JudoP wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 11:35am:


... and right how it is possible I am in work to draw and have it partially drawn. But the same "mechanism" (or dynamic) is not only to construct in drawings but also to film AND FILMED ALREADY. So please don't care what JudoP's problem is here, because that what I am constructing here is proofed by experiments (made from "hard ware") already long: If a marble stands still in the "south point" of a can and you accelerate the whole can to the west (or to the east) very strong, then the marbel starts to run around along cans border "very fast" too. Normaly each child do experience and knowing this phenomenon by playing around with some similar "toys" ...

... EVEN THEN if JudoP want to ask me or himself still for long, what a can and a marble has to do with a bullet and a sling or why I now bring this totally different "toy" into the topic ! ! !

Maybe JudoP became confused about naming the "distances", that in graphics usually are named as "r" (as "route"), but in my drawings are not named "r" but "v" as "velocity". But in case of my drawings this is because the large circle, respectively its circumference, exactly represents one round of bullet (or sling) within "1/3 second" (because the initial-velocity was "3 rps") and is known for its amount (= 7,5 m - okay, I forget to tell that in the drawing too).

So while keeping this "proportions" and always knowing the "run time" from each position (of ball & hand) my nowhere named "r" is the same as "velocity v" because "r/t" (amount of route per "run-time-difference" - means: The time / run time you always can read from balls non-accelerated travel on its non-accelerated circle). In other words: My drawn "routes" are velocitys.

I have done this because my attention is to draw this drawings like / as a "story-book" for an "animated GIF" where I practically need 24 or 36 frames per ROUND (!) what than shall represent a balls run while 1/3 second. So the distance or "route" between "ball in position P0 and ball in position P1 ..." exactly is 0,0138 second ... (!) ... as long as the ball runs not accelerated but with 22 m/s only (= initial velocity !). But when the ball (or balls running-circle) gets accelerated then even that "extra routes per second" I can construct and mesure in the drawing.

That's like to have a "ruler" that can not mesure the distance only but also the time, because time and distance is here the same. That's right like a clock, where the second is exactly "one millimeter" - when the top of the second finger runs for one millimeter then exactly one second "wents" (is gone).

EACH CLOCK or WATCH is like a proof for my claim, that a special "distance" may be taken as / or for "time", and right here this method is not a sign of my "un-knowledge in physics" but "clever" and a very important part of the whole "solution of a miracle".

The only difference between my drawn sling-dynamic and a clock is the "scale" and the phenomenon that the second-finger suddenly starts to run faster and accelerates more and more (while another clock still shows the "non-accelerated time"). This "slinging-clock" of course runs extremly more faster than a (second-finger in) a real clock, because the sling runs one complete round in 0,333 seconds only.



My next drawing (Image P-04) shows how it comes to a stagnation in a balls accelaration while running to / crossing the south-point (because "v hand effectiv" becomes smaller although hands velocity "v Hand" becomes greater) ... and how this is to construct in these kind of graphics.solution of a miracle

JudoP wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 11:35am:


I see. I must have stopped reading before you guys reached that consensus.

JudoP wrote on Aug 27^th, 2017 at 11:27am:



Judo P - Sorry for remembering to this old thread, but I found this on Wikipedia (german) and then in english too. Maybe this can solve a misunderstanding that is only caused by differences in language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration


Relation to relativity / Special relativity / General relativity

"Unless the state of motion of an object is known, it is impossible to distinguish whether an observed force is due to gravity or to acceleration—gravity and inertial acceleration have identical effects. Albert Einstein called this the principle of equivalence, and said that only observers who feel no force at all—including the force of gravity—are justified in concluding that they are not accelerating.

(The special theory of relativity describes the behavior of objects traveling relative to other objects at speeds approaching that of light in a vacuum. Newtonian mechanics is exactly revealed to be an approximation to reality, valid to great accuracy at lower speeds. As the relevant speeds increase toward the speed of light, acceleration no longer follows classical equations.

As speeds approach that of light, the acceleration produced by a given force decreases, becoming infinitesimally small as light speed is approached; an object with mass can approach this speed asymptotically, but never reach it.)"





Wikipedia / Beschleunigung (german): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beschleunigung

Äquivalenzprinzip und allgemeine Relativitätstheorie

"Das Äquivalenzprinzip besagt, dass in einem frei fallenden Bezugssystem keine Gravitationsfelder existieren. Es geht auf die Überlegungen von Galileo Galilei und Isaac Newton zurück, die erkannt haben, dass alle Körper unabhängig von ihrer Masse von der Gravitation gleich beschleunigt werden. Ein Beobachter in einem Labor kann nicht feststellen, ob sich sein Labor in der Schwerelosigkeit oder im freien Fall befindet. Er kann innerhalb seines Labors auch nicht feststellen, ob sein Labor gleichförmig beschleunigt bewegt wird oder ob es sich in einem äußeren homogenen Gravitationsfeld befindet.

(Mit der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie lässt sich ein Gravitationsfeld durch die Metrik der Raumzeit, also die Maßvorschrift in einem vierdimensionalen Raum aus Orts- und Zeitkoordinaten ausdrücken. Ein Inertialsystem hat eine flache Metrik. Nichtbeschleunigte Beobachter bewegen sich immer auf dem kürzesten Weg (einer Geodäte) durch die Raumzeit. In einem flachen Raum, also einem Inertialsystem, ist dies eine gerade Weltlinie. Gravitation bewirkt eine Raumkrümmung. Das bedeutet, dass die Metrik des Raumes nicht mehr flach ist. Dies führt dazu, dass die Bewegung, die in der vierdimensionalen Raumzeit einer Geodäte folgt, im dreidimensionalen Anschauungsraum vom außenstehenden Beobachter meist als beschleunigte Bewegung längs einer gekrümmten Kurve wahrgenommen wird.)"


The german version shows this image for imagination (and I mean that both situations also can be "combined" - therfore I said "speed is relativ" and ment: "velocity in counter-directions can be added"):

Apex-apoc wrote on Oct 15^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:


Hi Apex, long time no speak  Unfortunately I think the disagreement still lies. The stuff around Einstein's work (though extremely interesting) still cannot contribute meaningfully to this problem.

Einstein's relativity cannot bear any relevance unless motion was happening at near light speed, or the concentration of energy/mass is so high that significant curvature of space-time would occur. In our (relatively) low-speed, low-mass world, all relativistic effects are essentially zero and the world can therefore be assumed to be Newtonian.

I believe the argument you are making is from something along the lines of a Galilean transformation, which relates to the concept of relativity (before Einstein made it bizarre).

However, the Galilean transformation is only a reference frame transformation. It has no predictive power, it only tells us how different viewpoints will perceive different positions and motions.

For example, if you were to say that from the perspective of your body, your hand is moving 20m/s... And from the perspective of your hand, the sling projectile is moving 30m/s. It would be factually true to state that the sling projectile is moving 50m/s relative to your body, the earth etc (assuming directions line up).

The problem is that this is just a consistent picture of multiple observations of a given situation. It merely returns relative motions given other relative motions. It does not characterize how a system is affected when a force or motion is made, it just gives a consistent picture at all times for all observers.

Essentially the sticking point is that there is an implicit assumption in your method- that you can simply isolate and move around the spinning sling 'system' without affecting it's internal behavior in any way.

Realistically, all you can do is apply force from the loop end of the sling. This causes an acceleration of the sling projectile due to the tension along the sling. It is what (in combination with a tangential velocity) causes the circular rotation. Altering the force magnitude and direction necessarily alters the motion of the sling projectile. It's new path is determined by it's current velocity and the new altered acceleration due to the force applied through the arm and hand.

johan wrote on Oct 15^th, 2017 at 4:14pm:


Hello! The force of arm in the first line causes acceleration - independent of its complexity. Therefore it is part of a "motion apparatus".

"Complex" are already the movements within metabolic processes, macro-molecules, molecules and atoms. Probably the movements of the last ones (higgs particle / photons?) causes gravity, respectively, acceleration.

So I would say, not the arm causes gravity, but (his) movement, and movement generally, because: Where is no movement, there also is no mass. Moveless particles, mass, masses or a lot of moveless particles never was seen until today.


Mass is movement, and if it wouldn't move than it wouldn't be mass.


But how should it move from A to B without leaving B?

It is conspicious that gravity is right not only a "positiv force", because a "moon" that comes closer to planet "A" has to remove from planet "B". That cannot be called as "tracking (tractor / attraction) between moon and planet A".

You always have to ask "what planet" too: Planet A or planet B ... ? ... mass A or mass B or mass C?

So there never is only "mass appeal" but also "rejektion" at the same time. The one phenomenon cannot appear without the other, and therefore even S. Hawkings, collegs and "prof. Dr. Dr. SC Super-Clever" sees and tells that wrong: Gravity is right NOT the only "positiv" force, while all other forces are "bipolar" (positiv & negativ). That's only the physicans most modern "non-sense".


Sir Isaak Newton said (after watching the dropped apple): All "apples" only fall down / downwards - there have to be an appeal ("mutual attraction"?) between the mass of apple and mass of earth".

But he was wrong, because relative to the moon or sun above the apple-tree,

the same apple doesn't falling down but "up" or "upwards".

Newton only opens one more Question: How was apples came up the trees, if appels could only fall down ???


In history of science right Newtons claim is the oldest, silliest and biggest lie / error ever. The truth is: You can not went to Chicago without leaving Manhatten! That is not a mystik "tracking" or mass-appeal, but a totally simple "going", progress or move.

And sure: Nowadays we know how masses come up the sky, the mountains and the trees, and we gave that forces different names, but that nevertheless are forces that are founded on gravity. Even "buoyancy force" depends on gravity, and so finally it is gravity that lifts apples up the trees. They do not falling down "because of gravity" but because the medium that sourrounds the appels has lower density than the apples. Otherwise they would fall UPWARDS "because of gravity"!

The lowest and highest density you can find in space, but its masses are not "attracted" by locals (centers) of highest density, but highest densitys are formed by (irregular) movements of mass(es). And finally:

Some photons way isn't curved because (the nearness) of a mass centre, but absolutly independent of its existence. Some photons return because of its curvy path, and some do not. But colliding and fusing with other photons on locals that we have called "near" or "nearness" (watchable space / galaxys) can only that ones with curvy paths, because other photons never returns. Other photons passed "near" locals long long ago a will never come back, and others will pass our local first when we had been gone (disappeared) at the longest. 

Not only speed, time, age, nearness and distance are "relative", but curvyness (radius) and "turning sense" too. So it is absolutly logical, that you in the "near" only can find that kind of stuff, that collides and forms locals of highest density, because all other kind of stuff (mass / matter) is out of "reach" at the longest. OF COURSE that stuff is right not "here" and was (had?) never been seen. "Here and now" is only that stuff with curvy path(s) (relativ small turning radius) surrounding some centres of mass. Right caused by the curvyness of particles pathes the number of collisions and fusions increases within that short time that we can wait and become AWARE.
   
Difficult to understand is only why or how a photons radius of return becomes more and more smaller with each collision. But if that has been understood, then gravity (nature and inertia of mass) has been understood too.


Maybe your walk for Manhatten is biomechanically very complex, but under the line it is nevertheless a totally simple run for Manhatten stright on along the highway: One simple run from A to B.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Im Deutschen sagt man auch: "... Cäsar ZOG über den Rubicon ..." - das tat er allerdings freiwillig, und nicht etwa "gezogen", gezwungenermaßen, gedrückt oder "geschoben" wegen einiger "Schub- oder Anziehungskraft" von Seiten dessen, was "das ander Ufer" oder "die andere Seite" heißt. Er hat den Rubicon halt einfach überquert, und zwar allein von sich aus, wenn auch nur mit Gottes Hilfe oder ausreichend viel Schub~ oder Tatkraft die er in Gestalt von Kalorien einer Nahrung entnommen hatte.

Alle Masse / Materie ist schon allein von sich aus auf einem mehr oder minder krummen Weg nach irgendwohin, denn andernfalls wäre sie auch schon gar keine Masse oder Materie.

Noch zu ergänzen wäre allenfalls, dass Masse wie Menge halt ein allerhöchst abstrakter Begriff ist, da man faktisch nicht sagen kann, wo sie anfängt oder endet. Alle Massen sind umstellt und umringt von noch viel mehr Massen. Wo soll sie also im positiven Sinne "HIN", wenn nicht auch zugleich "WEG" von anderen Massen im negativen Sinne?

"Halb zog sie ihn, halb sank er hin". Der Vergleich damit hinkt nun zwar, aber passend find ich diese Verszeile trotzdem.mutual attractionmutual attractionmutual attractionmutual attractionmutual attractionmutual attraction

johan wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 12:24pm:


Never felt the pressure under your feet? Thats caused by gravity, and first if you are playing "cliff hanger" you would feel the same gravity as pulling or a pull, you troll!

A lot of people died under the weight (!) of heavy masses of scree - they was not torn (apart), but CRUSHED (or "pushed").


Where did you learn thinking? In greece, perhaps?


johan wrote on Oct 17^th, 2017 at 12:24pm:


Probably not only one, because you do not notice anything     (... also "attraction gravity" never was "replicated" - neither by you nor by anyone. "Gravity" - lat.: "gravitas" - means not "attraction force" but "heavynes" / "inertia" / "severity").


So my tipp to you: Try it once more with more friendly words!

johan wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 9:34am:


"Too"? Who else modified (or want to modify) his reply???

That you prefer (want) the more aggressiv formulated reply doesn't go without notice!

AncientCraftwork wrote on Jul 9^th, 2020 at 11:05am:

Don't even try. This convo got very dragged into the weeds and blew up with lots of stuff that isn't even relevant.