67,000 mph ... wheeeeeeeeeee!

[Michael]

It's inertia Jim. All objects follow straight paths. Cf arises when an object is forced to follow a curve. The curve of the object is relative to a pivot point. The talk of an absolute space implies a static framework, and it implies the pivot point is fixed to a place on this static framework of absolute space. But were that true you could not have two different objects in rotation having the ability to also have different linear velocities relative to each other.

[ovyyus]

Jim, this from your above posted website link:

Mach's argument is that Newton dismissed relative motion too readily. Certainly it was not rotation of the water relative to the bucket that should be considered but rotation of the water relative to all the matter in the universe...

Einstein replaced the notion of 'absolute space' with the notion of 'absolute space/time'. IMO, both are meaningless in a universe with no matter. In your capsule, determining inertia of any kind is a measure of your relationship with a material universe.

Does a spinning ring have no centre? :)

[jim_mich]

Michael, some of your statement is not always true.

It's inertia Jim.

Yes, CF is inertia!

All objects follow straight paths.

Yes, until...

Cf arises when an object is forced to follow a curve.

Yes.

The curve of the object is relative to a pivot point.

No, the curve is relative to the center point. It doesn't need to be a "pivot".

The talk of an absolute space implies a static framework,

It implies a static reference frame but the word "framework" implies something solid such as the Earth. Absolute space exists without any physical "framework" to reference against.

and it implies the pivot point is fixed to a place on this static framework of absolute space.

The pivot point need only be fixed to another object and the other object need not be static.

But were that true you could not have two different objects in rotation having the ability to also have different linear velocities relative to each other.

Maybe we have a communication problem? Some people, (maybe you?) think of CF only in a single frame of reference such as on a merry-go-round or such and they think of inertia as straight line projection. There is a half-way between gray area where inertia and CF merge and neither term adequately describes the situation. A swinging pendulum on a rotating wheel is just such a gray area. When the pendulum swings to and fro while the wheel rotates then the pendulum's inertial force depends on how fast it is changing speed relative to absolute space and not relative to the wheel. Both the pivot point and the weight are changing velocities simultaneously.

IMO, both are meaningless in a universe with no matter. In your capsule, determining inertia of any kind is a measure of your relationship with a material universe.

As long as any matter (such as the spinning capsule) exists then the background zero-point ether-energy must also exist and therefore CF will exist as the the capsule spins relative to zero-point ether-energy.

[rlortie]

Jim _Mich,

Pleased to see something we both can agree upon!

This is exactly what I was trying to impress upon Steve. To my thinking inertia and CF are never a "straight line projection" To maintain a radial path they are always half-way, and I could not think of a description to adequately describe it. That is other than to describe it as a tangent applied force from the combined CF and inertia.

Edited for Brevity;

Some people think of CF only in a single frame of reference such as on a merry-go-round or such and they think of inertia as straight line projection. There is a half-way between gray area where inertia and CF merge and neither term adequately describes the situation. A swinging pendulum on a rotating wheel is just such a gray area. When the pendulum swings to and fro while the wheel rotates then the pendulum's inertial force depends on how fast it is changing speed relative to absolute space and not relative to the wheel. Both the pivot point and the weight are changing velocities simultaneously.

No, the curve is relative to the center point. It doesn't need to be a "pivot".

Right on! and you can move the center point without moving the pivot! I call it a change in angular motion which cannot be done without a change in velocity. Take note; Jim says the pivot point and the weight are changing velocity, to do so puts emphasis on that gray area of CF and inertia.

Just my opinion!

Ralph

[greendoor]

Greendoor I'm trying to understand what you really mean ... the sentences look to condradict each other ... If you jumped forward while on a train and when in the air the train began to make a turn ... you would still be traveling at the same vector ie; velocity and direction, that you did when you first jumped despite the train now having a different vector relative to you from when you first jumped. It's the exact same thing as the pendulum, it's the 360 degree single rotational point that allows for this. No magic here, it's all just inertia.

Thanks - i'm not suggesting it's magic. Although I do share a similar view to Jim re. an absolute zero-point (or aether) frame. For the time being anyhow. Trying to get my head around this stuff.

OK - I like the train analogy. And I like the blurring of inertia and CF. Help me understand this then:

If the train is travelling at 200 km/h and I jump up into the air - I am not immediately splattered against the back wall at 200 km/h. However - if the train was violently accelerating, or decelerating - I could be spatted against the back or front wall.

Obviously Acceleration is the key difference. Not the actual velocity.

If the train was traveling at 200 km/h on a circular track - and I jumped into the air - I could be forced into the side wall. This is the same force of earth rotation - just a bigger train?

So are we saying that a rotating mass is constantly accelerating? (I know this is basic school physics, but i've forgotten most of what I learned - i'm more interested in heretical things).

I must admit, I never found a satisfactory answer to my school questions about conservation of rotary motion. It's just the way things are ... don't rock the boat ... it's obvious to everyone else, but not me ...

From what I can tell, nothing in nature moves in a straight line. The entire universe seems to be composed of rotating objects - which apparantely are all accelerating, and yet not requiring any more energy to do so? Call me a skeptic ...

Anyway - i'm just looking for the loop holes ...

[ovyyus]

As long as any matter (such as the spinning capsule) exists then the background zero-point ether-energy must also exist...

That's quite a proposition Jim. Can the existence of a single particle of matter really create a seemingly infinite universe of zero point (in our case 2.73K) background radiation? I guess we can't easily test your idea :D

For those interested in further reading (not exactly mainstream): http://www.calphysics.org/articles/sst97.pdf

[Gregory]

So are we saying that a rotating mass is constantly accelerating? (I know this is basic school physics, but i've forgotten most of what I learned - i'm more interested in heretical things).

Yes, in physics terms it is constantly accelerating. It is because acceleration in this situation is used as a vector quantity which both have direction & magnitude. So when you change only the direction (as the mass always changes direction while rotating) you changed the quantity itself, thus it's always accelerating, does not matter which speed it rotates, it can be a constant speed, and accelerating.

From what I can tell, nothing in nature moves in a straight line. The entire universe seems to be composed of rotating objects - which apparantely are all accelerating, and yet not requiring any more energy to do so? Call me a skeptic ...

Well, play from God's viewpoint for a while! :D
You have created perfect vacuum for first, there is no friction in vacuum. Then you created mass in the form of a horribly big explosion.

Once the explosion happens, you do not need any more energy and the masses will continue to fly away from each other, and the distances will increase over time.

The expansion showing an acceleration, because if you measure the positon of the material objects in timesteps, you will find that the range of the universe is increased by a greater amount than in the previous step, which means the speed of the expansion is changing in time, and that is acceleration. This is without putting in any energy after the explosion... It is only the space/range of the universe which is increasing and shows an acceleration, otherwise it is possible that two galaxies are only flying in their own directions at a constant speed, near the speed of light.

This is how I interpreted it, I hope it's correct. :D
It is similar to the balloon effect, when you draw points on the balloon and blow it up. There isn't neccessary a center point exist, so you can't measure your points relative to an unexistent center point, therefore you only can measure them relative to each other...

Now to mention a new point, there was a time in the history of the universe, when the acceleration was clearly greater than scientists would presume. It is called the inflation period / modell, and as far as I know there is no clear answer for why that's happened and what caused the increase in acceleration?

It could be a standard effect or combination of effects, or something very obvious, as there can be lots of theories for that. But what if when it was an unknown (PM) effect of some sort?

P.S. I preserve the right to be wrong in things I've just written here! 8]

[jim_mich]

That's quite a proposition Jim. Can the existence of a single particle of matter really create a seemingly infinite universe of zero point (in our case 2.73K) background radiation? I guess we can't easily test your idea :D

No, you have it backwards. The question should read, "Can an infinite universe of zero point energy create a single point particle of matter?"

I don't believe in a "Big Bang". That is only a theory in answer to the question of where does matter come from. I believe a better theory is that matter comes from standing wave patterns of zero-point ether-energy. New matter is constantly being made from ether-energy. The Earth is constantly growing and expanding in size and orbit. The whole universe is expanding as new matter comes into existence from zero-point ether-energy.

When a single point particle of matter moves in a curved path thus producing CF, how does the particle know that it is changing directions? It changes directions relative to ... what? If the particle is a standing wave pattern in the background zero-point ether energy then it changes directions relative to background zero-point ether-energy and it is the unbalanced force of the ether-energy against the point particle as it changes velocity and/or direction that causes it to experience inertia and CF.

[Gregory]

I don't believe in a "Big Bang". That is only a theory in answer to the question of where does matter come from. I believe a better theory is that matter comes from standing wave patterns of zero-point ether-energy.

Jim,

Strange, I think the only thing it doesn’t answer is where all the matter comes from & how it’s created. :D
The theory assumes that somewhere back in time, all the matter of the universe were concentrated in a single point without dimensions, which was infinitely dense and warm without the concept of time would had any meaning. But this does not answer where matter comes from... After all, I think this question is much more a phylosophic / religion related, rather than a scientific question.

I was against the theory of Big bang for a long time, but after carefully looking after things, I found for myself, that astronomical facts indicate that there was some kind of Big bang or something similar in effect. It may be not happened the way scientist think today, and maybe was not the start of the universe, but there was something which in effect was similar to the theory.

It is also another theory that matter is a standing wave patter of some sort, or some kind of opposite currents of a form of energy collided & trapped in a continous loop or something... It sounds great & logical, I share this viewpoint and I can believe it, but only God knows for sure.

When a single point particle of matter moves in a curved path thus producing CF, how does the particle know that it is changing directions? It changes directions relative to ... what?

I see this a little differently.

The particle is not a being with consciousness, it does not need to know where & how it is moving, changing direction or not... The effect we see is happening because these are the laws. Well, it’s not a good expression, but don’t mean laws identified by mankind, but the true laws of the physical reality/universe, just to name it this way. Nobody knows why they are exsit, but playing a game without laws would be a total chaos where everything can happen without any reason. Sure, kvantum physicist would like it... :D

So, in the example of a particle moves in a curved path, it is only its inertial property which causes it to „manifest� CF. And that’s because in a very simplifyed interpretation, inertia is only an amount of resistance being a property of mass & matter itself.

The particle has a natural resistance against changing its velocity in any way. (zero is also can be a value for its velocity) If something try to change it, the particle will try to resist the change, because it wants to move (or stay) in exactly the same way, direction & magnitude as it travelled (stayed) before. It wants to move in a straight line (or stay in a position) with a constant velocity. It’s like the particle does not want its own state to be changed in any way.

In a curved path the direction of motion of the particle is always in change, therefore shows a CF effect, while is trying to resist the change, but is restricted to do it, and only can indicate what it wants by showing an inertial effect (i.e. CF).

This is how I see it, but I can be wrong... Maybe we will never know what is gravity & inertia, and why they exist, or where the energy comes from to operate Bessler’s wheels, but I don’t like to introduce new concepts / variables if they are not neccessary for my understanding / interpretation.

This is just my subjective interpretation of the subject, hope you’re all liked it.

P.S.: Looks like I followed my old habit to write long posts. Damn, it effects my word count! Enough from me... 8)

[Michael]

The curve of the object is relative to a pivot point.
No, the curve is relative to the center point. It doesn't need to be a "pivot".

The talk of an absolute space implies a static framework,
It implies a static reference frame but the word "framework" implies something solid such as the Earth. Absolute space exists without any physical "framework" to reference against.

and it implies the pivot point is fixed to a place on this static framework of absolute space.
The pivot point need only be fixed to another object and the other object need not be static.

Jim the pivot point I mentioned can be the same thing as the central point. It's the point the rotating mass is rotating on, or the place where velocity can be reduced to zero, relative to the rest of the rotating mass. You stated earlier a rotating mass needs to be relative to something in order for cf to arise and have the values it does. Your answer to that was the frame of reference was absolute space. My comments are, no, the rotating mass is relative to a point. The pivot point,or center of mass as you stated. Which need not be relative to any fixed quality of space which absolute space requires. You said in the above quote that absolute space doesn't actually need to be a solid type of framework, but in the quote below it seems that's exactly what you did mean when you said the magnitude of cf is determined by the spinning objects reference to absolute space. The idea is echoed again in the sentence below that where you state you couldn't tell how fast you were spinning if it wasn't a reference to absolute space.

Relative to what? Certainly not relative to each other! The magnitude of CF (inertia) is determine by the magnitude of the change of direction relative to absolute space.

If you were in an enclosed windowless capsule in outer space you would know if you were spinning or not because you would experience CF or not experience CF near the outer rim of the capsule. From this force near the rim you would be able to determine how fast you are spinning relative to ... what? Relative to absolute space!

I'm not one to dismiss the idea of space time being a type of " fabric" and neither is science, but the exact characteristics of that " fabric" ( and I use the term loosely because I sit on the side that has the " fabric" as a value system more than being a " somethingness" quality to empty space,) vary from theoretical system to theoretical system. Einsteins "fabric" is different than quantum theories "fabric", which is different than string theories " fabric", which is different than the aether theory "fabric".
Newton's absolute space was one of space being static BTW. It fit in with his idea of what gods great design was manifested, and it probably helped his mind cope with the mystery of gravity.

Jim if you don't mind me answering to this.

1.When a single point particle of matter moves in a curved path thus producing CF, how does the particle know that it is changing directions? 2. It changes directions relative to ... what?

Please define a single point particle in this example. If we used the rotation of the earth, then the earth rotates from its center of balance, and therefore it need be only in reference to itself. If it is a point that travels in an arc, then the only way this can be done is by the interjection of a secondary force since the number one law of the universe is energy always follows the path of least resistance and the path of least resistance, most notably in an empty vacuum, is a straight line. So that secondary force can come from gravity, or it can come something else holding the object to the geometry of an arc, but always, always the object traveling the arc is referenced to another mass, one that is fixed relative to it, not to space. I know you are trying to tie in matter creation with something happening in spaces background, I have no argument with that. But it is just a theory, and the idea that space is just an empty vacuum is also a theory, my point is there are mathematical answers with it. As I said, to each his own.

[barksalot]

Jim

I understand what you are saying about absolute space, but as far as zero point energy I don't know.
Absolute space reference is needed for something to know if it is spinning.
It can not use heavenly bodies for that.

JMHO

Mike

edit-spinning seems to denote speed, change that to rotation or movement without rotation.

[Fletcher]

A body in motion can only know it has inertia if a force is applied to it - if the force is directly aligned with or against the direction of travel the objects velocity changes up or down - for example, the amount of energy required to bring a body to a halt [relative to local space] is the same as the body's kinetic energy before that force begins to act - conversely, to change the body's velocity up requires the exact same amount of energy that the body has accumulated in Ke [conservation of energy].

==> force by distance = work ==> work by time = power

N.B. energy is the capacity to do work

A body moving in a curve [no matter how shallow that curve is] can only know it has inertia [& therefore CF] if it has a force acting on it i.e. a Centripetal Force restraint of some sort - as soon as that Centripetal Force is removed the body heads off unaffected again in its new direction & is once again unaware of its inertia until another force acts on it.

The questions are ... is CF more than just plain Kinetic Energy & can its use break the conservation of energy law ?

[ovyyus]

I believe a better theory is that matter comes from standing wave patterns of zero-point ether-energy. New matter is constantly being made from ether-energy. The Earth is constantly growing and expanding in size and orbit...

If new matter is constantly being made, then why do we not see a continuous particle creation process occuring everywhere around us?

What evidence is there that Earth is constantly growing and expanding in size and orbit, beyond the known effects of accretion, tidal losses, etc, which effect what otherwise appears to be a completely conservative orbital momentum?

When a single point particle of matter moves in a curved path thus producing CF, how does the particle know that it is changing directions? It changes directions relative to ... what?

As has been said, every time an object changes direction or speed it is through interaction with another object. Force is an attribute of matter, not space. Therefore, a single point particle can never move in a curved path in a universe devoid of any other particles.

Unless the component parts of a spinning object are held together by force (matter acting on matter) it's parts will fly apart and continue in a straight line. In that straight line trajectory obviously an object does not feel any force while it is not being acted upon by another object.

We don't feel the momentum of our body's hurdling through space at thousands of KPH. That's because everything is relative - the ground is hurdling with us at the same rate. Therefore, momentum is not something stored in an object like fuel can be stored in a fuel tank - it's something invested in the relationship between two objects, or more precisely the relationship between ALL objects. Inertia is what an object experiences when that material relationship changes.

[Michael]

Mike

edit-spinning seems to denote speed, change that to rotation or movement without rotation.

Barksalot I don't know why or what you mean when you wrote this to me.

[barksalot]

Michael

That was my signature, then my edit came after that.

It was not directed at anyone in particular.

Mike