Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum What if there was a merry-go-round without inertial forces?

 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.
 Tags electrodynamics , magnetic force , pseudoforces , relativity , strong force

 19th November 2011, 03:28 AM #1 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 What if there was a merry-go-round without inertial forces? Imagine if you saw children playing on a merry-go-round, but that they weren't experiencing any centrifugal or Coriolis forces due to the rotation. If they toss a ball back and forth, the ball goes in a straight line path in a coordinate system that is rotating with the merry-go-round. As the merry-go-round spins faster and faster, the children continue to play without being thrown off by what they would normally experience as a centrifugal force. What would we be forced to conclude? Watching from the park bench, we would be "forced" (ha ha) to conclude that there are forces acting on the merry-go-round that are countering the missing inertial forces. For example, it is a centripetal force that keeps a body in a closed orbit, be it gravity in the case of a satellite or the tension in a string holding a yo-yo. There would have to be a sort of centripetal force present on the merry-go-round preventing the children from being flung off. It turns out, there is a relativistic effect that has been known to exist for almost 100 years, and is a certain consequence of the mathematics of relativity, that does exactly what our magic merry-go-round does. This effect is called the Thomas precession. It happens to reference frames that are simultaneously translating and cross-wise accelerating relative to an inertial reference frame. These frames must rotate, but if the idea of a reference frame rotating is to have any non-trivial meaning, it seems to me it must mean an absense of rotational pseudoforces due to the rotation. It is a most fantastic thing that is apparently being almost completely overlooked. I think, the missing Coriolis force is what we see as the magnetic force. It is not very difficult to show that the anti-Coriolis force of the Thomas precession can be of the same magnitude as the magnetic force, if the interacting particles have the same rest masses. It is not exactly the same however, even then, except in certain restrictive cases. Perhaps our description of the magnetic force is incomplete. The correspondent of the missing centrifugal force, on the other hand, is not to be found in electrodynamics at all. Yet, it arguably belongs there as much as the magnetic force. It acts only in very extreme situations, however. While the magnetic force is a "beta squared" (where beta is the fraction of the speed of light with which the interacting particles are traveling) correction to the electrostatic force, the anti-centrifugal force is a beta^4 correction. So it is entirely negligible in electrodynamics down to the atomic and even nuclear scale. But if the quarks moving in a proton were traveling at the speed of light, and electrostatically repelled by their electric charges, then it would begin to become significant. Since it would be opposite the centrifugal force, it would always be attractive, even though the quarks were being repelled electrostatically. This begins to sound like the strong force. In turns out to be essentially beyond the state of the art to calculate exactly what the classical electrodynamics of motion at this scale is. (There is some other theory, I forget what it is called at the moment, usually used for this.) I don't possess state-of-the art electrodynamics skills anyhow. I could only do a very rough calculation, which obtained that for a particle of the observed mass of the proton and the quarks moving at the speed of light, the anticentrifugal force of the Thomas precession equals Coulomb repulsion at one one-hundredth of the proton measured radius. But it is also an established fact that the exact relativistic electric force will actually fall off a bit at this scale, meaning this is only a lower bound on the proton size. So I am sitting here thinking I probably have an explanation for the strong force as not a separate fundamental force, but rather a natural consequence of electrodynamics and relativity. I wrote this up and sent it to three physics journals so far, but have been unable to get it reviewed. I gave them an out I guess by calling it just a plausibility argument. I have a stronger argument in work that I hope will be ready by year end, that I will argue makes the magnetic force correspondence, at least, air tight. The strong force willl have to be addressed by others, probably, or a much later date if by me. But I think it's quite easy to see that covariance (that is, the relativistic requirement that we be able to write a description of the same physics in all reference frames) demands these types of forces (and an anti-Euler force as well) so I'm disappointed that it isn't being better received. I will welcome comments from physicists and non-physicists alike, but, especially from the non-physicists or physicist wanabees such as myself. Doesn't this idea seem attractive at all? Doesn't any plausible explanation for so important a thing as the strong force deserve at least a review? Last edited by Eggs Ackley; 19th November 2011 at 04:02 AM.
 21st November 2011, 03:46 AM #2 This is The End     Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,400 Did this seriously get to page 2 without anyone letting Eggs know just how correct it is? __________________ ________________________
 21st November 2011, 01:16 PM #3 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Thanks for the kind words, OnlyTellsTruths, I appreciate them a lot. Sorry to be remiss in not posting a link to the actual analysis in question. Here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4343 Also, I don't want to run the physicists off. I would like to ask them some questions: 1) Do you think my interpretation of the Thomas precession as not giving rise to rotational inertial forces is correct? 2) If not correct, then what is the meaning of it to the observer in the Thomas precessing reference frame? and 3) If there are no rotational pseudoforces in the Thomas precessing frame, then do you agree that there must be corresponding anti forces (ant-Coriolis, anti-Euler, and anticentrifugal) in the inertial frame? I should probably also mention that of course the merry-go-round in this case is not actually a hospitable place for the children to play. It is being accelerated tremendously, about 10^14 gravities at the atomic scale and far far higher at the sub-nuclear level. The inertial forces due to the linear acceleration are still felt on it. It is only the rotational psuedoforces that would be absent. Last edited by Eggs Ackley; 21st November 2011 at 01:21 PM.
 21st November 2011, 07:08 PM #4 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,613 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley 1) Do you think my interpretation of the Thomas precession as not giving rise to rotational inertial forces is correct? I can't understand it, so I don't know. Quote: 2) If not correct, then what is the meaning of it to the observer in the Thomas precessing reference frame? and 3) If there are no rotational pseudoforces in the Thomas precessing frame, then do you agree that there must be corresponding anti forces (ant-Coriolis, anti-Euler, and anticentrifugal) in the inertial frame? What do you mean? I think you're talking about the rest frame of an object that continuously accelerates in some direction - is that right? If so, can you be very clear about exactly how that acceleration is defined? For instance, let's say you're in a rocket. You've got a main engine and some smaller engines that allow you to rotate. What do you do to stay at rest in the frame you're interested in? I haven't a clue what you're talking about with respect to magnetic fields, or why you think this has anything whatsoever to do with them, but let's start with the above.
 21st November 2011, 09:07 PM #5 meow Critical Thinker     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 470 any chance of you drawing a pic? __________________ p < .0001 All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident - Arthur Schopenhauer
 21st November 2011, 10:53 PM #6 JJM 777 Illuminator     Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,912 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley Imagine if you saw children playing on a merry-go-round, but that they weren't experiencing any centrifugal or Coriolis forces due to the rotation. If they toss a ball back and forth, the ball goes in a straight line path in a coordinate system that is rotating with the merry-go-round. A metal ball and a strong magnet at center of the carousel? Or simply a gravity center that draws also the children at force equal to the centrifugal force.
 23rd November 2011, 05:10 AM #8 psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics     Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 11,448 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley Imagine if you saw children playing on a merry-go-round, but that they weren't experiencing any centrifugal or Coriolis forces due to the rotation. If they toss a ball back and forth, the ball goes in a straight line path in a coordinate system that is rotating with the merry-go-round. As the merry-go-round spins faster and faster, the children continue to play without being thrown off by what they would normally experience as a centrifugal force. What would we be forced to conclude? This reminds me of a "what if" that my physics teacher put to the class once:You are floating around in space and go to sleep. When you wake up you find that the rock that was near you is now orbiting you in a near perfect circle. Curious, you grab the rock as it goes past your hands only to find the rock pulling away from you. Startled, you release the rock and see it moving away from you in ever increasing spirals. How could that be?As it turns out, the answer is that while you were sleeping, somebody came around and started spinning your body. A similar answer might also apply to the merry go round example. Centrifugal force, coriolis force and precession are all Newtonian phenomena. The only time you would need to bring relativity into it is if you were trying to explain magnetic forces.
 23rd November 2011, 05:48 AM #9 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,613 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley Jackson makes the careful distinction that the rest frame defined this way is actually a sequence of inertial frames. In the rest frame sequence as defined this way, the electron is always instantaneously accelerating, but never acquires a nonzero velocity. Jackson says nothing of the kind. How can something be accelerating from rest and not acquire a velocity? Instead, Jackson observes that the frame defined by boosting to the rest frame from the lab frame is rotated with respect to the frame defined by boosting from the previous instantaneous rest frame to the current one, but it's the latter procedure that makes the equations look simplest. Quote: If I can simply say that I am talking about Fermi-Walker frames To be very clear - are you talking about the frames defined by Jackson 11.118? Quote: then what I am proposing is that if I am to write down the equations of electrodynamics is such frames, I should not have to add pseudoforces of rotation (that is, Coriolis, centrifugal, and Euler forces) as I would ordinarily in a frame that is rotating relative to an inertial frame. Nonsense. That's not an inertial frame, so of course there will be pseudoforces. Without doing a calculation to be sure, for a circular motion the origin of that frame should just orbit around the origin of the lab frame, while at the same time precessing. Obviously there are pseudo-forces in such a frame. Whatever gave you the idea there aren't?? If we are talking about non-relativistic velocities v<
 24th November 2011, 03:28 PM #10 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by sol invictus Jackson says nothing of the kind. How can something be accelerating from rest and not acquire a velocity? Jackson says (page 543 of 2nd edition),"The electron's rest frame of coordinates is defined as a co-moving sequence of inertial frames whose successive origins move at each instant with the velocity of the electron." So, 1) these are all inertial frames; and 2) the electron is momentarily stationary in all of them. Therefore the electron is accelerating in all of them, but our attention switches to the next frame in the sequence before it has a chance to move anywhere or a acquire a non-infinitesimal velocity. Or do you have a different interpretation of what Jackson is saying here? Originally Posted by sol invictus Instead, Jackson observes that the frame defined by boosting to the rest frame from the lab frame is rotated with respect to the frame defined by boosting from the previous instantaneous rest frame to the current one, but it's the latter procedure that makes the equations look simplest. Yes he does and he does also call that an electron rest frame. I was writing from memory and was thinking he did not also explicity refer to that as a rest frame. I like the way Munoz distinguishes these two frames as the boosted lab frame and the Fermi-Walker frame, respectively. This is how I think of them and in the relativistic version of my paper (not yet finished) this is the terminology I also use. Originally Posted by sol invictus To be very clear - are you talking about the frames defined by Jackson 11.118? Basically, but in my posted paper I am believing what Malykin says about Jackson's Eq. 11.119 (2nd Ed) which is that it is not correct for that frame. Malykin says that is the equation for the observed precession of the rest of the world from the Fermi-Walker frame, which I don't think is how Jackson intends it. This whole issue is obviated when I treat the problem more relativistically, because it isn't necessary to put in the Thomas precession angular velocity explicitly in that case, to still obtain the result that the magnetic part of the Lorentz force corresponds to the lack of Coriolis force in the Fermi-Walker frame. Originally Posted by sol invictus Nonsense. That's not an inertial frame, so of course there will be pseudoforces. I am careful to say, at least most of the time, that I am only talking about the rotational pseudoforces, and not all of the inertial forces. The inertial forces due to linear acceleration must still be taken account of, as they are in my paper. Originally Posted by sol invictus Without doing a calculation to be sure, for a circular motion the origin of that frame should just orbit around the origin of the lab frame, while at the same time precessing. Obviously there are pseudo-forces in such a frame. Whatever gave you the idea there aren't?? If we are talking about non-relativistic velocities v<
 24th November 2011, 04:02 PM #11 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by sol invictus If we are talking about non-relativistic velocities v<
 24th November 2011, 09:57 PM #12 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,613 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley So, 1) these are all inertial frames; and 2) the electron is momentarily stationary in all of them. Therefore the electron is accelerating in all of them, but our attention switches to the next frame in the sequence before it has a chance to move anywhere or a acquire a non-infinitesimal velocity. Or do you have a different interpretation of what Jackson is saying here? That's fine. Quote: Yes he does and he does also call that an electron rest frame. I was writing from memory and was thinking he did not also explicity refer to that as a rest frame. I like the way Munoz distinguishes these two frames as the boosted lab frame and the Fermi-Walker frame, respectively. This is how I think of them and in the relativistic version of my paper (not yet finished) this is the terminology I also use. They're both rest frames. The difference is whether or not they rotate around the electron. Quote: I am careful to say, at least most of the time, that I am only talking about the rotational pseudoforces, and not all of the inertial forces. The inertial forces due to linear acceleration must still be taken account of, as they are in my paper. I don't know what you mean. The acceleration is not linear in any case. My hunch is that in the non-relativistic case, there is a pseudoforce that's of constant magnitude and going around in a circle. Once relativistic effects are included, there either is or isn't an extra Coriolis-type piece. Quote: So you are almost agreeing with me anyhow. In which case it is only necessary to work out what are the consequences. If you accept that there are not Coriolis-type of forces, then do you not think there will also be an absence of a centrifugal force? An Euler force absence too? How would these absences be viewed from the lab frame? What are you talking about? This is all totally trivial. There are whatever forces there are to keep everything consistent, and it's very simple to work out. How can you possibly have written a paper about this and not know the answer? Again, in the NR case, I think it's just a force that spins around in a circle, with constant magnitude and independent of position. That's not much like the forces in a rotating frame, but so what? Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley This is not consistent with my understanding. At the atomic scale, it's true, the Thomas precession frequency is much smaller than the orbital frequency of, say, the Bohr model ground state in hydrogen. So they don't remain perfectly parallel. It's a small change over an orbit, I agree, but after a lot of orbits, the rest frame will eventually make a whole revolution. Huh? Thomas precession is a relativistic effect. Take v/c->0, and it goes away. That means for NR velocities these two frames are essentially identical, so just use the non-rotating version. Then it's just a frame that orbits the origin of the lab frame, with the obvious pseudoforces. Last edited by sol invictus; 24th November 2011 at 09:59 PM.
 25th November 2011, 08:59 AM #13 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,613 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley There would have to be a sort of centripetal force present on the merry-go-round preventing the children from being flung off. It turns out, there is a relativistic effect that has been known to exist for almost 100 years, and is a certain consequence of the mathematics of relativity, that does exactly what our magic merry-go-round does. This is totally wrong. Physics is independent of coordinate choice. If the children have to hang on in one frame (for instance, the lab frame) they obviously have to hang on in every other frame. You never need to change frames at all, you can simply use the lab frame. Quote: This effect is called the Thomas precession. It happens to reference frames that are simultaneously translating and cross-wise accelerating relative to an inertial reference frame. These frames must rotate, but if the idea of a reference frame rotating is to have any non-trivial meaning, it seems to me it must mean an absense of rotational pseudoforces due to the rotation. It is a most fantastic thing that is apparently being almost completely overlooked. I think, the missing Coriolis force is what we see as the magnetic force. Complete nonsense. There is a magnetic force in every frame. Not only that, magnetic forces only act on charged particles, with a strength proportional to their charge. They cannot have anything at all to do with pseudoforces, which act on everything with a strength proportional to mass. Quote: Doesn't this idea seem attractive at all? Doesn't any plausible explanation for so important a thing as the strong force deserve at least a review? Not in the slightest - it's patent nonsense.
 21st July 2012, 09:25 PM #15 quarky Banned   Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,121 Here's a link to a you-tube i made that demonstrates a more complex merry-go-round: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVyuQ...eature=related Its my invention; my farm; my old lady; my hillbilly neighbors. Hopefully, it explains nothing.
 21st July 2012, 10:48 PM #16 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Cute. Did you ever have a Marx-a-copter?
 21st July 2012, 11:04 PM #17 Brian-M Daydreamer     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,044 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley Imagine if you saw children playing on a merry-go-round, but that they weren't experiencing any centrifugal or Coriolis forces due to the rotation. Sounds like a very boring ride. Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley If they toss a ball back and forth, the ball goes in a straight line path in a coordinate system that is rotating with the merry-go-round. If they can throw a ball back and forth, that means inertia is still present. Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley As the merry-go-round spins faster and faster, the children continue to play without being thrown off by what they would normally experience as a centrifugal force. What would we be forced to conclude? The simplest solution would be that the merry-go-round is stationary and we're the ones that are rotating around it. Are we experiencing centrifugal forces as we watch the merry-go-round? If not, there must be hidden forces at work precisely balancing the rotational forces on the merry-go-round to create a rotating environment that does not seem to be rotating to those within it Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley It turns out, there is a relativistic effect that has been known to exist for almost 100 years, and is a certain consequence of the mathematics of relativity, that does exactly what our magic merry-go-round does. This effect is called the Thomas precession. It happens to reference frames that are simultaneously translating and cross-wise accelerating relative to an inertial reference frame. These frames must rotate, but if the idea of a reference frame rotating is to have any non-trivial meaning, it seems to me it must mean an absense of rotational pseudoforces due to the rotation. It is a most fantastic thing that is apparently being almost completely overlooked. I think, the missing Coriolis force is what we see as the magnetic force. Why are you looking for a real-life physical theory to explain a hypothetical scenario that does not occur in real-life? __________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
 21st July 2012, 11:42 PM #18 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by Brian-M Why are you looking for a real-life physical theory to explain a hypothetical scenario that does not occur in real-life? Because it seems to explain the origin of the magnetic force, and I suspect, the strong and electro-weak forces as well.
 22nd July 2012, 12:55 AM #19 Brian-M Daydreamer     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,044 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley Because it seems to explain the origin of the magnetic force, and I suspect, the strong and electro-weak forces as well. How so? (You're not suggesting that the children circling the hub of the merry-go-round represent electrons circling a nucleus are you?) __________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
 22nd July 2012, 08:28 AM #20 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by Brian-M How so? (You're not suggesting that the children circling the hub of the merry-go-round represent electrons circling a nucleus are you?) The merry-go-round represents a reference frame that is moving with an elecron in an atom. This is called the electron rest frame (ERF). If the electron has orbital angular momentum, then the ERF rotates due to Thomas precession ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession ). The children then represent other particles nearby the electron. There are inertial forces due to the tremendous acceleration but I believe not due to the rotation of the Thomas precession. When the lack of the Coriolis force in the ERF is transformed to inertial frames, the equation of motion of a particle experiencing magnetic force due to the electron motion results.
 22nd July 2012, 08:41 AM #21 quarky Banned   Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,121 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley The merry-go-round represents a reference frame that is moving with an elecron in an atom. This is called the electron rest frame (ERF). If the electron has orbital angular momentum, then the ERF rotates due to Thomas precession ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_precession ). The children then represent other particles nearby the electron. There are inertial forces due to the tremendous acceleration but I believe not due to the rotation of the Thomas precession. When the lack of the Coriolis force in the ERF is transformed to inertial frames, the equation of motion of a particle experiencing magnetic force due to the electron motion results. In my demo, what does the randomly moveable fulcrum adjuster represent? (Not a trick question.)
 22nd July 2012, 10:54 AM #22 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by quarky In my demo, what does the randomly moveable fulcrum adjuster represent? (Not a trick question.) I'm not seeing a moving fulcrum. The fulcrum is the pole and stays fixed, doesn't it? I see a counter weight that moves relative to the fulcrum. Construction cranes use a movable counterweight, I've noticed. Construction cranes are probably not concerned about angular momentum, except to keep it minimized, but moving the weight in and out on your gizmo is certainly evocative of an ice skater raising her arms to reduce her moment of inertia and so spin faster for the same total angular momentum.
 22nd July 2012, 12:01 PM #23 quarky Banned   Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,121 yes. my wording was bad. Do you know R. Crumb?
 22nd July 2012, 12:30 PM #24 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by quarky yes. my wording was bad. Do you know R. Crumb? No, I don't know R. Crumb. But, I know a guy who knows his publisher, who met him one time. Also, did you ever read Motor City Comics? I can't find my copy, but in the back of one of them there's a comic that's set in the Carousel Lounge (hey hey, that's on topic). I may remember the name of the comic later and main character but they're escaping me at the moment. Anyhow, the Carousel Lounge (and there is a drawing of it in the comic to show it's the same one) was a bar on John R at about 7 mile road (in Detroit), about two blocks from where we lived until I was 5. But, it was closed and torn down I think before we moved to the burbs in 1960. But MC comics was from years later. So it seems like R Crumb must have lived in my old neighborhood prior to 1960. It was a totally obscure dive bar. But he is from Cleveland I think, not Detroit. Maybe he just had old photos of it. Blast it, I just found a sign error in my latest arxiv version of my paper that I linked to above. The gamma^2 factor in the denominator of the first term on the right of equation of Eq 21 has to move to the numerator. Also then the equation is an approximation but still good to order (v/c)^2, which is all it ever was good to, at best. It's bad that it was in the posted version, but I think it was what was stopping it from working out beyond what's posted there. I was looking for one but I was expecting it to be in an un-"published" part. Hopefully now I can get all to work out as I stated and repost it in a month or two, and re-submit it to a physics journal.
 22nd July 2012, 02:13 PM #25 Soapy Sam Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 28,748 How would anyone get on this merry go round , in the first place?
 22nd July 2012, 02:57 PM #26 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by Soapy Sam How would anyone get on this merry go round , in the first place? On my conceptual merry-go-round that is staying still in the park, you can get on before it starts spinning. After that it can speed up, and life is undisturbed no matter how fast it goes (neglecting atmospherc friction). People on the merry-go-round see the people in the park orbiting around them, though, and infer there is a centripetal force holding them in orbit. As far as electron rest frames are concerned, it would be better not to. The non-rotational inertial forces will still kill you. The Bohr model ground state electron accelerates at someting like 10^12 gravities (if memory serves). This is what happens when something moving at 1% of the speed of light goes in a circle with a diameter of 10^-11 m. Its orbital frequency is about 10^16 Hz. That is a very tight, high-sped turn. I believe, this is the cause of quantum behavior, at least when it is coupled with the existence of the intrinsic spin. Classical behavior goes over to quantum behavior exactly when the spin-orbit coupling and Thomas precession become significant. In high enough quantum number situations, the Bohr model gives perfectly fine predictions for atomic decay rates and emission radition. This is known from the study of so-called Rhydberg atoms, where an outer electron can be stably excited to a high quantum level.
 22nd July 2012, 03:27 PM #27 quarky Banned   Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,121 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley No, I don't know R. Crumb. But, I know a guy who knows his publisher, who met him one time. Also, did you ever read Motor City Comics? I can't find my copy, but in the back of one of them there's a comic that's set in the Carousel Lounge (hey hey, that's on topic). I may remember the name of the comic later and main character but they're escaping me at the moment. Anyhow, the Carousel Lounge (and there is a drawing of it in the comic to show it's the same one) was a bar on John R at about 7 mile road (in Detroit), about two blocks from where we lived until I was 5. But, it was closed and torn down I think before we moved to the burbs in 1960. But MC comics was from years later. So it seems like R Crumb must have lived in my old neighborhood prior to 1960. It was a totally obscure dive bar. But he is from Cleveland I think, not Detroit. Maybe he just had old photos of it. Blast it, I just found a sign error in my latest arxiv version of my paper that I linked to above. The gamma^2 factor in the denominator of the first term on the right of equation of Eq 21 has to move to the numerator. Also then the equation is an approximation but still good to order (v/c)^2, which is all it ever was good to, at best. It's bad that it was in the posted version, but I think it was what was stopping it from working out beyond what's posted there. I was looking for one but I was expecting it to be in an un-"published" part. Hopefully now I can get all to work out as I stated and repost it in a month or two, and re-submit it to a physics journal. Color me curious. I also grew up in Detroit, pre-60's. You probably know Mr. Riest. Cheesus K. Riest? This is an odd angle to approach your hypothesis from, but, hey. I've built exotic merry-go-rounds, and I know about eggs A. and R. C. Wanna be friends?
 22nd July 2012, 03:44 PM #28 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,288 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley The merry-go-round represents a reference frame that is moving with an elecron in an atom. That is wrong because no electron in an atom actually moves in an orbit. That is called quantum mechanics. The merry-go-round represents a reference frame that is rotating. The children represent children throwing a ball. If there are no pseudo forces then there is no rotating frame of reference. That means that your original assumption was wrong (the merry-go-round is not rotating) or that the observer is also rotating. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 22nd July 2012, 03:58 PM #29 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by quarky Color me curious. I also grew up in Detroit, pre-60's. You probably know Mr. Riest. Cheesus K. Riest? This is an odd angle to approach your hypothesis from, but, hey. I've built exotic merry-go-rounds, and I know about eggs A. and R. C. Wanna be friends? I remember Cheesis K. Reist the R. Crumb character. I hope you're not asking me if I "know" Jesus the fictional character of the Christian bible. I consider this character about as real as R. Crumb's Cheesis K. So, if you're a Jesus freak, you might not want me for a friend, because I am a big proponent of the Caesar's Messiah thesis of Joseph Atwill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUPoLMW6dNM http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messia...d_rhf_gw_p_t_1 anyhow we are friends already, as far as I'm concerned.
 22nd July 2012, 04:14 PM #30 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by Reality Check That is wrong because no electron in an atom actually moves in an orbit. That is called quantum mechanics. The merry-go-round represents a reference frame that is rotating. The children represent children throwing a ball. If there are no pseudo forces then there is no rotating frame of reference. That means that your original assumption was wrong (the merry-go-round is not rotating) or that the observer is also rotating. Well, there are reference frames that rotate relative to inertial frames, but that arguably do not impart rotational pseudoforces to observers fixed to them. These are of course reference frames undergoing Thomas precession.(This was argued in UC Berkeley course notes that were available online. Perhaps interestingly, the materials were taken down soon after I cited them as reference one or two of my arxiv paper linked to already. But I quoted the relevant passage in the reference.) If such frames exist, then kinematics requires that an observer in another, inertial frame see this as a manifest force. Under this assumption it appears possible to derive the magnetic force explicitly. Is this merely coincidental or do you simply deny that it's possible? Do you also deny that classical physics and a classical electron orbit is consistent with observed behavior of atoms at large quantum numbers? This fact is stated in Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics textbook, for example. When exactly does classical physics cease to apply? If it did cease to apply, then that would be an interesting question in itself. I don't deny the existence or utility of quantum mechanics. I simply don't buy into sweeping unjustified claims about its primacy and exclusivity, such as you are implicitly making here.
 22nd July 2012, 04:15 PM #31 quarky Banned   Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,121 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley I remember Cheesis K. Reist the R. Crumb character. I hope you're not asking me if I "know" Jesus the fictional character of the Christian bible. I consider this character about as real as R. Crumb's Cheesis K. So, if you're a Jesus freak, you might not want me for a friend, because I am a big proponent of the Caesar's Messiah thesis of Joseph Atwill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUPoLMW6dNM http://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Messia...d_rhf_gw_p_t_1 anyhow we are friends already, as far as I'm concerned. Cool. I'm a fan of the sub-fictional icon, Cheezit K. Riest, or however it is spelled. And Pam Goodvibes; Angle-food Mc Spade, and so on. Sort of religious, I guess, in that regard. Yet, compelled to mess around with reality.
 22nd July 2012, 08:00 PM #32 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,288 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley Well, there are reference frames that rotate relative to inertial frames, ... This has nothing to do with your example of a merry-go-round + children. The simple physics is if there are no pseudo forces (centrifugal or Coriolis forces due to the rotation) then either the merry-go-round is not rotating or the observer is also rotating so that they do not see the merry-go-round as rotating. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 22nd July 2012, 08:42 PM #33 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by Reality Check This has nothing to do with your example of a merry-go-round + children. The simple physics is if there are no pseudo forces (centrifugal or Coriolis forces due to the rotation) then either the merry-go-round is not rotating or the observer is also rotating so that they do not see the merry-go-round as rotating. It has everything to do with the notion of a merry-go-round without Coriolis or centrifugal forces. If there were such a thing, then observers on and off the merry-go-round can make very definite, quantitative conclusions about what real forces must be acting in the others' frames of reference. It's correct that observers in the Thomas-precessing frame don't see it as rotating. But what is an observer in a non-rotating inertial frame to conclude about goings on there. He sees the observer in that frame rotating and bodies moving along strange trajectories that are apparently caused by forces that are the opposite of centrifugal and Coriolis forces. Outside observers have to see a lack of a centrifugal force in the T-P frame as an actual force cancelling it. It's about the right magnitude to hold a proton together, if the quarks are moving highly relativistically as in the MIT bag model. We could probably argue all day about whether it's ok to use classical physics at this scale (haven't we previously?) but really it's not germaine anyway. Thomas precession has known effects in atomic and nuclear systems. When there is orbital angular momentum in a bound system (as there is in other than s states) then there will be Thomas precession, in both the quantum mechanical or classical descriptions. If there are no rotational inertial forces in Thomas-precessing frames, then compensatory forces are needed from the point of view of observers in inertial frames. On the other hand, if there are inertial forces of rotation in Thomas-precessing frames, then what non-trivial meaning is there in saying the frame is precessing?
 22nd July 2012, 09:16 PM #34 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 20,288 Originally Posted by Eggs Ackley It has everything to do with the notion of a merry-go-round without Coriolis or centrifugal forces. ...snipped stuff about a "Thomas-precessing frame" which does not exist in the example... It has nothing to do with the notion of a merry-go-round without Coriolis or centrifugal forces. All that notion means is that either the merry-go-round is not rotating or that both the observer and merry-go-round are rotating in the same way. That is what having no Coriolis or centrifugal forces means ! This is trivial physics. The merry-go-round can be ignored and you have some children in an inertial reference frame throwing balls around . __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 22nd July 2012, 10:40 PM #35 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by Reality Check It has nothing to do with the notion of a merry-go-round without Coriolis or centrifugal forces. All that notion means is that either the merry-go-round is not rotating or that both the observer and merry-go-round are rotating in the same way. That is what having no Coriolis or centrifugal forces means ! This is trivial physics. The merry-go-round can be ignored and you have some children in an inertial reference frame throwing balls around . I agree there is no Thomas precession on the merry-go-round. Do you understand that I'm trying to say that the Thomas precession creates reference frames that are like a merry-go-round without (rotational) inertial forces? I think it's a very profound thing that's been entirely overlooked for 85 years. A merry-go-round without rotational inertial forces (which we both agree cannot happen in the setting of the park) would be a very strange thing, to observers both on and off it. They would experience different laws of physics than in an ordinary park. I am sympathetic for your difficulty with the concept. I came across this by noticing that the Coriols force I expected and calculated due to Thomas precession equated to the magnetic force in the lab frame. But, how could a Coriolis force correspond to a real force? Step off the merry-go-round, no more Coriolis force. Yet it seemed impossible it could be coincidental. I am not just saying the correct general form of the magnetic force, but also the correct magnitude (if the two particle msses are equal). It wracked my brain for a year. Then at some point I realized that a lack of Coriolis force in a rotating frame was equivalent to a real force. No Coriolis force seemed correct anyhow for a Thomas-precessing frame. Then it took another two years to get it to work out. I can only get the derived magnetic force to have the right sign if I switch the sign of the Thomas precession angular velocity from what's in Jackson. It took a long time to realize this would make it work. Then I remembered, Malykin had written a paper saying the sign in Jackson is wrong. I can't see so far where Jackson went wrong (if he did), but the Malykin (and he cites Ritus) version seems to make more sense in this context.
 22nd July 2012, 10:51 PM #36 Eggs Ackley Thinker   Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 207 Originally Posted by Reality Check ...or that both the observer and merry-go-round are rotating in the same way. That is what having no Coriolis or centrifugal forces means ! This bit is wrong though. If the merry-go-round is rotating relative to the inertial frame in which its axis is fixed (or relative to the fixed stars, to give it a Machian slant), then there are rotational inertial forces apparent to an observer who is standing (or walking) on the merry-go-round, and so rotating "in the same way" as the merry-go-round. Everybody who has ever been on a merry-go-round will know this. You must have had a deprived childhood, to have never played on a merry-go-round. You again have my sympathies.
 23rd July 2012, 02:38 AM #38 This is The End     Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,400 Originally Posted by quarky yes. my wording was bad. Do you know R. Crumb? A semi-odd tangent in this thread. I've seen that "documentary" [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109508/]Crumb (1944)[/b] at least twice. A very interesting man, movie, (and family)... to say the least. __________________ ________________________
 23rd July 2012, 02:47 AM #39 PixyMisa Persnickety Insect     Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346 What if there was a merry-go-round without inertial forces? It would instantly accelerate to infinite velocity and thus have infinite relativistic mass, causing the merry-go-round, the children, their ball, and the planet Earth to collapse into a black hole, which would rather put a damper on things. __________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
 23rd July 2012, 09:06 AM #40 quarky Banned   Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,121 Back in Newton land, imagine two identical merry-go-rounds, with a perimeter populated by individual observers, magically bred to handle the g-forces. The wheels spin fast enough and adjacent, that each observer gets a glimpse of the opposing observer, and the rest of the rotation is surrounded in blackness. Each observer would have a different, yet correct, however incomplete, view of reality. A parallel universe.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit