Boomerang works in space: Japanese astronaut
Albertito
during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station,
a spokeswoman at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said
on Friday."
http://www.physorg.com/news125297819.html
My questions are:
1. Would that boomerang describe an elliptical orbit with a lot of
revolutions until its motion were interrupted? If so,
1.1. why could a body (i.e. boomerang) move in elliptical orbit
around a massless focus?
2. Would that boomerang work in empty space (vacuum)? If so,
2.1. Would that mean the spinning boomerang propels itself in
each spin, changing the direction of motion (making it
curvilinear)?
Sue...
Albertito
>
> Sue...
Ok, that's fine. So, according to mainsteam
physics a boomerang can't work (returning
to the starting point) in empty space (vacuum).
Correct?
Igor
> during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station,
> a spokeswoman at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said
> on Friday."http://www.physorg.com/news125297819.html
>
> My questions are:
> 1. Would that boomerang describe an elliptical orbit with a lot of
> revolutions until its motion were interrupted? If so,
> 1.1. why could a body (i.e. boomerang) move in elliptical orbit
> around a massless focus?
Learn Newton's laws of motion. They'll provide your answers.
> 2. Would that boomerang work in empty space (vacuum)? If so,
> 2.1. Would that mean the spinning boomerang propels itself in
> each spin, changing the direction of motion (making it
> curvilinear)?
A boomerang in empty space would move, but couldn't return. Maybe you
need to look up how a boomerang works. Google is your friend.
Albertito
There is a kind of boomerang called 'returning boomerang'.
When you throw a returning boomerang, it spins eccentrically.
It is saying the axis of rotation does no pass through the center
of masses. That spinning eccentricity along with its moment of
inertia, regarless the medium it can fly (air/vacuum), is the cause
of the boomerang's return, even in empty space (vacuum)!
Australian Aborigines knew that phenomenon since thousand
of years ago.
cactu
a boomerang is a gyroscope you fool
can return despite absence of gravity and air
Dirk Van de moortel
91b55d7c-1c0e-4b23...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
http://www.boomerangs.com/physics.html
I told you - you are an imbecile.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VacuumBoomerang.html
Dirk Vdm
Albertito
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 91b55d7c-1c0e-4b23-98c6-3914ff49b...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
> Dirk Vdm
That's not how science works. Have you ever
performed the experiment of throwing a returning
boomerang in empty space?
Show me the experimental evidences that a returning
boomerang does not return in empty space when thrown
correctly.
BTW, reserve those adjectives for someone who
deserves them better than me.
Igor
There's only one thing nature abhors more than a vacuum, and that's an
Albertito making stupid statements about a vacuum.
Dirk Van de moortel
Have you ever performed the experiment of jumping
from a high building?
Show me the evidence that when we let go of *you*
from a high building you get splattered all over the
pavement.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
96c394a6-cf6e-4f7f...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com
I don't know about nature, but *I* love it when
he does that.
And it looks like the harder we throw words like
"imbecile" at him, the more he does it. Strange :-)
Dirk Vdm
Albertito
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 91b55d7c-1c0e-4b23-98c6-3914ff49b...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dear Van de merde:
I will have to hack into your web page to correct your
bad behavior, because you insist on publishing some
quotes of my spr posts without my permission.
Randy Poe
> bad behavior, because you insist on publishing some
> quotes of my spr posts without my permission.
They're in Google's web pages also, archived for
anyone in the world to see. Did Google need your
permission to do that?
I see the Web is one more thing about which
you are ignorant but like to spout anyway.
- Randy
Randy Poe
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 8:31 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Astronaut Takao Doi 'threw a boomerang and saw it come back'
> > > during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station,
> > > a spokeswoman at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said
> > > on Friday."http://www.physorg.com/news125297819.html
>
> > > My questions are:
> > > 1. Would that boomerang describe an elliptical orbit with a lot of
> > > revolutions until its motion were interrupted? If so,
> > > 1.1. why could a body (i.e. boomerang) move in elliptical orbit
> > > around a massless focus?
>
> > Learn Newton's laws of motion. They'll provide your answers.
>
> > > 2. Would that boomerang work in empty space (vacuum)? If so,
> > > 2.1. Would that mean the spinning boomerang propels itself in
> > > each spin, changing the direction of motion (making it
> > > curvilinear)?
>
> > A boomerang in empty space would move, but couldn't return. Maybe you
> > need to look up how a boomerang works. Google is your friend.
>
> There is a kind of boomerang called 'returning boomerang'.
It flies in air. You've heard of "air", right?
To return in vacuum would require violation of
conservation of momentum, a principle which is
amply confirmed by centuries of experimental record,
in air and in space.
> When you throw a returning boomerang, it spins eccentrically.
> It is saying the axis of rotation does no pass through the center
> of masses. That spinning eccentricity along with its moment of
> inertia, regarless the medium it can fly (air/vacuum), is the cause
> of the boomerang's return, even in empty space (vacuum)!
In what way? Can you describe the physics by
which this happens?
> Australian Aborigines knew that phenomenon since thousand
> of years ago.
No, Australian Aborigines did not do any experiments
in vacuum.
- Randy
Albertito
Yes, that's true. But, they are not stupid at all, they are very
incisive statements :-)
Albertito
Yes, they all have my unconditional permission,
but Van de merde NOT :-)
Randy Poe
Yes? They asked you?
> > I see the Web is one more thing about which
> > you are ignorant but like to spout anyway.
>
>
> they all have my unconditional permission,
> but Van de merde NOT :-)
You are under the impression that things you
put onto Usenet are your intellectual property.
This impression is wrong.
- Randy
Albertito
boomerang must return in vacuum as well
in order to preserve angular momentum.
Albertito
Don't worry about that. All the stuff I post
is crackpotery at best, it's useless :-)
Randy Poe
1. With respect to what? When you throw
a rock, must it return to you to preserve
angular momentum?
2. When the linear momentum starts out going
that way ->
and ends up going that way <-
it has changed. Do you understand that?
In the absence of a force, this is a violation
of conservation of momentum.
- Randy
Albertito
If that rock has the shape of a returning boomerang
and you throw it properly, YES :-)
> 2. When the linear momentum starts out going
> that way ->
> and ends up going that way <-
> it has changed. Do you understand that?
>
> In the absence of a force, this is a violation
> of conservation of momentum.
>
> - Randy
But actually, there is a force called centrifugal force.
If the boomerang described a straight line in a vacuum,
then its motion (speed) wouldn't be uniform along the path.
Its speed would decrease along one semi-spin, and then it
would speedup in the next semi-spin, because of its eccentric
rotation (spin). As linear and angular momenta must be preserved
along the path, that path must be a circle.
Randy Poe
You didn't answer the first question. Angular
momentum with respect to what?
And since rocks don't normally return, are they
routine violations of conservation of angular
momentum? Is a violation of conservation of
angular momentum if a rock fails to return?
> > 2. When the linear momentum starts out going
> > that way ->
> > and ends up going that way <-
> > it has changed. Do you understand that?
>
> > In the absence of a force, this is a violation
> > of conservation of momentum.
>
> But actually, there is a force called centrifugal force.
No, there isn't. Not in vacuum, not unless you
are restricting yourself to rotating reference
frames such as the interior of the space station.
Is that what you are talking about? Or are you
claiming that it is possible to throw a boomerang
in deep space and have it return due to "centrifugal
force".
> If the boomerang described a straight line in a vacuum,
> then its motion (speed) wouldn't be uniform along the path.
You mean you've repealed Newton's First Law?
> Its speed would decrease along one semi-spin, and then it
> would speedup in the next semi-spin, because of its eccentric
> rotation (spin). As linear and angular momenta must be preserved
> along the path, that path must be a circle.
"Change in direction" and "constant linear momentum"
are contradictory.
I think you're just babbling now, grabbing words
at random and abandoning any pretense at reasoning.
- Randy
cactuu
scroll to 3:20 and watch violation, fool
Igor
I think you're confusing those thought experiments of throwing a
boomerang in the vacuum of your head with the real thing.
PD
Well, all this time I thought you were just a buffoon about
relativity. Now it appears you are a buffoon about any topic in
physics one could choose. However, you are confused that this has
something to do with relativity, because you're posting it to a
relativity group. Let's see if you're a buffoon about biology or
chemistry, too. Feel free to post it inappropriately here.
PD
PD
You throw a gyroscope in space and it doesn't return either. Try it!
PD
PD
> On Mar 22, 12:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 8:31 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Astronaut Takao Doi 'threw a boomerang and saw it come back'
> > > during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station,
> > > a spokeswoman at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said
> > > on Friday."http://www.physorg.com/news125297819.html
>
> > > My questions are:
> > > 1. Would that boomerang describe an elliptical orbit with a lot of
> > > revolutions until its motion were interrupted? If so,
> > > 1.1. why could a body (i.e. boomerang) move in elliptical orbit
> > > around a massless focus?
> > > 2. Would that boomerang work in empty space (vacuum)? If so,
> > > 2.1. Would that mean the spinning boomerang propels itself in
> > > each spin, changing the direction of motion (making it
> > > curvilinear)?
>
>
> > Sue...
>
> Ok, that's fine. So, according to mainsteam
> physics a boomerang can't work (returning
> to the starting point) in empty space (vacuum).
> Correct?
Sure it can. Stand on the moon where there is no atmosphere. Throw it
directly upward. Giving it angular momentum is optional. It will
return to the starting point.
PD
PD
And here I thought the Babbleonians were a long-dead civilization.
PD
Eric Gisse
[...]
Do you often - if ever - see people who have a good command of basic
physics freak out over relativity?
I'm increasingly noticing that relativity is just the focal point for
the complaints. Not sure why it is relativity because the anti-
Einstein shit seems like a rationalization rather than a reason.
Albertito
> On Mar 22, 7:31 am, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Astronaut Takao Doi 'threw a boomerang and saw it come back'
> > during his free time on March 18 at the International Space Station,
> > a spokeswoman at the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said
> > on Friday."http://www.physorg.com/news125297819.html
>
> > My questions are:
> > 1. Would that boomerang describe an elliptical orbit with a lot of
> > revolutions until its motion were interrupted? If so,
> > 1.1. why could a body (i.e. boomerang) move in elliptical orbit
> > around a massless focus?
> > 2. Would that boomerang work in empty space (vacuum)? If so,
> > 2.1. Would that mean the spinning boomerang propels itself in
> > each spin, changing the direction of motion (making it
> > curvilinear)?
>
> Well, all this time I thought you were just a buffoon about
> relativity.
I apologize. I have to admit that I misunderstood the issue.
Anyway, once I've better understood it, the aerodynamics
of boomerangs is simply amazing.
> Now it appears you are a buffoon about any topic in
> physics one could choose. However, you are confused that this has
> something to do with relativity, because you're posting it to a
> relativity group. Let's see if you're a buffoon about biology or
> chemistry, too. Feel free to post it inappropriately here.
>
Why biology or chemistry? Is it because you are also master
on those subjects? I could post on computer programming
and you would see I'm not a buffoon at all. For example,
check it out,
http://www.geocities.com/albertzotkin
Jerry
> Why biology or chemistry? Is it because you are also master
> on those subjects? I could post on computer programming
> and you would see I'm not a buffoon at all. For example,
> check it out,http://www.geocities.com/albertzotkin
spirographDlg.cpp
General comment: inconsistent indentation.
It appears that you inconsistently mixed tabs (assuming an
indentation level of 4) and manual indentation. Most coding
standards strongly discourage the use of tabs.
General comment: Too much use of short, cryptic variable names
like r0, r1, rr1, p, etc.
General comment: Extensive use of "magic numbers".
17 The constant PI is already available in math.h
17-18 Use constants, not defines.
20-37 Non-self-documenting variable names. Use longer, more
meaningful names.
51-55 The "m_" prefix should signify member variables. Your use
here is not consistent with standard usage
73-81 Obsolescent coding style. Instead of a typedef, you should
simply declare:
struct sb_state
{
// blah, blah
};
83 Remove the "5". Let the compiler do the counting:
sb_state SB_STATE[] = {
93 Better. You let the compiler do the counting.
20-101 Too many variables of global scope. The implication of
your placing them in the global namespace is that they can
potentially be accessed by extern from another compilation
unit. You don't really mean that, do you?
151-165 Use an initialization list.
192-210 Give the control identifiers meaningful names. Instead
of IDC_EDIT1, IDC_EDIT2, etc. use names like IDC_AMPLITUDE_E,
IDC_ECCENTRICITY_E, etc.
212-237 Give the handlers meaningful names. Instead of OnButton2,
OnButton3, etc. use names like OnStartButton, OnPauseButton,
etc.
228-230 Avoid obscure abbreviations. OnCHBK, OnCHPEN, OnCHELEM
have no meaning to anybody except yourself.
249-250 Exceptions are preferable to asserts.
269 Push version information ("v1.0") out to the RC file.
271-283 Undocumented magic numbers "30000000" and "100"
326 #define ALIGN32(x) (4-((x*3)%4)) & 3
should be written
#define ALIGN32(x) (4-(((x)*3)%4)) & 3
331-335 Undocumented magic number "2024" used extensively.
At this point I quit, having seen enough.
Your coding is horribly nonprofessional.
Jerry
Albertito
Hi Jerry
Thanks for the hints, corrections, etc.
Yes, my coding is nonprofessional, I'm
still learning. I appreciate your comments and
advices. I'll take all of them into account.
Anyway, SpiroOrbiter.exe works fine and fast :-)
Albertito
Wrong. If I throw it directly upward, applying a force F along time
t,
it will be released at a speed v = t (F/m), where m is the mass of
the
boomerang. If it results that speed v is higher than the escape
velocity
magnitude at that high over the moon, then the boomerang will not
return to the starting point :-)
tici viracocha
a gyro can push his center of mass
faraway from himself
a 3d gyro wouldent have problems to return
what are you not knowing and talk about?