Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Thanks Andrew

This is exactly what happens when a photon for a short time follows a 
(1x1) orbit. The optimal coupling happens if the polarization is 90/180 
degrees depending on what effect you like. Photons basically have 1x1 
orbits with a varying angle.


This photon coupling is also happening in the Holmlid UDH fusion case 
where Laser photons do accumulate in the 1x1 orbit, because emission is 
suppressed.


As I mentioned many time before. SO(4) physics will change almost all of 
physics even if some effects happen at the rounding of the 5th digit (1FC).


J.W.

Am 25.01.20 um 10:40 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:

Harry,

I'm glad that people are reexamining models of the motion of trapped 
"bodies" on the surface of a "sphere".


Your comment about the varying weight density of the stone may touch 
on the explanation of the Goos-Hanchen and Imbert-Federov effects on 
total internal reflection at the optical level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goos%E2%80%93H%C3%A4nchen_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect
I consider these effects to be important in the 
total-internal-reflection, bound-photon, model of the electron.


Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:36 PM H LV > wrote:


Andrew,

Andrew,

This is amazing. I have been pondering what puts the curl into a
curling stone for over 15 years and this week my intuition has
been bolstered by letting the entire surface of a planet be a
curling rink and reading about the work of Eötvös. The physics of
curling is a controversial area of physics with competing
theories. However, I don't think anyone has considered what effect
the rotation of the planet might have on the weight of the stones
as they move.

I don't know about GR but some interesting things would happen if
the disc also spins as it slides over the surface like a curling
stone on ice.
The weight-density of the disk will vary around it even if it is
of uniform mass-density. This because the contact velocity also
varies around the stone do to combination of its orbital and spin
motion. If the surface is frictionless but supple (not perfectly
rigid) the reactionary force around the disk will vary and be a
maximum where the weight density is a maximum which will result in
a orbit that isn't a great circle. Alternatively if the surface is
perfectly rigid but does have friction this could generate some
non-circle paths as well before the disk comes to rest.

Harry

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:06 PM Andrew Meulenberg
mailto:mules...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Harry,

You are touching on an important area that I am also
contemplating. Your frictionless, smooth, planet provides a
constraint to the motion of a disk on its surface. It is a
real (physical) constraint, independent of frame of reference
and disk velocity. What about the nuclear hard core or the
centrifugal force?  The centrifugal force is frame dependent
and only provides a virtual potential. I don't know if the
nuclear hard core has been adequately defined yet.

However, if your disk is traveling fast enough to not touch
the surface and then slows down just enough to touch the
surface, then its interaction with a "weight-measuring" device
would indicate it to have no weight prior to touch down and a
very small weight afterward. In GR, a small deviation from a
geodesic (where "weight" would be zero) would result in a
small restoring force. Thus, as the disk slows down, its
geodesic changes. If the planet surface prevents the
alteration of the disk's path to follow the changing geodesic,
then it experiences a slight force from the attempt to alter
the path to get the disk back to its geodesic. This small
force on a measuring device would certainly not correspond to
the weight of the disk if it were stationary on the surface.

Andrew


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:01 PM H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since
the surface is frictionless.

Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world
that is exclusively due to the rotation of earth is
complicated by many variables.
The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force
could be one of those variables as well as the coriolis
force. If a spring balance is used to measure weight,
wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
the rotation? If so they could give the impression of
weight change when the spring is loaded.

Harry


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg
mailto:mules...@gmail.com>> wrote:


 

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Harry,

I'm glad that people are reexamining models of the motion of trapped
"bodies" on the surface of a "sphere".

Your comment about the varying weight density of the stone may touch on the
explanation of the Goos-Hanchen and Imbert-Federov effects on total
internal reflection at the optical level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goos%E2%80%93H%C3%A4nchen_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect
I consider these effects to be important in the total-internal-reflection,
bound-photon, model of the electron.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:36 PM H LV  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Andrew,
>
> This is amazing. I have been pondering what puts the curl into a curling
> stone for over 15 years and this week my intuition has been bolstered by
> letting the entire surface of a planet be a curling rink and reading about
> the work of Eötvös. The physics of curling is a controversial area of
> physics with competing theories. However, I don't think anyone has
> considered what effect the rotation of the planet might have on the weight
> of the stones as they move.
>
> I don't know about GR but some interesting things would happen if the disc
> also spins as it slides over the surface like a curling stone on ice.
> The weight-density of the disk will vary around it even if it is of
> uniform mass-density. This because the contact velocity also varies around
> the stone do to combination of its orbital and spin motion. If the surface
> is frictionless but supple (not perfectly rigid) the reactionary force
> around the disk will vary and be a maximum where the weight density is a
> maximum which will result in a orbit that isn't a great circle.
> Alternatively if the surface is perfectly rigid but does have friction this
> could generate some non-circle paths as well before the disk comes to rest.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:06 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Harry,
>>
>> You are touching on an important area that I am also contemplating. Your
>> frictionless, smooth, planet provides a constraint to the motion of a disk
>> on its surface. It is a real (physical) constraint, independent of frame of
>> reference and disk velocity. What about the nuclear hard core or the
>> centrifugal force?  The centrifugal force is frame dependent and only
>> provides a virtual potential. I don't know if the nuclear hard core has
>> been adequately defined yet.
>>
>> However, if your disk is traveling fast enough to not touch the surface
>> and then slows down just enough to touch the surface, then its interaction
>> with a "weight-measuring" device would indicate it to have no weight prior
>> to touch down and a very small weight afterward. In GR, a small deviation
>> from a geodesic (where "weight" would be zero) would result in a small
>> restoring force. Thus, as the disk slows down, its geodesic changes. If the
>> planet surface prevents the alteration of the disk's path to follow the
>> changing geodesic, then it experiences a slight force from the attempt to
>> alter the path to get the disk back to its geodesic. This small force on a
>> measuring device would certainly not correspond to the weight of the disk
>> if it were stationary on the surface.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:01 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>> I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since the surface is
>>> frictionless.
>>>
>>> Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world that is
>>> exclusively due to the rotation of earth is complicated by many variables.
>>> The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force could be one of
>>> those variables as well as the coriolis force. If a spring balance is used
>>> to measure weight, wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
>>> the rotation? If so they could give the impression of weight change when
>>> the spring is loaded.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Harry,

 For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating
 or not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
 forces.

 This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator

 The difference between* centrifugal force* vs the *reactive*
 centrifugal force[41]
 
 [42]
  is
 interesting.


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce

 Andrew
 _ __ _

 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:30 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[H LV]

Andrew,

Andrew,

This is amazing. I have been pondering what puts the curl into a curling
stone for over 15 years and this week my intuition has been bolstered by
letting the entire surface of a planet be a curling rink and reading about
the work of Eötvös. The physics of curling is a controversial area of
physics with competing theories. However, I don't think anyone has
considered what effect the rotation of the planet might have on the weight
of the stones as they move.

I don't know about GR but some interesting things would happen if the disc
also spins as it slides over the surface like a curling stone on ice.
The weight-density of the disk will vary around it even if it is of uniform
mass-density. This because the contact velocity also varies around the
stone do to combination of its orbital and spin motion. If the surface is
frictionless but supple (not perfectly rigid) the reactionary force around
the disk will vary and be a maximum where the weight density is a maximum
which will result in a orbit that isn't a great circle. Alternatively if
the surface is perfectly rigid but does have friction this could generate
some non-circle paths as well before the disk comes to rest.

Harry

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:06 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
wrote:

> Harry,
>
> You are touching on an important area that I am also contemplating. Your
> frictionless, smooth, planet provides a constraint to the motion of a disk
> on its surface. It is a real (physical) constraint, independent of frame of
> reference and disk velocity. What about the nuclear hard core or the
> centrifugal force?  The centrifugal force is frame dependent and only
> provides a virtual potential. I don't know if the nuclear hard core has
> been adequately defined yet.
>
> However, if your disk is traveling fast enough to not touch the surface
> and then slows down just enough to touch the surface, then its interaction
> with a "weight-measuring" device would indicate it to have no weight prior
> to touch down and a very small weight afterward. In GR, a small deviation
> from a geodesic (where "weight" would be zero) would result in a small
> restoring force. Thus, as the disk slows down, its geodesic changes. If the
> planet surface prevents the alteration of the disk's path to follow the
> changing geodesic, then it experiences a slight force from the attempt to
> alter the path to get the disk back to its geodesic. This small force on a
> measuring device would certainly not correspond to the weight of the disk
> if it were stationary on the surface.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:01 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>> I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since the surface is
>> frictionless.
>>
>> Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world that is
>> exclusively due to the rotation of earth is complicated by many variables.
>> The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force could be one of
>> those variables as well as the coriolis force. If a spring balance is used
>> to measure weight, wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
>> the rotation? If so they could give the impression of weight change when
>> the spring is loaded.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Harry,
>>>
>>> For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating
>>> or not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
>>> forces.
>>>
>>> This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator
>>>
>>> The difference between* centrifugal force* vs the *reactive*
>>> centrifugal force[41]
>>> 
>>> [42]
>>>  is
>>> interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>> _ __ _
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:30 PM H LV  wrote:
>>>

 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>> This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
>>> thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
>>> mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
>>> falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
>>> https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa
>>>
>>> Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
>>> mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
>>> _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
>>> speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
>>> velocity it 

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Harry,

You are touching on an important area that I am also contemplating. Your
frictionless, smooth, planet provides a constraint to the motion of a disk
on its surface. It is a real (physical) constraint, independent of frame of
reference and disk velocity. What about the nuclear hard core or the
centrifugal force?  The centrifugal force is frame dependent and only
provides a virtual potential. I don't know if the nuclear hard core has
been adequately defined yet.

However, if your disk is traveling fast enough to not touch the surface and
then slows down just enough to touch the surface, then its interaction with
a "weight-measuring" device would indicate it to have no weight prior to
touch down and a very small weight afterward. In GR, a small deviation from
a geodesic (where "weight" would be zero) would result in a small restoring
force. Thus, as the disk slows down, its geodesic changes. If the planet
surface prevents the alteration of the disk's path to follow the changing
geodesic, then it experiences a slight force from the attempt to alter the
path to get the disk back to its geodesic. This small force on a measuring
device would certainly not correspond to the weight of the disk if it were
stationary on the surface.

Andrew


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:01 PM H LV  wrote:

> I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since the surface is
> frictionless.
>
> Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world that is
> exclusively due to the rotation of earth is complicated by many variables.
> The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force could be one of
> those variables as well as the coriolis force. If a spring balance is used
> to measure weight, wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
> the rotation? If so they could give the impression of weight change when
> the spring is loaded.
>
> Harry
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Harry,
>>
>> For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating
>> or not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
>> forces.
>>
>> This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator
>>
>> The difference between* centrifugal force* vs the *reactive* centrifugal
>> force[41]
>> [42]
>>  is
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce
>>
>> Andrew
>> _ __ _
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:30 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:
>>>

 On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:
>
>> This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
>> thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
>> mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
>> falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
>> https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa
>>
>> Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
>> mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
>> _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
>> speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
>> velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
>> The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase 
>> as
>> the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
>> resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
> To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of
> the stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in
> the frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General
> Relativity is not a force then a corresponding a centrifugal force does 
> not
> arise. Therefore, if GR is true, the weight of the stone should jump to 
> its
> full weight for any value less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think
> there is argument to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force 
> and
> is just an acceleration).
> Harry
>

 Just a follow up. Since a body sitting at the equator is moving faster
 than the same body near the pole it should weigh less due to the greater
 centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation. Until  recently I don't
 think anyone had tried to measure this predicted effect and it was just
 taken for granted to be true. (There have been tests on the equivalence of
 inertial mass and 

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[H LV]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jürg Wyttenbach  wrote:

> Unluckily the earth is not flat even in the curved sense as it is an
> ellipsoid with at least a delta north-south/east-west in radius of about
> 10km.
>
> Even more unluckily gravitation is not a constant it slightly depends on
> the density of matter. And last but not least gravity is a force and not
> just a curvature of space. From a mathematical point of view there is no
> difference between the two views as long as you do not believe that the
> gravity force is of purely central nature.
> The idea of curvature emerged because physicist had no clue why a photon
> could be attracted by a mass. But all EM-mass interact with other EM mass
> what leads to the other erroneous picture of virtual particle background.
> I you once understand why/how all mass is EM-mass, then you also will
> understand all mistakes of 100 year physics.
>
> J.W.
>
> PS: Who will construct this perfect cannon that is able to do a shot
> exactly along the horizon line? Not Boing...
>
>
>
Galileo was the first person to introduce the concept of compound motion
into the study of projectile motion. For him a projectile
fired horizontally was a combination of two motions: A constant horizontal
motion plus a constant downward acceleration.
(Btw, he only used a horizontal law of inertia as a rule of thumb.
Descartes was the first to propose a universal law inertia for all
directions).
Prior to Galileo this would have been considered strange, because such
motion was viewed as an expression of wholeness, rather than as an
expressing of parts.

Harry

>

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[H LV]

I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since the surface is
frictionless.

Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world that is
exclusively due to the rotation of earth is complicated by many variables.
The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force could be one of
those variables as well as the coriolis force. If a spring balance is used
to measure weight, wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
the rotation? If so they could give the impression of weight change when
the spring is loaded.

Harry


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
wrote:

>
> Harry,
>
> For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating or
> not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
> forces.
>
> This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator
>
> The difference between* centrifugal force* vs the *reactive* centrifugal
> force[41]
> [42]
>  is
> interesting.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce
>
> Andrew
> _ __ _
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:30 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>>>

 On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:

> This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
> thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
> mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
> falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
> https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa
>
> Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
> mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
> _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
> speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
> velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
> The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
> the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
> resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?
>
> Harry
>

 To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of
 the stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in
 the frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General
 Relativity is not a force then a corresponding a centrifugal force does not
 arise. Therefore, if GR is true, the weight of the stone should jump to its
 full weight for any value less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think
 there is argument to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force and
 is just an acceleration).
 Harry

>>>
>>> Just a follow up. Since a body sitting at the equator is moving faster
>>> than the same body near the pole it should weigh less due to the greater
>>> centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation. Until  recently I don't
>>> think anyone had tried to measure this predicted effect and it was just
>>> taken for granted to be true. (There have been tests on the equivalence of
>>> inertial mass and gravitational mass but this is a different test).
>>> However arguments between Flat-Earthers and Anti-Flat earthers have
>>> resulted in amateur empirical investigations of the matter. Flat Earther's
>>> contend the weight should be constant since they hold the earth is flat and
>>> does not rotate.  The results so far seem to be open to interpretation. I
>>> am not a Flat- Earther but it is interersting how this fringe community has
>>> turned it into an empirical question.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>
>>
>> So it seems Eotvos in the first decade of the 1900s used Earth's rotation
>> and centrifugal force to explain observed differences in some weights on
>> ships moving in opposite directions. Until now I was only familiar with his
>> work on the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass in 1889. see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect
>>
>

RE: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[JonesBeene]

Speaking of unusual thought experiments involving centripetal force, later 
found to be real products  - here is a surprising old electrical device  which 
explores the intersection of charge and mechanical spin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3EpyjATE48

It is a rotating anode tube (valve to the Brits). This is new to me but 
apparently it was once a commercial product.

Strange device and stranger experimenter. High voltage brings out the truly 
weird (and truly wired(. 

Not to mention the peril to the guy’s  puppies. A crowded HV lab and puppies – 
what could go wrong?

Anyway – for the alternative energy enthusiast out there in Volandia, this 
particular device seems to  explore the question of charge, spin and 
conservation of energy in a way that makes one wonder about the actual history 
of it. Was it efficient at all?

One place the larger implications might come up is in automotive engineering.

 Imagine an internal combustion engine with a modified turbocharger spinning at 
near the limit of mechanical tensile strength of the rotor – say 150,000 RPM, 
where the spin itself can be considered “free” in a way (any extra energy 
derived is free).  The question then becomes - can a high speed  rotor be 
modified to also act as an electrode, providing HV electrical charge ?

Jones

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Harry,

For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating or
not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
forces.

This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator

The difference between* centrifugal force* vs the *reactive* centrifugal
force[41]
[42]
 is
interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce

Andrew
_ __ _

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:30 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:
>>>
 This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
 thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
 mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
 falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
 https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa

 Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
 mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
 _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
 speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
 velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
 The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
 the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
 resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?

 Harry

>>>
>>> To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of
>>> the stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in
>>> the frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General
>>> Relativity is not a force then a corresponding a centrifugal force does not
>>> arise. Therefore, if GR is true, the weight of the stone should jump to its
>>> full weight for any value less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think
>>> there is argument to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force and
>>> is just an acceleration).
>>> Harry
>>>
>>
>> Just a follow up. Since a body sitting at the equator is moving faster
>> than the same body near the pole it should weigh less due to the greater
>> centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation. Until  recently I don't
>> think anyone had tried to measure this predicted effect and it was just
>> taken for granted to be true. (There have been tests on the equivalence of
>> inertial mass and gravitational mass but this is a different test).
>> However arguments between Flat-Earthers and Anti-Flat earthers have
>> resulted in amateur empirical investigations of the matter. Flat Earther's
>> contend the weight should be constant since they hold the earth is flat and
>> does not rotate.  The results so far seem to be open to interpretation. I
>> am not a Flat- Earther but it is interersting how this fringe community has
>> turned it into an empirical question.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>
> So it seems Eotvos in the first decade of the 1900s used Earth's rotation
> and centrifugal force to explain observed differences in some weights on
> ships moving in opposite directions. Until now I was only familiar with his
> work on the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass in 1889. see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect
>

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[H LV]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>> This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
>>> thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
>>> mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
>>> falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
>>> https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa
>>>
>>> Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
>>> mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
>>> _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
>>> speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
>>> velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
>>> The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
>>> the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
>>> resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>
>> To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of
>> the stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in
>> the frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General
>> Relativity is not a force then a corresponding a centrifugal force does not
>> arise. Therefore, if GR is true, the weight of the stone should jump to its
>> full weight for any value less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think
>> there is argument to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force and
>> is just an acceleration).
>> Harry
>>
>
> Just a follow up. Since a body sitting at the equator is moving faster
> than the same body near the pole it should weigh less due to the greater
> centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation. Until  recently I don't
> think anyone had tried to measure this predicted effect and it was just
> taken for granted to be true. (There have been tests on the equivalence of
> inertial mass and gravitational mass but this is a different test).
> However arguments between Flat-Earthers and Anti-Flat earthers have
> resulted in amateur empirical investigations of the matter. Flat Earther's
> contend the weight should be constant since they hold the earth is flat and
> does not rotate.  The results so far seem to be open to interpretation. I
> am not a Flat- Earther but it is interersting how this fringe community has
> turned it into an empirical question.
>
> Harry
>


So it seems Eotvos in the first decade of the 1900s used Earth's rotation
and centrifugal force to explain observed differences in some weights on
ships moving in opposite directions. Until now I was only familiar with his
work on the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass in 1889. see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Unluckily the earth is not flat even in the curved sense as it is an 
ellipsoid with at least a delta north-south/east-west in radius of about 
10km.


Even more unluckily gravitation is not a constant it slightly depends on 
the density of matter. And last but not least gravity is a force and not 
just a curvature of space. From a mathematical point of view there is no 
difference between the two views as long as you do not believe that the 
gravity force is of purely central nature.
The idea of curvature emerged because physicist had no clue why a photon 
could be attracted by a mass. But all EM-mass interact with other EM 
mass what leads to the other erroneous picture of virtual particle 
background.
I you once understand why/how all mass is EM-mass, then you also will 
understand all mistakes of 100 year physics.


J.W.

PS: Who will construct this perfect cannon that is able to do a shot 
exactly along the horizon line? Not Boing...




Am 22.01.20 um 22:46 schrieb H LV:



On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV > wrote:




On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous
cannon thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired
horizontally from a mountain top (assuming no air resistance)
will orbit the Earth without falling to the ground if it is
fired with sufficient speed.
https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa

Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth,
with no mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling
stone of a given _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled
horizontally with sufficient speed it will orbit the planet
while sliding over the surface. At this velocity it will be in
free fall so its weight will be effectively zero. The question
is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the
curling stone resume its full weight for any velocity less
than the orbital velocity?

Harry


To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the
weight of the stone should increase, because the centrifugal force
is decreasing in the frame of reference of the stone. However, if
gravity in General Relativity is not a force then a corresponding
a centrifugal force does not arise. Therefore, if GR is true, the
weight of the stone should jump to its full weight for any value
less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think there is argument
to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force and is just
an acceleration).
Harry


Just a follow up. Since a body sitting at the equator is moving faster 
than the same body near the pole it should weigh less due to the 
greater centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation. Until  
recently I don't think anyone had tried to measure this predicted 
effect and it was just taken for granted to be true. (There have been 
tests on the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass but 
this is a different test). However arguments between Flat-Earthers and 
Anti-Flat earthers have resulted in amateur empirical investigations 
of the matter. Flat Earther's contend the weight should be constant 
since they hold the earth is flat and does not rotate.  The results so 
far seem to be open to interpretation. I am not a Flat- Earther but it 
is interersting how this fringe community has turned it into an 
empirical question.


Harry



--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[H LV]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:
>
>> This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
>> thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
>> mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
>> falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
>> https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa
>>
>> Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
>> mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
>> _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
>> speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
>> velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
>> The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
>> the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
>> resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
> To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of the
> stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in the
> frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General Relativity
> is not a force then a corresponding a centrifugal force does not arise.
> Therefore, if GR is true, the weight of the stone should jump to its full
> weight for any value less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think there
> is argument to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force and is
> just an acceleration).
> Harry
>

Just a follow up. Since a body sitting at the equator is moving faster than
the same body near the pole it should weigh less due to the greater
centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation. Until  recently I don't
think anyone had tried to measure this predicted effect and it was just
taken for granted to be true. (There have been tests on the equivalence of
inertial mass and gravitational mass but this is a different test).
However arguments between Flat-Earthers and Anti-Flat earthers have
resulted in amateur empirical investigations of the matter. Flat Earther's
contend the weight should be constant since they hold the earth is flat and
does not rotate.  The results so far seem to be open to interpretation. I
am not a Flat- Earther but it is interersting how this fringe community has
turned it into an empirical question.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[H LV]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV  wrote:

> This is an illustration from Newton's Principia of his famous cannon
> thought experiment. It shows how a cannonball fired horizontally from a
> mountain top (assuming no air resistance) will orbit the Earth without
> falling to the ground if it is fired with sufficient speed.
> https://imgur.com/gallery/dzSLWaa
>
> Now imagine an ice covered planet which is perfectly smooth, with no
> mountains or valleys. On the surface rests a curling stone of a given
> _weight_. If the curling stone is propelled horizontally with sufficient
> speed it will orbit the planet while sliding over the surface. At this
> velocity it will be in free fall so its weight will be effectively zero.
> The question is does the weight of the curling stone gradually increase as
> the horizontal velocity gradually decreases or does the curling stone
> resume its full weight for any velocity less than the orbital velocity?
>
> Harry
>

To answer my own question... the classical prediction is the weight of the
stone should increase, because the centrifugal force is decreasing in the
frame of reference of the stone. However, if gravity in General Relativity
is not a force then a corresponding a centrifugal force does not arise.
Therefore, if GR is true, the weight of the stone should jump to its full
weight for any value less than the orbital speed. (Actually I think there
is argument to be made that even Newtonian gravity is not a force and is
just an acceleration).
Harry