Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Acceleration At Constant Speed? Centrifugal Force?

Physics

  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#18 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2671 posts

Posted 01 July 2019 - 02:59 AM

How do we separate the debunked ether from a spacetime medium that facilitates waves? 006 is suggesting acoustic transmission which also suggests a substance - normally acoustic means compression waves I think.

As I said to you before, Einstein originally said one could think of his spacetime as a sort of immaterial aether. But, as I also pointed out, the whole aether idea was dropped as it is not needed and in fact immediately raises all the awkward problems of motion relative to it, whatever it is.

 

If you want to regard spacetime as a sort of aether, I think you are free to do so, provided you make clear to anyone else that that is all you are doing. Aether cranks are two a penny on science forums and if you give the impression you might be one of those you will be asking for trouble. :)

 

Yes acoustic waves are compression waves. I would however be careful with the ideas of Dubblesox (real name Gareth Meredith). He is by his own admission on the autistic spectrum, he can't do maths, even though he has a hobby of posting screeds of it without explanation, and he reacts very badly to criticism. He's been doing this for years and is banned from just about every science forum on the internet except this one, so far as I can tell. I've had him on Ignore for a long time now (along with a number of the cranks and nutcases on this site). You may find it interesting to discuss things with him, but just be aware that you may not be getting established science from him.


  • Mattzy likes this

#19 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1288 posts

Posted 01 July 2019 - 03:01 AM

This is completely new to me. What inertial effects tend towards zero in a vacuum? Inertia can be multiplied by mass and force ie. gravity, and velocity but what relationship is there between inertia and gravity?

I wonder if there is any analysis of the fundamental question: Why (or how) does mass carry inertia? Did newton leave with his laws without further analysis? Mass on collision with another mass can pass on it's inertia to completely give up its velocity and pass it on like those swinging steel balls. It is interesting that the movement is passed on. I think we could just as easily accept that the movement is completely stopped by an equal mass (if it were so).

I wonder if inertia is something more tangible like gravity or spacetime that is not fully explored.

 

Ya and I am here to tell you interia is a useless concept that in higher level physics is rarely used, interia is something silly that newton thought was important but later in physics was basically discarded. If you doubt this look for the word interia in high level physics, you won't find it. Now moment of Interia in physics is rather useful especially when dealing with the spins of objects as it shows the shape of the object but normal interia is pretty much useless. I want to explain to you why this is so, because basically how often in the "Real Universe" are you going to have a object without any forces what so ever acting upon the object, how many massive objects literally have no force acting on them, literally none unless you have simplified the calculation being that even mass itself is the manifestation of a force thus any massive object will have some sort of force acting on it which makes interia suddenly useless and a remain of a previous time period where they didn't know things about the universe that we know now being that this is the actual case in "Real Universe" no matter how far the distance there will be still a small effect of a gravitational or electromagnetic force that acts upon the object even if it is hardly noticeable even from across the entire universe, it may be so small that a falling hair can overcome it but it is still there being that there is always a force on the object no matter what unless it exists in a void without forces because the actual range of electromagnetism and gravity is infinite. So the principal of newton's first law is never truly ever satisfied that there are no forces upon a object and there is nothing truly at rest.

 

The-Range-of-Gravity.jpg

 

Newton-s-Law-of-Inertia.jpg


Edited by VictorMedvil, 01 July 2019 - 03:30 AM.


#20 sluggo

sluggo

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 12:00 PM

VM;

"Real Universe" no matter how far the distance there will be still a small effect of a gravitational or electromagnetic force that acts upon the object even if it is hardly noticeable even from across the entire universe, it may be so small that a falling hair can overcome it but it is still there being that there is always a force on the object no matter what unless it exists in a void without forces because the actual range of electromagnetism and gravity is infinite. So the principal of newton's first law is never truly ever satisfied that there are no forces upon a object and there is nothing truly at rest.

 

[Anything without a limit is a contradiction in human experience.

In the 'real' universe, as opposed to an 'ideal' universe, the gravitational effect from the earth becomes insignificant and undetectable a few light years distant, since it is obscured by the gravitational noise from the remainder of the universe. This would also be true for em radiation.

A simple example is a rocket launched into space. In the 'ideal' world, the rocket acquires a momentum of mV, thus earth should acquire -Mv, to conserve momentum.

I.e., the earth should move a tiny bit in the opposite direction. In fact, earth (center of mass) doesn't react at all. The exhaust gases heat its surface and earth gets slightly warmer.

A cubic meter of space in a remote area, considered to be empty, is full of radiation from all directions. A small test object at rest within the cube would experience random energy fluctuations, similar to a tv screen with no signal.

 

This from another thread, re. Newton.

Yes, there is motion. No, there is not a complementary state of rest (lack of motion). How would you measure rest? 'Rest' can be defined as the state/relation of two objects with identical velocities. Now we have solved the illogical state of two objects at rest, while simultaneously moving through space at a large velocity.



#21 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 01:42 PM

What do you mean, what effects tends inertia to zero in a vacuum?

 

The ability to move something in space with little resistance causes very little thrust.......?



#22 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 01:45 PM

A sphere in space, with equal attraction on all directions, means your weight has decreased, it doesn't mean your mass has reduced, just for clarity.



#23 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 01:46 PM

It means the effects of inertia is pulling in all directions - this is analogous to free fall.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Physics