Tesla's Zero Time Generator

Welcome to our community

Take a moment to sign up and join the discussion! It's simple and free.

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
I feel that we've gotten down to just butting heads and each telling the other that reality works in a fundamentally different way, so I'm going to try and come at this from another angle.

As I said further back in the thread, centripetal and centrifugal forces aren't forces in and of themselves, they're classes of forces. In the examples we've been talking about with the car, gravity is the centripetal force, just like in the example of spinning around with a bucket, the force supplied by you pulling on the rope is the centripetal force. So, in the example of a car accelerating along a road with gravity holding it down, what is generating the centrifugal force? (We're assuming the car is not a lifting body and does not have wings) And why would such a balance of forces still result in a downward acceleration?

In my explanation, there is no upwards force beyond the reaction force from the road that stops the car sinking into the ground. The apparent weightlessness is simply a result of inertia. It's also worth mentioning that there is no force pushing you back into the seat as you accelerate, or sideways when you turn. The reason you feel like you're being pushed back or sideways is because the car is using its wheels to accelerate, which means that the acceleration is not directly affecting you. You're effectively "catching up" with the car. It's easy to observe this, just watch someone else drive while you're standing at a stationary point outside the car. (Which, really, is the crux of the confusion here. It's easier to understand what's going on from the outside)

So, please explain in full where all of the forces in your example come from.

(And FYI, I don't own a car. I walk everywhere or take public transport, as I live in the UK and everything is like a 5 minute walk from everything else)

As far as torque goes, I think you're simply misunderstanding how calculations and dimensionality work, there is no error in the textbooks. Length is required to make the math fit the observations, otherwise applying force at different distances from the pivot would produce the same torque, instead of more or less.

I understand what you're saying about motion following curved paths now, but you seem to have it backwards. In the absence of any forces, an object will stay at rest or travel in a straight line. A single force can only produce linear acceleration and curved motion. At least two forces are required to produce curved acceleration. In the case of the electromagnet, your hand is producing the second force because you're not keeping the magnet dead centre. If you were to use a stationary electromagnet and a moveable magnet, and slowly turn the electromagnet up, you would see the moveable magnet move in a straight line.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
4,118
Ayasano

I agree with you that we are butting heads. It may just be in our nature on the way we view the world.

The reason I don't agree with the theories of motion we are taught in school, is because none of it is verifiable.

If it was verifiable, it wouldn't be a theory anymore.

Why aren't we taught facts instead about our reality?

It's almost like someone doesn't want us to look at the facts. So if you don't want me to look at the facts, you better have a good reason. No reason was ever given. In fact, a fact based physics and math based option was never even suggested. Those classes aren't available in school.

Of course this sparks my curiosity. Are they trying to hide something? Why so much effort to explain away centrifugal force?

So in my efforts in trying to find out what is being hidden, I discover there seems to be a distinct lack of any understanding concerning weight.

But easily verifiable direct observation shows 3 kinds of weight exist. Inertial weight, gravitational weight, centrifugal weight. Kind of looks like jigsaw puzzle pieces to me. Two of the pieces are very similar to electromagnetic charge theory. Plus and minus charge, versus plus and minus weight.

The observable facts seem to be easier to understand than the warped theoretical explanations given.

As I said further back in the thread, centripetal and centrifugal forces aren't forces in and of themselves, they're classes of forces. In the examples we've been talking about with the car, gravity is the centripetal force, just like in the example of spinning around with a bucket, the force supplied by you pulling on the rope is the centripetal force. So, in the example of a car accelerating along a road with gravity holding it down, what is generating the centrifugal force? (We're assuming the car is not a lifting body and does not have wings) And why would such a balance of forces still result in a downward acceleration?

Let me state this as fact. Centrifugal force exists only as long as a connection to the center of rotation exists. With a bucket of water spinning around you, the connection would be a rope. We aren't talking about acceleration. Just the outward direction of weight the bucket of water develops. The water stays in the bucket.

Now the same thing happens with the car accelerating down the road. It doesn't have to be accelerating. But it does have to have some speed relative to the road. Take a look at the bigger picture. The earth is round. If that road runs completely around the earth, then the car is moving in a big circle. Just like the bucket of water. The faster the car goes, the more centrifugal force, or upward weight, will accumulate. That weight will cancel any downward weight it has. So gradually as the car goes faster and faster, it gets lighter. Up until it becomes weightless. At which time the car would probably leave the earth. I believe that is called escape velocity. Rockets use this same technique to get into orbit. Now of course this is just a thought experiment. The car would have burned up due to atmospheric friction probably before it ever gained enough centrifugal weight to cancel out its gravitational weight.

It's also worth mentioning that there is no force pushing you back into the seat as you accelerate, or sideways when you turn.

You speak as if you have never been in a car. Find someone with a sports car to demonstrate that you do indeed feel the presence of weight when accelerating or making a high speed turn.

A buddy of mine did this to me. He had a souped up 65 mustang. We were at a stop sign. He put a twenty dollar bill on the dash. He said if I could grab the bill by the time he got the car to the next intersection, the bill was mine to keep. He put the pedal to the metal. I tried to get the twenty dollar bill. I couldn't do it. My arms felt like lead weights. He made it to the next intersection, accelerating all the way. So yes, the presence of weight does exist during an inertial acceleration.

As far as torque goes, I think you're simply misunderstanding how calculations and dimensionality work, there is no error in the textbooks. Length is required to make the math fit the observations, otherwise applying force at different distances from the pivot would produce the same torque, instead of more or less.

It's not my misunderstanding. I aced all my math classes in school. I aced my physics courses too.

I was just trying to get you to realize there is an easier way to comprehend torque which leads to a better understanding of rotational dynamics. The choice is yours to make.

By the way. Thanks for a very enlightening discussion. I love talking about this stuff.
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
I'm enjoying our discussion too. It's rare to find someone who doesn't just up and walk away the moment you try to debate with them.

The reason we use theories is because it's fundamentally impossible for us to percieve reality as it actually is. (At least with our puny pre-singularity brains. Maybe one day we'll be able to see things as they are) All we can ever do is hope to do is get as close an approximation as possible. Did you know, for instance, that colour as a property of physical objects doesn't exist? It's just the way our brains interpret the various frequences of electromagnetic waves reflected. That's also why colourblind people see colours differently than we do. Their brains interpret the signals in a different way. Further, the only fundamental difference between gamma rays, infrared, visible light, microwaves, etc. is their wavelength. It would be possible to "see" all of those, if our eyes and brain were equipped to handle it. (Indeed, people with a condition called Aphakia can see ultraviolet light naturally due to having no lens covering their eye) It's also the basis of many an optical illusion. Your brain can't keep up with the mass of data, so it cuts corners and creates an approximation of the world.

As far as verification, you can verify a theory in the sense that you can make predictions according to that theory and they either come true or they don't. Like I said above, better theories just alow us to make more accurate predictions that cover a wider range of events. The problem with so called "facts" is that they have a habit of being proven untrue further down the line. A few hundred years ago, it was a "fact" that illness was caused by miasmas. Now we know better, thanks to germ theory. It's likely that one day soon we'll have an even better theory that fills in the gaps in germ theory. That's why we use theories instead of assuming what we know is true.

Back to the main topic, I have been in a car, and I know that when you turn or accelerate it feels like there is a force pushing you. My point was that there isn't actually a force, it's just a result of inertia causing you to "lag" behind the car. In the case of forward acceleration, the only forces are the reaction force pushing back at you from the seat, and the force of the engine accelerating the car forward. The apparent force pushing you backwards against the seat is just how you make sense of the situation from your frame of reference inside the car. This is what it all comes down to. Fictitious forces are just a way of keeping Newtonian Mechanics consistent with non-inertial frames of reference.

Another thought just occurred to me. You mentioned earlier that in order to become weightless, there has to be a centrifugal force cancelling out gravity. If you've ever been in an elevator as it descended quickly, you'll notice that you begin to feel lighter. If the elevator goes into freefall, you would be completely weightless. Now, under my explanation, this is another result of inertia and frames of reference. Inside the elevator you appear to be stationary and gravity appears to have lessened or vanished completely, but from outside you can see that you are simply falling at the same rate as the elevator. As the elevator slows down, the opposite effect happens and you feel heavier.

How would you explain this effect?
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
4,118
Another thought just occurred to me. You mentioned earlier that in order to become weightless, there has to be a centrifugal force cancelling out gravity. If you've ever been in an elevator as it descended quickly, you'll notice that you begin to feel lighter. If the elevator goes into freefall, you would be completely weightless. Now, under my explanation, this is another result of inertia and frames of reference. Inside the elevator you appear to be stationary and gravity appears to have lessened or vanished completely, but from outside you can see that you are simply falling at the same rate as the elevator. As the elevator slows down, the opposite effect happens and you feel heavier.

How would you explain this effect?

You know I wanted to get into this, but I was unsure you were ready for the realizations that come about concerning this phenomena. But since you asked...

Remember in school one of the main reasons used to debunk centrifugal force was that if you cut the rope with the spinning bucket, the force doesn't continue to exist anymore. The object continues to move in a straight line trajectory at right angles to the direction of the centrifugal force. So just from observation it appears a non-changing radius is required for centrifugal force to exist. But the weight vector always points outward. Cutting the rope puts the bucket into a state of motion that is at rest.

But the same argument could be used for an object in gravitational free-fall. The observation shows an object in free-fall is weightless. Notice that the radius to the center of the force is no longer constant. Just like with centrifugal force that solid mechanical connection to the radial center of the force is missing. So it appears a non changing radius is a required condition for the existence of both gravitational weight and centrifugal weight. So is gravitational weight a fictitious force too? Remember a weightless condition indicates an object is in a state of rest.

Of course there is the unexplained acceleration that takes over in gravitational free-fall. Puzzling for sure.

But wait! Just on a hunch I decided to graph the trajectory of the bucket of water in the centrifugal force demonstration. Only thing is I didn't graph from the point of departure. I graphed the trajectory from the origin of the radius. It turns out that the graph depicts the plot of an acceleration curve. Do it yourself if so inclined. So I guess it depends on the point of view you take from relative reference frames. One thing to note is that with centrifugal force the bucket isn't accelerating away from the radial center. The plot shows it is deccelerating away from the radial center.

Now it's discussions like this that occasionally give me an"Aha" moment. This was one of them. Because if you turn the decceleration plot around it looks like an acceleration plot. But to turn it around, you would have to change the direction of time. So these observations indicate that time itself may be directly related to gravitational acceleration and centrifugal decelleration. Two opposite time arrows. Now this is something new for me to think about.
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
You know I wanted to get into this, but I was unsure you were ready for the realizations that come about concerning this phenomena. But since you asked...

Remember in school one of the main reasons used to debunk centrifugal force was that if you cut the rope with the spinning bucket, the force doesn't continue to exist anymore. The object continues to move in a straight line trajectory at right angles to the direction of the centrifugal force. So just from observation it appears a non-changing radius is required for centrifugal force to exist. But the weight vector always points outward. Cutting the rope puts the bucket into a state of motion that is at rest.

But the same argument could be used for an object in gravitational free-fall. The observation shows an object in free-fall is weightless. Notice that the radius to the center of the force is no longer constant. Just like with centrifugal force that solid mechanical connection to the radial center of the force is missing. So it appears a non changing radius is a required condition for the existence of both gravitational weight and centrifugal weight. So is gravitational weight a fictitious force too? Remember a weightless condition indicates an object is in a state of rest.

Of course there is the unexplained acceleration that takes over in gravitational free-fall. Puzzling for sure.

As far as Gravity being a fictious force too, that's something Einstein wondered as well, which is why he formulated General Relativity. Remember the bit about gravity actually being warped spacetime instead of a force? It's all about the reference frames. ;)

Your comment about the object moving at right angles to the centrifugal/centripetal force needs slight modification. If you imagine a comet moving past the earth at some angle other than perpendicular to the line between the comet and the Earth, if gravity were to dissapear, the comet would continue moving in whatever direction it was already moving. You have to remember that not all orbits are circular or elliptical when viewed from Earth's frame of reference. (A comet's elliptical orbit around the sun, for instance, could give it the trajectory described above in relation to the Earth)

But wait! Just on a hunch I decided to graph the trajectory of the bucket of water in the centrifugal force demonstration. Only thing is I didn't graph from the point of departure. I graphed the trajectory from the origin of the radius. It turns out that the graph depicts the plot of an acceleration curve. Do it yourself if so inclined. So I guess it depends on the point of view you take from relative reference frames. One thing to note is that with centrifugal force the bucket isn't accelerating away from the radial center. The plot shows it is deccelerating away from the radial center.

Now it's discussions like this that occasionally give me an"Aha" moment. This was one of them. Because if you turn the decceleration plot around it looks like an acceleration plot. But to turn it around, you would have to change the direction of time. So these observations indicate that time itself may be directly related to gravitational acceleration and centrifugal decelleration. Two opposite time arrows. Now this is something new for me to think about.

Would you mind posting this plot as an image on the forum? I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the "origin of the radius". The centre of the circle the bucket would take while the rope was intact? (I'm still half asleep right now, so I might just be being dumb, heh)
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
4,118
Would you mind posting this plot as an image on the forum? I'm not 100% sure what you mean by the "origin of the radius". The centre of the circle the bucket would take while the rope was intact? (I'm still half asleep right now, so I might just be being dumb, heh)

I think this is from about ten years ago when I did this. But the plot appears to be an acceleration curve. Took me a while to find it on my hard drive. I used the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate the values of the increasing radius of the weight as it moves away at right angles from its disconnect spot.

FileSnack | Easy file sharing

FileSnack | Easy file sharing
 

Orpheus Rex

Member
Messages
479
Can I say that I find this conversation hilarious?;)
One of you is mainly arguing Newtonian et al. physics (or classical physics), and the other is arguing Einstien et al. physics. It's like arguing between Euclid's geometry or Lobachevsky's.
Both can portray the universe in a quantifiable and effective way, despite that they have conflicting interpretations of the phenomena. Einstien's theories have simpler and more multipurpose equations/formulas that are extremely accurate and as such are more useful in a practical sense (and admittedly explains inconsistencies in classical physics, such as the way the earth does not have uniform gravity). On the flip side, Einsteinian physics also predicts unusual phenomena that may not exist(although some of the phenomenas were later discovered, i.e. black holes.)
Einstien developed his theory by trying to unite the phenomena in classical physics, he did so by making time a spatial dimension. The math used for the simplification was borrowed from an obscure mathematician. The method Einstien used to solve to create the equations for his theory is rarely talked about.
Classical physics has no explanations of phenomenas except by relying on forces that have unknowable natures, but with predictable results.

Both versions physics have trouble answering anything in the quantum. That is why Quantum Mechanics was developed by a cast of hundreds. String Theory in turn is an attempt to find a more accurate and efficient equation that unites quantum mechanics to "macrophysics".
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
4,118
Orpheus Rex

I'm glad see you've taken an interest in the conversation.

I wasn't using Newtonian physics. I was using what I call observational physics. Its where I pick out observable facts that anyone can readily verify. And I believe I put forward a concept that I haven't seen or read about anywhere. Positive and negative weight. But you'll see no reference to anything like that in current day physics. It appears facts like those have been eliminated from the knowledge base we are taught from.

You see I'm not an advocate of theories. Just use the existing facts instead to understand reality.
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
I think this is from about ten years ago when I did this. But the plot appears to be an acceleration curve. Took me a while to find it on my hard drive. I used the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate the values of the increasing radius of the weight as it moves away at right angles from its disconnect spot.

FileSnack | Easy file sharing

FileSnack | Easy file sharing

You mentioned aboce that the bucket appears to be decelerating, but the time value is on the wrong axis. The bucket is actually accelerating away from the centre point.

Between 1 and 2 seconds, the bucket travels approx. 0.1 units. (Seperation of 1 on the vertical axis, time, and 0.1 on the horizontal axis, length)
Between 2 and 3 seconds, the bucket travels approx 0.3 units.
Between 9 and 10 seconds, the bucket travels approx 0.75 units.

Because time is on your vertical axis, you have to invert the gradient to get the speed.



I decided to try and plot a couple of graphs in Mathematica to extend your work. In all of the graphs, time is on the horizontal axis.

The original plot: (Distances vs. time, gradient is speed)

04207-be0ab8c0-2afe-4417-8c09-a9879e1a0733.png


Original plot extended to show how it the graph approaches a straight line:
04207-83f4a958-6f32-48a2-b559-ac8d9f96fbc4.png


If I did this right, it should show the derivative of the second graph, a.k.a the speed plot, gradient is the acceleration:
04207-d6beb648-d302-4b06-a581-8cfb6b815381.png


And finally, this shows the derivative of the above graph, so this is the acceleration graph:
04207-20f3f8e9-20ed-4994-b3ee-4151c7eab9a7.png


So you're right, from the point of view of the centre of the circle, the object does seem to be accelerating away, which seems counter-intuitive, since there are no forces acting on it. I'm going to post these on a physics forum to try and get some more info in case I've missed anything blindingly obvious. (It feels like this is another "frame of reference" problem, but I can't quite get my head around it)
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
Orpheus Rex

I'm glad see you've taken an interest in the conversation.

I wasn't using Newtonian physics. I was using what I call observational physics. Its where I pick out observable facts that anyone can readily verify. And I believe I put forward a concept that I haven't seen or read about anywhere. Positive and negative weight. But you'll see no reference to anything like that in current day physics. It appears facts like those have been eliminated from the knowledge base we are taught from.

You see I'm not an advocate of theories. Just use the existing facts instead to understand reality.

Actually, it has been concieved that exotic matter, such as dark mater, might have negative mass. (Which I assume is what you actually mean. Mass * gravity = weight)

Such exotic matter would make things like the Alcubierre Drive possible.
 


Top