Poll related to: "Big Troubles Brewing For The Theoretical Physics Smart-set"

[ovyyus]

He may not have been right about global warming but he was certainly right about God being in charge. Good for him.

If there is any certainty at all it is that he believed he was right. That is the nature of superstition.

[ovyyus]

One gravity wheel will prove once and for all that gravity is not a conservative force.

I agree.

Where is it?

[Furcurequs]

He may not have been right about global warming but he was certainly right about God being in charge. Good for him.

If there is any certainty at all it is that he believed he was right. That is the nature of superstition.

If it's the God of the Bible that this fellow believes in, maybe you should warn him to be careful with whom he aligns himself - for if that God is in charge... ...uh oh...

Rev.11 [18] And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

Bolding mine.

Dwayne

[ovyyus]

Dwayne, far be it from me to offer him advice. Reason has no place between a man and his superstition :D

[eccentrically1]

Wubbly ,
I have have asked this before , if a planet was not moving in space , like in dead still , not rotating or anything , would the fly-by of a satellite still increased it's PE if it cannot rob something or anything from the planet , what would the planet then have lost . Please explain .

Nothing in space is not moving. But if a planet wasn't moving, then there would be no fly-by assist; no energy to drain, so you are right, the satellite would exit the other side of the planet with the same amount of energy.

[eccentrically1]

Jim, Is CF considered a conservative force?

I discussed this very subject two years ago. See this post.

Item number 1: There is no such thing as "Conservation of CF/CP"
Do a Google search for "conservation of centrifugal force" and you will get about three hits. Centrifugal force is NOT conservative.

Conservation of Momentum is one of the most basic of Newton's Laws. Any object in motion continues in motion. Any object at rest continues at rest. Objects only change velocity and/or direction when forces are applied to the object. We see this in everything around us.

Conservation of Angular Momentum is a subset of number 2. But angular momentum involves rotation, which is an unusual situation. Thus conservation of AM requires some specific rules for calculating conservation, else the numbers don't compute to produce conservation.

For instance, a spinning ice-skater extends and retract his/her arms causing acceleration and deceleration of rotational speed. We only get conservation of momentum if we use radius of gyration calculations. Anyone that has attempted to build a PM wheel soon comes to understand that moving weights in and out on a wheel produces acceleration and deceleration of the wheel and the weights.

Jim, If it is, does that make you ignorant for searching a PM wheel powered by CF?

Since CF is not conservative, why would you think I'm ignorant? I admit, I'm an ignorant brain surgeon, for I know almost nothing about brain surgery.

This is a good example.
Fletcher showed how Jim was wrong in the next post , but it seemed to go in one ear and out the other like most fundamental physics explanations seem to do here.

If angular momentum wasn't conserved (which is how conservation of CF is explained, no need for a separate law) then different paths in an orbit (all other parameters being the same) would show different results.
In the spinning skater example, the skater wouldn't speed up or slow down when she extended or retracted her arms and legs, because her momentum would be lost, not conserved. She would always spin at the same velocity, regardless of where in space her mass was in relation to her axis of rotation.
But I expect this will fall on deaf ears, much like the explanations for tidal power phenomenon. Ok who's next? Ah, Ralph's Fluids.

[eccentrically1]

During my in depth research of the most highly acclaimed mathematicians regarding fluid dynamics I find they leave us with the statement: "It is assumed that fluid dynamics does not break any laws of conservation".

Could I see those links please?

Over a hundred here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_dynamics

Do a Google search on the following names

Scientists

Bernoulli, Boyle, Cauchy, Charles, Euler, Gay-Lussac, Hooke, Pascal, Newton, Navier and Stokes. Solve the equation and win big time!

Fluid Mechanics and assumptions found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_mechanics

Assumptions
Balance for some integrated fluid quantity in a control volume enclosed by a control surface.

Like any mathematical model of the real world, fluid mechanics makes some basic assumptions about the materials being studied. These assumptions are turned into equations that must be satisfied if the assumptions are to be held true.

For example, consider a fluid in three dimensions. The assumption that mass is conserved means that for any fixed control volume (for example a sphere) – enclosed by a control surface – the rate of change of the mass contained is equal to the rate at which mass is passing from outside to inside through the surface, minus the rate at which mass is passing the other way, from inside to outside. (A special case would be when the mass inside and the mass outside remain constant). This can be turned into an equation in integral form over the control volume.[1]

Fluid mechanics assumes that every fluid obeys the following:

Conservation of mass
Conservation of energy
Conservation of momentum

I can give you this link as a quick answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

Warning: Don't hang your hat on the approximate laws! :)

[murilo]

Ha, ha, haaaa....
How funny to see this discussion and arguments!!!
The giants are stepping and dancing over all...
Ha, ha... I see a messing cloud of green dots all on the air...
Take care!
M

Trevor, good when you said “work done� and work doing''!

Day will come when heavy 'green doters' and many giants will remake their explanations and change axioms...

They are lucky, since all giants are already dead and all papers and internet can be erased!!!

For sure, everybody will show enough FACE to face new stuffs!

Conservative and variable are the dynamic offered resistances, OR the nature and phenomenon comparison of action between two or more forces at any 'collision' angle and time.

GOD bless... absolutely!
TC!
M

[jim_mich]

This is a good example.
Fletcher showed how Jim was wrong in the next post , but it seemed to go in one ear and out the other like most fundamental physics explanations seem to do here.

If angular momentum wasn't conserved (which is how conservation of CF is explained, no need for a separate law) then different paths in an orbit (all other parameters being the same) would show different results.
In the spinning skater example, the skater wouldn't speed up or slow down when she extended or retracted her arms and legs, because her momentum would be lost, not conserved. She would always spin at the same velocity, regardless of where in space her mass was in relation to her axis of rotation.
But I expect this will fall on deaf ears,

Go back read again what I wrote.

I wrote in answer to question 2.

Conservation of Momentum is one of the most basic of Newton's Laws. Any object in motion continues in motion. Any object at rest continues at rest. Objects only change velocity and/or direction when forces are applied to the object. We see this in everything around us.

Then I wrote in answer to question 3.

Conservation of Angular Momentum is a subset of number 2. But angular momentum involves rotation, which is an unusual situation. Thus conservation of AM requires some specific rules for calculating conservation, else the numbers don't compute to produce conservation.

Since rotation is not linear motion, the math involved must be handled carefully, else erroneous conclusions may arise.

I then presented the ice-skater as an example of momentum being conservative.

Question number 1. was not about momentum. It was about CF. There is a difference between the two.

In Fletcher's post he went off on his usual tangent where he mixed gravity and potential energy and outward displacement and springs and when the falling weight did not rise to its starting height he rightly said that some of the falling energy went into the spring. Fletcher then came to a conclusion...

Since gravity is conservative & acceleration due to gravity gives rise to Ke in this experiment, & Cf's are an artifact of velocity & direction change, & there is no gain in Energy, then it can be concluded that Cf's [inertia derived forces] also cannot give back more energy than they received aka conservative.

And this conclusion is also correct as far as it goes.

The problem with Fletcher's answer is that it does not address the original question as to if CF is conservative. It only addresses if momentum is conservative. And I said that momentum is conservative.

Momentum is not CF. Momentum is conservative per Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum. CF is not momentum. CF is the result of momentum.

[1] CF is caused by a change of direction.
[2] CF is caused by velocity.
[3] CF is caused by weight-mass.

Change any of these three factors and the CF of the weight will change. Saying that CF is conservative because angular momentum is conserved is just plain wrong. If you change the angle, that is if you change the trajectory arc, then the CF changes. The momentum stays the same, but the CF changes. If you release the weight then its motion will become straight, that is there will no longer be any angular changing of direction. The momentum will still be the same, but the CF will drop to zero. Thus the CF of the weight is not conserved.

I try to choose my words very carefully so as to be a clear as I possibly can be. I am a perfectionist. I hate being wrong. I did not claim that momentum wasn't conserved. I claimed that CF is not conserved, and thus should not and is not considered to be a conservative force.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

One gravity wheel will prove once and for all that gravity is not a conservative force.

I agree.

Where is it?

You do not believe Bessler's Wheel worked by Gravity then? It is clear there need to be a second wheel, the importance is far greater than I first thought, I shall work harder to bring you one, will a gravity powered rotating wheel be ok even if it has a very low work take off?

With kind regards Trevor

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

...it is only a unfounded assumption that it [gravity] is a conservative force...

Unfounded assumption? Trevor, statements like this show how little you regard or grasp the long history and enormous effort put into understanding the physics of this subject. It boggles my mind how some people can claim that a thing is wrong without any indication that they understand the argument.

I had a short conversation with a shop keeper the other day about the patch of warm weather we've been having of late. He claimed that global warming is a crock of shit and that scientists are either stupid or they're trying to secure scare tactic grants funding. I asked what his expertise was in the field given his strong conviction on the matter. He said he didn't have any, but god was in charge, not man. Like talking to the Taliban. Duh.

Hi Ovyyus,
That history is just a split second in the time scale, billons of year of perpetual motion was gone before, and Gravity is still moving the universe! If you ask me about global warming I would say it is a to smaller time scale to make a informed judgement.

It is funny how they can gage planets mass by the gravitational pull and its orbit, if there is billons years of pull then there is billons of year of work done, and the constant work done to keep in check the Central fugal force that try to make the plants fly off out of orbit.

I have not seen any sign of a conservative force in my experiments, I have only seen bad use of geometry, wherein the way the forces are distributed within the wheel have made the wheel come to a stand still! By the same token it will be the way the forces are distributed within the wheel that will make it rotate.

Please feel free to provide me with some of the empirical experimental evidence that prove gravity is a conservative force, to give me a chance to evaluate the Theory because I have looked and have not seen any, only assumptions.

With Respect Trevor

Edit, spelling!

Hi grimmer,
The above quote is that of Ovyyus shop keeper, my quote is the one in the small box.
I do believe in God, only my God is the Universe, of which I draw great strength and energy when the need arises, also it is a Fact that you can die but you will always be a part of the universe! Thus I find it a little insulting when people call my God and Mother lazy and do no work, when the power of the Universe can be seen by all! Although some people seem to be unaware to the fact, but for me it is OK as it is not my business to what other people believe, of which it is there human right.
with Respect Trevor

Hi Jim Mich,
I fail to believe you that Gravity is a conservative force, if that make me ignorant then so be it, it does not make me insane quite the contrary, I have the right to believe that Gravity is not a conservative force, until you can give me absolute proof that Bessler’s Wheel was not a gravity wheel, of which it stands more of a chance than that of a Centrifugal wheel. If I fail to build a gravity wheel then it will be because I was not intelligent enough to do so, but to be honest I stand a better chance than someone who believes that Gravity is a conservative force, and the wheel was driven by Centrifugal forces, I find your manner and other of the same manner distasteful , that those who do not agree with you are ignorant and insane, when it is clearly a matter of what people believe.
With kind regards Trevor

[daanopperman]

eccentrically1
Thank you for your response , wubbly must have taken some leave .
I see it slightly different , but as usual I must be wrong , to me , if the satelite does it's fly-by , it is gravity alone that will cause the satelite to eccelerate as it aproaches the planet , as the KE increases , the escape velocity is much greater and the trajectory shift/change will slingshot the satelite and it's velocity will have increased . Mass warps space , funny things can happen , like warped boards in a wheel .

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Like I said,

You can lead an ignorant to knowledge, but you cannot force him understand.

I like this statement as it has a ring of truth, one mans understanding is another mans ignorance, time will find the ignorant that is for sure!

With kind regards Trevor

[Tarsier79]

For those that believe gravity is not conservative. Perhaps you could advise us which part is not conservative? IE how will you take advantage of gravity to make your wheel rotate?

Leverage? Weight path?

[justsomeone]

Yes.