|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
Odysseus You are wrong. Gravity is a particle attraction,and walking
between two mountains does try to pull at your body.(its in the books) not to flame me. Bert |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
Hi oc I thought Wolter,and you would like my showing the blackhole
singularity,and the time before the big bang similarity I got two emails that liked these thoughts,and they boosted my ego oc I'm trying to think like Wolter some of the time,and hope to tickle both of you. Bert |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
Hi Sally You say the pivot friction would slow the pendulum down. We
are now making magnetic bearings. No metal touching metal. In your thinking the bob would go back and forth just like the spinning disc. I don't think so. Bert |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
But I do think so! Assuming no frictional losses of course. You still
haven't demonstrated a thought experiment where a frictionless system of masses moving through G fields will lose energy. Let us attack this from a different angle then....where does the energy from the elevator go in your model? You have acknowledged that energy cannot be destroyed. As the elevator slows down and the oscillations reduce in amplitude the energy must be transferred away somehow. By what mechanism can this happen? By the way, try doing a Google search using "pendulum perpetual motion" and some interesting stuff comes up. Some of it is thought provoking, some of it downright wierd. I notice that there is frequently some confusion between "perpertual motion" which is possible in our thought experiments and "perpetual energy" machines which are supposed to supply energy forever. You might need your silver foil hat for some of the latter sites g. Sally "G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... Hi Sally You say the pivot friction would slow the pendulum down. We are now making magnetic bearings. No metal touching metal. In your thinking the bob would go back and forth just like the spinning disc. I don't think so. Bert |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
Bert, try picturing the oscillating pendulum this way - From 'way out in
space, look at the Earth-moon system directly from the side; the side-on view shows the moon's orbit as a straight line. You only see the moon moving from side to side, "stopping" at each end of the swing. This might help visualize Sally's argument on why a frictionless pendulum would never 'run down'. oc |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
Regarding the synchronising pendulums...I would need some pretty good
convincing that there was absolutely no mechanical or other coupling between them before I abandoned my current world view. It smacks of dowsing, UFOs and the like... However...what would you say if I told you that I could design an oscillating system that could respond to another oscillating system many miles away? My system uses feather light electrons instead of a pendulum bob and I reduce the friction in the system to a very low level so that the merest hint of external influence will set it oscillating wildly. I also make the resonant frequency of my oscillator the same as the distant one because any coupling will be highly magnified if both oscillators actually *want * to swing in synchronism. I activate the distant oscillator by pouring electrical energy into it and my local set-up responds in kind! Without any mechanical or electrical connection and over half a continent! Magic? The end of physics as we know it? Well, yes it was ...in a way. When Gugleilmo Marconi demonstrated it in 1894 after James clerk Maxwell had hinted at the possibility of radio communication in his mathematical paper of thirty years earlier. Now...back to the energy loss thread...The energy needed to reverse direction of the bob at the end of the swing is already contained in it. It was stored as potential energy as the pendulum was rising, that is why it slows down as it nears the end of the swing. Its kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy. As the pendulum falls the potential energy gets converted back to kinetic energy and it speeds up. Just like the oscillating elevator. This is all well established school grade physics so why do we need to postulate new theories of the universe when the existing physical laws can explain everything that happens perfectly well? The words "Occam" and "Razor" come to mind. I have forgotten the point of this thread...was it something to do with gravity and particles? My thoughts on that may not be too far from your own...if gravity waves can be conclusively demonstrated then gravity particles must then be accepted, in principle. Any wavelike property also has a particle-like aspect as you will know. Of course, detecting such particles is another matter entirely and I wouldn't expect such evidence to crop up during such everyday observations as swinging pendulums or whatever. This is turning into a "it does/it does not" sort of see-saw now so maybe it is time to turn our minds to more constructive things and agree to disagree...don't you think? Let us quit while it is still fun. g Sally "G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... Hi Sally Lots of fascinating things about pendulums Put a pendulum in a room that's swing is out of step with the other pendulum in the room,and in a few minutes their bobs swing in unison.(this helps Mach's inertia theory). Pendulums near the poles align their swing to the stars(again helping Mach's inertia theory) Sally you asked where the energy would go if motion had no friction? The pendulum makes a arc(say a half circle) at each end of the arc it comes to a complete stop lets say at this stop point it is a rest.It now uses its kinetic energy to fall back. I'm thinking some of its kinetic energy is lost because the bob has inertia,and has to reverse its direction. Objects at rest want to remain at rest,and energy is needed. This is where the energy will go,and a pendulum in a vacuum with no friction at its pivot will swing back and forth,but each swing will be a little shorter than the last. Back and forth is not nearly as good as going round and round. Bert PS Sally I could be wrong,but I'm going with my own thoughts on this. My high IQ friends don't want me to go to google. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
Hi oc I don't think stop and go action is as good as circular energy no
matter what. I think stop and go takes more energy than an object going round and round. Pendulums stop and go. Nature uses spin,and rotation. Never stop and go. I'm going with nature. Bert |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
Bert wrote,
I don't think stop and go action is as good as circular energy no matter what. I think stop and go takes more energy than an object going round and round. Pendulums stop and go. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 By golly you may be right after all, Bert, if the system's energy is disspated by gravity-wave radiation. It's be awful small, and would take a lonnnng time. Lessee what Sally thinks. oc |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
To Sally, Bert, and gang-
The Taylor-Hulse binary pulsar reveals the first indirect evidence of GW radiation, first predicted by Einstein in 1915. See- www.psc.edu/science/Taylor/Relativity.html oc |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Descent Thoughts (was - something and nothing)
Sally, you're failing to make the distinction between gravity and
'gravitational waves', which are two different critters. No I'm not failing to make a distinction between them. I'm fully aware that they would propagate outward from the oscillating source mass at C and I'm aware of the distinction between gravity waves and gravity fields. I'm also aware that they might be detected by small longitudinal changes in dimensions of matter as they pass through it. So far, though, no experiment has detected such waves. Presumably, current experiments are not sensitive enough. GW radiation (if it's real) arises from oscillating masses or massive gravitational events, and propagates as a longitudinal (compression-rarefaction) wave (vis-a-vis EM radiation which propagates as a transverse wave, making it subject to polarization). As an aside, EM radiation contains two components, hence the name. I'm not aware of more than one field component in the GW model, or the need for one. GW radiation could more correctly be called a 'spatial acoustic pressure wave' in the fabric of space, propagating at c. "Gravity-wave particles", or gravitons, would not be needed at all. BUT if you believe space is functionally void (which the mainstream almost universally does), then you do need the "messenger particles"- flying photons, gravitons etc. to explain radiation thru 'nothingness'. Yes, but... There is at least one other option...we know that, at the quantum level, the locations of particles can be "smeared" so that their position is not well defined. One small modification to the math results in all particles being smeared and having some minute chance of existing *anywhere*. According to this view every particle is "smeared" throughout all of existence. They are all touching and there is no such thing as "distance" and messengers are not needed. The awkwardness of "action at a distance" through the void is no longer needed. Back to the distinction between gravity and GW radiation- the distinction remains in place whether you believe in void-space or the flowing-space model of gravity. Gravity remains a centerward-bearing 'field', while GW radiation remains an outward-bound flow of waves (or under void-space, "gravitons"). Don't feel bad- the mainstream literature usually blurs the distinction, too, between gravity and "gravity waves". I don't feel bad, your paragraph is pretty much my understanding of the concept. In a previous reply to Bert, I suggested picturing the Earth-moon system in side-on view to illustrate the pendulum idea. But since every co-orbiting system presumably radiates GW energy, would not a mechanically-frictionless pendulum also radiate GW energy? Though miniscule, it would still represent a dissapative loss that will eventually 'run down' the system. What do you think? Yes, and if Bert had suggested that I may have agreed, but only after allowing for a change in our original model to accept that specific none-Newtonian dissipative feature. I was sort of skirting around the subject of energy dissipation via GWs when I mentioned extreme accelerations and masses falling into black holes a few posts back. I didn't pursue that line of discussion at the time because we were still talking Newtonian physics..at least..I was g. Bert...you reading this ? It would seem to me that some of the energy of any object falling into a BH would be radiated as a spike of gravitational energy. This would be more like a gravitational shock wave than the continuous waves produced by oscillating masses and I believe that if GWs are ever detected it will be as these relatively strong single pulses long before GWs from orbiting masses are ever detected. Sally |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|