity of the ellipse, how i dont know but is interesting to notice that the atoms are propelled without wasting the kinetic energy of the electrons

please dont overlook my thoughts as stupid its taken me 6 years to reach this example

raaaid
03-23-2006, 06:30 AM
some may want to destroy my theory saying that gravity is more similar to an elastic rubber than to a cable and a spool where the tension varies in each half

notice then that if you hold a ball tight to an elastic rubber will be imposible to make an ellipse

while if you make a looping with a yoyo(a cable and a spool) it will make a perfect ellipse just like planects and electrons

make a loop with a yoyo(a perfect ellipse) just like planets and electrons and put a dinamometer in the string the tension in the inner spiral is much bigger than in the outwards( this in 0 gravity that can be simulated making vertical loopings called hoping the fence)

youll be propelled by the bigger tension of the inwards spiral

you are the nucleus and two yoyos are the electrones,they shape ellipses if you make the maximum tension(inwards half spiral) of the string in the same direction for each yoyo youll be accelerated that direction

plz somebody tells me he understands what im saying or what im explaining wrong

Dean3238
03-23-2006, 06:50 AM
check out how an orbit of a planet or of an electron is an ellipse(composed of two halfs an inwards and an outwards spiral)

One minor problem above, contrary to the diagrams in grade school books, electrons don't 'orbit' the nucleus, they are not held to the atom by gravitational forces. Might want to check that out. Think "clouds" and look into the other, shorter range, yet more powerful forces of nature than gravity.


wont be the tension much bigger in the inner spiral?

Stripped of the sub-atomic jargon, actually yes.


wont this result in a bigger pull in this direction and a smaller pull in the oposite direction?

Sure, you can get this effect by throwing any object attached to a long restraint (slings, any number of those medieval weapons involving iron balls and chains).

Now here's the two things that are missunderstood. First, the force pulling you is cetripetal force (not a form of gravity) and yes, it will be greater on the close part of the path (due to greater velocity) than on the longer part.

Second, where the "no free lunch" part comes in is that you need to look at this thing while "feeling" the tensions needed to force the ball at the end of the cord to follow the desired ellipse. Since you aren't being helped by other forces, every bit of that extra "tension" on the short range part of the path will need to be fully resisted by your body (or the ball will keep going straight). So, while you think you are getting something useful by the tension of the ball in that part, every bit of that must be countered by equal forces in the opposite direction. If they weren't, you wouldn't feel any tension.

Yeah, you'll get to coast a little on the long part, but the second the ball hits the max distance you'll let it get to, you'll have to start pulling it back in.

Watch film of guys throwing hammers and what-not in track events (where they have to spin) and you'll see their body fighting the forces pulling the hammer out the whole way... until they let go and the hammer flies out, while they collapse in a sweaty heap. Regardless, they can use the mometum of the hammer to propel them down range (if they don't let go), but won't be able to swing it back around without losing control (forces are too great).

Dean

WB_Outlaw
03-23-2006, 07:00 AM
Anti-gravity for kids...

Gravity is caused by tiny chains of hand holding dwarves that are also holding onto our atoms. Since dwarves like confined spaces they try and pull everything close together. To reverse gravity, introduce a stream of elves into the system. Since dwarves hate elves any dwarf that sees and elf will run away. Elves hate confined spaces so they will start pushing everything away from everything else resulting in anti-gravity. If you introduce enough elves then the Universe will fly apart at the speed of elves. I don't know how, but if you were to introduce a small number of elves under your countrol, you could build a flying saucer of milk.

The point of this post is two-fold. First, I've read too much Tolkien. Second, making up a mechanical explanation for gravity that can be reversed just for the sake of doing so is pointless. Spending 6 years on the subject is truly unbelieveable.

Maybe I'm the one that missed it but it would have been nice if raaaid had explained a long time ago that the whole point of this is discussion is to prove his theory of why gravity occurs and not to build an actual machine.

raaaid, at least answer this question, why haven't you posted a free body diagram of this simple system?

--Outlaw.

Dean3238
03-23-2006, 07:07 AM
Gravity is caused by tiny chains of hand holding dwarves that are also holding onto our atoms. Since dwarves like confined spaces they try and pull everything close together. To reverse gravity, introduce a stream of elves into the system. Since dwarves hate elves any dwarf that sees and elf will run away. Elves hate confined spaces so they will start pusing everything away from everything else resulting in anti-gravity. If you introduce enough elves then the Universe will fly apart at the speed of elves. I don't know how, but if you were to introduce a small number of elves under your countrol, you could build a flying saucer of milk.

Yeah... but no _real_ elf could do that...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Dean

raaaid
03-23-2006, 07:24 AM
"while you think you are getting something useful by the tension of the ball in that part, every bit of that must be countered by equal forces in the opposite direction. If they weren't, you wouldn't feel any tension."

exactly and how do you counteract the tension of the ball that wants to go away from you? accelerating that sense

the free diagram is senseles because for every force you must draw a reaction

in this case the reaction to the bigger tension of the inwards spiral is an acceleration

is terribly simple you are in empty space hold in a spinning cable that in one half you see the dinamometer shows a tension of grams while in the other half it shows a tension of tons and both halfs last the same

isnt it obvious what will happen

Dean3238
03-23-2006, 07:43 AM
in this case the reaction to the bigger tension of the inwards spiral is an acceleration

Sure. Same effect you get if you tie your hands to a cable attached to a cannon-ball you fire... when the cable becomes taut, you accelerate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


is terribly simple you are in empty space hold in a spinning cable that in one half you see the dinamometer shows a tension of grams while in the other half it shows a tension of tons and both halfs last the same

Again, while that is right, the missing part is the application of acceleration to bring the object _back_ to you after it finishes going out. Gravity gives you that and with extremely massive objects, you don't get two counter-orbiting objects (check out what binary stars do). Once that ball gets to max distance, you have to pull it back in. And those forces are exactly opposite your desired flight path.

Dean

DaimonSyrius
03-23-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
isnt it obvious what will happen
What is obvious is that it isn't.

raaid,
If you're taking the system that is illustrated in that java applet as an example,

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/satellites.html

then let's just look at it, no need to further overload our imaginative resources with cannon balls/spools/electrons. Let's consider a system like the one illustrated there, with a large mass and two other small masses orbiting around, following elliptical trajectories, or interacting generally in any way you wish to consider. You may want (but I'm forecasting that you won't for some reason which escapes me) to have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem#Three-body_problem

No matter how you imagine that system (provided that you don't neglect non-negligible factors), the center-of-mass of the whole system will remain stationary (i.e., motionless or having a constant velocity) unless some force external to the system is acting on it; even if the movements of the individual bodies may follow a chaotic pattern (chaotic in the mathematical sense, that is, not entirely predictable in an analytical, exact way, but not truly random either). You can choose to read that article for the explanations and explore the links for interesting ellaborations on related concepts; or you can discard that possibility and opt for trying to convince people here by juggling imaginary cannon balls, while at the same time asking for explanations.

My advice would be: read, raiid; then let's discuss on the grounds of what is known about that, which is not to be neglected.

If you would be interested, I have an assay -a few pages- written on the subject of the Three-Body Problem; it actually takes that problem as a paradigm to consider complex systems generally. At the same time, it's an exercise (with a humorous aspect) on the limits of language (non-formal language, i.e., verbal language that doesn't use mathematical formulations) to deal with complexity. The way you approach the presentation of your ideas here reminded me of that. One possible problem is that it's written in Catalan, but if you can read that, just let me know, I'll be happy to link it here (maybe some day I might engage into trying to translate it to English or Spanish -those I know you can read- but translation is only a hypothesis so far).

Cheers,
S.

WB_Outlaw
03-23-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
the free diagram is senseles because for every force you must draw a reaction


That is why you fail.

This one statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have absoluetly no understanding of physics at all. Thw whole REASON for drawing a free body diagram is to show the forces acting on a system. Your inability and refusal to even try says it all.

Answer this one raaaid, if the free body diagram of a 3 particle system neglecting gravity and friction is too complicated for you then how can you expect to understand ANYTHING?

--Outlaw.

P.S.
raaaid, if I were you I would look up "spiral" and "ellipse" in the dictionary.

WB_Outlaw
03-23-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
If you're taking the system that is illustrated in that java applet as an example,


DS,
I think raaaid only used that example to try and show graphically his spiral theory of gravity. He believes that an ellipse can be broken down into two spirals, one of increasing radius and one of decreasing radius. The force of gravity is due to some kind of momentum interchange between the bodies as they travel.

--Outlaw.

WB_Outlaw
03-23-2006, 09:04 AM
Has anyone played around with the orbit applet and if so what's the longest orbit that never leaves the screen you've been able to setup? I had one run about two hours before finally collapsing. I figure that's about 20 years.

--Outlaw.

DaimonSyrius
03-23-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Has anyone played around with the orbit applet and if so what's the longest orbit that never leaves the screen you've been able to setup? I had one run about two hours before finally collapsing. I figure that's about 20 years.
I tried something similar, but with a different approach: I tried to see how long would it take for me to get one complete orbit for one particle around the globe (about 5 min). Then I tried to get the particle to behave chaotically (three bodies). One problem with this is that the system boundaries are unknown, but they're definitely beyond the small window... you can see a particle that went off some border coming back after a while . So it looked chaotic enough, but I didn't really check. Getting a particle to orbit the moon in a more or less stable way looks quite tricky (about 10 additional min). I believe that this gave me a good initial approximation at seeing how well done it is.
It's cool http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: If it's programmed just as an algorithm, it shouldn't be really chaotic in a strict sense, but you never know what programmers can actually manage http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Hoatee
03-23-2006, 01:21 PM
Science Teacher was on strike one day. So we all sat around talking and laughing amongst ourselves until suddenly, teacher called us to attention again.

By way of demonstration he held a ruler in each hand. So he talked a bit about gravity and then hardly to our surprise he dropped the one ruler bit by bit.

Then our attention was drawn to the other hand but, instead of the ruler dropping down - it went up. And we all went wtf?! Until it became apparent that he had attached an elastic band to the other ruler - that was a great and funny science lesson by a teacher on strike.

raaaid
03-23-2006, 02:57 PM
id conform to undertsnad two particle behavoiour

imagine you make a tunnel from north pole to south and you drop an apple in the tunnel

would the aple dropped from the northern hemisphere come out the south end?

no because the aple has been put into an orbit of eccentricity one (so close its a segment, eccentricity 0 would be a circle)

the focus of an orbit of eccentricity one or segment is the extreme of the segment and the center of the earth is one of the focus of the segment ellipse

so the aple dropped from the north hemisphere would reach maximum speed at the center of the earth(focus) which once reached will reverse the sense of of the aple coming out in the same place where it was first dropped never reaching the south hemisphere

im using kepler formulas in an orbit of eccentricity one

Dean3238
03-23-2006, 03:20 PM
imagine you make a tunnel from north pole to south and you drop an apple in the tunnel

would the aple dropped from the northern hemisphere come out the south end?

Actually, without friction of any sort and assuming a perfecrly spherical and uniform earth, the apple would not be in an orbit at all, it would accelerate toward the center until it gets there, then the same forces would decelerate it on the far side. It would zero out and start falling back the instant it hits the same altitude on the other side it dropped from.

It would continue to do that until some other force is applied.

You'd get a orbital dynamic out of this only if the flight path wasn't aimed dead-on through the CG of the earth. In that case, the apple would 'bend' its path based on that off-center acceleration due to gravity.

Now, to get your apple flight to happen you need to ignore:

1) The hole that is impossible to dig.

2) Friction from air (or whatever substance fills the tube).

3) The rather unequal distribution of earth's mass.

4) Earth's pear-shape.

5) Any problems with off-kilter conservation of angular momentum due to earth's rotation and travel around the sun.

But other than that, 'nuttin to it.

Dean

raaaid
03-23-2006, 03:23 PM
hehe i wanted to tease the knoitall from the physicsforums.com but they got afraid of me:


You have been banned for the following reason:
You're still banned eosphorus/eosphoro

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

raaaid
03-23-2006, 04:31 PM
"it would accelerate toward the center until it gets there, then the same forces would decelerate it on the far side. It would zero out and start falling back the instant it hits the same altitude on the other side it dropped from.

It would continue to do that until some other force is applied"

so if it keeps doing that forever isnt it an orbit?

so you have an ellipse of extreme eccentricity in which the minor axe is almost 0 and you say the focus of it where the center of the earth would be is in the middle of the ellipse?

Dean3238
03-23-2006, 04:53 PM
so if it keeps doing that forever isnt it an orbit?

so you have an ellipse of extreme eccentricity in which the minor axe is almost 0 and you say the focus of it where the center of the earth would be is in the middle of the ellipse?

Not "almost 0", it would _be_ zero. The flight path would be a line, not an ellipse, and in my book that makes it too simple to actually be called an "orbit".

It has the same "orbit" as a stone I pick up and drop (except that my stone has no tunnel and isn't precisely located on the pole of a perfectly uniform earth).

Besides, wasn't your point that it _wouldn't_ make it to the other side or something like that? My contention is that it will (under very specific circumstances).

Dean

Dean3238
03-23-2006, 04:59 PM
Wait... cross-checked your original assertion:


so the aple dropped from the north hemisphere would reach maximum speed at the center of the earth(focus) ...

Good so far...


... which once reached will reverse the sense of of the aple coming out in the same place ...

Not sure what "reverse the sense" of an apple means. Gravity will be slowing it, instead of speeding it up, but I have no idea if that is what you mean.


...where it was first dropped never reaching the south hemisphere

And this is completely wrong. Whether you mean it gets to the center, instantly stops and fails to cross the line, and goes back up or it just doesn't quite make it to the surface on the far side (what I originally thought you meant).

Question back at you: what is the force of gravity at the center? (No hints from the peanut gallery, please :-)

Dean

jolly_magpie
03-23-2006, 07:14 PM
What a pitiful waste of time this thread is. Wouldn't you rather be discussing something cool, like WW2 aviation?

Zeus-cat
03-23-2006, 07:20 PM
Question back at you: what is the force of gravity at the center? (No hints from the peanut gallery, please :-)

I know! I know!

DaimonSyrius
03-23-2006, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by jolly_magpie:
What a pitiful waste of time this thread is. Wouldn't you rather be discussing something cool, like WW2 aviation?
Hey, we're enjoying what we do; or at least I am.

Still, if that's what you think, have you considered using your own time better than in reading the thread (I assume you have read it, since you have formed such a strong opinion about it) and, even more to the point, better than in posting here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Also, have you considered that other people are under no obligation to provide coolness to you specifically? Not to mention the possibility that what 'cool' is might be a broader, or just different, concept for other persons than yourself http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Lastly, and importantly, as you may possibly know, de gustibus non est disputandum, which means, not that personal taste cannot be disputed, but rather, that doing so doesn't make much sense anyway.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Max.Power
03-23-2006, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Question back at you: what is the force of gravity at the center? (No hints from the peanut gallery, please :-)

I know! I know! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't taken physics since highschool, but if I had to swing a guess it would be net force = 0, gross force = 1 g, divided in all directions.

Zeus-cat
03-23-2006, 10:51 PM
net force = 0, gross force = 1 g, divided in all directions.

Close, but not quite. Let raaaid have a shot at it before someone gives.

Max.Power
03-23-2006, 11:51 PM
Close is good enough for me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

raaaid
03-24-2006, 07:07 AM
gravity at the earth center is 0

imagine a body with the earths mass and 1 cm radius you drop a ball10kmfromthenorth zenith of the body and make it an ellipse with a minor axe of 1 m and a bigger axe of 10km,an ellipse with an eccentricity of almost one

according to kepler the ball will orbit in an ellipse shape and the masive body will be at one of the focus of the ellipse

this means the ball will drop almost straight 10 km from the zenith of the north of the body will rise 10 cm in the south zenith and will return to the north zenith 10 km up and so on

my question is isnt gravity so odd it reverses the direction of the ball almost 180º when its a full speed? just like an ufo

Dean3238
03-24-2006, 07:29 AM
gravity at the earth center is 0

Correct... though Zeus-cat's "almost" post to that other fellow has me interested. While the net force is zero, the force pulling _out_ in all directions, based on the mass in each direction and CG halfway between the center and the crust, becomes another, complex problem. But that all cancels out in a perfect, uniform earth-sphere.


imagine a body with the earths mass and 1 cm radius you drop a ball10kmfromthenorth zenith of the body and make it an ellipse with a minor axe of 1 m and a bigger axe of 10km,an ellipse with an eccentricity of almost one

Nope, it will not have a minor axis of 1m. It will have a non-ellipical path that incercepts (hits) the massive object.


according to kepler the ball will orbit in an ellipse shape and the masive body will be at one of the focus of the ellipse

Only if the object has a lateral KE of an amount needed to "clear" the massive object. Otherwise, you won't get an ellipse at all.


this means the ball will drop almost straight 10 km from the zenith of the north of the body will rise 10 cm in the south zenith and will return to the north zenith 10 km up and so on

Nope, it will accelerate for the first 10km, have no force on it for an instant (at the center) and then start slowly decelerating. Short other forces, velocity will finally become zero again 10 km on the other side.


my question is isnt gravity so odd it reverses the direction of the ball almost 180º when its a full speed? just like an ufo

That's the problem, it _doesn't_ reverse the direction (assuming you mean velocity vector) of the ball when it hits full speed. The acceleration vector switches direction 180 degrees so it can point to the CM of the massive object and it starts slowly chipping away at the velocity vector until it finally becomes zero and starts going the other way on the far side.

You can model this behavior easily using a rubber cord and a ball. Throw the ball one way to get it started, the cord slows it to a stop at some point, and then pulls it back, it will go back through the center and go that far out again on the other side. Make it go hard enough and of reasonable length and you can make a good little simulator of linear acclerations... with a little loss due to frictional forces and some bend due to gravity.

Dean

raaaid
03-24-2006, 08:37 AM
"Nope, it will not have a minor axis of 1m. It will have a non-ellipical path that incercepts (hits) the massive object"

why not, i give the minor axe i want in the initial imopulse, being the minor axe 1 m and the body 1cm they wont crash

"Nope, it will accelerate for the first 10km, have no force on it for an instant (at the center) and then start slowly decelerating. Short other forces, velocity will finally become zero again 10 km on the other side"

what you are describing is an ellipse in which the masive body is not at the focus as kepler stated but at the center of the ellipse so it contradicts kepler

"You can model this behavior easily using a rubber cord and a ball. Throw the ball one way to get it started, the cord slows it to a stop at some point, and then pulls it back, it will go back through the center and go that far out again on the other side. Make it go hard enough and of reasonable length and you can make a good little simulator of linear acclerations... with a little loss due to frictional forces and some bend due to gravity"

again you are describing an ellipse hold by its center not its focus

in fact the whole purpose of this example is to prove that gravity cant be compared to an elastic rubber of constant tension because you cant model an ellipse as planets do with a rubber hold by the focus you can only hold it by the center of the ellipse, so agin this contradicts kepler

but if you compare gravity with a yoyo it works exactly that way and when you make loops with the yoyo(perfect ellipses hold by the focus) it behaves like a mechanical vortex

as i explain i think gravity is generated by the elliptical(vortical) behavior of matter

the bigger the eccentricity of an electron orbit the bigger the gravity, just like looping a yoyo the inner spiral half pulls harder on the finger thant the outwards spiral half of the ellipse orbit

DaimonSyrius
03-24-2006, 08:49 AM
Question back at you: what is the force of gravity at the center? (No hints from the peanut gallery, please :-)
My bet: Best description of gravity, better than just as a force (as simply a vector) or as an acceleration resulting from it, is that gravity is a field. A gravitational field, actually, that will be exerting force on any mass located in the field, and will be acting everywhere and all the time with a field intensity (hence, force on masses that happen to be somwhere in the field) that is proportionally related to distance from exact center, in the way Newton formulated. At the very center of the field, the field intensity is maximal, but net force=0 because of spherical symmetry, while the field itself, of course, hasn't changed at all.

Then, we might consider how a gravitational field would distort the space/time continuum itself, but I'll leave it there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Cheers,
S.

WB_Outlaw
03-24-2006, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
gravity at the earth center is 0

imagine a body with the earths mass and 1 cm radius you drop a ball10kmfromthenorth zenith of the body and make it an ellipse with a minor axe of 1 m and a bigger axe of 10km,an ellipse with an eccentricity of almost one

according to kepler the ball will orbit in an ellipse shape and the masive body will be at one of the focus of the ellipse

this means the ball will drop almost straight 10 km from the zenith of the north of the body will rise 10 cm in the south zenith and will return to the north zenith 10 km up and so on

my question is isnt gravity so odd it reverses the direction of the ball almost 180º when its a full speed? just like an ufo


raaaid, please show the math for this orbit. Note that stating "..make it an ellipse.." doesn't mean that this orbit is actually possible. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to see the math behind the stable orbit of of one very low mass body passing within 10 cm of an Earth mass body.


--Outlaw.

Dean3238
03-24-2006, 09:55 AM
Careful, this is becoming boring...


"Nope, it will not have a minor axis of 1m. It will have a non-ellipical path that incercepts (hits) the massive object"

why not, i give the minor axe i want in the initial imopulse, being the minor axe 1 m and the body 1cm they wont crash

You _dropped_ a rock. It won't have any lateral motion unless you give it some by throwing it sideways at least somewhat. Orbiting bodies already have that lateral motion which is a vector that is being constantly turned by the acceleration of the gravitational field. You rock has no lateral motion and the gravity acceleration being applied never drifts to any location other that straight down or straight up.



"Nope, it will accelerate for the first 10km, have no force on it for an instant (at the center) and then start slowly decelerating. Short other forces, velocity will finally become zero again 10 km on the other side"

what you are describing is an ellipse in which the masive body is not at the focus as kepler stated but at the center of the ellipse so it contradicts kepler

Not at all... Kepler is describing objects as they relate to each other externally, with each massive object acting as a point at its center of mass. Your rock, my friend is _inside_ one of the objects, surrounded by mass in all directions. It is a simple acceleration problem as a result, not an orbit around something.

You said yourself that the gravity force at the center is zero. That's not a statement you can make about Kepler's orbital bodies (since they don't go inside each other, they don't have to deal with that situation).



"You can model this behavior easily using a rubber cord and a ball. Throw the ball one way to get it started, the cord slows it to a stop at some point, and then pulls it back, it will go back through the center and go that far out again on the other side. Make it go hard enough and of reasonable length and you can make a good little simulator of linear acclerations... with a little loss due to frictional forces and some bend due to gravity"

again you are describing an ellipse hold by its center not its focus

A 100% flat ellipse, the kind of thing the rest of us might just call a _line_.



in fact the whole purpose of this example is to prove that gravity cant be compared to an elastic rubber of constant tension because you cant model an ellipse as planets do with a rubber hold by the focus you can only hold it by the center of the ellipse, so agin this contradicts kepler

but if you compare gravity with a yoyo it works exactly that way and when you make loops with the yoyo(perfect ellipses hold by the focus) it behaves like a mechanical vortex

as i explain i think gravity is generated by the elliptical(vortical) behavior of matter

the bigger the eccentricity of an electron orbit the bigger the gravity, just like looping a yoyo the inner spiral half pulls harder on the finger thant the outwards spiral half of the ellipse orbit

So, your claim is that the earth's gravity changes in effect on a eccentric orbit versus a circular one? Then why can I calculate any orbit of an objects using a gravitational constant for them? In that orbital applet, does the earth change based on how hard or what direction you "throw" the object?

The balance of centripetal forces changes, but that is a _result_ of gravity and the distance between the objects, not changes to the gravity itself.

To quote Clint in Heartbreak Ridge "Sir, you are really beginning to bore me..."

I've had my fill.

Dean

raaaid
03-24-2006, 11:32 AM
the problem is simple is the interaction of two particles orbiting around another and considering one fixed

i chose an orbit that has aminor axe of 1m and a bigger axe of 10 km, an ellipse of eccentricity almost one, normally in this kind of orbits with planets they will crash but being particles this wont happen

the particle that is fixed will remain in the focus of the ellipse described by the other particle,kepler

in an orbit of eccentricity close to one the body will reverse sense when it is at full speed, conclusion from aplicating kepler in orbits of eccentricity close to 1

Davinci..
03-24-2006, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
Blah.. Blah.. Blah..


What exactly is your point?? what are you trying to say?? or what are you trying to ask??

you really need to slow down when you type.. You do not need to hammer things out so quickly. Its really hard to understand what you want out of this post.

DaimonSyrius
03-24-2006, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
the problem is simple is the interaction of two particles orbiting around another and considering one fixed
So many complex problems become simpler when one does look at them in a simplified enough way (that's hardly surprising, is it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif). Although this may help to build an approximate model of the problem, the complexity of the real thing isn't decreased at all, regardless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

The restricted three-body problem assumes that the mass of one of the bodies is negligible; the circular restricted three-body problem is the special case in which two of the bodies are in circular orbits (approximated by the Sun - Earth - Moon system).
.../...
The restricted problem (both circular and elliptical) was worked on extensively by many famous mathematicians and physicists, notably Lagrange in the 18th century and Henri Poincaré in at the end of the 19th century. Poincaré's work on the restricted three-body problem was the foundation of deterministic chaos theory.
.../...
In 1912, Finland-Swedish mathematician Karl Fritiof Sundman developed a convergent infinite series that provides a solution to the restricted three-body problem. Unfortunately, getting the value to any useful precision requires so many terms (on the order of 10^8,000,000) that his solution is of little practical use.
Note: 10^8,000,000 reads "ten raised to the power of eight million".

Ultimately, it's all about the degree of accuracy and precision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision) we want to work with (if we may choose), or can obtain (if there is some limit), in the description of real phenomena, of reality in the broader sense.

High accuracy-low precision
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/67/Accuracy_and_precision-highaccuracylowprecision.gif

High precision-low accuracy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Accuracy_and_precision-highprecisionlowaccuracy.gif

By the way, this latter consideration makes the discussion relevant (even if in a broad, maybe distant way, but still related) to the general subject of modelling and simulating complex phenomena, like aircraft flying, for instance.

To those worrying, or concerned about, what use may be to discussing these or other things, I'd remind what Bobby McFerrin used to sing (http://www.bobbymcferrin.com/dwbh_loader.html) (or see this text-only version (http://www.80smusiclyrics.com/artists/bobbymcferrin.htm)) and recommend to just participate with some contribution, or to just skip to the next interesting discussion, whatever the personal scope of 'interesting' may be.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

NonWonderDog
03-24-2006, 10:05 PM
I'm not sure that something dropped through a theortical tunnel through the earth would actually go straight through. The rotation of the earth is non-trival, after all, and it would be fallacious to say that the the tunnel would rotate at the same rate as the rock.

You'd end up with an ellipse. The rock wouldn't even reach the other side.


I just looked it up. According to Simpson, and assuming that the rock is not constrained by the sides of the tunnel, a rock dropped from the equator would miss the center of the earth by 300 km and come back up to the surface every 86 minutes, tracing out a spirograph path. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-24-2006, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
imagine you make a tunnel from north pole to south and you drop an apple in the tunnel

would the aple dropped from the northern hemisphere come out the south end?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dean3238
it would accelerate toward the center until it gets there, then the same forces would decelerate it on the far side. It would zero out and start falling back the instant it hits the same altitude on the other side it dropped from.
It would continue to do that until some other force is applied

so if it keeps doing that forever isnt it an orbit?

so you have an ellipse of extreme eccentricity in which the minor axe is almost 0 and you say the focus of it where the center of the earth would be is in the middle of the ellipse? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can consider that as a particular case of an elliptic orbit when the minor axis=0 , but the question remains (same question is applicable to some other of your imaginary models):

What's the rationale of (i.e., what's useful for) choosing a complicated way to look at something when a simpler way applies as much? I'm not meaning here to further simplify the problem, but rather to choose the simpler model that has at least the same predicting power. This would be one of the formulations of Occam's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor):

if multiple theories or subtheories have equal predictive power, the simplest one €" the one with the fewest unnecessary assumptions €" should be chosen.

In the case of the apple moving through a tunnel running from pole to pole across the Earth's centre, just look at it as a case of (frictionless if we're neglecting air, etc.) simple harmonic motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion). It would behave just like a weight hanging from a spring. A linear, undamped (if you are discarding friction and dissipation) pendulum, if you wish. You may of course look at it as a "unidimensional orbit", and then try to work out how Kepler's laws would apply in that very particular case (not to mention completely imaginary), but why? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The very reason that Kepler took the trouble of ellaborating his laws was that they were needed for describing other types of motion that were not simple harmonic motion... so you are just attempting to go his way backwards. Do you see my point? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity), also known as K.I.S.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle) (further variatons on Occam's razor)

Cheers,
S.

DaimonSyrius
03-25-2006, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
I'm not sure that something dropped through a theortical tunnel through the earth would actually go straight through. The rotation of the earth is non-trival, after all, and it would be fallacious to say that the the tunnel would rotate at the same rate as the rock.

You'd end up with an ellipse. The rock wouldn't even reach the other side.


I just looked it up. According to Simpson, and assuming that the rock is not constrained by the sides of the tunnel, a rock dropped from the equator would miss the center of the earth by 300 km and come back up to the surface every 86 minutes, tracing out a spirograph path. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Would this depend on whether we initially consider the [rock + Earth] as one system (with one single frame of reference applying to both) or, alternately, as the rock coming initially from outside the Earth system to enter the tunnel (i.e., an exogenous rock entering the Earth's frame of reference)?

Just asking... for the fun of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

raaaid
03-25-2006, 05:59 AM
ill try to be more clear, my point is to analize a free fall orbit without collision, i used the earth tunnel model to ignore this collisions but sombody else has thought of this and has used particles with mass, ill also do so

consider it a poll because there are just two posible answers:


i have particle A and i drop particle B from 10 km up

particle B will make an ellipse of eccentricity 1, that is a segment becuase it will go up and down in an eternal orbit(an ellipse of eccentricity one)

the question is will particle A remain in the center of the ellipse (center of the segment) or will it be at its focus(the extreme of the segment)?

in other word will the falling particle travel if dropped from 10 km altitude 20 km down or just 10?

will particle B start decelerating while keeping going down when it reaches particle A or on the contrary it will rebound up ?

so does gravity behave like an elastic rubber or like a yoyo?

i hope to have been more clear this time

Zeus-cat
03-25-2006, 06:38 AM
gravity at the earth center is 0

raaaid actually got something correct for once.

To be really technical, gravity isn't zero at the center of the earth; all the gravitational forces are cancelled out as the gravitational pull is nearly equal in all directions. I believe the correct term for this is a micro-gravitational field. The net pull of gravity is so small, that the object "appears" to be weightless. The simple way of saying this is zero gravity.

Nothing will ever be in a zero gravitational field. The object the farthest from the center of the universe will still be in a gravitational field. It may be very small, but it will never be zero.

AKA_TAGERT
03-25-2006, 08:18 AM
Does this dress make me look fat? Or is it the micro-gravity field that makes it appear that way?

DaimonSyrius
03-25-2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Does this dress make me look fat? Or is it the micro-gravity field that makes it appear that way?
Since youre asking (i.e., the very fact that you're wondering is an indication), I'd guess that, whatever the cause, you actually do look fat, at least to yourself and in that dress. And since you're not providing any proper visual cues -as such- about the matter, that's as much as can be guessed here so far.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Dean3238
03-25-2006, 10:14 AM
I'm not sure that something dropped through a theortical tunnel through the earth would actually go straight through. The rotation of the earth is non-trival, after all, and it would be fallacious to say that the the tunnel would rotate at the same rate as the rock.

That's why the tunnel specs said it had to follow the axis of earth's rotation from pole to pole. Trying to look at pole procession was ignored for simplicty, but using the poles deletes basic conservation of angular momentum, which would be disasterous if the tunnel was located anywhere else.

Your point is correct, but the problem was designed to avoid it.

Dean

DaimonSyrius
03-25-2006, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Dean3238:

Your point is correct, but the problem was designed to avoid it.

Your point seems correct to me, Dean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

And if we were to take into account the Earth's revolution around the Sun, or the displacement of the whole solar system, etc., then it would be applicable my question about which frame of reference is specified; more precisely, what are the initial conditions for Earth and rock, respectively, in relationship to the frame of reference specified in the problem's enunciate.

Cheers,
S.

Dean3238
03-25-2006, 02:03 PM
Your point seems correct to me, Dean

Thanks, down day for me... I have a J-3 Cub for sale, went on the market Friday, had two potential buyers come screaming in from left field taking up my whole day and neither reached for their checkbook.

Glad to know physics still works http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dean

NonWonderDog
03-25-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Does this dress make me look fat? Or is it the micro-gravity field that makes it appear that way?

"No dear, your fat makes you look fat, your dress merely fails to conceal it."
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think that's a Cleese quote. Fawlty Towers?

DaimonSyrius
03-25-2006, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Does this dress make me look fat? Or is it the micro-gravity field that makes it appear that way?

"No dear, your fat makes you look fat, your dress merely fails to conceal it."
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I think that's a Cleese quote. Fawlty Towers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hah, Cleese's point is titanium-solid too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
More blunt than mine was about the issue, but irrefutable in the distinction of what is and what appears to be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Jatro13th
03-26-2006, 11:36 PM
hehe i wanted to tease the knoitall from the physicsforums.com but they got afraid of me:


You have been banned for the following reason:
You're still banned eosphorus/eosphoro

Date the ban will be lifted: Never


I wonder why... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

God, this thread is better than the conveyor belt!

S~! Daimon! Back to the good old senseless "grocery physics" conversations eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-27-2006, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Jatro13th:
God, this thread is better than the conveyor belt!

S~! Daimon! Back to the good old senseless "grocery physics" conversations eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Hi Jatro, maybe you can confirm NoWonderDog's Cleese quote? Great avatar, btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Good conversational value in this thread, IMO, I'm having a good time... Incidentally, you may like to check how KrashanTopolova is currently doing, after the conveyor belt episode, in this thread about the maths involved in high-altitude level bombing (not overly long so far):
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7531059424/p/1

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,
S.

Jatro13th
03-28-2006, 12:13 AM
Hey Daimon, unfortunately I've left my Fawlty Towers DVDs back in Greece and cant see for myself, although I think Cleese said something like that!!

About that thread, I'm dissapointed with Krash because for the second time he makes sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BTW here's Cleese being a Luftwhiner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Jatro13th/ngerm16.jpg

DaimonSyrius
03-28-2006, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Jatro13th:
About that thread, I'm dissapointed with Krash because for the second time he makes sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BTW here's Cleese being a Luftwhiner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
I would think that Krashan is now realising that he had been walking the wrong way along that conveyor belt and is trying to amend...

Which, in the current context here, makes me ponder how a Silly Walks Dept. would be so very busy in these forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Cheers,
S.

Jatro13th
03-28-2006, 08:14 AM
Let the Silly Walks Dept get to work:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Jatro13th/sillywalks.gif http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Jatro13th/pic9346.jpg http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a172/Jatro13th/sillyw04.jpg

To tell you the truth, I like Krashan the way he was in the CBF, stubborn and imaginative!!!

By the way, do the things that we said just now do any good and provide any help for the solving of the antigravity problem? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-28-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Jatro13th:
By the way, do the things that we said just now do any good and provide any help for the solving of the antigravity problem? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
Of course they do!!11one!!

It's very easy to see that, just look up what gravity (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/gravity.html) means:

3. seriousness: the seriousness of something considered in terms of its unfavorable consequences
regarded it as a matter of the utmost gravity

4. serious behavior: solemnity and seriousness in somebody's attitude or behavior

So there's no question that we're doing very serious antigravity here!! Of the utmost relevance and/or importance!!

How could you ever possibly even start to consider the mere chance of contemplating that we might not???

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Dean3238
03-28-2006, 08:27 AM
By the way, do the things that we said just now do any good and provide any help for the solving of the antigravity problem?

Maybe so... look at how high John Cleese can get his leg.

Coincidence? I think not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Dean

Jatro13th
03-28-2006, 11:26 AM
To the both of you: ROFLMAO LOL LOL LOL
Never thought of it that way!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jatro13th
03-28-2006, 02:02 PM
Raaid, and the rest of you guys, if you want to learn about antigravity then google 'Podklednov' or 'Podkletnov'.

P.S. Please dont start flamig me and compare me with raaid, that guy is not mumbo jumbo, there seems to be some scientific basis for his claims since NASA is examining his findings...

raaaid
03-30-2006, 05:37 AM
nobody has commented in my thought experiment of an object on free fall supposing theres no collision with earth

if the falling object doesnt collide it will make an orbit whcih will be a segment or an ellipse of eccentricity 1

if you consider it an ellipse of eccentricity one according to kepler the object will drop to the center of the earth and then when the speed is maximum it will reverse 180º

if the no collision and center of the earth example doesnt satisfy you you can exchange it by two particles under a common gravity field

this 180º reverse at full speed is so odd for me im dreaming about it a lot

by the way interesting link but i like better antigravity from a mechnical point of view that is more easily understandable

NonWonderDog
03-30-2006, 08:42 AM
It would be a 180* reverse in the direction of acceleration, not velocity.

raaaid
03-30-2006, 09:06 AM
thats what intuition says

but think that the falling particle makes a trajectory which is a segment

this is an ellipse of eccentricity one

the planet particle can be in the middle of the ellipse or at its focus(the extreme of the segment)

kepler stated it would be at the focus of the ellipse

this means once reached the phocus of the ellipse of eccentricity one or the extreme of the segment it will reverse sense 180º

its not me who says so its kepler, or at least the consequence of applying kepler to an orbit of eccentricity 1

WB_Outlaw
03-30-2006, 09:37 AM
Kepler's equation with an eccentricity of 1 is a parabola, not a line. No "instant" reversal at all.

--Outlaw.

Jatro13th
03-30-2006, 11:14 AM
Alright, to end it all, 'cause this mumbo jumbo starts to get on my nerves:

In a closed system the energy that existed in the beginning, will be the same with the energy at the end (beginning and end are arbitrary).

Also, the momentum of a closed system remains unaltered, so long as there is no application of external forces.

All this applies with great accuracy for our macrocosmic cannon balls and chains.

Consequence, no matter how much the kinetic energy and momentum changes hand from one body to the other by the application of force (via spools, chains, strings, g-strings, tangas, bras, whips or any other S&M accessories) the system will keep its total speed constant. (friction between parts is negligible, and collisions are completely elastic).

You can bash your head on the wall as much as you want trying to explain the opposite, but the wall will not budge.

Physical laws are there and they will stay there. You either accept them and try to explain them better and better like Einstein, Planck, and so many others did, or you choose to shut your mouth and practice and talk about your other-than-physics skills.

This is not nazism raaaid, it is simple logic, it is common sense. I've seen you use that word a lot to cover up for your inadequacy to understand what is going on. The fact that no one is able to conceal their scornful tone should say enough to you as to your way of thinking.

---Quote:
in the first quarter(outwards spiral) the tension pulling donw is of grams so the guy goes 1 meter down

in the second quarter(inwards spiral) the tension is of tons so the guy goes 1 km up

in the last two quarters being a circle the same force that pulls up pulls down so theres no altitude gain

so you go down 1 m and then up 1km, 1m down 1 km up just by letting the cannonball go and winding an unwinding the spool at the right times
---End of Quote.

Ah, In one post of yours you said that the electrons of an atom counter rotate in pairs. When we say that we mean that the electrons are in pairs folowing the same trajectory, and one spins left and the other right. Not rotating in the same trajectory in opposite directions like your balls do.

All this is nonsense (and the word 'nonsense' is very light for the purposes of my post, but I can't use anything more grave).

If you want to achieve light speed, then the cannon balls at the beginning must be fired with an initial speed that gives them enough energy which, if transferred to you, will give you light speed.

You see, everyone fails to understand your 'logic' not because they are nazis but because they are sensible!

By trying to convince me that the inexplicable nonsense you are trying to pull is true, you, AT THE LEAST, ARE TRYING TO INSULT MY INTELLIGENCE raaaid!

I only have one good natured advice to give you, and you should take it because I'm talking serious. Do not dive into matters for which you haven't even got the slightest idea and knowledge. If you want to meddle with physics then start from the basics and do not jump to more advanced areas before having first really comprehended what you have just learned.

As for myself, I know my boundaries and borders of knowledge, and that is why you will almost never see me posting in luft or red whining post of people trying to convince other people of things that even they dont fully grasp.

I guess that some people here have understood that I'm a well tempered person who only wants to have some good time here in the forum, and I apologise for the tone of my post, but it was the only thing I could say to raaaid.

Mods, if you think that this is too much for the forum, then delete it and ban me if you like, but in all honesty... I couldn't hold it any longer.

DaimonSyrius
03-30-2006, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Jatro13th:
Alright, to end it all, 'cause this mumbo jumbo starts to get on my nerves:

In a closed system the energy that existed in the beginning, will be the same with the energy at the end (beginning and end are arbitrary).

Also, the momentum of a closed system remains unaltered, so long as there is no application of external forces.
You're very right of course, Jatro.
And those points had already been made here before.

About the 'nerves' issue... That's why Silly Walks Dept. was called in, too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

No need to waste nervous integrity at all, IMO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

NonWonderDog
03-30-2006, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Kepler's equation with an eccentricity of 1 is a parabola, not a line. No "instant" reversal at all.

--Outlaw.

Actually.... raaaid is right. I had to pull out my orbital mechanics book just to check, but a straight line (a "rectilinear ellipse" in this case) is defined as having eccentricity of 1 regardless of velocity. A parabola, of course, also has eccentricity of 1.

Frankly, I'm stunned. He's wrong about the instant reversal, of course, but I really didn't expect him to correctly state the eccentricity of a rectilinear orbit.

WB_Outlaw
03-30-2006, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Actually.... raaaid is right. I had to pull out my orbital mechanics book just to check, but a straight line (a "rectilinear ellipse" in this case) is defined as having eccentricity of 1 regardless of velocity. A parabola, of course, also has eccentricity of 1.

But is it possible to have an orbit that follows a "rectilinear ellipse"? It seems intuitive to me that at e=1 you can't strictly apply Kepler's equation. The path becomes a parabola at that point. Of course, I picked "Aircraft Structure and Design" instead of "Special Problems in Aerospace Engineering" when it came elective time so I am talking out my....well, you know.


--Outlaw.

raaaid
03-30-2006, 03:13 PM
ill explain it other way

take an orbit of eccentricity 0.999, almost a segment

when the planet passes by the sun, the focus, it reverses sense almost 180º,at maximum speed, draw it if you dont believe me, gravity behaves like a yoyo not an ellastic rubber

if gravity was like an elastic rubber the sun would be at the center of the ellipse but behaving like a yoyo the sun is at the focus

as for calling people nazi i onli did it twice in this forum and the second time i did it it was because to my post on reverse speech somebody said to me he wished people who spread this ideas end up so paranoid they isolate and die, everybody here know i have schizophrenia and that im a lonely person who very often cant talk to other people but here

as for reverse speech i dont believe it anymore because the guy who promotes it says two different person saying the same sentence will get two different reversals, this is false i tested myself

that was the kind of debate i was looking for, not for somebody to say he wished people like me die in isolation

NonWonderDog
03-30-2006, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Actually.... raaaid is right. I had to pull out my orbital mechanics book just to check, but a straight line (a "rectilinear ellipse" in this case) is defined as having eccentricity of 1 regardless of velocity. A parabola, of course, also has eccentricity of 1.

But is it possible to have an orbit that follows a "rectilinear ellipse"? It seems intuitive to me that at e=1 you can't strictly apply Kepler's equation. The path becomes a parabola at that point. Of course, I picked "Aircraft Structure and Design" instead of "Special Problems in Aerospace Engineering" when it came elective time so I am talking out my....well, you know.


--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, I'm leaning that way too; I'm just parroting. I don't actually know what equation it is that defines the eccentricity of a rectilinear orbit. It's not the most useful thing in the world, for obvious reasons.

The terminology of "rectilinear ellipse," "rectilinear parabola," and "rectilinear hyperbola" is just kind of stupid, too. All are defined with eccentricity of 1. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

DaimonSyrius
03-30-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
The terminology of "rectilinear ellipse," "rectilinear parabola," and "rectilinear hyperbola" is just kind of stupid, too. All are defined with eccentricity of 1.
I wouldn't go as far as considering the terminology 'stupid'; but rather, IMO, in the conditions that are stated for it, it's just simpler and equally valid to look at the problem as one of simple harmonic motion, as has been stated already, earlier in the thread.

Occam's razor, principle of parsimony, KISS... just no need to make it more complicated than needed.

Cheers,
S.

WB_Outlaw
03-30-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
as for calling people nazi i onli did it twice in this forum and the second time i did it it was because to my post on reverse speech somebody said to me he wished people who spread this ideas end up so paranoid they isolate and die, everybody here know i have schizophrenia and that im a lonely person who very often cant talk to other people but here

as for reverse speech i dont believe it anymore because the guy who promotes it says two different person saying the same sentence will get two different reversals, this is false i tested myself

that was the kind of debate i was looking for, not for somebody to say he wished people like me die in isolation

raaaid, what I meant was that those people should ALL go somewhere (the same place, all in a big happy non-lonely paranoid group away from me) and stay there. It was obviously not a serious remark and I apologize if you took it to heart, however, it is ludicrous to expect serious debate on such an obvious load of total garbage. In that thread, you stated that you spent some time "analyzing" it and believed it. I ask you again, what did this "analysis" consist of? The fact that you are now a non-believer for the reason above shows that there was no analysis or true testing on your part for the simple reason that the statement above is CORRECT and is REQUIRED for his theory. Of course, he believes the reason is because two different people saying the same thing may have two different "true" meanings behind them which is yet another stupid concept behind this BS. The statement itself is OBVIOUSLY correct b/c different dialects and accents of the same language pronounce the same phoneme differently. As a native Georgian (U.S. Georgia) raised in Louisiana, I speak VERY VERY VERY differently than a native New Yorker. We don't sound anything alike speaking forward so we won't sound alike when reversed (and it's NOT because Yankees are crazy even though they are http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) . That's one of the reaseons the WHOLE CONCEPT is a joke and it's so OBVIOUS it's not even funny. The fact that you refuse to believe the obvious even when it is pointed out is why so many people lash out at you.

Note that people who sound similar forwards will sound similar backwards, however, a simple FFT will show the differences between two people who sound exactly alike to the human ear.


--Outlaw.

Jatro13th
03-31-2006, 12:11 AM
Guys I think I'm going crazy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Is raaaid fishing or what? Because if he does then I'm hooked 110%, he really had me going.

Please raaaid, tell me you are fishing, please please please please pretty please...

DaimonSyrius
03-31-2006, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Jatro13th:
Guys I think I'm going crazy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Is raaaid fishing or what? Because if he does then I'm hooked 110%, he really had me going.

Please raaaid, tell me you are fishing, please please please please pretty please...
Whether fishing lines are set or not, it doesn't really matter, as long as other readers and participants keep cool and, most importantly, enjoy the conversation while the conversation lasts and brings up interesting subjects. This has been shown to happen on so many other threads started by raaid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Jatro13th
03-31-2006, 02:41 AM
Yeah you're right, maybe its me who has to cool down... But it was quite a shock for me since it was virtually my first real reading of raaaaaaaaaaids posts, and man, I felt like a turtle turned upside down, helpless and defenceless!

I'm over it. Now I'm immune to raaaids posts! My bashing was like the reaction of our body to a vaccine! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

raaaid
03-31-2006, 04:22 AM
i apreciate your apologies, now i think this reverse speech phenomena which is a fact are not voices from the uncouncious but coincidences, but for me coincidences are one of the biggest misteries

i think that a parabola of eccentricity 1 would be a semi straight line not a segment

but somebody answers this:

a planet is orbiting the sun with an orbit of eccentricity 0.999

if you draw it youll have to draw a segment(an ellipse) in which the sun is at the extreme of the segment (a focus) and the planet moves along the segment

now dont you agree this is odd with the concept we have of gravity? no wonder nobody wants to accept the planet will reverse sense 180º when the speed is maximum (when the planet seems to touch the sun)

so my question is will the planet reverse almost 180º when is at maximum speed?

or on the contrary you state the sun will be in the middle of the ellipse not at the focus? so the 180º reverse will happen when the speed of the planet is minimum?

i hope somebody sees my point, thers just no explanation for this 180º reverse at full speed, theres no explanation of why the sun is the focus of the ellipse

all i know it behaves exactly like a looping yoyo, and as i explained a looping yoyo generates antigravity

NonWonderDog
03-31-2006, 12:40 PM
A parabola of eccentricity 1 would be a parabola. An orbit that passes directly through the focus (along a straight line) and tends towards zero speed at infinite distance would be a rectilinear parabola, also with eccentricity of 1.

In a normal elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic orbit, the orbiting body will indeed have it's least radius of curvature when it is at maximum speed. It does not, however, change 180* instantaneously.

In a rectilinear ellipse, both focii occupy the same point in space. This means that there is essentially one focus, in the middle of the "ellipse." It's like a circular orbit, but with no radial component of motion. The orbiting body will change directions only when it is at zero velocity.

A looping yoyo still does not generate "antigravity," no matter how many times you repeat it.


Sometimes even a crudely drawn picture is worth a thousand words:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/KnowNothingBozo/Orbits.jpg

raaaid
04-02-2006, 01:20 AM
a rectiliniar ellipse has two focus at the extreme of the ellipse,the only time both foci are at the same spot is in the case of a circle, when the eccentricity is 0

think of it by the gardener ellipse making, they nail 2 sticks on the ground and put a circled cable around them drawing the ellipse

if you want to make a segment or close to a segment you nail the sticks in the extremes, you just can make a circle with a cable and one stick or focus

"the orbiting body will indeed have it's least radius of curvature when it is at maximum speed. It does not, however, change 180* instantaneously"

in the case of an eccentricity of 0.999 it almost will

and the question is simple how comes when it first drops reverses almost 180º and when goes up,opposite vector same speed reverses almost 0?

this doesnt behave like the newtonian model in which gravity behaves like an elastic rubber in which tension grows dividing the distance squared because this predicts that an orbit of eccentricity 0.999 would have the planet at the center of the ellipse

an kepler clearly stated this was wrong