The theory of rotation within rotation

[yahya515]

The theory of rotation within rotation:

 

"Every object moving in a circular path, or even a curve , will possess internal motion, particularly regular one (rotation), the law of directions is simple, counterclockwise circular path will give counterclockwise rotation, clockwise circular path will give clockwise rotation, for objects on the surface of earth, north the equator will give counterclockwise rotation, south the equator will give clockwise rotation. The rotation of earth around its axis is due to such effect, and direction law applies for the earth and the other planets and the moons. This rotation has constant speed, an object starts at rest and continues at constant speed, the internal rotation speed is inversely proportional to the radius of the circular motion (straight path will give no rotation)"

 

you can refer to the discussion about this theory on my first topic (discovery : new source of renewable energy)

 

 

[swansont]

If you are proposing this, then you should be able to show some data that support it. Calculate it for the inner planets and our moon, for example.

 

Venus has retrograde rotation (and Uranus has an axis tipped at about 90º) so the proposal is trivially falsified.

[yahya515]

Venus rotates very slowly around its axis, it completes on rotation in 243 earth days, and has linear velocity at its surface of about 1.8 meters per second, comparing to earth linear rotation velocity at its surface 465 m/s, so it probably was spinning backwards at very high speed , may be one revolution every one hour , when it has been put in its orbit around the sun it slowed down to 1.8 m/s, as I said it is not torque which causes planets to rotate around their axis, it is not a force which will change speed continuously , it changes it at an instant and keeps it rotates at constant speed forever, in other words it changed Venus backwards rotation from high speed to low speed and kept it rotating at slow speed forever, it is not pretty important the direction for Venus.

 

for Uranus in order not to rotate at all it should be exactly at 90 degrees angle, and that practically will never happen , believe me.

 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " , Genesis , chapter 1 , verse 1

Edited February 6, 2014 by yahya515

[swansont]

You claimed that "the internal rotation speed is inversely proportional to the radius of the circular motion" and this prediction fails. Try again.

 

 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " , Genesis , chapter 1 , verse 1

 

Irrelevant. This is a science discussion.

[yahya515]

You claimed that "the internal rotation speed is inversely proportional to the radius of the circular motion" and this prediction fails. Try again.

 

 

 

"the internal rotation speed is inversely proportional to the radius of the circular motion" if the object starts from rest. and that for my experiment of simple pendulum rotates around its vertical axis, starting from rest.

[swansont]

"the internal rotation speed is inversely proportional to the radius of the circular motion" if the object starts from rest. and that for my experiment of simple pendulum rotates around its vertical axis, starting from rest.

 

Then you'll need a bunch of data from somewhere to confirm your conjecture.

[yahya515]

"the internal rotation speed is inversely proportional to the radius of the circular motion" if the object starts from rest. and that for my experiment of simple pendulum rotates around its vertical axis, starting from rest.

if the object starts from a non-zero velocity, we should calculate the change in velocity , (Delta)V.

 

Then you'll need a bunch of data from somewhere to confirm your conjecture.

For universe creation? yes.

[swansont]

if the object starts from a non-zero velocity, we should calculate the change in velocity , (Delta)V.

For universe creation? yes.

 

For your basic proposal. If I place on object that's free to rotate (no friction) on a rotating table, you claim it will start to rotate, and standard, well-tested physics says it will not.

 

Your clam about planetary rotation flies in the face of the evidence, for which you have provided absolutely no corroboration, just unsupported excuses. The earth's rotation is measurably slowing down as an overall trend, not speeding up, and there is evidence that supports this. It's also completely consistent with conservation of angular momentum, as the moon recedes from us. The moon, of course, rotates just once per revolution, as it is in a tidally-induced phase lock with us. Mercury exhibits a 3:2 spin:orbit resonance.

 

This is supposed to be science. You need evidence to support your assertion. Thus far you have not provided any.

[Endercreeper01]

Why do you think that objects moving in a circular path would spin? You also need to provide mathematics in your theory.

[yahya515]

 

For your basic proposal. If I place on object that's free to rotate (no friction) on a rotating table, you claim it will start to rotate, and standard, well-tested physics says it will not.

 

 

place on a rotating table a mass hung by a string, so that the whole system is rotating, you will see the rotation of the mass clearly, at the same direction which I mentioned, you can verify that by changing the direction of the rotation of the table or any reference frame, however the spinning of the table should be at moderate speed so that the hanging mass will not lie horizontally . for the effect of the earth rotation around its axis on the mass ,that will not affect the experiment a lot , the rotation of the earth around its axis gives tiny rotation for the mass hung on a string , it is tiny because the earth radius is relatively huge, compared to the rotating table .

Why do you think that objects moving in a circular path would spin?

because they change direction of motion continuously.

You also need to provide mathematics in your theory.

I did not provide mathematics in my theory, that is why I have been directed to speculations ! and that is why you reading my post.

[swansont]

There's math here

 

the internal rotation speed is inversely proportional to the radius of the circular motion (straight path will give no rotation)"

 

 

There's no support for it, though. The earth rotates faster than the moon, so it clearly fails to work.

[Greg H.]

I did not provide mathematics in my theory...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. /endprincessbridereference

 

IN a more serious vein, if you can't provide math, then you're running on intuition, which is a pretty bad way to do science in general, and physics in particular.

 

Every object moving in a circular path, or even a curve , will possess internal motion, particularly regular one (rotation)

No, they won't, as has already been demonstrated. If you want to prove physics wrong, you're going to need more than some handwaving.

[yahya515]

There's math here

 

 

 

There's no support for it, though. The earth rotates faster than the moon, so it clearly fails to work.

Of course there are other factors. The rotation speed of earth around the sun (about 29 km/s) is more than the speed of the moon around the earth (about 1 km/s).But I did not mention all factors because I do not want to involve in mathematical derivations.

 

IN a more serious vein, if you can't provide math, then you're running on intuition, which is a pretty bad way to do science in general, and physics in particular.

 

 

instead of math I provide experiments. you can refer to my experiment on my first topic (a new discovery: new source of renewable energy).

Edited February 6, 2014 by yahya515

[Sensei]

Venus has retrograde rotation (and Uranus has an axis tipped at about 90º) so the proposal is trivially falsified.

 

It's quite known that Uranus collided with other massive object at the early age of Solar System. Unusual axis is result of this collision.

Similar like Earth was hit by object and as a result Moon has been created from ejected mass.

[yahya515]

 

It's quite known that Uranus collided with other massive object at the early age of Solar System. Unusual axis is result of this collision.

Similar like Earth was hit by object and as a result Moon has been created from ejected mass.

You're the best!

[swansont]

 

It's quite known that Uranus collided with other massive object at the early age of Solar System. Unusual axis is result of this collision.

Similar like Earth was hit by object and as a result Moon has been created from ejected mass.

 

What's the relevance of this?

 

If rotation is induced by circular motion, then this should be added to whatever movement it gained from a collision. Especially if it's had ~4 billion years to do so.

[Sensei]

I just wanted to clarify why Uranus has such weird axis and rotation different from other objects in Solar System (not to support or reject yahya515 idea).
It's all result of previous interactions of object in the past.

If we will have ball spinning clockwise in Y axis, and other ball will hit it on "left side", it'll start spinning even faster clockwise in Y axis.
But if hit will be on "right side", spinning might be stopped, or even reversed to counter-clockwise.

[yahya515]

I just wanted to clarify why Uranus has such weird axis and rotation different from other objects in Solar System (not to support or reject yahya515 idea).

It's all result of previous interactions of object in the past.

 

If we will have ball spinning clockwise in Y axis, and other ball will hit it on "left side", it'll start spinning even faster clockwise in Y axis.

But if hit will be on "right side", spinning might be stopped, or even reversed to counter-clockwise.

You're right, you're completely neural .

Edited February 6, 2014 by yahya515

[Endercreeper01]

 

because they change direction of motion continuously.

 

Yes, but that does not mean it will start to spin. The forces on an object in circular motion do not make it spin.

 

a mass hung by a string

The only reason it would rotate is because of the elastic forces when the string is twisted. That creates a torque of [latex]k r^2 \theta[/latex], and it has nothing to do with the circular motion itself.

 

 

I did not provide mathematics in my theory, that is why I have been directed to speculations !

If it doesn't have math, it can't be a theory. Theories need to have mathematics to support them.

 

I did not mention all factors because I do not want to involve in mathematical derivations.

 

You have to consider all factors that could cause something, not just one.

 

 

instead of math I provide experiments

You can't just do experiments, but also math with it. Without math, your theory doesn't mean much.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Endercreeper01

[yahya515]

 

 

The only reason it would rotate is because of the elastic forces when the string is twisted. That creates a torque of [latex]k r^2 \theta[/latex], and it has nothing to do with the circular motion itself.

 

 

you can do the experiment you wish, the results are the same.

 

 

 

 

If it doesn't have math, it can't be a theory. Theories need to have mathematics to support them.

 

 

 

 

 

you said in your own words"Theories need to have mathematics to support them" , so they are theories in the first place , whether they are supported by math or not.

Edited February 6, 2014 by yahya515

[Endercreeper01]

 

you said in your own words"Theories need to have mathematics to support them" , so they are theories in the first place , whether they are supported by math or not.

No, I mean that theories need to have mathematics or else they wouldn't be theories. Your idea doesn't have mathematics, so it is not a theory.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Endercreeper01

[Sensei]

yahya515, without math you have hypothesis, not theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

[yahya515]

 

 

 

You have to consider all factors that could cause something, not just one.

 

 

if you believe in one, why you (as a scientist) , do experiments to tell me the other factors.

 

You can't just do experiments, but also math with it. Without math, your theory doesn't mean much.

I want it to mean less.

[DimaMazin]

you can do the experiment you wish, the results are the same.

 

Then what is created by you?

[yahya515]

Then what is created by you?

I do not understand your English (ديما مازن)