There's nothing wrong with that. Go right ahead.
Developing equation for fictional force created by rotation
- Thread starter Ultron
- Start date
Ultron
Registered Senior Member
I know a lot about it and have produced quite complex theory about inertia and gravity. The new theory will naturally solve problem of dark matter, dark energy, cause of inertia and gravity, remove singularities from results, solve some problems of quantum mechanics like nonlocality problem resulting from Bells unequality and so on. But as already stated, if I would like to explain the theory, I would do it at least partially in the forum Alternative theories. I wanted to focus on partial math problem here.
If somebody produces the equation here I would give him 10 000 USD after I win the Nobel prize, in other words the money will be paid only in case I receive Nobel price. I would consider to pay some small symbolic sum like 100 USD if somebody would produce the equation and I see it fits. I hope this would not break the rules here.
It is not pointing to the center of the rotating object, the additional attracting force is pointing around 45 degree from center in the direction of the rotation, so somewhere between tangential and radial direction and this direction is changing with the distance from center.
Mass.
The magnitude of the force is not a problem, it depends on mass and speed of the rotating object. 100 kg rotating disc is producing force in area like 0,0000000000001 Newtons, Saturn is producing in like 0,001 Newtons per kg of mass on orbit and rotating black holes are in area of 100 Newtons per kg in orbit, also it depents on distance. I dont have experimental confirmation, only observational/astronomical. Experimental is hard to get due to high sensitivity needed, it is comparable to experiments measuring G constant. Astronomical is better, the idea is simple, I have produced equation, which predicts if an object should have ring or not. And so far the prediction works in 100% of cases. For example Pluto should not have ring but asteroid Chariklo should have ring and it has.
This is kind of diverting the discussion toward my whole theory, but OK, the equation is the same as the equation for relativistic mass, just the v is the
instantaneous speed of rotation of specific point in rotating body and mass is the mass of selected point. In other words it should not be calculated for infinite number of points, we select for example Earth has 6370 km radius and we calculate a "violet" line of 6 370 000 cubes of 1 meter how it is attracting a cube of 1 meter on orbit for example 3000 km above surface. And we have to include the calculated mass of the cubes.
In other words I predict, that relativistic mass is real, but its "gravitational" attraction is not acting in all directions, but only in a specific direction which is in line of the movement of the object. So for example a rocket moving with speed of 100 000 km/s is creating an attractive force behind the rocked in line of its movement. This also applies for the rotating mass where we take the instantaneous speed of rotation and calculate the relativistic mass caused by speed. Yea, this is crazy, I know. But wait some years, and you will see.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Ah, OK, let's not get too big for our britches here. A few days ago, vectors were an utter mystery to you.
That would be like me saying I know a lot about rocket science and am building my own rocket, despite having just learned what combustion is three days ago. Would you willingly be my first passenger?
Thing is, this is the exact opposite of science. This is more like numerology.
And it's what others have been suspecting and fearing. I was giving you the benefit of ambiguity, but now you've squandered my magnanimity.
Worse, Q-reeus will now feel vindicated (post 31), and will hereafter be insufferable.
Alas.
Please roll back to James R 's post #78, last paragraph.
Last edited:
Ultron
Registered Senior Member
Ah, OK, let's not get too big for our britches here. A few days ago, vectors were an utter mystery to you.
That would be like me saying I know a lot about rocket science and am building my own rocket, despite having just learned what combustion is three days ago. Would you willingly be my first passenger?
Vectors being a mystery for me is a little overstated, but yes Im not that good in complex vectors and/or tensors calculations. And also I lack time and enthusiasm to really get into it. But when I see no other choise, I will get to it and develop it myself. When I was young I was taking part in math and physics competitions and in grammar school I won second place in my school in one math competition. In gymnasium (high school) I was not so good compared to others, because I atttended specialised math school. One of my classmates won gold medal in world math olympiade. So our school was one of the best in the world at that time in math and physics. But as I have written before, Im quite good in probability, statistics and pattern recognition.
Regarding rockets, I build my own rocket long time ago when I was a kid, but lost interest before it reached the size needed for carrying people
I dont understand what do you mean. Im not that good at math to develop it myself, but Im good enough to see if it fits the required parameters and is giving a solution which might be real. And then comes the phase to calculate things needed and confront it with experiments and observations.
Ultron
Registered Senior Member
This is off topic, but historically especially rocket science is full of lonely and/or ignored and/or mocked geniuses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky
poor small town teacher who envisioned the future of space exploration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Kondratyuk
learned about him in Cosmos - possible worlds, episode The sacrifice of Cassini, he had such a hard life and despite circumstances he managed to write extraordinary things
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#New_York_Times_editorial
this is funny:
In 1924, Goddard published an article, "How my speed rocket can propel itself in vacuum", in Popular Science, in which he explained the physics and gave details of the vacuum experiments he had performed to prove the theory.[56] But, no matter how he tried to explain his results, he was not understood by the majority. After one of Goddard's experiments in 1929, a local Worcester newspaper carried the mocking headline "Moon rocket misses target by 238,7991⁄2 miles.
As a courtesy to anyone newly reading this thread, one might expect James R's decision to remove many posts would have been announced at the start of this thread, not secreted way down on p4 #74 (correct as of this posting!):
"Moderator note: some off-topic posts have been moved to a separate thread. Beaconator's unhelpful posts and responses to those have all been moved, as they are an unnecessary and pointless distraction from useful discussion."
As a further customary if not obligatory courtesy, one might also expect the new dumping ground for those removed posts would have been linked to in #74. They went to Cesspool here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/of...r-fictional-force-created-by-rotation.164754/
As a result of that severe post culling, it just so happens various of my refs to other post numbers were completely scrambled up, thus making me look particularly careless. Nicely played.
"Moderator note: some off-topic posts have been moved to a separate thread. Beaconator's unhelpful posts and responses to those have all been moved, as they are an unnecessary and pointless distraction from useful discussion."
As a further customary if not obligatory courtesy, one might also expect the new dumping ground for those removed posts would have been linked to in #74. They went to Cesspool here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/of...r-fictional-force-created-by-rotation.164754/
As a result of that severe post culling, it just so happens various of my refs to other post numbers were completely scrambled up, thus making me look particularly careless. Nicely played.
Yeah. I must have moved the posts to make you look bad, deliberately. Because, as we all know, everything is always about you, Q-reeus, isn't it?
When will you grow up?
Jarek Duda
Registered Senior Member
Maybe Coriolis force - characteristic for rotating objects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force
Its hydrodynamical analogue is Lorentz force e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/1/3/008/pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.short
Also similar "fluid drag" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism#Background
Its hydrodynamical analogue is Lorentz force e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/1/3/008/pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.short
Also similar "fluid drag" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism#Background
Ultron
Registered Senior Member
Thanks for proposals, there is some similarity. Also I like how the equation looks like, I think the equation I seek would look similar or on similar level of difficulty.
