Strange orbits - SciForums.com

MacM

02-05-05, 10:35 PM

1. “dechipering”, “simular’, “english”… And this guy dares to criticize English and/or spelling of other guys!

I'll not waste other readers time with lengthy debate but merely point out that two of the three above are spelled perfectly correct and are used in a proper context

"Dechipering" is a typo and should be "deciphering" but your problem is more than just poor typing. This is not an afront to your intelligence but to your comprehension of what others write or the abiity to correctly present your own meaning.

As I have said before in comparison my Russian is extremely limited, virtually non-existant. So this is not meant as an attack, it is meant for you to begin to accept that not some times but most times you are in left field because you fail to understand what others have told you and others find it difficult to follow your thoughts because you lack quality communication in english.

2. Who ever call anything “an orbit of B”? I did not, SuperL once proposed and we immediately rejected it… “I believe his english is creating a false scenario in this case”.

That, as was also SL's interpretation at one point, was not what you said or meant. But this goes to the above issue of english usage.

So, let’s put all what I said aside. My direct question to you MacM: Can you show us even the one case in Nature, when object A moves like it is shown in picture created by SuperL, being experienced action of the force of attraction to point B and any other constant force? Can you or can not? If can not, sit there where you are, wait for my story, read, learn and remember for future…

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Slagrng2.htm

L4 & L5 are stable points where objects could orbit a point in space even with no central mass in its orbit.

3. And now about WEBSTER as you have quoted it. So, no Bohr’s orbits of electrons around nuclei? No more orbits of electrons on the Fermi-surfaces? No more phase orbits? You still did not learn that scientist is using Dictionary of the scientific terms, not General Webster! But honor, what a honor!!!

You seem to not realize that the Webster definition I quoted was specifically for orbits and scientific meanings with respect to orbiting bodies. I am quite confident that there are many cases in particle physics and sub-atomic physics where orbitals are described differently. No news there.

4. Of course, it will be not qualify as being orbits around “B”, you …! See picture given by SuperL….

Agreed.

superluminal

02-05-05, 10:37 PM

Yuiry,

Wow. Umm... Since you used the word "orbit" I was thinking of planets, stars, and such.

The conditions you are describing for this seem fairly exotic, namely, "quantified vortices [in] Helium-II" (is this what I understand to be a "superfluid" state of helium?).

superluminal

02-05-05, 10:43 PM

I have to agree with MacM here. This was quite misleading, probably due to language issues again (we've had this discussion before). Not that I would have ever thought of "quantified vortices [in] Helium-II" (just typing it empties my knowlege base on superfluids).

Yuriy

02-05-05, 11:00 PM

superluminal

02-05-05, 11:28 PM

Yuriy

02-05-05, 11:53 PM

SuperL,
I simply was sharing some thoughts with you... May be I was not too clear...

superluminal

02-06-05, 12:20 AM

Yuriy,
You were perfectly clear to me, and I am agreeing with you and just reinforcing my agreement with your point. I know there was nothing directed at me. All is well...

MacM

02-06-05, 01:16 AM

2. Now imagine that we have somewhere in Cosmos situation jast i described: fast rotating planet - body A, near by ather one - body B, in field of some very massive black hole - analog of external force attributing A with constant velocity Vj, because all these are into very dense Dark Matter Cloud... (I understand how fantastic this situation is, but I said "let's imagine").

We will see orbit like I just described. Can you imagine haw many theories of our Physics this observation will destroy ... being interpreted in usual way of GRT!? How many guys like MacM will pronounce "SRT is dead! I won, you lose!"...

And you do not realize just how much further you have extrapolated actual knowledge by your scenario than any assumptions I have ever made. :bugeye:

I declare SRT dead because it has not been physically shown correct EVER and GPS shows that it is not correct. What you repeatedly claim as proof of SRT is only evidence of Gamma.

They are physically entirely different animals. Understand by this I do not challenge the physical evidence but only the interpretation that it somehow supports the SRT view. Nothing I advocate violates known evidence but is merely a different interpretation of the causes and consequences.

Yuriy

02-06-05, 04:26 AM

I declare SRT dead because it has not been physically shown correct EVER and GPS shows that it is not correct. What you repeatedly claim as proof of SRT is only evidence of Gamma.
They are physically entirely different animals. Understand by this I do not challenge the physical evidence but only the interpretation that it somehow supports the SRT view. Nothing I advocate violates known evidence but is merely a different interpretation of the causes and consequences.

I told you many times: you do not understand SRT, you do not understand what GPS is and how it works, you are unable even understand what articles you have cited are about.
You can repeat your statements as quoted here as many times as you wish, it will not change anything: in eyes of professionals and any commonly educated people you and all your "analysis" of scientific works were, are and will be nonsense. Only the other members of the chank.com-Museum will agree with you and will go with you in this continuing parade of stupidity you have organized here due to some amazing support of site's owners and moderators... You even do not recognize that all what happens here is seen in whole World and you never will be able to change anything... But you do not want to change... Because it is all what you have remained in your life... Sad picture, petty story, but why we are the hostages of emptiness of your life?... You did it so empty, not we...

MacM

02-06-05, 10:23 AM

I told you many times: you do not understand SRT, you do not understand what GPS is and how it works, you are unable even understand what articles you have cited are about.
You can repeat your statements as quoted here as many times as you wish, it will not change anything: in eyes of professionals and any commonly educated people you and all your "analysis" of scientific works were, are and will be nonsense. Only the other members of the chank.com-Museum will agree with you and will go with you in this continuing parade of stupidity you have organized here due to some amazing support of site's owners and moderators... You even do not recognize that all what happens here is seen in whole World and you never will be able to change anything... But you do not want to change... Because it is all what you have remained in your life... Sad picture, petty story, but why we are the hostages of emptiness of your life?... You did it so empty, not we...

Unfortunately, inspite of your beliefs to the contrary I am a logical person subject to change my view given proper evidence.

With your continued rhetoric and slanderous innuendo regarding my competence, you have not once responded to the data I posted Here regarding the GPS operation.

In absence of any technical scientific explanation, you stand corrected and my view is superior to your fiat, dogma and baseless assertions.

Yuriy

02-06-05, 05:27 PM

With your continued rhetoric and slanderous innuendo regarding my competence, you have not once responded to the data I posted Here regarding the GPS operation.
Usual lie, as always...
I answered and the answer was:
1. All calculations (thanks to God, he is learning how to do the elementary calculations of squared roots of bynoms!), finally, are correct.
2. His final conclusions of those right calculations are showing that MacM never understood what GPS is about and why there was invented theoretical ECI-reference frame.
3. All facts from his calculations that always were in the fundation of GPS only prove that SRT is the theory of the Reality.

MacM

02-06-05, 10:14 PM

Usual lie, as always...
I answered and the answer was:

Like I said you have not given a technical response. You would like to make people think you have one but are to aloft to give it. Frankly you haven't one because your proclaimed relative velocity yields an incorrect dilation figure absolute velocity gives the correct figure.

What is funny is that I needn't even prevail on this one issue to prevail overall.

There is NO case in history which supports the SRT view of mutual relative velocity your view advocates, NOT ONE.

In American there is a saying "If you don't like the message attack the messenger.".

Dinosaur

02-06-05, 11:02 PM

N equal mass objects can orbit in a circle around their center of gravity. Three objects can chase each other in a figure 8 orbit. Would these examples satify you?

Yuriy

02-06-05, 11:09 PM

Dinosaur,
to whom you are addressing your question?

Dinosaur

02-06-05, 11:32 PM

To anybody who is interested in such orbits?

Billy T

02-08-05, 12:55 PM

… First of all, let me remind you that gyroscopic effect is the following one:
If you act on gyroscope by force F then gyroscope moves in direction that is under angle 90 degree to the direction of the acting force. ....

If you "act on" a gyroscope with a TORQUE, it will move as you suggest, but not if you act on it with a pure FORCE. If only force is applied, the direction of the axis of rotation (or the angular momentun direction) will not change. The center of mass of the will accelerate (good old and simple F=ma).

Perhaps:

1) you have trouble expressing your self in English, but surely even in English a physics Ph.D. should know that forces and torques produce entirely different effects upon gyroscopes.

or perhaps:

2) you have seen that when you push on the top most point of a toy gyroscope spinning on a table, the top does move at 90 degrees to the direction of the force you applied, but you fail to understand that the reason why the gyroscope is not acclerating across the table is that the table, via friction, is applying an oppositely directed force. I.e. it is a torque, not a force, that is actually being applied to the toy gyroscope. This torque, as explained in first paragreaph above, is what makes the 90 degree movement of the top point.

I don't know now what you true interest is, but obviously it is not to know if the "strange orbits" - orbits with source(s) of gravitational attraction not included inside the orbit - are possible. That was your question in your first post in this thread you started.

I not only told you the answer to that question is "yes" but also told you of the two naturally occuring examples in our solar system. - The "Trojans asteroids" at the Lagrangian points of sun and Jupitor, where many of these small Trojan asteroids are in fact seen to be orbiting around nothing.

It appears that you set up this question as a "straw man" from which you could then expound a theory based on not distinguishing between the effect of a torque and force on a gyroscope. Correct me if I am wrong by telling me what your true interest is. Besure to speak of torques, not gravitational forces, when speaking of the change of a gyroscope's or astronomical body's spin direction. Forces only (without torques) can not reorientate the spin direction as you are assuming at the start of your disclosure, so I did not read much farther into it.

superluminal

02-08-05, 01:39 PM

Billy T:

While Yuriy's english can be quite challenging, and his description of gyroscopic behavior may not be clear, we did clear up the initial question. I posted this picture in a previous post:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3760&stc=1

Which Yuriy agreed was what he was describing.

This is not the behavior of objects at the Lagrangian or libration pionts (L1 thru L5). L1 thru L3 are unstable and require continuous control to maintain them, while L4 and L5 are stable, hence Jupiters Trojan asteroids. If disturbed, they will librate around the point of stability, but this is not an orbit as described in the picture.

[Note: My simplistic understanding of libration at stable Lagrange points has led me astray. My research now indicates that objects can indeed "orbit" the empty point of stability in an eliptical "libration orbit" as shown in the picture above. SL's Knowlege Factor +5, SL's Humility Factor + 3 :) ]

MacM

02-09-05, 02:05 AM

If you "act on" a gyroscope with a TORQUE, it will move as you suggest, but not if you act on it with a pure FORCE. If only force is applied, the direction of the axis of rotation (or the angular momentun direction) will not change. The center of mass of the will accelerate (good old and simple F=ma).

Perhaps:

1) you have trouble expressing your self in English, but surely even in English a physics Ph.D. should know that forces and torques produce entirely different effects upon gyroscopes.

or perhaps:

2) you have seen that when you push on the top most point of a toy gyroscope spinning on a table, the top does move at 90 degrees to the direction of the force you applied, but you fail to understand that the reason why the gyroscope is not acclerating across the table is that the table, via friction, is applying an oppositely directed force. I.e. it is a torque, not a force, that is actually being applied to the toy gyroscope. This torque, as explained in first paragreaph above, is what makes the 90 degree movement of the top point.

I don't know now what you true interest is, but obviously it is not to know if the "strange orbits" - orbits with source(s) of gravitational attraction not included inside the orbit - are possible. That was your question in your first post in this thread you started.

I not only told you the answer to that question is "yes" but also told you of the two naturally occuring examples in our solar system. - The "Trojans asteroids" at the Lagrangian points of sun and Jupitor, where many of these small Trojan asteroids are in fact seen to be orbiting around nothing.

It appears that you set up this question as a "straw man" from which you could then expound a theory based on not distinguishing between the effect of a torque and force on a gyroscope. Correct me if I am wrong by telling me what your true interest is. Besure to speak of torques, not gravitational forces, when speaking of the change of a gyroscope's or astronomical body's spin direction. Forces only (without torques) can not reorientate the spin direction as you are assuming at the start of your disclosure, so I did not read much farther into it.

Thanks for your input. You are indeed correct. While Yuriy does have a problem with english he also has a problem in that he likes to set up questions which he thinks only he can answer correctly to bolster the appearance of superior knowledge.

The fact is if you place an obstical into the path of precession the force of precession becomes displaced by 90 degrees and the gyroscope will fall to the floor. That is the gyroscopic action ceases to exist if it is impeded.

The fact is I can now use Yuriy's method of character assassination:

"Yuriy doesn't even know the differance in the terms of torque and force", the parade of stupidity on these forums continues". :D

Yuriy

02-09-05, 03:16 AM

Dear Billy T,

Instead of arguing with your post, I prefer to do more useful things for all : I will give here a simple and clear explanation of gyroscope procession and gyroscopic effect.
Let us assume that we have a simplest gyroscope rotating with angular velocity ω, i. e. having the momentum of rotation Jω, where J is the momentum of inertia of this gyroscope. Let it rotates being normal to the ground, as it is shown in Figure (a) here (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3768&stc=1).
If we will incline it on angle φ to the vertical, it will continue his rotation around its axis, but that axis will start rotation with some angular velocity Ω around vertical. This new rotation is called "a procession of gyroscope" and the angular velocity Ω is called "the angular velocity of procession".
Why it happens?
Figure (b) illustrates the answer right here. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3768&stc=1)
As far we inclined the axis of gyroscope, the gravitational force P=mg being applied in center of mass of gyroscope - point O - gives two components: force L which is directed along axis of gyroscope and force N that is directed by normal to the axis of gyroscope. This force N becomes to be a gyroscopic force: its action on gyroscope forces the gyroscope's axis to move with velocity v by normal as to force N so to axis of gyroscope (the smal black square on picture symbolized that fact). In other words velocity v is normal to acting gyroscopic force N. That causes the procession of axis of gyroscope.

I hope that after this clear and straight explanation you, Billy T, will reconsider some assertions in your post...

geistkiesel

02-12-05, 01:53 PM

SuperL,
(is it OK that I call you as that?)
1. This my thread was created to one more time show people that there are a lot situation in Classic Physics (not somehow exotic QM, QFT, String theory, etc, where by the definition our "common logic" and "common sense" do not work, at all, and any intuition, except the professional one is not applicable and everything is based upon exact mathphysical professional knowledge) where intuition can not bring you to the right answer. Only after deep professional analysis you can reach a state when you can explain and imagine situation as ... almost obvious one... "It is so simple!" said the most my collegues after I reported my research in this area (This Dynamics was a part of my PhD, you can get full description in my book "The Dynamics of Quantum Vortices" on www.minescience.com)
2. Now imagine that we have somewhere in Cosmos situation jast i described: fast rotating planet - body A, near by ather one - body B, in field of some very massive black hole - analog of external force attributing A with constant velocity Vj, because all these are into very dense Dark Matter Cloud... (I understand how fantastic this situation is, but I said "let's imagine").
We will see orbit like I just described. Can you imagine haw many theories of our Physics this observation will destroy ... being interpreted in usual way of GRT!? How many guys like MacM will pronounce "SRT is dead! I won, you lose!"...
All the question regarding grammar aside, your arbitrary discounting of QM leaves me questioning your conclusions. Certainly your hypothetical is weakened by the use of (at the present time) hypothetical masses: black holes and dark matter are questionable. Certainly, the detailed physical attributes of black holes and dark matter have not been made. The issue is one confned to paper analysis.
If your thesis turn out correct, so be it, and congratulations, but to ascribe the resurrection of SRT by frce of your hypothetical is premature, by a long shot.

Basically, nothing was proved. However, SuperLum accepted the description because he "believes" in SRT and his position as a self-styled SRTcheerleader was clearly noted.

Geistkiesel

Billy T

02-13-05, 09:46 AM

I lack your facility with inserting figures in sciform, so I am forced to use yours.

True, you can resolve the gravitational force into components along the axis and perpendicular to it, BUT YOU DID NOT SHOW ALL THE FORCES ACTING.

The unresolved gravitational force shown in your drawing has an equal and opposite vertical force applied by the table at the base point.

Together they make a pure torque. That torque is why the gyroscope is progressing. In fact you have zero net force applied to the gyroscope. Hence there is no reason to change one item of my prior post. Your are just ingnoring one force and talking nonsense about an applied force which does not exist. repeating: The net applied force is zero. Torques, not forces, cause the precession. Net forces produce accelerations. Net torques produce angular momentum changes. Stop ignoring this physics.

Dear Billy T,

Instead of arguing with your post, I prefer to do more useful things for all : I will give here a simple and clear explanation of gyroscope procession and gyroscopic effect.
Let us assume that we have a simplest gyroscope rotating with angular velocity ω, i. e. having the momentum of rotation Jω, where J is the momentum of inertia of this gyroscope. Let it rotates being normal to the ground, as it is shown in Figure (a) here (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3768&stc=1).
If we will incline it on angle φ to the vertical, it will continue his rotation around its axis, but that axis will start rotation with some angular velocity Ω around vertical. This new rotation is called "a procession of gyroscope" and the angular velocity Ω is called "the angular velocity of procession".
Why it happens?
Figure (b) illustrates the answer right here. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3768&stc=1)
As far we inclined the axis of gyroscope, the gravitational force P=mg being applied in center of mass of gyroscope - point O - gives two components: force L which is directed along axis of gyroscope and force N that is directed by normal to the axis of gyroscope. This force N becomes to be a gyroscopic force: its action on gyroscope forces the gyroscope's axis to move with velocity v by normal as to force N so to axis of gyroscope (the smal black square on picture symbolized that fact). In other words velocity v is normal to acting gyroscopic force N. That causes the procession of axis of gyroscope.

I hope that after this clear and straight explanation you, Billy T, will reconsider some assertions in your post...

Yuriy

02-13-05, 10:06 AM

Billy T

02-13-05, 05:10 PM

Billy T,
and what physical body, what physical phenomenon, what physical interaction is responsible for creation of this mysterious force, which I forgot to show?

And how you explain all the same happened with gyroscopes ... without base point, where this mysterious force could be created?

You don't understand that net forces accelerate or that anything on a table presses down on the table and the table presses back to keep it from accellerating vertically. There is nothing mysterious about this. It is one of Newton's laws and any one with highschool physics student knows it. (This law is for all force components, but as we are talking about the vertical force in your drawing, I will specialize it to only the vertical component: For ever vertical force acting on body A, which is not accelerating vertically, applied by body B, there is a equal and opposite vertical force applied to body B by body A.)

With regard to gyroscopes not resting on tables: (effectively in zero gravity fields because they are free falling or in orbit) such as the gyroscopes used in earth satellites, they have neither the force you illustrated nor the table force you neglected. Thus with out gravity and the "table reaction" force you neglected, there is no torque due to gravity. (To keep strictly true, both ends need to be in same strength gravity field. Some long thin satelites use "gravity gradient torques" to keep their antennas pointing down to the earth, but this is obviously way beond your understanding, so I won't say more, at least not until you show some understanding that forces are not torques etc.) This is why gryoscopes are used in satellites for directional references to keep the Hubble telescope etc. orientated.

I will not respond again. Open any highschool physics book and understand:
Forces accelerate only accelerate (Newton's F= ma law.) Torques, and only torques, change the angular momentum. If applied along the gyroscope spin direction, the change is the (spin) magnitude. If applied perpendicular to the spin direction, the magnitude remains constant but the direction changes. I.e. the angular direction change you are talking about (precession) is real, but not caused by a force. It is caused by two equal, oppositly directed, but not co linear forces. I.e. by a torque.

Yuriy

02-13-05, 08:35 PM

Billy T,
Open any highschool physics book
Let us open physics textbooks.

1. Open any highschool physics book and understand:
Forces accelerate only accelerate (Newton's F= ma law.) Torques, and only torques, change the angular momentum. If applied along the gyroscope spin direction, the change is the (spin) magnitude. If applied perpendicular to the spin direction, the magnitude remains constant but the direction changes.

Forces always only accelerate the object they are applied to. This is fundamental law of Physics – the Newton’s 2 law. Only idiot will argue with that. But what it has to do with problem we are discussing? Our problem is “How gyroscope moves under action of force?” Moves – i. e. what velocity it gains, not acceleration, the velocity!
Acceleration always is directed along acting force, but it nothing says on how the velocity is (or will be) directed in respect to force! The best example: satellite on orbit – the only force acting on it is gravitational force directed to the planet; however any satellite (on circle orbit) moves with velocity normal to this unique force!
So, no matter how strong we will scream “Forces accelerate only accelerate!” it no how answers on our question “How gyroscope will move – in what direction, with what velocity?” At least my textbooks say the same…

2. Great Euler took the Great Newton’s second and third laws and applied it to some specific objects – we call them “solid bodies”. And so Euler derived his famous equation of momentum, where the torque – another name is a momentum of force – appears as a reflection of cause of changes of the momentum of rotation – another name is an angular momentum – of solid a body.
This famous equation says that any force or pare of forces will cause change of angular momentum of body if this force or pare of force creates a moment of force (moment of pare of forces) – i. e. torque – in respect of the center of mass of the considered body! Listen carefully – in respect to the center of mass! This and namely this is the whole essence of famous Euler equations! If your textbooks say something else – they are bad textbooks!

If I would believe in your interpretation of Euler’s equations, I should imagine that the particular body – a long stick with a small but high charge on one of its end under in homogeneous electric field will move as it is shown here (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3804&stc=1)! BTW, this would immediately destroy for instance, entire Special Relativity Theory, what, I guess – is enough reason to get doubts in your interpretation of Euler’s equations!

3. Any force acting on solid body can be represented as a pure driving force – whose direction goes through the center of mass (or base point, if it presents in body) and the force that creates only a rotation of body as a whole. Any good textbook says so, if not – it is a bad textbook.

4. I am not sure that you understand what means “the point base”, if you compare this type of contact with plate contact…

5. I am not sure that you understand how and why the gyroscopic platform stabilizes “Habble”…

You also said:
I will not respond again.
It is your right, but do not forget: whole World reads our discussion….

geistkiesel

02-13-05, 10:08 PM

Yuiry,
Call me whatever you like (within limits).

But your point is not lost on me. I would be the last to argue with it. I don't lightly dismiss theories that are well established by what I see to be strong experimental evidence, gathered over decades (as you all know by now - call me an intellectual conservative...). And I'm not sure that everyone here understands what rigorous scientific proof entails, and why we (possibly extreme) conservatives require it (no offense to anyone - don't shoot).

Are the experiments mentioned below examples of "rigorous scientific proof" that you tenaciouwly advertise as a minimum attribute of the foundation of your conservatiism? Sieg!

Can you offer references to the strong experimental evidenve?

Would this include the famous and fraudulent eclipse experiments incirca 1919-20 Eddington managed to popularize and still avoid immediate complicity in the scientific fraud that he consciously perpetrated?

Maybe you refer to the Michelson Morely (DFayton Miller et al) experiments where a 10km/sec ether drag component was observed?

Muon decay?

Are you referring to all those experiments that assumed a lateral component of velocity is imparted to photons emitted from a moving source resulting a velocity of light greater than c?

Maybe you are referring to the propagandized scam that Global Positioning System is an SRT regulated system?

Maybe there is a twin paradox experiment you are privy to that resulted in some strong experimental results supporting SRT?

Are you asserting that conservative intellectualism is a scientific consideration the rest of us should use in the analysis of the SRT fraud?

Why did you mention the intellectuial conservatism in the first place? What does understanding the nature of the dogmatic leash securely fashioned around your neck that is relevant to questions regarding SRT?

Are you trying to steer the matter to some pont of compromise so the discussion will just go away?

I detect a thread of personal dshonesty in your presentations Superluminal, but this is just my observation.

Superlum, I see nothing in your posts that indicate you have the slightest understanding. or even personal interest in SR.

Volunteer or professional, your function on this forum is purposefully, and consciously so, that of propagandist, period. Your job is to scuttle the attacks on SRT, isn't it?

Geistkiesel

superluminal

02-13-05, 10:16 PM

geistkiesel

02-13-05, 10:26 PM

Geistkiesel,

Read your posts to me and understand that when I say "Fuck You" I really mean it. Now go back to your paranoid-delusion world and continue to debate SRT with someone else. I've been done with it for some time now. Bye.
I will go where I damn well please. You are quite the scientist aren't you? What does it feel like going to bed with Yuriy, a communist, or didn't you klnow? When are you going to offer something rational to this forum with your god fearing extreme conservative intellectuialism?

Yuriy

02-13-05, 11:00 PM

MacM

02-13-05, 11:27 PM

geistkiesel

02-14-05, 04:47 AM

Guys,
it really is very funny: when I lived and worked in USSR people like our crank-Museum members were constantly writing to our Academy to banned me for publishing my works because I am ... anti-communist; now when I live and work in USA the same kind people are calling me ... communist! Why they want me to be silent, if they are from absolutely different ideology? Answer is very simple - ideology has nothing to do with their goal, it is simply a "last reasoning" to blame me. Their goal is very simple - they do not want listen that they are stupid people and do not know Science at all! And "ideology"-card should help to generate rejection of me by other people...
They have different ideology, but very similar minds - they are internationally common stupid ambitious and ignorant dreamers.
BTW: does somebody know why all crank-Museum members are gerontofils? Why all of them like dreaming on asses of old, sick men?
Yuriy,
I kno2 it wasn'y funny, from your point of view, but I referred to Superluminal going to bed with you as a play on words, a joke, an attempt at humor. Extreme conmservatives in teh USA are stereotyped as "exremely ant-communist". It was a dig , Yuriy. I was digging for a sense of rational scientific from Superlum, he not having indicated any working knowledge of same.

I never suggesed that you be silenced or that you remain silent. Any provlems I had to do with you stemmed from the stream of dialogue regarding SRT and observed deficiencies as I and otheres see them. I am cncerned with your language, masnner, syntax, grammar, spelling, whatever on;ly to the extent it has some relevance to the topic at hand. I overlook that dialogue that is focussed on other irrelevant maters,but Yuriy, Comerade, it is truly difficult following your train of thought that seem constantly on the edge, tensed for refutation or criticisms.

You should poll everybody and get on the record what their sense of science is. I have been able to glean from your posts that science is equvivalent to what Yuriy says. It is delivered, often times (too often or I wouldn;t mention it) as if you are then only one on the planet with the keen inmsight critically necessary to grasp sientific subject matter with the understanding required.

Yuriy,
You are aware of ideoligists in history wearing the robes of scence? There are no giants that have not have their armor tarnished with critiicism. None have proved infallible, complete, and perfect. Yuriy, SRT is destined, like all physical theories, to end up in the trash bin of discarded theories, eventually. SRT has too many holes, flaws, contrived and hurriedly installed fix-em-up mathematical add-ons to survive in perpetutiy. Chill Yuriy, you might learn something from someone - learn this: your theory as demonstrated in your posts is imbalanced in mathematical dogmatism. and axiomatic complexity. The physical attributes of matter and processes you describe are indecipherable to the vast majority of the scientific and general population, and ignored for the most part.

Geistkiesel

Billy T

02-14-05, 07:16 AM

Yuriy

02-14-05, 07:32 AM

geistkiesel,
"I kno2 it wasn'y funny, from your point of view, but I referred to Superluminal going to bed with you as a play on words, a joke, an attempt at humor."
Please, next time do not try to exercise your..."humor". At least, give as a smallest chance to recognize that it is not a simple swearing on the walls of the public toilette, OK?

Billy T

02-14-05, 08:03 AM

My first reply in this series was in response to the errors in your post below:

And now, guys, it comes my story…
First of all, let me remind you that gyroscopic effect is the following one:

If you act on gyroscope by force F then gyroscope moves in direction that is under angle 90 degree to the direction of the acting force. (Scheme of this effect is shown in that picture (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3761&stc=1))

Let us now consider the gyroscopic body A in vicinity of some attraction center B. So, action of attraction from B forces A to move normally to the line connecting A and B. ....

In a subsequent post, I considered two posibilities (1) That you might have trouble expressing your self in English. or (2) That you are confused about physics. I have still not been able to decide which is correct.

In your most recent post you include a drawing of a long bar and falsely claim I think it would not rotate when a force is applied normally to one end. This force does not act thru the center of mass so it is also a torque. Torques produce changes in the angular momentum and this case is no exception. Thus I do not suggest what you claim I did in your drawing. Because you either have problems with English or physics, I do not want you explaining what I think. I have problems with neither and will do that for myself.

I am replying again because I can not ignore your recent missrepresentation of my view and also because you have at least heard of Euler. (BTW I did almost all the problemsin Goldstein's wonderful book "Classical Mechanics", while earning my Ph.D in physics many years ago, so I do not need your confused "help" with either Euler, Hamiltonian, virtual displacement, etc. approaches to solving problems in classical mechanics.)

Fortunately the errors in the statements made in your statement above are easily understood at the highschool physics level, but you are still defending them. Yes the gravitational attraction on the gyroscope sitting on a table is a force and the gyroscope will process as you indicated in some other drawings. As I noted earlier, You failed to show the force that the table is applying to the gyroscope at the point of contact with the table (I called this point the "base point" in prior post - sorry if this confused you.)

The Gravitational force acts thru the center of mass as you correctly show in some of your drawings. Thus, by itself, it producese no torque and hence the precession is not due to it as you state in your post above. The precession is due to the force you ignore and try to ridicule as "mysterious" in another post. This "table force" on the gyroscope does not pass thru the center of mass and thus produces a torque, which produces the precession you illustrate.

Because you continue to think this "table force" on the gyroscope does not exist, you erroroniously conclude that the gravitational force is responsible for the precession. I will admit that indirectly it is ( in the sense that the table force is the "equal and opposite force" to the weight of the gyroscope.) but again the force you ignore and call mysterios, etc. is the only torque force and the true cause of the precession.

Because of this first error, you then conclude (in above quoted post) that:
"....gyroscopic body A in vicinity of some attraction center B. So, action of attraction from B forces A to move normally to the line connecting A and B."

This is your second error.

If a gyroscope is in space, not with any table supporting it, it will not have the "table force" which is the true cause of the precession. It will neither precess nor move perpendicular to the force from "B" (or the line AB) as you state. Instead it will accelerate directely towards B. Consider four cases:

(1) If it has no velocity initially, it will acquire velocity towards B also. (The change in velocity is always the intergral of accleration - more later on this your third error when you state that for gyroscope the velocity acquired is normal to the force applied.) Eventually in the zero initial velocit case the gyroscope will have fallen towards B directly along the line AB and with no precession or change in it angular monentum direction or magnitude until it hits the surface of body B.
(2) With a small initial velocity perpendicular to line AB: In this case gyroscope will still fall and hit surface of body B, but the fall will be an arc, not along the line AB.
(3) With intitial velocity exactly that requied for a circular orbit: The gyroscope continuosly accelerates towards body B, but never hit it. It remains in circular orbit.
(4) With initial velocity still perpendicular to line AB, but greater than case three: Although still accelerating directly towards body B, this high initial velocity cause the separation of the gyroscope from center of B to increase for a time. When it reaches the most distant point (apogee) from B, it has less velocity and more potential energy. Its now lower velocity makes it like "case 2.5"- it begins to "fall" or reduce the distance from B, but unlike case 2 does not hit B. I.e it remains in an elliptical orbit.

This note is already too long, so I only note you are wrong in another post where you state that the acceleration of a gyroscope can be in one direction but that the force causing this acceleration produces a velocity change perpendicular to the direction of the force. In some sense this is just your first error again. I only mention it as it implies that you think gyroscopes are exceptions to (1) F=ma and (2) the change in velocity being always the integral of accleration.

Yuriy

02-14-05, 09:34 AM

Billy T,
1. Welcome back.
2. I did not get this one:
I do not want you explaining what I think
I never even used the verb “to think” in all my posts to you – you did it. What I can do for you is the following: I can assure you that the less of all, what I care, is WHAT YOU THINK! You are not a beginner, an enthusiast of science or curious "interscientists" seeking for fundamentals of Physics to be a subject of my concerns...
3. I did not get this too:
I do not need your confused "help"
I did not offer you any “help”. If I see that you misunderstand some issues in Physics, I see it only because of your post in public. Therefore, many other people see it too. They can do a wrong conclusion that this misleading actually is …the Physics. And that is why I have to react and offer to people, not to you, my help in the form of a right explanation of issue. So, not the all is… about you, dear colleague.
4. you have at least heard of Euler
You are funny, my friend!
5. And now about Science.
Your last post already shows some progress in your description of reality of forces. The main my goal here is to let readers know that whole dynamics of solid bodies is based upon the following CENTRAL THEOREM:
“Action of any force on solid body can be represented as action of some force acting in center of mass of this body and action of some torque on this body”.
So, if somebody says, “force only accelerates body” it is wrong. Force also changes body’s angular moment.
6. The gyroscopic forces are a huge class of forces in Nature. The most famous one is the force of action of the magnetic field on any charge. In Mechanics of the material point – the Corriolius force. In the Mechanics of fluids – almost any force is a gyroscopic one. The “trade mark” of any gyroscopic force is that it causes the displacement of body in the direction normal to its own. In any good textbook on the Theoretical Mechanics one should find a special part devoted to the Gyrodynamics and Dynamics at action of a gyroscopical force.
7. You said:
The Gravitational force acts thru the center of mass as you correctly show in some of your drawings. Thus, by itself, it producese no torque and hence the precession is not due to it as you state in your post above. The precession is due to the force you ignore and try to ridicule as "mysterious" in another post. This "table force" on the gyroscope does not pass thru the center of mass and thus produces a torque, which produces the precession you illustrate.

Gravitation force produces no torque ONLY in respect to the CENTER of MASS. But it produces "a lot of torque" in respect to the base point! The moment of procession is applied Exactly IN THAT point ! The mysterious force, you constantly refer to, would have a zero torque in respect the base point, so it could not cause any rotation of gyroscope around axis of procession! The point-like connection of gyroscope with table guarantees that no forces, except directed along axis of gyroscope can be applied to gyroscope from a table! So, the table force always is passed through center of mass of gyroscope. The force N (see picture I gave in my first post) becomes a gyroscopic one exactly because of the existence of this base point – the additional coupling on the possible dynamics of gyroscope. In absence of this point gyroscope would move along gravitational force as any other massive body. The gravitational force is not a gyroscopic force in general conditions, but it becomes a gyroscopic one if it acts on gyroscopes with base point (or points). That is why Dynamics at gyroscopic forces and Dynamics of gyroscopes are two different branches of Mechanics (sorry for misleading names, but I am not responsible for this historical jumble of names!).
8. "....gyroscopic body A in vicinity of some attraction center B. So, action of attraction from B forces A to move normally to the line connecting A and B."
And namely here are the roots of your misrepresentation of what problem I have set up in the top of this thread.
My example was not about motion of gyroscope (body A) in field of a central force created by body B, but about motion of point A in the field of the gyroscopic force created by body B. Do you feel a difference? If not, read this again…

8. I only note you are wrong in another post where you state that the acceleration of a gyroscope can be in one direction but that the force causing this acceleration produces a velocity change perpendicular to the direction of the force. In some sense this is just your first error again. I only mention it as it implies that you think gyroscopes are exceptions to (1) F=ma and (2) the change in velocity being always the integral of accleration.
Of course I think that gyroscope is exception to “(1) F=ma and (2) the change in velocity being always the integral of accleration”. Moreover, I insist that gyroscope is obeying the following four (4) things acting together:
- F = ma
- the change in velocity being always the integral of acceleration
- Euler equation of momenta
- Condition of base point on gyroscopes end.
And only this four (4) origins give us a right Dynamics of gyroscopes.

Billy T

02-14-05, 12:27 PM

Billy T, I never even used the verb “to think” in all my posts to you – you did it.

Technically true. You incorrectly stated my view with "Billy T's interpretation" in the following drawing you made.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3804&stc=1

I guess I should have asked you to never state for me what my interpretation of physics is :D Your confused understanding of physics and limited command of English should restrain you from stating anyone's view, thoughts, or interpretations for them (except by quotation in context).

...So, if somebody says, “force only accelerates body” it is wrong. Force also changes body’s angular moment.

In several of my first posts I was careful to say "pure force only accelerates" and several times said the effect of force is given by F=ma. I have been trying to get you to understand that rotation (more precisely "change of angular momentum") is caused only by torques.

It is true that you can not have any torque if there are no forces, but also true that gravitational force on rigid bodies (small enough to neglect the field gradient) is distributed over the entire body but acts as if it were a single force equal to the weight and passing thru the center of mass. Thus the torque directly associated with gravitational forces is zero. (In your tilted gyroscope on table top illustrations, it is the force applied by the table, not gravity that both prevents it from falling downward and produces the precession motion. Your thinking it precesses because of the gravity force and neglect of the real cause is what has lead you astray.) Consequently, if no force other than gravity acts on any body, gyroscopes included, its angular momentun will not change and it will accelerate only directly towards the attracting body. Your drawing reproduced at end of this post is nonsense.

Please do not quote this "accelerate only directly towards the attracting body" out of context to imply my "interpretation" is wrong because many bodies do move along arcs or orbit instead of falling directly towards the attracting body. A body can be accelerating directly towards some gravitationally attracting body and yet have their distance from it increasing as the apogee is approached, as illustrated in case 4 of my last post. (I use "accelerating" to mean F/m = a, as any good physicist should, not in the lay sense of moving rapidly towards something.)

NEW PARAGRAPH(via edit): Without any "table force", but with the same gravity force you do illustrate, your postulated motion does not occur. For example: a gyroscope "floating" inside an orbiting space craft has only the gravity force applied to it. Such a gyroscope will keep its spin axis unchanged, confirming my assertion that it is the "table force", not the gravity force, that is producing the torque, which causes the precession you falsely attribute to the force of gravity while even showing correctly that gravity acts thru the center of mass! (your force "N" in several of your other drawings.) I mentioned space gyroscopes in an earlier post. - I said that gyroscopes are used as direction references to keep the Hubble telescope orientated. Unfortunately, they are now failing and there is no money in the budget to replace them, so Hubble will be lost. Also unfortuante, is that when I mentioned this space used of gyroscopes, you did not, even then, realize that the circular motion you indicate in your drawing reproduced at the end of this post, is nonsense.

Your drawing (reproduced at end of this post) shows body "A" orbiting empty space due to the fact it has angular monmentum and is attracted by distant body "B." I now understand that you started this thread in disguise by asking in your first post if it was possible for a body to orbit empty space because you wanted to expond your wrong theory (shown in your drawing reproduced at end below) about how a gyroscope would orbit empty space if gravitationally attracted by a distant body. I innocently answered your original question, telling you of the Trojan asteroids that do in fact orbit empty space near the two stable Lagrangian points of the sun and Jupitor.

NEW PARAGRAPH(via edit): Do not misread last sentence as if both sun and Jupitor have unique Lagrangian points. The five Lagrangian points are the result of twogravitational sources. A single source of gravitation does not have any. Only two permit stable orbits. (Earth and sun also have two different points that would be stable, but in the presence of gravity perturbations from larger planets, I do not think they can long hold any astroids in orbit. Astronomers have looked there, but to the best of my knowldge, none have ever been found.) I will just mention that neither of the stable Lagrangian points is on the line passing thru sun and Jupitor. They orbit with Jupitor's period and are 60 degrees ahead and behind this line. I know why, but you can bet your bottom dollar that I will not try to explain the reason to you. :D

If there is only one attracting body, as your are assuming, the answer to your original question is: No, it is not possible for any object (rockets with unlimited fuel excepted) to orbit empty space. "Any object" includes gyroscopes.

(I removed first sentence originally here (via edit) because it needlessly comented on the skill, or lack thereof, of your physics teachers. Perhaps, you never had any, and only picked up some terms from the net.) There is a well know proof that any "central force" (Fancy, standard way, to say that the force between two interacting bodies considered in the proof need not be "inverse square," as the most important macroscopic forces are, and that it acts between the centers of the two bodies.) acting between two bodies (usually called M & m) can be reduced to an equivalent problem of a single body's motion and a fixed force center, but that "equivalent body" has mass Mm/(M+m) (called the "reduced mass.") This well know mathematical proof can be used to show your ideas wrong. This proof shows that the motion of a single body acted on by only a fixed force center is either an open trajectory which passes by (or "scatters off of," if you prefer) the fixed force center or is an orbit about that force center. Neither possibility agrees with the circular trajectory of body "B," you show in figure below, as orbiting outside of the attactive force center. Note this rigorious mathematical proof, well known to most physics Ph.D.s, only assumes that the force between the bodies is "central." I.e. is directed along the line joining the centers of the two interacting bodies. It can be attractive or repulsive and have any functional dependance you like upon the separation. Gravity is certainly a "central" force in this sense as it is inverse square between the centers.

I will stop here as I growing tired of tying to set you straight about some highschool level physics - i.e. the fact that the motions produced by forces and torques are different. In short the orbit of "A" about empty space point "C " you illustrated in your drawing below, with attraction from a single body "B" is impossible and your theories supporting it are wrong, even if "A" is a gyroscope.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3761&stc=1

geistkiesel

02-14-05, 02:16 PM

geistkiesel,

Please, next time do not try to exercise your..."humor". At least, give as a smallest chance to recognize that it is not a simple swearing on the walls of the public toilette, OK?
Message received and understood. We are all agreed, this forum, this thread is confined to defined scientific topics defined, more or less, by the thread starter.

Geistkiesel

Yuriy

02-14-05, 07:09 PM

1.Originally posted by Billy T:
I guess I should have asked you to never state for me what my interpretation of physics is Your confused understanding of physics and limited command of English should restrain you from stating anyone's view, thoughts, or interpretations for them (except by quotation in context).
My answer is the following:
I guess, I too should ask you to never state for me what my interpretation of physics is.Your confused understanding of physics at any level of command of English should restrain you from stating anyone's view, thoughts, or interpretations for them (except by quotation in context as it is commonly accepted in scientific community).
I hope that English of that my statement never will be an excuse to neglect the request that this statement is expressing.
2. It is posted by Billy T:
In several of my first posts I was careful to say "pure force only accelerates" and several times said the effect of force is given by F=ma. I have been trying to get you to understand that rotation (more precisely "change of angular momentum") is caused only by torques.
and
Please do not quote this "accelerate only directly towards the attracting body" out of context to imply my "interpretation" is wrong because many bodies do move along arcs or orbit instead of falling directly towards the attracting body. A body can be accelerating directly towards some gravitationally attracting body and yet have their distance from it increasing as the apogee is approached, as illustrated in case 4 of my last post. (I use "accelerating" to mean F/m = a, as any good physicist should, not in the lay sense of moving rapidly towards something.)

No matter how strong you will ask, no matter will we talk on “pure” or “not so pure” forces in Nature I always will insist that any force at any conditions acting at any massive body always makes one and only one effect on this body – accelerates this body directly along this force’s direction. The value of the instant acceleration caused by this force is given as
a = F/m.
This and only this is sense of the Newton’s second law of Mechanics, accepted by SRT too.
I hope my English will not spoil the clarity and absoluteness of the content of this my statement, and will not leave any doubts on how I, Yuriy, did, do and will do understand the role and place of forces in Nature in any my research, article and post. I hope now that we are done with this issue…
3. It is posted by Billy T:
It must be embarrissing for your physics teachers (I am presuming you had some and did not just read about Euler on the net etc.) for you to keep pushing this crazy idea of yours. There is a well know proof that any "central force" (Fancy, standard way, to say that the force between two interacting bodies considered in the proof need not be "inverse square" as the most important macroscopic forces are.) acting between two bodies (usually called M & m) can be reduced to an equivalent problem of a single body's motion, but that "equivalent body" has mass Mm/(M+m) (called the "reduced mass.") This well know mathematical proof also proves your ideas wrong as surely even you will not argue that the motion of a single body (no others interacting with it) is circular.
Being purified of all auxiliary descriptive words, this opus states the following:
“There is a well know proof that any "central force" acting between two bodies (usually called M & m) can be reduced to an equivalent problem of a single body's motion, but that "equivalent body" has mass Mm/(M+m) (called the "reduced mass.")”
This statement, as it is stated, is wrong.
Prove: For example, two massive cylinders with circulation around in ideal liquid can not “be reduced to an equivalent problem of a single body's motion”, although the forces they act on each other are central.
The notice for specialists: The theorem of reduction of system of two bodies to inertial motion of its center of mass and some motion of “equivalent” single body was proven for case when there is a unique source of motion of these bodies – the potential central interaction between them! For example, if force of interaction acting on each body depends on instant velocity of this body, such theorem is not valid!
Without mentioning of what kind bodies, in what kind medium and what kind central forces (gyroscopic or not), the statement, we just consider, is a wrong statement. That is Physics as a Science, and something another is an imitation of Science…
4. And now goes the central part of discussion.
Billy T has said a lot about the problem I set up in top of this thread. Let me remind us the final formulation of problem I was considering as an example in my main picture. Here goes the set up of problem, I have given:
Let us now consider the gyroscopic body A in vicinity of some attraction center B. So, action of attraction from B forces A to move normally to the line connecting A and B.
Let also gyroscope A is experienced action of some another permanent and constant force that forces A to move in some (let say – horizontal) direction.
And finally let us assume that all these are in some very viscous medium, so that forces are causing not accelerations, but velocities. (All those conditions are exactly what we have for quantified vortices on Helium-II and into superconductors.)
Let's say attraction center attributes A with velocity VB and external constant force - velocity VJ. Then possible orbit, as I was talking about and as SuperL has drew it up, is shown in picture. Any questions?
Let me “dress” all these in the corresponding mathematical form.
a. Let the force of interaction of A and B is taken as F = - a [G, grad U(r)], where U is some function of r – the distance between A and B, G is some vector proportional to the angular moment of a gyroscopic body A and a is some parameter.
b. Let V is the instant velocity of body A;
c. Let besides force F there is another force f = μ Vo, acting on body A, where Vo is some constant velocity and μ is another parameter.
I hope, nobody has any misunderstanding about forces that were introduced. I hope, nothing, what was said, causes any ambiguousity for anybody. I am ready to clarify any questions and doubts that anyone can have in regard of just introduced forces.
d. Now, according to Newton’s 2 law, body A will move by the equation
MdV/dt = F + f
or
MdV/dt = - a [G, grad U(r)] + μVo
I hope nobody has any doubts about that fact.
e. Now let us assume that all this stuff is into some very viscous media, so that body A experienced also an action of viscous force Ffr= - μV;
Then the equation of motion will be the following:
MdV/dt = - a [G, grad U(r)] + μVo – μV ……… (1)
Any questions?
f. If the media is viscous enough the motion of body A will be non-accelerated, because at any moment of time viscosity will suppress any acceleration and value of instant velocity will be defined by the instantly acting forces – that is the general condition of the regime of “a viscous motion”. Therefore, after a very short period of time since the beginning of motion, body A will move by the equation:
a[G, grad U(r)] - μVo + μV = 0…………… (2)
Trajectory of such motion is exactly shown in main picture (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3761&stc=1).
Any questions?
And about usual gyroscopes and their dynamics I will respond in a special post later…

Hamsterspawn

02-15-05, 06:40 PM

Havn't they just found some new planets 'with solar system like orbits' that are elliptical? If that isnt nature, cant think of anything that would do it. not as an orbit... Unless maybe it was something to do with magnets?

But the i dont see how it would keep moving unless in a vacuum? then if you had one end repelling and one attracting? but youd need a force to turn it around...So to speak... Thats probably BS, but hey... its the first semi-intelligent thing ive posted.

(Oh, and magnets arent nature... sorry)

Yuriy

02-15-05, 08:14 PM

And now, Billy T, it is the time for resolution of our dispute about gyroscope with one base point.
First of all we should clarify “the base point problem” because namly this point plays a central point in your objection:
the table is that the table, via friction, is applying an oppositely directed force
and
The unresolved gravitational force shown in your drawing has an equal and opposite vertical force applied by the table at the base point.
and
You don't understand that net forces accelerate or that anything on a table presses down on the table and the table presses back to keep it from accelerating vertically.]
So, whole your explanation is based upon assertion that in base point we have force of table reaction as it is shown here. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3818&stc=1)
I already told you that you are mistaken the features of the point contact with the features of the plane contact. But this small redesign of gyroscope’s base point will tell you more than tones of words. As you see the base platform S is NORMAL TO AXIS OF GYROSCOPE. Whole platform S is attached to massive floor A due to bearing and can freely rotate around vertical.
As you should understand, gyroscope acts of platform S normally to it’s surface and can get only reaction directed also the same normally, i. e. whole reaction of S, applied to gyroscope is laying on the gyroscope’s axis! As you see, there is no force of reaction from base platform S, which could compensate the component of gravitation force along normal to the gyroscope’s axis, i.e. force N in my main picture. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3768&stc=1)

But the most amazing in whole your objection was the torque created by N and mysterious “reaction of table”. Please, draw this torque and show as how it creates the procession’s angular velocity Ω !
As far as you will post your drawing of this torque and its connection with Ω we will be able to continue further analysis.

P.S. I sow your "New paragraphs" after I posted this, so I will think about them...

Billy T

02-15-05, 08:54 PM

Yuriy, your theory that a gyroscope (“A” in your drawing below) in the gravitational field of a massive distant body (“B” in your drawing below) will not orbit around the massive body B, but around a point (“C” in your drawing below), which is in empty space and far from the body B is nonsense.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3761&stc=1

I have shown your crazy new type of orbits, which you continue to teach to others as fact, to be impossible by two different arguments. (1) and (2)below:

(Many readers of this thread should should only look at yuriy's above drawing and then skip to the short new argument (3) presented at the end.

SKIP TO END NOW, IF YOU HAVE JUST LOOKED AT YURIY'S DRAWING ATTACHED ABOVE. Don't waste your time on physics and rigorous math proofs, which Yuriy does not understand.)

1) First by pointing out that the gravitational attraction from B is only a force, not a torque on body A because it acts on the center of mass of A and thus will accelerate A directly towards B, while being careful the state that “accelerate” is F/m = a, not the lay meaning: “to move rapidly towards B.” In my case 4 of a prior post I even noted that the distance from B could be increasing (as A is approaching apogee in an elliptical orbit) even though A is always accelerating directly towards B. I mentioned that A’s angular momentum will not change until it hits B.

You “refuted” my “no torque, no angular momentum change“, argument, which I based on the our agreed fact that gravity acts at the center of mass, with a drawing showing a tilted gyroscope (supported on a table). Everyone knows that such a table supported gyroscope does in fact preceses (its axis continually pointing in new directions), so it looked like you were proving your point that gravity acting on gyroscopes has different effects than on non gyroscopes. I.e. it can and does produce a change in angular momentum direction. - something I had said was impossible because gravity, acting thru the center of mass, was not a torque and only torques can do this - so you continued to argue that your body B could make A (if a gyroscope) also orbit differently than non gyroscopes. (about “C” instead of “B.”)

I pointed out that you were ignoring the true source of the torque, which was causing the precession, namely you were ignoring the vertical support force applied to the gyroscope by the table. I noted that because this ignored force is vertical and the gyroscope you illustrated n your drawing is not, this force, unlike gravity, does not pass thru the center of the gyroscope and is a torque.

I do not remember which of us started first to talk about gyroscopes in space, but despite my pointing out that they do not precess and are used as directional references in Hubble telescope etc, you continued to support the unusually orbit shown in above drawing as possible, if A is a gyroscope, so when I recognized that it was impossible to teach you that gravity does not produce torques (on bodies small enough to ingnore the field gradient, I was careful to add) I abandoned this approach.

2) Your above drawing is a good example of the classical “two body” “central force” problem of classical mechanics, so I carefully explained the gravity is a “central force” and sited the well known, mathematically rigorous, proof that "central force" two-body problems can be reduced to the problem of the motion of a single body of reduced mass Mm/(M+n) about a fixed “force center” ( Which in pratice is always taken to be the origin of the coordinate system used in the analysis.) This equivalent “one body” problem can be solved exactly analytically. Two classes of solutions exist. In one, the equivalent body is on an “open trajectory” and passes by the force center only once (“scatters off it” is a common description of this). In the other classes of solutions, the equivalent body is bound to the force center and orbits around it. All solutions to the two body central force problem have one of these two trajectories. Your proposed orbit for A is in neither class. Ergo, it is not a trajectory consistent the exact analytic analysis for possible trajectories.

I have earlier point out to you the existence of the Trojan asteroids, which do orbit around empty space at the two stable Lagrangian points of Jupiter and the sun. There is no analytic solution possible for a Trojan asteroid’s orbit because it, Jupiter, and the sun make up a three-body problem. Your recent post (part quoted below) again reflects how little physics you actually understand. In it you “refute” this “inconsistent with all solutions to the two body problem" by giving the following “counter example"

This statement, as it is stated, is wrong.
Prove: For example, two massive cylinders with circulation around in ideal liquid can not “be reduced to an equivalent problem of a single body's motion”, although the forces they act on each other are central.

I am now force to conclude not only do you not understand any of this and very little physics, but that you can not even count! By my way of counting two cylinders and a liquid are at least three bodies. These three bodies do not refute the analytic solutions that admittedly are limited to two bodies interacting by any “central force” even one that falls off as the cube or fifth power of the separation etc. It is a very general, mathematically exact, simplification of the two body problem, known to and used by Newton and many real physicists have followed him. (Too bad you can not even understand it is limited to two bodies!) So I am now abandoning this approach also.

3) (presented now for the first time)

Although I am basically an agnostic, I prayed to God in desperation for a new approach that I could use to show you the error of your ways. My physics and math proofs have both failed to dissuade your from your erroneous view.

To my amazement, in response to this prayer, I heard a voice from the heavens say:
“Show him a demonstration that his new orbit is false.”
I replied:
“What do you mean? - I can’t make gyroscope “A” and place it in the gravitation field of a massive body “B” as Yuriy wants and shows in his drawing. Even if I could, it would be too small to see from Earth. - We could not see what type of orbit it has.”
Then God said:
“Is not the Earth a great gyroscope in the gravitational field of a massive body, which you call the sun?”
I then said:
"Thanks God, I will let Yuriy argue with you from now on!"

superluminal

02-15-05, 10:48 PM

Eagerly awaiting your response, Yuriy, to BillyT's conversation with God...

MacM

02-16-05, 02:36 AM

Eagerly awaiting your response, Yuriy, to BillyT's conversation with God...

Ditto Yuriy.

Quantum Quack

02-16-05, 04:56 AM

Yuriy

02-16-05, 04:58 AM

What a coincident! Exactly at the same time I had conversation with Devil just about the same stuff! I asked him: “Why you do this to me? Did not you gathered here enough cranks to keep me busy all the time? Why you add also this guy, claiming his is Ph.D.?”
“He-he-he” – was his response - “Consider it as my gift to you. I want to see how you will enjoy it, he-he-he”
“Not too smart, sir. You could find something more challenging in your closet”.
“Oh, you kidding me, I have chosen one of the best, you had a chance to make sure of that”
“One of the best?” – I really was amazed – “You definitely should renew your stock, sir”
“Bit me! Can you show me at least one his weakness?”
“Of course, I can. And I will. But the most significant your mistake is that you did a big mistake before you brought you “secret weapon” on. Stupid, childish mistake”
“I? I did a mistake? How dare you, miserable ant, to say that to me?! I never do mistakes. What mistake I did?”
“Before you brought him on you created totally misleading aura around my problem, using your favorite – MacM. I sow that and I knew that it would cost you a lot! And you got what you deserve.”
“What you mean? What you mean?”
“Let us look on my first post
Some object orbits the circular orbit that is not circumference the center of the field of attraction of that object (orbit lies aside this center). Can anybody imagine such situation in Nature? What condition and what object it should be to provide such a strange motion? Any suggestions.?
Do you see here any hint on gravitation? Of course you, as any guy who is far away of Science, will associate word “orbit” with … planets. A few of them will recall that sometimes we say – “His eyes were jumping from their orbits”. And so naturally happened, but the most cautious of them will try to make sure that they do understand me right, and will ask me. SuperL just did it immediately
Sounds like you are describing the orbits of two bodies about their common center of mass. Such as the Earth-Moon system. Is that what you are looking for?
I carefully fixed his vision of my problem:
First of all I said
You did not noticed that Moon's orbit circumfarence Earth if you will sit on the Earth (in sense that Moon's containes Earth inside it, not aside somewhere).
to take his attention away of consideration of a complicated motion of two bodies around common center of mass: if we sit on Earth we see Moon as orbiting us. So forget center mass, at all.
and secondly I detailed:
And I am asking about the case when the closed orbit of body, which is attracted to some attraction center, is located totally aside this center and does not contains this center inside itself. (May be you be so kind and will formulate this case in proper English for me? I will read and confirm it if it is what I do mean)
So, I did maximum to clarify situation. And SuperL understood me and clarified formulation:
"Some object(A) orbits about another object(B). A's orbit is circular, but not centered on object B. What situation does this describe?"
If you want the center of orbit of object A to be completely outside of object B, then the relative masses of the objects must be such that the common center of mass falls outside the surface of B.
For instance, the center of mass of the Sun-Jupiter system is about 96,000 km outside the surface of the Sun.
Is this it?
But, as you see, he still was under impression of word “orbit” and was speaking on planets. And the “center of mass” was still there. So I had no choice as be very categorical:
No, but you gave me idea how it should be rephrased:
"Object A is attracted to rested object B. Due to this attraction object A orbits point O. The orbit is circular, but does not includes object B, which stays outside the whole orbit. So if |BO|=R and |AO| = r then R>r. "
Can you formulate this case in proper English, please?
And that was enough for SuperL! He immediately got me and drew the absolutely right picture:
Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words. This is how I interpret your last phrasing:
http://www.sciforums.com/attachment...ntid=3760&stc=1
You, sir, become so upset that decided to pull out your well tested tool – MacM:

MacM
Registered User (6,130 posts) 02-05-05, 06:46 PM
report | reply newreply.php?do=newreply&p=761481newreply.php?do=newreply&p=761481
“ Originally Posted by superluminal
Excellent! Thanks. ”
Good work SL dechipering Yuriy's presentation. I had a simular view as your drawing but I am not inclined to call it an orbit of "B". I believe his english is creating a false scenario in this case.
WEBSTER: Orbit
2a) - the actual or imaginary path taken by a celestial body during its peroidic revolution around another body.
2b) - paraphrased "Same for a satellite around a celestial body"
In that sense I expect him to present some motion or movement of gyroscopes but that they would not qualify as being orbits around "B".
Lets see what Yuriy presents however.
Last edited by MacM : 02-05-05 at 06:55 PM.
I tried to help you avoid the future mistakes, sir, because I do not destroy your reputation: anyway, you are an absolutely necessary element of World keeping God far from idleness.
But nether my direct examples of usage of term “orbit” in Science, nor SuperL attempts to bring peoples attention to his picture of mine problem could fix misleading created by MacM. Even you could not predict how harm this fact - that I never said, even mentioned any gravitational interaction in my problem - will be for whole your plan. And it is.”
“What the hell you are talking about?” – screamed Devil.
“Sir, your Hell, you created it” – was my answer – “Just that we are right now, sir”
“Do not be so smart, do not think yourself so superior, you are not, I am! Answer me technically – what you meant?”
“Just that what happened next. Firstly I explained what means “the gyroscopic effect”:
And now, guys, it comes my story…
First of all, let me remind you that gyroscopic effect is the following one:
If you act on gyroscope by force F then gyroscope moves in direction that is under angle 90 degree to the direction of the acting force. (Scheme of this effect is shown in that picture)
and then I gave exact formulation of one of possible solutions of my problem and it is the following:
Let us now consider the gyroscopic body A in vicinity of some attraction center B. So, action of attraction from B forces A to move normally to the line connecting A and B.
Let also gyroscope A is experienced action of some another permanent and constant force that forces A to move in some (let say – horizontal) direction.
And finally let us assume that all these are in some very viscous medium, so that forces are causing not accelerations, but velocities. (All those conditions are exactly what we have for quantified vortices on Helium-II and into superconductors.)
Let's say attraction center attributes A with velocity VB and external constant force - velocity VJ.
Then possible orbit, as I was talking about and as SuperL has drew it up, is shown in picture. Any questions?
Last edited by Yuriy : 02-05-05 at 10:37 PM.
As you see, sir, I never said or meant specifically any gravitational forces or interactions!
And on this background you brought on your main power in this case – Billy T!”
Devil started screaming something, but I had to awake to go to pee...
After lightening of my body, I went to sleep further and soon I was affront of my divine personage again...
(to be continued)

Billy T

02-16-05, 09:13 AM

I thought I read somewhere about two stars orbiting around a center. I can't recall the name given to them. One star seemingly chasing the other around a masssless center. Was supposed to be one of those mysteries that is yet unasnwered by current thinking......any one know what I am talking about?

Dear QQ:

I suspect the article you read was burried deep inside some obscure newspaper that was despirate for material to fill space because, extremely frequent, common events are not "front page news." That newspaper must have really been despirate to report such a common fact.

If you can remember which paper it was tell them that next time they should write an article with head line: "Sand grain found on beach in Australia!" - that would be a more rare event than "Co-rotating stars found near Orion's belt" (I explain why I say this below.)

You probably know that stars form from "gas clouds" that slowly contract under their mutual gravitation. There is essentially zero chance that the original gas cloud had no angular momentum. Most have much more than our solar system. If a typical large momentum gas cloud were to try to contract into a single star, that "star" probably would never become a star. It would be spining so fast (angular momemtum of isolated gas cloud can not change) that centrifugal force would balance the gravitational attraction and halt the process before the potential energy released by the contraction ("falling together of mass") was enough to heat the core to fusion temperature (> 10<sup>8</sup> degrees, C or K). So what is the typical gas cloud going to do?

Well, it takes advantage of the fact that there is also essentially zero chance that the density though out the gas cloud is uniform. Very commonly, the two most dense regions become denser, swallowing up the other less-dense gas regions. These two centers are usually far enough apart to be with us still, (see below comments about gravitational radiation), and slowly rotating about their common center of mass. (Some have not yet made a full rotation in the entire history of the universe!) Despite this slow angular rate of rotation, almost all of the original gas cloud's angular momentum is "stored" in this rotation. Now that the gas cloud's angular momentum is safely stored, each of the stars can contract to fusion tempertures, despite the still remaining, but much reduced centrifugal forces.

Thus, Most of the stars in the universe are gravitational coupled pairs, rotating about their common mass center. Others have estimated (and I think it true) that in the whole universe, there are more of these star pairs that there are grains of sand on all of Earth's beaches! This is why "Sand grain found on beach in Australia!" is a bigger news story than the one you read.

The more interesting case is when the star pair is not so widely separated. It divides into two subcases. (1)moderate separation, and (2)small separation.

Both (1) and (2) case are source of "gravitational radiation" (Not yet detected but believed to exist by at least 95% of all physics Ph.D.s), which removes energy from the two star system, slowly converting case (1) into case(2) and some what more rapidly, the original case (2) is likely to make a "quasar" or even a "stellar-core black hole." It really gets very interesting as the gravitational tides of one star upon the other become important, etc. I can not go into the details here, because my time is limited, but I am sure they will interest you.

All these details and much more (physics) are in my easy to read book, Dark Visitor. I wrote Dark Vistor to attract students to physics - All the physics in it is woven into a very scary (and possible true) story about how the life on Earth could end. (A small black hole is approaching our solar system, but is invisible as it has exactly zero reflectivity for the sunlight falling on it.)

The perturbations in Neptune's orbit that lead to the discovery of Pluto are now known not to have been caused by Pluto, which is smaller than the moon and always at least 17AU distant from Neptune. These perturpations may have been caused by a small "stellar-core" black hole, passing well outside the orbit of Pluto. This would explain why Pluto's orbit plane is tilted. Because stars usually form in pairs and most formed in the early, smaller (much denser) universe were much bigger, they all left small "stellar-core" black holes pairsbehind when they died. It is probable that if the perturber of Neptune was a small black hole, it was one of a gravitationally bound pair.

Dark Visitor assumes the second member of the pair (also a small black hole) is now approaching the solar system on a trajectory that makes it miss Earth by about 12AU. It has 2.2 solar masses, but rapidly passes, so it just gives Earth an "impulse" change in its orbit. One of the results of this, is the very rapid start of a new permanent ice age, even though Earth's orbit changes by less than 10% (In addition to physics, you will also painlessly learn a lot about the causes of climate on a planet if you read Dark Visitor.)

You will not realize as you read how much you are learning. Dark Visitor is not like any textbook you have ever seen. For example, Kepler's three laws are all there, explained, and used, but never even named or taught in any formal way. [b]You can read it for free.[/b ] - Just go to the web page I made to tell about it. There, on a subpage, you will find a list of all the physics that you will learn while being scared by a very non-conventional textbook. (www.DarkVisitor.com) - Also note (for future reference) that this site always appears under my name in all my posts: i.e. "Billy T is at www.DarkVisitor.com" Although I have mentioned my book once or twice before in a sciforums post, this is the first time I have "promoted it." I did so, because it does tell much of the interesting details you have asked about. You seem to be exactly the type of person I wrote it for.

MacM

02-16-05, 10:00 AM

Billy T,

Fascinating. I have only started reading your book and find that I will probably also complete it, which is rare for me as books go.

I'll only note here for others that to find your book via the URL you posted that one must "Search" the BookStore using the title "Dark Visitor".

Dinosaur

02-16-05, 12:47 PM

Quantum Quack: Who told you that a simple two body gravitational system is a mystery?I thought I read somewhere about two stars orbiting around a center. I can't recall the name given to them. One star seemingly chasing the other around a masssless center. Was supposed to be one of those mysteries that is yet unasnwered by current thinking......any one know what I am talking about? Many binary systems are known. In theory, n equal mass bodies could orbit in elliptical or circular orbits around a massless center. The 2-body system need not have equal mass bodies.

Yuriy

02-16-05, 02:05 PM

How good is dream at empty bladder! …
Devil already was quiet and trademark devilish smile was decorating his ugly face. “Oh, my God! He certainly prepared one more present for me”- was my first thought.
“Of course, a miserable, I did and no God will help you. Look here, please” – and he fingered on left where I sow a huge (a flat!) screen with tomorrow's new post of Billy T.
“Oh my Go-o-od! He also is a writer!” – I told to myself.
“Why you never recruit a simple pure scientist to advocate you and your business in World? Why you always chose guys with some additional vice?” – I asked him.
“Oh, yea. A simple pure scientist is too busy to collaborate. They always … send me to …the Hell! But this one even promised to write my autobiography!”- Devil responded.
“So, can we go further, sir?” – I asked. “Precisely, you miserable, and let me start with a conclusion of this story: Billy T literally destroyed you, your image as educated scientist and a decent man! You lose, I won! You will be sent right here, in my Hell! He-he-he…” – Devil was definitely very pleased…
“ I always knew that I have a big chances to be sent to you, sir, but not because of this case. You did a huge mistake and it will cost you … me at that time” – I told him calmly. “What mistake? You start again intriguing me with some mystic mistake. I do not do mistakes! Show me even the one, you miserable…” – he demanded.
“Your general mistake was that you, as many others started to believe that I am talking on … gravity. And you have chosen Billy T, your personal astronomer – the historian of a devilish astronomy by your scenario – to “crash” me. You forgot – I am a professional, real professional, who is a professional not because he indeed has all official certificates, but who indeed knows, maintains and builds this professional area. So, to crash me you had to send the same one: professional in Physics, not in some branch of Physics – in whole Physics. At least someone who will be capable to check out opponents arguments…
In his the first post Billy T already was convinced that I am talking on … gravitation and based whole his dispute with me on that base. Even after publication of my answer “the gyroscopic body, gyroscopic forces, very viscose media” he did not get it. He started discussion on the motions of gyroscope”.
“But you was the first who appealed to gyroscope!” – Devil said.
“Yes, and do you recall where and why? Only to demonstrate what the gyroscopic force is! The force that causes motion of object along to the normal to the force direction! What common it has with gravitational force? Only that fact should stop any scientist to associate forces I am talking about with gravitational one. But there was already brought on the gyroscope procession and there we clashed with each other, putting the main problem aside.”
“Yes, and right here he crashed you, evidently showing that you do not understand physics of gyroscopes. And it was very funny” – Devil did show me his devilish smile again.
“In contrary, here I recognized that Billy T does not understands physics of gyroscopes. It was very simple for professional:
- He separated force and torque as some entities that can exist independently from each other, but it is absolutely wrong in contents of the Classic Mechanics. Torque by definition is a special result of acting force (or forces). Indeed, if torque is J then in Classic Mechanics (where we do not have such a special type of torque as a spin) J always is defined as
J = [r, F] ……………………..(1)
where F is force that caused this torque, and r is so called “arm" of force F in respect to center of mass of object, this force acts on, or in respect to the existent point of rotation.
Even you, sir, can see now that any force creates a torque in respect of any point for which the vector product [r, F] is not a zero!
The gravitational force never creates any torque in respect the center of mass – because r = 0 by definition in this case. But this force creates a torque in respect any other points, which do not lay on the direction of action of this force! As my Italian friend Massimo likes to say, do you capisce, Sir?” – I asked him smiling. “Do you think I am a crazy one? What it is there so complicated to be misunderstood?” – responded he, “ And stop mentioning the Italians – I hate them: they talk too much even when are cooked”
"I remind to Billy T the central theorem of solid bodies mechanics: Any force acting on solid body can be represented as a driven force acting in center of mass of this body and some torque applied to this center of mass. So, he has to recognize that in general case effect of any force is as the acceleration of body, so the rotation of this body. When and how this body will move and rotated depends on all other essential conditions like the degrees of freedom of this body, actions of all other forces that are applied to this body, the features of media this body exist in, ect.
Particularly, if body has a point of rotation – let’s call it as rested hinge point – than even gravitational force can cause a pure rotation of this body … around this rested hinge point.”
“What a BS!” – Devil said.
“No, sir, you can see it evidently right here” – and I shown him this PICTURE (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3822&stc=1).
(to be continued)

Quantum Quack

02-16-05, 07:02 PM

Billy T, It sounds like a facinating read. Thanks

Dinasaur,
When I first arrived here at sci forums about 2 years ago I asked a question about unsolved or unexplainable astronomical events.
Some one replied that a certain binary system stood out as a challenge yet to be accomplished.
I can not remember the detail nor could I find the thread in archives.
Suffice to say it consisted of two objects but wasn't a common binary pair.
I am sorry I simply can't recall the term given to this problem.

Billy T

02-16-05, 07:08 PM

I have been here less than 6 months myself, so I may be out of line in welcoming you, but I do.

Havn't they just found some new planets 'with solar system like orbits' that are elliptical?

Yes. All bound solar orbits we know of, Earth included, are at least slightly elliptical (except for the fact that the planets do perturbe each other, so this is not stictly true.).

....But the i dont see how it would keep moving unless in a vacuum?

Good point "ham" - I am assuming you are noting that Yuriy's orbits can not exist in a viscous liquid. Don't be so modest. Your contribution is better than some I could name, at least it is not missleading, and you are providing just one more reason why his suggested orbit is nonsense.

...then if you had one end repelling and one attracting? but youd need a force to turn it around...So to speak... Thats probably BS, but hey... its the first semi-intelligent thing ive posted.
(Oh, and magnets arent nature... sorry)

Could not follow your ideas on magnets, but will make a few comments that may help or interest you.

All magnets we have ever seen have two opposite "poles" (usually refered to as N & S). One of the great mysteries of physics is why this is true. In the early universe, when matter was "condensing" out of energy "magnetic monpoles" should have been made, in great quanity and they are very very heavy. (Some estimates for each exceed 1,000,000,000,000,000 times the mass of a proton!) According to some calculations one N and one S monopole might orbit each other so close that when quantum uncertainities, tunneling, etc. are considered, the pair might even form a micro black hole. It depends on what is the nature of the very short range force law, and other things I do not understand. Perhaps that is why we do not find any today. They may even have something to do with the "dark matter" that makes up most of the universe mass but again, I am not an expert in this field, and know little of the recent developments.

I think I can safely say that at most separations noticed in the heavens, the magnetic force between planets and the sun they orbit is not a significant factor in the determination of their movements. This is because the magnetic field of a NS dipole source decreases as the cube of the separation whereas gravity's force falls off only as the square. (In Dark Visitor I discuse many different possible origins of black holes - an aggregate of monopoles being just one of about 10 possibilities I considered.)

On magnets being "natural" - Of course they are. Not only is our earth a great magnet, many of the creature living on it incorporate a naturally occuring magnetic crystal into their bodies. You may know that homing pigeons are thought to do this but I bet you did not know of some very small worms that live in the muck of the ocean floor do also. When a fish stirs up the mud, presumably to eat these worm and other things hidden in it, these worms use the fact that the earth's magnet field has a vertical component to know which way to swim/wiggle back towards the safety of their muddy home.

The ones that live in the Southern Hemisphere would swim up away from the sea floor if transported to the Northern Hemishere and not last long there. Thus worms in one hemisphere are distinct from those of the other in their magnetics. - We know this because when place in a lab dish surounded by a few turns of wire carrying a DC current we can contol which way they swim by reversing the current. In the Southern Hemispere, natural selection has made those that swim towards an N pole survive much better than those that do the opposite. (Think about it a little and you will understand that it is actually an N pole that is at the South magnet pole.) I hope to read more from you when you understand this "N pole is at the S pole" puzzle I just presented to you.

Yuriy

02-16-05, 07:10 PM

“You are tricking me”- Davil said after a long look on this PICTURE. There is not two, but three bodies actually: massive ball, a rigid stick with rested hinge point of its end and the Earth”.
“Yah, just as in the case of a processing gyroscope with the base point on the table: the gyroscope, the table with base point and the Earth” – I answered. “So?” – Devil asked.
“But he stroked you with Two body problem very well!” – Devil responded after a long observation of this PICTURE.
“You are changing the object of our dispute, sir. But it is OK, because you are wrong – he stroked … himself. The classic Problem of two bodies, especially at potential central interaction between them, is a mandatory problem that every student of any faculty of the theoretical physics has to learn and has to pass exam on that. The manner as Bill T treats this problem makes me afraid that he would not pass this exam, at least at my teachers. Whole theory of the Kappler’s cone sections as trajectories of bodies, Largang’s points and etc are concerning to the free bodies in vacuum. It has nothing to do with motion of the same bodies at additional conditions of existence some hinge points, restricting surfaces and some medium with specific influence on these bodies. For example, the Keppler orbits have a few commons with motion of planets on the beginning stage of their formation in the planetary dick, especially if forming planet has a momentum opposite to the momentum of the “planetary dust” in this disk….
And what is the most funny, even after exact description of what is the situation, I am considering, that leads to the orbits stated in my problem, Billy T still is repeating the legend on … Keppler’s problem! Is he deaf and bland one? Of course, not. So why he behaves in such a way? Because being the one, who mis-interpreted my problem from the beginning as a problem of two gravitated free bodies, he now is facing of two facts. The first is my request to draw this mysterious torque, which is responsible for processing of gyroscope on the table. I did my job and illustrated each my assertion with a clear picture. And I did it voluntarily, just for sake of clarity. He never did so, never supported his absolutely “geometrical” assertion about relations of the vector objects – forces, torque and velocity – even I directly requested it as an opponent. What you think, why?” – I asked Devil. “Mm-m-m, may be he can not draw?” – Devil asked ingratiatingly. I did a face like I did not get it and kept continuing my argumentation: “The second fact is that after long and almost philological dispute with of Billy T, I finally put in direct and clear mathematical form whole my case and brought it's crucial point to the edge – the final equation of motion of a system, which I was talking about all the time. What else any Ph.D. in Physics needs to check out assertion of his opponent? Solve this equation and evidently see what orbits it describes! Usual routine for any professional physicists.
What we all get in response from Billi T? Nothing! What you think about that, sir? Why he ignored this exact equation?” – I asked Devil. “Mm-m-m, may be he was too busy?” – Devil responded ingratiatingly again. I objected wit this: “So busy that on next morning he posted almost a short novel, including even description of his … dream?”
“You are incredibly nasty one. May be he already lost his interest in discussion with you?” – Devil through in my face a new argumentation.
“May be, sir, may be. Everything happens: some people can not make drawings, some – are getting busy, some get tir