Why a skater spins faster as they close their arms
frank...@yahoo.com
arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
conserved? Then they would point you to a web page like the
hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
in gory detail:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/conser.html#conamo
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/amom.html#am
At which point, most people would go double Huh??? The equations just
do not help to understand "why" it should happen. It is often
frustrating that some people think the raw equations are the
explanation, but they are not.
What is mysterious about this situation is that the skater is not
adding any energy to speed up their spin. Just the act of closing
their arms somehow accelerates their body without any apparent input
of energy. Energy is absolutely required to increase the spin rate of
the skaters body, but where does it come from?
What I am looking for is a more common sense and intuitive way of
understanding why the skater spins faster. I think I have found such
an explanation and it goes like this:
Imagine that instead of a skater, we have a simplified system of 2
steel balls on the ends of a rotating rod. The rod can contract so
that balls can rotate closer. Or if that is too complicated, imaging a
person sitting on a lazy susan with a steel ball in each of their
outstretched arms. Now lets set the balls in motion such that they are
travelling at about 10 mph in a 2 foot circle. Let's bring he balls in
so they are rotating in a 1 foot circle, but the balls still want to
travel at 10mph due to simple inertia. The balls actually do keep
their same speed of 10mph, but now they travel in a smaller circle and
because of that, they cause the platform they are attached to, to spin
faster. While it appears that it is spinning faster, the balls
themselves are not going any faster than they used to be going. They
are going the same speed.
So here is a nice intuitive explanation for what is going on. The
reason why the skater spins faster is that the skaters outstretched
arms want to keep travelling at their outstretched speed. When they
bring their arms in, the mass of thier arms wants to keep going at the
outstretched speed and causes the whole skater to spin faster, but not
any faster than any point on their outstretched arms. The skater is
effectively going at the same speed, but you count the speed as the
absolute velocity of any portion of their body rotating around in a
circle, not the rotation speed of their entire body.
Let's check the math on this:
From:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/mi.html#mi
We can find the basic equations governing angular momentum.
This basically says angular Kinetic energy K.E = 1/2 MR^2w^2 (where M
is mass, R is radius and w is rotation rate)
This is basically like the normal kinetic energy law K.E = 1/2 Mv^2,
except this works for rotating bodies and it is this kinetic energy
which is conserved. We are very familiar with kinetic energy being
conserved in collisions.
Let's make the math easy by setting M=1 pound, R=2 feet, w = 1
rotation/second
K.E. = 1/2 1 X 2^2 X 1^2 = 1/2 X 1 X 4 X 1 = 2
So the kinetic energy is 2. Now if we change just the radius to 1, in
order to keep the the KE = 2, we now need to make w = 2. So by halving
the radius, we double the rotations.
Let's check the absolute velocity at R = 2 feet. Circumference = Pi 2R
= 12.56 feet, since it travels this distance in 1 second, the absolute
velocity is 12.56feet /1 sec = 12.56 feet per second.
Let's check the velocity at R = 1 foot. Circumference = 6.28 feet. The
rotation speed is now 2 rotations per second, so it covers this
distance in half a second. The absolute velocity is 6.28 feet/.5
seconds = 12.56 feet per second.
We can clearly see that the absolute speed of the mass is unchanged,
eventhough the rotational speed has doubled.
So nothing mysterious here, I made no mention of what the heck is
angular momentum and conservation of such a mysterious quantity. This
is a simple case of mass wanting to travel at the same absolute
velocity, whether it be in a straight line or constrained to a circle.
-fhuangular
Benj
> What I am looking for is a more common sense and intuitive way of
> understanding why the skater spins faster. I think I have found such
> an explanation and it goes like this:
>
> Imagine that instead of a skater, we have a simplified system of 2
> steel balls on the ends of a rotating rod. The rod can contract so
> that balls can rotate closer. Or if that is too complicated, imaging a
> person sitting on a lazy susan with a steel ball in each of their
> outstretched arms. Now lets set the balls in motion such that they are
> travelling at about 10 mph in a 2 foot circle. Let's bring he balls in
> so they are rotating in a 1 foot circle, but the balls still want to
> travel at 10mph due to simple inertia. The balls actually do keep
> their same speed of 10mph, but now they travel in a smaller circle and
> because of that, they cause the platform they are attached to, to spin
> faster. While it appears that it is spinning faster, the balls
> themselves are not going any faster than they used to be going. They
> are going the same speed.
EXCELLENT INSIGHT! You are right. So many people of "science" have no
philosophy. They worship mathematics and when they want an
"explanation" they simply point to equations as if that said it all!
Obviously they DON'T say it all. Of course the situation is not quite
as simple as you imply in that every particle of "mass" in the skater
needs to have it's particular inertia averaged into the entire motion
with some particles speeding up (the skaters body) and some slightly
slowing down (the weights) due to the energy taken to speed up the
body. But nevertheless the overall effect is pretty much as you say.
Great start, but is really only the tip of the iceberg! Next you have
to start asking, what is "inertia" anyway? And why is it so closely
related to gravity? Why does it take a force to set a body in motion?
Just what is going on that makes a body resist motion? And why does it
keep going once you've got it going? Is there some "dark energy" that
somehow is providing these electromagnetic forces? Just HOW can this
be? Pretty much, at present nobody knows. Like Newton they just point
to the gravitation equation as an answer, but UNLIKE Newton they do
not say that the equation is just a description of forces and NOT an
"explanation". Newton freely admitted he hadn't a clue what gravity
was. He surmised some kind of "impulses" in the aether. Maybe that
wasn't correct, but it's far better than the PBS approach of pointing
to a descriptive equation and insisting that it "explains"
everything.
Ray Vickson
> If you ask a scientist why a skater spins faster they close thier
> arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
> Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> conserved? Then they would point you to a web page like the
> hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> in gory detail:
>
How is this not using formulas and equations? To quote your very own
words above, you said:
"The equations just do not help to understand "why" it should happen.
It is often frustrating that some people think the raw equations are
the explanation, but they are not."
Why is kinetic energy conservation easier to understand than angular
momentum conservation? How may guys at the local bar understand
kinetic energy anyway? Admittedly, you DO present a nice argument.
R.G. Vickson
Cwatters
<frank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1beccd3d-d748-42ca...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Energy is absolutely required to increase the spin rate of
> the skaters body, but where does it come from?
Just tell them it comes from the arms and its their turn to by the drinks.
Y.y.Porat
> If you ask a scientist why a skater spins faster they close thier
> arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
> Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> conserved? Then they would point you to a web page like the
> hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> in gory detail:
>
----------------
parallel to
F=ma
for linear movement
there are two factors for
circular movement
it is
angular momentum
but there is soething that acts again it
and it is called somethng like
angula moment of inertia
th ebigger is that last one
the slower is the spinn
now how do you calculate that angula moment if inertia
you integrate the
dm times dr alongthe diatance of dm from center of rotation
(the dm is the piece of mass
and the dr is the distance of that fraction of mass from center of
rotation)
now you have the answer to your question :
if dr becomes smaller
you get a smaller angular momentum -* inertia *
of your body !!
hope it helps
we do it a lot ('surprising enough ') in structural engineering
'statics '
and dynamic engineering
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Y.y.Porat
> On Mar 24, 7:22 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you ask a scientist why a skater spins faster they close thier
> > arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> > speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
> > Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> > conserved? Then they would point you to a web page like the
> > hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> > in gory detail:
>
sorry Typo:
I is not =integ dm dr
but
I is = integ dm dr ^2 !!!
so the influence of distance from center of rotation
is even bigger than i indicated above
(lucky me that no one preceded me with that correction (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------
Sam Wormley
>
>
The "angular momentum" drink come with a twist!
JimboCat
> If you ask a scientist why a skater spins faster they close thier
> arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
> Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> conserved? Then they would point you to a web page like the
> hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> in gory detail:
> What is mysterious about this situation is that the skater is not
> adding any energy to speed up their spin. Just the act of closing
> their arms somehow accelerates their body without any apparent input
> of energy. Energy is absolutely required to increase the spin rate of
> the skaters body, but where does it come from?
It takes energy to bring the arms in against the centrifugal pseudo-
force generated by the spin. If you're holding a weight in your hand
and spinning fast you can easily feel the force you have to work
against.
Not mysterious at all.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Maybe the reason we don't see a bunch of dyson spheres out there in
the sky is [that] the tiny amount of energy wasted by letting stars
vent fusion energy into deep space isn't worth messing with."
-- Isaac Kuo
PD
> arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> speeding up the skater.
Oh, Franklin Hu, here I thought you were just confused about
relativity and particle physics. Now it turns out you are confused
about elementary physics as well. That's OK, we'll dive in a little
bit.
> At this point, I think most people would go -
> Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> conserved?
Yes, indeed, it's a fair question. In physics, all the laws of physics
are *deduced* from observations. What we try to do is discern the
rules by which things operate. We do not attempt to directly answer
the question, "But why does nature obey this rule at all, and not some
other conceivable rule?" What we try to do is to come up with the
smallest, most broadly-applicable rule set. Along the way, we learn
that some of the litany of rules we had discovered (like Bernoulli's
principle) are in fact accounted for by some more broadly applicable
rule (in the case of Bernoulli's principle, it's energy conservation)
and so we can remove many of the litany of rules and replace them with
a smaller set of rules. It's only by searching for more fundamental
rules that we reduce the number of rules that are really at play, and
this helps us understand why some of the lesser rules work. But there
is always the question, "But why do the surviving rules apply?" and
that question will never be dispensed with.
> Then they would point you to a web page like the
> hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> in gory detail:
>
>
> At which point, most people would go double Huh??? The equations just
> do not help to understand "why" it should happen. It is often
> frustrating that some people think the raw equations are the
> explanation, but they are not.
Well, you should not look for explanations for "why" in equations. It
is remarkable enough that we discover rules that everything in the
universe seems to respect. It would be even more remarkable if we
could come up with the complete set that accounts for every behavior,
even if we don't know why those rules are the way they are.
>
> What is mysterious about this situation is that the skater is not
> adding any energy to speed up their spin. Just the act of closing
> their arms somehow accelerates their body without any apparent input
> of energy. Energy is absolutely required to increase the spin rate of
> the skaters body, but where does it come from?
Well, first of all, it's not obvious that energy is added. You have to
figure that out.
Note the the kinetic energy of the spinning skater is (1/2)Iw^2, where
I is the moment of inertia and w is the angular velocity. While the
angular velocity increases, obviously, what you may not have
considered is that the moment of inertia *decreases*, and it's not
obvious until you do some calculations which one is changing more
rapidly.
As it turns out, you are right, the kinetic energy is increasing.
Where does this energy come from? Ask a skater. The skater will tell
you it takes serious work to pull the arms in. The work done by the
skater accounts for the increase in energy.
>
> What I am looking for is a more common sense and intuitive way of
> understanding why the skater spins faster. I think I have found such
> an explanation and it goes like this:
>
> Imagine that instead of a skater, we have a simplified system of 2
> steel balls on the ends of a rotating rod. The rod can contract so
> that balls can rotate closer. Or if that is too complicated, imaging a
> person sitting on a lazy susan with a steel ball in each of their
> outstretched arms. Now lets set the balls in motion such that they are
> travelling at about 10 mph in a 2 foot circle. Let's bring he balls in
> so they are rotating in a 1 foot circle, but the balls still want to
> travel at 10mph due to simple inertia.
Well, what you call "simple inertia" is in fact conservation of
translational momentum. Now I can ask the same question that you asked
before: Why is translational momentum conserved? And you should go,
"Huh??" You see, you've not really made it simpler. You've just
replaced a physical law with the phrase "simple inertia" and tried to
make it sound obvious, when it is no more obvious than conservation of
angular momentum.
> The balls actually do keep
> their same speed of 10mph, but now they travel in a smaller circle and
> because of that, they cause the platform they are attached to, to spin
> faster. While it appears that it is spinning faster, the balls
> themselves are not going any faster than they used to be going. They
> are going the same speed.
Interestingly, though, momentum is conserved *independently* of linear
momentum. What you have discovered is a case (and one that is used in
freshman, introductory physics all the time) where you can connect the
two. In doing so, in *this* example, it appears you can replace
conservation of angular momentum with conservation of translational
momentum.
However, there are other cases where the *independence* of angular
momentum conservation is apparent. This is where a little bit of
further education would do you some good.
jbrig...@gmail.com
> arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
> Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> conserved? Then they would point you to a web page like the
> hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> in gory detail:
>
JimboCat has it right. OP has it wrong.
If you bring those steel balls in from r to 1/2 r the rotation rate
does not double. It quadruples. Kinetic energy is not conserved. It
increases. Angular momentum is the conserved quantity here.
Angular momentum is given by mvr. (mass times velocity times radius)
Halve the radius and you'd better double velocity. Double velocity
while halving radius and you've quadrupled the rotation rate.
Both theory and experiment confirm that angular momentum is a
conserved
quantity in the absence of an external torque. Since OP's scenario
predicts
a decrease in angular momentum, it's a non-starter.
Double velocity and you've quadrupled kinetic energy. Or rotational
energy if you prefer that terminology.
The source of the increase is the energy it took to pull in the steel
balls. Even if you're a purist who chooses not adopt rotating frames
and consider centrifugal force, the centripetal force is perfectly
real and does real work.
Personally, I often look at the situation from another point of view.
Retain the analogy of steel balls on an extensible rod. As the rod
contracts, the balls are no longer following a circular trajectory.
They're following a spiral path inward. A radial force that pulls
those balls inward has a forward component in their direction of
motion. OF COURSE THEY SPEED UP. There's a force speeding them up.
And here's a more abstract way of thinking about it. Consider a
bicycle chain. Consider a set of gears in a clock. Consider an
automobile transmission.
We don't think of any of these things in terms of some kind of finite
element analysis, looking at how much force there is here, how much
acceleration there, how much shear, tension and compression
throughout.
We think of these things in terms of invariants. Relationships that
just have to be true. If there are 100 teeth on the sprocket here and
25 on the sprocket there then the bike wheel turns 4 times as fast as
the crank.
Conservation of angular momentum is a useful invariant. It saves the
trouble of figuring out the work done on those steel balls by taking
an integral of instantaneous force dot incremental distance over an
unknown path.
Uncle Al
>
> If you ask a scientist why a skater spins faster they close thier
> arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
> Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> conserved?
1) isotropic vacuum
2) Noether's theorem
3) local conseration of angular momentum
> Then they would point you to a web page like the
> hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> in gory detail:
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/conser.html#conamo
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/amom.html#am
>
> At which point, most people would go double Huh???
[snip]
Ignore the stupid.
> The
> reason why the skater spins faster is that the skaters outstretched
> arms want to keep travelling at their outstretched speed.
[snip rest]
Told ya.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
PD
What I failed to add at this point is that your conclusion that the
balls will still want to continue at 10 mph is contrary to
measurement.
What's remarkable is that the balls will be traveling at 20mph, not
10mph. This is confirmed by simple measurement, with say a strobe gun.
This is a consequence of the law of angular momentum.
Ray Vickson
> arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
> Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> conserved? Then they would point you to a web page like the
> hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> in gory detail:
>
My previous post was made very late when I was tired and groggy. I
take back my statement in my previous post, about your argument being
nice. In fact, it is *wrong*. In this case kinetic energy is NOT
conserved, but the angular momentum IS conserved (neglecting ice
friction, etc.) As the skater pulls in the arms the kinetic energy
increases. Where does this extra energy come from? It comes from the
work the skater must do to pull in the arms against the (so-called)
centrifugal force. Angular momentum is conserved because the skater is
not applying torque. Although your original post claims to hate math
as an explanation but then goes on to use math (correctly, but applied
to incorrect *Physics*), here is the problem in a simple form: angular
momentum M = I*w, where I = moment of inertia and w = angular velocity
(radians/second); kinetic energy K = (1/2)*I*w^2 = (1/2)*M*w. The
skater decreases I, so w increases to keep M constant, and that
implies that K increases. The so-called mathematical explanation is
nothing more or less than a codification of the physical laws
governing the situation. Nature behaves in certain ways, and we
summarize those ways in the most convenient manner possible, which
happens to involve mathematical description.
R.G. Vickson
Ray Vickson
> On Mar 24, 12:22 am, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > What I am looking for is a more common sense and intuitive way of
> > understanding why the skater spins faster. I think I have found such
> > an explanation and it goes like this:
>
> > Imagine that instead of a skater, we have a simplified system of 2
> > steel balls on the ends of a rotating rod. The rod can contract so
> > that balls can rotate closer. Or if that is too complicated, imaging a
> > person sitting on a lazy susan with a steel ball in each of their
> > outstretched arms. Now lets set the balls in motion such that they are
> > travelling at about 10 mph in a 2 foot circle. Let's bring he balls in
> > so they are rotating in a 1 foot circle, but the balls still want to
> > travel at 10mph due to simple inertia. The balls actually do keep
> > their same speed of 10mph, but now they travel in a smaller circle and
> > because of that, they cause the platform they are attached to, to spin
> > faster. While it appears that it is spinning faster, the balls
> > themselves are not going any faster than they used to be going. They
> > are going the same speed.
>
> EXCELLENT INSIGHT!
Except for the fact that the insight is wrong. His explanation is
incorrect.
> You are right. So many people of "science" have no
> philosophy. They worship mathematics and when they want an
> "explanation" they simply point to equations as if that said it all!
No. The explanations that people give, using mathematics, are just
statements of the *physics*, codified in the most convenient (and
powerful) form we know. Mathematics does not come first; Nature does.
Nature behaves in certain ways and it is the job of the scientist to
discover those ways. If the scientist can summarize a vast spectrum of
phenomena in a few general statements, why would he/she not want to do
so? If an explanation involving one or two lines of simple math will
do the job, why would he/she not want to give it? Remember: the math
describes the PHYSICS.
R.G. Vickson
hanson
thier arms, ... [snip lengthy middle school text book stuff]....
>
Yehiel wrote:
there are two factors for circular movement
Y.Porat
>
hanson wrote:
Why did you do that, Yehi? You missed the best opportunity
and chance that came your way in a long time to promote
your "Circlon theory"... Sheesh!....You blew it , dude!
You should have said: "skaters spin faster as they close
their arms... BECAUSE they catch, hug & hang onto more
and more of Porat's 'circlons' " .... Moles & moles of them,
each mole containing exactly 6.023*10^23 circlons, ...vast
numbers... which make them swirl in ever closer circles....
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha... ahahanson.
>
PS:
For the lurkers: google -[Porat + Circlon]-
frank...@yahoo.com
> translational momentum. Now I can ask the same question that you asked
> before: Why is translational momentum conserved? And you should go,
> "Huh??" You see, you've not really made it simpler. You've just
> replaced a physical law with the phrase "simple inertia" and tried to
> make it sound obvious, when it is no more obvious than conservation of
> angular momentum.
PD, don't you read anything I write? How many times have I explained
that translational inertia is caused by the action the dipole aether
particles? In order to pass by an aether particle, it takes energy to
split apart the dipole. As the particle passes the particles, they
reform and give back to the particle the same energy it took to break
them apart. I have explained many times the mechanism of mass which is
similar to Higgs, but also includes the mechanism of inertia. The
aether particle is a simple positron/electron bound pair. All is
explained in a mechanical and intuitive fashion using nothing that we
don't already know exists. See my recent Higgs posts. So if I did
manage to explain angular momentum in terms of translational momentum,
this would have provided a full explanation.
Now my mistake here is assuming that the formual for angular KE is
conserved when it is not. Other posters are saying that the increased
energy comes from the energy it takes to move the mass inward against
centripetal force. Well, I can accept where the energy comes from, but
I don't see how an inward radial force can change the tangental
velocity of a rotating object. Once again, Ray, the equations predict
the correct behavior, but do not provide any insight on how this magic
occurs.
Uncle Al
>
> > Well, what you call "simple inertia" is in fact conservation of
> > translational momentum. Now I can ask the same question that you asked
> > before: Why is translational momentum conserved? And you should go,
> > "Huh??" You see, you've not really made it simpler. You've just
> > replaced a physical law with the phrase "simple inertia" and tried to
> > make it sound obvious, when it is no more obvious than conservation of
> > angular momentum.
>
> PD, don't you read anything I write? How many times have I explained
> that translational inertia is caused by the action the dipole aether
> particles?
idiot
PD
> > Well, what you call "simple inertia" is in fact conservation of
> > translational momentum. Now I can ask the same question that you asked
> > before: Why is translational momentum conserved? And you should go,
> > "Huh??" You see, you've not really made it simpler. You've just
> > replaced a physical law with the phrase "simple inertia" and tried to
> > make it sound obvious, when it is no more obvious than conservation of
> > angular momentum.
>
> PD, don't you read anything I write? How many times have I explained
> that translational inertia is caused by the action the dipole aether
> particles? In order to pass by an aether particle, it takes energy to
> split apart the dipole. As the particle passes the particles, they
> reform and give back to the particle the same energy it took to break
> them apart.
Yes, well, so you say, but now you need to explain why that isn't
dissipative. As an example, what you have described is, insofar as
you've described it, identical to what happens when a pea travels
through water. There, it takes energy to separate water molecules in
front of the pea, and the water molecules rejoin behind the pea. But
you'll notice that the pea does not maintain constant momentum in that
process. Now the question to you is, why is your "dipole aether"
different than water in the results. And if you say, "Because it's
different," I again ask "Why?" and you'll find you have just as many
unanswered "Why?" questions as you did with angular momentum.
> I have explained many times the mechanism of mass which is
> similar to Higgs, but also includes the mechanism of inertia. The
> aether particle is a simple positron/electron bound pair. All is
> explained in a mechanical and intuitive fashion using nothing that we
> don't already know exists. See my recent Higgs posts. So if I did
> manage to explain angular momentum in terms of translational momentum,
> this would have provided a full explanation.
Except that isn't quite what you did. As I said, angular momentum and
translational momentum are conserved *independently*.
>
> Now my mistake here is assuming that the formual for angular KE is
> conserved when it is not.
That's correct. There are three conservation laws relevant to the
current discussion, all independent:
- Conservation of angular momentum (and this is really 3 separate
laws, because angular momentum is a vector)
- Conservation of translational momentum (again 3 laws)
- Conservation of total energy (and not individually translational KE,
angular KE, or any other form)
Benj
> > PD, don't you read anything I write? How many times have I explained
> > that translational inertia is caused by the action the dipole aether
> > particles?
>
> [snip crap]
>
> idiot
Right.Can't you read, PD?
no AnAl intelligence.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
no worthwhile information from "Uncle Al".
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
frank...@yahoo.com
While the pea through water is somewhat analogous, there are several
differences. The size of the pea in comparison to the particles of
water is much larger than the size of the aether particle in relation
to the components of the atoms (protons,electrons and neutrons) that
the aether is flowing through. The other major difference is that the
pea does allow the flow of water through the substance of the pea. I
believe that the aether flows through all objects much like water
through a net because if it didn't, then the mass and inertia would
depend highly upon the size and shape of the object. Since it does
not, I presume that aether is small enough that flows around each of
the individual protons, neutrons and electrons in each of the atoms.
Now water is a slightly dipole substance and it is attracted one
another like the proposed aether, but since the pea is trillions and
trillions of times bigger than a water molecule, the gross effects of
water flow and friction dominate and the action of the water closing
up behind the pea is negliable compared to these effects, although,
the effect should be there and you might be able to experimentally
measure a difference in inertia for an object flowing through polar
water versus a non-polar substance. This could be a potentially
interesting experiment to confirm/deny this mechanism.
On the other hand, the aether which is about the same size as the
proton/electron/neutrons, the dipole forces dominate and at the
quantum level, there is not anything like friction. Inertia is a
quantum effect due to the fineness of the aether particles flowing
through bulk matter.
Trying to compare a pea through water, versus an atom through the
aether would be somewhat like denying the concept of inertia entirely
by saying, there is no inertia because if I push this block of cement
over sandpaper, you see it doesn't maintain the speed it is given, it
immediately stops so therefore there is no such thing as inertia. The
situation isn't exactly the same, but the point is you can't just go
comparing situations willy-nilly.
So you ask why the aether is different from water, and I tell you
exactly why it is different from water. This is the sort of thing
which could probably best be simulated on a computer where charges can
be accurately modeled. Such a computer model would show a self
propagating mass through a sea of dipole charges where the speed
depended on the initial energy input and showing that this energy is
transferred between each of the aether bonds as the bulk mass passes
through it. This would be a complete description fully describing the
"why" of inertia. (Oh, and if you're wondering about explaining
charge, I explain that as a phased wave interaction of the resonant
frequencies of electrons/positrons). You really ought to review the
material I have on my TOE.
http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html
>
> > I have explained many times the mechanism of mass which is
> > similar to Higgs, but also includes the mechanism of inertia. The
> > aether particle is a simple positron/electron bound pair. All is
> > explained in a mechanical and intuitive fashion using nothing that we
> > don't already know exists. See my recent Higgs posts. So if I did
> > manage to explain angular momentum in terms of translational momentum,
> > this would have provided a full explanation.
>
> Except that isn't quite what you did. As I said, angular momentum and
> translational momentum are conserved *independently*.
>
>
>
> > Now my mistake here is assuming that the formual for angular KE is
> > conserved when it is not.
>
> That's correct. There are three conservation laws relevant to the
> current discussion, all independent:
> - Conservation of angular momentum (and this is really 3 separate
> laws, because angular momentum is a vector)
> - Conservation of translational momentum (again 3 laws)
> - Conservation of total energy (and not individually translational KE,
> angular KE, or any other form)
>
>
>
> > Other posters are saying that the increased
> > energy comes from the energy it takes to move the mass inward against
> > centripetal force. Well, I can accept where the energy comes from, but
> > I don't see how an inward radial force can change the tangental
> > velocity of a rotating object. Once again, Ray, the equations predict
> > the correct behavior, but do not provide any insight on how this magic
> > occurs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
frank...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 23, 10:22 pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you ask a scientist why a skater spins faster they close thier
> > arms, they'd say something about conservation of angular momentum is
> > speeding up the skater. At this point, I think most people would go -
> > Huh??? What is this angular momentum and why on earth should it be
> > conserved? Then they would point you to a web page like the
> > hyperphysics angular momentum page which explains all of the formulas
> > in gory detail:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is an interesting idea that the energy comes from the skater
pulling in their arms, but can you prove it? Do you have any
references supporting your claim? One question I would have is that if
energy is being put into the system, why does then the skater slow
down to their original speed if they put their arms back out. If
energy has indeed been added, then why wouldn't the system keep that
energy or even have more energy since it takes energy to extend your
arms as well, so we would expect that the skater would spin faster
even with their arms extended. You might think they could accellerate
themselves faster and faster just by pulling in and extending their
arms - but I don't think this happens.