Re: What is inertial motion
From: Donald G. Shead (dcshead_at_charter.net)
Date: 07/17/04
- Next message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: query on number theory"
- Previous message: Rouben Rostamian: "Re: Sin Cos Tan, why not Sin Sec Tan?"
- In reply to: Herman Family: "Re: What is inertial motion"
- Next in thread: Herman Family: "Re: What is inertial motion"
- Reply: Herman Family: "Re: What is inertial motion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 16 Jul 2004 19:08:23 -0700
"Herman Family" <celcaps@frontiernets.net/without_any_s/> wrote in message news:<CwRJc.40$SV.27@news01.roc.ny>...
> Rather than debate your logic, I think it would be better to test it
> directly and provably. The great thing about physics is that it is very
> scalable. The concepts around the movements of the heavens can be tested by
> a three year old with a yoyo, though the three year old might not understand
> the math behind it.
>
It's obvious that you don't understand it much better than the three
year old Michael: The scalable reproducible experiment that you
propose must be done so that it is mathematically consistent: You
can't do it quite the way you make it sound.
First of all a weight cannot be induced to spin in a circle 'around
your hand' unless your hand rotates in a circle itself to give
impetus: To lead the weight; to induce the spinning motion. If you
have ever used a sling, like David used to kill Goliath, you can see
that the hand that wields it swings about the shoulder, and the speed
of the object in the delivery end of the sling depends a great deal on
the strength of that hand being great enough to induce, and provide
considerable velocity to the projectile.
On the other hand; inducing a speed of only 3.14159'/sec to an object
weighing one pound; moving at a radius of one foot will only require a
force of one pound to hold it at that radius. Just a little less will
allow the radius to increase, and just a little more force will
decrease that radius. Newton was correct that circular motion requires
a centripetal force to change the direction of a moving object, but he
didn't figure the magnitude very well: The ratio of how much force to
how much curvature?
As I say:
To replicate such an experiment requires that the variables all "fit"
mathematically: Especially that the force is proportional to the
product of the weight and the acceleration.
> Take a weight, put it on a string, and induce it to spin in a circle with a
> good sized radius, perhaps a couple feet.. The weight is now traveling in a
> circular fashion with some radius around a center point, orbiting your hand.
> Release the string. Does the weight continue to travel in the circle or
> does it fly off in a relatively straight line (except for the trajectory
> caused by gravity)?
>
> If it has circular inertia, as you suspect,
What I suspect and know full well is that inertial motion is neither:
> > Inertial motion is Free (unaccelerated) Motion; where particles, and
> > masses thereof are moving freely; relative to other particles and/or
> > masses. The motion of particles and masses free falling, and/or
> > orbiting weightlessly, are in this state of Free motion.
> >
> > Today's inertial unaccelerated motion includes orbital, and any other
> > motion in between; including free fall.
Maybe you'll get the idea after "WE" discuss Forced (accelerated)
Motion; Perhaps tomorrow.
End of present discussion; for the time being!
Shead <dcshead@charter,net
- Next message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: query on number theory"
- Previous message: Rouben Rostamian: "Re: Sin Cos Tan, why not Sin Sec Tan?"
- In reply to: Herman Family: "Re: What is inertial motion"
- Next in thread: Herman Family: "Re: What is inertial motion"
- Reply: Herman Family: "Re: What is inertial motion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
