a thought
- Thread starter ruthless
- Start date
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
ruthless
It is believed to be so. At the equator the increased spin of the earth would produce a larger amount of centripetal acceleration. This would tend to negate a small portion of gravity.
Probably only a black hole. Everything else would fly apart from the very high centripetal acceleration.
Orthogonal rotational inertia is highly increased. It's almost as if there was more mass there. But only when the mass is spinning. I think the mass is reacting with spacetime. It's just my own personal theory though.
It is believed to be so. At the equator the increased spin of the earth would produce a larger amount of centripetal acceleration. This would tend to negate a small portion of gravity.
Probably only a black hole. Everything else would fly apart from the very high centripetal acceleration.
Orthogonal rotational inertia is highly increased. It's almost as if there was more mass there. But only when the mass is spinning. I think the mass is reacting with spacetime. It's just my own personal theory though.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
That is exactly what is going on. Well said, Einstein. I fully agree. A spinning mass is the definition of an inertial reference (i.e. the gyro effect).
RMT
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
RMT
Just stay tuned to these thoughts on inertial reference frames. There is a lot of physics behind a spinning mass when an orthogonal torque is applied. There is the applied orthogonal torque. There is a reactional torque present which resists the applied torque. And then there is a third unbalanced torque present which is orthogonal to both the applied torque and and the plane of rotation for the spinning mass. That third unbalanced torque is what is called precession. What has my attention is that there are three torques present. The mysterious threes again.
Currently I'm revisiting an old experiment that I performed just about 27 years ago. I built a gyro drive back then. It had some very odd characteristics. One of them was that it scooted across the garage floor just like a little rocketship. It was using the garage floor to resist torque in that direction. So it wasn't actually a space drive. But I suspected that I could substitute gyro stabilizers for the garage floor if it showed any promise of success as a space drive.
As it scooted across the garage floor, it actually seemed like it was trying to move in a spiral direction. It corkscrewed across the garage floor. I attempted to stabilize the corkscrewing effect. That proved to be unsuccessful. What did happen was even stranger than even I suspected. When I balanced out the gyros, the drive spun up without resistance and without any propulsive force at all. And that's where I left off and on to something else.
Well, it's 27 years later. My recent experiments with gravity waves, electric waves, and magnetic waves has given me some new insight as to why the gyro drive failed to work as anticipated. I suspect the gyro drive was obeying the rules that govern wave mechanics. I had assembled it in a way in which the gyro torques were cancelling out. If I view the gyro torques as waves, then it starts to become clear what went wrong. There is a way to assemble the gyro drive so that the gyro torques from opposing gyros add together. This will be an interesting experiment to post when I get it completed. So right now at this point in time I don't know if it will be a success or failure. It could even provide me with something new and unexpected.
Just stay tuned to these thoughts on inertial reference frames. There is a lot of physics behind a spinning mass when an orthogonal torque is applied. There is the applied orthogonal torque. There is a reactional torque present which resists the applied torque. And then there is a third unbalanced torque present which is orthogonal to both the applied torque and and the plane of rotation for the spinning mass. That third unbalanced torque is what is called precession. What has my attention is that there are three torques present. The mysterious threes again.
Currently I'm revisiting an old experiment that I performed just about 27 years ago. I built a gyro drive back then. It had some very odd characteristics. One of them was that it scooted across the garage floor just like a little rocketship. It was using the garage floor to resist torque in that direction. So it wasn't actually a space drive. But I suspected that I could substitute gyro stabilizers for the garage floor if it showed any promise of success as a space drive.
As it scooted across the garage floor, it actually seemed like it was trying to move in a spiral direction. It corkscrewed across the garage floor. I attempted to stabilize the corkscrewing effect. That proved to be unsuccessful. What did happen was even stranger than even I suspected. When I balanced out the gyros, the drive spun up without resistance and without any propulsive force at all. And that's where I left off and on to something else.
Well, it's 27 years later. My recent experiments with gravity waves, electric waves, and magnetic waves has given me some new insight as to why the gyro drive failed to work as anticipated. I suspect the gyro drive was obeying the rules that govern wave mechanics. I had assembled it in a way in which the gyro torques were cancelling out. If I view the gyro torques as waves, then it starts to become clear what went wrong. There is a way to assemble the gyro drive so that the gyro torques from opposing gyros add together. This will be an interesting experiment to post when I get it completed. So right now at this point in time I don't know if it will be a success or failure. It could even provide me with something new and unexpected.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Einstein,
Oh yes, I know them well. In fact, they are a staple of my business in aerospace vehicle stabilization.
What you are describing is the fundamental basis of something called a Control Moment Gyroscope. They are used to either control (hold) or modify the attitude of a satellite with respect to some specific inertial reference (typically a sun-centered attitude to expose solar panels to maximum sunlight, but also could be LVLH - Local Vertical/Local Horizontal to hold a stable attitude with respect to the local tangent plane of the earth's surface). The CMGs are also the primary stabilizing torque-producers on the ISS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Moment_Gyroscope#International_Space_Station
RMT
Oh yes, I know them well. In fact, they are a staple of my business in aerospace vehicle stabilization.
What you are describing is the fundamental basis of something called a Control Moment Gyroscope. They are used to either control (hold) or modify the attitude of a satellite with respect to some specific inertial reference (typically a sun-centered attitude to expose solar panels to maximum sunlight, but also could be LVLH - Local Vertical/Local Horizontal to hold a stable attitude with respect to the local tangent plane of the earth's surface). The CMGs are also the primary stabilizing torque-producers on the ISS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Moment_Gyroscope#International_Space_Station
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
ruthless,
Perhaps it is time to start acting as an engineer would... we learn how to answer questions ourselves! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Often this can manifest as a journey to knowledge that can be kicked off by a mentor sending you in a direction...and seeing where you go with it. Go to the following page on centripetal acceleration:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/cf.html
See if this helps you answer your question...but more importantly see if it helps you move on to other questions that will help you satisfy your curiosity! One hint here is that we must remember that accelerations are vectors, and we must treat vectors accordingly (i.e. we must sum vectors by breaking them into orthogonal components and adding the components). A centripetal acceleration would act in addition to the acceleration due to gravity "g".
Talk to me about what you learn from the above page...and where your brain "naturally" wishes to take you on your follow-on journey. The things you value the most in life are the things you expend your efforts to achieve!
RMT
Perhaps it is time to start acting as an engineer would... we learn how to answer questions ourselves! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Often this can manifest as a journey to knowledge that can be kicked off by a mentor sending you in a direction...and seeing where you go with it. Go to the following page on centripetal acceleration:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/cf.html
See if this helps you answer your question...but more importantly see if it helps you move on to other questions that will help you satisfy your curiosity! One hint here is that we must remember that accelerations are vectors, and we must treat vectors accordingly (i.e. we must sum vectors by breaking them into orthogonal components and adding the components). A centripetal acceleration would act in addition to the acceleration due to gravity "g".
Talk to me about what you learn from the above page...and where your brain "naturally" wishes to take you on your follow-on journey. The things you value the most in life are the things you expend your efforts to achieve!
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
ruthless,
The answer really depends on how you are using the term "less gravity".
The field strength at some given radial distance from the center of mass isn't going to change but the surface gravity will change of you alter the angular velocity of the planet or star. The surface gravity will change because the surface will be either closer to or farther from the center of mass.
For example, the oblateness of the Earth around the equator (the equatorial bulge) results in an equatorial surface gravity of ~.997g. The surface gravity at the rotational poles is ~1.003g. It the Earth stopped spinning the surface gravity on both the equator and at the poles would be very close to 1g (it wouldn't be exactly 1g because the mater that makes up the earth isn't uniformly distributed).
The strength of the gravitational field didn't change. What changed was the radial distance from the surface to the center of mass.
If we take the extreme situation and compress the Earth to a diameter of 20 mm, just short of being a black hole, while conserving the angular momentum, the surface angular velocity of the Earth would be very great - but less than the speed of light. If you were on the moon and measured the earth's gravitational field there it would be almost the same as it was before it shrunk. It's "almost the same" because before it shrunk the earth wasn't a point particle. The details are part of celestial mechanics that I won't go into.
If you make an inelastic, prefectly rigid earth that can't expand, spin it up to a much higher surface velocity then you'll notice that the surface gravity appears to be less than it was. That's an example of the Principle of Equivalence - acceleration (think of Ray's vectors) is equivalent to gravitation in Special Relativity. You have one vector "g" with an arrowhead pointing toward the center of mass. You have another vector "a' (acceleration) with an arrowhead pointing generally in the other direction (it will have some angle less than 180 degrees with respect to "g" than depends on the angular velocity. Add the two vectors the simple way - graph it. Plot your vectors, graph in your parallelogram, strike a hypotenuse and viola! The hypoyrnuse across the parallelogram is a new vector - the sum of the two original vectors. You've not only "decreased" the surface gravity, you've changed the angle of the gravitational force. Gravity no longer appears to be pulling you straight down.
What's really going on? You're being subjected to two accelerating forces in two different directions.
The answer really depends on how you are using the term "less gravity".
The field strength at some given radial distance from the center of mass isn't going to change but the surface gravity will change of you alter the angular velocity of the planet or star. The surface gravity will change because the surface will be either closer to or farther from the center of mass.
For example, the oblateness of the Earth around the equator (the equatorial bulge) results in an equatorial surface gravity of ~.997g. The surface gravity at the rotational poles is ~1.003g. It the Earth stopped spinning the surface gravity on both the equator and at the poles would be very close to 1g (it wouldn't be exactly 1g because the mater that makes up the earth isn't uniformly distributed).
The strength of the gravitational field didn't change. What changed was the radial distance from the surface to the center of mass.
If we take the extreme situation and compress the Earth to a diameter of 20 mm, just short of being a black hole, while conserving the angular momentum, the surface angular velocity of the Earth would be very great - but less than the speed of light. If you were on the moon and measured the earth's gravitational field there it would be almost the same as it was before it shrunk. It's "almost the same" because before it shrunk the earth wasn't a point particle. The details are part of celestial mechanics that I won't go into.
If you make an inelastic, prefectly rigid earth that can't expand, spin it up to a much higher surface velocity then you'll notice that the surface gravity appears to be less than it was. That's an example of the Principle of Equivalence - acceleration (think of Ray's vectors) is equivalent to gravitation in Special Relativity. You have one vector "g" with an arrowhead pointing toward the center of mass. You have another vector "a' (acceleration) with an arrowhead pointing generally in the other direction (it will have some angle less than 180 degrees with respect to "g" than depends on the angular velocity. Add the two vectors the simple way - graph it. Plot your vectors, graph in your parallelogram, strike a hypotenuse and viola! The hypoyrnuse across the parallelogram is a new vector - the sum of the two original vectors. You've not only "decreased" the surface gravity, you've changed the angle of the gravitational force. Gravity no longer appears to be pulling you straight down.
What's really going on? You're being subjected to two accelerating forces in two different directions.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
BTW Einstein,
This is one of the things that gives me a chuckle about your approach to things. You always seem to be looking for the exotic from the get-go. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif This is precisely why I always implore you to model things with current knowledge/math. It helps avoid you dreaming up an "exotic" solution to something that it already well-known.
The example here is gyroscopic dynamics & precession. It is nothing more than the good ole law of Conservation of Angular Momentum that is going on. Here is a good link to explain:
http://mb-soft.com/public/precess.html
RMT
This is one of the things that gives me a chuckle about your approach to things. You always seem to be looking for the exotic from the get-go. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif This is precisely why I always implore you to model things with current knowledge/math. It helps avoid you dreaming up an "exotic" solution to something that it already well-known.
The example here is gyroscopic dynamics & precession. It is nothing more than the good ole law of Conservation of Angular Momentum that is going on. Here is a good link to explain:
http://mb-soft.com/public/precess.html
RMT
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Hi RMT
Yes, I'm chuckling now too. You're standing on mathematical fiction.
I don't believe in backholes or wormholes. Mathematical constructs. Fiction. Or should I say science fiction.
This experiment was done 27 years ago by me. At a time when I believed much more strongly in math than I do now. At the time I did come up with a mathematical model that beats the hell out of anything in existence today.
A spinning mass under the effects of an applied torque does not conserve angular momentum. That's an observable fact. So your statement is completely in conflict with mine. But I'll forgive you if you can cite the individual or individuals responcible for originating the current mathematical fiction behind the gyroscope. I've always been curious as to who is behind this coverup. By the way, I haven't seen Ciggy around lately. You don't have anything to do with that do you?
Yes, I'm chuckling now too. You're standing on mathematical fiction.
I don't believe in backholes or wormholes. Mathematical constructs. Fiction. Or should I say science fiction.
This experiment was done 27 years ago by me. At a time when I believed much more strongly in math than I do now. At the time I did come up with a mathematical model that beats the hell out of anything in existence today.
A spinning mass under the effects of an applied torque does not conserve angular momentum. That's an observable fact. So your statement is completely in conflict with mine. But I'll forgive you if you can cite the individual or individuals responcible for originating the current mathematical fiction behind the gyroscope. I've always been curious as to who is behind this coverup. By the way, I haven't seen Ciggy around lately. You don't have anything to do with that do you?
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Einstein,
A spinning mass most certainly maintains its inertial orientation due to conservation of angular momentum. As for an applied torque & precession, you are correct, but the change in angular momentum is proportional to the applied torque. "Moment = Moment of Inertia * Angular Acceleration", a vector (technically tensor) equation. See the link I provided.
Ummmmmm....Leonhard Euler? And it is hardly fiction, Einstein.
RMT
A spinning mass most certainly maintains its inertial orientation due to conservation of angular momentum. As for an applied torque & precession, you are correct, but the change in angular momentum is proportional to the applied torque. "Moment = Moment of Inertia * Angular Acceleration", a vector (technically tensor) equation. See the link I provided.
Ummmmmm....Leonhard Euler? And it is hardly fiction, Einstein.
RMT
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Hi RMT
I just asked the question about who was the original author of the equations for the gyroscope, because I spent a considerable amount of time looking for that answer. I never did find out. But the equations don't describe or tell why the gyroscope precesses. One link you provided mentioned something like the right hand rule. Or was it left hand rule? But that doesn't matter because even that rule is invalid as well. A gyroscope will reverse it's precessional direction during spindown. I think that is a significant observation. Even the math that I developed doesn't cover that little observation.
There is one thing that I happened to notice about the gyroscope. The observed behavior exactly parallels the behavior of an electron under the application of voltage. The orthogonal torque exhibited by the gyroscope when under the application of a torque, is analogous to the magnetic field produced by an electron in motion when under the application of a voltage. These rules of operation may be characteristics of fields in motion that are universal.
As for the math behind a gyroscope being fact? I don't think so. Not yet. The best I can give it is just the current accepted theory. And currently the available math for describing this phenomena is severely lacking. It's so lacking, it doesn't even have an author. That is what I find kind of odd. It's almost as if all the text books were rewritten to promulgate this severely lacking mathematical description.
But you don't have to take my word for any of this. You can sit down and start taking a look at the force vectors acting on a spinning mass under the application of an orthogonal torque. Please be advised that you will be using three inertial reference frames. I would describe it as a curve on a curve on a curve. And don't be too upset if you can't do it. A proper visualization of what is going on really needs to be formulated first before you can proceed.
I just asked the question about who was the original author of the equations for the gyroscope, because I spent a considerable amount of time looking for that answer. I never did find out. But the equations don't describe or tell why the gyroscope precesses. One link you provided mentioned something like the right hand rule. Or was it left hand rule? But that doesn't matter because even that rule is invalid as well. A gyroscope will reverse it's precessional direction during spindown. I think that is a significant observation. Even the math that I developed doesn't cover that little observation.
There is one thing that I happened to notice about the gyroscope. The observed behavior exactly parallels the behavior of an electron under the application of voltage. The orthogonal torque exhibited by the gyroscope when under the application of a torque, is analogous to the magnetic field produced by an electron in motion when under the application of a voltage. These rules of operation may be characteristics of fields in motion that are universal.
As for the math behind a gyroscope being fact? I don't think so. Not yet. The best I can give it is just the current accepted theory. And currently the available math for describing this phenomena is severely lacking. It's so lacking, it doesn't even have an author. That is what I find kind of odd. It's almost as if all the text books were rewritten to promulgate this severely lacking mathematical description.
But you don't have to take my word for any of this. You can sit down and start taking a look at the force vectors acting on a spinning mass under the application of an orthogonal torque. Please be advised that you will be using three inertial reference frames. I would describe it as a curve on a curve on a curve. And don't be too upset if you can't do it. A proper visualization of what is going on really needs to be formulated first before you can proceed.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Einstein,
I was being truthful when I gave you Leonhard Euler's name. The reason you may not have found what you were looking for is because the equations that describe how a gyro operates are nothing special. They are the same equations that apply to ALL rotational vectors, and how two or more moments (torques) combine. The action gyroscopic precession under an applied torque is a direct result of the vector cross product, and the rotational form of Newton's Second Law (the formulation of which is credited to Euler). The most accurate form of Newton's Second Law (for rectilinear forces) is:
Force = Time Rate Of Change of Momentum = d(m*V)/dt (where the bold V represents a vector)
Euler simply recognized that the same principle applies to angular momentum and its resulting torque:
Torque = Time Rate of Change of Angular Momentum = d(I*Omega)/dt
So the "I*Omega" term is the vector quantity called angular momentum, just like the "m*V" term is the linear momentum vector. The direction of this vector is along the spin axis of the gyro. So when you apply an external torque (also a vector), the two torques combine and you must use vector mathematics (the cross product). And, of course, it is well known that when you apply the cross product to two vectors, you will get the resultant vector which is orthogonal to the initial two vectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope#Properties
Yes they do. And I hope you are not trying to say that vector mathematics is baloney, Einstein.
I'd sure like to see you prove that. You are incorrect. And the right hand rule is simply a convention for determining the direction of the vector that results from a cross product. Left hand rule would work just as well. It is nothing more than defining which direction you call "+" and which you call "-". It is arbitrary, as long as you remain consistent all the math works out and predicts reality quite well.
It has to do with torque balance (gravitational vs. the friction torque that is slowing the gyro). The link I provided explains it.
That is even true of E = mc^2! However, the Euler equations are highly accurate since we cannot build a gyro that will reach relativistic velocity. Yet I will agree with you that improvements could and should be made. For example, I have always claimed that mass is a vector quantity which we simply want to treat as a scalar. Look at the two equations above for momentum. Why is it that these two equations are vector equations, yet we know (and treat) the Moment of Inertia (I) as a tensor (3x3 matrix) quantity, and yet we insist that mass is a scalar? My position has always been that if we know "I" is a tensor quantity (and we do know it is, and is dependent upon mass distribution in a body), then "m" must be treated the same way. So on the issue of advancing our current equations, yes I do believe they can be improved.
Now you are being silly, Einstein. The gyro operation doesn't need an author because it is simply a physical instantiation of the well-known Euler laws, which were derived from Newton's laws! It is Conservation of Angular Momentum and the angular form of Newton's Second Law working together. No mystery.
Now you are just being cocky. Show me your math, sir. And properly define the 3 intertial reference frames you are talking about. Show me....don't give me "word salad".
RMT
I was being truthful when I gave you Leonhard Euler's name. The reason you may not have found what you were looking for is because the equations that describe how a gyro operates are nothing special. They are the same equations that apply to ALL rotational vectors, and how two or more moments (torques) combine. The action gyroscopic precession under an applied torque is a direct result of the vector cross product, and the rotational form of Newton's Second Law (the formulation of which is credited to Euler). The most accurate form of Newton's Second Law (for rectilinear forces) is:
Force = Time Rate Of Change of Momentum = d(m*V)/dt (where the bold V represents a vector)
Euler simply recognized that the same principle applies to angular momentum and its resulting torque:
Torque = Time Rate of Change of Angular Momentum = d(I*Omega)/dt
So the "I*Omega" term is the vector quantity called angular momentum, just like the "m*V" term is the linear momentum vector. The direction of this vector is along the spin axis of the gyro. So when you apply an external torque (also a vector), the two torques combine and you must use vector mathematics (the cross product). And, of course, it is well known that when you apply the cross product to two vectors, you will get the resultant vector which is orthogonal to the initial two vectors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope#Properties
Yes they do. And I hope you are not trying to say that vector mathematics is baloney, Einstein.
I'd sure like to see you prove that. You are incorrect. And the right hand rule is simply a convention for determining the direction of the vector that results from a cross product. Left hand rule would work just as well. It is nothing more than defining which direction you call "+" and which you call "-". It is arbitrary, as long as you remain consistent all the math works out and predicts reality quite well.
It has to do with torque balance (gravitational vs. the friction torque that is slowing the gyro). The link I provided explains it.
That is even true of E = mc^2! However, the Euler equations are highly accurate since we cannot build a gyro that will reach relativistic velocity. Yet I will agree with you that improvements could and should be made. For example, I have always claimed that mass is a vector quantity which we simply want to treat as a scalar. Look at the two equations above for momentum. Why is it that these two equations are vector equations, yet we know (and treat) the Moment of Inertia (I) as a tensor (3x3 matrix) quantity, and yet we insist that mass is a scalar? My position has always been that if we know "I" is a tensor quantity (and we do know it is, and is dependent upon mass distribution in a body), then "m" must be treated the same way. So on the issue of advancing our current equations, yes I do believe they can be improved.
Now you are being silly, Einstein. The gyro operation doesn't need an author because it is simply a physical instantiation of the well-known Euler laws, which were derived from Newton's laws! It is Conservation of Angular Momentum and the angular form of Newton's Second Law working together. No mystery.
Now you are just being cocky. Show me your math, sir. And properly define the 3 intertial reference frames you are talking about. Show me....don't give me "word salad".
RMT
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
It is a device used to space-stabilize any type of flying vehicle. It maintains an intertial reference (pointing direction):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
RMT
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
RMT
I just spent an hour and a half replying to your post. I was almost done. With explanations about the way I solved the real math behind the gyro. My browser mysteriously closed on me. The whole reply was gone. I don't have another hour and a half to redo the reply today. Darn! It will have to wait till either tomorrow or the weekend. It's like I'm allowed to know the secrets behind a unified field theory, but I'm not going to be permitted to tell anybody. I will be back....
I just spent an hour and a half replying to your post. I was almost done. With explanations about the way I solved the real math behind the gyro. My browser mysteriously closed on me. The whole reply was gone. I don't have another hour and a half to redo the reply today. Darn! It will have to wait till either tomorrow or the weekend. It's like I'm allowed to know the secrets behind a unified field theory, but I'm not going to be permitted to tell anybody. I will be back....
reactor1967
Quantum Scribe
Ruthless I was not going to try to answer your question I just wanted to know how you came across this question? It is a very interesting question is why I asked. Thanks, Reactor