Flippin' Flywheels

[cloud camper]

I think it rotates.

[Silvertiger]

Why?

[cloud camper]

Well, an hour ago it was dark and now it is light.

That tells me something is moving around out there.

Unless the sun is rotating around the earth!

But I think that has been resolved.

[Silvertiger]

Is it impossible for the sun to move around the earth?

[Gregory]

This topic turned somewhat different since the last time I saw it! I can't follow it anymore...

Now I go to the kitchen, make my Ersatz coffee, put it into my derivating oven, set it for 3rd rounds around the sun/earth... Then when it is nicely loaded up with 3rd derivative energy, I will freakin' drink it and enjoy all those jerked molecules stroking down my throat! :D

[cloud camper]

So the earth has it's own sun but all the other planets got left out?

That's not fair!

[Silvertiger]

I used to have a forum before the owner's servers crashed. It can be tough keeping things on topic since regular conversations tend to migrate lol. This should go somewhere in off-topic anyway.

[agor95]

@Gregory - good one - just do not read all the posts :-)

I just read the first post - well there is a good idea lurking.

Regards

[agor95]

:-)

I really can not complete with your analysis; other than to say as the universe
rotates and the earth stands still C.F. is created in confusion and pulls on the chain.

Then all our hopes fly off, flush down, the pan of insanity. :-D

[agor95]

@Gregory

You returned to this topic?!. What did you find positive about the idea?

P.S. have another coffee and jetkin
Regards

[Silvertiger]

The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It Doesn't.

[Grimer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0hK1wyrrAU

[MrVibrating]

Brief update just to tie up my outstanding issues in this thread:

- the attempted inertial thrust concept just wobbled (surprise)

- as the 2-track robernoster showed, the thing's conservative - for some reason i'd mistaken 'elasticity' of ropes and pulleys in WM2D for 'ductability', when it actually means the thermodynamic kind, ie. WRT collisions. No non-dissipative losses there.

However, i did nonetheless find positive results WRT the hypothesis:

- changing the net system momentum, in an otherwise closed system, is a trivial matter of storing and releasing PE on-board the rotating system, by whatever means. Likewise, momentum can be dissipated away with KE losses from within a closed system. Obviously, this does not challenge anything, but it's probably still useful to be clear on.

- however, i also seem to have found another anomalous example, that seems more solid this time (!) - same deal, of radially-translating vs non-radially translating mass, and nothing else to the system; very elementary, yet with bewildering and surprising results. Very unintuitive, even when you think you understand what's going on..

To that end i'm going to start a fresh thread, with some very simple tests that go right to the issue. I'd intended to do this over the weekend, but instead spent it trying to make sense of the results.

It's too early for any solid conclusions but i think i may have found a cavernous rabbit hole right under our feet - some complex and fascinating dynamical interactions following straightforward logic, yet raising some tough questions, and perhaps, tantalising possibilities.

Honestly. all i'm talking about is moving an orbiting mass in and out - nothing else to it - how complex could the results possibly be? What i've found is surprising, yet in a retrospectively 'obvious' kind of way.. many of my basic assumptions have been challenged by this finding..

Just for a tease before i start trying to boil all this down semi-coherently:

- the simple act of pulling an orbiting mass inwards can cause it to undergo angular acceleration or deceleration. Or both.

- it can cause a rise or fall in its KE and/or momentum. In addition, however, net momentum can go down, even while net KE goes up..

The notion that pulling an orbiting mass inwards simply causes it to accelerate, while usually correct, actually only applies to a limited set of circumstances, easily modified..

TBC...

[ME]

This topic turned somewhat different since the last time I saw it! I can't follow it anymore...

Now I go to the kitchen, make my Ersatz coffee, put it into my derivating oven, set it for 3rd rounds around the sun/earth... Then when it is nicely loaded up with 3rd derivative energy, I will freakin' drink it and enjoy all those jerked molecules stroking down my throat! :D

Gregory..., you noticed ! :-)
I think the recent twist of relativisation (or 'static' ??) is plainly another distraction from that sub-topic which was a sham anyway.
While you feign your møck of counterfeit coffee, let me replicate what I previously manufactured; perhaps with an added summary (or imitation) of the preceding ersatzenizing subtopic?

Here's where Grimer starts-up his nonsense and attempts to take over this topic by griming up irrelevant old posts: [link]
At that point there's absolutely literally NOTHING of any interest added, but yet a perfectly good research-topic by mrV is violated.

In the meantime we learned that "3rd derivative-energy" is one (or more, or all) of these:
- Angular momentum;
- EG;
- Ersatz;
- Artificial gravity [by Me, but seems acceptable];
- Time dependent force (=Impulse force = momentum) [By Ecc1];
- Jerk energy or force [By Ecc1].

And while already "familiar" (link) with this stuff:
- F3;
- Rotational Kinetic energy;
- Angular momentum energy.

We also "found out" that "Artificial gravity" scores higher in similarity because "Artificial" lists alphabetically higher (first) on the synonym-list where "Phony" is last..[By Ecc1]

The main problem with all this:

• It misses some desperately needed specifics which only get more obfuscated with any word written or when a new description is added to the list.
  I think in effect it sabotages knowledge.
  I just return the favor, and resist that nonsense (I try at least)..

I don't think there should be any problem when we would actually use some named 3rd-derivative-energy-thingy to frequently describe some yet unnamed phenomenon, situation or occurrence. It could in fact be quite helpful - that's why we name things in the first place !
(In the meantime, I don' t get the impression that the ones who feel inspired by this 3rd-guy actually know what it should represent either. So a clear definition is also beneficial for them too.)
...but it should just be clear (for everyone of us, as for everyone new !) what this 3rd-thingy in reality represents before we can determine its usability and prevent it from pointing to both rotation and accelerationchange at the same time (perhaps accidentally the most fitting description?) or something completely different.

There...
(This little addition likely doesn't help to turn this topic back around the way it was, but that's suspected to be the whole crux of that 3rd derivative)

[eccentrically1]

The synonym list isn't in alphabetical order.

artificial, substitute, imitation, synthetic, fake, false, faux, mock, simulated
pseudo, sham, bogus, spurious, counterfeit, forged, pretended, so-called, plastic
manufactured, man-made, unnatural, fabricated
replica, reproduction, facsimile
inferior, low-quality, poor-quality, low-grade, shoddy, substandard, unsatisfactory, adulterated
phoney

Besides, they're synonyms. Their meanings are interchangeable. You can put them in any order you wish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonym

Once again, Frank's 3rd derivative energy is 3rd derivative of position, jerk.

Frank's "EG" is ersatz gravity, better known as centrifugal force, which ME prefers to call artificial gravity, because ersatz is confusing to some I guess.