tar

SwansonT, I am not sure it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. In the rotating frame, there is something in the inertial frame that is causing the rotating frame to establish. The direction of the force that gets the merry-go-round spinning is important and interesting. The kid standing on the ground and pushing the ride to the left is applying an equal an opposite force on the ground, through his sneakers, in the opposite direction. This causes the ride to gain an inertial movement, and there is nothing at all moving in a straight line. Every peice and part of the ride is being coaxed into a circular path. Every peice and part following an instananeous tangent to the circle its distance from the center, puts it on/in. Every piece and part feeling the force of the surrounding structure, accelerating it toward the center, when it would rather go off on a tangent. Therefore there is force inherent in the momentum of the ride, as it continues to circulate and slow to a stop, even after the kid stops pushing, and there is nobody on the ride. So there is a force, an equal and opposite reactionary force applied by the peice of the ride to the outside of it, as is applied by the peice to the outside to it. A reality that is modeled by the propeller designers we talked about before, that model the propeller as concentric rings, applying various forces on each other. In their figuring the reactive centrifugal force must be considered, or the integrity of the propeller can not be assured. So, a body at constant velocity has inertia, but no force needs to be applied for it to continue to move. However, forces need to be applied to change the direction of a tangential straight line moving mass. Which is happening continually to all the peices of a spinning disk, inacted by all the peices around it, pushing or pulling on it. The only real forces we have to work with, are gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the forces that hold atoms together. There is no such thing as kid force, yet he is the one that got the merry-go-round, going. When he pushes the ride to the left he pushes the far side of the ride to the right, at the same instant. Here, my analysis of 24 tangential lines, approximating 24 radial lines (90 degrees offset) is important to consider, because each piece and part of a rotating disc is undergoing forces applied by the pieces surrounding it, and are thusly attached by the forces that hold materials together, to the parts of the disc heading North, as securely as they are attached to the parts of the disc heading West. The thought is that inertia heading out in 24 tangential directions, adds up to being radially outward. And so the pendulum swings in that direction. Regards, TAR

PeterJ, I did not look into Wu Wei, but think I may have been at least tangentially introduced to the concepts through conversations with folks who might have been intimately familiar with them. Interesting point, regarding that, in this thread on the illogic of Karma and Reincarnation, on a science forum, is that the "truth" of Wu Wei would not be any different if I learned it or not. It's truth content could be enjoyed without ever opening the cover. What is true, remains true whether I know about it or not. With Karma being thought of, as "what goes around, comes around" anyone can see the truth in it, without reading a book, or being taught by a wise old man. And in this, Karma is not illogical nonsense. On the other hand, if Karma is based on made up rules that have no actual cause and effect relationship to the universe, and no ability to be tested and experienced by uninitiated people, then it is leaning into nonsense land. The rules make no sense...there is no mechanism one can manipulate, there is no rule giver with the power to make it happen...except us. If the collective of all other individuals is considered to be objective reality, then objective reality is true, judgemental and powerful. One can be good or bad, in this collective's eye. Fearing hell, striving for heaven, is a good figurative way of framing the literal truth of having the choice to either please or harm others. As for reincarnation, I apply the same test. Can you be aware of, and experience the progression, without anybody making up the rules and teaching them to you. That is, if they are true, you would just know it. Like the Sun in the sky, it would just be there. You could ask John who he was last time, and he could say. This does not happen, because it can not happen that way. There is no mechanism to get Elvira into John. The rules are not based on reality, they are based on figurative, subjective value judgments, and one must venture onto some other plane of reality inorder to "get it". So the test is, if you cannot "get it" just by looking at it and experiencing it, then somebody made it up, and it has a heavy figurative meaning, and very little literal meaning. You said "rebirth" makes more sense than reincarnation, and here I would agree. Probably not according to the teachings, because I didn't read the book, but the idea of the same form and structure that existed in my mom and dad, now existing in me, makes perfect, evident sense. One can trace such rebirthing back to Lucy. It makes sense and there has to be a little Lucy in me, but Lucy is not an identity that I can claim I have all of, and you have none of. Regards, TAR PeterJ, I think the future is not determined. Reality is manifest, but only in accordance to what it just was like. What it will be next has not yet happened. And the mix is too complex to predict what will emerge. And there is no model that is truer than reality itself. As I have said before, you can write a formula for a peanut butter cup, you could design a model that described the position and momentum of every quark in a peanut butter cup, but the formula/model would not taste sweet and chocholatey. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, So, would you agree that force had to be applied to the 8 ball, inorder to get it going in a straight line, before the ring changed its direction? My speculation here is not in the least meant to redefine force or acceleration, or mass, but to investigate the forces applied to the object, before it was turned by the ring. The motions of the experimenter are quick, practiced and similar, every time he starts the ball going in the circle again. I tried to watch several times and determine what forces are applied to the ball to provide it with its inertia. I am thinking that one must overcome the stationary inertia of the ball, with a force, inorder to get it moving in a straight line so its direction can be changed by the ring. Earlier in the thread, after reading a few articles, I made the comment, based on what I had read, that reactive centrifugal force is different than apparent centrifugal force. And that the reactive centrifugal force was an actual complimentary force to centripedal force, required by the 3rd law. Is this not the case, that reactive centrifugal force is a different idea, than centrifugal force? If so, are there places in this thread where a false thing is said about centrifugal force that would be a true thing if the speaker had instead said reactive centrifugal force? Regards, TAR

PeterJ, If Karma is based on no free will, that destroys the purpose of the teaching, to cause one to attempt to be good. If you can not choose to "progress", then what is the point? At least, with an understanding that free will is operationally true, one can take the teachings of Karma and reincarnation, as figurative guidance. Without free will however, "being good" has no meaning. Regards, TAR

Thread Here is another squex, or sqube with the six sides. When you divide it up into the 12 sections though, the 12 sections are not identical. There are 6 of the 12 that are identical which you can see as the three on the top making a triangle out of three shield (kite) shapes and three on the bottom. The 6 around the edges of the hexagon are of two types. The kite shape can imaginarily be cut in half along the long axis yielding two right triangles which you can flip and join together along the long axis to make a rectangle. This is the shape of the 6 segments around the perimeter of the hexagon. 3 are left handed and three are right handed. This is hard to explain but you can see how they alternate. Interesting that the shield shape works like this. You can still follow six segments around on a plane, and there is still four such planes, such as is the case with all the figures so far divided into the 12 segments. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, You keep insisting that I don't get it. I have already conceeded that there is, by definition, no radially outward force. I am continuing the discussion on the basis of the real effects of the inertia a body has, and the forces that needed to be applied to give that body its inertia. The interesting thing about a circle is that you could get the merry go round spinning in one direction, by standing outside its circumference and pulling a vertical bar on your right toward you, and away from you to the left. If you were standing at 6 oclock you exerted a net force toward 9 o'clock. At any point however you were pushing some part of the merrygoround and its inhabitants in all directions. All the tangents to the circle move away from the circumference. When you pushed toward 9 o'clock, that made the person at 12 head for three. Always heading away from the center, as the centripedal forces were keeping the inhabitants headed for the center. In Janus' renderings, the positions after the breakup where in an arc left for one frame and in a straight line right for the other. In my start and stop spinning of the clay ball on the top of a pick, I felt the inertia of the ball, trying to stay stationary as I started and trying to keep going in a straight line when the friction of the clay against the pen slowed the clay disc. The combined inertial effects. That of wanting to stay still, and that of wanting to keep going in a straight line, caused and outward motion. No force going in that direction but fictious ones, apparent ones, and reactionary ones but that does not mean the results are not real. I think perhaps we have a philosophical disagreement here, not a disagreement over the facts. Regards, TAR Besides, according to the third law a reactionary centrifugal force, to the centripedal force, is a requirement. Apparent, convenient, fictitious or not, we can still talk about it. Let me ask a question though. If a force is not required to keep a body in motion, is a force required to get a body into motion? I am considering motion to be motion in a straight line, within an inertial reference frame. Secondary question. If a system like the Earth has everything moving together on its surface in a circle around its axis and the Earth is moving around the Sun, and the Sun around the Milkyway's center, where would one find an inertial frame to investigate? Isn't everything in orbit around something?

Strange, In the 8 ball video. Watch how the guy gets the ball going. He hits the ball with the ring then turns the ball by placing the curved ring in its way to guide it and pushes the ball with the back of the curve, moving the ring in a circular motion. Interesting to investigate the forces being applied to the ball to get its inertia going. I would speculate that they would add up to tangential/radial outward vectors, that would counter the inward, centripedal forces. So while the ball is being coaxed into a circle, by a net centripedal force. The ball was coaxed into motion in the first place, by a net outward force. On the playground the merry go round got going by pushers running round in a circle. As the thing got going faster than the pushers could run, the pushers stopped and swiped at the vertical bars, imparting a tangential, or outward force to the the passing bar. Regards, TAR

Strange, Thank you for the videos. I already get those explanations. The question though, for me, is not what forces are present, but the position of the ball on the end of the rope hanging vertically down from the bar on the merry go round. It is outside the circumference of the bar, and lifts further out, as you speed up the rotation. Looking at the circle from above, you could draw a radial line from the center to the point where the rope is attached, and the rope that the ball was on would be slightly behind this radial line, getting closer and closer to radial as the thing sped up. Its the inertia of the ball, that is the interesting thing to me. The 8 ball does go off in a tangent, as we all already conceed. But I goes off to the left and down, or to the right, or up and to the left, depending on when the ring is lifted. The thought experiment I am asking people to make, is to zoom away from the ring and visualize the ring lifted every 15 degrees, as the ball is at 12 o'clock, 12:30, 1:00...etc. The tracks of the balls will be straight lines, each one tangential to the circle, and going off in a direction normal to the hour hand at 12 o'clock, but in exactly the same direction, and parallel to the hour hand at 3 o'clock. (when the ring is lifted at the 12 o'clock position.) When looking at the experiment from 10,000 ft. in the air, the balls are traveling off in exactly the radial direction, along the lines pointed in the direction of at 12, 12:30, 1, 1:30... Regards, TAR This I find important to the discussion, because, on the playground it feels like you are being pulled outward as your arms are extended like the rope, and your body and head the ball at the end of the pendulum in the video, and when four kids jump off from four corners of the thing at the same time, they end up away from the center, all the same radial distance.

Mike, Someone suggested that if you put a marble in a vertical tube, you should not expect it to rise upward. We already know this is true. After all the inertia of the tube and the marble are pretty much matched. The rotation of the Earth is not a new thing, for either the tube or the marble. From the Wiki article on Coriolis Effect; "The Coriolis force acts in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis and to the velocity of the body in the rotating frame and is proportional to the object's speed in the rotating frame. The centrifugal force acts outwards in the radial direction and is proportional to the distance of the body from the axis of the rotating frame. These additional forces are termed inertial forces, fictitious forces or pseudo forces.[1] They allow the application of Newton's laws to a rotating system. They are correction factors that do not exist in a non-accelerating or inertial reference frame." In your muses you visulize somehow tapping into these inertial forces, as a source of energy. What is important to everybody here, giving us neg reps is that you use the laws of physics, and the already well defined F=ma to guide your speculations. If you suck energy out of an inertial body you would have changed something about the body. Its inertia would be different, for one. Regards, TAR

SwansonT, While I understand we cannot call outward motion the result of a radially outward directed force that does not exist, your answer to question c, that the fact that outward motion is felt or observed IS the discussion, as we are trying to understand why one feels this outward pressure, and why the lizard moves to the end of the tube, and why my clay ball on a pick tipped outward. I think Mike and I and RobbittyBob1 are trying to ask a different question than you are answering from time to time. And it is slightly unfair, in a speculation forum to not allow speculation. For instance, when I asked Janus for a rendering of what the picture would look like from a circulation frame, and what it would look like from a inertial frame, several periods later, no one made a comment. So I do not know if people ran this thought experiment in their head, or not. I do not know what people thought about my earlier consideration that tangential motion from a very small circle, looks like radial motion from a point. The tube idea is good thought experiment tool, because it IS a radial line. If an object moves out from the center, along this tube, it has to be moving in a radially outward direction in one reference frame or the other, or at least in reference to the radial line embodied by the tube. There is no force ON an object moving it radially outward, but the object, through its inertia was never interested in moving in a circle in the first place. An object is only interested in staying still. An object likes to move at a constant velocity in a straight line, even if that velocity is zero. Disturbing an object from its rest, or straight line motion, takes a force. In the case of the roundabout the kid wants to stay still when the round about start to spin. His head stays behind a radial line and he draws it in line with the radial with his muscles, informed as to which direction is up, by the position of the fluid, in his inner ears. By looking at individuals on a rapidly spinning round about, one can see the direction their bodies think is up, is the center of the round about, as their heads are bowed with the crown of their heads facing the center. The motor bike rider also has fluid in her inner ears informing her of which way is up, and which way she has to lean to keep from tipping over. The kid on the round about, and the motor bike rider "feel" like the top of their head, should be oriented upward, in a direction which is counter to gravity in normal situations and is counter some other pull in the round about and motorbike on a curve situation. This "other pull" is what Mike and I and RobittyBob1 are speculating about. We all three have conceeded that there is no radially outward force, as you all have carefully defined force as what would be required to accelerate a mass. The thread question is why centrifugal forces appear to act opposite gravity. This question is instantly identified as a bad question, since there is no such thing as a centrifugal force, except there is such thing as reactive centrifugal force, and there is such thing as artifical gravity, created by using the axis of rotation of a space ship to be "up" in the direction opposite the pull of the artificial gravity. In the spaceship example, with the artifical gravity the downward pull of the artificial gravity, is toward the outside circumference of the ship. This is a radially outward fictious force generated somehow by the inertia of the spaceperson. In Janus' renderings, the motions ceased to be circular, the instant the ship no longer had its tail in its mouth. What was the center was being retreated from, by all components in a direction parallel to a radial line, one radius away. After 1000 periods, the components would be distributed in a circle, with the original center, still the center. They would not have proceeded exactly radially outward...but close enough for government work. Regards, TAR

PeterJ, Autopilot? Seems to me, more like manual control. Autopilot suggest that there is an automatic thing going on beyond your control. There is an awful lot, that goes on way beyond a person's control...but it is interesting to note that it might be under someone else's control instead. Perhaps this aspect of the topic of Karma and reincarnation, is a more specific discussion of fate, or free choice, but it is probably an important aspect, because there is a difference in attitude, between people who think their thoughts, judgments and actions matter, and those who think they don't matter because they are insignificant, or because the place is already operating under someone else's control, and they have nothing to say about it. In this, a pact with the creator of the universe is not really a bad idea. Knowing you are just a tiny peice of universe material, but a peice of neither more nor less importance than any other peice, gives one an ownership, or friendship with the whole collection. A responsibility to the whole, because it is just exactly you, multiplied by a zillion, and has been happening for billions of years, and will happen for billions more, and is spread out over growing distances it would take light more time than there has been, to transverse. Having this pact, with what is essentially yourself, is not a false thing. The universe is not on autopilot, it just pilots itself, in manual. The quarks act like good quarks, the planets act like good satelites, the birds and bees act like good birds and bees, the rivers flow like good rivers and people act like good people...unless they have some bad karma to spread. Regards, TAR for instance a cell in your body lives and dies, and while alive does a good job of metabolizing, or passing a signal, or manufacturing a chemical or of being a structural item or a containing item or a muscle cell, or whatever...there is no real logical breakpoint to decide you are separate from these good cells, doing their job...it is easier to see that one whole human being is a collection of these many good souls... Someone earlier, maybe you, said something about breaking the mortal coils. I am thinking that is a useful thought, to live on a level where you become an object, even to yourself, but I think, for it to be real and valuable, you have to love the mortal coils, not seek to break them...but here is another logical objection I have to reincarnation. It assumes "the ghost in the machine" which puts the mortal coils on some impersonal, dumb, unrequired level, and promotes the soul, to something separate from the material universe. This makes no sense to me. How can you have an emergent thing like a hurricane, without water and pressure, and air. You need the mortal coils, or you simply are nothing but a thought, or spirit, or ghost. A pilot without a ship will not get anywhere. If "you" die, and inhabit another person, it won't be you, it will be the other person. What logical sense does that make? What happened to the other guy? Either way? Reminds me of my objection to the thought "I could have been born rich" or "I could have been born poor and oppressed." NO you couldn't have been. If the birth situation of a different person than yourself, is being considered, then its a different person than you, being considered. If it was you being considered, then the situation you were born into would be exactly the one into which you were born. You need your parent's to be exactly your parents from exactly the genes and experiences and locations that were their's inorder for you to be you. Otherwise, you would have somebody elses parents/history/location, and it would not be you.

Mike, You, with a tube, have very little centripedal force pushing the lizard toward the center. There is nothing radially outward from the lizard, but the air in the tube. The only thing contacting the lizard is the inside of the tube, which at all times, as you swing the arc is pushing on the lizard in a direction normal to the radial direction. I don't think it should move out the tube. Perhaps the tube is flexing, allowing the stationary inertia of the lizard to cause it to exit the top of the tube, as would happen if the tube were made of cloth. The lizard would stay still, and it would travel toward the open end of the tube as you attempted to pull the other end around in an arc. Or. Perhaps you are not holding the tube exactly on a horizontal plane as you pivot as the center point, but are pointing the end down from horizontal a little, and the lizard is merely sliding down the tube. To check this, lower the center end or raise the outside end to where there is a 10 degree slope toward the center end. The lead lizard should slide toward the middle. However, the tube idea is interesting to think about. But if you had a perfectly horizontal tube, and you spun it on its center, a lizard placed in the middle of the tube would have no reason to come out one end more than the other. Once you place it half way out the radius, and swing the arc, you are causing the tube to push against the lizard in some manner where the forces on its tail are not the same as the forces on its head. The head is traveling faster than the tail, for one, being at an increased radius. I don't know how this translates to an outward motion, but I saw it with my clay balls and you saw it with the lizard, so there might be an explanation that does not require any outward force. In fact there has to be an explanation that does not conflict with the laws of physics. Regards, TAR If you are using the inertia of the ball and just manipulating the tube to cause the inertia of the ball to take the ball toward the open end of the tube, there still is no force pushing the ball radially outward. I am convinced that physics is correct, and you and I an RobittyBob1 are not talking about this right. We are thinking about the inertia of the lizard. We are not finding any outward force acting on the lizard. We can not be finding any such force, because the way forces are defined needs the force to cause a mass to accelerate in the direction the force is being applied in. Sorry SwansonT. We cross posted. Also sorry for ignoring the well defined, understood definition of force. I get it now. What motion happens because of the inertia that a mass has, has nothing to to with a force acting on the mass to accelerate (decellerate) that mass (including accelleration in the form of a change in direction of the mass.)

MWresearch, Since this is marketing related, it might be useful to take a consumer, or person centric view of substances in general, to establish the categories in which you should find additional substances of value to the project. Kant critiqued Aristotle's categories as things Aristotle put down, as they occurred to him, whereas Kant's categories where arrived at with purposeful reasoning and adherence to a logical scheme, that included every angle. My starting points here then, would be to consider what substances a person needs to get survival things done, and what substances a person needs for enjoyment. An interesting help in this is the game Civilization. They have stategic resources on the map like horses, coal, iron, rubber, oil, saltpeter, aluminum and uranium, without these there are weapons troops, ships and vehicals you cannot build. They also have luxury resources. Eight luxuries. These make people happy, and allow for larger cities and production in the game, but might interest you. Gems, wine, spices, dyes, incense, silks, furs and ivory. Bonus resources that provide food and wealth are cattle, fish,game, gold, whales and wheat. Inorder to think of substance you might have missed, think of the consumer. What substances does she/he need to survive What substances are needed to build tools and quality of life improvements. What substances are needed for pleasure. And in each of these general areas think of some categories into which a substance might fall. If you have an area and a category without a member...well then think of a substance that fills the bill. For instance, if you look at the luxury resource list you have items that please the senses. And what are the senses. Sight (dyes), Hearing ( ), Taste (spices), Smell (incense), Touch (silk). The empty parenthesis gives you a place to look for a substance you might not yet have thought of. And just having the categories might help you think of more substances for your list. So look at substances in terms of what they mean to a person. Perhaps use Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, as a framework. Regards, TAR

Thread, Well, as Phi said. We do punish people for doing bad stuff. I say this, in regard to this thread, because people have a tendency to forget that "we" are part of the objective reality of any first person you might consider. In the theist, or loving God, or ultimate judge notions and beliefs, the individual makes a pact, has an understanding, with an individual with ultimate power, judgment and control. This God however is not the personal property of the individual, or logically such a peice of personal property, could not be actually the entity with which you made the pact. Thus thoughts that the whole of the universe is responsive to your thoughts, actions and motives is false...except to the extent that objective reality DOES respond and put you in jail for crimes against it, and on a pedestal, for helpful efforts. The garden grows when you plan and prepare and tend it. It does not exist if you do not plant it and water it and protect it. And if one does exist, the destroyer of it, the trampler, the unrooter, has caused the thing not to provide food. The good Karma, is when you are creating, present, and tending. The bad Karma is when you are destroying, absent, and hateful. It has nothing to do with a pretend individual judge. It has everything to do with your individual judgment and attitude toward the world, toward objective reality. Are you taking care of it, helping it, working in concert with it? Or are you at odds with it, blocking and complaining, hurting and detracting? Karma is, in its simplist form "what goes around, comes around". It is not the blessing or denial of blessing of lady luck, or Brahman, or the boogie man. It is the real fact, that the world is connected, and every subject is everybody else's object. You do bad stuff and it's liable to come back and hurt you. You do good stuff, and its liable to make things nicer for everyone. In fact that is probably the difference between good and bad. What you judge as helpful and pleasing is good. What you judge as hurtful and painful is bad. So Karma makes complete sense, with no magic or pretend individuals required. Regards, TAR

Alan, Another objection, something that seems illogical to me, about the reincarnation idea, is that it requires an identity of a certain size, that is not consistent or logical. It assumes that a soul is exactly one human being big. If you are good, you come back as a comfortable, pleasant human, and if you are bad you come back as a suffering, unpleasant one, or a sewer rat. I am not sure how you fit a human soul into a rat, or if, according to reincarnation principles you would come back as a bee, or the whole hive. There seems to be, to me, a collective consciousness that develops when people get together. Lovers, friends, cub scouts, family, schools, teams, companies, towns, states, nations, churches, clubs, and organizations of all types. Even talkboards have a personality, and a "soul" made up of the thoughts, actions, words, emotions and the energies and desires of their members and the rules and logistics by which they operate and exist. According to reincarnation theory, can you die, and come back as a new talkboard, nation, club, species, planet system, molecule, ecosystem, tree, forest or continent? Why exactly is there any logical reason why you should have been only of "one human" size in your previous existence and of any particular size in your next incarnation? Reincarnation presupposes that you are responsible only for yourself. I don't think this makes any logical sense. Not when it is so evident that when you go down it takes the team down a notch, and when you go up, it takes the team up a notch. I think soul or Karma exists and one experiences it when in a room full of people all thinking about the same individual, or thinking about the same project in the meeting, or thinking about the same nation at the war memorial, or in the halls of the capitol building. But spirit and soul and karma does not come only in individual sized servings. Regards, TAR Thread, Concurrent with the size objection is a number objection. Can two souls inhabit one body? Or can one soul inhabit 8? Would all 8 have to be born the same instant? On the same continent? In the same town? Which opens up other logistical questions, like what are the timing rules of the transfer from the dying body to the new one, and does a body get its soul at conception, or birth? What contains the soul during the trip from when it leaves the previous and enters the next? If a woman is born with a full compliment of eggs, does each one contain a half soul? Does a drop of sperm contain thousands of half souls? Are the sperm that do not fertilize an egg, representative of a badly lived, previous life? Regards, TAR

I am pleased that I am on the list of unique, interesting substances, three times. tar, cream of tartar

Janus, Thank you for the pictures and descriptions. It does differ from what my minds eye was envisioning, but I do agree that your model is correct and mine had the segment's maintaining their orientation to the the center. You showed about a quarter of a period. My speculation about where the motion would start to look more and more like radial motion was after a quarter period. Can you show us both frames during two complete periods. It is here that I am thinking the motion will look like rays from the center, and not spirals in the inertial frame. The rotating frame is pretty much gone, as soon at the bolts fail. Regards, TAR Janus, My thought being that each of the segments are pulling each other in toward the center, around in the circle, and once the bolts dissolve the circular motion is instantly gone. All that is left is tangential motion in a straight line. No material will follow a curved path in the inertial frame and all 24 observers are now in the same inertial frame and none are undergoing any acceleration due to a change in direction. The segments may each take on a rotation of their own, as seen by the other 23, and the other 23 thought of by the one as reference points might as well indicate this rotation to the one, but the CoM of each segment will be traveling in a straight line, not a curved path. All these straight lines have an origin at the original location of the spinning space station. What might look like a spiral during the first quarter period, should look more like a star after a couple periods. There are no forces causing anything to curve. Regards, TAR

Actually It will not get "closer and closer" to the radial. The tangent segment 18 goes on is exactly parallel to number 24's radial at the start and onward. They start out separated by one radius and since they are parallel lines, they will stay separated by one radius, no matter how long after the breakup, you look at it.

Thread, Segment number 18 (segments numbered 1-24 counter clockwise) will fly off on a tangent that will get closer and closer to the radial line drawn, at the time of the bolt failure, through segment 24. The segment (18) will get farther and farther from the radial line drawn through segment 18 at the time of the bolt failure (as the radial line drawn through segment 18 at breakup is orthogonal to the tangent line of 18 at time of break up, but parallel the radial line of segment 24. 18's tangent line will never reach 24's radial line but it will cross 19's, 20's, and 21's, 22's and 23's radial lines in pretty quick order (rough drawing looks like it would cross 23's radial line be it traveled a circumference (pi D) away in the radial direction. I will not ever cross 24's but it will look more and more like it is traveling in 24's radial direction since the direction is identical (the tangent of 18 and the radial of 24 are parallel, and only 1 r apart. So, initially at breakup the 24 segments are moving tangentially, but after about a period of previous rotation, the segments are going radially outward along the radial line of the segment that was 90 degrees clockwise at the time of breakup. After this initial period, anybody looking at the event would see only segments traveling radially outward from the center, where the space station was at time of breakup. Unless they knew which was number 18 and which was 24 it would not matter, it would look like they were all moving in a radially outward direction. There would be no rotation, either real or apparent, from either the inertial or non-inertial frame, after about a period...or so says my minds eye. Well I guess if you maintained the rotating non--inertial frame virtually, the segments would look like they were headed out in an ever widening spiral pattern, but after all the station broke up, so the rotating reference frame is no more. Regards, TAR Mike, No, I don't think it would rise up the tube you suggest. I think it would rise up the tube 90 degrees away in the direction of rotation. Which is, after all the tangential, straight line direction we are being told it should go in. But this would only be an opposite gravity direction on the equator, and it would only be close to parallel to radial, after a period of rotation or so, according to the 24 segment thought experiment. Regards, TAR

Thank you Janus, Those pictures are very instructive. We cross posted, but you answered my previous question about where the jumper would land. However, I am now considering what happens to the hull when the ship falls apart. Let's construct the station in 24 peices, each 1/24th of a circumference long with one of our crew of 24 standing on the center of their designated section. At the same instant all the bolts that were holding the segments together, fail (melt, dissolve, crumble to dust, what ever, but their faliure is instantaneous, imparts no force on either section and the bolts themselves are no longer present.) The astronaut and the floor would have no particular reason to separate and both the astronaut and the segment would continue in the straight line consistent with the tangent to the circle that the center of mass of the astronaut and the segment were on at the time of the failure of the bolts. From the rotating frame the segments would be moving away from a center point at a steadily increasing radius (radial motion?) From the non-rotating frame the segments would be moving away form a center point at a steadily increasing radius (radial motion?) If the center of mass of all the separated parts is considered the center, does not the tangential motion of each of the segments, when looked at together, from either the inertial or non-inertial frame, appear to be a bunch of stuff undergoing a radially outward movement, as the circumference of the circle the masses are occupying grows? Regards, TAR

Question to the thread. If you are on a space station that is designed with radius and is rotating with a period that would provide an artifical gravity of 1G, and you were to jump one meter into the air, would you come down onto the same spot on the inside of the hull that you launched yourself from? Regards, TAR

pzkpfw But when you say the space guy will go off at a tangent to the circle when the wall of the ship blows out, what circle are you considering? The circle along which his head is traveling, or the circle along which his feet are traveling? I understand the principle, and I have let go of spinning ropes and devices that throw tennis balls, and I have thrown pitches and such, where my hand was traveling in an arc and the ball certainly does go off at a tangent to an arc, but it is not nescessarily a tangent to a circle centered at the shoulder, or one centered at the wrist or one centered at the 1st, 2nd or third knuckle. The directional flight of the ball, and its speed and its spin varies depending on the grip and pressure of the fingers and the order of release from the various points of contact. The momentum of the ball can be redirected onto various circular paths depending on the pressure points. Sometimes the straight line momentum of the ball is even tranferred to a rapid spin of the curve ball. I was watching an episode of St. Genius today where the host filled a long plastic daiper bag with a single breath by blowing into it from 6 inches away, lowering the pressure at the mouth of the bag and letting the air pressure of the surrounding air fill the bag. It made me think of the "lift" imparted on a plane, when the speeding air over the larger top curve of the wing, lowers the pressure on the top and lifts the plane, radially away from gravity. A tangential force applied, with the plane traveling along the curvature of the Earth, that lifts the plane radially away from the Earth. Bernolli's principle did not make sense to me, when first described. How is it possible that increasing the speed of a fluid traveling in a tube with a hole in it would lower the pressure at the hole? But it was demonstrated to me, and less fluid came out of the hole when the speed of the fluid inside the tube was increased, than when the fluid was slowed down. My speculation here, is that the momentum of an object includes both the tendency to move in a staight line, and the tendency to remain stationary and the inertia of an object is complex as the outside forces acting on it, and the inherent motion it has taken on from its history, it internal stresses and strains and elastic responses and such, conspire to not only look like a force, but to be a force that actually causes motion in a certain direction. Finger tip bowling balls have a weight block inside, with a blob of denser material stategically placed, and how you release the ball, and cause it to roll or slide along the lane with the weight block on the outside of the roll, or the inside, or with the block circulating above the equator or below, or crossing the equator at the right time, etc. can cause the ball to "flip" in a manner where it explodes into the pocket, storing inertia and releasing it, just at the right time, and in the right direction, to get really good pin action, and a higher probability of a strike. The picture of the path of a position of a spoke on a bicycle, shown earlier in the thread, illustrates this, with the rolling wheel, not causing the position on the spoke to following a circular path. So the space station inhabitant's feet and head, are traveling at different speeds, around circles with different radii. Where each would go when the wall of the ship blows out, may be tangential, but tangential to what is important. It might make difference to which direction the inhabitant flies on in, if she is walking or running or jumping or bending or stretching, this way or that, when the thing blows out. For instance, if she were to jump, just before the blow, the floor of the ship is not even touching her. How could it be applying any centripedal force? Regards, TAR

Thead, Well wait. If the boy on the roundabout is feeling an outward force and we are trying to figure how this is possible, and I build a clay model that is sort of representive of the situation (the boy's arm the toothpick, his grip the depth into the clay the pick is driven, the mass at the end his head...the position of the fluid in his inner ear similar to the direction indicated by the slot,) then the problem is more complex than a uniform circular motion of a point mass. Me introducing the complexities, and getting the reasoning of the different torques and directions and forces and movements at the base of the toothpick, and at the top of the toothpick is germaine to the discussion. It is not to refute what is true of uniform circular motion and center of mass figuring, it is using what is true about the laws of motion, and putting them together to explain why the boy feels like he is being pulled radially outward. The thread question is "how is this possible?" The answer "it is not possible" does not cut it. Regards, TAR

MWresearch, I lost track of what you have accepted and added to the list, and what you have rejected as already on the list, or not valuable to have on the list. Can we have a current list with the so far thought of and vetted substances? Do you have; DNA? Dopamine? Jelly fish have a substance that seems to act like a fountain of youth. Is that substance a candidate for the list? You have rock and paper already, but you forgot scissors. Regards, TAR I think Peanut Butter Cups should make the list. (But I just ate three, so there might be some favoritism at work.)

SwansonT, I think in my muses I am not considering the circulating mass as a point mass. There is of course, in the real world, no such thing as a point mass, since a point has no dimension a point mass would have zero volume in which to put any mass and any such zero volume would have a mass of exactly zero grams. So a point mass might help do the calculations, but they would not reflect reality. My clay on a toothpick has a certain momentum, and as was described, its outward facing half is moving faster than its inward facing half thus imparting torque on the toothpick itself. Its mass is not confined to a point, but instead the different portions of the mass are undergoing varied motions and torques and stresses and the inertia of the large clay ball can be felt as it resists motion at first and resists stopping the next moment, and the repeated pushes to keep the disc spinning are applied. I could feel the mass and inertia of the large ball, differently from the mass and inertia of the medium ball, and that differently from the mass and inertia of the small ball, as I attempted to spin the combine. And the large ball did tip radially outward, where the medium and small ball remained upright. In another trial, I had all three similarly sized balls and none tipped outward. In another trial I did not lodge the toothpicks so deeply in the clay and they all three tipped outward. One radially, on a little ahead of radially and the third a little behind radially. You assure me though that there is no predicted...no, you assure me there is NO radially outward force allowed, and no radially outward motion possible, because there is no force acting in that direction. But now you admit that this is based on a point mass model. Perhaps you can allow some wiggle room and some possible ways for forces that start out tangential to be transferred a little inward or a little outward based on other than point masses spinning around various axis at the same time. Also the starting and stopping of my attempted spin tips the toothpick backward along the tangent as the mass tries not to move, and then forward as the mass refuses to stop as the disc does. The tangential movement backward takes the mass away from the circle, then the tangential movement forward takes it away from the circle the other way. Repeated pushes leave the mass a larger distance from the center, than where it started. The mass has moved radially outward, because of inertia, and tangential motion. This might be workable even if you assumed the mass, was a point mass. A tangential movement forward in the direction of motion of the circular rotation, added to a tangential movement backward from the direction of circular motion, adds together to be a radially outward movement. And I only say this to attempt to explain the slot made by the toothpick in the clay. Something real happened, that does not fit the mathematical model, that says it can not happen. Regards, TAR