Mike Smith Cosmos

I think there might be a case for bringing into play here " the equivalence principle " There seems to constantly arise in all of the discussion about the forces and movements , that :- Something looks like xxxxxx but is not A xxxxxxx force appears to be there , but is not A mass,s movement looks like it is radial, but is not radial . Etc etc Instead of all this ' fictitious ' , housekeeping , concoctions . Is there not a case for simplifying by using the equivalence principal. Two things , if the behave the same , can be viewed as the same. Like Einstein's person in a lift in outer space or accelerating space ship and gravity . Behave the same , feel the same , so gravity is an acceleration , or however it goes. If centrifugal force ' feels' like there is a force there , looks like there is a force there, and makes things move as if there is a force there , Is there not a case for saying " there is a force there " even though there are mathematical and logical arguments to say " there is no force there " is there a way of simplifying to look more at how things ' appear ' to be? When I was teaching basic physics . I used to get students to be sealed in a household removal box, I had to teach about the basic forces .. Push , pull, twist, turn, stretch, squash ... The verbal results were interesting .. One such was they could not distinguish between Push.. And ..pull , turn had some interesting comment. Mike Ps on the internet , there seems gazillions of individuals that are discussing what they think " centrifugal force is " does this not indicate appearance and current physics reality seem to cause a confusing story line .

Yes , well I can see that and agree that. That is surely the reactive force that shows up, all over the place. ( no doubt , this is the initiative is with the centripetal force inward, the balance with the inertia ( mass )( moving even accelerating mass ) is the reactive centrifugal force ( wether you term this fictitious, cooking the books or whatever, Similarly with pushing a large concrete block along a concrete pavement. The push is real , the friction is fictitious , or reactive. The friction can not rear up and move a block about , and will disappear when you stop pushing. So it is with the whirling ' whatever ' --------- But ----- But there appears occasions when the centrifugal is acting as an initiative , not the reaction . This when the mass is in the mode of straight line motion ( inertia ) , and curves Barr the way .then the Barr surely reacts to being shoved in the way friction resists to being Overcome. In this case the initiative is in the moving mass ( possibly even accelerating ) , therefore a force , away from centre , and the fictiseous is in the reactive mode towards the centre. Some not all of the examples mentioned above . For example I initiate a straight line velocity, acceleration , in my cloth and lead pellet Lizard. I do this by my long cardboard tube . It's not long before my straight line trajectory and force is met with an obstruction by way of the walls of the tube that are attempting to follow a curve as my arms are restricting , to some extent the movement of the tube into a circle. A reactive force ( centripetal ) reacts with the lizard , and produces a resistive force ( equivalent of friction ) . But the forward inertia wins , and out pops the lizard. Then everything changes , as there is no longer restriction, reaction , and the motion is as previously described as tangential plus , some gained velocity in another direction . Now whether the names and directions of the forces is leading to ambiguity , I wonder ? Mike

That is exactly what I thought , as I was reading this , hell , I am going to get dizzy. The kids at school when I got them to swing a 3 Kgm weight around on the end of a 7 meter rope , on the playing field . They would , after several circles , stagger about and keel over. But they would feel something ! I would shout out " feel the force " whether they were feeling centripetal or centrifugal, they would feel a large force at the centre. Mike

Superimposing track of the tube in yellow and an extension of exit point ( tangential plus upward momentum ) in blue ( my blue ) . This shows an increase in separation from the circle of initial tube radius , as well as an increase in radial height above exit point. If it were purely tangential only , it would have been a descending half parabola from exit point. The point being there was / is a radial acceleration over the time the ' lizzard' is in the tube , up the radius , of the mass. Mass and acceleration of the mass sounds remarkably like m x a , which by my reckoning sounds like F , namely F = m x a which is a force. Up the radius , caused by inertia as it is squeezed by the tube. Is that not so ? Mike Sorry ! Cross posted with swansont. Will need to sort the two out. ( I am off to Italy tomorrow morning for ( ONE WEEK ) . Please bear with me , I will be out of wi fi range , stuck up a hillside in Umbria , where all sorts of Lizards, overrun the place. Maybe I can do more experiments over there ,with live Lizzards. Mike please , bear with me until I return , there may be other members who continue the conversation , while I am away! Mike

Yes but what about the escaping lizard with lead filling ! That is my evidence ! . ? Look it's rushing out of the top of the tube , partly tangential, partly vertical. Unfortunately broke my tube and scared all the dogs and babies in the vicinity! Mike

At last I am on You Tube with my evidence .. Here we go Link :- How is that , you should see it go As can be seen , by the time the tube is vertical , the lizard-with lead stuffing ,has risen to the top of the tube. It then clearly exits the tube at a near tangential trajectory. But there is a measure of radial velocity and momentum which when combined with the escape tangential velocity show a rise ABOVE the tangential line . Evidence of an acceleration , within the tube , from ' stuffed in ' position, half way down the tube , ( stationary until start of swing ) , on to the top of the tube , and external to the tube . Hence , circumstantial evidence of a radial acceleration within the tube . In turn evidence of an outgoing force , along the radius of the tube . - Centrifugal . - MIKE

I know some of the frustrations and criticisms of my ' bleating ' on about a difference with established ,proven science, causes 'Agro' or aggravation. However I must say this , ' In itself this , Is, an established scientific method ! Namely , there is a case for holding on to established understanding , and there is a case for trying to ' falsify ' existing understanding. Often, only in falsifying an existing science , does a brand new paradigm reveal itself , as an avenue for new discovery. I am very , very , very , interested with new paradigms , and Blue sky research. Always have been. To me it is the ecstasy of science. To look over the hill and see a whole new 'land' . Even when it is only in ones own understanding . ('oh! Now I get it ! ' ) I genuinely believe such ' a new land ' beckons , just over that next hill, to do with , ( Inertia, Gravity, Singularities, Black Holes, circular motion, mass, straight lines, dark matter, and dark energy, ) . Although part of my training as an electronic engineer , included mechanical engineering as my employer once said to me as an apprentice ' you will never become a good Electronic Engineer , unless you have ,first, learned a measure of mechanical engineering" so I have had a taste of mechanical engineering. However my drive nowadays in my 'dotage' is in cross-discipline exploration , at a ' blue Sky ' level . Maybe I will see absolutely nothing . But as another famous scientist once said , "I'ts only by looking over the edge , then you ALWAYS ultimately see something ! " Mike

I have it on my I pad , my daughter says I need to register for you tube. Which I will try to do today if I can ( unfortunately I am an old hand , and am not up with all the modern gadgetry . I have tried to upload directly , it won't work . ) Mike -------------------------------------- -------- Speculative . - HUNCH My hunch is , which I must say is at the early stages , in the cases , or many of the cases I , and others have been proposing , like cloth and lead lizards in cardboard carpet tubes, other tubes, motorbikes around corners, water in buckets, people on kiddies roundabouts , that :- The founders of:- Typical quote . " there is no such thing as Centrifugal force , only centripetal is a real force , centrifugal is a reaction, fictitious, " I suggest that they have screwed up , and got it the wrong way round ! The originating device is not the ' pushing in 'centripetal force ( that is the reaction, the fictitious force, in many of these examples) The real source , driver of these , above mentioned examples is the mass-inertia in its clear ,natural, Newtonian stubbornness to continue in a straight line. Provided by whatever means to get this inertia, ( by moving tubes , rotating roundabouts, swinging weights and water. These things have been given from somewhere the ' STRAIGHT LINE INERTIA ' . When confronted with change , in these applications, the 'straight line inertia ', starts the ball rolling by generating a centrifugal force, when they come up against resistance to their straight line Inertia. This then , I am proposing ( possibly heretically ) , invokes a reaction fictitious force the centripetal force . The two sometimes, and sometimes not balance. When they balance on a radius. There is no ACTUAL ACCELERATION down the radius towards the center. The mass prescribes a circle with no net acceleration along ( in or out , on the radius ) . A straight circle ( no change in radius) . In the event of a winning scenario for the centrifugal force , the mass moves to a higher orbit. If it leaves totally , the constraint of the circulating device, it then goes its way with a mixture of tangential velocity and an additional input from whatever content of momentum (m x v), it may have picked up in its outward travel along the radius. Just a Speculative Hunch. , at this stage. You will probably say this is Audacious . However I feel moved to say how I 'hunch' . Evidence on 'you tube ' link to follow shortly , once I have uploaded it to You tube . Mike

. . I think it would be fair to say that the root of all this dilemma about is INERTIA . link to Wikipedia on inertia and the of property of matter , mass and it's movement or reluctance to move Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia -------------------------------------------------- Isaac Newton in his Principea said :- " The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line." ---------------------------------------------------- So the root driver in this whole " centrifugal force " scenario appears to be the particular MASS or object that is being considered for this experiment, phenomenon , observation , or analysis. So if we look closely at the particular mass involved we may gain a clearer picture of what is happening in the 'world ' of that MASS . It could be the mass is something , loosely gripped in a tube, a person on a merry go round, a brick on the end of a string , or water in a bucket ( which itself) is being held by string . The main consideration is the MASS ( person, water, brick ,lead & cloth lizard ) it's inertia . What does it want to stubbornly do ? Where does it go, ? What forces act on it if any ? Who wins, where and how does it go ? And what sort of going ? ( stay still, move with a velocity, accelerate? ) And in fact is there any " fleeing from the centre " CENTRIFUGAL ACTIVITY going on ? If there is we need to identify , is it real, is it fictitious, etc etc whatever, as it does have answers to the OP. And Gravity. Mike

Yes. You will see when I finally manage to upload. My enthusiasm and nervous behaviour made a slight bias toward a forward of radial thrust, and as you say , the lizard still shot out at a ' high rate of knots ' I have solicited the cooperation of another park goer , a large black dog walker . He demonstrated to me his ' dog ball slinger ' again it uses a part circle umpf to translate circular ( 1/4 circle ) motion into a ball trow of incredible distance . This is not quite the same principle as the tube , none the less relating some form of circular inertia into centri... Motion Mike

Rob ..Rob , this is a fascinating subject, and I do not consider it a waste of time , thrashing it about a bit. I think quite a lot of other people also find it fascinating. The more you dig , the more interesting it gets . I enjoy your comments. What I am not sure about is , which if any , is the BASE FRAME OF REFERENCE ,so to say . " this is the frame that is the one to base everything else on , or compare everything else to. If there isn't one , we are floating around in a soup of frames. I suspect it must be the one we see when we open our eyes? The question is ' where are we, when we open our eyes. Are we on a merry go round? Are we in a centrifuge, are we on the ground looking up, straight forward ? Inertia is mentioned quite a lot. Inertia is the massiveness of mass , as far as I can make out . Mass from dust to black holes has inertia . Centrifugal (..............) something , whatever it is, one of the vehicles of ' mass ' movement in a circle , yet it has this mystery hanging over it, as to whether it even exists . Yet general relativity, by Einstein was/ is a contributor somewhere in here , do you not think so. Seeing as our very existence is all about " stuff" namely mass thus inertia. How and why it behaves the way it does , why, how it is what it is , and what is going on when it moves in a circle is ,I would have thought , very fundamental, yet it seems full of mystery. What do you think ? Are you any clearer now ? I still feel a bit shaky ! Mike I think you must have had the same childhood as me. Parks roundabouts . I think health and safety would not allow them nowerdays. Ice skating was another of mine. Being on the outside of a line of skaters holding hands going in a circle . Last one on the line , went like stink, then let go . Motor bikes and the lot . I still have the motor bikes. And still like doing practical experiments ! With cardboard carpet rolls and toy lizards. ( I still wish I knew how to upload my I pad video , only 20 sec long , ) but the lizard shoots out the top with a mixture of tangent and outward inertia . It's worth seeing . In the tube it's restricted to going totally radially upwards and outwards away from the centre. And if you viewed it while being attached to the inside of the tube it would be a straight radial line ! I think if I knew how to upload it to you tube , it would go viral. There is this idiot ,in the middle of a country park, flinging a 5-6 meter cardboard tube , with all the energy he can muster in an arc. Looking like a slightly deranged scientist, straining at every seem , the rat or lizard ( lead and woollen mix ) shoots out the end , like a low velocity rifle. I forgot that the pipe , with its inertia wanted to complete the circle. It smashes into the ground and breaks in half ,. Dogs and the ladies child ( who was a kind passing stranger agreeing to press my I pad start button ) , all running about amock! But, she did it , screaming hysterically " I got it " ! All on video 20 seconds long . I don't even know if ' radial ' is a pre-requisite of centrifugal or centrifugal force , for that matter ? Mike

With all that has been said, it becomes clear now. There is no absolute answer. Unless you view it from outside the universe. Then it will probably look like an oscillation , finally going to a point. Every other perspective is related to the frame of reference , you are in , or observing from . Any one of those frames has no more presidency than another , ( does it ) , depending on , who or what is experiencing the effect of being or observing from that particular position, within that particular frame. However , inertia , or Mass does seem to have a relevance . As demonstrated by the video discussion of a centrifugal filter. Where the more massive liquid went one way and the light bubble went another way. This seems to tie well in with Einstein's General theory of gravity and Relativity. ( now that is significant and interesting ) ! Can we really say one frame of reference is more important than another. To me on the roundabout or in the tube ( if I am a Lizard) , My experience of thrust is outward in a straight line , radially and centrifugally. To the lady pressing my I pad observation button , observing my lizard, or knowing of my lizards journey up the tube and out , is clearly spiral as Janus diagrams show. Thus not linear, or radial . Thus not described well by the word centrifugal . Yet from the lizards perspective very centrifugal. But even then the ladies observation from my I pad , if seen from a telescope from outer space say halfway too the moon , would be different again. Not spiral, but complex. And so on to outside the solar system, galaxy, supercluster and beyond to outside the universe to " a gods eye view " whether you believe there is a god there or not. It is only outside the universe could you say it is ' absolute '. Super symmetric . So one can only return to which frame is important , for what you want to use or observe. Which I would say is very subjective, as to wether you wish to filter, have fun, fly, or just speculate. So centrifugal is a correct word or description, in one frame , or more . And in other frames incorrect . No frame , is more right or important than another!. IS IT ? Mike Ps. Then again, who is to say a 'spiral flight' is not as significant as a straight radial flight. Centrifugal (centre fleeing ) , it's still centre fleeing ,even if only a longer route. Perhaps we are then into semantics (meaning of words ) .But maybe that's where we are anyway ! Meaning of word :- Centrifugal . Wikipedia Quote " Centrifugal force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force Centrifugal force (from Latin centrum, meaning "center", and fugere, meaning "to flee") is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body. ‎Centripetal force - ‎Rotating reference frame - ‎Reactive centrifugal force. Unquote " Link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force_(rotating_reference_frame)

. INERTIA The inertia as a stubborn desire to continue to move in a straight line , has been mentioned quite often in these videos. And it appears this stubbornness gives rise to the apparent drifting away from the centre as the rotation moves on. It would be nice to call this ' drifting away from the centre due to inertial stubbornness " centrifugal " , but it appears to be a word that is ' sacrosanct ' . The fact that inertia is heavy, pulling in its own stubborn direction , drags heavy particles outward in a centrifugal filter, pull men's cheeks practically off there faces in a test bed space traveller test for 'g' forces. And a lot of other effects of heavy strait line inertia effect do the same thing as they try to move' effectively ' radially outward , yet to them they are just in an inertial way trying to keep in a straight line . Why this cannot be referred to as Centrifugally , I do not know. By all means, carry the rider , that there is 'no single force ' trying to push its way up the radius. But that the effect , is of a forced rotation of an inertial object , ' none the less ' causes such an effect to be generated. - Centrifugally - Mike

. I don't know that I do know what I am talking about.! It's just that all my different experiences throughout my life, with all the whirling about in circles , all my whirling other things about in circles, the feelings I get when I do this whirling, whether skating , throwing buckets of water above my head , in front of a class full of students, riding my motor bikes . All the physics and maths I have learned . All give me one hell of a hunch , yes HUNCH . that we are missing a trick here . This straight line motion with all its inertia, momentum , or whatever, This curved and circular motion with its own specific , angular momentum ,circulating ' forces, acceleration , and the like . The universe is stuffed full , of things going about their business , in straight lines trajectories , and/or curved / circular motion. That tells me that those two attributes alone , are crying out with , " the nature of the cosmos" paradigms . That is one hell of a hunch ! Mike

..I am not sure what you expect me to say? 7 years old ,built Meccano . 10 years old ,built Crystal set 16 years old, built Transmitter 18 joined Royal Naval Reserve as Radio Operator ' A'. Levels . Pure Maths , Applied Maths , Combined maths , Physics. University ( 1st Time) Brunel London electronics 3 years . Career in Electronics . Missile Test Equipment. Change to Civilian Electronics, Design Acoustic Modem-Start of Internet , Cable harness manufacture for Computers Dept of Trade and Industry business consultant ( Engineering Manufacturing) 3 years. University ( 2nd Time) Plymouth Devon. 4 years .( BEngHons Satellite Communications . ) Teacher training PGCE 1 year Final (10years) Teaching Science, Physics, Business studies Died, May 2015, found Slaughtered in a back alley behind Science Forum HQ Building . ( Joke )! Surely : there is some reputation in the ' field of science ' in all this lot? Worth some Brownie Points? Reputation in Science. Mike

You appear to agree to C) , that there are places where Centrifugal Forces exist . As a genuine researcher , keen on seeing if there is any possible chance that Centrifugal force can fit anywhere in association with gravity . Why can I not develop an exploratory discussion which pursues these matters. This particularly as some of the immediate evidence "appears" as if there does appear to exist , such an outgoing force. Why does there have to be a call for all this, " this is kiddies physics" and all the other copious other remarks and negative reputation points which have nothing positive to offer to the subject . I am a genuine person , and expect to be spoken and dealt with to in a friendly, not hostile , not provocative manner . And certainly not in a ' bullying style ' more reminiscent of back street intimidation and hurt. If I say something that is wrong . Why can't you just say " that is wrong " not invoke a tirade of negative rep points. Mike

. . Is there such a thing as :- a) Centrifugal Motion B) Inertial Force C ) Centrifugal Force ( anywhere) ? D) Something traveling up the radius not be called Radial . E) if I come across what looks remarkable like a Force, making something move out along a radius , can I not call it a Centrifugal Force? If not, why not ? And would you kindly mind telling all the persons you are aware of , to not keep loading me with all these NEGATIVE. REPUTATION POINTS . This is a DISCUSSION FORUM not a WAR ZONE ! If you are trying to wipe me out , kindly do it honourably . Thank you . And kindly reinstate my rep points . Mike

Well I though I did , and I was heartened that you appeared to be conceding that centrifugal forces were now a reality , that I had never heard you concede to before . But then you started saying 'nope' again . Which I did not understand . This seemed to lead to robitybob saying he needed to do some experimenting ! I was doing some too, and found that things were moving out from the centre . Then you said it did not matter because it was up to where you put the base of your coordinate system . I have just been thinking conventionally with (0,0) being in the centre of any rotational system . Maybe that is where I have come adrift. If I am adrift, which I did not think I was . Mike

.. There is no way the force is the initiative of an inward force. ( centripetal ) .At this stage the steel rails have no contact with the bike or rider. ( hopefully ) The preferred, attempted , straight line inertia, of the motorbike / me combination is the origin of the initialising outgoing force ( centrifugal ) caused by us nearing and nearly touching the ring of the circle . Only if the person ,me , driving the motor bike , decides I can not allow my legs and bike to touch the steel barriers of this curve , but rather allow the pressure to go down the bike Frame and down the wheel spokes , through the rubber tyre , to apply the pressure caused by this inertia ( must) go through the tyres to the road rather than my legs. The pressure is applied radially outwards ( Centrifugally ) through the tyre- road junction away or near the curve of the circle. At this time fighting against the natural inertia to go straight. This then invokes an equal and opposite reaction as an inward ( centripetal ) force , maybe the centripetal force is fictitious ? ( in this case) . I believe this to be demonstrated by the toy lizard going up the tube by centrifugal force , invoked by the inertia of the lizard in the tube pushing outward as a force and slipping against the cardboard of the tube . Probably met by a reactive centripetal force in the circulating cardboard tube . Only when the lizard was free of the tube could the inertia cause a near straight line tangential to the exit point. Then probably meeting new constraints of gravity . ( requiring different analysis ) . Mike

I have just come back from a painting session ,in the countryside, traveling on my motor bike . I used the time as a further practical experiment , finding the direction of forces involved with circular motion and straight line inertia. It was a sunny day , with fine dry conditions , the open road,, all is right with the world. I am still very very conscious of the feeling of inertia , when traveling at moderate speed. That bike just wants to go straight. You can play with her, try steering the handlebars by half an inch , into a circular bend ,without leaning , NO WAY. Utterly set in a straight line momentum. O.k. The only way to turn a circular corner is to lean. Or at least lean the bike . What exactly is going on at this === straight line to curve interaction. Wow! In this instance , where is the force coming from ? Is there some pressure coming in from outside the circle ? Something is definitely there , like a wall! I am in a circle , on a bike that wants to go straight forward , in a straight line. But there is no escape, I am trapped in a circle . At every inch of the way around this circle there is an invisible line that's saying ,in effect , do not cross, as the road goes round and round. If I did nothing this machine and me would grind our way round the road barriers in a complete circle. We would scrape the barrier, my legs would get squashed by the pressure of the bike on my leg trapped against the barrier. On and on , if the road went there ,my bike and I are trapped. Trapped pushing curve of a circle after curve of a circle against the barrier. Wait a minute this straight line inertia is causing a pressure to emanate from within the circle , without let up , through the bike through my leg and into the ironwork of a circular barrier of metal . This force emanates outwards from a centre of a circle . This outward going force no doubt induces an equal and opposite reaction force , inward toward the centre of the circle . What is the name of these forces? There is no way the force is the initiative of an inward force. At this stage the steel rails have no contact with the bike or rider. ( hopefully ) The preferred, attempted , straight line inertia, of the motorbike / me combination is the origin of the initialising outgoing force ( centrifugal ) caused by us nearing and nearly touching the ring of the circle . Only if the person ,me , driving the motor bike , decides I can not allow my legs and bike to touch the steel barriers of this curve , but rather allow the pressure to go down the bike FrameMaker, down the wheel spokes , through the rubber tyre , to apply the pressure caused by this inertia ( must) go through the tyres to the road rather than my legs. The pressure is applied radially outwards ( Centrifugally ) through the tyre- road junction away or near the curve of the circle. This then invokes an equal and opposite reaction as an inward ( centripetal ) force , maybe the centripetal force is fictitious ? ( in this case) . I believe this to be demonstrated by the toy lizard going up the tube by centrifugal force , invoked by the inertia of the lizard in the tube pushing outward as a force and slipping against the cardboard of the tube . Probably met by a reactive centripetal force in the circulating cardboard tube . Mike Mike

Yes. To much of the physics has been covered ( not all ) . There is an "" apparent "" outward with respect to the 'frame of reference' of the tube . As the lizard went ..' up ' .. The tube and out of the ' top' , not ..' down ' the tube and out of the bottom . Yes it was observed with the video that it ' the lizard ' took a trajectory of the instantaneously set tangent at exit moment . Your comments above end with " it moves "down the tube " , . it did not , it moved " up the tube " , and out the top. So to the frame of ref of the tube , the lizard moved up , and out , increasing its distance vertically away from the end of the tube. True from the external observer( the person operating the video) . The lizard was assumed to move from the centre of the tube to the top( as it came out the top ) and can clearly be observed to follow a path away from the top of the tube. Were the tube to have been following an earth radius swing this would have shown an increases in radial distance from the centre of the earth,up as far as the exit from the tube . Instantaneous tangent only . But that particular tangent would put an increasing separating distance between the end of the tube and the flying lizard , again an apparent increasing radius . Question . Even though there may be all sorts of ' apparent this' and ' apparent that ' achieving orbits and increasing orbits , why can this not be termed a movement of upward motion along an increase in radial distance ( even though not a conventional straight line force as such , if we accept that it is a fictitious force away from the centre centrifugal ) ? Mike Tar, I think you have hit the nail on the head . All this is about is that it is the inertia that is doing all the pushing and pulling the effective radially sideways push or pull of inertia is causing the movement up the tube , which is away from the centre, so therefor linguistically centre- fugal , but in physics terms as you say is not a force radially ,in the way we normally think. It is the inertia of the mass , or lizard that slides it up the constraining tube. This does however put the ' spotlight ' on the interface between linear motion and circular motion , which I must say ,I suspected and raised a question on . Perhaps I did not phrase it correctly ? However the consequence of this inertia does provide a mechanism for a devise gaining radial height, as indeed my lizard did. And would I believe be useful ! I would guess this interface ( linear to circular ) kicks in because of the different angles of preferred motion. One circular , the other tangential . I can see a component * of the tangential going into conflict with the radial ,once the circular path 'parts company ' with the immediate tangential path . Or at least tries to 'part company ' that's where the tension lies , and that's where the inertia can win and drag the mass skyward. ( effectively ) ( upwards radially , if they have any shared interest still ) . While totally constrained in the circular orbit . The physics of circular motion dominate , balance , and are explained . When slippage occurs with inertia 'winning' and the radius is being increased by the dominant pull of the preferred tangential straight line , moment by moment ( as MORDRED . Says ) inertia . Then the laws of straight line operation prevail . Or possibly a compromise of the two ? * component . When a line or force is considered as an amalgam of two right angular components , rather than a single direction ( abSine x, and abCos x as opposed to just line ab, where x is the angle between the line and the horizontal ) Mike

I have been out today with a carpet tube and a lead pellet filled doll with gentle fit in the tube . I am not sure how to upload the video of it. It's quite good . The lead filled rat , can be seen coming out of the top of the tube . How do I upload this from my I pad ? video player. Here are the ingredient parts of the experiment . Cardboard carpet tube held vertically and swept in arc . Also lead pellet filled toy rat . It will just rest in the tube without sliding down . But is free to move up or down under changing conditions . ( see video ) these two are still pictures . Experiment performed outside , in the middle of a park . A passer by pressed the button . On the video on I player . Although unseen inside the tube , because it was already loaded half way up the tube. It had to have moved up during the rotation. The rat then exited the tube . And carried on forward , what looked like a tangent to the circle being prescribed by the tube. Mike

. Yes! Well of course I did the sums on that ,over 10 years ago . It Is displacement 4 inches at 40 kHz . Bingo ! We have lift off ! Mike Ps . If it works !

I am off to the local carpet shop , to see if I can scrounge a Capet roll centre, though that could be a bit heavy and unwieldy . I just this moment tried it with a bit of rolled up card , and put a cardboard tube into the rolled up card . Then swung it back and forward in an arc . The slug of small roll , shot up the tube , then out the top but changed direction to the anticipated tangential trajectory at that point . I then realised this is partly what I see every day . Dog walkers have a ball thrower pole. It has a loose cup at the far end. They place the ball in it , give the device a radial swing , out pops the ball tangentially , but travels a vast distance. More than they could throw without the device. I know this is not the same , as there is no going up a tube . This is more a tangential device . But back to the tube , this is an orbital increasing device , I believe? Hey ! This is table top physics ' in the raw ' , I love it . Mike

I thought they used tons upon tons of fuel, just to get the further tons and tons of fuel, off the ground. However I , understand they need to use a lot of fuel to accelerate ' down range ' to reach orbital velocity. As regards the tube , I was never intending the earths rotation to be a source of the circumferential velocity of 17,700 mph , required. The tube is really a thought experiment. However I think I will attempt the cardboard tube , with ping pong ball, but at a much less radius, and much less velocity so that the ( m x V squared / r = mg ) equation , produces the lift in the tube I am anticipating. If r is reduced to 0.5 m , The m's cancel so are irrelevant so V should be quite manageable for me to waggle it. ( by hand ) Mike