It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by harrytuttle
More fancy graphics. Gosh, you've been to a lot of trouble.
Last time you distorted the data by removing crucial elements that showed that the two ball bearings were falling at different rates.
Now you're introducing the idea that the ball bearings have different initial velocities.
If you can explain how this can occur when the same initial upward force is applied to both balls, I'd be really interested.
Until then, it looks to me like an intellectually dishonest way of approaching the subject.
If every time you contribute to the thread you have to remove some of the data or introduce a distortion, what does that say for your objectivity?
Have you attempted to replicate the experiment yourself? No. And on the basis of what you've posted so far, I wouldn't trust you to.
Originally posted by JBA2848
But on the same note a bullet fired parallel to the ground will hit the ground at the same time as the casing ejected just a lot futher away. Gravitys effect is the same on both.
Originally posted by spacial
As such, applying a force such as spinning an object in a vacuum will enact a force that competes not with the air molecules per se but with the actual pressurized system.
you will need a greater force to spin such an object because it now competes with the pressure as soon as it is spun.
This occurs because the agitated molecules within the object that is being spun will create pressure away from the epicenter of the rotational force and thus create a force against it's surrounding environment.
The problem with the current theory of gravity (last time i checked anyway) is the belief that gravity is created by mass and mass alone. It does not entertain the relationship between centripetal forces and gravity in a more universal theory.
Originally posted by rich23
OK... you've been persistent, and polite, but part of the reason I haven't responded is that you seem insistent that "classical physics" explains this while displaying what seems to me to be a rather shaky grasp of classical physics... I mean, even shakier than mine, for heaven's sake.
Originally posted by spacial
As such, applying a force such as spinning an object in a vacuum will enact a force that competes not with the air molecules per se but with the actual pressurized system.
you will need a greater force to spin such an object because it now competes with the pressure as soon as it is spun.
You appear to be saying that spinning, for example, a ball-bearing requires more force in a vacuum even though air resistance is no longer a factor.
This makes no sense to me. The "actual pressurised system", by which I assume you mean the ball-bearing, has not changed. Why should it take more force to spin it in a vacuum?
Here's how I would understand the situation in terms of classical physics. Let's say the ball-bearing is made of steel. Therefore there will be iron atoms in the ball-bearing. Let's narrow our focus to look at one such, conveniently located on the surface of the sphere at the "equator", assuming, for simplicity's sake, that the bearing is spinning on one axis.
Our hypothetical iron atom is subjected to a force that, with no other forces acting upon it, would make it travel in a straight line. What stops it from doing so is the chemical bond that keeps it as part of the alloy. The cohesiveness of the alloy is what stops the ball-bearing from flying apart. The speed of rotation would have to be truly enormous for those chemical bonds to be under serious threat.
This occurs because the agitated molecules within the object that is being spun will create pressure away from the epicenter of the rotational force and thus create a force against it's surrounding environment.
I don't think there will be any force against the surrounding environment because all the pressure you speak of is easily handled by the chemical bonding I've just described. Plus, in a vacuum, there's nothing to apply force to.
The problem with the current theory of gravity (last time i checked anyway) is the belief that gravity is created by mass and mass alone. It does not entertain the relationship between centripetal forces and gravity in a more universal theory.
I think, but I'm not sure, that Phage may already have dealt with this. I have trouble with your posts, as I've said, because it seems to me that while you say classical physics has dealt with the effect posited in the OP, your explanations show that you don't then explain what's going on in the same way classical physics does. Rotating a ball-bearing, in classical physics, shouldn't make any difference to its trajectory unless there's interaction with the atmosphere.
The speed of rotation would have to be truly enormous for those chemical bonds to be under serious threat.