Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
Max Keon
A gravity anisotropy in the up and down directions relative to a
gravity source has already been fairly well established
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html but this latest
addition drives in the final nail. There is now no doubt about it.
According to current theory, there's no reason at all why the air
enclosed inside a constantly rotating housing would not remain in
a stationary relationship with the housing. Clearly, there are no
forces whatever acting on the air that could constantly drive the
air relative to the housing walls. But the air IS driven, and quite
significantly. Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
anisotropy should drive the air mass.
In the previous series of gravity anisotropy experiments, detecting
the air motion has been the challenge. The very lightweight
polystyrene foam disc went some way toward achieving that goal, but
the disc mass per volume was so much more than air that the disc
became the dominant factor. The only conclusive proof that the air
is actually flowing is to monitor the actual air flow inside the
housing, which has been in the too hard basket for some time. But
it really was quite simple.
A wisp of smoke injected into the air inside the housing would
provide a flag which would be carried along with the air, wherever
it was going. So I set about making a precision cigarette smoking
device that could inject a specific smoke quantity at a specific
location into the air mass. I chose the cheapest brand cigarettes
for the smoking task.
The task of visually detecting where the smoke was being taken would
be undertaken by a strobe light triggered once per housing rotation
cycle, and that would set up the frames of a movie.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravai.mpg
This particularly smoky 1.8 meg video clip, taken with a black
and white CCD camera, shows the smoke flow turning on then off.
The air flow direction is extremely obvious (if it runs correctly
that is).
The assembly that houses the smoke tube only appears to be
oscillating back and forth because the edge of the trigger point
for the strobe light isn't precisely identified for each rotation.
The varying overrun on the mirror strip which reflects the laser
beam and triggers the strobe light is clearly obvious (upper right
of the screen center).
The smoke test was run only after a uniform rotation rate had been
well established and the housing was no longer accelerating. What
the rotation rate was is irrelevant in this case. The air inside the
housing doesn't overrun the rotation rate of the housing even when
the drive is turned off and the housing rotation is slowing. The
same air flow direction is still quite evident.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
The strobe light assembly can be indexed around the entire 360
degrees (which is of little consequence for this experiment). The
straight smoke tube shown inside the housing is attached to the
rotating housing center.
The complete post is stored at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html
-----
Max Keon
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:449a705f$0$14698$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
>
> A gravity anisotropy in the up and down
> directions relative to a gravity source has
> already been fairly well established
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
Not well established.
> but this latest addition drives in the final
> nail. There is now no doubt about it.
I'm glad you are certain.
> According to current theory, there's no
> reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
> constantly rotating housing would not remain
> in a stationary relationship with the housing.
Sure there is. Same thing that screws up all your other
experiments. Temperature gradients. Insolation. Brownian
motion. Natural background radiation. The high cost of plywood.
> Clearly, there are no forces whatever acting
> on the air that could constantly drive the
> air relative to the housing walls.
Clearly there will be.
> But the air IS driven, and quite significantly.
> Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
> anisotropy should drive the air mass.
Didn't see it in the rambling. Have you tried a tree structure,
so that one can use an index, and go straight to the point?
David A. Smith
george...@gmail.com
> Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
>
> According to current theory, there's no
> reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
> constantly rotating housing would not remain
> in a stationary relationship with the housing.
Yes there is, it's called friction.
If you did an experiment, you would notice that the first air that
started to move would be the air that was in contact to the moving
parts. The air directly in contact with the moving parts would be moved
by friction. Then the movment would slowly propagate to to the rest of
air farther away, until all the air is almost going the same speed.
Douglas Rudd
Igor
Max Keon wrote:
> Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
>
Of course, there's anisotropy in the gravity force. Things fall down,
not up.
Eric Gisse
Max Keon wrote:
> Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
>
> A gravity anisotropy in the up and down directions relative to a
> gravity source has already been fairly well established
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html but this latest
> addition drives in the final nail. There is now no doubt about it.
[...]
There is no doubt you have no understanding of error analysis or the
limits of your equipment.
You haven't substantially improved your design even after some good
suggestions, so you must feel it is good enough. So I am amused that
you haven't attempted to publish this, as you feel it is a sufficient
proof.
Max Keon
<george...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150988350.1...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You've certainly got that right, but you are missing the point of
the experiment. After the housing has achieved a constant rotation
rate for some time, the rotating housing and the air WILL INDEED
remain locked together. Your task is to explain why they don't, even
when the drive is switched off and the housing is fairly rapidly
decellerating.
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1151000105.1...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
And the faster things approach a gravity source, the less will be
gravity's acceleration rate.
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151007764.5...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I see you're still aimlessly waving your arms about. Have a good
study of the video clip and note just how much the air is moving,
then explain why. The tranformation from video to MPEG has
substantially damage the clarity of the clip, but it should still
be OK.
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:LLwmg.424$RD.282@fed1read08...
> Dear Max Keon:
>
> "Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:449a705f$0$14698$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
------
>> According to current theory, there's no
>> reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
>> constantly rotating housing would not remain
>> in a stationary relationship with the housing.
> Sure there is. Same thing that screws up all your other
> experiments. Temperature gradients.
Temperature gradients? Where, why and how??? Care to explain?
> Insolation.
Insolation from what? And why? Are you suggesting that some
*gigantic* temperature gradient, or something, is fixed oriented
with the earth's surface and is cycled around inside the rotating
housing enclosure as the housing rotates through it? That's what
it would take to make the air move as it does.
> Brownian motion.
More like a Brownian tornado. Have a good look at the rate
of air movement inside the ENCLOSED housing.
> Natural background radiation.
That would account for very minor air movement.
But it's not minor by any means, is it!
>> Clearly, there are no forces whatever acting
>> on the air that could constantly drive the
>> air relative to the housing walls.
> Clearly there will be.
Don't you start with the hand waving too.
>> But the air IS driven, and quite significantly.
>> Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
>> anisotropy should drive the air mass.
> Didn't see it in the rambling. Have you tried a tree structure,
> so that one can use an index, and go straight to the point?
The "ramblings" are the result of how that experiment evolved.
If the action of gravity is *dynamically* applied at some speed
greater than zero and less than instantaneous, the action of gravity
must reduce with motion toward the gravity source, and increase in
the outward direction. That's what is showing up, and that is
exactly what the zero origin concept predicts. It also gives a speed
for the action of gravity, which is of course light speed. But that
remains only a prediction for now. But the anisotropy is well and
truly proven.
Learn to embrace the truth folk because it is soon to embrace us
all (equally).
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
Stop dicking around on USENET. You obviously cannot see any flaws in
your setup, so in your mind there must not be any - so why haven't you
published?
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
Max Keon
Science magazine editors only publish material that is compatible
with mainstream physics, unless of course it has humorous content
generated by what is generally viewed as an outlandish proposal.
Subscriber chortling is encouraged. But it would be a foolhardy
publisher who would print something so contrary to the philosophies
of relativity.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html I've added these
two frozen frame images from the video clip to the web page
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg and
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
Thats bullshit and you know it. Even people like [Hammond] and Seto
have been published - why haven't you sent your "discovery" to the
journals that published their 'work' ?
Things that attempt to disprove, test, or flat out are not ABOUT
relativity are published on a regular basis in reputable journals. Have
you ever heard of something like MOND? Have you even read a journal
recently?
Saying that journals only publish stuff that supports relativity is a
tired crank argument that doesn't hold water on closer inspection.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:449b7fcc$0$2798$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:LLwmg.424$RD.282@fed1read08...
>> Dear Max Keon:
>>
>> "Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:449a705f$0$14698$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> ------
> ------
>
>>> According to current theory, there's no
>>> reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
>>> constantly rotating housing would not remain
>>> in a stationary relationship with the housing.
>
>> Sure there is. Same thing that screws up all
>> your other experiments. Temperature gradients.
>
> Temperature gradients? Where, why and how???
> Care to explain?
You make reference to an experiment, you link to a webpage that
shows nothing about it. And you remove the link in your reply.
Care to explain?
>> Insolation.
>
> Insolation from what? And why? Are you suggesting
> that some *gigantic* temperature gradient, or
> something, is fixed oriented with the earth's surface
> and is cycled around inside the rotating housing
> enclosure as the housing rotates through it? That's
> what it would take to make the air move as it does.
*What* "move as it does"? You don't have movies. You don't have
a section view. You spend more words on code than you do on
experimental setup. You don't describe instrumentation.
>> Brownian motion.
>
> More like a Brownian tornado. Have a good look
> at the rate of air movement inside the ENCLOSED
> housing.
It is meaningless until you describe the experiment so that it
can be duplicated. Ever hear of the "butterfly effect"?
>> Natural background radiation.
>
> That would account for very minor air movement.
> But it's not minor by any means, is it!
Who could tell? Not from that web page.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
>>> Clearly, there are no forces whatever acting
>>> on the air that could constantly drive the
>>> air relative to the housing walls.
>
>> Clearly there will be.
>
> Don't you start with the hand waving too.
Then you stop it, and provde the detail necessary to duplicate
the experiment.
>>> But the air IS driven, and quite significantly.
>>> Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
>>> anisotropy should drive the air mass.
>
>> Didn't see it in the rambling. Have you tried a
>> tree structure, so that one can use an index,
>> and go straight to the point?
>
> The "ramblings" are the result of how that
> experiment evolved.
Sir, if you are trying to be heard/understood, you can make it
simpler.
> If the action of gravity is *dynamically* applied at
> some speed greater than zero and less than
> instantaneous, the action of gravity must reduce
> with motion toward the gravity source, and
> increase in the outward direction. That's what is
> showing up, and that is exactly what the zero
> origin concept predicts. It also gives a speed for
> the action of gravity, which is of course light
> speed. But that remains only a prediction for
> now. But the anisotropy is well and truly proven.
It is a "cocaine dream" until you can allow others to duplicate
it.
> Learn to embrace the truth folk because it is
> soon to embrace us all (equally).
Only death will do that. In the mean time, we can try and
communicate.
David A. Smith
Jerry
> Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven.
> The smoke test was run only after a uniform rotation rate had been
> well established and the housing was no longer accelerating. What
> the rotation rate was is irrelevant in this case. The air inside the
> housing doesn't overrun the rotation rate of the housing even when
> the drive is turned off and the housing rotation is slowing. The
> same air flow direction is still quite evident.
>
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
My gawd, Max. Haven't you ever heard of the Coriolus effect?
Consider a cigarette at the North pole. Trace the path of the
smoke as it travels to a smoke hole at the Equator.
There is an interesting secondary effect as well, but I don't
want to muddy the issue.
Jerry
Eric Gisse
As worthless as his apparatus is, I don't think it is detecting the
Coriolus effect as the effect is way too small and his "device" is way
too insensitive.
>
> Jerry
Jerry
The Coriolis (sorry, my misspelling) effect is very large given the
dimensions and rotational speeds of Max's apparatus. Mathematically,
the Coriolis acceleration is given by
a = -2 omega cross v
where a is the acceleration vector, omega is the angular velocity
vector, and v is the velocity of the particle in the moving system.
I estimate that Max is running his rotor at "several" radians per
second. The velocity of the smoke is extremely difficult to estimate.
I might imagine it to be "several" cm/s near the central entry point,
decreasing to tenths of a cm/s midway out, and then increasing back
to several cm/s as the flow nears the exit hole near the rim. The
product would range from several cm/s^2 at right angles to the
velocity near the central entry point, down to tenths of a cm/s^2
midway out, and increasing back to several cm/s^2 as the smoke nears
the exit hole.
The important point is that at the rotational velocities that Max is
using, the Coriolis acceleration is comparable to the smoke velocity,
and so will manifest itself strongly over the dimensions of Max's
rotor.
Jerry
Eric Gisse
Oooh.
I thought you meant the Coriolis [I cannot spell it properly so I just
copy your spelling] effect from the Earth itself.
But from my understanding of whats happening in his device, I don't
think the Coriolis effect would do much.
Then again, my understanding of his device is rather fluid - when did
he start using smoke? I gave up figuring out what he was trying to do
since he listed everything he has ever tried without really saying what
he is actually doing now. Metal rotor? Styrofoam roater? Who the hell
knows! Argh.
At any rate... my thinking is if the air is being dragged along by
friction from the rotor, the Coriolis effect wouldn't do much because
the velocity vector of the air would be mostly parallel to the angular
velocity vector of the rotor. Then again, wouldn't the Coriolis effect
plus the effects of fluid flow knock the air about really wildly? It
would probably help if I understood more about fluid flow. I am sure of
what he isn't measuring, but everything else is pretty much up for
grabs.
>
> Jerry
Jerry
If you look at his brand new apparatus,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
you see that he introduces cigarette smoke at the center of the
rotor, and it exits out through a tube in the edge.
Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to the
exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
acceleration will be comparable.
Jerry
Eric Gisse
The point of the smoke is definitely subtle. I am confused as to how he
thinks a turbulent environment like this would reveal any "anisotropy",
much less how he justifys the existence of the anisotropy. My
understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal, but the term "non-linear"
and "turbulence" have meaning to me.
I've gone through this with him before. He says his theory predicts it,
but I point out that his entire theory is the assumption of the
anisotropy. I'm curious as to why he thinks a finite propogation speed
for the force of gravity would cause this "anisotropy".
So which one of us gets to break it to him that the electromagnetic
force has a finite propogation speed? I would *love* to see him test
his idea with an electrostatic field. It certaintly wouldn't require
this zany setup, either.
>
> Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
> forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to the
> exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
> locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
> estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
> whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
> acceleration will be comparable.
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/dload.html
I'm yet to find a non-propiarity video format that mplayer won't chew
through.
>
> Jerry
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > If you look at his brand new apparatus,
> > http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
> > you see that he introduces cigarette smoke at the center of the
> > rotor, and it exits out through a tube in the edge.
>
> The point of the smoke is definitely subtle. I am confused as to how he
> thinks a turbulent environment like this would reveal any "anisotropy",
> much less how he justifys the existence of the anisotropy. My
> understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal, but the term "non-linear"
> and "turbulence" have meaning to me.
Without being able to view his mpeg and having only a vague idea of
the dimensions of the apparatus or velocity of flow, I'm not able to
estimate Reynolds number, so I can't say anything about turbulence
one way or another.
> I've gone through this with him before. He says his theory predicts it,
> but I point out that his entire theory is the assumption of the
> anisotropy. I'm curious as to why he thinks a finite propogation speed
> for the force of gravity would cause this "anisotropy".
>
> So which one of us gets to break it to him that the electromagnetic
> force has a finite propogation speed? I would *love* to see him test
> his idea with an electrostatic field. It certaintly wouldn't require
> this zany setup, either.
>
> >
> > Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
> > forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to the
> > exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
> > locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
> > estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
> > whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
> > acceleration will be comparable.
>
> http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/dload.html
>
> I'm yet to find a non-propiarity video format that mplayer won't chew
> through.
I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
Jerry
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151143547.3...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jerry wrote:
...
> Then again, my understanding of his device is rather
> fluid - when did he start using smoke? I gave up
> figuring out what he was trying to do since he listed
> everything he has ever tried without really saying
> what he is actually doing now. Metal rotor?
> Styrofoam roater? Who the hell knows! Argh.
Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
strongly influencing bulk fluid motion. He sure did his research
alright.
David A. Smith
Douglas Rudd
>> Yes there is, it's called friction.
>> If you did an experiment, you would notice that the first air that
>> started to move would be the air that was in contact to the moving
>> parts. The air directly in contact with the moving parts would be moved
>> by friction. Then the movment would slowly propagate to to the rest of
>> air farther away, until all the air is almost going the same speed.
>
> You've certainly got that right, but you are missing the point of
> the experiment. After the housing has achieved a constant rotation
> rate for some time, the rotating housing and the air WILL INDEED
> remain locked together. Your task is to explain why they don't, even
> when the drive is switched off and the housing is fairly rapidly
> decellerating.
I don't get it. Are you saying that when you put the brake on the
housing and stop it, the smoke will keep going around?
Eric Gisse
You see those pictures of the DOS program with the blocks? Thats what
the video is of.
I can't understand why he insists on doing it *that way* rather than
actually recording the data and doing analysis on it.
>
> Jerry
Max Keon
"Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1151146577.5...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
perpendicular to the earth's surface?
State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
gobbstopper.
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
> Dear Max Keon:
>
> "Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:449b7fcc$0$2798$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
>> wrote in message news:LLwmg.424$RD.282@fed1read08...
>>>>
>>>> According to current theory, there's no
>>>> reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
>>>> constantly rotating housing would not remain
>>>> in a stationary relationship with the housing.
>>>
>>> Sure there is. Same thing that screws up all
>>> your other experiments. Temperature gradients.
>>
>> Temperature gradients? Where, why and how???
>> Care to explain?
> You make reference to an experiment, you link to a webpage that
> shows nothing about it. And you remove the link in your reply.
> Care to explain?
The purpose of the link was to explain why, in this experiment, an
anisotropy in the **dynamic** action of gravity would cause the air
mass to slow relative to the rotating housing. I removed the link
because I was providing a better explanation in the post.
>>> Insolation.
>>
>> Insolation from what? And why? Are you suggesting
>> that some *gigantic* temperature gradient, or
>> something, is fixed oriented with the earth's surface
>> and is cycled around inside the rotating housing
>> enclosure as the housing rotates through it? That's
>> what it would take to make the air move as it does.
> *What* "move as it does"? You don't have movies. You don't have
> a section view. You spend more words on code than you do on
> experimental setup. You don't describe instrumentation.
You are still apparently referring to the "foam disc" experiment.
The operation of the device is adequately described.
>>> Brownian motion.
>>
>> More like a Brownian tornado. Have a good look
>> at the rate of air movement inside the ENCLOSED
>> housing.
> It is meaningless until you describe the experiment so that it
> can be duplicated. Ever hear of the "butterfly effect"?
Are you still referring to the "foam disc" experiment?
>>> Natural background radiation.
>>
>> That would account for very minor air movement.
>> But it's not minor by any means, is it!
> Who could tell? Not from that web page.
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
Even if you can give a reasonable explanation as to why the foam
disc falls behind the rotating housing as it does, you will still
need to address the latest development. Why does the air mass fall
behind the rotation rate of the housing as it does?
-----
-----
>>>> But the air IS driven, and quite significantly.
>>>> Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
>>>> anisotropy should drive the air mass.
>>>
>>> Didn't see it in the rambling. Have you tried a
>>> tree structure, so that one can use an index,
>>> and go straight to the point?
>>
>> The "ramblings" are the result of how that
>> experiment evolved.
> Sir, if you are trying to be heard/understood, you can make it
> simpler.
This latest experiment couldn't possibly be any simpler. I just
spin the housing up to a constant speed, leave it run for a settling
time, turn on the strobe light, light up the cigarette in its holder
which is directly linked to the housing inner tube that carries the
smoke to the outer rim, fit the cigarette outer cover which has a
preset input airflow rate that's exhausting through a hole at the
cigarette butt end, then just place my finger over the hole and
observe the result.
It doesn't get much easier does it!
>> If the action of gravity is *dynamically* applied at
>> some speed greater than zero and less than
>> instantaneous, the action of gravity must reduce
>> with motion toward the gravity source, and
>> increase in the outward direction. That's what is
>> showing up, and that is exactly what the zero
>> origin concept predicts. It also gives a speed for
>> the action of gravity, which is of course light
>> speed. But that remains only a prediction for
>> now. But the anisotropy is well and truly proven.
> It is a "cocaine dream" until you can allow others to duplicate
> it.
Did you say you're an engineer?
>> Learn to embrace the truth folk because it is
>> soon to embrace us all (equally).
> Only death will do that. In the mean time, we can try and
> communicate.
And in the quest for truth we communicate via the entirely fluid
medium of physics which should not ever be dammed or damned.
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
Max Keon wrote:
[...]
>
> This latest experiment couldn't possibly be any simpler. I just
> spin the housing up to a constant speed, leave it run for a settling
> time, turn on the strobe light, light up the cigarette in its holder
> which is directly linked to the housing inner tube that carries the
> smoke to the outer rim, fit the cigarette outer cover which has a
> preset input airflow rate that's exhausting through a hole at the
> cigarette butt end, then just place my finger over the hole and
> observe the result.
You have NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON to believe what you are observing is the
result of a gravitational "anisotropy".
Nobody has ever seen anything like this. Were your "anisotropy" real,
experiments would have long ago detected what you claim you are
observing. Your "effect" is nothing more than the result of fluid flow
in a confined region. Have you talked to anyone who actually understand
fluid dynamics? Or have you refused to consider the possiblity you
haven't actually discovered something interesting?
[...]
Phineas T Puddleduck
Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON to believe what you are observing is the
> result of a gravitational "anisotropy".
>
> Nobody has ever seen anything like this. Were your "anisotropy" real,
> experiments would have long ago detected what you claim you are
> observing. Your "effect" is nothing more than the result of fluid flow
> in a confined region. Have you talked to anyone who actually understand
> fluid dynamics? Or have you refused to consider the possiblity you
> haven't actually discovered something interesting?
"Its the ESTABLISHMENT MAN!!! They're hushing up my exciting new
discovery. They know its the secret of the .... UNIVERSE.....'"
10/1 on - thats the gist of the reply.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Max Keon
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg and
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
are both (now better quality) extracts from the video clip.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/~gravair.html
is supposed to be what we are discussing here.
I can understand why you run and hide Eric.
But you really should try addressing the current subject.
-----
Max Keon
Phineas T Puddleduck
<max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>ç is supposed to be what we are discussing here.
>
> I can understand why you run and hide Eric.
> But you really should try addressing the current subject.
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
>
>
For gravair.html
Error 404 - Not Found
The page you have requested is unavailable on this server.
Max Keon
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in
message news:250620060409372629%phineasp...@googlemail.com_NOSPAM...
My humble appologies.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html
Phineas T Puddleduck
<max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
How the hell did you encode this - my Mac won't play it.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:449df343$0$31607$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
...
You start this off with a title that purportedly will talk about
an anisotropy in gravity. Then you run the apparatus only
horizontally, in a small area, so that no possible anisotropy in
gravity will be evident.
>>> Temperature gradients? Where, why and how???
>>> Care to explain?
>
>> You make reference to an experiment, you link
>> to a webpage that shows nothing about it. And
>> you remove the link in your reply. Care to explain?
>
> The purpose of the link was to explain why, in
> this experiment, an anisotropy in the **dynamic**
> action of gravity would cause the air mass to
> slow relative to the rotating housing.
It fails utterly to do this. There is no anisotropy possible in
horizontal operation in a small area.
> I removed the link because I was providing a
> better explanation in the post.
And you wanted *me* to stop hand waving?
...
>>> enclosure as the housing rotates through it? That's
>>> what it would take to make the air move as it does.
>
>> *What* "move as it does"? You don't have movies.
>> You don't have a section view. You spend more
>> words on code than you do on experimental setup.
>> You don't describe instrumentation.
>
> You are still apparently referring to the "foam disc"
> experiment. The operation of the device is
> adequately described.
Read again. Nothing there is adequate for others to repeat your
experiment, much less understand what it is you've "measured".
>>> More like a Brownian tornado. Have a good look
>>> at the rate of air movement inside the ENCLOSED
>>> housing.
>
>> It is meaningless until you describe the
>> experiment so that it can be duplicated.
>> Ever hear of the "butterfly effect"?
>
> Are you still referring to the "foam disc" experiment?
I'm referring to your "poor description" on your webpage.
...
>>> That would account for very minor air movement.
>>> But it's not minor by any means, is it!
>
>> Who could tell? Not from that web page.
>> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
>
> Even if you can give a reasonable explanation
> as to why the foam disc falls behind the rotating
> housing as it does, you will still need to address
> the latest development. Why does the air mass fall
> behind the rotation rate of the housing as it does?
I still can't tell what the h*ll you are talking about. Can you
explain why those novelty hubcaps sometimes run backwards?
...
>>> The "ramblings" are the result of how that
>>> experiment evolved.
>
>> Sir, if you are trying to be heard/understood,
>> you can make it simpler.
>
> This latest experiment couldn't possibly be any
> simpler.
Then you have provided a parts list, with construction details?
> I just spin the housing
Shape? Size? Filled with? Arranged like?
> up to a constant speed, leave it run for a
> settling time, turn on the strobe light, light
> up the cigarette in its holder which is
> directly linked to the housing inner tube
> that carries the smoke to the outer rim, fit
> the cigarette outer cover which has a preset
> input airflow rate that's exhausting through a
> hole at the cigarette butt end, then just
> place my finger over the hole and observe
> the result.
>
> It doesn't get much easier does it!
It certainly didn't get *any* clearer.
...
>>> speed. But that remains only a prediction for
>>> now. But the anisotropy is well and truly proven.
>
>> It is a "cocaine dream" until you can allow
>> others to duplicate it.
>
> Did you say you're an engineer?
Yes. Mechanical Engineer, minor in Design.
>>> Learn to embrace the truth folk because it is
>>> soon to embrace us all (equally).
>
>> Only death will do that. In the mean time,
>> we can try and communicate.
>
> And in the quest for truth we communicate
> via the entirely fluid medium of physics
No. We are forced to use "words" and "pictures". You have
plenty of words, and few that describe the experimental setup.
You have a few pictures, and none that allow independent
verification.
> which should not ever be dammed or damned.
You are pretty far from physics now. You are doing fluid
mechanics. And you aren't understanding what you are seeing, and
no one can help you, because you (apparently) cannot describe
where you are.
Seriously, you don't need to reply to me anymore. Unless you are
going to adequately describe your experiment, such that someone
could construct and repeat it, then I am simply wasting your
time.
Over and out.
David A. Smith
Eric Gisse
Which subject would that be?
How you cannot possibly imagine how a rotating object would just happen
to drag air along with it?
Your inability to do data analysis?
Your lack of understanding of error analysis and why it is so crucial?
Like how you postulate an anisotropy and claim some theory predicts it?
Or how the equations you use to "explain" what you observe have no
basis in ANY theory?
Do tell..!
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
Max Keon
All the more reason to expect the air, or the styrofoam disc, to
maintain a fixed relationship with the rotating housing. Would you
expect anything else? It takes energy to induce charge dipoles. The
more dipoles, the greater the input energy requirement. Wouldn't it
seem more logical that the air mass would be driven more to a
stationary relationship with the housing?
But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
is just what we need about now.
The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
> He sure did his research
> alright.
>
> David A. Smith
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineasp...@googlemail.com_NOSPAM> wrote in
> In article <449e00a1$0$12393$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Max Keon
> <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > For gravair.html
> > >
> > > Error 404 - Not Found
> > > The page you have requested is unavailable on this server.
> >
> > My humble appologies.
> >
> > http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html
>
> How the hell did you encode this - my Mac won't play it.
I'm sorry about all this, but someone is stuffing about with my posts.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html
This link is posted with only the single ~ in the address. It always
ends up with two wiggles instead of one. Remove the second wiggle and try
it again. But please don't blame me.
Eric Gisse
Max Keon wrote:
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:JXfng.497$RD.270@fed1read08...
> > Dear Eric Gisse:
> >
> > "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1151143547.3...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Jerry wrote:
> > ...
> >> Then again, my understanding of his device is rather
> >> fluid - when did he start using smoke? I gave up
> >> figuring out what he was trying to do since he listed
> >> everything he has ever tried without really saying
> >> what he is actually doing now. Metal rotor?
> >> Styrofoam roater? Who the hell knows! Argh.
>
> > Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
> > either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
> > never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
> > strongly influencing bulk fluid motion.
>
> All the more reason to expect the air, or the styrofoam disc, to
> maintain a fixed relationship with the rotating housing. Would you
> expect anything else? It takes energy to induce charge dipoles. The
> more dipoles, the greater the input energy requirement. Wouldn't it
> seem more logical that the air mass would be driven more to a
> stationary relationship with the housing?
Uh...no? Have you heard of drag?
>
> But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
> is just what we need about now.
>
> The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
> anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
> In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
Have you even tried turning the apparatus 90 degrees and seeing if the
effect is still there? Or is that trivial bit of effort just too much
for you?
Max Keon
> Dear Max Keon:
>
> "Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:449df343$0$31607$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> ...
> You start this off with a title that purportedly will talk about
> an anisotropy in gravity. Then you run the apparatus only
> horizontally, in a small area, so that no possible anisotropy in
> gravity will be evident.
The rotation plane of the housing is perpendicular to the earth's
surface. It's axle is pointed north-south.
The dynamic curvature of space resulting from the action of gravity
in the zero origin universe is nothing like the static space curve
of GR. Dimension itself is physically shifting into a gravity well.
Understanding how, is to understand the zero origin concept. I can't
do much about that.
The up moving side of the rotating housing is shifting through the
in-moving dimension at a greater rate than the down moving side,
hence the gravity anisotropy.
------
------
> ...
>>>> The "ramblings" are the result of how that
>>>> experiment evolved.
>>>
>>> Sir, if you are trying to be heard/understood,
>>> you can make it simpler.
>>
>> This latest experiment couldn't possibly be any
>> simpler.
> Then you have provided a parts list, with construction details?
Go and find an old 44 gallon drum somewhere, fit a small visual
access window at some point around the outer of the drum, then stick
a broom through its two ends. Get some hungry mice to chase some
cheese which is just beyond reach, around its outer surface. You
don't want to disturb the air inside the drum. Then attach a set
of old car ignition contacts points between the broom handle and
the drum, which you can set to switch an ignition coil at the
location that aligns with your ignition timing stobe light, window,
and the smoke tube that you must also instal, extending toward the
window. Drum acceleration won't be a problem because the mice will
most likely tire and slow.
Then just sit back and watch the picture.
>> And in the quest for truth we communicate
>> via the entirely fluid medium of physics
> No. We are forced to use "words" and "pictures". You have
> plenty of words, and few that describe the experimental setup.
> You have a few pictures, and none that allow independent
> verification.
>> which should not ever be dammed or damned.
> You are pretty far from physics now. You are doing fluid
> mechanics. And you aren't understanding what you are seeing, and
> no one can help you, because you (apparently) cannot describe
> where you are.
>
> Seriously, you don't need to reply to me anymore. Unless you are
> going to adequately describe your experiment, such that someone
> could construct and repeat it, then I am simply wasting your
> time.
>
> Over and out.
>
> David A. Smith
You'll be back.
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
Max Keon wrote:
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:Ssnng.511$RD.423@fed1read08...
> > Dear Max Keon:
> >
> > "Max Keon" <max...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:449df343$0$31607$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > ...
> > You start this off with a title that purportedly will talk about
> > an anisotropy in gravity. Then you run the apparatus only
> > horizontally, in a small area, so that no possible anisotropy in
> > gravity will be evident.
>
> The rotation plane of the housing is perpendicular to the earth's
> surface. It's axle is pointed north-south.
>
> The dynamic curvature of space resulting from the action of gravity
> in the zero origin universe is nothing like the static space curve
> of GR. Dimension itself is physically shifting into a gravity well.
> Understanding how, is to understand the zero origin concept. I can't
> do much about that.
Probably not, but you could at least not speak gibberish in reference
to general relativity.
[...]
brian a m stuckless
> Article in <1151204513.7...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> Eric Gisse <jow...@gmail.com> wrote: >
> > You have NO JUSTiFiABLE REASON to believe what you are observing
> > is the result of a gravitational "anisotropy".
> "-=- the ESTABLiSHMENT MAN!!! They're hushing up my exciting new
> discovery. They know its the secret of the .... UNiVERSE.....'"
>
> 10/1 on - thats the gist of the reply.
>
> --
> The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
>
> lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you
> cosmology.
>
> iNSANE SCiENCE". Please pay no attention to my butt poking
> forward, it is expanding.
>
> Relf's Law? > "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity
> asymptotically approaches the odour of roses."
$$ "A stinkin' rose by any other odor is STiLL a stinkin' rose", jOE.
$$
$$ REST mass increases in motion & DeCAPiTALiZATiON corrections mine.
Re: < 'EMPTY Matters iN Vacu' > by jOE Fischer.
Re: < 'EMPTY Matters Between ADjACENT Points' by jOE >. End of REPLY.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1151146577.5...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
> > some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
>
> Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
> same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
> perpendicular to the earth's surface?
>
> State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
> gobbstopper.
Your insults just show your immaturity.
Think it out, Max. Imagine yourself standing on a rotating carousel.
Align yourself facing outwards from the center. Close your eyes and
walk "forwards".
What will be the path that you follow?
In this thought experiment, you take the place of the column of
smoke. You aren't "really" changing direction; instead the carousel
is changing its orientation under you as you walk. So the path that
you walk is curved relative to the carousel, even as the path that
the smoke column takes is curved relative to the rotor housing.
So-called "gravitational anisotropy" has nothing to do with it.
This is high school physics, Max.
Jerry
Sorcerer
| Max Keon wrote:
| > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
| > news:1151146577.5...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
|
| > > I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
| > > some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
| >
| > Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
| > same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
| > perpendicular to the earth's surface?
| >
| > State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
| > gobbstopper.
|
| Your insults just show your immaturity.
Your stupidity just shows you lack humour, Max is quite funny.
Have you calculated the advance of perihelion of Mercury
with a 3 significant digit slide rule using GR the way Einstein did
to account for 43 arc seconds per century yet, shithead?
Androcles.
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1151269309.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> | Max Keon wrote:
> | > "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> | > news:1151146577.5...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | > > I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
> | > > some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
> | >
> | > Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
> | > same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
> | > perpendicular to the earth's surface?
> | >
> | > State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
> | > gobbstopper.
> |
> | Your insults just show your immaturity.
>
> Your stupidity just shows you lack humour, Max is quite funny.
> Have you calculated the advance of perihelion of Mercury
> with a 3 significant digit slide rule using GR the way Einstein did
> to account for 43 arc seconds per century yet, shithead?
You're on the wrong thread.
Androcles, why don't you first show me how YOU calculate the 532 arc
seconds per century contribution to the precession of Mercury's orbit
predicted by Newtonian mechanics, which when added to 5025 arc
seconds per century from the precession of the equinoxes, yields a
total of 5557 arc seconds per century.
Unless you can do that, you are totally irrelevant.
Jerry
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
>> message news:JXfng.497$RD.270@fed1read08...
>>> Dear Eric Gisse:
>>>
>>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1151143547.3...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> fluid - when did he start using smoke? I gave up
>>>> figuring out what he was trying to do since he listed
>>>> everything he has ever tried without really saying
>>>> what he is actually doing now. Metal rotor?
>>>> Styrofoam roater? Who the hell knows! Argh.
>>>
>>> Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
>>> either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
>>> never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
>>> strongly influencing bulk fluid motion.
>>
>> All the more reason to expect the air, or the styrofoam disc, to
>> maintain a fixed relationship with the rotating housing. Would you
>> expect anything else? It takes energy to induce charge dipoles. The
>> more dipoles, the greater the input energy requirement. Wouldn't it
>> seem more logical that the air mass would be driven more to a
>> stationary relationship with the housing?
> Uh...no? Have you heard of drag?
Yes. It's the thing which guarantees that the air should remain
fixed with the rotating housing. And it doesn't.
>> But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
>> is just what we need about now.
>>
>> The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
>> anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
>> In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
> Have you even tried turning the apparatus 90 degrees and seeing if the
> effect is still there? Or is that trivial bit of effort just too much
> for you?
I'm waiting for a prediction, other than mine. Do you have one?
We'll test the air filled device first of course.
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1151146577.5...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
>>> some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
>>
>> Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
>> same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
>> perpendicular to the earth's surface?
>>
>> State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
>> gobbstopper.
> Your insults just show your immaturity.
Come on Jerry, state your prediction. I'm anxious to move on.
> Think it out, Max. Imagine yourself standing on a rotating carousel.
> Align yourself facing outwards from the center. Close your eyes and
> walk "forwards".
>
> What will be the path that you follow?
>
> In this thought experiment, you take the place of the column of
> smoke. You aren't "really" changing direction; instead the carousel
> is changing its orientation under you as you walk. So the path that
> you walk is curved relative to the carousel, even as the path that
> the smoke column takes is curved relative to the rotor housing.
I really don't like seeing you embarrass yourself like this. I don't
think you believe it though. You are comparing chalk and cheese.
Place a straight tube on the carousel, with one end fixed at the
carousel axis. Now fire a marble along the tube. What direction will
it take relative to the rotating carousel when it leaves the tube
end? What direction do you think the smoke would take if the
carousel was completely enclosed so that the air mass inside was
carried with it, via friction (horses and stuff)? Mables and smoke
are guided by physics, not senses.
This is kindergarten stuff, Jerry.
> So-called "gravitational anisotropy" has nothing to do with it.
>
> This is high school physics, Max.
>
> Jerry
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
Eric Gisse
NO! NO NO NO and NO.
The rotating part is going to drag air and make it move with respect to
the housing.
>
> >> But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
> >> is just what we need about now.
> >>
> >> The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
> >> anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
> >> In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
>
> > Have you even tried turning the apparatus 90 degrees and seeing if the
> > effect is still there? Or is that trivial bit of effort just too much
> > for you?
>
> I'm waiting for a prediction, other than mine. Do you have one?
> We'll test the air filled device first of course.
I predict the exact same thing will happen as is happening now.
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1151269309.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > Max Keon wrote:
> >> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1151146577.5...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >>>
> >>> I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
> >>> some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.
> >>
> >> Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
> >> same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
> >> perpendicular to the earth's surface?
> >>
> >> State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
> >> gobbstopper.
>
> > Your insults just show your immaturity.
>
> Come on Jerry, state your prediction. I'm anxious to move on.
Are you deliberately being dense or something?
You are detecting Coriolis effect!
Am I typing too fast for you to understand?
T h e h o r i z o n t a l l y m o u n t e d r o t o r w i l l s h
o w
C o r i o l i s e f f e c t i n t h e s a m e w a y t h a t y o
u r
v e r t i c a l l y m o u n t e d r o t o r i s c u r r e n t l y
s h o w i n g .
> > Think it out, Max. Imagine yourself standing on a rotating carousel.
> > Align yourself facing outwards from the center. Close your eyes and
> > walk "forwards".
> >
> > What will be the path that you follow?
> >
> > In this thought experiment, you take the place of the column of
> > smoke. You aren't "really" changing direction; instead the carousel
> > is changing its orientation under you as you walk. So the path that
> > you walk is curved relative to the carousel, even as the path that
> > the smoke column takes is curved relative to the rotor housing.
>
> I really don't like seeing you embarrass yourself like this. I don't
> think you believe it though. You are comparing chalk and cheese.
Sigh.
> Place a straight tube on the carousel, with one end fixed at the
> carousel axis. Now fire a marble along the tube. What direction will
> it take relative to the rotating carousel when it leaves the tube
> end?
It will shoot off at an angle relative to the tube, as measured
in the rotating frame.
> What direction do you think the smoke would take if the
> carousel was completely enclosed so that the air mass inside was
> carried with it, via friction (horses and stuff)? Mables and smoke
> are guided by physics, not senses.
It will shoot off at an angle relative to the tube, as measured
in the rotating frame.
> This is kindergarten stuff, Jerry.
So do the experiment, Max, if you think the smoke will blow
directly along the radius vector, as measured in the rotating
frame, while the horizontally mounted rotor is rotating.
Max Keon
> Sigh.
The marble would leave the tube end at the aquired tangential
velocity and would be traveling at a slower rate than the outer edge
of the carousel and would thus move at an angle relative to the tube
pointing direction. But not so for the smoke. That would be carried
along with the rotating air mass.
Have a good look at the snapshot where the smoke was slowly emerging
from the tube end. The smoke has aquired the same tangential velocity
as the tube end, so why doesn't it congregate more around the tube
end instead of rapidly trailing off to the left as it does?
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
>> What direction do you think the smoke would take if the
>> carousel was completely enclosed so that the air mass inside was
>> carried with it, via friction (horses and stuff)? Mables and smoke
>> are guided by physics, not senses.
> It will shoot off at an angle relative to the tube, as measured
> in the rotating frame.
>> This is kindergarten stuff, Jerry.
> So do the experiment, Max, if you think the smoke will blow
> directly along the radius vector, as measured in the rotating
> frame, while the horizontally mounted rotor is rotating.
You seem to have an understanding of the experiment. I'll hold you
to your prediction.
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151228510....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>> Max Keon wrote:
>>>> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:JXfng.497$RD.270@fed1read08...
>>>>> Dear Eric Gisse:
------
>>>>> Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
>>>>> either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
>>>>> never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
>>>>> strongly influencing bulk fluid motion.
>>>>
>>>> All the more reason to expect the air, or the styrofoam disc, to
>>>> maintain a fixed relationship with the rotating housing. Would you
>>>> expect anything else? It takes energy to induce charge dipoles. The
>>>> more dipoles, the greater the input energy requirement. Wouldn't it
>>>> seem more logical that the air mass would be driven more to a
>>>> stationary relationship with the housing?
>>>
>>> Uh...no? Have you heard of drag?
>>
>> Yes. It's the thing which guarantees that the air should remain
>> fixed with the rotating housing. And it doesn't.
> NO! NO NO NO and NO.
>
> The rotating part is going to drag air and make it move with respect
> to the housing.
Your understanding of the experiment is clearly flawed. I think I've
made it quite clear that the air and the smoke tube are all *within*
the *enclosed* rotating housing. The "rotating part" is completly
in control of frictional drag on the air and smoke. There will be
a pressure gradient from the center out, but the air would still
come to rest as a rotating body within the enclosure. Nothing is
going to stir it, apart from a gravity anisotropy.
>>>> But by all means continue working on your theory. Perpetual motion
>>>> is just what we need about now.
>>>>
>>>> The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
>>>> anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
>>>> In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
>>>
>>> Have you even tried turning the apparatus 90 degrees and seeing if the
>>> effect is still there? Or is that trivial bit of effort just too much
>>> for you?
>>
>> I'm waiting for a prediction, other than mine. Do you have one?
>> We'll test the air filled device first of course.
> I predict the exact same thing will happen as is happening now.
Do you still make that prediction?
-----
Max Keon
Jerry
> The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
> anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
> In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
Who says that you are measuring the movement of the AIR?
You are measuring the movement of the smoke THROUGH the air.
Big difference. The air could be completely static with respect to
the housing and you'd still get the same result.
There are no off-balance internal rotors in your current experiment
to confuse the issue by introducing drag and
possible turbulence.
It's quite possible that the air is indeed static with respect to
the housing. EXCEPT... for a secondary effect that I haven't
discussed yet, because it would only confuse the issue.
(I did mention this secondary effect in my initial post to you).
Remember, you are measuring
Coriolis Effect!
Coriolis Effect!
Coriolis Effect!
Coriolis Effect!
Coriolis Effect!
Coriolis Effect!
Jerry
Bilge
>Science magazine editors only publish material that is compatible
>with mainstream physics,
You are conflating a side effect with a policy:
(1) ``Science magazine editors'' publish material which is
compatible with observed data.
(2) Physics which is conidsered mainstream is compatible with
observed data.
(3) Editors publish less than 100% of the mainstream physics
submitted.
While this implies that editors only publish mainstream physics,
mainstream physics is physics which doesn't conflict with observed
data.
>unless of course it has humorous content generated by what is generally
>viewed as an outlandish proposal.
Unfortunately, physics journals don't have a Tragic Humor section which
reflects the reality that there are lots of crackpots failing to master
logic during their educational experience.
>Subscriber chortling is encouraged. But it would be a foolhardy
>publisher who would print something so contrary to the philosophies
>of relativity.
Well, let's see what you have proved.
>http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html I've added these
In which you deduce gravity is anisotropic based on your ``observation'':
``Clearly, there are no forces whatever acting on the air that could
constantly drive the air relative to the housing walls.''
Congratulations, max. You have just proven that without the same
gravitational ``anisotropy,'' (1) an electric fan can't work,
(2) vacuum pumps and compressors can't work, (3) airplanes can't
fly, (4) wind tunnels are a fraud.
Jerry
> > It will shoot off at an angle relative to the tube, as measured
> > in the rotating frame.
>
> The marble would leave the tube end at the aquired tangential
> velocity and would be traveling at a slower rate than the outer edge
> of the carousel and would thus move at an angle relative to the tube
> pointing direction. But not so for the smoke. That would be carried
> along with the rotating air mass.
Frictional drag will modify quantitative aspects of my prediction.
But it will not modify the QUALITATIVE elements of my prediction.
Consider a single puff of smoke. Its movement through the air has a
definite direction, indicating that the mixture of soot and air
that make up the puff have an observable momentum and velocity.
The dragged movement of air by the housing does not cause this initial
momentum to magically disappear. What you get is a VECTOR SUM.
> Have a good look at the snapshot where the smoke was slowly emerging
> from the tube end. The smoke has aquired the same tangential velocity
> as the tube end, so why doesn't it congregate more around the tube
> end instead of rapidly trailing off to the left as it does?
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
DO THE EXPERIMENT, and then we'll talk.
> You seem to have an understanding of the experiment. I'll hold you
> to your prediction.
You don't seem to have an understanding of your own experiment.
I'll hold you to your prediction.
And remember, there is a secondary effect that I haven't even
discussed yet.
Jerry
Sorcerer
It wasn't me that claimed an "unexplainable" difference, Jeery.
That was you, echoing something you read thoughtlessly and irrelevantly.
It's your claim, YOU do the calculating, you stupid irrelevant moronic
parrot.
Since you've made that claim Mercury has moved, it is now
0.013 arcseconds out of position using NM according to you,
so YOU show the difference using GR, you LYING moron.
Androcles
zzbu...@netscape.net
You can't do that. Since like most gravity nonsense,
the entire idiot concept of gravity wells comes from GR.
>
> [...]
Jerry
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> | > Your stupidity just shows you lack humour, Max is quite funny.
> | > Have you calculated the advance of perihelion of Mercury
> | > with a 3 significant digit slide rule using GR the way Einstein did
> | > to account for 43 arc seconds per century yet, shithead?
> |
> | You're on the wrong thread.
> |
> | Androcles, why don't you first show me how YOU calculate the 532 arc
> | seconds per century contribution to the precession of Mercury's orbit
> | predicted by Newtonian mechanics, which when added to 5025 arc
> | seconds per century from the precession of the equinoxes, yields a
> | total of 5557 arc seconds per century.
> |
> | Unless you can do that, you are totally irrelevant.
>
> It wasn't me that claimed an "unexplainable" difference, Jeery.
> That was you, echoing something you read thoughtlessly and irrelevantly.
> It's your claim, YOU do the calculating, you stupid irrelevant moronic
> parrot.
> Since you've made that claim Mercury has moved, it is now
> 0.013 arcseconds out of position using NM according to you,
> so YOU show the difference using GR, you LYING moron.
On the other hand, you claim the precession of Mercury to be
completely explainable by Newtonian mechanics. You claim that
everybody from Le Verrier, Newcombe and onwards is completely
misguided. You claim that the modern computations of Mercury's
precession summarized in papers such as
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501319
are wrong, or worse, fabricated.
No, my dear Androcles. I COUNTERCHALLENGE you to present me with
computer programs, hand computations or whatever you choose that
shows the precession of Mercury to fully explainable by Newtonian
mechanics. You have the same deadline that you presented me and my
brother (who is still totally unaware of your challenge, since I've
not bothered to tell him anything about it. He's re-reading Danby
completely on his own schedule, between work, puttering around with
the house, aikido, and volunteer tutoring (English as a foreign
language).
Who knows, he may be finished with his private "fun project" by next
year or so. The important thing for you to realise is, that
YOU ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
I'll give you some help. Here is a C++ function for doing fifth order
Runge-Kutta integration that my brother adapted from Danby.
If you really want to take on the counterchallenge, you won't have to
be stuck with using Euler's method.
Jerry
////////////////////////////////////////////////
#ifndef _RUNGEKUTTA_H_
#define _RUNGEKUTTA_H_
#include <vector>
#include "..\Common\Common.h"
const int NQ = 6; // Number of equations in the system
void RungeKutta(double x[NQ], // variables
History &history, // output history
double t, // start time
double tf, // finish time
diffEQ diffeq, // function pointer
double h, // initial stepsize
double tl, // tolerance
void * parms, // pointer to additional parms
double& h_min); // minimum adjusted stepsize
#endif
////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include "RungeKutta.h"
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
// Runge-Kutta-Fehlberg
// This routine solves a system of NQ first-order differential
// equations.
// It gives results of fifth order accuracy.
// Adapted from a program from chapter 10.6 of Danby, 2nd ed.
// Output values are stored in a vector of Coordinate structs
static const int ORDER = 5;
static const double CHICKEN_FACTOR = 0.9;
static const double A[ORDER+1]
= { 0.0, 2.0/9, 1.0/3, 3.0/4, 1.0, 5.0/6 };
static const double B[ORDER+1][ORDER] =
{ { 0.0 },
{ 2.0/9 },
{ 1.0/12 , 1.0/4 },
{ 69.0/128, -243.0/128, 135.0/64 },
{ -17.0/12 , 27.0/4 , -27.0/5 , 16.0/15 },
{ 65.0/432, -5.0/16 , 13.0/16, 4.0/27, 5.0/144 }
};
static const double CH[ORDER+1]
= { 47.0/450, 0.0, 12.0/25 , 32.0/225, 1.0/30, 6.0/25 };
static const double CT[ORDER+1]
= { -1.0/150, 0.0, 3.0/100, -16.0/75 , -1.0/20, 6.0/25 };
static void addToHistory(double t, double x[NQ], History &history)
{
PositionCoordinates c;
c.t = t;
c.x = x[0]; c.y = x[1]; c.z = x[2];
history.push_back(c);
}
// Fifth order Runge-Kutta
// for NQ simultaneous first-order equations
void RungeKutta(double x[NQ], History &history, double t, double tf,
diffEQ diffeq, double h, double tl, void * parms, double& h_min )
{
PositionCoordinates c;
double z[NQ];
double xt[NQ], te[NQ], f[ORDER+1][NQ] = {0};
double tt, tm, ht;
int n, k, k_1, l;
bool oneLastIteration = false;
history.clear();
addToHistory(t, x, history);
h_min = h;
do // repeat while (t < tf)
{
tt = t;
diffeq(t, x, z, parms);
for (n = 0; n < NQ; n++)
{
f[0][n] = z[n];
xt[n] = x[n];
}
do // repeat while (tm > tl)
{
for (k = 1; k <= ORDER; k++)
{
t = tt + A[k]*h;
for (n = 0; n < NQ; n++)
{
x[n] = xt[n]; k_1 = k - 1;
for (l = 0; l <= k_1; l++)
{
x[n] = x[n] + h*B[k][l]*f[l][n];
}
}
diffeq(t, x, z, parms);
for (n = 0; n < NQ; n++)
{
f[k][n] = z[n];
}
}
for (n = 0; n < NQ; n++)
{
te[n] = 0; x[n] = xt[n];
for (k = 0; k <= ORDER; k++)
{
x[n] += h*CH[k]*f[k][n];
te[n] += h*CT[k]*f[k][n];
}
te[n] = fabs(te[n]);
}
tm = 0.0;
for (n = 0; n < NQ; n++)
{
if (tm > te[n]) continue;
tm = te[n];
}
ht = h;
h = CHICKEN_FACTOR*h*pow(tl/tm, 0.2);
} while (tm > tl); // The step must be repeated with the new,
// reduced h
t = tt + ht;
// A successful step has been completed
if (h < 0)
{
c.t = t;
c.x = x[0]; c.y = x[1]; c.z = x[2];
history.back() = c;
return; // the final step has been taken
}
else
{
addToHistory(t, x, history);
if (h < h_min) h_min = h;
}
if ( t > tf )
{
h = tf - t; // Ready for the final step.
// Stepsize h will be negative
oneLastIteration = true;
}
} while ( t < tf || oneLastIteration);
}
////////////////////////////////////////////////
#ifndef _COMMON_H_
#define _COMMON_H_
#include <vector>
const double PI = 3.141592653589793;
// function pointer typedef defining the system of differential
equations
typedef void (*diffEQ)(double &, // time
double [], // input variables
double [], // output variables
void * // parameters
);
typedef double(*Function)(double x, void* parms);
struct PositionCoordinates
{
double t;
double x;
double y;
double z;
};
struct Coordinates : PositionCoordinates
{
double vx;
double vy;
double vz;
};
struct PerturbationData
{
double mu_main; // mu for planet around the Sun
double mu_pert; // mu for planet with perturbing body
PositionCoordinates p_body; // Coordinate data for perturbing body
};
typedef std::vector<PositionCoordinates> History;
inline double Sign(double x)
{
return (x > 0.0) ? 1.0 : (x < 0.0) ? -1.0 : 0.0;
}
#endif
Timo A. Nieminen
> On the other hand, you claim the precession of Mercury to be
> completely explainable by Newtonian mechanics.
[cut]
> I'll give you some help. Here is a C++ function for doing fifth order
> Runge-Kutta integration that my brother adapted from Danby.
:)
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>> The one thing that will cause the air to move the way it does is an
>> anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity source.
>> In a universe where the action of gravity is dynamic, of course.
> Who says that you are measuring the movement of the AIR?
> You are measuring the movement of the smoke THROUGH the air.
> Big difference. The air could be completely static with respect to
> the housing and you'd still get the same result.
For god's sake Jerry, try and understand what you're saying.
The inside diameter of the rotating housing chamber is 360mm.
The diameter of the end of the smoke tube sweep is 340mm.
The tangential velocity difference ratio is therefore .9444 to 1.
With a tangential velocity of the inner rotating housing of 12m/sec,
the tangential velocity of the smoke tube end is 11.33m/sec. It's
losing .67 m/sec per housing. If the experiment was conducted in a
vacuum, and the smoke stream width could be maintained, A smoke
injection velocity of .67 m/sec would cause the smoke to shift away
from the rotation direction at an angle of 45 degrees to the smoke
tube body. If the smoke velocity is only .01 meters per second, as
is the case in this snapshot that was taken through an opening on
the opposite side to the strobe light, the angle of the smoke stream
would be .86 degrees.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/window3.jpg
Now introduce the air into the chamber. Do you really think the
smoke is going to beat its way through the stationary air mass as
it appears to be in that snapshot? What possible force is driving
such a feeble smoke stream so far through the air. It's even
maintaining roughly the same angle as it would in a vacuum.
> There are no off-balance internal rotors in your current experiment
> to confuse the issue by introducing drag and
> possible turbulence.
>
> It's quite possible that the air is indeed static with respect to
> the housing. EXCEPT... for a secondary effect that I haven't
> discussed yet, because it would only confuse the issue.
> (I did mention this secondary effect in my initial post to you).
I suggest you bring on your secondary effect.
> Remember, you are measuring
> Coriolis Effect!
> Coriolis Effect!
> Coriolis Effect!
> Coriolis Effect!
> Coriolis Effect!
> Coriolis Effect!
>
> Jerry
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrne9ur4f....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
What are you on about? All forces reduce to zero when each of those
things are turned off, when everything is stationary relative to the
air. That's what happens inside the rotating housing as well. Or do
you think the point of balance between the air and rotating housing
is when the air is whizzing around inside the housing?
-----
Max Keon
Phineas T Puddleduck
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On the other hand, you claim the precession of Mercury to be
> completely explainable by Newtonian mechanics. You claim that
> everybody from Le Verrier, Newcombe and onwards is completely
> misguided. You claim that the modern computations of Mercury's
> precession summarized in papers such as
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501319
> are wrong, or worse, fabricated.
>
> No, my dear Androcles. I COUNTERCHALLENGE you to present me with
> computer programs, hand computations or whatever you choose that
> shows the precession of Mercury to fully explainable by Newtonian
> mechanics. You have the same deadline that you presented me and my
> brother (who is still totally unaware of your challenge, since I've
> not bothered to tell him anything about it. He's re-reading Danby
> completely on his own schedule, between work, puttering around with
> the house, aikido, and volunteer tutoring (English as a foreign
> language).
I'd be interested in seeing this, seeing as I had to do the maths
invovled with the correction. Its not that difficult ;-)
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Jerry
DO THE EXPERIMENT, MAX!!!
Jerry
P.S. I'm going on duty again, so won't be posting for a while.
Jerry
> I'd be interested in seeing this, seeing as I had to do the maths
> invovled with the correction. Its not that difficult ;-)
We'll both have to wait. I'm not the computer whiz, my brother is.
And as I've stated, I've told my brother nothing of Androcles'
so-called challenge. But I've seen him on these "fun projects"
before. The last one was where he decided to build a helium neon
laser from scratch. You know, starting with glass tubes, dielectric
mirrors, a tank of helium and neon gas mixture, high voltage supply,
etc. He did all the glass blowing himself, cut Brewster windows,
and so forth. He's using the result for making holographs.
The point is, my brother tends to finish what he started.
Jerry
Phineas T Puddleduck
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:
I did it on paper, its just fiddly and requires care to not start
dropping signs willy nilly and confusing yourself ;-)
I'm ok with the coding and the computer side. But I will admit that
when it comes to the hands-on approach, even a foam hammer becomes a
deadly weapon ;-)
Eric Gisse
Jerry wrote:
[...]
>
> On the other hand, you claim the precession of Mercury to be
> completely explainable by Newtonian mechanics. You claim that
> everybody from Le Verrier, Newcombe and onwards is completely
> misguided. You claim that the modern computations of Mercury's
> precession summarized in papers such as
> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501319
> are wrong, or worse, fabricated.
Of course he does, Jerry. You should know better than that.
Thanks for the source though, it was a wasted effort telling him about
it but I appreciate it. Some topics in astronomy I have learned through
osmosis essentially with no direct understanding.
>
> No, my dear Androcles. I COUNTERCHALLENGE you to present me with
> computer programs, hand computations or whatever you choose that
> shows the precession of Mercury to fully explainable by Newtonian
> mechanics. You have the same deadline that you presented me and my
> brother (who is still totally unaware of your challenge, since I've
> not bothered to tell him anything about it. He's re-reading Danby
> completely on his own schedule, between work, puttering around with
> the house, aikido, and volunteer tutoring (English as a foreign
> language).
Fat chance you will get anything from Androcles. Why don't you ask this
of Henri Wilson?
>
> Who knows, he may be finished with his private "fun project" by next
> year or so. The important thing for you to realise is, that
> YOU ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
>
> I'll give you some help. Here is a C++ function for doing fifth order
> Runge-Kutta integration that my brother adapted from Danby.
Why 5th order?
Well, why not I suppose. I was going to say he could grab the
pseudocode [or actual code] for the 4th order RK code off anywhere and
everywhere since it is so popular. But since research isn't his strong
suite, I guess your doing him a big favor.
>
> If you really want to take on the counterchallenge, you won't have to
> be stuck with using Euler's method.
This would apply to Henri, not Androcles. Androcles does even less work
than Henri.
[...]
Timo A. Nieminen
> Jerry wrote:
>>
>> I'll give you some help. Here is a C++ function for doing fifth order
>> Runge-Kutta integration that my brother adapted from Danby.
>
> Why 5th order?
>
> Well, why not I suppose. I was going to say he could grab the
> pseudocode [or actual code] for the 4th order RK code off anywhere and
> everywhere since it is so popular. But since research isn't his strong
> suite, I guess your doing him a big favor.
For orbital stuff, Verlet beats RK - so I learned at a job interview.
Time-reversible and all that, so they don't spiral in or out.
Exercise for the reader: why do FDTD EM codes use Euler methods for time
stepping so often?
Eric Gisse
Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2006, Eric Gisse wrote:
>
> > Jerry wrote:
> >>
> >> I'll give you some help. Here is a C++ function for doing fifth order
> >> Runge-Kutta integration that my brother adapted from Danby.
> >
> > Why 5th order?
> >
> > Well, why not I suppose. I was going to say he could grab the
> > pseudocode [or actual code] for the 4th order RK code off anywhere and
> > everywhere since it is so popular. But since research isn't his strong
> > suite, I guess your doing him a big favor.
>
> For orbital stuff, Verlet beats RK - so I learned at a job interview.
> Time-reversible and all that, so they don't spiral in or out.
>
> Exercise for the reader: why do FDTD EM codes use Euler methods for time
> stepping so often?
Wild guess: because computing resources are finite and the various
Euler method are computationally cheap, and getting a decent solution
for a PDE takes lots of steps?
Max Keon
The deflection angle should be 90 - .86 = 89.14 degrees from the tube
pointing direction. I think it was fairly obvious though.
Eric Gisse
Max Keon wrote:
[...]
Is making all these asinine posts really that much easier than turning
the apparatus on its' side and doing another run? It isn't as if you do
any data analysis anyway, so it should be a quick and easy task.
Timo A. Nieminen
> Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
>>
>> Exercise for the reader: why do FDTD EM codes use Euler methods for time
>> stepping so often?
>
> Wild guess: because computing resources are finite and the various
> Euler method are computationally cheap, and getting a decent solution
> for a PDE takes lots of steps?
That's a large part of the reason. Another thing is that the spatial
derivatives are found using a low-order method, so why bother with
anything better for the time-derivatives?
Jerry
> Jerry wrote:
> > Runge-Kutta integration that my brother adapted from Danby.
>
> Why 5th order?
>
> Well, why not I suppose. I was going to say he could grab the
> pseudocode [or actual code] for the 4th order RK code off anywhere and
> everywhere since it is so popular. But since research isn't his strong
> suite, I guess your doing him a big favor.
4th order RK has inadequate accuracy for modeling planetary orbits.
If you set 10^-14 accuracy in your step sizes, you wind up with tens
of thousands of steps per orbit, resulting in the accumulation of a
tremendous amount of floating-point error that completely negates
your use of 10^-14 steps. If you want to use a "brute force" approach
to computing Mercury's precession, i.e. direct integration of the
orbit, 4th order RK just isn't sufficient.
5th order RK is a considerable improvement, but predictor-corrector
methods are even better.
Le Verrier, Newcombe et al. didn't attempt to calculate precession
of Mercury's orbit using a brute force approach, which would have
been quite impossible in the days before electronic computers.
Instead, they used perturbation methods. Perturbation methods start
with computation of a reference orbit, and compute the deviations
over time of a planet from the reference orbit as a result of
attractions by the other planets.
Le Verrier would undoubtedly have used Gauss' method of computing
secular perturbations. Gauss demonstrated that if you spread out
the mass of a disturbing planet around its orbit, in such a way
that the mass of an element is proportional to the time spent by
the disturbing planet at that position in its orbit, then the
resulting distribution will reproduce the time-averaged secular
perturbations introduced by the disturbing planet.
So Le Verrier would have begun with a reference orbit for Mercury,
its position having been pre-computed at some fixed number of points
around the orbit, and then would have stepped through each point
computing the result of attraction by a "Gaussian" ring of
planetary elements for each of the major perturbing planets.
Newcombe probably also used Gauss' method, but not necessarily. By
his day, astronomers began using powerful "computers", roomfuls of
young women teamed in pairs (to double-check each other's results),
and operating simultaneously to solve complex computational problems
in celestial mechanics. Gauss' method would have been ideal for
parallel processing by such computers.
Jerry
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>>
>> [...]
Since a picture is worth a thousand words, the visual analysis of
the 22000 + strobe lit frames I've filmed amounts to lot of data to
be analyzed. It's not stored in documentation, it's stored in
picture form that **anybody** can understand. If they choose to
understand that is.
I already know what the result will be. I think you probably do too.
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
Jerry wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Jerry wrote:
> > > Here is a C++ function for doing fifth order
> > > Runge-Kutta integration that my brother adapted from Danby.
> >
> > Why 5th order?
> >
> > Well, why not I suppose. I was going to say he could grab the
> > pseudocode [or actual code] for the 4th order RK code off anywhere and
> > everywhere since it is so popular. But since research isn't his strong
> > suite, I guess your doing him a big favor.
>
> 4th order RK has inadequate accuracy for modeling planetary orbits.
> If you set 10^-14 accuracy in your step sizes, you wind up with tens
> of thousands of steps per orbit, resulting in the accumulation of a
> tremendous amount of floating-point error that completely negates
> your use of 10^-14 steps. If you want to use a "brute force" approach
> to computing Mercury's precession, i.e. direct integration of the
> orbit, 4th order RK just isn't sufficient.
This is one of the things that will settle into the back of my mind and
float up the next time I have to think about something like this, thus
justifying reading this newsgroup.
[...]
You know waaaay more about this than I do.
>
> Jerry
Eric Gisse
Max Keon wrote:
> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151367382....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Max Keon wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
>
> > Is making all these asinine posts really that much easier than turning
> > the apparatus on its' side and doing another run? It isn't as if you
> > do any data analysis anyway, so it should be a quick and easy task.
>
> Since a picture is worth a thousand words, the visual analysis of
> the 22000 + strobe lit frames I've filmed amounts to lot of data to
> be analyzed. It's not stored in documentation, it's stored in
> picture form that **anybody** can understand. If they choose to
> understand that is.
Naturally your data is in the form that is the most annoying. So what
else are you holding back?
>
> I already know what the result will be. I think you probably do too.
All you have to do is rotate the apparatus on its' side and do the
experiment again.
Do you want to shut all these folks up who are saying it is a
mechanical effect / quirk of fluid flow that you are observing, or do
you want to keep playing martyr?
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
Jerry
> Max Keon wrote:
> > do too.
>
> All you have to do is rotate the apparatus on its' side and do
> the experiment again.
>
> Do you want to shut all these folks up who are saying it is a
> mechanical effect / quirk of fluid flow that you are observing,
> or do you want to keep playing martyr?
You have to give Max credit. He's the ONLY, ahem, "non-conventional
thinker" in this group who attempts to put his ideas to experimental
test. True, his -interpretations- of his results are completely
warped by his strange preconceptions of how nature ought to behave.
But he has thus far been an honest observer.
Should Max ever perform the experiment that you and I have been
suggesting, I expect that Max will report the results truthfully.
And of course, should the results that Max reports be unbelievable,
why, I can easily check them out myself. I have an old phonograph
turntable in the garage, sheet plastic is easy to come by, and
a small balloon will serve as a compressed air source for blowing
smoke...
Jerry
Eric Gisse
Jerry wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote:
> > Max Keon wrote:
> > > I already know what the result will be. I think you probably
> > > do too.
> >
> > All you have to do is rotate the apparatus on its' side and do
> > the experiment again.
> >
> > Do you want to shut all these folks up who are saying it is a
> > mechanical effect / quirk of fluid flow that you are observing,
> > or do you want to keep playing martyr?
>
> You have to give Max credit. He's the ONLY, ahem, "non-conventional
> thinker" in this group who attempts to put his ideas to experimental
> test. True, his -interpretations- of his results are completely
> warped by his strange preconceptions of how nature ought to behave.
> But he has thus far been an honest observer.
>
> Should Max ever perform the experiment that you and I have been
> suggesting, I expect that Max will report the results truthfully.
I'm not so sure considering his absolute resistance to the idea and his
general unhappiness with error analysis.
I still think he and Herni Wilson should get together. Only comedy
could happen. Or tragedy. I'm equally prepared for both.
>
> And of course, should the results that Max reports be unbelievable,
> why, I can easily check them out myself. I have an old phonograph
> turntable in the garage, sheet plastic is easy to come by, and
> a small balloon will serve as a compressed air source for blowing
> smoke...
What Max claims to observe gets filed into my "people aren't that
stupid" file. I don't see the possiblity of a simple, macroscopic,
repeatable violation of energy conservation and a repeatable disproof
of general relativity to be something people would have missed at this
point in time.
Especially something that is made manifest by rotating stuff and
noticing energy dissapearing. Were the effect actually real, folks who
use flywheels for storing energy would have noticed. Were the effect
actually real, I'm absolutely certain astronomers would have seen an
interesting effect on planetary orbits.
I'm not losing sleep over this.
>
> Jerry
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151460510.0...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jerry wrote:
...
>> And of course, should the results that Max reports
>> be unbelievable, why, I can easily check them out
>> myself. I have an old phonograph turntable in the
>> garage, sheet plastic is easy to come by, and
>> a small balloon will serve as a compressed air
>> source for blowing smoke...
>
> Especially something that is made manifest by
> rotating stuff and noticing energy dissapearing.
> Were the effect actually real, folks who use
> flywheels for storing energy would have noticed.
> Were the effect actually real, I'm absolutely
> certain astronomers would have seen an
> interesting effect on planetary orbits.
>
> I'm not losing sleep over this.
Torque converters on cars are oriented in this fashion
(rotational axis horizontal), and no such "miracles" occur there
either. Nor is it different when this axis is made vertical.
Once the driver changes his/her shorts, it is business as usual.
David A. Smith
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>> "Eric Gisse" <jow...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151367382....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>> Max Keon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Is making all these asinine posts really that much easier than turning
>>> the apparatus on its' side and doing another run? It isn't as if you
>>> do any data analysis anyway, so it should be a quick and easy task.
>>
>> Since a picture is worth a thousand words, the visual analysis of
>> the 22000 + strobe lit frames I've filmed amounts to lot of data to
>> be analyzed. It's not stored in documentation, it's stored in
>> picture form that **anybody** can understand. If they choose to
>> understand that is.
> Naturally your data is in the form that is the most annoying. So what
> else are you holding back?
There's still more to be done before I go upsetting the current
setup. i.e. The effect of air turbulence caused by the higher
velocity smoke stream that pushes out to the limit of the housing
enclosure needs to be determined.
The smoke leaves the tube end with the same tangential velocity
as the local air mass around the tube end and carries on to the
boundary. That is going to have a slowing effect on the outer
air mass as it moves outward and the velocity differences are
integrated. But the smoke volume displaces an equivalent air volume
from the outer rim and sends it somewhere, and that somewhere can
only be into the slower velocity air mass. But regardless of where
everything ends up, the average rotation rate of the whole air mass
won't have changed (almost) at all. Because the increased gas volume
is exhausting in the central section of the housing, the displaced
high tangential velocity air from the outer boundary is going to
find its way further into the lower velocity air toward the housing
center than would be the case if the air at the tube end was
mechanically stirred toward the outer boundary.
The air mass is more likely to rotate in advance of the housing than
lag behind.
I intend to photograph the entire circumference of the inner housing
while the smoke injection point remains fixed relative to the
apparatus body when the stobe light is triggered. Since the housing
will completely fill with smoke if the smoke stream is maintained,
that can only be done in stages. Which isn't really a problem.
Access to the entire circumference is already available, so the only
other requirement is to trigger the strobe light with a microswitch
which can be activated somewhere on the rotating housing drive shaft.
I'll get there eventually.
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
> Eric Gisse wrote:
>> Max Keon wrote:
>>> I already know what the result will be. I think you probably
>>> do too.
>>
>> All you have to do is rotate the apparatus on its' side and do
>> the experiment again.
>>
>> Do you want to shut all these folks up who are saying it is a
>> mechanical effect / quirk of fluid flow that you are observing,
>> or do you want to keep playing martyr?
> You have to give Max credit. He's the ONLY, ahem, "non-conventional
> thinker" in this group who attempts to put his ideas to experimental
> test. True, his -interpretations- of his results are completely
> warped by his strange preconceptions of how nature ought to behave.
> But he has thus far been an honest observer.
I'm rather overwhelmed that you have such confidence in my
integrity. Thank you.
> Should Max ever perform the experiment that you and I have been
> suggesting, I expect that Max will report the results truthfully.
>
> And of course, should the results that Max reports be unbelievable,
> why, I can easily check them out myself. I have an old phonograph
> turntable in the garage, sheet plastic is easy to come by, and
> a small balloon will serve as a compressed air source for blowing
> smoke...
Jerry, I think you still have a serious misconception of how the
experiment is set up. Your phonograph turntable can only serve the
purpose of providing a base on which to spin an **enclosed** housing
for the air, into which the smoke tube is fitted.
And if you do do the experiment, this snapshot
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/window3.jpg is the one that
you won't get with the rotation plane oriented parallel with the
earth's surface.
-----
Max Keon
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1151458954.4...@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > suggesting, I expect that Max will report the results truthfully.
> >
> > And of course, should the results that Max reports be unbelievable,
> > why, I can easily check them out myself. I have an old phonograph
> > turntable in the garage, sheet plastic is easy to come by, and
> > a small balloon will serve as a compressed air source for blowing
> > smoke...
>
> Jerry, I think you still have a serious misconception of how the
> experiment is set up. Your phonograph turntable can only serve the
> purpose of providing a base on which to spin an **enclosed** housing
> for the air, into which the smoke tube is fitted.
Now, that was VERY INSULTING of you, to think I don't
know that the housing should be enclosed. Why do you
think I want to use a balloon as a compressed air source?
They're portable.
Here's hoping that none of my ascii art gets
messed up by Google:
___
/ \
| | balloon
\ /
| |
|--------|--------|
| |===~~~ | plexiglas housing
|-----------------|
=================== turntable
|
|=== represents bent tube
~~~ represents smoke coming out of bent tube
I haven't bothered to show how the cigarette will be
mounted, or how the air flow will be regulated, etc.
> And if you do do the experiment, this snapshot
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/window3.jpg is the one that
> you won't get with the rotation plane oriented parallel with the
> earth's surface.
DO THE EXPERIMENT, or I will do it for you.
I've tried to be nice, but you are getting to be very irritating.
Jerry
Bilge
[...]
>What are you on about? All forces reduce to zero when each of those
>things are turned off, when everything is stationary relative to the
>air.
Buy a clue, max. Ever see anyone blow smoke rings, max? If not,
it's darn amazing to see those smoke rings travel quite a long
distance while retaining a ring shape. Even after the ring breaks
up, the smoke pretty much keeps going in the same direction for
quite a way? Despite the lack of forces making it go in any particular
direction. Why do you think that is? It's not gravitational anisotropy.
How much do you figure the average smoke particle weighs? How about
20,000 - 100,000 daltons. What's the mass of an N2 molecule? How about
28 daltons.
That's about the same mass ratio as your car to a freight train
with 50-250 fully loaded boxcars. How many collisions in random
directions between your car and that coasting freight train do you
figure will be necessary to stop the train? As a wild guess, I'll have
to go with ``a whole bunch.'' No gravitational anisotropy needed.
Conservation of momentum does the job.
>That's what happens inside the rotating housing as well. Or do
>you think the point of balance between the air and rotating housing
>is when the air is whizzing around inside the housing?
Well, it appears that you put some work into building the apparatus.
If you are going to do an experiment, you ought to analyze everything
before hand, so that spend your effort building equipment that measures
what you think it measures.
Bilge
>
>I thought you meant the Coriolis [I cannot spell it properly so I just
>copy your spelling] effect from the Earth itself.
>
>But from my understanding of whats happening in his device, I don't
>think the Coriolis effect would do much.
Actually, the explanation is rather simple. The mass of an N2 molecule
is about 28 daltons. The mass of a smoke particle ranges from about 20,000
to 100,000 daltons. That mass ratio is roughly equivalent to the mass of an
automobile to the mass of a freight train with 50 - 250 fully loaded
boxcars. It will take quite a few random collisions with a cars to bring
a coasting freight train to a stop.
Max Keon
Why would anyone go aimlessly chasing rainbows? There are **no**
theories which even remotely indicate such a thing. Even if the
thought popped into your mind, it would be promptly rejected because
there is so much "evidence" to the contrary.
A gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity
source is a fundamental prediction of the zero origin concept.
Looking for proof is a natural consequence.
> Especially something that is made manifest by rotating stuff and
> noticing energy dissapearing. Were the effect actually real, folks who
> use flywheels for storing energy would have noticed.
I've been bombarded with reasons for such slowing. What's wrong with
offloading the effect onto some of them? And that's exactly what
would have happened.
> Were the effect
> actually real, I'm absolutely certain astronomers would have seen an
> interesting effect on planetary orbits.
Freefalling matter is not going to cause an up-down gravity
anisotropy. But rotation will.
There's another interesting effect that Androcles recently brought
to mind. The out moving leg of an eccentric orbit will be restrained
more by gravity than the in moving leg. The perihelion will advance.
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
100% correct.
No theory predicts it because folks *like* conservative forces, and no
experiment has observed it because it is in the "blindingly obvious"
category of effects. It is like predicting a new particle on the order
of a few MeV being produced from proton-proton collisions - the
particle physicists would laugh at you.
>
> A gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions relative to a gravity
> source is a fundamental prediction of the zero origin concept.
> Looking for proof is a natural consequence.
Yet oddly enough nobody has noticed such an anomaly in orbits
planetary, sattelite, or otherwise.
>
> > Especially something that is made manifest by rotating stuff and
> > noticing energy dissapearing. Were the effect actually real, folks who
> > use flywheels for storing energy would have noticed.
>
> I've been bombarded with reasons for such slowing. What's wrong with
> offloading the effect onto some of them? And that's exactly what
> would have happened.
>
> > Were the effect
> > actually real, I'm absolutely certain astronomers would have seen an
> > interesting effect on planetary orbits.
>
> Freefalling matter is not going to cause an up-down gravity
> anisotropy. But rotation will.
Fascinatingly enough, you are the first person to ever consider an
object with angular momentum might have a novel interaction with
gravitation. I'm sure the folks who designed Gravity Probe B were just
copying you.
>
> There's another interesting effect that Androcles recently brought
> to mind. The out moving leg of an eccentric orbit will be restrained
> more by gravity than the in moving leg. The perihelion will advance.
Are you pretending that you have a wholesale theory of gravity that
explains planetary orbits, now? I know muuuch more about that.
So when are you going to do the simple task of turning your device on
its' side and seeing if there is still an "anisotropy" ?
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1151458954.4...@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
>>> Should Max ever perform the experiment that you and I have been
>>> suggesting, I expect that Max will report the results truthfully.
>>>
>>> And of course, should the results that Max reports be unbelievable,
>>> why, I can easily check them out myself. I have an old phonograph
>>> turntable in the garage, sheet plastic is easy to come by, and
>>> a small balloon will serve as a compressed air source for blowing
>>> smoke...
>>
>> Jerry, I think you still have a serious misconception of how the
>> experiment is set up. Your phonograph turntable can only serve the
>> purpose of providing a base on which to spin an **enclosed** housing
>> for the air, into which the smoke tube is fitted.
> Now, that was VERY INSULTING of you, to think I don't
> know that the housing should be enclosed. Why do you
> think I want to use a balloon as a compressed air source?
> They're portable.
I was reacting to what appeared to me to be an attempt to confuse.
My misconception apparently.
> Here's hoping that none of my ascii art gets
> messed up by Google:
> ___
> / \
> | | balloon
> \ /
> | |
> |--------|--------|
> | |===~~~ | plexiglas housing
> |-----------------|
> =================== turntable
>
>
>
> |
> |=== represents bent tube
>
> ~~~ represents smoke coming out of bent tube
>
> I haven't bothered to show how the cigarette will be
> mounted, or how the air flow will be regulated, etc.
I cautiously add that you will need a strobe light triggered once
per revolution to monitor what's going on.
But there are other conceptual problems. The same apparatus must
be tested in the two planes and the results from each plane
compared. Unfortunately, the movie has highlighted the "smoke on"
state as the main feature of the experiment, but it's to do with
the complete picture.
Your diagram shows a short smoke tube, which indicates that you
intend only to blow higher velocity smoke into the chamber for the
test. The tangential velocity of the smoke tube end needs to be
reasonably fast so the air movement caused by a gravity anisotropy
can be correctly identified.
Because the anisotropy is exactly proportional to tangential
velocity it causes no air stirring in the chamber whatever. The
consequences of your smoke blast, if that's what was intended, as
it's drawn, would demolish all hope of detecting air flow.
>> And if you do do the experiment, this snapshot
>> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/window3.jpg is the one that
>> you won't get with the rotation plane oriented parallel with the
>> earth's surface.
> DO THE EXPERIMENT, or I will do it for you.
> I've tried to be nice, but you are getting to be very irritating.
>
> Jerry
-----
Max Keon
Max Keon
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnea4jne....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Max Keon:
> [...]
>> What are you on about? All forces reduce to zero when each of those
>> things are turned off, when everything is stationary relative to the
>> air.
> Buy a clue, max. Ever see anyone blow smoke rings, max? If not,
> it's darn amazing to see those smoke rings travel quite a long
> distance while retaining a ring shape. Even after the ring breaks
> up, the smoke pretty much keeps going in the same direction for
> quite a way? Despite the lack of forces making it go in any particular
> direction. Why do you think that is? It's not gravitational anisotropy.
> How much do you figure the average smoke particle weighs? How about
> 20,000 - 100,000 daltons. What's the mass of an N2 molecule? How about
> 28 daltons.
Why is accepting the truth so difficult?
The smoke ring originates as a gentle puff of smoke stored in the
ring blower's mouth, which is immediately followed by a shrinking
of the mouth-nozzle through which a stronger puff of "clean" air
stored in the lungs is blown straight through the smoke center. That
action drags the surrounding air mass, including the smoke, along
with it. The friction between the shaft of air and the surrounding
air mass causes the shaft to diverge as it moves forward. The air
flow on the outer of the air shaft is slower than at the center,
so the inside of the smoke ring spirals forward and the outside
backwards. The smoke ring isn't moving through the air at all. It's
being carried along with it.
I smoked for twenty years. I know all about smoke ring blowing.
> That's about the same mass ratio as your car to a freight train
> with 50-250 fully loaded boxcars. How many collisions in random
> directions between your car and that coasting freight train do you
> figure will be necessary to stop the train? As a wild guess, I'll have
> to go with ``a whole bunch.'' No gravitational anisotropy needed.
> Conservation of momentum does the job.
It's all to do with the ratio of smoke mass per volume and air mass
per volume. If the ratios are equal, a collision between one gram of
air and one gram of smoke will affect each equally.
But smoke is slightly denser than air. So, how far do you think your
gram of smoke will forge through the air? It will lose half its
velocity for every one and a bit grams of air it encounters.
>> That's what happens inside the rotating housing as well. Or do
>> you think the point of balance between the air and rotating housing
>> is when the air is whizzing around inside the housing?
> Well, it appears that you put some work into building the apparatus.
> If you are going to do an experiment, you ought to analyze everything
> before hand, so that spend your effort building equipment that measures
> what you think it measures.
It has performed exactly as predicted.
-----
Max Keon
Eric Gisse
Max Keon wrote:
[...]
>
> It has performed exactly as predicted.
An interesting assertion considering you have no data.
>
> -----
>
> Max Keon
Jerry
> Your diagram shows a short smoke tube, which indicates that you
> intend only to blow higher velocity smoke into the chamber for the
> test. The tangential velocity of the smoke tube end needs to be
> reasonably fast so the air movement caused by a gravity anisotropy
> can be correctly identified.
>
> Because the anisotropy is exactly proportional to tangential
> velocity it causes no air stirring in the chamber whatever. The
> consequences of your smoke blast, if that's what was intended, as
> it's drawn, would demolish all hope of detecting air flow.
You are reading too much into a crude ascii diagram.
Naturally I will be regulating the air flow, etc.
Furthermore, I have a quantitative, predictive model that I will be
comparing with the data.
As a smoker, you are aware that a blown smoke ring can traverse a
considerable distance through the air, slowly expanding and
dissipating its energy. Will you accept that a puff of blown smoke
carries momentum?
Suppose you are standing in a room mounted on a turntable, and blow
a puff of smoke northwards. Rotate the room 90 degrees to the east.
Do you accept that conservation of momentum implies that the puff
of smoke will continue its motion northwards rather than to the
east?
The motions of a blown puff of smoke in your apparatus are governed
by two effects:
1) Conservation of momentum tends to keep the puff headed in the
same direction in which it started.
2) Transverse air movement, assuming the bulk air mass is fixed with
respect to the housing, implies that the puff will be displaced
transversely about the rotation axis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Let r be the position vector of the end of a rotating smoke tube.
Let omega be the angular velocity.
Then,
rx = |r|cos(omega*t)
ry = |r|sin(omega*t)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Let v be the velocity vector of a puff of smoke which emerges
from the end of the smoke tube.
Then
vx = |v|cos(omega*t)
vy = |v|sin(omega*t)
We will assume, as a first approximation, that vx and vy are
constant over the short distance of the experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Transverse air moment dispaces the puff of smoke at a velocity
proportional to the distance of the puff from the origin.
Let p be the position vector of a puff of smoke.
The distance of p from the origin is given by sqrt(px*px + py*py)
Therefore, the velocity contribution from rotational displacement
is given by
d px/dt = -sqrt(px*px + py*py)*omega*sin(omega*t)
d py/dt = sqrt(px*px + py*py)*omega*cos(omega*t)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Conbining (2) and (3), we get the following system of
differential equations:
d px/dt = -sqrt(px*px + py*py)*omega*sin(omega*t) + vx
d py/dt = sqrt(px*px + py*py)*omega*cos(omega*t) + vy
where vx and vy are, to a first approximation, constant
--------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Let omega = 1
|r| = 1
|v| = 1
Let us assume that a puff of smoke is emitted at time t = 0
At time t = 1, I compute the following:
rx = 0.54 ry = 0.84 position of end of smoke tube
px = 1.29 py = 1.18 position of smoke puff
--------------------------------------------------------------------
6) As you can see, the position of the smoke puff lags behind the
end of the smoke tube. The shape of a continuously emitted stream
of smoke can be computed by solving the system of differential
equations in (4) for smoke puffs emitted at times t > 0.
No gravitational anisotropy is needed to explain the lag of the
smoke stream. The lag is a consequence of conservation of momentum.
YOU ARE OBSERVING CORIOLIS EFFECT!!!
Jerry
Jerry
> 2) Let v be the velocity vector of a puff of smoke which emerges
> from the end of the smoke tube.
> Then
> vx = |v|cos(omega*t)
> vy = |v|sin(omega*t)
If I were writing this for, say, pellets emitted in vacuum, the
equations should be
vx = |v|cos(omega*t) - |r|*omega*sin(omega*t)
vy = |v|sin(omega*t) + |r|*omega*cos(omega*t)
However, in the experiment under consideration, the second
velocity component is shared by the bulk air in the housing,
and is accounted for in section (3).
Jerry
Jerry
> 3) Transverse air moment dispaces the puff of smoke at a velocity
Sorry, typo.
movement, not moment
Jerry
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnea4jne....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Max Keon:
>> [...]
>>> What are you on about? All forces reduce to zero when each of those
>>> things are turned off, when everything is stationary relative to the
>>> air.
>
>> Buy a clue, max. Ever see anyone blow smoke rings, max? If not,
>> it's darn amazing to see those smoke rings travel quite a long
>> distance while retaining a ring shape. Even after the ring breaks
>> up, the smoke pretty much keeps going in the same direction for
>> quite a way? Despite the lack of forces making it go in any particular
>> direction. Why do you think that is? It's not gravitational anisotropy.
>> How much do you figure the average smoke particle weighs? How about
>> 20,000 - 100,000 daltons. What's the mass of an N2 molecule? How about
>> 28 daltons.
>
>Why is accepting the truth so difficult?
I have no idea, max, but you seem to have a great deal of difficulty
accepting it.
>The smoke ring originates as a gentle puff of smoke stored in the
>ring blower's mouth, which is immediately followed by a shrinking
>of the mouth-nozzle through which a stronger puff of "clean" air
>stored in the lungs is blown straight through the smoke center.
What's your point, max?
[...]
>backwards. The smoke ring isn't moving through the air at all. It's
>being carried along with it.
Wrong, max - unless you plan to overthrow some conservation laws.
[...]
>It's all to do with the ratio of smoke mass per volume and air mass
>per volume. If the ratios are equal, a collision between one gram of
>air and one gram of smoke will affect each equally.
One gram of air doesn't collide with one gram of smoke particles,
max. Pay attention. A _single_ particle of smoke is approximately
1000 to 5000 times the mass of a N2 molecule.
>But smoke is slightly denser than air. So, how far do you think your
>gram of smoke will forge through the air? It will lose half its
>velocity for every one and a bit grams of air it encounters.
1 gm of N2 occupies a volume of 37 liters. 1 gm of smoke particles
occupies anywhere from 0.007 liters to 0.04 liters.
[...]
>> Well, it appears that you put some work into building the apparatus.
>> If you are going to do an experiment, you ought to analyze everything
>> before hand, so that spend your effort building equipment that measures
>> what you think it measures.
>
>It has performed exactly as predicted.
Naturally. Your understanding of physics is naive by 18th century
standards, so why would I expect your conclusions to be any more
sophisticated?
Max Keon
> Max Keon wrote:
>> Your diagram shows a short smoke tube, which indicates that you
>> intend only to blow higher velocity smoke into the chamber for the
>> test. The tangential velocity of the smoke tube end needs to be
>> reasonably fast so the air movement caused by a gravity anisotropy
>> can be correctly identified.
>>
>> Because the anisotropy is exactly proportional to tangential
>> velocity it causes no air stirring in the chamber whatever. The
>> consequences of your smoke blast, if that's what was intended, as
>> it's drawn, would demolish all hope of detecting air flow.
> You are reading too much into a crude ascii diagram.
> Naturally I will be regulating the air flow, etc.
>
> Furthermore, I have a quantitative, predictive model that I will be
> comparing with the data.
>
> As a smoker,
I gave that away many years ago.
> you are aware that a blown smoke ring can traverse a
> considerable distance through the air,
It travels a "considerable distance" only because it's carried
along with the air mass which the smoker has set in motion with
a concentrated puff through the smoke cloud center (regardless of
what anyone esle tells you).
> slowly expanding and
> dissipating its energy.
How does the smoke ring expansion disipate energy? It wasn't
compressed.
> Will you accept that a puff of blown smoke
> carries momentum?
Obviously.
The easy test to prove you wrong is to extend the smoke tube to
the limit of the housing inner and bend it back so that the smoke
stream points directly at the housing center.
It won't take long. Prepare yourself for the worst.
-----
Max Keon
Jerry
> "Jerry" <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1151576040.1...@x69g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> The easy test to prove you wrong is to extend the smoke tube to
> the limit of the housing inner and bend it back so that the smoke
> stream points directly at the housing center.
>
> It won't take long. Prepare yourself for the worst.
Nice idea!
Good luck, Max!
Jerry
Jerry
> Eric Gisse:
> >But from my understanding of whats happening in his device, I don't
> >think the Coriolis effect would do much.
>
> Actually, the explanation is rather simple.
Bilge, could you critique my analysis? As you know, I'm not a
physics student, I'm a med student, so math isn't really my strong
suit.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ed6c16c81daf6ba5
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/60fbd8ce773fca59
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/c3c47bd979e8816f
Thanks,
Jerry
Max Keon
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff1.jpg
Thank you.
The very first puff of smoke which emerged from the tube end, drew
away from the tube in a similar fashion to that shown in the first
image. It moved in an anticlockwise direction, relative to the
clockwise rotating housing as viewed from the strobe light position.
That is of course the direction that the air mass would be driven
by the gravity anisotropy. But it was only a wisp of smoke that
didn't show up clearly in the movie clip. This snapshot was taken
within a few seconds of that event. There's no doubt that the air
within the housing was already in motion, as predicted.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff1.jpg
This next image was extracted from the movie clip after a minute
or so running time had elapsed. Apart from the build up of smoke
in the housing, there were no apparent changes.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff2.jpg
It is now quite obvious that centrifugal forces have pushed the
higher density smoke/air cloud outward to accumulate in a ring at
the outermost radius within the housing, which fairly quickly
narrows as the air is squeezed out from the smoke/air cloud. The
obvious problem now is that the smoke/air cloud tangential velocity
when it left the tube end was slower than the air mass that it has
displaced at the outer rim. And that could still apply an
anticlockwise drive to the air mass. The air mass which has been
displaced, necessarily into an area of lesser tangential velocity,
will tend to counteract the smoke/air cloud drive. But the slightly
higher density smoke/air cloud will dominate.
The next step is just to tidy up the experiment and inject
the smoke at the radius of highest tangential velocity.
Which shouldn't present too much of a problem.
-----
Max Keon
Jerry
Let me see if I understand the still photos correctly. Perspective
makes it a little difficult for me to be sure that I'm interpreting
them properly.
First, a couple of questions:
1) It looks to me as if the tube is constricted from the bend, i.e.
a bit kinked? Does this kink make it difficult to blow the smoke at
significant velocity?
2) Also, is the bend of the tube mostly within the plane of
rotation because of space limitations, or am I misinterpreting the
photo because of perspective? What is the diameter of the tube,
versus the width of the gap between the two walls of the housing?
OK, to make sure that we are on the same page in interpreting
the photos:
1) Seeping out slowly from the end of the tube, the smoke slowly
"falls" towards the rim because of centrifugal effects.
2) The "falling" smoke accumulates in a bulk mass "behind" the
tube.
3) My interpretation of puff2.jpg is this:
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_June_30_2006.jpg
Is my interpretation correct?
Jerry
Jerry
>
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg and
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
> are both (now better quality) extracts from the video clip.
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/~gravair.html
> is supposed to be what we are discussing here.
Would this be a fair interpretation of your smokon jpg image?
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_smokeon.jpg
Thanks,
Jerry
Jerry
> This next image was extracted from the movie clip after a minute
> or so running time had elapsed. Apart from the build up of smoke
> in the housing, there were no apparent changes.
>
> http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff2.jpg
>
> It is now quite obvious that centrifugal forces have pushed the
> higher density smoke/air cloud outward to accumulate in a ring at
> the outermost radius within the housing, which fairly quickly
> narrows as the air is squeezed out from the smoke/air cloud.
I'm trying to understand puff2.jpg in terms of both the gravitational
anisotropy theory and in terms of Coriolis effect plus centrifugal
force acting on dense smoke. I'm wondering if the kink in the tube is
inducing turbulence in the outgoing stream. It doesn't look like what
I would expect from laminar flow.
Could you supply a photo of the output stream with the rotor at rest?
I rather expect the output stream to be somewhat divergent.
Thanks,
Jerry
Bilge
It looks more or less correct (except that you are using the term
``coriolis effect,'' in a somewhat unsual way, but I think I know
what you mean. If so, it can be made rigorous).
You need a method with more power than iterating your way intuitively
from the center outward, though. The right tool for the job is statistical
mechanics. The partition function in the limit of maxwell-boltzmann statistics
is just Z = A exp(-\beta H), where \beta = 1/kT, H is the hamiltonian,
and A is a statistical factor (which is irrelevant here).
If the system contains n_i molecules having an energy E_i, the
hamiltonian is just the sum of the energies x the number of molecules with
an energy E_i, \sum n_i E_i. You can now apply the transformation between
rotating and stationary frames to get the hamiltonian that contains your
coriolis force (in the form of a potential energy function) and a
centrifugal potential.
The thermodynamic quantities then follow from taking the derivative of
the natural log of the partition function. For example, <E> = dln(Z)/dbeta.
I can do this in more detail when I have a little more time to write it
all out. That gives the steady-state result. If you want to know how the
energy dissipates once the rotation stops, you have to do more (and I'm
quite certain that max would be flabbergasted if what he needs to do ever
sank in).
Jerry
> Jerry:
I've never seen an explanation that went down to molecular levels
before. All the explanations of Coriolis effect that I've seen have
been at the macroscopic level.
Since this obviously a complex system that is governed not just by
Coriolis effect, but viscosity, centrifugal force, and density
differences as well, I would have thought the proper tool for a full
analysis might be through supercomputer simulations solving the
complete Navier-Stokes equations... just kidding! :-)
But look at these results!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The first link is to one of Max's photographs
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/puff2.jpg
and this second link is my interpretation of the photograph.
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_June_30_2006.jpg
This first result of Max's bending the smoke tube so as to direct
the smoke inwards was completely unexpected, and shows the dense
smoke being flung outwards by centrifugal effects rather than blowing
inwards as I expected. But "sinking" smoke should not show Coriolis
deflection. So why is the smoke collecting "behind" the smoke tube?
Something very complicated is going on, and this photo is not very
useful for distinguishing between gravitational anisotropy and
Coriolis effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a link to another of Max's photographs with a much simpler
interpretation
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg
and here a link to my interpretation
http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/images/Keon_smokeon.jpg
The evidence is totally against any rotation of the air within the
housing.
Note how the air collects in a big cloud behind the smoke tube...if
the air were rotating in the housing, the cloud would be blown away.
Note also how the dense cloud spreads both forwards and back. If the
air were rotating in the housing as rapidly Max seems to think, there
is simply no way that the cloud could be spreading forward of the
smoke tube.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the air in the housing must be stationary with respect to the
housing, and the deflections that Max observes must be from Coriolis
effect.
Jerry
Eric Gisse
Jerry wrote:
[...]
> Something very complicated is going on, and this photo is not very
> useful for distinguishing between gravitational anisotropy and
> Coriolis effect.
Why pretend a finite propogation speed for gravitation would manifest
itself in only his experiment?
Bilge
>Since this obviously a complex system that is governed not just by
>Coriolis effect, but viscosity, centrifugal force, and density
>differences as well, I would have thought the proper tool for a full
>analysis might be through supercomputer simulations solving the
>complete Navier-Stokes equations... just kidding! :-)
I don't know why you are just kidding. Understanding the precise
dynamics of such a system is a very tricky business and in this case,
one must invoke the navier-stokes relations, if only to find how to
approximate the flow in terms of phenomenology (like reynolds numbers,
diffusion processes, viscosities, etc.). The bottom line is that
(1) The rotating system is essentially a centrifuge. You can find
thermodynamic parameters such as the pressure, density, etc. as a
function of the radius for the rotating system. in fact, you can
probably locate a worked example using statistical mechanics on the
internet somewhere. (2) the collisions between the air molecules and
the smoke particles are random. While lots of collisions will cause the
smoke particles slow down their circular rotation, lots of other
collisions will do the opposite. The net difference in the number
of collisions in different directions is what slows the smoke particles
down. (Think brownian motion). (3) The smoke particles are 1000-5000
more massive than an air molecule, so not only does the random nature
of the collisions end up requiring a lot of collisions to have an
overall net effect, the large difference in mass multiplies that
number a thousand-fold+.
[...]
>inwards as I expected. But "sinking" smoke should not show Coriolis
>deflection. So why is the smoke collecting "behind" the smoke tube?
>Something very complicated is going on,
Very complicated? Yes. That is why weather forecasting only works
over short time intervals. Even then, it is somewhat of an art despite
the rotation of the earth being very stable and information from detailed
measurements of wind speeds and other factors can be extremely precise.
>and this photo is not very useful for distinguishing between gravitational
>anisotropy and Coriolis effect.
If it were some anisotropy, changing the rotation direction ought to
give results that differ eyond what would be expected for the change in
rotation direction. That is what anisotropy means - a direction dependent
effect. Basically, a detailed analysis is hard, but the gross features can
be deduced from general principles. Since max has done no analysis what-
soever, let alone a detailed one, he is wasting everyone's time, including
his own.