Re: What is inertial motion

From: Herman Family (celcaps_at_frontiernets.net/without_any_s/)
Date: 07/17/04 

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 03:07:33 GMT

"Donald G. Shead" <dcshead@charter.net> wrote in message
news:48402bae.0407161808.3e26611e@posting.google.com...
> "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.

Oh, it isn't mathematically consistent? Lets make it more consistent.
After you start the object spinning, around your hand at some distance, stop
moving your hand. Hold it absolutely stationary. You only have to do that
for a moment, perhaps a third of a rotation. Then let go of the string.
What happens? If you are correct, the weight will continue to spin around
your hand. If Newton was correct, it will go in a straight line from the
circle.

By the way. In that sling which David used to kill Goliath, the stone was
moving in a circular fashion until the sling was released. If it had
"orbital inertia" and orbital motion did not require acceleration towards
the center of rotation, then the stone would have continued to orbit David's
shoulder. Instead it went and visited Goliath. I guess we could say that
this was proof of biblical proportions that your theory doesn't work, and
hasn't worked for at least the last several thousand years. You do have a
bit of work to do to get around this one. Perhaps a good demonstration of
your theory in action would be in order. One which clearly shows that
Newton was wrong about straight line motion and orbits. One which blows
Kepler out of the water. One truly brilliant experiment, simple and elegant
which anyone with a weight and a string can try that will prove conclusively
that Newton was wrong and you are right. We are waiting.

>
> 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?

Simply use the the force required is going to equal the mass times the
square of the angular velocity, divided by the square of the radius. F =
mv^2/r^2, where v is the angular velocity measured in radians per second.

If you were to put a scale on the string (I'll leave it to you to figure out
how), you can even test to see if the magnitude was correct.

Of course, this particular experiment is regularly done in physics classes
with the answer coming within observation error of the predicted results.

Now, stop your fooling around and do the experiment if you actually have the
guts to put your theory to the test. Forget the niggling little details,
prove your point. No hand waving, no propounding your superior
intelligence. I'm waiting for solid results here. If the weight continues
in a circle after the string is completely released, then you are right. If
it doesn't, and instead travels in a straight line as Newton predicted, then
you are wrong.

>
> 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.

It does. Check out your physics book. F = ma, a = v^2/r^2. Show
otherwise. At this point, recall that the planets are moving according to
this equation (and several others which are consistent with it), as is the
moon and all the satelites.

>
> > 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.

Perhaps you are missing the point. Orbital motion (like the weight on the
string moving around your hand if you were brave enough to test your theory)
requires constant acceleration. That experiment would prove the point very
nicely, if you understand the physics behind it.

>
> Maybe you'll get the idea after "WE" discuss Forced (accelerated)
> Motion; Perhaps tomorrow.
No. Don't discuss. Demonstrate. That's the beauty of physics.
Demonstrate it in a reproducible experiment.
>
> End of present discussion; for the time being!

ok, end of discussion. Words are so weak anyway. Now lets see the
experimental results. Demonstrate conclusively in a simple actual (not
thought) experiment that Newton was wrong. Show us unambigously. Let us
test it ourselves to see that yrou results are valid. Without that
demonstration, you are just blowing hot air, using bandwidth, and you are
nothing and should be ignored. With the demonstration and provable results,
you are a contender and should be listened to carefully. So we have it.
What should we do with you and your theories? Ignore them as trash or
listen very carefully? If we are to rewrite phyics books, we need a very
good reason. Provide it.

>
> Shead <dcshead@charter,net

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is inertial motion
    ... Then let go of the string. ... the weight will continue to spin around ... > force of one pound to hold it at that radius. ... this particular experiment is regularly done in physics classes ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Tai Chi
    ... sources--your weight and the action of your muscles. ... Basic physics, those who are not comfortable thinking in physics terms ... purposes) on their head, and you couldnt carry them on your head, ... It has everything to do with conditioning the neck and its ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: the black fishing hole
    ... easily pay out more string than this. ... You asserted that "the event horizon is only a finite distance away", ... the string will break at some point before the weight reaches the ... horizon, because the tension in the string diverges, because of the fact ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: How far does an object fall during the first half second after its released?
    ... >Nygaard is incapable of grasping what 'weight' means in the context of physics. ... Heat of melting or heat of fusion, L, is the quantity of heat needed ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is inertial motion
    ... First of all a weight cannot be induced to spin in a circle 'around ... to induce the spinning motion. ... force of one pound to hold it at that radius. ... > If it has circular inertia, as you suspect, ...
    (sci.math)