Developing equation for fictional force created by rotation

[DaveC426913]

Explain clearly how your 'attracting forces' could logically operate on matter only external to the disk but not on matter within the disk itself.

I must have missed it. Where does the OP claim that the force does not operate on the matter of the disc itself?

 

[Q-reeus]

I must have missed it. Where does the OP claim that the force does not operate on the matter of the disc itself?

By implication. The OP claimed the disk and it's attendant forces conforms to the conservation of energy-momentum principle. See #36, and my response in 1st and 2nd paragraphs in #37. His claim is self-contradictory. Although he doesn't seem to understand that.

 

[DaveC426913]

By implication. The OP claimed the disk and it's attendant forces conforms to the conservation of energy-momentum principle. See #36 and 2nd para in my #37. His claim is self-contradictory. Although he doesn't seem to understand that.

Not sure you're addressing the issue at-hand.

You said: 'Explain clearly how your 'attracting forces' could logically operate on matter only external to the disk but not on matter within the disk itself.'

I don't see the OP implying that; I think you are inferring it.

The OP's statement:

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.

Pretend for the moment, that the OP's fictional force is gravity, but he does not know it. Gravity will attract things from outside the disc. That does not imply it won't attract parts within the disc itself.


But I may be reading the wrong parts of your post. Feel free to clarify.




The rest of your post #37 seems to take a turn into energy conservation.

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

I don't see how that's "destroying energy". Nature is full of self-opposing forces. Examples:

• An electromagnet produces magnetic forces that inhibit current flow. The byproduct is heat.
• The compaction of a massive body such as a star produces heat which causes expansion that resists the compaction (and an lead to supernovae).

For all we know the OP's force, acting on the disc, produces heat as a byproduct. Thus, it does not "destroy energy".

 

[Ultron]

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.

Yes, you are right, it would slow the disc down, but this attractive force works only on one side, as marked by the arrow sign. It is kind of friction from one side and attraction from other side. But I do have good equation for the friction side, so Im interested only on the attraction side, which is more complicated because it is creating this combination of green lines. There is no combination on the friction side, which is just slowing the disc down and which is maintaining the energy conservation, so you dont get the attraction force from nothing. Unfortunately it is very complex idea and I did not want to go this way, because I guess it would only mislead the discussion away from the equation for which Im seeking help.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, you are right, it would slow the disc down, but this part is unimportant, Im interested on the attraction side.

OK, now it's time to point out (as others have previously) that - if this hypothesis is intended to apply to galaxy rotation - you've got a huge problem.

Galaxies are not solid objects; they are collections of individual objects (stars) bound gravitationally in a distributed mass.
Any force a star feels will be expressed as a change in its motion around the galaxy (they are not simple orbits).
The spiral arms and core bars are examples of forces acting on individual stars in countless numbers.

There is a big difference between "slowing a disc down" and "slowing countless distributed stars bound by gravity down". They are not at all comparable.

If this is meant to apply to galactic rotation, now would be the time to say so.

 

[Q-reeus]

Not sure you're addressing the issue at-hand.

You said: 'Explain clearly how your 'attracting forces' could logically operate on matter only external to the disk but not on matter within the disk itself.'

I don't see the OP implying that; I think you are inferring it.

The OP's statement:


Pretend for the moment, that the OP's fictional force is gravity, but he does not know it. Gravity will attract things from outside the disc. That does not imply it won't attract parts within the disc itself.


But I may be reading the wrong parts of your post. Feel free to clarify.




The rest of your post #37 seems to take a turn into energy conservation.



I don't see how that's "destroying energy". Nature is full of self-opposing forces. Examples:

• An electromagnet produces magnetic forces that inhibit current flow. The byproduct is heat.
• The compaction of a massive body such as a star produces heat which causes expansion that resists the compaction (and an lead to supernovae).

For all we know the OP's force, acting on the disc, produces heat as a byproduct. Thus, it does not "destroy energy".

You answered before my edits were done. Which is of itself not an issue as we are all at times guilty of editing an initial posting. Anyway see my final version #65.

Your criticisms are not hard to deal with. The general principle concerning long range forces (the OP specifies his 'attractive forces' have infinite range in
#1 - "This fictive force has practically unlimited range, so it acts on light years long distance,"...), is that it must operate therefore over all distances. Which logically MUST includes the adjacent matter in the rotating disk. But then he immediately introduces irrational weirdness: "...but it is very small on regular objects, like for example in rotating rotors..."

Ha ha ha. That's called 'having your cake and eating it too'. No physically reasonable force could INCREASE with distance as implied there. But even allowing that craziness, ANY force proportional in magnitude to centripetal acceleration but acting cross-product fashion in a tangential direction is inherently nonconservative. There is no rational way around that.

Personally, I'd prefer to just watch reruns of 'The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus'. Great CGI and great acting. Can't say the same entertainment value applies to this thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

But then he immediately introduces irrational weirdness: "...but it is very small on regular objects, like for example in rotating rotors...Ha ha ha. That's called 'having your cake and eating it too'. "

Note the exact same thing can be said about gravity. It is a very small force at the scale of regular objects. That's not irrationally weird is it?

Logically, the OP simply means: on the scale of small objects such as rotating rotors, this force would be quite small. Which is intuitively logical.

No physically reasonable force could INCREASE with distance as implied there.

Counter-example: The net force of gravity is zero at the centre of an physical object and maximum at distance r (where r is the radius of the object).
So, on the face of it, your statement is not true.

But even allowing that craziness, ANY force proportional in magnitude to centripetal acceleration but acting cross-product fashion in a tangential direction is inherently nonconservative.

How do you know it's proportional to centripetal acceleration? What if it were proportional to tangential speed, (analogous to how relativistic length contraction operates on the edge of a rotating disc).

 

[Q-reeus]

Note the exact same thing can be said about gravity. It is a very small force at the scale of regular objects. That's not irrationally weird is it?

Yes, it is indeed weird when taken IN CONTEXT. Read what the OP SPECIFIES in #1. It can only be read as 'large at large distances from the disk, but small at the disk scale' (therefore within the disk).

Logically, the OP simply means: on the scale of small objects such as rotating rotors, this force would be quite small. Which is intuitively logical.

No. See above.

Counter-example: The net force of gravity is zero at the centre of an physical object and maximum at distance r (where r is the radius of the object).
So, on the face of it, your statement is not true.

You had better try and understand the CRUCIAL distinction between central force Newtonian (or even static GR) gravity, applied to the exterior vs interior of a spherically symmetric matter distribution, and the imaginary cross-product pseudo 'forces' posited by Ultron. Chalk and cheese.

How do you know it's proportional to centripetal acceleration? What if it were proportional to tangential speed, (analogous to how relativistic length contraction operates on the edge of a rotating disc).

How do I know? From taking at face value what Ultron SPECIFIES in #1 and later!

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, it is indeed weird when taken IN CONTEXT. Read what the OP SPECIFIES in #1. It can only be read as 'large at large distances from the disk, but small at the disk scale' (therefore within the disk).

Yes. Analogous to what net gravity does. It is zero at the core, very small near the core, increasing to maximum at distance r from the centre, then dropping off to zero as it approaches infinity.
Why is this so unusual?

You had better try and understand the CRUCIAL distinction between central force Newtonian (or even static GR) gravity, applied to the exterior vs interior of a spherically symmetric matter distribution, and the imaginary cross-product pseudo 'forces' posited by Ultron. Chalk and cheese.

Of course I do. I've spent the first page correcting the OP on that.

But you avoided the issue at-hand. None of your ostensibly impossible examples are unprecedented. I've countered them with existing natural properties.
That's doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong; it simply means the argument you've made doesn't hold water and needs refinement.

How do I know? From taking at face value what Ultron SPECIFIES in #1 and later!

As far I can read, the OP has not stated what the force is proportional to, therefore it is an assumption on your part.
For all you know the force is proportional to linear tangential speed. That would result in a force that is zero at the centre, rising to a maximum at distance r.

 

[Q-reeus]

Yes. Analogous to what net gravity does. It is zero at the core, very small near the core, increasing to maximum at distance r from the centre, then dropping off to zero as it approaches infinity.

Let's not be too stupid here. Ultron has it that the imaginary 'force' generated by an orbiting element of mass is a result of centripetal acceleration, AND acts tangential to the instantaneous velocity vector of said mass element (my reasonable rephrasing - feel free to offer an alternative interpretation that agrees with his #1).

But you avoided the issue at-hand. None of your ostensibly impossible examples are unprecedented. I've countered them with existing natural properties.
That's doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong; it simply means the argument you've made doesn't hold water and needs refinement.

Assertions self-evidently without any factual basis need no detailed rebuttal.

As far I can read, the OP has not stated what the force is proportional to, therefore it is an assumption on your part.
For all you know the force is proportional to linear tangential speed. That would result in a force that is zero at the centre, rising to a maximum at distance r.

You are just surmising there and offer no coherent physics based argument. The problem is Ultron's basic notion also lacks any coherent physics based logic.
How about YOU offer a coherent defense of Ultron's idea (theory is way too generous a compliment) that incorporates coherency and does NOT imply proportionality to centripetal acceleration (or - more bizarrely still - some higher power of centripetal acceleration magnitude). There - instead of YOU dictating the agenda - I have seized the initiative and thrown the onus back on you.
Johnny Depp gave a stellar performance in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus!

 

[DaveC426913]

Let's not be too stupid here.

Let's not degenerate to insults.

Ultron has it that the imaginary 'force' generated by an orbiting element of mass is a result of centripetal acceleration,

Quote where he says this? I must have missed it. Specifically where the OP says what his force "is a result of".

Assertions self-evidently without any factual basis need no detailed rebuttal.

You made the assertions that such effects make no sense. I gave concrete examples - (posts 70 and 72), quoting each assertion - of these effects existing in nature.
Do you withdraw your claims that they make no sense - in the face of my real world examples?

You are just surmising there and offer no coherent physics based argument. The problem is Ultron's basic notion also lacks any coherent physics based logic.

No one disagrees. The OP himself says that he has no model yet for the effect he seeks.

We're simply analyzing it as a math problem.

How about YOU offer a coherent defense of Ultron's idea

Why would I do that? I'm not claiming any defense. Nor is the OP.

This is a conjecture.

There - instead of YOU dictating the agenda - I have seized the initiative and thrown the onus back on you.

Doesn't work that way. You are trying to disprove something that is not asserted - but simply conjectured - by the OP.

A conjecture doesn't have to prove itself, it stands open and unanswered.
But you have taken on a much harder task - attempting to disprove it.

Think of this loose analogy:

The OP draws n points on a piece of paper, and asks (conjectures) is it possible to draw a single polygon that intersects every point?

There are many, many possible ways to connect them and as long as we are exploring them, the conjecture stands.

But you are claiming categorically that it can't be done. The onus remains on you to prove that there are no solutions.
Saying "this solution doesn't work" is a far cry from "no solutions work".

Johnny Depp gave a stellar performance in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus!

He didn't. And I agree this is all an academic discussion, meaning it doesn't apply to the real world. But not all math problems have to.

 

[Q-reeus]

Quote where he says this? I must have missed it.

You miss a lot of things. In many threads. Given a return here to the absurd and counterproductive 'PROVE IT!' style exhibited over in 'In defense of space aliens' thread recently, my advice is - give it a rest. Stop gnashing your teeth in anger and resentment.

 

[DaveC426913]

You miss a lot of things. In many threads. Given a return here to the absurd and counterproductive 'PROVE IT!' style exhibited over in 'In defense of space aliens' thread recently, my advice is - give it a rest. Stop gnashing your teeth in anger and resentment.

OK, we'll conclude you concede all points and have nothing further to add here.

 

[DaveC426913]

OP, I think it may be time to recap and re-evaluate your conjecture, in light of what we've discussed. At the very least, being able to demonstrate it with a diagram that adheres to conventions would be very helpful in communicating your idea.

 

[Ultron]

Logically, the OP simply means: on the scale of small objects such as rotating rotors, this force would be quite small. Which is intuitively logical.

Exactly, the magnitude of the fictional force is related to mass and speed of rotation, but I have already covered this magnitude part by equation, so I have just set it as 1 Newton per green line for the example designed for seeking the math solution. So for me it is just another topic diverting the discussion in unwanted direction.

 

[Ultron]

Im glad that my post generated some interest and helpful suggestions, but Im surprised by the heated discussion. Just relax and have fun discussing my fictional attractive force

Its not like you are a committee Im asking for millions to fund my experimental setup confirming my fictional force and you feel the burden of responsibility

If I will overcome my laziness I will complete my 300 € experimental setup in my garage this weekend. And it will be fun even when I probably will get no results. I have full time corporate job, physics is just my hobby and I enjoy it when I have time for it. It would be better to have the equation confirming the 1,41 distance, but I can try trial and error approach.

 

[Q-reeus]

Im glad that my post generated some interest and helpful suggestions, but Im surprised by the heated discussion. Just relax and have fun discussing my fictional attractive force

Key word there is FICTIONAL.

Its not like you are a committee Im asking for millions to fund my experimental setup confirming my fictional force and you feel the burden of responsibility

There it is again - that key word FICTIONAL.

If I will overcome my laziness I will complete my 300 € experimental setup in my garage this weekend. And it will be fun even when I probably will get no results.

I can guarantee you with absolute certainty that any reliable, reproducible readings will indeed be NULL.

I have full time corporate job, physics is just my hobby and I enjoy it when I have time for it.

Not physics - metaphysics. Try and understand the crucial distinction.

 

[Ultron]

they have the same problem with electrons which can spin very fast yet don’t fly apart either…

Im not expert on particle physics, but what I know, it is not about electron flying apart, it is about the spin of electron which seems to be spinning faster than light, but is is somehow interpreted in some other way I dont understand.

following that up increasing spin also increases mass which in turn increased gravity especially in a void area where you would find these asteroids and Saturn. So it is kind of the reverse of an event horizon.

Yea, kind of. Theoretically it could solve the problem with too fast growing black holes in infant Universe. If the rotation speed of black holes would increase its attraction power and the rotation would be further increased by infalling matter, that would mean rapid increasing mass of black holes. But then the question would arise, what would stop this rapid increase in mass of black holes turned quasars? And here we come again to the point where Im writing, that the whole theory is very, very complex.

 

[Ultron]

Not physics - metaphysics. Try and understand the crucial distinction.

Actually Im not a fan of metaphysics or philosophy. But for example Im fan of Feynman and his curious, relaxed and funny approach. Surely he studied a lot of standard math/physics and he was doing physics, not metaphysics, but this included producing crazy ideas, playing with them and then turn it into real physics or discard it. He also spent a lot of time with ridiculous math/physics problems like for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_sprinkler
which is remotely similar to my math problem.

And he was really open for any adventure and having fun. Like him, I like drumming. For example, he wanted to go to Tuva
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuva_or_Bust!
I did not travel there, but I attended a weekend workshop with Tuva shaman. It was interesting and fun. She worked as teacher during day and as shaman during evening/night and villagers respected and feared her. Is it all perfectly scientific and logical? Certainly not on the surface level. But it was interesting, perspective widening experience.

 

[Q-reeus]

Actually Im not a fan of metaphysics or philosophy. But for example Im fan of Feynman and his curious, relaxed and funny approach. Surely he studied a lot of standard math/physics and he was doing physics, not metaphysics, but this included producing crazy ideas, playing with them and then turn it into real physics or discard it. He also spent a lot of time with ridiculous math/physics problems like for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_sprinkler
which is remotely similar to my math problem.

And he was really open for any adventure and having fun. Like him, I like drumming. For example, he wanted to go to Tuva
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuva_or_Bust!
I did not travel there, but I attended a weekend workshop with Tuva shaman. It was interesting and fun. She worked as teacher during day and as shaman during evening/night and villagers respected and feared her. Is it all perfectly scientific and logical? Certainly not on the surface level. But it was interesting, perspective widening experience.

Ultron, if engagements with part-time shamans is part of what turns you on, fine. To each their own. This thread has resulted in various people expending a considerable amount of time and effort that can never be reclaimed. If that effort was for an at least possibly productive outcome, again fine. But it wasn't. I highlighted that word fictional multiple times to emphasize the intrinsic futility of your endeavor. Doomed to failure - by definition!

You can maybe feel good that such are the mod standards here, an obviously worthless undertaking has been given all the slack desired. Instead of being canned early on as a pointless time-wasting exercise. I wouldn't be encouraged by that permissiveness to mount similar threads in the future. If you really have a passion for real physics, best to get a basic grounding by studying the accepted fundamentals. And then and only then, come back in with a proposal that doesn't include 'fictional' as prime characteristic. Cheers.