[geocentrism] Re: spinning wheel
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:39:27 +1000
"This is counter-intuitive to most people (including myself), but it
comes straight out of the physics equations." Regner.
Forgive my cynicism, but I would prefer to say the physics equations came out
of the experiment.. I once saw these equations, and after I got to the second
page, I drifted away with the feeling that though they were good mathmaticians,
they were not good physicists, and just did not know as Julius Sumner Miller
said, why it was so..... WHY!
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: spinning wheel
Sorry for not replying before.
Your are very right about the result of the experiment.
To summarize for others:
The wheel will "jerk" in a direction perpendicular to both the axis
of rotation AND the direction of your "jerking twist".
This is counter-intuitive to most people (including myself), but it
comes straight out of the physics equations. My point here is that
your intuition or perception might not be adequate.
I guess your education as an engineer means you don't qualify as a
layperson :-,
Disclaimer for Allen Daves:
=======================================================================
There is absolutely no arguments here for or against HC/GC or for or
against any number of rotational axes in any part of the Solar system
- except for the spinning wheel we used for the experiment, which we do
assume reside somewhere in the Solar system.
=======================================================================
We'll see if that works, but I doubt it.
Regards,
Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> What will happen, when you give the wheel a jerking twist. Regner..
>
> I think Regner you did say jerking twist.. but maybe I assumed wrong about
> your objective. namely to show resistance.. However now based upon what you
> said, today, maybe be you are referring to precession which only shows up
> under extreme force Jerking compared to slow twisting.
>
> I have years ago done this with an electric drill with a fly wheel in the
> chuck . It did what I expected. What ever intuition is, I do not intuit but
> I do imagine. I follow on here, not as a lesson to yourself, but as a help
to
> this forum.
>
> Let me quote from my ancient text book. This is a difficult exercise as my
> scanner is not powered at present. Please forgive the shortcuts and
shorthand
> typos.
> From
> "Mechanics Applied to Engineering" Vol 2. Goodman. 1941 37shillings and
> sixpence. Chapter VIII page 141.
>
> Gyroscope Action.
>
> selected relevant part.
>
> 1. A steam turbine on a boat makes 1800 rpm ( clockwise to observer looking
> towards the bow). The moment of inertia of the rotor is 3,800 lb.-ft units.
> The boat is steered in a circle to starboard (i.e. to the right facing the
> bow) and makes one complete turn in 1.5 minutes. Find the couple acting on
> the hull, and state how it acts.
>
> Gyro couple = 0.00034 WK^2Nn
>
> 0.00034 x 3800 x 1800 x 1/1.5 = 1550 pounds -feet.
>
> The couple tends to lift the stern... ...
>
> I love the teaching method of this book . It gives practical examples , very
> little else except necessary tables and formula. And you have to work and
> reason why it is so.... The libraries have destroyed all these you know.. I
> saved this one.
>
> Lets take another... In my happy hour I do not mind work..I liked this one,
> its years since I last read it.
>
> 2. a dynamo on a train has the armateur shaft parallel with the axels and
> rotates in the same sense. Thje armateur is fixed midway between the
bearings
> which are 48 inches apart. The weight of the armateur (rotor) is 1700 lb.
> and its radius of gyration is 13 inches. Revolutions per minute 920.
> Find the pressure on the bearings and state in which dirction it acts on
both
> the right and left hand bearings when looking towarts the engine, (direction
> of travel?) when the train runs round a curve of 560 ft radius at a speed of
> 50 mph, the centre of the curve being to the left of the observer...
>
> Gyro couple = 0.00034 x 1700 x (13/12)^2 x 920 x { 50 x 5280/ 560 x 6.28 x
> 60} = 9372 inch pounds.
>
> Pressure on bearings = 9372/48 = 195 pounds
> downward on the right hand bearing and upwards on the left.
>
> Net pressure on the right hand bearing = 195 + 1700/2 or 1045 lb.
>
> Net pressure on the left hand bearing = 1700/2 - 195 or 655 lb.
>
> Philip.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Regner Trampedach
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; philip madsen
> Cc: geocentrism list
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 1:30 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: spinning wheel
>
>
> I noticed this correspondence about my question about a spinning wheel
> is under a completely wrong subject - -which makes this forum very
> hard to navigate...
> Anyway - this experiment has nothing whatsoever to do with proving
> whether the Earth is rotating or not. The effect of a moving Earth is
> far too little to be relevant in this experiment. But you are also wrong
> about what will happen, when you give the wheel a jerking twist.
> This experiment is about whether you can trust your intuition.
> I'll give you some more time to ponder the experiment, before I reveal
> what happens - you should really try, if possible...
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Regner
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> -
>
>
> Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Bennett
> > To: 'philip madsen'
> > Cc: 'Martin G. Selbrede' ; 'Neville Jones' ; geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;
> > 'Robert Sungenis' ; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 8:13 AM
> > Subject: RE: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: philip madsen [mailto:pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 12:23 AM
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx; Robert Sungenis;
> Robert
> > Bennett
> > Cc: Martin G. Selbrede; Neville Jones
> > Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert. Given that you theorise that resistance to flywheel axial
> rotation
> > is due to aether density? if we can call it that, would you think the
> same
> > rule would apply to any acceleration in a straight line?
> >
> > [Robert Bennett] Of course - inertia is the aether's resistance to
> relative
> > motion of matter through it.
> >
> > There are a couple of questions that come out of this where MS call
> >
> >
> >
> > acceleration any change of velocity or direction of motion due to the
> > application of a force. .
> >
> >
> >
> > In the case of angular motion, when a car cuts a corner, at constant
> speed, I
> > can concur that extra force/energy is applied during the turn.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the case of a satellite, yes again force g is applied to cause the
> curved
> > motion. which may represent an input of energy.
> >
> > [Robert Bennett] Energy is required to put a satellite in orbit... not
> to
> > keep it there.
> >
> > However in the case of a flywheel, at say1500 rpm, on frictionless
> bearings
> > in a vacuum, no force is needed to keep this angular velocity in
> momentum..
> > Is this not an inconsistancy..
> >
> > [Robert Bennett] Energy was needed to spin the flywheel from rest and
> drag
> > the aether into a vortex within it. At 1500 rpm there is no longer any
> > resistance to motion, because THE AETHER IS CO-MOVING WITH THE FLYWHEEL!
> >
> > I know they talk of centripetal force, which has no energy input.. Is
> that
> > why they call it a fictional force??
> >
> > [Robert Bennett] Maybe you're thinking of the centrifugal reaction
> force
> > that acts on the object causing the circular motion. or maybe not?
> >
> > Newton's inertial forces are often called pseudo-forces.
> >
> > You can divulge your intellectual property now as I have paid for my
> copy.
> > Cant wait for it to arrive. LOL.
> >
> > [Robert Bennett] Great news.Scrooge has broken out the piggy bank. Now
> I
> > can buy a BMW and move to the islands.
> >
> > Bob Sungenis has a special edition for all the Aussies - the book is
> printed
> > upside down.
> >
> >
> >
> > But I cringe to think that you will examine every word and give us your
> > opinion in a thousand words or more. J
> >
> >
> >
> > Now some other applications.
> >
> > Remembering Aspdens theory and experiment, I tend not to complicate the
> > aether with Scripture.
> >
> > [Robert Bennett] The truth isn't complicated. The mind of man makes it
> so.
> >
> > From Aspden, it seems that the inertia of mass in rotation causes the
> aether
> > in the vicinity to spiral out away from the mass. This spiral
> relationship
> > can be positive or negative..
> >
> > By that I mean, the same effect would occur if the mass was revolving in
> the
> > aether, or the mass was static and the aether was revolving around the
> mass.
> > As is the case we proposed is happening in the geocentric system.
> >
> > [Robert Bennett]This is just a form of Mach's principle - the relativity
> of
> > rotation.
> >
> > But we know more than this. There are many experiments - misinterpreted
> or
> > ignored by MS - that support GC and disprove HC/AC. See your new GWW.
> >
> >
> >
> > Therefore the aether would be spiraled out from the world close to it,
> due
> > to its relative rotation to the earth.
> >
> > Let's say aether is dragged around within the rotating mass , and some
> of it
> > is dragged around outside the rotor (Aspden and Sagnac exps.) in a
> temporary
> > boundary layer. This shows self-interaction within the aether.
> >
> > Call this an aether rotating induced centrifuge. Is this the vortex to
> which
> > you are referring? This situation would be unique to the earth.
> Satisfying
> > Genesis. With the other worlds rotating, it would be mass rotating
> induced
> > centrifuge..
> >
> > Or an induced aether vortex, yes.
> >
> > Unique to Earth ?? The vortex will be induced anywhere in the universe
> where
> > matter rotates in aether.
> >
> > I think you're confusing the natural firmament vortices with this
> vortex,
> > artificially induced and much weaker.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Michelson-Gale exp. can be modified in 2 ways;
> >
> > 1. Use a small ring laser gyro to detect the aether's rotation
> around
> > the Earth.
> >
> > 2. Put the laser at the center of a large massive centrifuge. As
> the
> > centrifuge speeds up, the laser will respond to the centrifuge's
> vertical
> > axis of rotation, showing that the rotation is affecting the aether
> around
> > it.
> >
> > Another demo of the induced vortex.
> >
> >
> >
> > I cannot see that this necessarily means that inertia would reduce to
> zero at
> > depth, but the thought certainly raises many posibilities about what may
> > really be happening in the core. Then what about the poles?
> >
> > the aether density must be higher there.
> >
> > The fixed firmament ends at the Earth's surface water, but little is
> revealed
> > about the dynamic aether of Daniel 10:7.
> >
> > Another aether test: repeat the surface tests in a deep-sea
> submersible.
> >
> >
> >
> > The aether does not rotate at the poles, nor at the geostat distance.
> >
> >
> >
> > Enjoy GWW.
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert B.
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: philip madsen
> >
> > To: geocentrism list ; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx ; Robert Sungenis ; Robert
> > Bennett
> >
> > Cc: Martin G. Selbrede ; Neville Jones
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:12 PM
> >
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
> >
> >
> >
> > Good stuff Dr. Robert. They could never explain other than by a
> mathmatical
> > concept why a body rotating at constant velocity was called
> acceleration...
> > not to my satisfaction anyway.
> >
> >
> >
> > You just did. You could have left out the scriptual reference though..
> > Science has no need of that... little grin..
> >
> >
> >
> > Philip.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Robert Bennett
> >
> > To: sungenis@xxxxxxx ; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Cc: Neville Jones ; Philip ; Martin G. Selbrede
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 6:51 AM
> >
> > Subject: RE: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
> >
> >
> >
> > R&M,
> >
> >
> >
> > Classical physics use angular momentum and rotational inertia to
> > empirically describe the bike wheel exp. But MS physics has no
> underlying
> > causal mechanism that explains inertia, the resistance to a change in
> linear
> > or spinning motion, nor can MS explain how the wheel knows/senses that
it
> is
> > moving (and with respect to what?).
> >
> >
> >
> > A truly loyal Aetherian would not run from this issue, but say that
> the
> > inertial component of the aether resists the attempt to change the
> vortex
> > induced by the original spin-up of the wheel.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the aether is causing this effect, then removing or reducing it
> > should remove or reduce the effect.
> >
> > 1. The definitive answer to the location of aether is in
> Genesis:
> > the firmament is sandwiched between the waters below and above (it).
> >
> > 2. Miller's exps have shown that the aether can be partially
> > shielded by the steel and concrete in buildings and increases with
> altitude,
> > implying that the firmament boundary with the earth's surface is
gradual,
> not
> > sharp.
> >
> >
> >
> > The question is: how much shielding is needed? How deep must the
exp.
> be
> > buried to see a measurable reduction?
> >
> > MS physicists use abandoned salt mines to reduce cosmic ray
> background;
> > perhaps this would be deep enough.
> >
> > But Russian deep drilling for oil indicates the shaft temperature
> falls
> > after ~8 miles down. This implies that the aether has been fully
absorbed
> at
> > this depth.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nevertheless there should be a decrease in the aether and the bike
> > wheel's resistance to axial motion with depth. The same would be true
for
> any
> > gyro motion, or the oscillation plane of the Foucault pendulum.
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert B
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: sungenis@xxxxxxx [mailto:sungenis@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 8:51 PM
> > To: robert.bennett@xxxxxxx; markjwyatt@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Fwd: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
> >
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Repeat for Jack and Allen;
> >
> >
> >
> > Regner asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a
> > spinning bicycle wheel, if you try to turn it sideways..
> >
> >
> >
> > In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system.
> >
> >
> >
> > Newtons laws are demonstrable and satisfactory for dealing with
> motion,
> > if not the reason why, at least the properties as experienced.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hold the axel firmly with wheel edge in front of your nose whilst
> the
> > wheel is spinning rapidly. Now try to rotate your body.
> >
> >
> >
> > A spinning flywheel is stable and resists angular rotation around
> its
> > axis of rotation . You can test this principle as Regner suggested. .
> >
> >
> >
> > The bicycle depends on this principle to work.
> >
> >
> >
> > A bicycle wheel that is suspended vertically and powered to rotate
> > continuously, with the axel pointing east- west. in a frame having no
> > resistance to rotation in any direction , (set in gymbol bearings) will
> > maintain it orientation vertically for ever, except , because the earth
> is
> > rotating one revolution per day, this frame will not turn with the
motion
> of
> > the earth.
> >
> >
> >
> > Consequently if you are looking at this wheel edge on from the
> North,
> > you will see the frame with the wheel turn slowly clockwise , making one
> > complete turn per day. If it was vertical on 12 oclock at noon, it will
> be
> > pointing at 1 an hour later, and so on.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the world was not rotating with any angular movement, this
> flywheel
> > would remain in the vertical orientation .
> >
> >
> >
> > We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we
> keep
> > running away from it? Long range ballistic missile computers using
> inertial
> > guidance systems must program in this rotation to stay on course..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Philip.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Allen Daves
> >
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:37 AM
> >
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
> >
> >
> >
> > uh yea ..im at a loss here to phil........how does that prove HC
> > again..?
> >
> > Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > OK Philip,
> >
> > What's the relevance, please explain?
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: philip madsen
> >
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:10 PM
> >
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Regner concedes?
> >
> >
> >
> > If Regner conceded and accepted that the geocentric proof of
> > geocentrism Jack asked Paul?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jack, Regner never will concede such a thing..
> >
> >
> >
> > He asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a
> > spinning bicycle wheel, if you try to turn it sideways..
> >
> >
> >
> > In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system.
> >
> >
> >
> > I told you all this yesterday..
> >
> >
> >
> > We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this
> debate..
> > I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
> >
> >
> >
> > Philip..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date:
> > 5/11/2007 4:36 AM
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date:
> 5/11/2007
> > 4:36 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1119 - Release Date:
> 8/11/2007
> > 5:55 PM
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.26/1119 - Release Date:
8/11/2007
> 5:55 PM
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1132 - Release Date: 15/11/2007
9:34 AM
Other related posts:
