Hi, I have a directions question..

The directions I need is in regards to a precessing whirlpool, that has an offset fulcrum and therefore a torque that causes the whole structure to precess.

I wish to know the formulae that would describe such a system.

I can know the fulcrum's offset, I can know the torque that is applied... I need to relate these parameters to the rate of precession.

Any help needed, Thanks in anticipation.

:)

I'm quite sure what you are talking about. Could you explain a little more?

Hi Persol...

Suppose we have an out of balance spinning top, that was being spun on one side by a torque T1 and the other side T2...

Ti > T2 so that the fulcrum between T1 and T2 is pushed towards T1.

This system would then precess as a secondary turning of the whole system, just as would be expected from an out of balance top.

I want to be able to work out this rate of turning.

:)

Zarkov,
In the case of a spinning top, precession is related to torque at right angles to the angular momentum of the top.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Thanks Pete... I will follow that link !

:)

Lol, I still don't know where the whirlpool thing cam in.

I think that Zarkov is trying to explain orbital precession by considering planets to be electromagnetic whirlpools.

Correct Pete.... I am finding it difficult to locate suitable theory... experiments are OK, but someone out there has been there before !!

:)

Ah, ok

Thanks for all the help guys, the problem is more difficult than I thought, and it seem current theory is not developed in this area.


The moderator here has threatened ex-communication if I post any more... he is afraid of people who think outside the box... such is fascism.

So farewell one and all.... remember science is only what is found in the approved text books... enjoy your stay in school with the fascist controller.

:)

<b><font color="#008000">
James..?? I don't believe it...

He probably would have come here and said so...

:D </b></font>

Moderation message

Zarkov,

This is a warning.

Future posts from you which express opinions unsupported by any science (except perhaps Zarkovian physics) and given with no actual arguments in support of them will be deleted from this forum without further comment.

If you hold a non-conventional view, you will need to point to at least a minimal amount of evidence in support of that view.

__________________
JR

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

.................................................. ....
The fascist has spoken.

(:

Note that my message to Zarkov is very specific. It refers explicitly to expressing opinions unsupported by accepted science or any other evidence. It refers to opinions which are expressed with no accompanying argument.

Asking questions such as the one in this thread is quite ok, provided it is not accompanied by the things mentioned.

Also, please note that this warning is specific to Zarkov at this time, resulting from over a year of previous experience of his methods on another forum.

<font color="#008000"><b>I agree James, and respect your decision. But isn’t deleting someone’s *opines* a bit harsh.??? But anyway, you’re the mod. so you know what’s best. But on the other hand I guess you are right, he should mention that it is “his opinion” or in his “new/own model of reality”.

And great …</b></font>

<quote><font color="#FF0000"><i>…from you which express opinions unsupported by any science</i><b>(except perhaps Zarkovian physics)</b><i> and given…</i></font></quote>

<font color="#008000"><b> …that allows a lot of breathing space. So Zarkov, you can actually implement part of Pete’s advice.. rem. only a part. ‘cuz then you don’t wanna offend anyone.

Oh..and to make it clear, I think Rel. is an extremely successful theory, and is going to be so for quiet some time. I also believe that it can break-down tomorrow if proof arises. There can also come up a better or conclusive theory with experimental evidence to support it right through. Till then Rel. explains lot of what we observe. So, a person with a similar view is not fascist, and certainly not necessarily a goat lover… a more convenient term can be <i>realist</i> … :D </b></font>

>> Also, please note that this warning is specific to Zarkov at this time, resulting from over a year of previous experience of his methods on another forum.

Profiler, you create what you preconceive and define, James R. It is unfortunate that personal discrimination and bias is basically not nice, and maybe against the law. Such behaviour should not be tolerated in this forum.

You could at least wait until I did something against the rules, remember it is in your head that I spin pseudoscience, it is for the others to acquire their own perception of that biased and slanderous accussation.

I did think you had better manners James R.

"I did think you had better manners James R."

It is not a question of manners. This forum is at "sciforums.com", which is an abbreviation for "Science Forums". You are posting in the "Physics and Math" forum, which is moderated for James R.´This forum is intended for discussions on physics and mathematics, in a general scientific setting. It is James' job as a moderator to make sure that the content of this specific forum (Physics and Math) consists of scientifically valid physics and mathematics.

What James was pointing out is that a violation of that rule can result in a post deletion. This is not censorship. This is removal of off-topic posts.

Bye!

Crisp

James R's intervention has created more OFF TOPIC posts than anything else.

I stick to the topic at hand, I resent being tolk it is OK to post my physics, and not anything that supports my physics.

I resent and will say so... Fascism in any form just shows what a very poor character someone has... if they can't stand the heat of dissention, they should not enter the thread, IMO.

Zarkov,

Please read my post again. For more information, please also read the first post in the sticky thread in this forum titled "Alternative theories policy".

<i>It is unfortunate that personal discrimination and bias is basically not nice, and maybe against the law. Such behaviour should not be tolerated in this forum.</i>

You agreed to the site rules when you signed on, Zarkov. Enough said.

<i>You could at least wait until I did something against the rules, remember it is in your head that I spin pseudoscience, it is for the others to acquire their own perception of that biased and slanderous accussation.</i>

I have made no such accusation. Please don't put words in my mouth.

<i>I stick to the topic at hand, I resent being tolk it is OK to post my physics, and not anything that supports my physics.</i>

That's nothing like what I said.

>> You agreed to the site rules when you signed on, Zarkov. Enough said


and I havn't broken any.

I did not agree to have a fascist vulture lurking and preying on every thought I tried to put into words, or some ignorant censure telling me what I can and can not think.

I am a scientist with REAL qualifications, I DEMAND to be able to post UNCENSURED SCIENCE, taken in the widest possible scientific interpretation.

I thought fascism in science went out with Gallelio Gallilei !! But I see it is alive and flourishing in this section of a free speach forum.

James R, I demand an apology !!

Zarkov:

Thankyou for your kind comments. I urge you to review the site rules once again, and also to read the thread containing the "Alternative theories policy". Clearly, further debate on this topic with you is unlikely to achieve anything.