a thought

[RainmanTime]

Einstein,

I'm very sure I can amplify the effect.

And what, if I may be so bold to ask, makes you feel so sure of this? Visualization only? You certainly have not attempted to even look into, or learn how others who came before you may have explained what you are seeing. Any scientist or engineer would want to see your math model if you were to make the claim you do above with any technical sureity. Do you understand that?

But today you mentioned something that I have been thinking about for that last three weeks. It was Degrees Of Freedom.

And do you understand what I wrote about 6-DOF? Furthermore, can you see that these 6-DOFs accurately account for all the rectilinear and rotational motion of a solid body? Further to that, can you comprehend that because these equations of motion so accurately describe physical reality is the very reason that aerospace flight vehicles can fly with such razor sharp precision? Precision that is tight enough to allow aircraft to mate-up in flight for refueling. Let me tell you Einstein, we could never accomplish such a difficult feat of flight dynamics (i.e. in-air refueling of autonomous "AI" flight vehicles) if we did not accurately understand exactly how the gyro works.

In fact, we understand it so well that we have progressed beyond the need for the physical spinning mass gyro. State of the art in gyros comes from a ring laser gyro. It uses laser light interferometry to determine body motion. This device (ring laser gyro) even further stands as physical validation that the equations of Newton that give rise to gyro motion are accurate. Hence, anything new that you think you may have found will have to be able to be proven beyond the standards we already employ for gyros of all kinds.

Well of course I disagree. You might have noticed that I have alternate interpretations. They may lead to the same result in the end. But the path I took is different. I see different conclusions along the way.

Let me assure you Einstein, there are equations that describe what you are seeing with your "home made accelerometer". You would just rather believe that you are finding something new. It is not. What you are seeing is directly related to the same principles that permit the ring laser (and its cheaper cousin the fiber optic gyro) to sense body rotational rates. In fact, do you know that the principle measurement of ring laser gyros (or any gyros) is NOT acceleration or force, but rather a body's rotational velocities about 3 axes?

The combination of these two sensors (acclerometer to measure accels, and gyros to measure body rotational rates) provide what is called an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). When these two types of sensors are combined within a microprocessing-controlled sensor device, they are then called Inertial Naviation Systems (INS). They are quite well understood Einstein, and even if you think you have a different way to describe them, you will still have to do math to show why your visualizations are any different, or better, than the standards we use today.

The degrees of freedom that you talk about look like directions in time to me. I believe that would be something new. A more basic understanding of time and how it works. (snip)
I'll probably have a time machine up and running before I fully develop the math for it. I see six degrees of freedom for torque. Two directions in each orthogonal plane of 3-D space. So you might be either referring to a plane or a line as a degree of freedom if I try to interpret what you say from context. I merely chose a direction as being a direction in time. One of those six directions is responcible for the forward flow of time. With the gyroscope it is only possible to access four out of the six. And only three at a time. The open ended orthogonal torque would occur in orthogonal time. Any transfer of force in orthogonal time would appear to be instantaneous. And that is what my current experiment is all about.

Visualizations above, right? But to anyone trained in the sciences enough to know the math as I do, the above is nothing more than word salad until you can show the math behind it. If you THINK you know how it works, the next step would be to figure out how to express that mathematically. Not only will this help quantify how you think it works, but it will give technical folks something more they can technically comment upon...a model. Until you take this approach, you will continue to ignore the PROVEN physical models we use, until you stumble upon them...thiking you discovered them, but in reality we have known about them for a long time.

If you learn the prior art left by others, and why it works as they predicted it would, that will keep you from traveling down the false paths that they have already navigated and seen as false. You appear to not wish to stand on the very shoulders of the person you claim in your user name here. For what he did was extend Newtonian mechanics by showing how they are a limiting condition at speeds well below light speed. If you honestly think you are finding something new, you will have to do the same. You will have to explain why older equations are just limiting cases of your new theory.

Either way, to prove you have something new and revolutionary you will have to do the above. No getting around it now is there? If you think there is, you're only fooling yourself.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you on this. Just never enough time.

And what, if I may be so bold to ask, makes you feel so sure of this? Visualization only? You certainly have not attempted to even look into, or learn how others who came before you may have explained what you are seeing. Any scientist or engineer would want to see your math model if you were to make the claim you do above with any technical sureity. Do you understand that?

Through trial and error I have developed a specific set of rules to follow that work very well. These rules are not mathematical at all. Ever try and cement two blocks together with a hammer? It wont work because it's the wrong tool for the job. Just as math is the wrong tool to use for a unified field theory.

And do you understand what I wrote about 6-DOF? Furthermore, can you see that these 6-DOFs accurately account for all the rectilinear and rotational motion of a solid body? Further to that, can you comprehend that because these equations of motion so accurately describe physical reality is the very reason that aerospace flight vehicles can fly with such razor sharp precision? Precision that is tight enough to allow aircraft to mate-up in flight for refueling. Let me tell you Einstein, we could never accomplish such a difficult feat of flight dynamics (i.e. in-air refueling of autonomous "AI" flight vehicles) if we did not accurately understand exactly how the gyro works.

In fact, we understand it so well that we have progressed beyond the need for the physical spinning mass gyro. State of the art in gyros comes from a ring laser gyro. It uses laser light interferometry to determine body motion. This device (ring laser gyro) even further stands as physical validation that the equations of Newton that give rise to gyro motion are accurate. Hence, anything new that you think you may have found will have to be able to be proven beyond the standards we already employ for gyros of all kinds.

I can see you haven't thought this through at all. The ring laser gyro references off a reference frame that rotates with the earth. The gyro references off a reference frame that the earth rotates within. Two separate reference frames that actually physically exist. Do you honestly believe that there are no fluctuations or variations in these two reference frames? Your DOF equations are useless if fluctuations or variations in the reference frames occur.

Let me assure you Einstein, there are equations that describe what you are seeing with your "home made accelerometer". You would just rather believe that you are finding something new. It is not. What you are seeing is directly related to the same principles that permit the ring laser (and its cheaper cousin the fiber optic gyro) to sense body rotational rates. In fact, do you know that the principle measurement of ring laser gyros (or any gyros) is NOT acceleration or force, but rather a body's rotational velocities about 3 axes?

The combination of these two sensors (acclerometer to measure accels, and gyros to measure body rotational rates) provide what is called an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). When these two types of sensors are combined within a microprocessing-controlled sensor device, they are then called Inertial Naviation Systems (INS). They are quite well understood Einstein, and even if you think you have a different way to describe them, you will still have to do math to show why your visualizations are any different, or better, than the standards we use today.

You may have noticed that I use other tools that actually do a much better job at description than math can do. One of them is analogy. As far as I know, no one has invented a math concept that can replace analogy. Just different tools.

Visualizations above, right? But to anyone trained in the sciences enough to know the math as I do, the above is nothing more than word salad until you can show the math behind it. If you THINK you know how it works, the next step would be to figure out how to express that mathematically. Not only will this help quantify how you think it works, but it will give technical folks something more they can technically comment upon...a model. Until you take this approach, you will continue to ignore the PROVEN physical models we use, until you stumble upon them...thiking you discovered them, but in reality we have known about them for a long time.

If you learn the prior art left by others, and why it works as they predicted it would, that will keep you from traveling down the false paths that they have already navigated and seen as false. You appear to not wish to stand on the very shoulders of the person you claim in your user name here. For what he did was extend Newtonian mechanics by showing how they are a limiting condition at speeds well below light speed. If you honestly think you are finding something new, you will have to do the same. You will have to explain why older equations are just limiting cases of your new theory.

Either way, to prove you have something new and revolutionary you will have to do the above. No getting around it now is there? If you think there is, you're only fooling yourself.

Poppycock!

 

[RainmanTime]

Einstein,

My goodness but you are stubborn.

Through trial and error I have developed a specific set of rules to follow that work very well. These rules are not mathematical at all. Ever try and cement two blocks together with a hammer? It wont work because it's the wrong tool for the job. Just as math is the wrong tool to use for a unified field theory.

Ignorant, and incorrect.

I can see you haven't thought this through at all.

Nice. This coming from the guy who not only cannot draw a free body diagram and derive equations of motion to solve a problem, but who actually resists even learning how to do just that!

The ring laser gyro references off a reference frame that rotates with the earth.

Wrong. The ring laser gyro is part of what is called a "strap-down inertial reference system." That means it is referenced to the body reference frame that it is attached to with respect to a TRULY inertial reference frame (i.e. referenced to space, not to some arbitrary body in space).

The gyro references off a reference frame that the earth rotates within.

Again, you are wrong. The gyro references off whatever direction you initialize the spin axis towards. This relates to why a spinning mass gyro must go through an alignment period to ensure that the spin axis of one of the gyros is pointing straight up away from the eath's gravity field. This explains why older fighter aircraft that still used spinning mass gyros had to sit on the tarmack for up to 5 minutes to ensure their gyro spin axis was properly aligned with the gravity vector before moving. Today's fighters using ring laser gyros can begin moving right away because their rate measurements are referenced to inertial space, not the earth's gravity vector.

Two separate reference frames that actually physically exist. Do you honestly believe that there are no fluctuations or variations in these two reference frames? Your DOF equations are useless if fluctuations or variations in the reference frames occur.

Again, this is coming from a person who does not understand vector physics well enough to be able to develop coordinate transformations from one reference frame to another. Those DOF equations are only "useless" (to use your term) when a body is moving at relativistic speeds. Furthermore, fluctuations in reference frames do not occur. Rather, errors in measurements of one reference against a standard are what DO occur, which only APPEAR as they are a fluctuation of a reference frame. All they are is systemic measurement errors.

You may have noticed that I use other tools that actually do a much better job at description than math can do.

You only think that. No scientist or physicist in the world would agree with you.

One of them is analogy. As far as I know, no one has invented a math concept that can replace analogy.

Nor would they be advised to, because that would be silly, not to mention erroneous.

Poppycock!

And yet you cannot refute what I have said with science. You can try to fool yourself into thinking you can strike an analogy that would refute what I have said. But that would simply be a misapplied analogy, which would have elements of untruth that I could easily identify.

I don't care if you do not wish to learn the math that describes the physics of reality (and accurately). You are free to live in your own little world, Einstein, continuing to think that you are discovering things that other people have never found. Perhaps that makes you feel good, and that is a valid reason for doing it, I guess. But it will certainly not advance you in areas you claim to wish to advance. You need a better education in physics and the math that describe them.

Moreover, since I know your stubbornness is on the brink of legendary, I have not really engaged in these conversations with you thinking I would get you moving on a path that would help you. I knew it would come to this. Rather, I have done it for the sake of ruthless... to help to continue to introduce him to the basic concepts of physics and math that engineeers use to make airplanes fly and spaceships leave the earth's atmosphere. As you can see, ruthless is making great progress in his knowledge of vectors. Maybe someday you will read the paper and see ruthless working as an engineer actually achieving breakthroughs! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

My goodness but you are stubborn.

As you are too, my good friend. But at least I know when to abandon ship.

Ignorant, and incorrect.

I might mention that all attempts at formulating a mathematical unified field theory have failed. Do you still want to go down with this sinking ship?

Nice. This coming from the guy who not only cannot draw a free body diagram and derive equations of motion to solve a problem, but who actually resists even learning how to do just that!

I realize that you would like others to believe this, but between you and me, I actually do use free body diagrams all the time. Of course I have the ability to do them in a visualization in my mind. So I am well versed in a mental activity that you claim I resist learning how to do.

The ring laser gyro references off a reference frame that rotates with the earth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wrong. The ring laser gyro is part of what is called a "strap-down inertial reference system." That means it is referenced to the body reference frame that it is attached to with respect to a TRULY inertial reference frame (i.e. referenced to space, not to some arbitrary body in space).

My, oh my. Did you have too much irish coffee when you made this reply? Because if it wasn't that, then I would have to give you an "F" on your knowledge of basic physics. (Real life math instructor gets failing grade on knowledge of physics from Internet Einstein). I guess we should both be thankful that this is just a time travel forum where wild and crazy ideas get expressed and nobody really takes any of this seriously. But anyway, let's get back to the reason I'm flunking you out of basic physics.

Michelson-Morley experiment

To summarize, it was found through an interferometer that the earth does not move through some universal reference frame. In fact further experimentation shows that no apparent rotation of the earth exists either. It almost appears that the earth is the center of the universe, and everything else rotates about the earth. So basically the accepted theory is that the earth drags this frame of reference around with it as it orbits our sun and transits through the heavens. This is the reference frame I was referring to which the ring laser gyro references off of.

The gyro references off a reference frame that the earth rotates within.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again, you are wrong. The gyro references off whatever direction you initialize the spin axis towards. This relates to why a spinning mass gyro must go through an alignment period to ensure that the spin axis of one of the gyros is pointing straight up away from the eath's gravity field. This explains why older fighter aircraft that still used spinning mass gyros had to sit on the tarmack for up to 5 minutes to ensure their gyro spin axis was properly aligned with the gravity vector before moving. Today's fighters using ring laser gyros can begin moving right away because their rate measurements are referenced to inertial space, not the earth's gravity vector.

And again I have to give you an "F" in your basic knowledge of physics. It's almost as if you were quoting your reply from an operational manual for an aircraft navigational system. Obviously not a good source for facts. I checked wikipedia on this one and laughed at their definition as well. So maybe there is a conspiracy to eliminate basic knowledge on the gyroscope. But I found a definition elsewhere that seems more suited to gyroscopic action.

Gyrocompass

Basically as I understand it, the centripetal force from the rotation of the earth about its axis is the source of the torque which causes the gyrocompass to align itself with the axis of the earth. I was taught this in my physics course in high school. And also more fuel for my stance is that a gyrocompass has been used for navigation in naval vessels for quite a long time now. This is why I'm saying that the gyro references off a reference frame that the earth rotates within. However since it seems you are referring to aircraft gyro systems, I'll retract your failing grade if you can enlighten me with some knowledge about airborn gyro systems that I may not be aware of.

Hey, I'm running out of time again. So as for the rest of your reply... It does just seem to be your opinion. And yours alone!

However:

Rather, I have done it for the sake of ruthless...

LOL....

I have to say: "Don't believe anything anyone tells you and only about half of what you see, and you'll get along fine".

 

[RainmanTime]

Einstein,

I might mention that all attempts at formulating a mathematical unified field theory have failed. Do you still want to go down with this sinking ship?

I didn't know you were on a cruise, Einstein. It must be a nice one for you to completely ignore the tenets of logic in this way. Just because no one has succeeded in defining a mathematical unified theory is not sufficient evidence (in fact it is not evidence at all!) to conclude that such a mathematical treatise will never exist. Or do I need to remind you of the futility of trying to prove a negative with such assertions as the above?

My, oh my. Did you have too much irish coffee when you made this reply? Because if it wasn't that, then I would have to give you an "F" on your knowledge of basic physics. (Real life math instructor gets failing grade on knowledge of physics from Internet Einstein). I guess we should both be thankful that this is just a time travel forum where wild and crazy ideas get expressed and nobody really takes any of this seriously. But anyway, let's get back to the reason I'm flunking you out of basic physics.

Wonderful posturing, Einstein. It's just too bad that nothing you present below falsifies anything I have stated. As I will show...

Michelson-Morley experiment

To summarize, it was found through an interferometer

Yes, indeed. And let's stop right there are recall we were talking about a ring laser gyro. Were you aware that the ring laser gyro operates on the very basis of light interferometry? Same as the Michaelson-Morely experiment! It is not a coincidence, Einstein. Because in point of fact, the Michaelson-Morely experiment was also crucial to prove that the principle of a ring laser gyro (commonly called Sagnac's Effect) would actually work! You see, another more general name for a ring laser gyro would be a light interferometer. The instrument used to generate the Michaelson-Morely data is based on the same principal as the ring laser gyro.

So basically the accepted theory is that the earth drags this frame of reference around with it as it orbits our sun and transits through the heavens. This is the reference frame I was referring to which the ring laser gyro references off of.

And how does this falsify anything I said? In fact, that reference is the very inertial reference I was talking about when I said:

RMT: That means it is referenced to the body reference frame that it is attached to with respect to a TRULY inertial reference frame (i.e. referenced to space, not to some arbitrary body in space).

The ring laser gyro is based on the Sagnac Effect. It is an interferometer that uses light (and the constancy of light speed) as a reference to measure angular motion with respect to an inertial reference. Here is a wiki that helps explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

Wiki:The constancy of the speed of light acts as a constant background, and the molecules inside the laser cavity have a certain velocity with respect to that background. This constant background is referred to as inertial space.

Check, Einstein.

And again I have to give you an "F" in your basic knowledge of physics. It's almost as if you were quoting your reply from an operational manual for an aircraft navigational system. Obviously not a good source for facts. I checked wikipedia on this one and laughed at their definition as well. So maybe there is a conspiracy to eliminate basic knowledge on the gyroscope. But I found a definition elsewhere that seems more suited to gyroscopic action.

More posturing...as if you are sure you have falsified something I have said. Trust me. You haven't. So let me see if I get how you assess truth: When you find something (like the link to Michaelson-Morley) that that you think supports your visualization, you cite it as some form of "evidence". However, when you don't like what wiki has to say about a gyroscope, you denigrate it and pretend as if it must be wrong. Is that how it works? It sure seems so.

Basically as I understand it, the centripetal force from the rotation of the earth about its axis is the source of the torque which causes the gyrocompass to align itself with the axis of the earth. I was taught this in my physics course in high school. And also more fuel for my stance is that a gyrocompass has been used for navigation in naval vessels for quite a long time now. This is why I'm saying that the gyro references off a reference frame that the earth rotates within.

Once again, nothing you have presented falsified what I have said... which was:

RMT: The gyro references off whatever direction you initialize the spin axis towards.

The example you have provided is a very specific kind of gyroscope, called a Directional Gyro (DG). It does indeed take advantage of the earth's gravitational field, of which one component is the force due to rotation. It is a special case of the more general gyro equations but it does not mean what I have said is not correct. There is another form of gyro called a Vertical Gyro (VG) which operates on the same gyro principals, but it is NOT referenced to the earth's gravitational field. Both of these types of spinning-mass gyros operate on the same concept, which is that when the gyro is powered-up, it's spin axis is spun-up and the atttitude must be initialized (since the gyro only measures rotational rate). This spin-up and initialization time is to ensure that the orientation of the spin axis in inertial space is known. The reason it takes so long to initialize (>5 min) a spinning mass gyro is purposefully because it must wait for a certain amount of rotation of the earth so it can compensate for the earth's rotation in how it sets the orientation of the spin axis. This is how a Vertical Gyro is initialized so that it knows what angle represents 0 DEG pitch and 0 DEG roll. This also, BTW, helps the inertial navigation software determine what latitude it is at on the globe. Equations of Motion and DOFs can explain why.

Another BTW that validates what I have said about the orientation of the spinning mass spin axis is how the captain of a ship (water or air ship) initialized his Directional Gyro. Every pilot knows that when he powers-up his airplane he must look at the magnetic heading on his compass, and he must use that MAG heading to initialize his DG. This is done on a mechanical gyro by grabbing a knob and twisting it. What that action is doing behind the scenes is rotating the gyro gimbal cage. The pilot rotates the knob until the pointer on the gyro points at the same heading he is reading magnetically. This points the spin axis of the gyro in the N-S magnetic direction. Thus initializing its reference. In a computerized navigator, the computer can use this information, along with the output of the VG alignment process (current latitude) to determine the current longitude of its current location on earth. Amazing what the correct mathematics can achieve these days!

However since it seems you are referring to aircraft gyro systems, I'll retract your failing grade if you can enlighten me with some knowledge about airborn gyro systems that I may not be aware of.

See above. And checkmate. You seem to have gone to a lot of trouble just to try and prove me wrong, and without success. It seems you just do not want to admit that the gyro equations and math that I have pointed you to are correct. Now you wish to try to wiggle your way out of learning the reality of the gyro equations and why they work by shifing the conversation to the difference between a ring laser gyro and a spinning mass gyro. And you try to make it look like I am wrong in what I have said...to try and keep people from focusing on your ignorance about how current kinematic equations accurately describe motion. Moreover, you argue with a guy who works with gyros all the time as a principal of the work he does in aerospace control systems. Perhaps it might help you to read the operating manual of a ring laser gyro. It may help to correct some of the errors of your visualizations and your incessant fight to try to show that "the current math is wrong".

A spinning mass gyro is dependent upon that spinning mass to establish its reference in space. With a known mass and mass distribution (moments/products of inertia) rotating at a known angular velocity, you have a reference momentum vector oriented in a specific direction in space. As such, a spinning mass gyro is fundamentally based upon Newtonian Mechanics for a rotating body, which makes it a sub-relativistic device.

A ring laser gyro is dependent upon the constancy of the speed of light in any medium. It is essentially "massless" because it uses laser light to detect the rotation rate of a body through the phase difference of two counter-rotating beams of light. Since this instrument is massless, and based on the speed of light, this makes the ring laser gyro a relativistic device. This freedom from needing a reference mass (no spinning mass) is also what allows the ring laser gyro to provide a greatly improved accuracy over the spinning mass gyro. There are no gimbal axes in a ring laser gyro, and so no friction to predict or overcome!

So how do you wish to try and make me wrong now, Einstein? How will you try to change the topic now? It might be a better use of your time to learn vector kinematics. And then after that learn how to combine vector kinemtics with differential equations. I know you resist, but honestly it will help you in the long run.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Other Gyro Facts

Thought I would include the relevant descriptions about inertial space:

This Wiki discusses inertial space

Wiki: A spinning gyroscope, when suspended in such a way that no torque acts on the gyroscope wheel, will remain pointing in the same direction with respect to inertial space. The spinning gyroscope is locked onto the direction of inertial space that the gyroscope happened to be directed in when it was spun up.

Just like I said... the reference for a spinning mass gyro is whatever direction in space that the spin axis is pointing towards when it spins up. The way the inertial navigation software determines its latitude is by measuring the shift in the spinning mass reference plane as the earth rotates underneath it. If the earth rotation rate changed appreciably over time, al spinning mass gyros used in navigation systems would have to be recalibrated, since the rotation rate of the earth is an input to determine inertial space stabilization upon gyro spin-up.

Wiki: Schwarzschild pointed out that that was invariably seen: the direction of the angular momentum of all observed double star systems remains fixed with respect to the direction of the angular momentum of the Solar system. The logical inference is that just like gyroscopes, the angular momentum of all celestial bodies is angular momentum with respect to a universal inertial space.

Because you continue to resist, Einstein, we have not even arrived at the discussion of angular momentum, which is also part of the visualization of how and why the gyro equations describe reality of kinematics. But even if we never get there, we can all rest easy in our beds at night by knowing that angular momentum is also a vector. And it also results from a cross product of the inertia tensor and a body's rotational velocity vector. It works...it really does! If it didn't, we could not have achieved the safety and sureity of aircraft navigation and control!!!

Wiki: Inertial guidance systems detect acceleration with respect to inertial space, and with those data it is possible to calculate the current velocity and position with respect to the velocity and position at the moment the acceleratometers started registering data.

For detecting rotation, gyroscopes and fiber optic ring interferometers are used. The operating principle of ring interferometers is called the Sagnac effect

This is why these systems, based on these gyroscopic and accelerometric devices, are called INERTIAL Guidance (or Navigation) Systems. They provide references with respect to a Newtonian inertial space. Do the properties of a mass change as it approaches light speed? Yes, of course. But the alternate question would be: Are any of the bodies associated in an airplane or spacecraft traveling anywhere close to the speed of light? Of course not.

Wiki: A gyrocompass, employed for navigation of seagoing vessels, finds the geometric north. It does so, not by sensing the Earth's magnetic field, but by using inertial space as its reference. The outer casing of the gyrocompass device is held in such a way that it remains aligned with the local plumb line. When the gyroscope wheel inside the gyrocompass device is spun up, the way the gyroscope wheel is suspended causes the gyroscope wheel to gradually align its spinning axis with the Earth's axis. Alignment with the Earth's axis is the only direction for which the gyroscope's spinning axis can be stationary with respect to the Earth and not be required to change direction with respect to inertial space. After being spun up, a gyrocompass can reach the direction of alignment with the Earth's axis in as little as a quarter of an hour.

Is there something about this visualization that you don't like, Einstein? If so, can you prove that the Newtonian equations for gyro motion are incorrect, and how your visualization must be correct where Newtonian equations are wrong? This is what I and any physicist would want to see if we are to agree that you have found something new. Show us how the current vector equations for a gyroscope are incorrect.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

RMT

Is there something about this visualization that you don't like, Einstein? If so, can you prove that the Newtonian equations for gyro motion are incorrect, and how your visualization must be correct where Newtonian equations are wrong? This is what I and any physicist would want to see if we are to agree that you have found something new. Show us how the current vector equations for a gyroscope are incorrect.

It's just the different path that I took that makes me look at all of it with suspicion. But since it does appear that we seem to be on the same page. Some questions came to mind today that I thought you might know the answer to. Is an airborne gyrocompass subject to the same orthogonal torque from the earths rotation as one on the ground? The reason I ask is because it occurred to me that the ground based gyroscope could be reacting to its contact with the earth. Up untill this point I had assumed the ground based gyro was reacting with its rotation through space about the earths axis. You see I am hoping that it is reacting against the centripetal induced torque. But all my experiments are done with ground based gyroscopes.

There is one other question I have for you. Does a gyroscope in orbit about the earth hold it's orientation toward some fixed point in space? Afterall the centripetal acceleration is equally balanced against the force of gravity. So by all rights there should be no external torque on the gyro in orbit. But you know me, I have to go look and see if mother nature agrees with prediction or if she is trying to tell us something.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

Einstein,

It's just the different path that I took that makes me look at all of it with suspicion.

I understand. I see the same tendency in some students that I teach. Heck, I fully admit that I had this same tendency when I was learning about vector kinematics! I was suspicious. But the more I came to understand how vector and tensor math worked, the more I discovered how the equations predict physical reality to a very high level of accuracy.

But since it does appear that we seem to be on the same page.

Is this your way of saying something like:
<font color="blue">"I guess I wouldn't go so far as to give you complete F's in your physics grade, RMT. Perhaps there is more I need to learn about these kinematic equations?"[/COLOR]

Some questions came to mind today that I thought you might know the answer to.
(snip)
There is one other question I have for you.

I can always answer questions. However, as a teacher I have found that once a student can sucessfully marry-up Newtonian physics and its attendant vector mathematics in their mind, they can then use the math to help answer some of their own questions about kinematics.

<font color="red">So we are good on the facts about ring laser gyros and spinning mass gyros, and how they are different but they measure the same thing? [/COLOR]
(I'd like an explicit answer before we move on, OK?)

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

RMT

Is this your way of saying something like:
"I guess I wouldn't go so far as to give you complete F's in your physics grade, RMT. Perhaps there is more I need to learn about these kinematic equations?"

This looks like a peace offering. Just as long as no money passes hands. Wouldn't want it to look like a bribe. But yes I am interested in this more diplomatic approach you are proposing. Although I have to warn you that I did graduate as salutatorian from the high school I attended. So there may be impossible questions I have along the way.

I can always answer questions. However, as a teacher I have found that once a student can sucessfully marry-up Newtonian physics and its attendant vector mathematics in their mind, they can then use the math to help answer some of their own questions about kinematics.

At one time quite a while ago I would agree. But as time moves on I start to realize that a rotating reference frame just might not be made up of the same green cheese that a stationary reference frame is. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be legal to transform one into the other.

So we are good on the facts about ring laser gyros and spinning mass gyros, and how they are different but they measure the same thing?
(I'd like an explicit answer before we move on, OK?)

I would agree that they both allow you to reference off of a real existing reference frame. But I might disagree that both of those reference frames are made of the same green cheese.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

Einstein,

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this your way of saying something like:
"I guess I wouldn't go so far as to give you complete F's in your physics grade, RMT. Perhaps there is more I need to learn about these kinematic equations?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This looks like a peace offering.

Well, before we get to peace offering I was hoping for an apology from you for all that nonsensical posturing. Beyond that, yes perhaps there is a chance for Peace In Our Time!

Just as long as no money passes hands. Wouldn't want it to look like a bribe.

We can certify no monetary value with Lloyds of London if you like! :D

Although I have to warn you that I did graduate as salutatorian from the high school I attended. So there may be impossible questions I have along the way.

I'll consider myself warned. Just as I should warn you that I graduated Cum Laude with my BS in Aero.

At one time quite a while ago I would agree. But as time moves on I start to realize that a rotating reference frame just might not be made up of the same green cheese that a stationary reference frame is. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be legal to transform one into the other.

One thing you will learn about if you choose to study the mathematics of physics and coordinate systems more deeply is the idea of frame invariance as applied to covariant and contravariant tensors. All reference frames are equally good.

I would agree that they both allow you to reference off of a real existing reference frame. But I might disagree that both of those reference frames are made of the same green cheese.

And I wonder why you use such terms as green cheese. A reference frame is an artifact of analysis. It allows you to reference any measurements to any other measurements in another frame since position and velocity are, indeed, relative. Your statement seems to imply that you think reference frames are things, in and of themselves, rather than metrical constructs for understanding the frame-invariant laws of physics. Is that what you think?

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

RMT

Well, before we get to peace offering I was hoping for an apology from you for all that nonsensical posturing. Beyond that, yes perhaps there is a chance for Peace In Our Time!

Well of course, I formally apologise. I wouldn't want you to think I seriously meant anything you may have taken personally. It was all in gest. You certainly had me rolling on the floor with laughter. But I guess I do get carried away sometimes with my replies.

And I wonder why you use such terms as green cheese. A reference frame is an artifact of analysis. It allows you to reference any measurements to any other measurements in another frame since position and velocity are, indeed, relative. Your statement seems to imply that you think reference frames are things, in and of themselves, rather than metrical constructs for understanding the frame-invariant laws of physics. Is that what you think?

Hey, I think you are finally seeing reality as I do. The reference frames that I referred to that exist about the earth are actually there. They really exist. You can prove they are there by experiment. That sort of elevates them to particle status. Since they travel with the earth about the sun, this suggests that they are extensions of matter. Now I know that reference frames can be arbitrarily chosen in mathematics. But by choosing a real existant refernce frame over an arbitrary one, would definitely give one a mathematical advantage in describing reality. So you may occasionally see me asking if a mathematical operation is legal. What I mean by that is does it really describe what is happening or are we fudging just a bit. Since these reference frames really exist, can they be modified or controlled in some manner? And I don't think that these reference frames are invariant. So this just may be the direction a mathematical approach to describing reality may have to take. I certainly would be interested in seeing how equations of motion would change in a noninvariant reference frame.

 

[Darby]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

But as time moves on I start to realize that a rotating reference frame just might not be made up of the same green cheese that a stationary reference frame is.

This is precisely why the axioms of SR state that the idealized situation involved is one taken in an infinitely extended area of spacetime that is gravitation free and that the object under observation is in a "a uniform motion of translation without rotation". All motions are not equal nor are they strictly relative in the limited sense of SR. Gravitation and rotating frames (accelerated frames in general) are covered by general relativity.

 

[Einstein]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

Darby

Gravitation and rotating frames (accelerated frames in general) are covered by general relativity.

Yes, I learned about general relativity in physics. He separated spacetime phenomena from electromagnetic phenomena. I totally agree with his reasoning on this. However I do disagree with his approach toward gravity and spacetime. Gravity doesn't curve spacetime. I used to think that gravity stimulates a dynamic form of spacetime. But based on some of my data, I am suspecting that gravity fields exist within spacetime as a completely separate phenomena.

What happened to RMT? Did he duck out when I started to talk about noninvariant reference frames?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

Einstein,

What happened to RMT? Did he duck out when I started to talk about noninvariant reference frames?

Not at all. I was merely preoccupied with a business trip and flying home. However, I was ignoring your quip about "noninvariant reference frames" because I do not think you have thought about what this would mean to the laws of physics. There is something that should be readily observable if the laws of physics varied with respect to what inertial reference frame one chose. We have never observed this.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

RMT

Not at all. I was merely preoccupied with a business trip and flying home. However, I was ignoring your quip about "noninvariant reference frames" because I do not think you have thought about what this would mean to the laws of physics. There is something that should be readily observable if the laws of physics varied with respect to what inertial reference frame one chose. We have never observed this.

There are lots of unexplained observations that could be interpreted with the use of a noninvariant reference frame. Quasars come to mind. Is time flowing at a different rate within a quasar than in the rest of the universe? How about the Mystery Spot? What causes the dimensions of length to vary within its sphere of influence? I'm interested in nuclear force as having influence over spacetime. There was one experiment that I performed in my lab using gravity waves changing in frequency that appeared to cause time to oscillate. At the time it was a little alarming. I tried to turn off whatever was happening. But when I turned my equipment back on the time oscillation was still present. I turned everything off and came back the next day. The time oscillation had stopped and I haven't been able to reduplicate the effect. But now I have more clues as to what was going on with this different interpretation of gyroscopic behavior. Having an actual mathematical framework to work with using varying reference frames would definitely be helpful. I know there probably isn't a defined path to follow in determining how to use math this way. I'll just let mother nature be my guide.

 

[Darby]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

Quasars come to mind. Is time flowing at a different rate within a quasar than in the rest of the universe?

Yes, of course it is. But that's completely in line with both SR and GR. Relative mass, relative velocity and relative rates of acceleration equate to a relative time differentials between differing frames.

There's a problem with the question as stated, however. The statement "Is time flowing at a different rate within a quasar than in the rest of the universe?" seems to assume that the rest of the "universe" has a preferred time frame. It doesn't. There is no such animal as "universal time" according to SR, GR or any experiment ever run.

If nothing else, this lack of a universal time frame was long ago verified by Cronin &amp; Fitch (1980 Nobel Prize in Physics - Neutral Kaon Decay).

 

[Einstein]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

Darby

There's a problem with the question as stated, however. The statement "Is time flowing at a different rate within a quasar than in the rest of the universe?" seems to assume that the rest of the "universe" has a preferred time frame. It doesn't. There is no such animal as "universal time" according to SR, GR or any experiment ever run.

I would have to disagree. There does appear to be a preferred time frame. All heavenly objects are moving away from each other. The further away they are, the faster they appear to be moving away. This is evidence for an apparent universal expansion rate. What ties in with this expansion rate is that light will redshift the faster a receding source moves away from us. The amount of redshifting is a gauge of how far a radiating source is away from us. We also know gravity from a radiating star will also cause redshift. Our own sun slightly redshifts the light coming from it due to its own gravity field. If time were not flowing at a universal time flow rate, then we should see an equal amount of blueshifted light. That would suggest that time was flowing faster from the blueshifted light source relative to our time flow rate. As far as I know, there don't appear to be any blueshifted light sources in the heavens. So I would have to conclude that there is observational evidence for a preferred universal time flow rate. And one could conceivably tie the expansion rate of the universe to this universal time flow rate.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

Darby,

There's a problem with the question as stated, however. The statement "Is time flowing at a different rate within a quasar than in the rest of the universe?" seems to assume that the rest of the "universe" has a preferred time frame. It doesn't. There is no such animal as "universal time" according to SR, GR or any experiment ever run.

If nothing else, this lack of a universal time frame was long ago verified by Cronin &amp; Fitch (1980 Nobel Prize in Physics - Neutral Kaon Decay).

Thank you for stating my point to Einstein in an alternate manner. I would bet Einstein will continue to try to argue his point, as it seems he just doesn't wish to accept those things that science have proven to be accurate if they do not fit with his visualizations. I've tried to reach him, and I believe he would gain a great tool by learning vector/tensor mathematics and combining these with calculus. But I get the idea that Einstein thinks these proven forms of math that accurately reflect physics are "too hard." The irony is, as you no doubt know Darby, is that once you learn the math you see just how simply and consistently that math describes reality.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Are we far enough off-topic yet?

Einstein,

Darby: <font color="blue"> There's a problem with the question as stated, however. The statement "Is time flowing at a different rate within a quasar than in the rest of the universe?" seems to assume that the rest of the "universe" has a preferred time frame. It doesn't. There is no such animal as "universal time" according to SR, GR or any experiment ever run. [/COLOR]


Einstein: <font color="red"> I would have to disagree. There does appear to be a preferred time frame. [/COLOR]

It is one thing to disagree and make such a claim. It is another thing to properly falsify the existing theory (and its math) that claims the opposite. If you do not understand the math that describes the current theory, how can you ever hope to falsify it and then move on to prove your theory?

All heavenly objects are moving away from each other. The further away they are, the faster they appear to be moving away. This is evidence for an apparent universal expansion rate.

But not evidence for a preferred reference frame. Furthermore, are you proposing this evidence really is a "universal" (as in "everywhere consistent") expansion rate? Or is it possible that the expansion rate is not constant (i.e. accelerating). The NASA WMAP data does appear to show the latter is true (expansion rate is not constant).

The amount of redshifting is a gauge of how far a radiating source is away from us.

I believe that is incorrect. The redshift is a manifestation of the Doppler effect, which accounts for the velocity that some body is receding from us (red-shift) or approaching us (blue-shift). It is not a measure of position of any sorts.

If time were not flowing at a universal time flow rate, then we should see an equal amount of blueshifted light.

Can you show this mathematically? Furthermore, this view makes the (false) assumption that the vantage point from which we view the universe is already a preferred reference frame! Do you not see this is implicit in your statement? You cannot start with an assumption that we exist in a preferred reference frame (which is what your statement above does) and expect to arrive at any other conclusion than that there *IS* a preferred reference frame!!

That would suggest that time was flowing faster from the blueshifted light source relative to our time flow rate.

Or it could suggest something much more basic, which has already been shown. Namely, that all bodies in the universe are accelerating away from each other. This would explain precisely why, no matter which vantage point you choose to observe the universe, everything we see is red-shifted.

As far as I know, there don't appear to be any blueshifted light sources in the heavens. So I would have to conclude that there is observational evidence for a preferred universal time flow rate.

See above. Your conclusion ignores something that we already know.

And one could conceivably tie the expansion rate of the universe to this universal time flow rate.

Conceiving that you could do this, and actually doing it (while falsifying theories for which evidence has been presented) is a whole 'nother story.

RMT

 

[Darby]

Re: Other Gyro Facts

I would have to disagree.

That much goes without saying. If Albert Einstein said, "Blue" withought stopping to think you'd feel a compulsory urge to say, "Red."