Developing equation for fictional force created by rotation

[Q-reeus]

To be honest, Im working on my personal physics theory but Im not trying to promote or discuss here my theory. What Im looking is kind of help with math on particular partial problem, which Im not able to solve, but maybe somebody here would know it and would be willing to help. And Im offering 10 000 USD to anybody who would produce the right equation, for which I will pay in case I get Nobel price for the theory. But to be honest, it could take some time and the probability of getting Nobel for my theory is like 1:1 000 000

So what Im dealing with is some weird prediction that rotation of any object is causing additional attractive force. Im not trying to convince anybody that such thing really exists, but maybe it could be treated as fictive math problem with physics like description and maybe there is something similar in established mainstream physics, which uses the same or very similar equation.

Description of the math problem:

So we have rotating disc, there is violet line and for example we have 1000 points on this violet line. As the disc rotates in direction described by the blue pointed line, every point on violet line is causing an fictive additional force of magnitue for example 1 Newton, which is acting in the direction described by green line. This fictive force has practically unlimited range, so it acts on light years long distance, but it is very small on regular objects, like for example in rotating rotors or whole rotating planets.


View attachment 4384




But here comes the more complicated part which Im not able to describe with equation:
Lets assume, that on each disc we have for example 6000 violet lines and therefore the forces described by green line do interfere and create places with increased force and different direction of combined vectors of force.

View attachment 4385


So the challenge here is to create some new equation or perhaps use some existing equation used normally for something different, which would describe this changing force depending on the distance from the center of the disc. I would expect some equation which would gain something similar to normal / Gaussian distribution, with almost zero at the center and almost zero at long distance and with reachig the maximum force at the distance around 1,414 of diameter.

Is it not immediately obvious your desired fictive force(s) represent a self-accelerating PMM (perpetual motion machine)?! Centripetal acceleration of matter generating a force normal to both the rotation axis and said centripetal acceleration. The disk spins up to destruction at an exponential rate (assuming ever present friction is negligible by comparison). Totally unphysical in nature. Why continue with it at all? How could there possibly be any useful purpose and outcome?
I take it there is no additional unphysical weirdness imagined. Like violation of Newton's Third Law - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You want to dispense with that one too perhaps?

PS - This thread has reminded me of a favorite flick:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/

 

[Ultron]

Is it not immediately obvious your desired fictive force(s) represent a self-accelerating PMM (perpetual motion machine)?! Centripetal acceleration of matter generating a force normal to both the rotation axis and said centripetal acceleration. The disk spins up to destruction at an exponential rate (assuming ever present friction is negligible by comparison). Totally unphysical in nature. Why continue with it at all? How could there possibly be any useful purpose and outcome?
I take it there is no additional unphysical weirdness imagined. Like violation of Newton's Third Law - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You want to dispense with that one too perhaps?

PS - This thread has reminded me of a favorite flick:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054606/

No, it is not perpetual motion machine, the force which is created is slowing down the rotation of the disc, but this is not what I want to discuss, because it is very wide and complex discussion. I would like to focus on the geometrical math problem with combining the vectors or green lines. Actually, there is no direct useful purpose from this equation I seek, but this is just a small part of bigger issue. It is like why should anybody care about unimportant tiny precession of Mercury? Turn outs it was something important to look at.

But reading your reply I realised, I didnt sufficiently explain one thing. The green line force it not a force pushing the disc, it is a force which is attracting something from outside towards the violet line along the green line. Kind of weird focused line "gravity" beam. Yes, it sounds crazy, I know

 

[Q-reeus]

No, it is not perpetual motion machine, the force which is created is slowing down the rotation of the disc, but this is not what I want to discuss,...

But it needs discussing. If centripetal acceleration of a given element of mass in the disk were creating a force (thus an associated force field) acting on any other element of mass, in the direction of relative motion as illustrated in #1 and later posts, that logically must include action on all other elements of mass in the disk - not just matter exterior to the disk. How can that not imply disk self-acceleration?
If as you claim now said forces actually slow the disk down, why are the force vectors illustrated acting with not against the direction of instantaneous circular motion of each disk element???? That does not compute. But then a possible resolution of sorts.....

But reading your reply I realised, I didnt sufficiently explain one thing. The green line force it not a force pushing the disc, it is a force which is attracting something from outside towards the violet line along the green line.

So the green arrows merely indicate the axis a force acts along, but not it's sense of direction? Confusing then to use arrow heads pointing the way they do!
Well if the forces actually acted to slow the disc down, one has a 'negative PMM' - having the not particularly sought after ability to destroy energy ex nihilo.

The nearest physically real situation I can think of is the case of a circular coil carrying a time varying ramp current. There transformer action is associated with a solenoidal E field acting tangent to the coil windings, and which E field acts to generate an electrical force on other charges, including those circulating in the coil (giving rise to 'back emf'). It's as suggested by the term 'transformer action', the basis for how transformers work.

However it immediately parts company with your concept in that the induced transformer action E field is tangent to the direction of linear acceleration of any given element of accelerating charge. There is no coupling at all to centripetal acceleration of the charges in the coil. [Strictly speaking, there is actually a coupling to centripetal acceleration - for each charge undergoing both radial and tangential acceleration. However owing to the overall coil current geometry, only the circular i.e. solenoidal E field survives in toto.] It is known as a 'nonconservative E field' but that does not imply conservation of energy is or could be violated. Only that it is not of the central aka radial acting field generated by static charge.

Kind of weird focused line "gravity" beam. Yes, it sounds crazy, I know.

Indeed it does! Apart from what's discussed above, there is the matter of describing the nature of the 'force field' generated by centripetal motion of any given element of disk mass.
It must operate throughout all of space without yielding crazy discontinuities. Nature likes things to go smoothly. That's how it is with the transformer action E field.

 

[DaveC426913]

the force which is created is slowing down the rotation of the disc,

That's kind of important to mention. It determines the direction of the vector.

I don't know how we can help if we keep getting it in bits and pieces. (I get - you don't want to have your Nobel Prize stolen.)

I would like to focus on the geometrical math problem with combining the vectors or green lines.

I've tried to steer you away from this erroneous idea, but you seem stuck on it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is an equation that will work:

e ^ (-log(x/n)^2)

Starts at 0,0
Maxes out at x=n/c
Drops to zero as x approaches infinity.

You can plug this in to an app called GeoGebra.

 

[Ultron]

That's kind of important to mention. It determines the direction of the vector.

I don't know how we can help if we keep getting it in bits and pieces. (I get - you don't want to have your Nobel Prize stolen.)

This wasnt intentional, I simply forgot to explain it in detail. I thought the direction was clear from the arrow line.

Its a long and winding road to my Nobel Prize and at this stage I dont worry about somebody copying my ideas. I have already "preprint published" the working version and it is extremely hard to put it all together to some updated version which could be accepted for peer reviewed publication. And as already mentioned before, it is not controversial, it is rather crazy/insane theory from the viewpoint of professional physicist.

 

[Ultron]

But it needs discussing. If centripetal acceleration of a given element of mass in the disk were creating a force (thus an associated force field) acting on any other element of mass, in the direction of relative motion as illustrated in #1 and later posts, that logically must include action on all other elements of mass in the disk - not just matter exterior to the disk. How can that not imply disk self-acceleration?

Because it is not a pushing force, but attracting force, it does not self accelerates the disc. It might accelerate the disc indirectly by attracting matter which would impact the surface and accelerate it, but this is happening mostly on high mass objects like feeding supermassive black holes, in ordinary planets or asteroids it is negligible. But it could offer alternative explanation for so called diamond shape of rotating asteroids:
https://www.space.com/42377-asteroids-bennu-ryugu-why-diamond-shape.html

If as you claim now said forces actually slow the disk down, why are the force vectors illustrated acting with not against the direction of instantaneous circular motion of each disk element???? That does not compute. But then a possible resolution of sorts.....

Sorry, I dont understand this part.

So the green arrows merely indicate the axis a force acts along, but not it's sense of direction? Confusing then to use arrow heads pointing the way they do!
Well if the forces actually acted to slow the disc down, one has a 'negative PMM' - having the not particularly sought after ability to destroy energy ex nihilo.

The nearest physically real situation I can think of is the case of a circular coil carrying a time varying ramp current. There transformer action is associated with a solenoidal E field acting tangent to the coil windings, and which E field acts to generate an electrical force on other charges, including those circulating in the coil (giving rise to 'back emf'). It's as suggested by the term 'transformer action', the basis for how transformers work.

However it immediately parts company with your concept in that the induced transformer action E field is tangent to the direction of linear acceleration of any given element of accelerating charge. There is no coupling at all to centripetal acceleration of the charges in the coil. [Strictly speaking, there is actually a coupling to centripetal acceleration - for each charge undergoing both radial and tangential acceleration. However owing to the overall coil current geometry, only the circular i.e. solenoidal E field survives in toto.] It is known as a 'nonconservative E field' but that does not imply conservation of energy is or could be violated. Only that it is not of the central aka radial acting field generated by static charge.

This is quite heavy part for me, have to study, not being able to react now.

 

[Ultron]

Funny fact, quote of Niels Bohr:

We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.

• Said to Wolfgang Pauli after his presentation of Heisenberg's and Pauli's nonlinear field theory of elementary particles, at Columbia University (1958), as reported by F. J. Dyson in his paper "Innovation in Physics" (Scientific American, 199, No. 3, September 1958, pp. 74-82; reprinted in "JingShin Theoretical Physics Symposium in Honor of Professor Ta-You Wu," edited by Jong-Ping Hsu & Leonardo Hsu, Singapore; River Edge, NJ: World Scientific, 1998, pp. 73-90, here: p. 84).

 

[Q-reeus]

Because it is not a pushing force, but attracting force, it does not self accelerates the disc. It might accelerate the disc indirectly by attracting matter which would impact the surface and accelerate it, but this is happening mostly on high mass objects like feeding supermassive black holes, in ordinary planets or asteroids it is negligible. But it could offer alternative explanation for so called diamond shape of rotating asteroids:
https://www.space.com/42377-asteroids-bennu-ryugu-why-diamond-shape.html




Sorry, I dont understand this part.




This is quite heavy part for me, have to study, not being able to react now.

Given your response here, I'm tempted to say 'good luck with your quest', and leave it at that. Which though might only encourage a continuing effort. Instead, the best I can suggest is, ask yourself 'what are my non-negotiable fundamental physical principles?' Conservation of energy-momentum? Newton's Third Law? If both those get their respective boxes ticked, start checking inevitable consequences of your notional forces/fields for consistency with those two principles. Forget about delving into 'tensor fields' and such - just check out the basics.
Performing some well chosen thought experiments can do wonders in that regard. Cheers.

 

[Ultron]

Given your response here, I'm tempted to say 'good luck with your quest', and leave it at that. Which though might only encourage a continuing effort. Instead, the best I can suggest is, ask yourself 'what are my non-negotiable fundamental physical principles?' Conservation of energy-momentum? Newton's Third Law? If both those get their respective boxes ticked, start checking inevitable consequences of your notional forces/fields for consistency with those two principles. Forget about delving into 'tensor fields' and such - just check out the basics.
Performing some well chosen thought experiments can do wonders in that regard. Cheers.

It is perfectly OK with conservation of energy-momentum and Newton's Third Law, but as I have written before, the whole thing is very complex and is even more confusing, so I have tried to find help with one isolated math part, but it seems hard to sufficiently explain it as isolated part.

 

[Q-reeus]

It is perfectly OK with conservation of energy-momentum and Newton's Third Law, but as I have written before, the whole thing is very complex and is even more confusing, so I have tried to find help with one isolated math part, but it seems hard to sufficiently explain it as isolated part.

You obviously believe there are no physical inconsistencies, but I don't think you have adequately thought through the issues raised in #37.
Sorry, but imo doggedly pursuing an idea not stemming from observational evidence and having no theoretical underpinnings, and 'very complex' to boot, is a recipe for eventual self-inflicted insanity. Best dropped ASAP! I'm out.

 

[DaveC426913]

In the OP's defense, he hasn't asked anyone to give their blessing or feedback on how he might use the information he seeks. Everyone is second-guessing what he plans to do with it. (If he were asking for a good place to buy a pregnancy test, it that still wouldn't be license to discuss his fitness as a parent. )

He's asked for an equation that will produce a desired result. He's even stated that it should be treated as a hypothetical math problem.

What he has not done - which separates him from the majority of amateurs in SciFo - is make assertions about his pet ideas applying to the real world. And that means his mind is still open to learning the tools and techniques of the discipline.

That's refreshingly novel here on SciFo, and it gives him a guarded pass in my books because it means the topic can actually be discussed mathematically without needing to fit within known physics.


Ultron: in post 28, I pointed you at a simulator to play with and see if you get any curves you like. Did you try it?

 

[Ultron]

In the OP's defense, he hasn't asked anyone to give their blessing or feedback on how he might use the information he seeks. Everyone is second-guessing what he plans to do with it. (If he were asking for a good place to buy a pregnancy test, it that still wouldn't be license to discuss his fitness as a parent. )

He's asked for an equation that will produce a desired result. He's even stated that it should be treated as a hypothetical math problem.

What he has not done - which separates him from the majority of amateurs in SciFo - is make assertions about his pet ideas applying to the real world. And that means his mind is still open to learning the tools and techniques of the discipline.

That's refreshingly novel here on SciFo, and it gives him a guarded pass in my books because it means the topic can actually be discussed mathematically without needing to fit within known physics.


Ultron: in post 28, I pointed you at a simulator to play with and see if you get any curves you like. Did you try it?

Thanks for help.

I must admit I have my pet ideas applying to real world, but this would be very complex discussion and I guess it should be placed in forum Alternative theories and I would need to describe it in more detail. While it seems appropriate to discuss selected geometrical problem in Physics and math forum. And Im glad some people looked into it, especially you regarded it as I was hoping.

Have played with the simulator and it really looks like I assume it is, but the question remains if the real geometrical/vector solution would look the same.

 

[Q-reeus]

Thanks for help.

I must admit I have my pet ideas applying to real world, but this would be very complex discussion and I guess it should be placed in forum Alternative theories and I would need to describe it in more detail. While it seems appropriate to discuss selected geometrical problem in Physics and math forum. And Im glad some people looked into it, especially you regarded it as I was hoping.

Have played with the simulator and it really looks like I assume it is, but the question remains if the real geometrical/vector solution would look the same.

View attachment 4395

Hmm.... I will come back to suggest - no - assert - that a bog standard statistics-only-relevant normal distribution, has exactlty ZERO relevance to a 'field theory' that is inherently self-contradictory. Claimed to be consistent with conservation of energy-momentum and Newton's third Law, but in fact demonstrably in flagrant violation of both. A certain poster here evidently dismisses such basic issues. Hoping instead to capitalize by appearing as a voice of openness - "Back off nay-sayers- give this guy a fair chance!"
OK, let's see how that open-ended 'understanding/sympathetic' approach works out in the end. My position is completely unambiguous, as the record here testifies to. NO BLACK-FLIPS! NO RATIONALIZING AFTER THE FACT! THE BASIC NOTION PRESENTED IN OPENING POST VIOLATES THE ACCEPTED RULES OF LOGIC.

 

[Ultron]

the only force created by rotation is momentum, yet you have me convinced your proposal creates rotation.

To better visualise my fictional attractive force, I will give three examples how it would work in real world.

1. If an asteroid is so called pile of rubble type, when it rotates too fast, centrifugal force would cause it to fly apart. But there are some asteroids which defy standard expectations, they rotate too fast for standard gravity to keep it together, yet they dont fly apart. If my fictional attractive force would be real, one of its effects would be exactly the same, holding fast rotating objects together thanks to counterbalancing centrifugal effect. But it is important to mention, that this doest not mean, that the attraction force helps the asteroid to spin up, it just attracts the parts ot the asteroid toward some point under surface (but not to center for most parts). On the other hand, scientists have come up with other solution, they think it is held together by van der Waals force. But nobody really confirmed this hypothesis by some experiment or some detailed study. One example of this effect is asteroid 1950 DA:
https://www.space.com/26819-potentially-dangerous-asteroid-1950da-rubble-pile.html

2. If this fictional attractive force would help to sustain rings around planets or asteroids, it would mean that if the rotation speed decreases over time, the existing rings would just drop on equator and then it would then look like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_ridge_on_Iapetus

3. If there is some big and fast rotating planet, at some point in the orbit of the planet, which is near to range of maximum of this attraction force, there should be visible some rotating spirals, which would show combination of gravity and this fictional attractive force. It would look similar to this (already posted in one of previous replies):

 

[Q-reeus]

To better visualise my fictional attractive force, I will give three examples how it would work in real world.

1. If an asteroid is so called pile of rubble type, when it rotates too fast, centrifugal force would cause it to fly apart. But there are some asteroids which defy standard expectations, they rotate too fast for standard gravity to keep it together, yet they dont fly apart. If my fictional attractive force would be real, one of its effects would be exactly the same, holding fast rotating objects together thanks to counterbalancing centrifugal effect. But it is important to mention, that this doest not mean, that the attraction force helps the asteroid to spin up, it just attracts the parts ot the asteroid toward some point under surface (but not to center for most parts). On the other hand, scientists have come up with other solution, they think it is held together by van der Waals force. But nobody really confirmed this hypothesis by some experiment or some detailed study. One example of this effect is asteroid 1950 DA:
https://www.space.com/26819-potentially-dangerous-asteroid-1950da-rubble-pile.html

2. If this fictional attractive force would help to sustain rings around planets or asteroids, it would mean that if the rotation speed decreases over time, the existing rings would just drop on equator and then it would then look like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_ridge_on_Iapetus

3. If there is some big and fast rotating planet, at some point in the orbit of the planet, which is near to range of maximum of this attraction force, there should be visible some rotating spirals, which would show combination of gravity and this fictional attractive force. It would look similar to this (already posted in one of previous replies):

The KEY word, from the very outset of this ill-fated thread, is "To better visualize my fictional attractive force"....
So , "fictional" ie. not conforming to reality, is admitted from the start. Why should an admittedly fictional interaction, which violates basic rules of logic, and observational evidence, be given any serious attention at all? I confess to be guilty, in a sense, of giving that notion even remote endorsement by participating here at all. Countering self-centered input from other participant(s), is my only 'excuse'. Take it or leave it.

 

[Ultron]

The KEY word, from the very outset of this ill-fated thread, is "To better visualize my fictional attractive force"....
So , "fictional" ie. not conforming to reality, is admitted from the start. Why should an admittedly fictional interaction, which violates basic rules of logic, and observational evidence, be given any serious attention at all? I confess to be guilty, in a sense, of giving that notion even remote endorsement by participating here at all. Countering self-centered input from other participant(s), is my only 'excuse'. Take it or leave it.

Im certainly not trying to convince you, that this fictional force exists. By these visualisations examples I just wanted to avoid misconceptions like when somebody would implicate, that this fictional force would spin up the disc forever like perpetuum mobile. It is not pushing force, it just attracts along the green line and the direction of attraction is marked by arrow sign pointed to the violet line. This understanding is important for calculation. And thanks to this discussion I have realized that I have to make it abundantly clear when I will write the whole description. Its like Im writing 2+2=4 and then repeatedly get response no, you are wrong, 2+2 is not 5.

 

[Q-reeus]

Im certainly not trying to convince you, that this fictional force exists. By these visualisations examples I just wanted to avoid misconceptions like when somebody would implicate, that this fictional force would spin up the disc forever like perpetuum mobile. It is not pushing force, it just attracts along the green line and the direction of attraction is marked by arrow sign pointed to the violet line. This understanding is important for calculation. And thanks to this discussion I have realized that I have to make it abundantly clear when I will write the whole description. Its like Im writing 2+2=4 and then repeatedly get response no, you are wrong, 2+2 is not 5.

You are not trying to convince me. OK, but what are you trying to convince yourself, or anyone else for that matter? The dictionary definition of fictional:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fictional

There are logically only two courses of action available:

1: Demonstrate observational evidence confirming claimed idea. Established physical theory is clearly not an appropriate restraint in this case. If experiment confirms, theory must adjust! IF!

2: Show that foundational logic is somehow self-contradictory i.e illogical. Good luck with that one!

Is there any situation where you would be prepared to concede experimental evidence and/or basic logic invalidates your cherished vision? If the answer is no, what further course of action is available? I can see none.

 

[DaveC426913]

... avoid misconceptions like when somebody would implicate, that this fictional force would spin up the disc forever like perpetuum mobile. It is not pushing force, it just attracts along the green line and the direction of attraction is marked by arrow sign pointed to the violet line.

Also problematic if the vectors represent an attractive force.
That attractive force works both ways.
It will work on the disc to slow it.
In other words, you've drawn the arrows head-for-tail.

 

[Q-reeus]

Another, perhaps 'final' attempt to to put a decent end to this. Going back to your #1 post illustrations. Explain clearly how your 'attracting forces' could logically operate on matter only external to the disk but not on matter within the disk itself. Consequences already explored in ##37 btw. If you cannot provide a coherent argument justifying such a bizarre exclusion principle, is it not already way past time to concede defeat?