ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th August 2018, 04:23 PM   #321
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,488
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Here's an even simpler way to address that question.

Consider the "atom" on the left circumference of your drawing, about halfway between where the orange curve intersects the circumference, and where the green curve intersects the circumference.

Now consider the atom exactly laterally opposite that one, toward the right, on the right circumference of the ball, about halfway between the orange and green curves.

Where is the center of mass of those two atoms?

Is that center of mass inside or outside the green curve? Inside or outside the orange curve?
You make it seem like SDG is trying to rediscover integral and differential calculus, from first principles, on top of everything else.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2018, 04:54 PM   #322
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
F=mv^2/R is only valid for a point mass. You're treating the ball as an extended mass for the purposes of calculating the force on it, but as a point mass for the purposes of describing its acceleration. As long as you use different approximations on different sides of the equation, you'll get the wrong answers. If you actually look at your diagram you'll note that more of the ball is outside the circle than inside, and the average accelerations are also different.

Dave
Dave,
thanks, great post, I see your point.
I need help to reconcile it with this textbook:




It says: ... the resultant ΣF of the external forces acting on the body
equals the mass m of the body times the acceleration a of its mass center G.


So when we come up with the ΣF = Σ m_i a_i then we will get an average A.
F = m A gives us bigger force with bigger A and the mass m does not change.
Now A > r \omega^2 though.
How this A is supposed to be used?
Thanks,
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 12:10 PM   #323
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,382
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
I'm also wondering how the guy in the train will be able to perceive a cycloid unless the platform with which the wheel is fixed moves within the confines of the train car.
My exact point some pages ago Elagabalus. Just to be able to perceive the cycloid means the linear aspect of that motion must already be directly perceivable in that frame.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 12:20 PM   #324
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,382
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The train speed is a factor contributing to varying velocity along the cycloid trajectory.
Then this post is important:


This is how the F_cp depends on the train speed.
SDG

Inside the train the wheel has no "cycloid trajectory", that point is very important.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 12:26 PM   #325
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,382
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Cycloid trajectory has own \omega and radius.
If you have in mind the circle \omega and radius then is it OK to use mix reference frames in the analysis?
No, particularly when the claim is to be able to perceive motion in one frame that is not in the other. An observer inside the train is linearly comoving with the wheel. There is no relative linear motion between that observe and the wheel to detect.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2018, 12:34 PM   #326
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,382
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Dave,
this is one of your posts:

The point of discussion from the beginning is if the balls can pickup the same rotational kinetic energy in both reference frames at the same rate.
SDG
No, the point of the discussion is if you can detect constant linear motion in a comoving reference frame (on the train) from only within that frame.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 02:13 AM   #327
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The point of discussion from the beginning is if the balls can pickup the same rotational kinetic energy in both reference frames at the same rate.
SDG
This is from some way back, but: The rotational energy of the balls depends on their rotation rate (and mass and shape, of course), and their rotation rate is the same as the wheel (assuming we are still contemplating the model where they are tethered by inelastic strings). In other words, it is the same in ANY reference frame.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 04:46 AM   #328
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,270
Well, the critical "post 253" question, point #5 in post 307, has been resolved.

Quote:
If we calculate the force/tension on the string as a sum of all atoms. Are we going to get the same value for 1m and 100m radii?

Yes, because the tension on the string is the vector sum of the m*a (as a is a vector) of all atoms. As the radius gets smaller relative to the ball, more of the atoms "pull" harder, but less of their pull is aligned with the string. Those two effects exactly cancel out when calculating the pull on the string. (The magnitude of the individual atom's centripetal acceleration is increased by a factor of 1/cosθ, but the resultant acceleration vector parallel to the string is decreased by a factor of cosθ, where θ is the angle between the string and the atom's own individual radius line.)

So, what's left to address?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 06:12 AM   #329
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,382
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Dave,
thanks, great post, I see your point.
I need help to reconcile it with this textbook:

https://i.imgur.com/xAxr4kF.png
https://i.imgur.com/J1Nx2S6.png

It says: ... the resultant ΣF of the external forces acting on the body
equals the mass m of the body times the acceleration a of its mass center G.


So when we come up with the ΣF = Σ m_i a_i then we will get an average A.
F = m A gives us bigger force with bigger A and the mass m does not change.
Now A > r \omega^2 though.
How this A is supposed to be used?
Thanks,
SDG
As tusenfem noted upthread a number of times, linear acceleration is not rotational acceleration. The two can be related but don't have to be. In the diagram on the scanned page some of the force vector components that contribute to the rotational aspect cancel each other in the linear aspect. So how the vector components of the applied forces sum can be different for linear then for rotational considerations.

Similarly as I tried to explain to you upthread linear momentum is not rotational momentum. In the case of the rolling wheel their directions are orthogonal to each other. To drive the train car you rotate the wheel however some of that energy and momentum applied to the wheel goes into pushing the car forward (by friction with the track) reducing the total final angular velocity obtained by the wheel for that applied energy and momentum. The difference is what goes into the linear energy and momentum of the moving.

Back in the day there were SSP racers by Kenner. You pulled the zip line that spun a wheel with a large mass to increase it's moment of inertia. This kept the wheel spinning and gave it the angular momentum to drive the car forward at a decent speed when placed on the ground. Angular momentum stored in the wheel was transferred to linear momentum of the car. The direction of the angular momentum being perpendicular to the direction of movement of the car also acted as a gyroscope to tend to keep the car running strait. A lot of applied physics going on in just a kids toy. In the frame of the car the rotation of the wheel just slows down as friction with the ground acts as a brake. In the frame of the ground the rotation of the wheel slows down as the friction with the ground drives the car forward. Rotational deceleration results in linear acceleration. Even in a directly driven wheel as in an automobile what goes into linear acceleration of the car comes at the cost of less rotational acceleration of the wheel for the same input of torque. The friction of the ground and mass of the car act as brake on the wheel not as additional effective mass or moment inertia of the wheel. As the addition of linear momentum comes at the cost of rotational momentum. As noted by others this is all just basic Newtonian mechanics and Galilean relativity.


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 08:56 AM   #330
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
This is from some way back, but: The rotational energy of the balls depends on their rotation rate (and mass and shape, of course), and their rotation rate is the same as the wheel (assuming we are still contemplating the model where they are tethered by inelastic strings). In other words, it is the same in ANY reference frame.

Hans
Yes, I agree, the rotational energy of the balls is the same in both reference frames at steady state.
Having said that I have questions if the delta of the rotational energy (some additional work) is going to be transferred (essentially added) to the rotational kinetic energy of the balls at the same rate at all points along the cycloid.
Here are the factors to consider:



Different radius at the top, at the bottom and at the inflection points of cycloid.
I have chosen the top and the bottom of the cycloid because there is no tangential acceleration at those points, only centripetal acceleration.
The inflection points do not have any centripetal acceleration only tangential.
If we have different radii on the cycloid then could the image bellow be linked to the issue?



The additional question.
The cycloid trajectory curves to the right at the top part. The ball rotation is in the same direction.
The cycloid trajectory changes curvature to the left at the inflection point. The ball rotation is in the opposite direction to the cycloid rotation.
Is this something that should be considered?
These are the questions and I would like to find some answers to these questions.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 09:24 AM   #331
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Well, the critical "post 253" question, point #5 in post 307, has been resolved.




Yes, because the tension on the string is the vector sum of the m*a (as a is a vector) of all atoms. As the radius gets smaller relative to the ball, more of the atoms "pull" harder, but less of their pull is aligned with the string. Those two effects exactly cancel out when calculating the pull on the string. (The magnitude of the individual atom's centripetal acceleration is increased by a factor of 1/cosθ, but the resultant acceleration vector parallel to the string is decreased by a factor of cosθ, where θ is the angle between the string and the atom's own individual radius line.)

So, what's left to address?
Well, the acceleration has to be calculated this way:



If we choose point B as the center of the ball then the result will be exactly what Dave is saying.
The smaller radius will have bigger acceleration because \omega is different for the \omega x (\omega x r) component.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 09:42 AM   #332
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
No, particularly when the claim is to be able to perceive motion in one frame that is not in the other. An observer inside the train is linearly comoving with the wheel. There is no relative linear motion between that observe and the wheel to detect.
If there would be a different prediction between two reference frames then it appears to me the locally only one can be true.
If we predicted different forces acting on the balls at different points on the cycloid on the contrary to the circle that predicts all the forces to be the same on all balls then only one prediction could be true and the other false.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 10:00 AM   #333
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
We have a problem here.
Different radius, different rotational kinetic energy, different average acceleration even though the center of the ball has the same acceleration.

My take on this issue is E_ball = m_ball c^2. If the E_ball is bigger because it has bigger rotational kinetic energy then m_ball has to be bigger, right?
We take two photons, make them spin and we have mass particles, so what's the big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
... but I see why this idea does not fly by many.


Dave's take on the issue is to keep the mass the same and we have different average acceleration. Sure enough it is like that as well.
Then we have an issue A > r \omega. We 'break' the calculus and the textbooks.

Either way we look at it, ... THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM!
SDG

Last edited by SDG; 27th August 2018 at 10:01 AM.
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 10:31 AM   #334
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,674
Only problem I see is I see no problem.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 10:56 AM   #335
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The smaller radius will have bigger acceleration because \omega is different for the \omega x (\omega x r) component.
SDG
This is utter nonsense!
Omega is a given, so the same for all radii.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 10:58 AM   #336
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
We have a problem here.
Different radius, different rotational kinetic energy, different average acceleration even though the center of the ball has the same acceleration.

My take on this issue is E_ball = m_ball c^2. If the E_ball is bigger because it has bigger rotational kinetic energy then m_ball has to be bigger, right?
We take two photons, make them spin and we have mass particles, so what's the big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
... but I see why this idea does not fly by many.


Dave's take on the issue is to keep the mass the same and we have different average acceleration. Sure enough it is like that as well.
Then we have an issue A > r \omega. We 'break' the calculus and the textbooks.

Either way we look at it, ... THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM!
SDG
My goodness, this is getting totally rediculous.
That is the BIG problem here.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 11:04 AM   #337
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
This is utter nonsense!
Omega is a given, so the same for all radii.
I guess you are referring to the cycloid motion.
My post addressed the side claim that describes the rotation on different radii of the circular motion.
That's where the big problem is, even before we go to cycloid motion.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 11:14 AM   #338
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
My goodness, this is getting totally rediculous.
That is the BIG problem here.
Do you understand the issue of the side claim?



F_cp is different for different radii.
Do you have a better explanation what is happening? How is F=ma supposed to work here?

The post # 333 explains why it is a problem.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 11:14 AM   #339
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 13,382
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
If there would be a different prediction between two reference frames then it appears to me the locally only one can be true.
If we predicted different forces acting on the balls at different points on the cycloid on the contrary to the circle that predicts all the forces to be the same on all balls then only one prediction could be true and the other false.
SDG
No, again relative motion is frame dependent. Again that is just basic Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics. Two frames and two predictions of the relative motion observable in each, both are true for their respective frames. The very assertion of the train frame being co-moving laterally with the wheel explicitly precludes that very lateral relative motion of the wheel in that frame. This ain't a "prediction" it is an explicit requirement of your experimental conditions. Any "prediction" you might glean from whatever that asserts otherwise simply means you are not adhering to your experimental condition of observations only in the moving train frame.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 11:49 AM   #340
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,402
SDG. I can't see the issue. And I don't see why you have to obfuscate the problem with math.

If a ball is swinging at a constant speed around on a string attached to a fixed point, the centripetal force (the mass of the ball times the acceleration) will be the same all the time.

If the fixed point is moving a constant speed (for example, riding in a train). The centripetal force will be the same. The non-accelerated motion of the train has no effect.

Now, instead of a fixed point, we attach the point to a rotating disc. So, now as the ball swings around and the point rotates around, there are times in the cycle when the force is more and times when it is less. But, the average force is the same.

If the whole assembly is placed in a railway car moving at a constant speed, nothing changes as far as the centripetal force. If the contraption with the fixed point wasn't affected by the motion of the train, the more complicated contraption isn't going to be affected either.

If your math isn't giving the same result, I would assume it is your math that is wrong. There is no relevant radius that is different from the viewpoint of someone in the train as it is stopped at a station and someone in the train as it travels in a straight line at 70 mph.
jadebox is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 12:42 PM   #341
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Yes, I agree, the rotational energy of the balls is the same in both reference frames at steady state.
Having said that I have questions if the delta of the rotational energy (some additional work) is going to be transferred (essentially added) to the rotational kinetic energy of the balls at the same rate at all points along the cycloid.
Here are the factors to consider:

https://i.imgur.com/b2wj0pG.png?1

Different radius at the top, at the bottom and at the inflection points of cycloid.
I have chosen the top and the bottom of the cycloid because there is no tangential acceleration at those points, only centripetal acceleration.
The inflection points do not have any centripetal acceleration only tangential.
If we have different radii on the cycloid then could the image bellow be linked to the issue?

https://i.imgur.com/Q3jma22.png

The additional question.
The cycloid trajectory curves to the right at the top part. The ball rotation is in the same direction.
The cycloid trajectory changes curvature to the left at the inflection point. The ball rotation is in the opposite direction to the cycloid rotation.
Is this something that should be considered?
These are the questions and I would like to find some answers to these questions.
SDG
The answer is that there is no effect from the cycloid. The rotation rate is constant, and the only force that affects the balls is the centripetal force, applied through the strings/spokes that fix the balls to the hub of the wheel.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 12:43 PM   #342
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Well, the acceleration has to be calculated this way:

https://i.imgur.com/OAi6FPO.png

If we choose point B as the center of the ball then the result will be exactly what Dave is saying.
The smaller radius will have bigger acceleration because \omega is different for the \omega x (\omega x r) component.
SDG
The balls have the same radius all the time.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 12:44 PM   #343
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
If there would be a different prediction between two reference frames then it appears to me the locally only one can be true.
If we predicted different forces acting on the balls at different points on the cycloid on the contrary to the circle that predicts all the forces to be the same on all balls then only one prediction could be true and the other false.
SDG
We don't predict different forces acting on the balls.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 12:46 PM   #344
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
We have a problem here.
Different radius, different rotational kinetic energy, different average acceleration even though the center of the ball has the same acceleration.

My take on this issue is E_ball = m_ball c^2. If the E_ball is bigger because it has bigger rotational kinetic energy then m_ball has to be bigger, right?
We take two photons, make them spin and we have mass particles, so what's the big deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
... but I see why this idea does not fly by many.


Dave's take on the issue is to keep the mass the same and we have different average acceleration. Sure enough it is like that as well.
Then we have an issue A > r \omega. We 'break' the calculus and the textbooks.

Either way we look at it, ... THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM!
SDG
You are misrepresenting Dave's position. That is the only problem.

Look, you have no argument. Give up.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 12:47 PM   #345
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
I guess you are referring to the cycloid motion.
My post addressed the side claim that describes the rotation on different radii of the circular motion.
That's where the big problem is, even before we go to cycloid motion.
SDG
There are no different radii.

SGD, you HAVE understood this. Now stop it.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 12:49 PM   #346
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Do you understand the issue of the side claim?

https://i.imgur.com/lYtMT9w.png

F_cp is different for different radii.
Do you have a better explanation what is happening? How is F=ma supposed to work here?

The post # 333 explains why it is a problem.
SDG
There is only one radius.

I'll repeat this a few times, for your benefit:

There is only one radius.
There is only one radius.
There is only one radius.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 01:59 PM   #347
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Thumbs down A "We have a problem here" fantasy when it is only you that has a problem

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
We have a problem here.
Different radius, different rotational kinetic energy, different average acceleration even though the center of the ball has the same acceleration.
...
28 August 2018 SDG: A "We have a problem here" fantasy when it is only you that has a problem in this thread.

E =mc^2 is the mass-energy equivalence equation and is irrelevant to the classical problem of a pendulum with a spherical bob.
Ignorance about photons (they have intrinsic spin) and pair production (a photon near a nucleus becoming a matter/anti-matter pair).

Ignorance of not known that changing mass will change rotational kinetic energy, Mass is a bit hidden. I (the moment of inertia) is the "ratio of the net angular momentum L of a system to its angular velocity ω". Angular momentum involves mass.

A dumb "We 'break' the calculus and the textbooks" response to the suggestion to keep the mass constant. Have you never heard of density ?

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th August 2018 at 02:00 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2018, 02:07 PM   #348
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Question Show that F_cp is different for different radii

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
F_cp is different for different radii.
Wrong: That is your still unsupported assertion since 20 August 2018 about F_cp.
28 August 2018 SDG: Show that F_cp is different for different radii.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 02:53 AM   #349
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,455
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
I guess you are referring to the cycloid motion.
My post addressed the side claim that describes the rotation on different radii of the circular motion.
That's where the big problem is, even before we go to cycloid motion.
SDG
No, I am talking about the example in the textbook that you showed.
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 03:46 AM   #350
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,270
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Do you understand the issue of the side claim?

https://i.imgur.com/lYtMT9w.png

F_cp is different for different radii.
Do you have a better explanation what is happening? How is F=ma supposed to work here?

The post # 333 explains why it is a problem.
SDG

It's only a problem if you forget that acceleration is a vector when attempting to "average" accelerations.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 01:26 PM   #351
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
This post is about the side claim as stated in the post #253.

Here is how the centripetal forces will be different for the same ball that is being accelerated on different radii.
I picked two points for the demonstration on the edge of the ball. The size of the arrows is arbitrary, to demonstrate the calculation.
The same points contribute differently to the total sum of the forces because the \omega of the ball rotation is different.
The arrows represent \omega x (\omega x r) portion of the acceleration.



The green arrows represent forces for the r=100m and \omega=0.1rad/s.
The orange arrows represent forces for the r=1 and \omega=1rad/s.
\omega x (\omega x r) is different in magnitude but has the same direction.
Fore example if ball radius r_b=0.1m then the green would give us 0.1*0.1^2=0.001m/s^2 and the orange 0.1*1^2=0.1m/s^2.

The arrows bellow the ball is just moving forces to the center of the ball.
The centripetal forces will be in the opposite direction of the end result middle arrows, to the center of the rotation.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2018, 01:51 PM   #352
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,128
Exclamation An irrelevant post about centripetal forces and 2 points on the edge of a ball

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Here is how the centripetal forces will be different for the same ball that is being accelerated on different radii.
29 August 2018 SDG: An irrelevant post about centripetal forces and 2 points on the edge of a ball.

Physics is not cartoons and guesses.

The centripetal force is the sum of the centripetal forces on every point in the ball. What you need to do is that sum of forces and see if that sum depends on the radius of the ball.

28 August 2018 SDG: Show that F_cp is different for different ball radii (what you have not done since 20 August 2018)
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 07:50 AM   #353
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
This post is about the side claim as stated in the post #253.

Here is how the centripetal forces will be different for the same ball that is being accelerated on different radii.
I picked two points for the demonstration on the edge of the ball. The size of the arrows is arbitrary, to demonstrate the calculation.
The same points contribute differently to the total sum of the forces because the \omega of the ball rotation is different.
The arrows represent \omega x (\omega x r) portion of the acceleration.

https://i.imgur.com/p5ed3Id.png

The green arrows represent forces for the r=100m and \omega=0.1rad/s.
The orange arrows represent forces for the r=1 and \omega=1rad/s.
\omega x (\omega x r) is different in magnitude but has the same direction.
Fore example if ball radius r_b=0.1m then the green would give us 0.1*0.1^2=0.001m/s^2 and the orange 0.1*1^2=0.1m/s^2.

The arrows bellow the ball is just moving forces to the center of the ball.
The centripetal forces will be in the opposite direction of the end result middle arrows, to the center of the rotation.
SDG
I am afraid you have lost me, some time ago. Radius is one factor for determining centripetal force (angular speed is the other), so of course the centripetal force is different for different radii. So, what was your point?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 08:03 AM   #354
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
This post is about the side claim as stated in the post #253.

Here is how the centripetal forces will be different for the same ball that is being accelerated on different radii.
I picked two points for the demonstration on the edge of the ball. The size of the arrows is arbitrary, to demonstrate the calculation.
The same points contribute differently to the total sum of the forces because the \omega of the ball rotation is different.
The arrows represent \omega x (\omega x r) portion of the acceleration.

https://i.imgur.com/p5ed3Id.png

The green arrows represent forces for the r=100m and \omega=0.1rad/s.
The orange arrows represent forces for the r=1 and \omega=1rad/s.
\omega x (\omega x r) is different in magnitude but has the same direction.
Fore example if ball radius r_b=0.1m then the green would give us 0.1*0.1^2=0.001m/s^2 and the orange 0.1*1^2=0.1m/s^2.

The arrows bellow the ball is just moving forces to the center of the ball.
The centripetal forces will be in the opposite direction of the end result middle arrows, to the center of the rotation.
SDG
Ahh, perhaps I get it now: When the diameter of the ball is a considerable fraction of the circumference of the orbit, some of the forces will cancel out internally: The ball is tethered to its centre of gravity, but outer parts of it will then transfer force at a different angle, through the structure of the ball.

The extreme example of this is if you, instead of a ball, contemplate a ring like the rim of a wheel; here, all centripetal force is redistributed within the ring, and none is transferred via the spokes.

So yes, you are correct. But where is the problem?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2018, 08:30 PM   #355
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Ahh, perhaps I get it now: When the diameter of the ball is a considerable fraction of the circumference of the orbit, some of the forces will cancel out internally: The ball is tethered to its centre of gravity, but outer parts of it will then transfer force at a different angle, through the structure of the ball.

The extreme example of this is if you, instead of a ball, contemplate a ring like the rim of a wheel; here, all centripetal force is redistributed within the ring, and none is transferred via the spokes.

So yes, you are correct. But where is the problem?

Hans
I am going to try to explain it in a better way in the morning.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 06:49 AM   #356
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Ahh, perhaps I get it now: When the diameter of the ball is a considerable fraction of the circumference of the orbit, some of the forces will cancel out internally: The ball is tethered to its centre of gravity, but outer parts of it will then transfer force at a different angle, through the structure of the ball.

The extreme example of this is if you, instead of a ball, contemplate a ring like the rim of a wheel; here, all centripetal force is redistributed within the ring, and none is transferred via the spokes.

So yes, you are correct. But where is the problem?

Hans
These questions are about the side claim.
The first questions - if we place accelerometers on the marked spots then what acceleration would they report?
If we consider 1m radius rotation and \omega=1rad/s, the points are outside of the radius 1m geometrically. Are they going to report smaller acceleration than 1m/s^2 in spite of the geometrical position?

The second question - how the angular momentum delta of the ball at different radii will affect the system?

The third question - can we exploit the bigger tension, as per your correct observation, by some modified setup?
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 07:45 AM   #357
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
These questions are about the side claim.
The first questions - if we place accelerometers on the marked spots then what acceleration would they report?
If we consider 1m radius rotation and \omega=1rad/s, the points are outside of the radius 1m geometrically. Are they going to report smaller acceleration than 1m/s^2 in spite of the geometrical position?

The second question - how the angular momentum delta of the ball at different radii will affect the system?

The third question - can we exploit the bigger tension, as per your correct observation, by some modified setup?
SDG
I don't know, and I don't care. You are the one with something to prove. Explain your claim, do the calculations.

You said there was a big problem in this (presumably for GR), so show what the problem is. I ain't doing your homework for you.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 09:35 AM   #358
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,270
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
The first questions - if we place accelerometers on the marked spots then what acceleration would they report?

They would probably fall off.

When they hit the floor they'd register a peak of about 40 g's if the floor is wood. More if it's concrete or metal; less if it's carpeted.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2018, 12:19 PM   #359
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,587
Actually, I happen to feel somewhat charitable_

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
These questions are about the side claim.
The first questions - if we place accelerometers on the marked spots then what acceleration would they report?
If we consider 1m radius rotation and \omega=1rad/s, the points are outside of the radius 1m geometrically. Are they going to report smaller acceleration than 1m/s^2 in spite of the geometrical position?
Since the ball is moving as one piece, the accelerometers will indicate the centripetal acceleration that fits the radius and speed where they are. They cannot "know" that they are placed somewhere on a ball.

Quote:
The second question - how the angular momentum delta of the ball at different radii will affect the system?
I don't think the question makes sense. The system determines those angular momentums, and they don't affect the system.

Quote:
The third question - can we exploit the bigger tension, as per your correct observation, by some modified setup?
SDG
I don't know what you mean. Which bigger tension? Exploit, how?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2018, 06:46 AM   #360
SDG
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Actually, I happen to feel somewhat charitable_



Since the ball is moving as one piece, the accelerometers will indicate the centripetal acceleration that fits the radius and speed where they are. They cannot "know" that they are placed somewhere on a ball.
Right, so they will report the accelerations at that point.


The accelerations have different magnitude and different direction for the r=1m and r=100m.
This leads to different tensions in the ball.
Each atom has a different tension at different radius.

Quote:


I don't think the question makes sense. The system determines those angular momentums, and they don't affect the system.
Each ball has its own angular momentum. These are different at different radii.
If you had one of these



in your hands then you know how real is the angular momentum and how it affects the systems.
Quote:


I don't know what you mean. Which bigger tension? Exploit, how?

Hans
If we go the last photon then the balls will 'change' the shape differently based on the different tensions at different radii.
This is the basis for my claim that the forces are not equal at different radii.

We could create 'a ball' from smaller balls connected by springs and observe the different responses.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.