kinetic energy hypothesis

[Ed]

This is one of those scenarios, like the "mechanical advantage swastika", where you're empirical data came from messing about with a car jack. Sorry, no over-turned science today. ;-)

[preoccupied]

You're being cynical, Ed. My original swastika posts were heavily disclaimed about how I remembered having a good swastika design when I was a child but that I didn't remember what it was. Put it in plain English or I mean use less criticism and put downs and more expression of your viewpoint. I am having a hard time recognizing where you are coming from other than that you are anti-whatever it is I say. It's hard to take you seriously if you don't tell me what you believe specifically about the topic. Do you think weights that change direction produce lift?

I think you just want to be a clown right now. You are not even having a conversation, you're just doing a public ridicule. Everybody can see in plain sight that you are trying to be a clown. I've attracted you, I think, with my own eccentric behavior. However now that we are on topic, how about you tell me? Do you think weights that change direction produce lift? If an ice skater held weights in his hands and pulled the weights back faster than he pushed them forwards, would it produce thrust forwards? Or would it speed. This is similar to what Jim_Mich had been asking before. It's basically the same question, only I'm very specifically telling you that I think that weights that change direction with more force produce lift...

[Ed]

Fine. I'm leaving work now, but I'll tell you what I really think, in my next post. Don't forget, you asked for it. ;-)

[preoccupied]

Okay, good, Ed.

Stay on topic please. I am asking you this very specific question:
#1 Do you think weights that change direction produce lift?

I think they produce lift if they change direction with more force. If weights change direction at right angles then a forwards momentum can be produced because the change in direction happens in one direction and to its sides, and the sideward momentum doesn't counter the forward momentum. #flyingcar

Take for example the chain fountain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEi7fO0_O0

#2 Do you agree with John S. Biggins?

I don't. #ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity

Take for example milkovic pendulum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNpgl7o_1QI

#3 Do you think milkovic pendulum works because it builds up momentum or would you humor the idea that when the weight changes direction that it produces lift?

Answer my questions. Please don't go off on a rant to support your bias.

[Ed]

#1 Do you think weights that change direction produce lift?

No. I think you don't understand the laws of motion, and are mistaking reaction with lift.

#2 Do you agree with John S. Biggins?

Yes.

#3 Do you think milkovic pendulum works because it builds up momentum or would you humor the idea that when the weight changes direction that it produces lift?

There is no "lift" the way you seem to think of it in this compound pendulum.

Please don't go off on a rant to support your bias.

Ah, I see. So if I told a Cardiologist I had a hypothesis he could substitute a block of styrofoam for a heart and a person would live, and he told me I had no idea what I was talking about, that I could just say he was bias? And now my question is a rant?

[preoccupied]

I didn't mean that anything you say was going to be classified as a rant. I thought you were about to explode with an onslaught of criticism and that my questions wouldn't be acknowledged.

About question #2, I respect your opinion. Everybody is going to believe John S. Biggins but I am the one that is actually right.

The biggest flaw that I see with John S. Biggins paper is that he lets the falling chain pull on the chain on the pot despite it having no pivot. Without by weights changing direction and producing lift (my idea), I think his idea would kick into the air and then wait until the chain falls to the rim of the pot to be pulled on again, because the chain needs to be pulled on by a pivot for the hypothetical bead to push against the table and the table to kick it.

About question #1 You might be right, I might not know everything I should know about laws of motion. Is it possible I'm "mistaking reaction with lift"? What specifically do you mean by reaction?

I'm accusing you of treating your science as a religion. you don't know what kind of special insight that I might have and by disregarding me with such enthusiasm it is no different than any other new idea that science fought to keep versus any other religion - this being your science which is being treated as a religion vs my new idea here.

My digital camera isn't working but when I pull on the dumbbells hard enough I'm almost certain maybe 80% sure that they lift into the air further after I start pulling them back down. For example, say I lift into the air about 3 inches when I'm laying on my back and do this. I am not doing a pull up. The weights continue to clime three additional inches as I'm pulling down on them. I weigh 230 pounds and that three inches, if they are being added to the height as I believe they are (I can't prove it my digital camera isn't working) then they are gaining upwards force from me pulling down on them.

There are so many reasonable explanations that might fit because of so many solid observable possibilities when people make scientific knowledge. A literally different explanation can exist for the same thing sometimes. I think, I think that is what is happening here for the chain fountain. The same evidences that say the chain fountain is kicked by the table could also be measured to be caused by weights producing lift without external force.

[Dunesbury]

the chain needs to be pulled on by a pivot for the hypothetical bead to push against the table and the table to kick it.

Why does chain seem to have invisible pivot?

[preoccupied]

The chain appears to have an invisible pivot because it is floating in the air and is supposed to have the downward pull pulling up on the chain in the pot. I think that the downward pull would pull all the way down to the rim of the pot before another forceful kick from the table could be applied to the lift. Therefore I don't think that equal and opposite force from the table produces the fountain. I think the only possible explanation is that motion without external force is produced by weights changing direction with more force. My dumbbell experiment would show this but for the life of me I can't get my digital camera to work.

[Ed]

I'm accusing you of treating your science as a religion. you don't know what kind of special insight that I might have and by disregarding me with such enthusiasm it is no different than any other new idea that science fought to keep versus any other religion - this being your science which is being treated as a religion vs my new idea here.

I am already accusing you of treating your 'religion' as science.

You are incapable of having insight, as you are never 100% sure of anything you post, by your own admission. Having insight means you have the capacity to gain an accurate and deep understanding of something. You have rejected my suggestions to use what is always right in front of you (the Internet) before posting, so how can you ever get an understanding of these things? Instead you call others, who know and understand basic science, biased. That's like saying someone is biased because they say they know 2+2 = 4, and you believe it's really 5.

Biased means unfairly prejudice. I hardly think holding up four fingers in unfair. Where is your "four fingers" in all of this?

It is always the burden of the person trying to overturn established wisdom to provide the proof, and it's you who disses all of the previous experimental efforts of many people throughout history and in various disciplines.

I still don't see one piece of experimental data to back up any of the wild ideas you are putting forth here. Perhaps you should wait until you can either collect more data from you dumb bells and camera, or illustrate to yourself that your eyes were playing tricks on you and the weights were not moving up at the same time you were pulling them down.

[preoccupied]

I'll record experimental data without complaint. You understand now though, that I am looking for the weights to be lifted up higher while I am pulling down on them and also them weights pulling me up with them as I try to pull down. This happens for almost 3 inches before I lose it and fall on the back of my head based on my observation without a camera.

What are the odds that nuclear weapons produce no heat but instead manipulate thermal conductivity? wouldn't that imply that secrets are being kept about nuclear technology? I think that's likely enough to look into because I certainly believe what I'm proposing here.

What are the odds that climate change is wrong and thermal conductivity regulates almost every aspect of the climate? The split between the two cold poles on the planet are required to attract the cold air or if the arctic melts up north the planet will cool rapidly and freeze, starting with the Antarctic consuming the entire planet. Once that happens it will take a long period of time before the frozen planet melts at its equator and begins a cycle with two cold poles again. We need to freeze the Arctic to prevent global warming and global freezing if I'm right. What are the odds of that?

What are the odds that shifting weights can cause vehicles to propel faster than anybody thought possible? I think so. I have the experiment to test it with the dumbbells. There is other things like the chain fountain that help support this long held idea by me if only my dumbbell experiment proves accurate to my hypothesis. You will see. I have a plant I mean. You will see if I'm right based on my plan. It's not like I don't have a plan. I'm 80% confident that my hypothesis is correct. It's like 2+2=5. I know the answer is somewhere around there. maybe about 80% sure it is. Actually 2+2=5 is 80% correct, as 4/5=0.8.

[Ed]

You understand now though, that I am looking for the weights to be lifted up higher while I am pulling down on them and also them weights pulling me up with them as I try to pull down.

Is this what's called "pulling oneself up by one's douche straps"? :-)]

What are the odds...

Your odds are at least 3720 to 1, but I would calculate much higher, if Han hadn't imposed a restriction.

[Furcurequs]

Take for example the chain fountain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEi7fO0_O0

#2 Do you agree with John S. Biggins?

I don't. #ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity

For the record, I think you should ask John S. Biggins how his lunch is, for I believe he is out to lunch.

He's talking as if the chain is somehow being launched up into the air by the glass or beaker or whatever. Seriously, all the interesting stuff is really happening in the air. The amount of descending mass is constantly increasing as the amount of ascending mass remains fairly constant. That's significant as too the accelerations and the conservation of both angular and linear momentums.

Yes, it's important that the weight of the non-moving part of the chain is being supported, but the chain is then just yanked up and out of the beaker a link at a time. The energy to accelerate the non-moving links and to "fling" them upward obviously comes from the descending part of the chain.

His idea about having a more rigid connection between links is probably somewhat valid, though, but for the behavior in the arc of the chain - not the behavior in the beaker.

I have a demonstration that I can do in Physion that might shed a little light on some of what's going on. I'll try to make a video sometime later.

Dwayne

[jim_mich]

He's talking as if the chain is somehow being launched up into the air by the glass or beaker or whatever.

He's a typical academician who thinks he knows everything, but is in fact rather ignorant.

The bead-chain rising up then falling is simple physics and also mechanics involving the fact the bead-chain will only bend so far, and as it falls it must pull more chain out of the beaker. And as the chain comes flying out of the beaker, the chain has momentum that carries it upward farther than the rim of the beaker. And at the peak, centrifugal force causes the bead-chain to be lifted, centrifugal force being nothing more than momentum acting in a curved environment. The limited bending property of bead-chain is the causative factor that forces the trajectory to form a curved path that mimics a wheel at the peak. Gravity pulls on both sides, but with much more weight on the descending side. And the centrifugal force acts upward on the equivalent of a spinning half-wheel. This is an excellent example of CF (in other words momentum) holding and supporting all of the weight of the bead-chain that is below the CF. This is an excellent example of how centrifugal force of a few bead at the peak can be many times stronger than gravity, so as to counter-act the weight of many beads.

There is no need to demonstrate this in Physion, because it has already been demonstrated in real life videos.

[Furcurequs]

The fact that you don't have a clue as to what I was going to show and that it's not a matter of centrifugal force is the very reason I need to show it.

[preoccupied]

He's talking as if the chain is somehow being launched up into the air by the glass or beaker or whatever.

He's a typical academician who thinks he knows everything, but is in fact rather ignorant.

The bead-chain rising up then falling is simple physics and also mechanics involving the fact the bead-chain will only bend so far, and as it falls it must pull more chain out of the beaker. And as the chain comes flying out of the beaker, the chain has momentum that carries it upward farther than the rim of the beaker. And at the peak, centrifugal force causes the bead-chain to be lifted, centrifugal force being nothing more than momentum acting in a curved environment. The limited bending property of bead-chain is the causative factor that forces the trajectory to form a curved path that mimics a wheel at the peak. Gravity pulls on both sides, but with much more weight on the descending side. And the centrifugal force acts upward on the equivalent of a spinning half-wheel. This is an excellent example of CF (in other words momentum) holding and supporting all of the weight of the bead-chain that is below the CF. This is an excellent example of how centrifugal force of a few bead at the peak can be many times stronger than gravity, so as to counter-act the weight of many beads.

There is no need to demonstrate this in Physion, because it has already been demonstrated in real life videos.

I highlighted what I am concerned about in blue. When the bead is at its highest, what is holding it up in order for the chain to additionally pull down on it? Imagine the very top bead is required to pull straight down before pulling back up on the beads in the jar. What do you think stops this requirement?

I do not think CF is holding the beads in the air by an invisible pivot so that they can then be pulled out of the jar. I think they are elevating as a result of changing direction and not previous forces. Previous forces wouldn't make sense because in the first place there needs to be a pivot in order for the chain to be pulled up on in the jar. The current force of changing direction must be the reason there is an elevation of the beads and this must be caused by the beads changing direction, that is IF there needs to be a pivot in order to pull up on the beads in the jar. I DO NOT think that the momentum of the chain flowing in a circle will allow the beads in the jar to be pulled on, because without some kind of motion without external force, I think the beads would want to be pulled straight down and hit the pot before lifting out of the pot. My brain is a little challenged today so bear with me. It's a legitimate question.