I have often wondered why we can easily detect our angular
motion with respect to the rest of the universe but not
detect linear motion.
Thanks to the dimensions of Mass being confirmed by
Ing.Saviour's analysis, I now understand why.
Say I am sitting in a closed room with no windows
I have a bucket of water on a turntable. I rotate the
turntable rapidly.
As the water takes up the bucket's rotation I see the water
surface curve as it goes down in the middle and up round the
edges.
I know that if I were in the bucket and rotating with the
water then by knocking down the walls I would see the stars
streaking across the night sky.
Nothing could be much simpler than to detect absolute angular
motion relative to the frame of reference of the fixed stars.
In other words, relative to absolute space.
Of course, stars are not completely fixed. They jiggle about
a bit. So we have to think of the frame of reference for
motion as the average position of all the heavenly bodies.
Why then is it so difficult to detect the absolute linear
motion relative to absolute space.
If we use our imagination we can see that given a big enough
space ship (the size of a billion galaxies say) which can
travel at googleplex warp speeds then we could easily detect
motion relative to the absolute frame of reference.
================================================
Captain James T. Kirk : What's all that banging
and crashing on the nose
of Enterprise MM, Spock?
Science Officer Spock : That is the sound of
galaxies bouncing off
our materon enhanced
force shields, captain.
Mr Scott is testing out
the new Googleplex warp
drives."
Captain James T. Kirk : Well I hope he soon
packs it in. He's
spilling my coffee. :-(
================================================
Let's go back to the bucket.
Initially the surface of the water is flat.
Well, that is to say, as far as I see or measure it's flat?
But is it really flat? I mean, really REALLY flat?
If I look up at the stars I know they are moving across the
sky.
I can't see the movement.
It's so slow that it's below my threshold of perception for
movement.
However, the stars are further to the right now than they
were an hour ago so I know that they MUST have moved.
I know, therefore, that I am rotating.
And I know the water in the bucket is rotating.
So I know that the surface cannot be ABSOLUTELY
100.000000000000000000000000000000000000% flat.
And if I was very clued up, like Horace, and knew about
viscosity and drag and all that jazz, I could actually
calculate just how non-flat the surface was.
I also know that if I rotate the bucket clockwise at angular
velocity omega-clockwise that the flatness of the surface
will be a teeny-weeny bit different than if I rotate the
bucket widdershins.
This is because what I take to be omega-[no ang.vel.] is
actually a very small rotation, omega-[teeny ang.vel.] with
respect to the absolute frame of reference of the "fixed"
stars.
So the Absolute angular velocity is,
omega-[no ang.vel.] minus omega-[teeny ang.vel.]
for clockwise motion
omega-[no ang.vel.] plus omega-[teeny ang.vel.]
for widdershins.
Of course, if you come from the land of Oz then it's the
other way round coz Ozzies see everything upside-down, 8-)
=======================================
In World War I, during a naval battle
near the Falkland Islands (off the east
coast of South America, about 52
degrees south latitude) between the
German and British Navy, British
gunners were surprised to see their
salvos falling 100 yards to the left of
the German ships. The engineers who
designed the sighting mechanisms were
well aware of the Coriolis deflection
and had carefully considered it,
however, they neglected the fact that
not all sea battles occur in the
Northern Hemisphere. Thus, during the
engagement, the initial British shots
fell at a distance from the targets
equal to twice the Coriolis deflection.
=======================================
The story is possibly a myth, but at least it's
plausible, which is more than one can say for
the "bath water" myth.
Now the science of mechanics was developed at a time when
people were only just getting their head round the idea that
weight was merely property of substance and not a measure of
substance.
Mass was fine as a measure of substance until the last
century when it was discovered that mass could be transmuted
into velocity. At that moment mass ceased to become a measure
of substance and became a property of substance. They should
have listened to Leibniz. Motion can only come from motion.
The dynamics of cannon balls was the same for all practical
purposes whether the cannon was fired from a stationary
cannon on land or a moving cannon at sea. Measurement was far
too crude to detect any deviation from the classical "laws"
governing momentum and energy. Whereas it is possible to make
enormous changes in angular velocity with things like buckets
relative to their intrinsic angular velocity
(omega-intrinsic = omega-teeny)
it is only possible to make teeny changes with
things like buckets relative to their intrinsic linear
velocity.
"What is the intrinsic linear velocity of a bucket?" you ask.
Good question. 8-)
Well, the Silvertooth velocity of 378 kilometres per second
towards Leo is a good starting point.
Does this mean that if we tear down a french motorway at the
speed limit of 110 km/h heading towards Leo, our car will be
more massive than if we are parked?
It does.
And if we are heading away from Leo it will be less massive.
Absolutely.
What's more, if you are interested you, can calculate exactly
how much less.
Pointing towards Leo and parked it is moving at a local
velocity of 0 km/s and a Absolute velocity of 378 km/s.
Say your car has a mass of 1000 kg
M.V = a constant
where M = Mass = 1000 kg
V = Absolute velocity = 378 km/s
so our constant = 378,000
Now local speed of 110 km/h is (110/3600) = 0.031 km/s
So Mass at speed limit towards Leo is,
1000(378.031/378) = 1000.082 kg
And mass at speed limit away from Leo is,
1000(377.969/378) = 999.918 kg
So if your head is hurting too much Mac, and you want to end
it all by throwing yourself in front of a car on a French
motorway, make sure you choose a car heading towards Leo
rather than one heading away from Leo. ;-)
To sum up then,
We can detect absolute angular velocity easily at the
engineering level because we can rotate a body at an angular
velocity which is vastly greater than the body's intrinsic
angular velocity.
In contrast, we cannot detect absolute linear velocity at the
engineering level because we can only translate a body at a
linear velocity which is a small fraction of the body's
intrinsic linear velocity.
Cheers
Grimer
================================
"Our fault, dear Brutus is in
ourselves, not in our stars..."
================================
