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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#cite_note-Bowser-41>
^[42]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#cite_note-Angelo-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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:15 AM H LV
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06
