The theory of rotation within rotation

[swansont]

 

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 math, no theory. No evidence to support the claim, no theory. Not following the rules of speculations (specifically rule 1) means no more discussion.

 

Also, details of your other conjecture should remain in that thread. The discussions should remain separate.

[yahya515]

yahya515, without math you have hypothesis, not theory.

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

So, what is the problem , I would like to discuss if my (hypothesis or theory) is true

 

No math, no theory. No evidence to support the claim, no theory. Not following the rules of speculations (specifically rule 1) means no more discussion.

 

Also, details of your other conjecture should remain in that thread. The discussions should remain separate.

If I change it to the hypothesis of rotation within rotation, will I be able to have discussion.

[Endercreeper01]

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

We do experiments to see if our hypotheses mach up with reality. But, you have to consider all of the things that would cause something to happen.

 

 

If I change it to the hypothesis of rotation within rotation, will I be able to have discussion.

You won't be able to have a discussion of you don't provide evidence. If you do, you will be able to, but you have not provided any yet.

[yahya515]

But, you have to consider all of the things that would cause something to happen.

 

 

I am considering by discussion, however you do not want to give me the opportunity, I am not Albert Einstein to present a completely perfect theory .

[DimaMazin]

I am considering by discussion, however you do not want to give me the opportunity, I am not Albert Einstein to present a completely perfect theory .

I don't understand your theory without math.

[swansont]

 

If I change it to the hypothesis of rotation within rotation, will I be able to have discussion.

 

The naming is not the issue. It's that you have to do more than just claim something is true. Math that makes the conjecture jibe with mainstream physics, or actual evidence that what you claim happens actually happens.

[yahya515]

 

The naming is not the issue. It's that you have to do more than just claim something is true. Math that makes the conjecture jibe with mainstream physics, or actual evidence that what you claim happens actually happens.

Edited February 6, 2014 by yahya515

[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)

I apologize for everyone in this forum for my rudeness , mathematics is the language of science especially the science of physics, beside verbal language , which describes pure ideas.But I believe in my ideas.

Edited February 7, 2014 by yahya515

[I-try]

Yahya515.

You have become entangled in a portion of physics that can become confusing if you don’t adhere strictly to Newton's laws on motion. The other posts in answer to your question are generally stating the facts of the matter, and that is your experiment is misleading you if you are observing motion about the axes of your disk when you start the table rotating. A metal axes affixed to the table simply rotates with the table and a properly balanced disk would due to matter's property of inertia, not rotate relative to a reference mark on the disk and to a stationary mark. An unbalanced wheel would part rotate when the rotary table is set in motion. Otherwise, it would require adhesion between the axle and disk to make the mark on the disk describe rotation equal to the rotating table. Don't become confused by the idea that the outermost atoms of the disk appear to be travelling a grater distance than the innermost atoms due to the rotation of the table. In the case under consideration, the referred to atoms change position 180 degrees relative to the axis of the rotating table, and return to their original location during each revolution of the table.

[yahya515]

In Newton's laws , if there are two objects contacting with each other, and a force affects on one of them they will undergo the same acceleration , if they are moving in a straight path , however in circular motion an object is divided into atoms, the front group of atoms for an object rotating in a circular path , that the part of the mass which is ahead the direction of rotating , will change direction of motion first than the back part , it will be pulled by the centripetal force first, the back part will just follow the front back because they are one entity, this will enable the centripetal force to affect on part of the mass to give it torque, the front one, this torque is towards the center of the circular path , because of the direction of the torque, clockwise circular path will give clockwise rotation.

[I-try]

With regards to mathematics being a powerful tool for all disciplines including physics, then I agree. Even so, that fact should not disqualify conceptual ideas based on physical facts such as the conservation of energy and momentum laws, because the mathematics pertaining to such concepts have not been provided. In some cases, the mathematics can be correct but the concepts derived there-from misleading. There are valid physical reasons why physicists prefer to refer to relativistic momentum in preference to relativistic mass.

[yahya515]

With regards to mathematics being a powerful tool for all disciplines including physics, then I agree. Even so, that fact should not disqualify conceptual ideas based on physical facts such as the conservation of energy and momentum laws, because the mathematics pertaining to such concepts have not been provided. In some cases, the mathematics can be correct but the concepts derived there-from misleading. There are valid physical reasons why physicists prefer to refer to relativistic momentum in preference to relativistic mass.

I do not think you are talking about what I am talking about, so our discussion will be meaningless, and you repeat ideas , like "mathematics is a powerful tool", I understand all these , so you are just running in circles.

[I-try]

Yahua515

 

In the case you refer to, you are confusing the force involved when you refer to centripetal force. The cohesion of the atoms keep them in fixed position relative to the each-other. The force on the atoms composing the disk is supplied by the axle of the disk compelling an instant by instant change of position in space. If the disk was to instantly change into individual atom by a total loss of cohesion, all the atoms would instantly follow the same straight path and velocity, due to the instantaneous conservation of momentum.

Yahua515

My post you refer to was in answer to the number of others posting to this thread regarding the required need for mathematics.

[yahya515]

Yahua515

 

In the case you refer to, you are confusing the force involved when you refer to centripetal force. The cohesion of the atoms keep them in fixed position relative to the each-other. The force on the atoms composing the disk is supplied by the axle of the disk compelling an instant by instant change of position in space. If the disk was to instantly change into individual atom by a total loss of cohesion, all the atoms would instantly follow the same straight path and velocity, due to the instantaneous conservation of momentum.

I understand your point of view, so I would like to hear from someone else, so that I will benefit from a variety number of people,OK?

[yahya515]

Regarding my post on 6th February 2014 which is in the title (the theory of rotation within rotation), in which I did not present any kind of mathematics, I present here some mathematics for my theory:

 

first :
in my theroy I claimed that the rotation in a circular path or a curve for any object will result in other rotation process around the axis of the object , as the the earth rotation around the sun results in rotation around its axis, as the rotation of the earth around its axis results in rotation for any hanging object with string.

 

 

second:
my measurement for this rotation will be the angular velocity of the spinning of the object around its axis ω and particulary Δω .

for example if the object is spinning in an angular velocity ω1 and put in a circular path with linear velocity v and radius r , its angular velocity will decrease or increase according to direction to ω2 and continues as the velocity v is constant.
Δω = (ω2-ω1) = k* (v/r) = k*ω3
where :
k is a constant not equal to 1 .
r is the radius of the circular path if the object is in a straight path it will not rotate.
Δω is proportional to the velocity v if the radius r is constant.
ω3 is the angular velocity of the circular path.

 

 

for the earth:
any hanging object will rotate from rest (ω1=0) to a particular ω2
ω = k*(v/r) sin Ɵ
where Ɵ is zero at the equator, sin Ɵ =0, there is no rotation at the equator, it increases to its maximum in the north and south poles where Ɵ is less than and close to 90 degrees.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Threads merged.

yahya515, please do not open multiple threads on the same thing.

[arc]

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)

 

 

In Newton's laws , if there are two objects contacting with each other, and a force affects on one of them they will undergo the same acceleration , if they are moving in a straight path , however in circular motion an object is divided into atoms, the front group of atoms for an object rotating in a circular path , that the part of the mass which is ahead the direction of rotating , will change direction of motion first than the back part , it will be pulled by the centripetal force first, the back part will just follow the front back because they are one entity, this will enable the centripetal force to affect on part of the mass to give it torque, the front one, this torque is towards the center of the circular path , because of the direction of the torque, clockwise circular path will give clockwise rotation.

 

yahya, I think your testing apparatus is giving you a false reading. Could you try using a shallow pan of water on your turntable instead. At the center of the pan place a small magnet. You can get one off the back of an old radio speaker. Now you need a float, get a cork or any material that would float, even a ball would work. Next, with a small nail attach a small piece of steel to the float. The metal must not be too heavy. The float material must stay above the water's surface.

 

Now carefully add some water and test the float material above the magnet. The water must be just deep enough to allow the float to be held in place by the magnetic field's attraction but not touch the magnet or the pans bottom or sides.

 

Now you can test your idea. Slowly rotate the pan and see if the float moves with it.

 

Now take the magnet out and try the experiment again. Do each one multiple times and see if the magnet is applying torque like the string probably was in your original experiment. It may or may not affect these new results, but having two different sets of observations will help you to see what is affecting your data.

 

This should help you see what forces are at play in this experiment.

[rktpro]

Regarding yahya515's claim that as earth revolves in a circle and rotates simultaneously, every circular motion must follow such characteristic. He is partially correct. A simple experiment, take a ball tied to a string and mark an arrow on it. Hold one end and make the ball revolve. When you observe the arrow, it indeed turns. Body is doing rotation about axis. However, the angular velocity of rotation about centre is the same as that of the ball about its own axis. Earth doesn't show that.

Edited May 19, 2014 by rktpro

[yahya515]

 

 

 

 

 

This should help you see what forces are at play in this experiment.

I do not see any kind of forces here, first if the planet earth rotates around its axis due to some kind of force , its angular velocity will increase continuously , also the day is shorter in March and September and longer in June and December , that because the orbit of the earth is not completely circular, the radius changes and the angular speed of earth around its axis changes as well.

 

 

[Bignose]

also the day is shorter in March and September and longer in June and December

really? are you sure about this? no matter what hemisphere you are in, the day can't be longer in both June and December...

 

that because the orbit of the earth is not completely circular, the radius changes and the angular speed of earth around its axis changes as well.

I think that the tilt of the axis explains the changes in day length pretty well. No changes in radius or speed necessary. If the earth were changing in radius or speed, I think there would be some rather obvious consequences that we would have noticed.

[John Cuthber]

In fairness, the orbital radius and velocity do change, but not much, and they don't explain the variation in day length.

[Ophiolite]

 

I do not see any kind of forces here, first if the planet earth rotates around its axis due to some kind of force , its angular velocity will increase continuously , also the day is shorter in March and September and longer in June and December , that because the orbit of the earth is not completely circular, the radius changes and the angular speed of earth around its axis changes as well.

Please provide a citation to support this statement. (I will give you a helping hand. You will find no such citation because the statement is wrong. ) You are proposing that the principle of conservation of angular momentum is wrong. We have centuries of experiment and observation showing that it is right. All you have in response is that you think generations of scientists are mistaken.

You are confused about changes in the length of the day. The length of daylight hours vary with the seasons because, as noted by Bignose, of axial tilt and consequent orientation of the hemispheres with respect to the sun.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Ophiolite

[yahya515]

really? are you sure about this? no matter what hemisphere you are in, the day can't be longer in both June and December...

 

 

 

just look at the table in this page for length of the solar day in several months of the year . the day is either longer or shorter by a few seconds, and that means the angular velocity changes as well

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

[Bignose]

just look at the table in this page for length of the solar day in several months of the year . the day is either longer or shorter by a few seconds, and that means the angular velocity changes as well

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

Conveniently added the word 'solar' in there in front of day. Obviously, a solar day is different that just day. Using correct words is supremely important when discussing these things.

[swansont]

The earth is not in a circular orbit. The result of this, along with the effect of the axial tilt, is that the length of the day varies over the course of a year. In a place where the sun os on an overhead line at noon on the equinoxes, it can be ~15 min ahead or behind at other times of the year. This is summarized by the equation of time, and is the reason for an analemma giving the correction to sundials' time

 

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

 

The effect of changes in the earth's rotational speed currently accounts for a fraction of a second, at most, during a year. It is the reason we add leap seconds. It doesn't violate conservation of angular momentum, because part of the effect is mass redistribution on the earth, changing the moment of inertia, and the main effect is tidal interaction with the moon, transferring angular momentum to it and causing it to recede, which slows the earth. But the overall effect is currently about 1 - 2 ms/day