Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 17 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 16 17
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
To avoid possible confusion I should restate my use of terminology.

Universe (with capital U) = all that we can observe and study.

universe ( with lower case u) = any universe about which we may speculate, including alternative universes.

Cosmos (with or without capilal C) = everything that can possible exist.

Cosmos, sensu Bill s. = Ensemble, sensu Finiter.

Now comes the difficult bit. If the Universe is part of the cosmos, as it must be, how can real change occur in the Universe without causing change in the infinite cosmos?

Last edited by Bill S.; 10/16/11 11:34 AM.

There never was nothing.
.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Now comes the difficult bit. If the Universe is part of the cosmos, as it must be, how can real change occur in the Universe without causing change in the infinite cosmos?


I will follow your terminology. In my model, the cosmos is infinite. It contains universes. All universes remain pulsating. The universes do not move away from their respective places. So at any time the cosmos looks the same.

Each universe pulsates. Galaxy clusters are the individual units of the universes. These clusters move away from the centre of the universe and after reaching a certain point return back. The whole energy in the universe is possessed by the galaxy clusters and a system electromagnetic radiations that co-exist with the system of clusters. Thus in fact, as a single unit, a universe has no energy of its own.

Similarly, the whole gravitational force is utlised in the formation of the system of clusters. Therefore the universes have no force. Thus, no interactions take place between universes. That is any change in any universe does not affect the rest.

Nothing including light can move out of the universe. Light(all e-m radiations) moves along a circular path (not due to any curvature of space, but due to the inherent force in it) and can never cross the boundary of the universe. So no information passes from one universe to the other.

Thus the universes are independent and self contained systems. The pulsation of the universe is a thermodynamic process confined to it. The cosmos is not affected. The cosmos is not a system; it is just an ensemble, and the universes are distributed randomly.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter

I repeat again: So far I haven't said that any observation is wrong. Can you give an example? I have given alternate explanations wherever possible, and concluded that the 'inference' is wrong.

I went through the site you have referred to (especially item no.7). Though I claim my hypothesis is a theory, it has not crossed the barrier to be called a 'theory'. For that, my hypothesis should be verified by the scientific community. If found false, then I may be tempted to resort to 'conventionalist twist'. In a way, 'conventionalist twist' has been resorted to in the case of Big-bang theory, string theory, and even to QM (this, I am not sure).


Okay so you really want to do this so lets start with absolute space.

Why does a rotating bucket of water produce a curved surface under your theory?

Nice easy one to start with.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
Why does a rotating bucket of water produce a curved surface under your theory? Nice easy one to start with.

The question is simple. But to answer it, I have to explain from the beginning. Of course, some of the explanations may go against the existing concepts (but any way, the explanations, I think, are logical). However, I will restrict the explanations to the minimum.

According to my theory, atoms are made up of fundamental particles(mass nearly 10^-47Kg). However, each atom can accommodate excess particles (each carrying energy equal to mc^2/2), and this increases the energy of the atom. Between atoms, energy is transferred by transferring vibrations (mechanically) and transferring fundamental particles.

In masses like Earth, Sun, etc. each atom has to possess the required energy to remain in a certain position in the mass. For each atom, the attractive forces are balanced by repulsive forces, and hence the mass as a whole remains stable. The attractive forces include gravitational force between atoms, gravity towards the centre of the mass (these have separate constants), and electromagnetic attraction. The repulsive forces include the electromagnetic repulsion and the energy possessed (vibration, rotation and translation) by the atom.

Now coming to the question: The bucket remaining stationary, each molecule of water possesses the required energy, and the forces remain balanced. Now on rotation, mechanical force is being applied. This causes energy transfer to the water molecules; this transfer takes place mechanically and also by transfer of fundamental particles.

The water molecules that acquire kinetic energy rises up defying gravity (towards Earth)in proportion to the energy acquired, and thus a curved surface is formed. As long as the mechanical force remains acting, the water will remain in that form and forces will remain balanced.

Here, in addition to the forces that existed in the beginning, there is a centripetal force towards the central axis of the bucket, caused by the rotation. For each atom, the centripetal force is balanced by the kinetic energy; ie, centripetal force is equal to (mv^2)/2, and not mv^2.

The differences between Newtonian concept and the proposed theory: Force does not impart energy, but causes transfer of energy (you have to identify the source of energy, especially in the case of force acting at a distance). The centripetal force is equal to the kinetic energy and there is no centrifugal force. Thus there is no fictional force (centrifugal force).

Last edited by finiter; 10/17/11 10:33 AM.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
WOW and that all makes sense to you and you don't think that defies any observations and makes sense?

Questions:

->If things want to stay at there current momentum and there are no forces on things why does the water start spinning at all. Why doesn't the water just sit still and the bucket rotate ... I mean how does the water know the bucket is rotating and should start doing that itself if we have no forces?

->Now lets go beyond the start point eventually the rope will unwind and then start winding back up and will begin to slow the bucket rotation down. How does the water know the bucket is decelerating.


Finally I am going to introduce a new addition to the experiment. The rope from the bucket is going to be tethered to an axle and I am going to get the whole lot rotating about this central axis (it's called a swinging bucket rotor).



So the bucket will be rotating horizontal before I release the bucket to begin it's rotation. Whats your theory predict will happen to the curvature of the bucket.

I mean it begs the question in your world why the water doesn't just fall out of my bucket given we don't have centrifugal forces but lets go beyond that problem. See the water surface is now 90 degree to gravity still want it to well up and defy earth gravity????? Think about what that looks like and no thats not what we are going to see is it :-)

I can think of hundreds of situations involving circular motion your theory will come unstuck basically they are all the same ones Newtonian physics struggles with.

Last edited by Orac; 10/18/11 03:23 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I was looking at some results of an experiment and I happen to notice another one thats going to take some explaining in your world

Look at the attached image .... what causes capillary action in your finite world if you have no forces


Last edited by Orac; 10/18/11 04:08 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

->If things want to stay at there current momentum and there are no forces on things why does the water start spinning at all. Why doesn't the water just sit still and the bucket rotate ... I mean how does the water know the bucket is rotating and should start doing that itself if we have no forces?

->Now lets go beyond the start point eventually the rope will unwind and then start winding back up and will begin to slow the bucket rotation down. How does the water know the bucket is decelerating.


The first two questions are trivial. You are rotating bucket and water as a whole. Neither the bucket nor the water 'knows or decides' which one is to rotate. The force causes changes in both. The bucket being solid, and water being liquid, the changes are slightly different. As long as the centripetal force exists, the water will remain rotating; as the force subsides, water returns to its original position.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter

The first two questions are trivial. You are rotating bucket and water as a whole. Neither the bucket nor the water 'knows or decides' which one is to rotate. The force causes changes in both. The bucket being solid, and water being liquid, the changes are slightly different. As long as the centripetal force exists, the water will remain rotating; as the force subsides, water returns to its original position.


So you do have forces in your theory?

Okay can I get the background of said forces and the forumlas for them?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

I mean it begs the question in your world why the water doesn't just fall out of my bucket given we don't have centrifugal forces but lets go beyond that problem. See the water surface is now 90 degree to gravity still want it to well up and defy earth gravity????? Think about what that looks like and no thats not what we are going to see is it


Regarding the change in the experiment: The difference between solid and liquid is the flexibility of the molecules in the lattice. If the bucket was just solid, the relative positions of the atoms are not altered. The atoms at the farthest point of the bucket will have the maximum kinetic energy. But the water molecules in the bucket can attain different speeds. The water molecules close to the solid part of the bucket are naturally held by the solid lattice and the central portion of water acquires a relatively high speed. And hence the curvature of the water surface. In the former case, the solid surface has the maximum kinetic energy; in this case the top part of the bucket has the least kinetic energy. Thus, in the former, the centre of the curve has the minimum speed, whereas, in the present case, the centre has the maximum speed. Because of the flexibility of the molecules the energy acquired remains within a maximum and minimum limit, and this creates a neat mathematical curve. In the present case, the central part (minimum point) of the curve will be slightly shifted due to gravity. In this case also, the water molecules defy gravity because of the kinetic energy, and so does not fall down.

Thus, here also you need not introduce a centrifugal force; the kinetic energy, the centripetal force and the balance of forces alone are required to explain the phenomenon.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

So you do have forces in your theory?

Okay can I get the background of said forces and the forumlas for them?


How can one deny the existence of forces? The force that I referred is the mechanical force of rotation that you apply. What I have said is that the concept of centrifugal force is not necessary.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac

Look at the attached image .... what causes capillary action in your finite world if you have no forces


Who said there are no forces. I have already given a brief account of forces and how these are to be balanced. Only the centrifugal force (which you have stated as as an imaginary or fictional force, and which I consider as an erroneous concept) is under dispute.

The capillary action is due to the interaction between solid and liquid lattices. The normal forces, namely gravitational and electrostatic interactions (the former between atoms and the latter between the subatomic particles in atoms) and the resultant balance of forces cause this phenomenon.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
So how can one test or measure this mechanical rotational force?

I am still interested in the swinging bucket rotor.

So what happens to the surface of the water (which is now vertical because of the swinging) in the swinging bucket under your theory?

When it was flat it was swelling up defying earth gravity because of it's kinetic speed?

You sort of answered why the water doesn't run out but not what happens to our water surface curve when our spinning bucket is made into swinging bucket rotor.

Do you understand what I am doing its called compound frames of reference and it's going to get worse as I introduce more and you will see you run out of excuses and explainations as you can't build a consistant story in absolute space.

Last edited by Orac; 10/18/11 05:35 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter

The capillary action is due to the interaction between solid and liquid lattices. The normal forces, namely gravitational and electrostatic interactions (the former between atoms and the latter between the subatomic particles in atoms) and the resultant balance of forces cause this phenomenon.


Think carefully trick coming up .... so if I remove gravity there is nothing to oppose the capillary force the water will what occupy the whole tube?

Last edited by Orac; 10/18/11 06:11 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I won't drag you through it all by now you should have started to see the problem and I will take you to the end of the story unless you want the pain of the excercise

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqLQO3L4Ko&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxyfiBGCwhQ&feature=relmfu

See in the end I am even going to deny you the bucket and walls.

These arguments are very old and all the tests have been done in micro gravity enviroments :-)

Last edited by Orac; 10/18/11 07:10 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Finally if you are not convinced you have a problem here is a simple problem to explain

Why does the block fly off the flat circular disc



And just when you think you have that sorted I will turn that into a swinging bucket rotor so it is vertical :-)

Last edited by Orac; 10/18/11 07:32 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
So how can one test or measure this mechanical rotational force?

You sort of answered why the water doesn't run out but not what happens to our water surface curve when our spinning bucket is made into swinging bucket rotor.

Do you understand what I am doing its called compound frames of reference and it's going to get worse as I introduce more and you will see you run out of excuses and explainations as you can't build a consistant story in absolute space.


Mechanical force is not fundamental. If at all any forces are to be treated as fundamental, the gravitational and electromagnetic forces are the only ones. The mechanical forces like stress, strain, elasticity, friction etc are the end results of such basic forces and energy associated with matter (the existing concept is the same). For the measurement any suitable device can be used.

The surface of the swinging bucket is also curved. I have explained it. You might not have noticed it. It is the flexibility of the water column that causes the curve. Unlike the molecules of the solid bucket, the molecules in water acquire different kinetic energies. The molecules close to the side of the bucket tend to have lower kinetic energies, and towards the centre, the kinetic energy increases. The curve indicates a statistical information of the variation in kinetic energies. The gravity towards earth may cause a slight shifting of the centre of the curve.

If I am not consistent in my reply, my hypothesis will not qualify as a theory; I will have to modify it or just discard it, depending upon the the nature of error.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Your clearly not getting it so lets go through it

There are actually two kinetic energies not one

I am spining the bucket flat as a centrifuge so they have a kinetic energy realtive to that motion.

I am also spinning the bucket about the tether that is rotating on the centrifuge.

So each and every water molecule has two kinetic spins one flat around the centrifuge and one spinning about the bucket.


If space is absolute then the effect that the water sees in the bucket should be compound to both spins? It has to be space is absolute you are telling me.

If you took a water molecule somewhere out from the centre of the bucket it is describing some sort of circular spirograph pattern as it goes around in a circle on the flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid)(http://www.math.psu.edu/dlittle/java/parametricequations/cycloid/)

Thats its weird kinetic motion path so whatever effect I am supposed to see is supposed to reflect that absolute motion and absolute kinetic energy in your finite world.

As I said in space or engineered enviroments I can even get rid of the bucket and just have the water with two completely different spins.

The net result can be described by considering the two spins in isolation I do not need to even talk about or consider the absolute motions and kinetics.

This is why the spinning bucket surface looks the same on the earth which is rotating about its axis while orbiting the sun and the sun is spinning about the galaxy centre. I need not consider any of those spins to talk about the bucket surface it is the same as if I was dead still in the middle of space with just the bucket spinning.

To put this in maths terms I have a vertical and horizontal vector or force diagram forming a triangle. The two individual force do not add up to the hypotenuse which is the compound force.

If the world was absolute I would need to consider the compound result I don't I can consider each spin in isolation.

You are linking kinetic energy which is movement to absolute space but then linking localized effects into that same kinetic energy and those localized effects are relative ... How can that be???.

Does that clarify how untenable your absolute world is?

Last edited by Orac; 10/18/11 09:54 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac


Think carefully trick coming up .... so if I remove gravity there is nothing to oppose the capillary force the water will what occupy the whole tube?


The capillary rise against 'gravity towards Earth' is due to gravitational and electromagnetic forces between atoms of the solid surface and the atoms on the liquid surface. The mobile molecules of water just gets packed inside. Actually, it is the difference in 'force felt' between the inside and outside of the capillary, that causes the rise. So removing gravity may not affect.

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
F
finiter Offline OP
Senior Member
OP Offline
Senior Member
F
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac


There are actually two kinetic energies not one

I am spining the bucket flat as a centrifuge so they have a kinetic energy realtive to that motion.

I am also spinning the bucket about the tether that is rotating on the centrifuge.

So each and every water molecule has two kinetic spins one flat around the centrifuge and one spinning about the bucket.


If space is absolute then the effect that the water sees in the bucket should be compound to both spins? It has to be space is absolute you are telling me.

If you took a water molecule somewhere out from the centre of the bucket it is describing some sort of circular spirograph pattern as it goes around in a circle on the flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid)(http://www.math.psu.edu/dlittle/java/parametricequations/cycloid/)

Thats its weird kinetic motion path so whatever effect I am supposed to see is supposed to reflect that absolute motion and absolute kinetic energy in your finite world.

As I said in space or engineered enviroments I can even get rid of the bucket and just have the water with two completely different spins.

The net result can be described by considering the two spins in isolation I do not need to even talk about or consider the absolute motions and kinetics.

This is why the spinning bucket surface looks the same on the earth which is rotating about its axis while orbiting the sun and the sun is spinning about the galaxy centre. I need not consider any of those spins to talk about the bucket surface it is the same as if I was dead still in the middle of space with just the bucket spinning.

To put this in maths terms I have a vertical and horizontal vector or force diagram forming a triangle. The two individual force do not add up to the hypotenuse which is the compound force.

If the world was absolute I would need to consider the compound result I don't I can consider each spin in isolation.

You are linking kinetic energy which is movement to absolute space but then linking localized effects into that same kinetic energy and those localized effects are relative ... How can that be???.

Does that clarify how untenable your absolute world is?


Sorry, I thought the spinning and centrifuging to be two independent cases. You are incorporating both together. However, this, does not cause any problem. Now you are applying two different forces of rotation to the bucket; ie you are transferring energy simultaneously by two methods. The net effect would be the surface will remain more curved, because the minimum level of energy will be higher. The energy of each atom (vibrations, rotation, and translation), and the electromagnetic repulsion will be balanced the attractive forces and the centripetal forces. You need not consider the forces separately, and identify 'which force counters which force'.

In my theory balance of forces is the main thing to be considered. Forces does not impart energy, but only causes transfer of energy. Circular motion does not create centripetal force, except in the case of fundamental particles. And so centripetal force and absoluteness of space has no connection.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: finiter

Sorry, I thought the spinning and centrifuging to be two independent cases. You are incorporating both together. However, this, does not cause any problem. Now you are applying two different forces of rotation to the bucket; ie you are transferring energy simultaneously by two methods. The net effect would be the surface will remain more curved, because the minimum level of energy will be higher. The energy of each atom (vibrations, rotation, and translation), and the electromagnetic repulsion will be balanced the attractive forces and the centripetal forces. You need not consider the forces separately, and identify 'which force counters which force'.

In my theory balance of forces is the main thing to be considered. Forces does not impart energy, but only causes transfer of energy. Circular motion does not create centripetal force, except in the case of fundamental particles. And so centripetal force and absoluteness of space has no connection.


That story doesn't hold together at all ... its crazy

Think about it you are a particle you can't see whats happening as a whole.

To give you an insight consider you location on earth at the moment now plot the path of your actual movement of that point as the earth rotates about its axis and the earth orbits the sun (It will look something like this "press start" http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html)

You are completely unaware of those motions sitting where you are as would a particle or mass so how do you propose how it knows what energies to transfer?

At the moment you simply say "se I can see two distinct rotations" as if the actual system can see them as well.
So what happens if I make the rotations much more complex like each sine waves even you will be struggling to sort out which rotation is which visually and the system certainly has no way to "know".

Here this is a typical Lissajous rotation (http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/Lis/Lissa.htm)
(http://wn.com/Lissajous_figure) look at section 9

I am going to put two of them together on my double centrifuge setup. How do you think your energy is going to "know" what is going on. This is the sort of motion that is used by those frightening theme park rides.

Is this starting to gel with you yet I can make the motions complex even with simple setups so some sort of mathematics has to tie the compound motions together. The only way you can at the moment is to invoke god to know ahead what is going to happen because these belong to a class of motions called chaotic motion (http://www.clausewitz.com/Complex/ChaosDemos.htm)

I like your idea it's sort of elegant but these are the problem Einstein had with his static universe and why we know for a fact absolute space is dead.

Last edited by Orac; 10/18/11 02:53 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 11 of 17 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5