Aspden effect (split from time dilation)

[studiot]

 

 

There is something from the fringe areas of science called the Aspden Effect where when a motor, after running five minutes or more, is switched off and the machine is stopped, you can restart it in the same or opposite direction and find that it now has a memory in the sense that it will require less energy to restart it provided that the time lapse between starting and restarting is no more than a minute or so. Harold Aspden was into the concept of aether or space being a substance.

 

And I'm sure that same motor will be much more difficult to start after standing still for 5 years in adverse weather conditions, poor starting due to seizing of bearings etc.

 

Motors run in journals, lubricated or self lubricated.

These are designed to be self optimising under running conditions, but gravity etc will redistribute the lubricant

I see no difficulty with a short period after stopping where the bearing remains close to the optimum.

Edited May 14, 2017 by studiot

[Handy andy]

 

And I'm sure that same motor will be much more difficult to start after standing still for 5 years in adverse weather conditions, poor starting due to seizing of bearings etc.

 

Motors run in journals, lubricated or self lubricated.

These are designed to be self optimising under running conditions, but gravity etc will redistribute the lubricant

I see no difficulty with a short period after stopping where the bearing remains close to the optimum.

 

Try it in a power lab, using a standard motor, you might surprise your self.

[swansont]

I Googled this and virtually everything I found was on crackpot sites. No real study of it in any systematic, rigorous way. It's not even clear anyone else has confirmed that the effect exists.

[studiot]

Surely we should look for common or garden reasons for any observation, before seeking Men in Black at the bottom of the garden.

 

What was wrong with my engineering commonsense comment?

 

The next step would be for someone to devise experiments to eliminate my explanation from enquires.

 

Enter Mr Plod?

Edited May 15, 2017 by studiot

[swansont]

I agree. Until someone can show conclusively that this isn't simply the difference between a cold system and one that's warmed up, and/or some other mundane effect, there's no reason to conclude that it's evidence of an aether, especially since so many other measurements preclude such an effect.

[Handy andy]

I have always thought this motor start up observation (maybe Aspden effect) was primarily due to the motors having residual magnetism, which takes time to decay when the motors are stopped. Or secondly due to the copper windings getting warm, and having an increased resistance, on the second start. I am pretty sure bearings don't get easier to turn the longer they run, most motors have dry bearings, and so this shouldn't affect the response. I remember a lot of years ago, as a student, the prof asked why the motor took less power on the second start up. He was given various answers, and just smiled and walked away, it stuck in my head.

 

I think it is probably best to leave this discussion here.

[swansont]

What I don't get is why someone would think that easily rotating in the opposite direction would be evidence of an aether. If the aether got "spun up" by the device running in one helicity, I would think rotating in the opposite direction would be even harder than a cold start. But that's one example of why you need a model and specific predictions in order to do testing.

[Handy andy]

What I don't get is why someone would think that easily rotating in the opposite direction would be evidence of an aether. If the aether got "spun up" by the device running in one helicity, I would think rotating in the opposite direction would be even harder than a cold start. But that's one example of why you need a model and specific predictions in order to do testing.

 

That is what I would expect also, maybe space is stretched and it takes time to spring back

[Strange]

 

That is what I would expect also, maybe space is stretched and it takes time to spring back

 

 

If space were that "stiff" then, presumably, it would not just be detectable but would be bloody obvious. Gravitational waves would not propagate in the same way, for example.

[swansont]

That is what I would expect also, maybe space is stretched and it takes time to spring back

 

Right. This is evidence that there is no aether.

[Handy andy]

Right. This is evidence that there is no aether.

 

That would depend on how you define the aether. If the aether is equated to space which transmits all known forces such as gravity, it might be interesting to measure the mass of the motors before and after they have been ran. Stretched space would imply an additional mass apparent or otherwise. Is there a gravity anomaly around a motor after it has ran for a few minutes ? The double slit experiment leaves waves for a time, photons create a disturbance in space and a gravity field around them, which can attract other photons. The Aspden effect could of course be due to residual magnetism, increased resistance in the windings, bearings becoming more efficient (or not) etc . The effect does happen, it is just a question of why it happens. Could a spinning motor affect the stretching or contraction of space, and in some way affect the motors inertia.

[swansont]

 

That would depend on how you define the aether.

 

 

Yes. And as soon as you have a mathematical description, post it so it can be examined and compared to experiment. Until then, though, such claims are pretty much pointless.

[Handy andy]

 

 

Yes. And as soon as you have a mathematical description, post it so it can be examined and compared to experiment. Until then, though, such claims are pretty much pointless.

 

I would have thought general relativity has space already included The various String Theories available have a few thoughts on gravity. Particle physics seems to ignore distortions in space, other than recognizing things are waves I understand general relativity is already pretty well tested on the gravitational front it incorporates a stretched space, ie something that is stretched. Something that some claim does not exist and has no properties. If that was the case how the hell could you stretch space, and how could atomic clocks be affected by movements in space if space was nothing

[swansont]

I would have thought general relativity has space already included The various String Theories available have a few thoughts on gravity. Particle physics seems to ignore distortions in space, other than recognizing things are waves I understand general relativity is already pretty well tested on the gravitational front it incorporates a stretched space, ie something that is stretched. Something that some claim does not exist and has no properties. If that was the case how the hell could you stretch space, and how could atomic clocks be affected by movements in space if space was nothing

Relativity excludes an aether, and has an explanation about how time is affected by relative motion. But this is not the place to examine your lack of understanding of relativity.

[Handy andy]

Relativity includes space, and time dilation. There is a difference between understanding and belief. I think I mostly understand Time dilation, but like religion, I just dont believe it. I think it is a misinterpretation of the facts.

 

Do you have any original ideas, why a motor would miraculously seem to develop a lower inertia after it has been the first time.

[swansont]

Relativity includes space, and time dilation. There is a difference between understanding and belief. I think I mostly understand Time dilation, but like religion, I just dont believe it. I think it is a misinterpretation of the facts.

 

Do you have any original ideas, why a motor would miraculously seem to develop a lower inertia after it has been the first time.

 

 

By all indications you do not understand relativity, and yet you still reject it. You think it's misinterpretation and yet you have not provided one iota of science to explain why or support a "correct" interpretation.

 

Why do I need an original idea, when some very unoriginal ideas are the likely answer? Some have already been suggested.

[Handy andy]

 

 

By all indications you do not understand relativity, and yet you still reject it. You think it's misinterpretation and yet you have not provided one iota of science to explain why or support a "correct" interpretation.

 

Why do I need an original idea, when some very unoriginal ideas are the likely answer? Some have already been suggested.

 

I have a pretty good impression from the time dilation discussion I started based around general relativity people don't understand the difference between special and general relativity. Time dilation in general relativity is not the same as discussed in special relativity and the Lorentz transformations.

 

Time dilation in general relativity is caused by gradients in space. Special relativity is looking at different aspects of space.

 

1 Special relativity (SR) doesn't include gravity, whereas general relativity (GR) does. The interpretation of time dilation in GR does not apply to SR

 

2 In SR, the laws of physics are the same for all inertial coordinate systems, that is those in which Newton's First Law of Motion is true. In GR the laws of physics are the same in all coordinate systems, whether they are inertial or not. So SR is a special case of GR is questionable

 

Thank you all for your answers they have mostly been very appreciated, including the marginally offensive ones, and those that don't understand general relativity different reference frames.

 

I have the information I was looking for on the forum.

 

Thank you all

 

Rgds

Edited May 16, 2017 by Handy andy

[Handy andy]

Ref the nature of space.

 

What is the difference between the time dilation of special relativity and gravitatational time dilation.

Have all tests to confirm SR time dilation been carried out in curved space, influenced by gravitational time dilation. If so how is gravitational time dilation separated from gravitational time dilation.

[swansont]

Ref the nature of space.

 

What is the difference between the time dilation of special relativity and gravitatational time dilation.

Have all tests to confirm SR time dilation been carried out in curved space, influenced by gravitational time dilation. If so how is gravitational time dilation separated from gravitational time dilation.

 

 

The effects are orthogonal, and can be accounted for separately. GR effects have been measured by themselves, in the Pound-Rebka experiment, and in clock comparisons at different elevations. Combinations of the two have been measured, e.g. in the Hafele-Keating experiment and with GPS. In muon decay, the kinematic term dominates (gamma is about 5), and the gravitational term can pretty much be ignored.

 

This relates to the Aspden effect how, exactly?

[Handy andy]

 

 

The effects are orthogonal, and can be accounted for separately. GR effects have been measured by themselves, in the Pound-Rebka experiment, and in clock comparisons at different elevations. Combinations of the two have been measured, e.g. in the Hafele-Keating experiment and with GPS. In muon decay, the kinematic term dominates (gamma is about 5), and the gravitational term can pretty much be ignored.

 

This relates to the Aspden effect how, exactly?

 

I understand what you have written, and studied the pound rebka experiment after your previous nudge.

 

The pound keating experiment I was already aware of, but had mistakenly remembered this experiment as proof of GR in curved space not Special relativity.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

The link below is for anyone interested.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

 

I posted the question here as I did not wish to start another thread, and you locked the thread I had opened ref Time Dilation, as it was clearly going no where. Having read the various proofs of general and special relativity, I still think time dilation whilst being a measurable effect is a misunderstanding of how gravity(gradients in space) affects all matter even fundamental particles, and how all matter when it moves creates gradients in space. I will put this down to religion and as Basil Faulty used to say "I Just Don't Believe It"

 

The Aspden Effect is interesting as it does happen, and mostly is ignored and explained with throw away comments like the friction must reduce when the bearings or grease are hot, or like I suspect it is due to residual magnetism in the motor or heated windings drawing more current. However it could as was claimed by Aspden it is related to the aether. My understanding of the aether most likely is not the same as yours. I take a very simple view the aether is space and nothing else. However I also take the view that space can be stretched, and most likely has inertia, a kind of memory of what has passed, in that waves are caused by the movement of even photons of light, and these waves carry on affecting space long after the photon has passed. The Aspden effect IF (you will note I have used a big if ) it is an effect of the inertia of space, ie space being spun out off the motor like a wave or vortex, then taking time to return after the motor has stopped, it tells us something about the inertia of space.

 

I am not stupid enough to think I know everything like some folk, so I ask questions. I am also none religious and don't believe something to be fact without first understanding it.

 

Again thanks for answering my question you cleared up some questions I had, ref SR, GR and time dilation I still have questions ref the nature of space, which I suspect the Aspden affect MIGHT be related too, along with the various slit experiments. I have further questions ref what exactly a photon looks like, as it moves through space. Does the solitron model explain fully how a photon moves and looks like as it moves through space, I am not sure? but it certainly gives some good clues. What does the distortion of space look like after a photon has passed and how long does the effect remain. Is all of space in constant movement, for simplicity and to create a closed model, it easy to say space has no properties, I think this is wrong, and space does have properties.

[swansont]

I posted the question here as I did not wish to start another thread, and you locked the thread I had opened ref Time Dilation, as it was clearly going no where. Having read the various proofs of general and special relativity, I still think time dilation whilst being a measurable effect is a misunderstanding of how gravity(gradients in space) affects all matter even fundamental particles, and how all matter when it moves creates gradients in space. I will put this down to religion and as Basil Faulty used to say "I Just Don't Believe It"

The other thread was closed because you were not using valid scientific arguments to defend your position. You are doing the same thing here. You need to step up your game.

 

The Aspden Effect is interesting as it does happen, and mostly is ignored and explained with throw away comments like the friction must reduce when the bearings or grease are hot, or like I suspect it is due to residual magnetism in the motor or heated windings drawing more current. However it could as was claimed by Aspden it is related to the aether. My understanding of the aether most likely is not the same as yours. I take a very simple view the aether is space and nothing else. However I also take the view that space can be stretched, and most likely has inertia, a kind of memory of what has passed, in that waves are caused by the movement of even photons of light, and these waves carry on affecting space long after the photon has passed. The Aspden effect IF (you will note I have used a big if ) it is an effect of the inertia of space, ie space being spun out off the motor like a wave or vortex, then taking time to return after the motor has stopped, it tells us something about the inertia of space.

If it's different aether then one must describe the properties it is expected to have, so that one might devise tests to see if it exists and behaves as expected. Such as how one might test to see if space has momentum and/or a memory. The Aspden effect as described (the observation, not the explanation) is evidence against space having a memory, as I have indicated earlier.

 

When one finds evidence against a conjecture, one must either modify or abandon that conjecture. That's the science that is eluding you.

 

I am not stupid enough to think I know everything like some folk, so I ask questions. I am also none religious and don't believe something to be fact without first understanding it.

But you are making assertions, not just asking questions. Assertions need to be backed up.

 

Not believing something until you understand it is one thing (although it tends to limit how far you will go). Claiming something to not be true because you don't understand it is quite another. Claiming it to be religion because you don't understand it is, as well.

[Handy andy]

The other thread was closed because you were not using valid scientific arguments to defend your position. You are doing the same thing here. You need to step up your game.

 

 

If it's different aether then one must describe the properties it is expected to have, so that one might devise tests to see if it exists and behaves as expected. Such as how one might test to see if space has momentum and/or a memory. The Aspden effect as described (the observation, not the explanation) is evidence against space having a memory, as I have indicated earlier.

 

When one finds evidence against a conjecture, one must either modify or abandon that conjecture. That's the science that is eluding you.

 

 

But you are making assertions, not just asking questions. Assertions need to be backed up.

 

Not believing something until you understand it is one thing (although it tends to limit how far you will go). Claiming something to not be true because you don't understand it is quite another. Claiming it to be religion because you don't understand it is, as well.

 

I note what you are saying, and don't totally agree with your first statement. But think it is just splitting hairs, the result is exactly the same, with only one slight difference in interpretation.

I am having a little wrestle with my assertions, as I think they are not contradicted by GR or SR.

From my point of view time dilation in GR and SR just proves space is a substance and affects the speed of clocks, and does not affect time. A Muon falling to earth is moving with space and presenting less drag and so lives longer. It is taught that actual time is slowing, I don't believe that. On one post in the speculations trash can I read some one believes time dilation is the cause of gravity which is complete nonsense.

 

One interpretation of Gravity is according to GR, as kindly pointed out by strange the contraction of space, the expansion of space causes galaxies to free fall or regress away from each other. All electromagnetic waves move through space, space which is both expanding and contracting affecting their movement through space, ie photons.

 

My not believing in things people tell me is a life long personality trait, I was kicked out of sunday school when I was 6 years old for flat refusing to believe what I was told. My final work was trouble shooting all over the UK, If I believed everything people told me, I wouldn't have been good at what I did.

 

Thanks for your input, I will give more consideration to starting a thread in the future.

[swansont]

I note what you are saying, and don't totally agree with your first statement. But think it is just splitting hairs, the result is exactly the same, with only one slight difference in interpretation.

I am having a little wrestle with my assertions, as I think they are not contradicted by GR or SR.

From my point of view time dilation in GR and SR just proves space is a substance and affects the speed of clocks, and does not affect time. A Muon falling to earth is moving with space and presenting less drag and so lives longer. It is taught that actual time is slowing, I don't believe that. On one post in the speculations trash can I read some one believes time dilation is the cause of gravity which is complete nonsense.

Rejecting SR is not "splitting hairs". Saying that time does not slow does not jibe with a claim that your ideas are not contradicted by the theory. Likewise claiming that this is an effect from a substance. Such claims must be backed up, and you have not done so. Repeating such claims without backing them up constitutes soapboxing (you might want to review the rules on those points)

 

One interpretation of Gravity is according to GR, as kindly pointed out by strange the contraction of space, the expansion of space causes galaxies to free fall or regress away from each other. All electromagnetic waves move through space, space which is both expanding and contracting affecting their movement through space, ie photons.

I have to assume you misread/misunderstood something Strange posted.

[Handy andy]

 

Rejecting SR is not "splitting hairs". Saying that time does not slow does not jibe with a claim that your ideas are not contradicted by the theory. Likewise claiming that this is an effect from a substance. Such claims must be backed up, and you have not done so. Repeating such claims without backing them up constitutes soapboxing (you might want to review the rules on those points)

 

 

I have to assume you misread/misunderstood something Strange posted.

 

 

I am not rejecting SR, I fully accept time dilation is a measureable effect, and predicted to a very high accuracy, and explainable by the stretching of space.

 

From a post under the blasphemy thread I started Qoute "Much as I worry about encouraging your nonsense, you might want to read about the Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates. These can be interpreted as space flowing towards a mass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullstrand–Painlevé_coordinates

"

 

Under string theory and the quantum theory of gravity, I understand Gravitons are assumed to be emitted by atoms and absorbed by them. Can gravitons under these theories be viewed as contracting or expanding? Or is the graviton now assumed by all theorists not to exist.?

 

I will restrict my self to asking questions in future.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Handy andy

[swansont]

 

 

I am not rejecting SR, I fully accept time dilation is a measureable effect, and predicted to a very high accuracy, and explainable by the stretching of space.

 

 

Accepting that it's a measurable effect is only part of the issue. SR says that time is relative as a consequence of c being invariant. If you reject that time changes according to your speed, and only because c is an invariant quantity (i.e. you have some other explanation for time dilation), you do not accept SR.

 

Stretching of space not a part of this.