Truely universal time and distance

[Davros]

That's not what I meant. I meant the comparison between the baseball speed and pinball speed. You get the effect with the baseball due to lower specific weight and thus more influence due to air drag, but the same effect is at least a magnitude smaller with the pinball when you'd throw it with the same speed.

yes thats true the baseball does indeed deviate from its normal path a huge amount more than the pinball does when forward motion and spin are equal not disputing that
what I'm trying to determine is would a device that can launch a 80gram ball 112 inches into the air, be capable of launching a ball that weighs 66.846 grams (because its generating 13.154 grams of lift) 118 inches into the air. (or if you like would a ball that weighs very roughly 15% less I totally suck at working out percentages travel again very roughly les than 10% higher)

According to your logic, reversing the rotation should produce the opposite direction of the air drag and make it ascend less and fall faster. According to my logic that will not be the case, we will see the same anomaly regardless of spin direction here. But it's just my ass-umption, may be wrong as well.

Well guess what, those really nice rocket scientists at Nasa agree with me and disagree with you,
I set up a ball travelling at 100mph and spinning at 2000rpm and noticed that the ball deviates 16 inches to the left
then I set up a ball travelling at 100mph and spinning at -2000rpm (or 2000rpm in the other direction) and noticed that the ball deviates 16 inches to the right this time. proving that direction of spin does indeed change direction of deviation

 

[_xxx_]

Well that would require you to indeed do the experiment I think Because whatever comes out of your calculation would need to be proven too.

 

[Davros]

You're not going to suggest nasa would fake something are you

 

[_xxx_]

Me? NEVER!

This is not a political issue, thus I see no reason for faking anything. As you know, I doubt our current level of knowledge, that's all. But to me it's all speculation until someone (maybe you?) recreates the experiment so we can either confirm or kill the theory. I'm not saying it's true, I'm just saying it could be true and we'd have to try it in order to find out.

I have a industrial router motor doing 24000 rpm with great precision and very vibration-free here at work, but unfortunately it's attached to an engine on a testbed right now and I don't have such a cup either.

 

[Davros]

But to me it's all speculation

then why say its a fact..
I believe Ive proved my case beyond reasonable doubt and by way of forfeit you should

a) admit im right
b) refer to me in future as "Oh master of deductive reasoning"

 

[_xxx_]

I say it's a fact because of the documented anomalies with rockets, as said. Also see the Wiki excerpt qouted above with those other known anomalies. But the ball experiment is to me a speculation, since I haven't been able to confirm it by any independent source (though I haven't searched really hard either).

Now for change I have a chance to be an ass and demand "real" proof :sly: You may be right, but so far you haven't really proven anything since it's still just theoretical and not material proof, proof meant in a scientific sense (experiment, observation, theory, more experiments, sufficient accuracy and reproducability, reasonably sure conclusion based on practical evidence). The actual proof would be a live test in a vacuum chamber, that would certainly convince me.

Your deductive reasoning is just fine in this case, no complaints there

 

[Davros]

My next experiment

 

[snarfbot]

i think what xxx is trying to say is that general relativity describes and predicts the effects of gravity just fine, until they get down to planck scale, where it just stops working right. there has to be a quantum theory to go along with general relativity to not only predict and describe the behavior of gravity, but also to explain why it works, through the interaction of gravitons and matter.

so scientists at places like http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ are trying to directly observe a gravitational wave.

anyway, his claim that scientists have no idea how gravity works is pretty sensational, but there is a certain degree of truth, so until the mysterious graviton or at least a gravitational wave is observed its still just speculation.

 

[Frank]

Levitation is easy. I think I could manage a (small) insect with the amount of power I have at home. And of course, the machinery required to levitate myself would be a bit bulky to carry around in some big trucks, but the massive extension cord to the nearest power plant makes it a bit impractical.

 

[Davros]

Inflatable sofa, canister of helium

 

[Frank]

i think what xxx is trying to say is that general relativity describes and predicts the effects of gravity just fine, until they get down to planck scale, where it just stops working right. there has to be a quantum theory to go along with general relativity to not only predict and describe the behavior of gravity, but also to explain why it works, through the interaction of gravitons and matter.

so scientists at places like http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ are trying to directly observe a gravitational wave.

anyway, his claim that scientists have no idea how gravity works is pretty sensational, but there is a certain degree of truth, so until the mysterious graviton or at least a gravitational wave is observed its still just speculation.

Well, we all know how gravity works, that's not the problem.

Then again, nobody can really imagine how quantum mechanics work, but they seem to do so anyway.

The problems with gravity are twofold: the first bit is alike the speed of light, in that paradoxes abound and require locality, and the second is that you cannot have any mass interact with any other mass when the force carrier is composed of particles.

Both have locality in common, and that's why they differ form quantum physics, which can be explained if all outer shells/particle domains are filled with positrons and their size and influence is reversely proportional to the mass density, which doesn't require instant communication or locality.

So, in short: gravity is easy, the effects are well-known and predictable, from the Planck-scale up to large constellations, but nobody knows what makes it happen.

And yes, in both cases the Planck constants specify a lower bound. For quantum physics, that's not a problem, as it's integer and probability based (waves and particles), but it is a problem for gravity, which seems to be inherently analog and instant.

 

[AlexV]

Guys would you like me to move this one into RPSC? It's borderline there anyhow...

 

[rpg.314]

And yes, in both cases the Planck constants specify a lower bound. For quantum physics, that's not a problem, as it's integer and probability based (waves and particles), but it is a problem for gravity, which seems to be inherently analog and instant.

It's not. And it cannot be.

 

[Davros]

@AlexV, it's up to you mate but I think its calmed down now unless XXX has any more revelations

 

[_xxx_]

Oh great, so now it was me again? I guess you'll blame the bad weather on me too...

 

[Davros]

You know quite well that because of global warming there is no bad weather only glorious sunny days.....

 

[Frank]

It's not. And it cannot be.

That's the problem

 

[Frank]

Btw, the main handicap with understanding gravity is very likely that everyone knows how it works.

You often need an outsider, with only a basic understanding of the problem, but ample knowledge of mechanisms that could be distinctly related to solve it.

 

[WhiningKhan]

That's the problem

There's only a problem if there actually is a problem - is there someone else besides you who claims that gravity propagates at an infinite speed?

 

[Frank]

Where did I proclaim that? I didn't.

I merely tried to explain the problem.