illuusio Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 Ok I have set up the experiment. I have hung a 100gram weight as close as I can manage to the back wheel of my bike using what I believe will soon be considered as state of the art experimental equipment The umbrella stuffed into the back of an lcd-tv mount To the pencil held onto the umbrella with elastic bands And the 100g postal weight supported by cotton I am currently waiting for the weight to settle down and stop swinging and will post an update mmm... nice set up! Hmm. The First law of ToEbi showed how to calculate G. So...picture this. There are two balls in space. One has a billion times the mass of the second ball. They are not rotating. According to Newton, they will experience an attractive force to each other. According to you, both balls are not rotating, so the rounds per second ends up zero, and G=0, and they will not experience an attractive force to each other. Who is right? Experiments show Newton is right. Though you can say that the two balls are rotating with respective to some other thing, the laws of physics are same in any reference frame...unless you also intend to show that that's wrong too? This is easy one, I'm right. Actually there is few odd phenomenon which can state that Newton was wrong. Like some binary stars and galaxy's odd spiral movements.
imatfaal Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 I thought I would do a test run with a decent clearance - by eye it is around 2-4 millimetres. And I will not be able to wait for it to stop swinging cos the movement of air in my office is enough to start it moving. Here is the video of the rough attempt - I am unwilling to spend any more time refining as it appears clear that the air draft by the tread on the tyre more than covers any attraction. The drop of the string holding the 100g postal weight was 850mm btw. The fact that the draft created by the spinning wheel and the tread was more than enough to overcome the supposed attraction makes me sure that the experiment tends to show that little or no force is generated by the spinning wheel 3
illuusio Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) I thought I would do a test run with a decent clearance - by eye it is around 2-4 millimetres. And I will not be able to wait for it to stop swinging cos the movement of air in my office is enough to start it moving. Here is the video of the rough attempt - I am unwilling to spend any more time refining as it appears clear that the air draft by the tread on the tyre more than covers any attraction. Slicks would be better... or vacuum. Maybe differently shaped test object? ball type? bigger nail is good (I used bigger nail). Edited August 23, 2012 by illuusio
imatfaal Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Illuusio - the experiment is accurate enough to show that no force is generated. I repeated in another manner I just placed the 100gram weight immediately below the wheel (on the upside down bottom of the luggage rack - it was 2 mm away at all times. 15N is enough to lift a 100gram mass against the force of the earth's gravity. Unless you have anything to add I think we can conclude this idea is shown to be incorrect.
illuusio Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Illuusio - the experiment is accurate enough to show that no force is generated. I repeated in another manner I just placed the 100gram weight immediately below the wheel (on the upside down bottom of the luggage rack - it was 2 mm away at all times. 15N is enough to lift a 100gram mass against the force of the earth's gravity. Unless you have anything to add I think we can conclude this idea is shown to be incorrect. Sure 15 N is enough, problem is in created force by moving air. I'll do my own demonstration video in few days. I use drilling machine but smaller test object to prevent air flow problems. Mean time you guys can read this document -> http://www.sea3000.n...81009181348.php Anyway, I preciate your effort imatfaal ! Edited August 23, 2012 by illuusio
imatfaal Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 OK so underneath the wheel and position very close And finally with the weight covered to remove air flow problems.
illuusio Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 Ok, here is bigger setup, idea is the same, creating pulling force with rotation.
imatfaal Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 Nope that's just a gyroscope effect. You will notice at 2:17 that when he starts it rotating the spinning disc is much higher than the weights - and it stays that way. It doesn't lift itself up Read up on them here - and how they don't work as anti-gravity devices http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/boomerangs.htm The videos are the 4th and 5th ones on the left hand column. They are lighthearted but given your misunderstandings I would heartily recommend a watch And you owe me an explanation as to why I didn't find a 15 newton force! The air flow was not enough to cancel it out - and anyway I neutralised that problem in the last video. 3
illuusio Posted August 23, 2012 Author Posted August 23, 2012 Nope that's just a gyroscope effect. You will notice at 2:17 that when he starts it rotating the spinning disc is much higher than the weights - and it stays that way. It doesn't lift itself up Read up on them here - and how they don't work as anti-gravity devices http://www2.eng.cam..../boomerangs.htm The videos are the 4th and 5th ones on the left hand column. They are lighthearted but given your misunderstandings I would heartily recommend a watch And you owe me an explanation as to why I didn't find a 15 newton force! The air flow was not enough to cancel it out - and anyway I neutralised that problem in the last video. Wait a couple of days, I do my own video. I use lighter, smooth surfaced objects but high rotation frequency (~50 rps). It will demonstrate nicely pulling force. I have done it already few times. I have some spare time during weekend to do the video. aa.. in that last video you certainly did neutralised air flow, but at the same time you did neutralised magnus effect in force transfer ether too.
Mellinia Posted August 23, 2012 Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) mmm... nice set up! This is easy one, I'm right. Actually there is few odd phenomenon which can state that Newton was wrong. Like some binary stars and galaxy's odd spiral movements. Um, how? Please show that Newton is wrong...using your own equations perhaps? Of course, unless you're trying to use experimental evidence to show that Newton is wrong on the twin balls that are not rotating...then I really don't know what to say...Don't we have the Cavendish Experiment for that? Again, picture this. You're standing on Earth. You jump. Why do you fall down to Earth? For one, the earth is not rotating with respect to you. (That's why our ancestors thought that the Earth was flat.) So, once again, the calculated G value is zero. So there is no pulling force towards the ground.i.e. No gravitation? Um, Newton was wrong on some binary stars and galaxy's odd spiral movements. Heck, his equations were wrong to predict Pluto's orbit. And...that's when Einstein showed up. Still nothing on rotation though. I'm still amazed. What phenomena did you observe that led to your theory? Edited August 24, 2012 by Mellinia
illuusio Posted August 24, 2012 Author Posted August 24, 2012 I'm still amazed. What phenomena did you observe that led to your theory? Ok, here is one -> http://www.sea3000.n...81009181348.php I have done also my own experiments with high rotation frequency objects. After that I realized that rotation is very much involved. You like very mich picturing things. Picture this, you have two balls of lead (radius 0.1 m, 47.54 kg) hanging side by side, say 1 mm apart. How much force there should be by Newton. Mmm... by Newton there will be roughly force of 3.7e-6N and because of two object total pulling force is 7.4e-6N. Shouldn't you find that those two balls get contact with that force? You can image densier objects than lead if you will. And for curiosity, increase the gap between balls, but give like 1/s rotation frequence for both of them
Mellinia Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Ok, here is one -> http://www.sea3000.n...81009181348.php I have done also my own experiments with high rotation frequency objects. After that I realized that rotation is very much involved. You like very mich picturing things. Picture this, you have two balls of lead (radius 0.1 m, 47.54 kg) hanging side by side, say 1 mm apart. How much force there should be by Newton. Mmm... by Newton there will be roughly force of 3.7e-6N and because of two object total pulling force is 7.4e-6N. Shouldn't you find that those two balls get contact with that force? You can image densier objects than lead if you will. And for curiosity, increase the gap between balls, but give like 1/s rotation frequence for both of them So, I plugged in the numbers, m1=47.54kg=m2, and distance between them, 0.001m, into Newton's F=Gm1m2 / r^2 and got myself 0.15 N, where G is the universal gravitational constant. Yup! They would get contact, however slowly though. I believe you have tried it, in a vacuum, perhaps hung by very light strings? Now according to your theory, n=0, thus G=0, thus they don't get contact. When you start spinning them though, did you do this in a vacuum? Did you ensure that they underwent constant spinning before allowing them to be put together, so that external forces can be eliminated? And that the lead balls continue to stick together after their contact? Um, let assume they spun in different directions so kinetic energy-causes-flying off could be eliminated. Edited August 24, 2012 by Mellinia 1
John Cuthber Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 Well, we did the test. The theory failed. The force on the test weight should have been rather more than 10 times its weight so the string should have been nearer horizontal than vertical. It wasn't. The theory doesn't agree with reality. That's not because reality is wrong. 1
illuusio Posted August 24, 2012 Author Posted August 24, 2012 Busy day today, but quick visit now. I'll do a video where this pulling effect can be seen. Bike wheel obviously was too rough surfaced and it generated a lot of force towards the test object.
imatfaal Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 Wait a couple of days, I do my own video. I use lighter, smooth surfaced objects but high rotation frequency (~50 rps). It will demonstrate nicely pulling force. I have done it already few times. I have some spare time during weekend to do the video. aa.. in that last video you certainly did neutralised air flow, but at the same time you did neutralised magnus effect in force transfer ether too. 1. Be very careful with massive objects driven with a powertool! My back wheel would quite easily break a finger at 5rps. 2. I neutralised the magnus effect? With a pair of business cards? Nope that doesn't work as a reason - I have spread them out on the floor and I still weigh too much. The added distance would only drop the force by a few percent and it would still be enough to move the weight. 3. Do you now understand why the video you posted is not proof of anything other than the basis effects of a gyroscope Come on if you believe this theory you need to explain why it has fallen at first step!
swansont Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 Ok, here is bigger setup, idea is the same, creating pulling force with rotation. You might notice that after the disc is spinning, the arm doesn't change angle. That only happens after the arm starts rotating. So, the disc rotation doesn't affect gravity; case closed. This has everything to do with angular momentum and torque, and nothing to do with changes in gravity. As imatfaal said, the gyroscope effect. Take a spinning disc like the one in the video and try to re-orient the axis. Try it with different starting orientations. Now, try and explain that as a gravitational force.
illuusio Posted August 24, 2012 Author Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Ok, here is my video -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C9H10YAm0w Obviously pulling force overpowers air flow resistance. Smoother driller's rotating part would decrease air flow resistance. In vacuum, effect is great. That previously linked video is really indeed a crap, sry about that one! Edited August 24, 2012 by illuusio
Mellinia Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 Ok, here is my video -> https://www.youtube....h?v=-C9H10YAm0w Obviously pulling force overpowers air flow resistance. Smoother driller's rotating part would decrease air flow resistance. In vacuum, effect is great. That previously linked video is really indeed a crap, sry about that one! Illuusio. I saw the video. The thing swung, dude, it was not attracted to the powertool. Besides, it didn't really stayed there...
illuusio Posted August 24, 2012 Author Posted August 24, 2012 Illuusio. I saw the video. The thing swung, dude, it was not attracted to the powertool. Besides, it didn't really stayed there... mmm... drillier's part was the rotating object. That plastic stick was the test object.
swansont Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 mmm... drillier's part was the rotating object. That plastic stick was the test object. So why does it move away from the drill part of the time? Show that it deviates from the expected simple harmonic motion.
illuusio Posted August 24, 2012 Author Posted August 24, 2012 So why does it move away from the drill part of the time? Show that it deviates from the expected simple harmonic motion. I think that there was a little yips on orientation of driller and that caused test object's movement away from driller. With attached driller you get very nice phenomenon without any unwanted movements. But as you can see, I managed to balance that harmonic motion at last. Covering rotating part with something smoother, like duct tape, will improve phenomenon. If you want even better result you can attach small metal ball into driller. And ofcourse, best result is achieved in vacuum.
imatfaal Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 Illuusio - I think we are going to have to think about calling time on this thread unless you start coming up with convincing reasons, where the maths is actually coming from, and explanations as to why we don't notice this effect otherwise in the world.
swansont Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 I think that there was a little yips on orientation of driller and that caused test object's movement away from driller. With attached driller you get very nice phenomenon without any unwanted movements. But as you can see, I managed to balance that harmonic motion at last. Covering rotating part with something smoother, like duct tape, will improve phenomenon. Why would you expect that behavior, tough? SHM is expected in the absence of your phenomenon. Observing it is a refutation, not support. If your experiment will give you the same result that you expect whether your hypothesis is right or wrong, then it's not a good experiment. If you want even better result you can attach small metal ball into driller. And ofcourse, best result is achieved in vacuum. This phrasing implies you have done this.
illuusio Posted August 24, 2012 Author Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Illuusio - I think we are going to have to think about calling time on this thread unless you start coming up with convincing reasons, where the maths is actually coming from, and explanations as to why we don't notice this effect otherwise in the world. mmm.. sure you can notice the same effect but not with your bike's wheel (too much air flow induced force). You can even create lifting force with rotating objects but that's another story. Why would you expect that behavior, tough? SHM is expected in the absence of your phenomenon. Observing it is a refutation, not support. If your experiment will give you the same result that you expect whether your hypothesis is right or wrong, then it's not a good experiment. This phrasing implies you have done this. Not with the vacuum with bigger rotating object yes. I made illustrating picture into my theory. Edited August 24, 2012 by illuusio
Klaynos Posted August 24, 2012 Posted August 24, 2012 I'm impressed, illuusio has provided us with two different methods of blocking gravity... That's fantastic news, flight will become so much cheaper. Or his explanations of why the experiments preformed do not make any sense when compared with what we observe... I'll let you decide that one.
Recommended Posts