Musings on Gravity

[ovyyus]

Bill .. an even cleverer mill operator would realize it did 'not depend on gravity for its energy source' but that falling or moving water imparted some of its momentum [i.e. Kinetic Energy of Movement] to other objects in its path.

True, but I imagine a mill operator might believe that without dependance on the force of gravity there is no falling of water.

The short answer is work can be zero even when there is force.

True again, but it's a difficult argument with those who might believe that a fridge magnet is doing work holding up your shopping list :D

[eccentrically1]

Murilo, Einstein proposed that very idea, that the gravity field deformed space time around a mass like the earth. It's been shown to bend light as well.

[AB Hammer]

eccentrically1

Well what would you think when a gravity only propelled wheel comes to reality? Will not this mean an untold amount of equations will be wrong and have to be done again with a new understanding? Then how much further will our science go?

I can see you would think of these questions a hypothetical. So please give answers to them hypothetically.

[Fletcher]

Bill .. an even cleverer mill operator would realize it did 'not depend on gravity for its energy source' but that falling or moving water imparted some of its momentum [i.e. Kinetic Energy of Movement] to other objects in its path.

True, but I imagine a mill operator might believe that without dependance on the force of gravity there is no falling of water.

Yes, that's probably likely but he might also have observed that water moving horizontally [like in a lake or slow river] can drive a paddle wheel or that deflected water shooting upwards can also turn an impeller - so I'm sure he would recognize the importance of the gravity field in allowing objects with mass to have Potential Energy which would become Kinetic Energy once movement occurred.

He may not think that all Ke was a result of downwards movement from gravity however, vis a vis gravity is an energy source - especially if he observed weather effects such as tornado's taking his mill house roof on an overland jaunt - he might think that the Pe of a raised mass actually came from a different source & that 'gravity' was a vehicle to restore original potential after a mass was acted upon by another raising force.

If he thought all that he probably wouldn't be a miller for long & would take a job at a university on higher pay ;7)

[Grimer]

Your statements seem correct to you John, because of the way you are thinking, or maybe just misspeaking, about energy.
First, falling weights don't consume any energy. And second, for a weight to fall, or rather be attracted to the earth, it first has to be lifted away from the earth. So what you're saying then, is that gravity is the source of energy that lifts the weight away from the earth and also the force that brings it back to earth. How can it be both?

Quite right. It can't be both.

In the case of a 2pi pendulum for example Newtonian Gravity takes it down, Ersatz Gravity takes it back up.

[eccentrically1]

Ab hammer, that question deserves a new topic. I don't have time right now, perhaps you'd like to start one.

[eccentrically1]

Grimer, could you provide a link that explains ersatz gravity?

[........]

eccentrically1

Well what would you think when a gravity only propelled wheel comes to reality? Will not this mean an untold amount of equations will be wrong and have to be done again with a new understanding? Then how much further will our science go?

I can see you would think of these questions a hypothetical. So please give answers to them hypothetically.

AB Hammer,
A working wheel would change nothing. All that would be needed is for someone to state that a working wheel is a satelite and that the amount of gravity it converts into velocity of the wheel is subtracted from the Earth's Pe. As it is, if a planet is used to accelrate a spacecraft, it is considered to slow the planet relative to it's increase in velocity.
If memory serves correctly, this hypothesis was first postulated by a Russian scientist in the 1950's and has since been proven.
Initially, it was considered impossible for a planet's gravity to increase the velocity of an object entering it's gravitational field without having the equal and opposite effect of slowing it on it's way back into space.

[murilo]

Murilo, Einstein proposed that very idea, that the gravity field deformed space time around a mass like the earth. It's been shown to bend light as well.

It's easy to 'see' that gravity field would be deformed.
Same as happens in water tides in-between earth and moon.
Not sure if 'g' field in tides is just elongated, or stronger, or even accumulated, in one direction and while wicker at opposite. (as with magnets.)

I have seen people discussing about space/time as it was something that is 'hard' and with physical existence, besides relative to observer, an hypothetical observer, that could be 'none'.

Best!
M

[John Collins]

eccentrically1 wrote;

Your statements seem correct to you John, because of the way you are thinking, or maybe just misspeaking, about energy.

First, falling weights don't consume any energy. And second, for a weight to fall, or rather be attracted to the earth, it first has to be lifted away from the earth. So what you're saying then, is that gravity is the source of energy that lifts the weight away from the earth and also the force that brings it back to earth. How can it be both?

When we calculate how much work is done by the force of gravity when a weight falls we use the object's mass and the vertical distance it falls. That's what I mean by consuming energy, calculating how much work was done.

And yes this is the crux of the matter, how can gravity also lift the weight? I have an idea about that which has already been dismissed but time will tell.

JC

[Grimer]

Grimer, could you provide a link that explains ersatz gravity?

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3950#73950

http://www.defza.com/notes/life/energy/35/

Bruce Welsh is an electronics engineer with the open spirit which has been devoted to alternative energies for twenty years. It is convinced that one can build machines with on-unit.

He had an uncle who liked to arrange, to invent. One day, old Bruce of seven or eight years, returned visit to the uncle who showed to the grandfather the new play that it had made for his children (it had six of them).

The play made in the sixty centimetres height for a base of thirty centimetres square. It consisted of a slope in spiral of three turns and half. At the bottom of the slope a paddle wheel, connected by some gears to an elevator was placed going up to the top of the play where a hopper furnished with ten balls was. An opening to rocker in the hopper made it possible to let pass, one by one the balls which went down the slope into three to five seconds.

The ball touched the paddle wheel what gave a small upswing which released another ball whereas the first was on the elevator and went towards the hopper. And so on.

There were five balls at the same time on the elevator and the once launched play did not stop any more. To begin, all the balls were to be in the hopper and Bruce remembers to be thundered by the uncle because it had touched the paddle wheel, thus stopping the play started again soon by the uncle. And, several hours after, the play always functioned.

Did the uncle know that it had violated the laws of physics?

Its descendants do not know any more what became this play, it is probable that the uncle in recovered the parts as it was its practice to rebuild another thing, unless it does not sleep yet in an old farm, in dust… They do not remember either to have seen other apparatuses functioning in an autonomous way, nor of engine on the play, but know that the play had stopped afterwards weeks and simply set out again after being cleaned.

Foot-note: the slope in spiral is indeed a vortex and it seems that in a certain way the vortices add energy, one unceasingly finds them in many ideas related to on-unit.

(KeelyNet source of the 14/12/97)
===============================================
Posted: 25th May 2009, 10:01 pm Post subject: re: Serendipity

...
So I guess I'm asking Grimer is a Bernoulli vortex spiral any different from an ordinary straight incline ?

Fletcher put the above question to me a year ago. Since then I have had plenty of time to think about it and the discussions I have had with my builder (Vina1) have helped me to formulate the answer, which is yes, a Bernoulli vortex spiral is different from an ordinary straight incline.

I suppose the simplest explanation is that the spiral forces the falling ball towards the centre which implies work being done on the ball which has to appear in some form or other. The fact that work is being done is seen more easily if the section on which the ball is sitting and which is pushing the ball towards the centre is replaced by a string pulling the ball towards the centre. If one pulls the ball towards the centre then the ball will rise against gravity thus showing that work is being done on the ball.

So it seems possible that work done on the ball by the vortex spiral is leading to an increase in velocity, in KE, over that which would be obtained by a straight drop or a drop down a slope which is straight in plan.

Let's explore the matter further.

Consider the following diagram which shows a ultra heavy globe, earth mass say, being dropped on a roller mounted wedge slope with a height to horizontal length ratio of 1:4. Let the mass of the slope be negligible and the coefficient of friction between the globe and the slope approach zero.

Now the globe will fall vertically under gravity and squeeze the slope out as it does so. The horizontal velocity of the slope will be four times the vertical velocity of the earth mass

This means that the when the ball reaches the rollers the velocity of the slope will be four times the velocity it would have had if it had fallen vertically the same distance as that fallen by the ball.

Now what is taking place in the case of the vortex spiral and a ball-bearing is the inverse of the above. It is the vortex spiral attached to the mass of the earth which the high inertia object corresponding to the heavy globe and the ball-bearing which corresponds to the wedge being squeezed.

Another way of looking at it is to see the ball bearing as being a rider on the wall of death as it enters the steepest section of the vortex. In effect the riders are kept in place by the action of ersatz gravity .....



..... which exerts a greater force on the rider than natural gravity. For slopes below 45 degrees natural gravity dominates ersatz gravity. For slopes greater than 45 degrees it is the other way around.

The concept of artificial gravity will be familiar to all 2001 fans as the way is which gravity is simulated on a space station.



So Uncle Welsh had the action of natural gravity boosted by the action of ersatz gravity and this is how he managed to get a continuous flow of marbles around his toy.

From what I remember of vortex flow in liquids the speed of flow steadily increases until it reaches the velocity of sound whereupon the remaining central core revolves as a solid cylinder.
This fits comfortably with the above interpretation.

How on earth has this been missed. The answer is it hasn't. Bessler didn't miss it. Keenie didn't miss it and Bruce's uncle didn't miss it either.

Also, one has to bear in mind the way science has progressed over the twentieth century. Simone Weil, had the situation bang to rights when in her essay, "La Science et nous" she wrote,

========================================

What is disastrous is not the rejection of classical science but the way it has been rejected. It is wrongly believed it could progress indefinitely and it ran into a dead end about the year 1900; but scientists failed to stop at the same time in order to contemplate and reflect upon the barrier, they did not try to describe it and define it and, having taken it into account, to draw some general conclusion from it; instead they rushed violently past it, leaving classical science behind them.

And why should we be surprised at this? For are they not paid to forge continually ahead? Nobody advances in his career, or reputation, or gets a Nobel prize, by standing still. To cease voluntarily from forging ahead, any brilliantly gifted scientist would need to be a saint or a hero, and why should he be a saint or a hero? With rare exceptions there are none to be found among the members of other professions.

So the scientists forged ahead without revising anything, because any revision would have seemed a retrogression; they merely made an addition.

========================================

[eccentrically1]

Grimer, what you're calling ersatz gravity is centrifugal force and it's paired force, centripetal force. They don't make things rise against gravity. The forces balance each other, creating circular motion as long as the velocity of the object is greater than the acceleration of gravity.

Murilo, the gravity of the moon does make the oceans deform. Here is the wiki link to that phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acce ... 7s_gravity

John, any work that gravity does on a falling weight is undone when the weight returns to the position it was in before gravity began doing any work on it. Nothing has changed.

In circular motion, the force is constantly perpendicular to the object's direction. So no work is done on that object. Only when the force applied to the object is either at an angle to it's direction or parallel to it's direction, is positive (or negative) work done on that object. It's hard to accept, but that's the reality of work, force and distance, and gravity.

[eccentrically1]

Hammer, if gravity could drive a wheel, contrary to what ........ says, things would change; gravity would have to be a force that you could control somehow, similar to the way we control any mechanical engine. Beyond that, anything is pure speculation.

[Richard]

eccentrically1 said

"Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 1:26 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hammer, if gravity could drive a wheel, contrary to what ........ says, things would change; gravity would have to be a force that you could control somehow, similar to the way we control any mechanical engine. Beyond that, anything is pure speculation.


richard...replies..

welcome...my friend..to Bessler Wheel . Com

[AB Hammer]

Richard and eccentrically1

IMHO I don't believe gravity has ever be fully understood. For instance planetary magnetism and gravity may very well be two different things. Some believe that gravity is a pushing effect and not a pulling effect. Lets take water for instance. The deeper you go, the stronger the pressure. Some say gravity is what holds the moon in place. But what keeps it apart from being pulled into the earth? I understand it is leaving the earth with wider and wider orbits.

IMHO Once a wheel is proved, this will cause another step in understanding gravity. Also gravity will be at least to be convertible to energy. Then how far can we take this and how much more understanding will occur?


Alan