|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
23 November 2024 17:38
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Luis Gonzalez |
| Subject: |
Least we should say that gyros breach the First Law of motion! |
| Question: |
The First Law of Motion gives us room to extrapolate that an object moving at steady constant velocity is undistinguishable from an object at rest when perceived from within its own frame of reference (i.e. velocity is relative to an observer’s perspective, from the observer’s frame of reference).
Through this thread I intend to present logical proof that even though the FIRST Law of motion is wholly applicable to LINEAR velocity, it is however NOT applicable to angular motion, according to the definition of the First law (which is available for review in physics books and on the web).
(Therefore a corollary is needed to extend the first law, so that it is suitable to angular motions. I will not yet attempt to phrase that corollary.)
Luis G |
| Date: |
25 October 2009
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 25/10/2009 17:11:48
| | | In linear motion, the word “Velocity” indicates both “speed” and “direction”, thus linear “Velocity” is a “Vector”. The First Law of motion refers to constant SPEED and constant DIRECTION.
Contrary to the first law, all angular “velocity” by its very nature CANNOT have CONSTANT DIRECTION in the same way that a linear vector can be constant, because the DIRECTION of CURVED motion is constantly CHANGING.
Intuitively we believe that the DIRECTION of angular motion can have a sense of steadiness that we think of as “constant”. So we say that a spinning object has angular “velocity” indicating that both its speed and direction are constant in some way.
However what we really mean is that angular motion can have constant “speed” with a “constant-rate-of-change” in direction!!
This rate of change is in fact “Centripetal acceleration”.
Interestingly, the existence of centripetal ACCELERATION tells us that angular motion CANNOT be referred-to or assigned under the First law of motion, as the first law of motion EXCLUDES the existence of ACCELERATION!
So when I read someone is claiming that gyro related behaviors BREACH the First law of motion, I can’t help thinking it is a ridiculous statement that does not make sense.
These types of claims have either a poor (or very loose) definition of the First law, or plainly ignore that gyro phenomena cannot exist in absence of angular motion (and angular motion depends on changing direction, which is excluded from the correct interpretation of the First Law of motion).
To conclude, if we fail to see that all gyro phenomena includes a mix of compounded angular motions (which do NOT maintain constant DIRECTION), then we can make many erroneous statements and unwittingly arrive at naïve conclusions.
While Newton’s definition of the laws of motion may have stopped somewhat short regarding angular motion, the three laws that set the foundations of BASIC mechanics remain intact.
(Relativity introduced adjustments applicable under specific conditions that expanded the theory but did not contradict it).
The fact that Newton took matters only to a specific point, and not beyond it, does not imply error in any form or shape. (If incompleteness is synonymous to error and wrong, then all science is in error and all historic scientists and geniuses are wrong, because science and knowledge will forever continue to evolve.)
Statements that ascribe “error” or “wrongfulness” to the laws of motion prove the existence of naïve arrogance, which results from the ever-present degrees of ignorance in humanity.
In short, we can exonerate the First Law of motion from all angular produced phenomena including the prospect of gyro-propulsion.
I will present other threads with similar defense for the second and third laws of motion, and we will see if those who claim otherwise have truly thought this out well.
Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Maddy - 27/10/2009 13:13:24
| | | Hello Luis,
Let’s have a reality check here, is there such a thing as a vector?
Straight lines, flat surfaces or perfect spheres do not exist in nature, the closer you look the “straight” vector is actually a path of curvature, only in theories and CAD systems do they occur, every single thing moves in a path of curvature to a greater or lesser extent, this is where Newton made a wrong assumption about his world of nice orderly geometry and motion, and this obviously leads on to oh so many errors all the way down the line,
What do you think?
Best wishes
Maddy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 27/10/2009 20:03:37
| | | What an excellent and useful observation! Outstanding. Thank you, Maddy.
Cheers, Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 29/10/2009 20:17:04
| | | Thanks for requesting my opinion Maddy,
Your response is good and it is also interesting.
It is good because it points out the blurry boundaries between curved and straight.
It is interesting because of the perspective and stand you have taken.
Mathematical vectors are “perfect”, but we know that reality is made from less than perfect quasi-vectors.
However, we also know that when perfect mathematics is applied to the imperfect vectors of the real world it enables us to make accurate predictions; permitting us to navigate rockets and numerous other engineering feats (this would not possible without the laws of motion).
While your point is well introduced and is correct, your conclusions may need some revision.
Modern science models that work (including relativity) are based on and built upon the laws of motion.
If credible new theories are built upon old assumptions, then the old assumptions cannot be said to be wrong (though they may be less accurate to some degree).
The laws of motion are still used and stand valid. Their credibility grows each time they are used as foundation from which to launch greater theories (the word “wrong” may be too strong).
I hope you agree. If not, perhaps you can provide us with your own replacement to the old laws of motion.
(If you were Newton, what basic rules would you have written to be more accurate?)
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Maddy - 31/10/2009 16:48:42
| | | Hello Luis,
Your opinion is appreciated, thank you!
I would like to explore the subject of the term "Laws", as we're both aware are products of human thought and no more, these are normally created through various methods of testing and observation to verify our notions of how and why things happen the way the they do, some "Laws" hold strong under many onslaughts of various types and would appear robust in their application, others hold true to limited levels.
The subject of Science has many laws to govern the diverse disciplines practised, some of these laws need tweaking others replaced, but this is from the human perspective. There are no prizes for copying, repeating or similar when new boundaries may require to be breached, this is the "Original thinking" where the true knowledge comes from within not out with, the eureka moment few will ever experience, I feel in any subject everything has to be considered, nothing left out or in which may seem a paradoxical comment, this is to prevent the restrictions of operating within the box, adhering to the laws, etc etc, where in the academic world individuals are praised, congratulated and awarded for being excellent in the art of repeating what they are taught.
As for my offering to anyone of what I could give in terms of addition or replacement of the "Old laws" It's as simple as.... Don't be afraid to go on a journey of discovery, where previous thoughts are not allowed to restrict what might be possible, try to take everything you learn or are taught with a pinch of salt, as it's only someone else’s idea that has been accepted! Think about it, the world of science is a big business, or should I say the world knowledge restriction, the people who depend on a notion holding sway will fight dearly for that notion to be championed above all others. The comfortable elite in the club of knowledge don't wish their position to be undermined, and they will do everything in their power to keep the status quo as many things depend on it.
Our journey through life can be difficult when faced with new notions, it's how we remain open to wonders of our experience that will determine how we judge what success we may achieve, or what success really is, as that is not for the academic elite to determine.
I think there are no "Laws" only notions of human thought when it comes to "How it all works" everything will just simply be regardless of whether we have a law for it or not, so I would suggest an openness to everything when it comes to knowing things, and if it doesn't "Fit in” we should try and resist to make it fit in, just because we feel it should.
Humankind is but an atom in a molecule of oil, in the gearbox of the universe, insignificant, nevertheless all important.
Best wishes
Maddy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Maddy - 01/11/2009 12:20:00
| | | Hello Luis.
I forgot to include this part in the earlier posting,
Can you provide an example of an object anywhere in the universe that moves in a linear fashion and conforms to Newton’s 1st law of motion, if everything moves in a path of curvature?
Just one example would be fine,
Strong foundations are very important for further expansion of an idea or theory, if mathematical vectors are perfect why do they not mirror precisely what happens in the physical universe? Would this be a case of fitting the results to suit a notion or theory?
Are they indeed “Perfect”? Again this would appear to be from the human perspective.
Best wishes
Maddy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 02/11/2009 22:06:26
| | | Hi Maddy,
It’s always pleasant to exchange ideas with intelligent open-minded individuals.
Our quest may be similar but our paths appear different.
How we explore, and what paths we follow can only be created by ourselves.
Perhaps in the future we will find something where our ways thinking allows us room for discussion.
On this matter we are hunting in different places with different tools (I can’t be sure we are hunting for the same things).
We agree that the universe we know is curved and therefore does not have perfectly straight lines. However sufficiently short spans of curves become suitable for the mathematical analysis that is given to straight lines; the straight-line equations are of sufficient accuracy to make predictions in these short spans (some of which are very long distances in space).
Our knowledge of the universe can only be an approximation; I chose to fallow the approximations of math and of accepted physics because they have been and still are productive.
Your approach has, at the very least, lifted my spirit of adventure in science.
I will continue my effort and encourage you to follow your path in your own way as well.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Maddy - 03/11/2009 10:40:31
| | | Hello Luis,
Sometimes a breakthrough can be just round the corner, I think all the answers are there, just sometimes we have to search in unusual and occasionally, unconnected places to retrieve the spark that we require to complete our quest for the answers that remain hidden, small insignificant items can hold the key to understanding the complete picture, it's all relevant.
Good Luck Luis, I'm sure you'll find what your looking for soon.
Best Wishes
Maddy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 03/11/2009 14:52:12
| | | Hi Maddy,
I agree that the answers are often found in unexpected places though they are always connected even if it is through new kinds of connections. Thank you for the inspiration.
A question I had hoped for did not take place:
When is a real-world curved line suitable to be considered as a mathematical straight line? In other words, when can we apply the first law of motion to an object, which is always moving in some sort of curve?
My answer is that when no discernable force exists (to cause change in the existing velocity) then the first law of motion is applicable.
In other words, if we put “sensors” within the reference-frame of the object, and we cannot detect a force, then the first law of motion is applicable to our purpose at hand.
(Note that objects are always in a state of relative-motion, but perhaps not always in a state of detectable acceleration!)
The “first law” can be instrumental to expanding (albeit incrementally) our realm of current knowledge about reality (even if this “law” is really just a useful conjecture).
I would like to pose a rhetorical question: is the curvature of space absolute or relative? (Either answer will require proof.)
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Maddy - 04/11/2009 23:52:01
| | | Hello Luis,
I spent time replying to your last post, but when I sent the message, it has not appeared as expected, and have now lost the original text, maybe I should type it into a file first and save a copy, I will reply (Again) soon.
Best wishes
Maddy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Maddy - 10/11/2009 01:10:13
| | | Hello Luis,
How are you?
About the question “When is a real-world curved line suitable to be considered as a mathematical straight line?”
When we try to compare the curved path to a typical line, there exists a deviation, this deviation is defined not by a single line, but by two lines which are parallel to each other and offset by a distance, therefore we now have two entities at an offset to the original curved path, which one do we choose? Each line is now in error to curves path, the path of curvature is also not constant, and has no definable path, it also has no definable start or end, if you want to fit the curve to the line(s) and disregard the errors then you can apply the first law, of course you can, but by doing this you will be eliminating certain elements of the complete process, remember its all relevant and something could be CONSTANTLY missed during a process of investigation which maybe key to a breakthrough. Mathematical Constants which are more notions of human thought produce fixed points in a process, this however is not the way of the universal processes, subtle variable change is required and is also inevitable, and this is at odds with the mathematical definable “Perfect” objects which we discussed earlier. All forces are relevant, everything affects everything else all the time, it might only be infinitely small but it still causes an affect. In the reality of our experience, there are no constants and the velocity or path of an object will change through time, this change is nevertheless relevant to the complete experience.
Is the curvature of space absolute or relative? Is there only two possibilities?
When we look at our experiences, these are different aspects of the “I” experience, which are parts of the whole process. Our individual versions of reality are linked and in a state of change relative to one another and can be described as being within the Absolute, the whole experience, everything is contained within the Absolute, these change aspects are relative to everything else and are affected by all things within the Absolute. Therefore I would say the curvature of space is relative and affected by states of change, caused by all things contained within the Absolute. No point or path can be defined within the Absolute due to the fluid nature of change and the processes which drive it, the “I” experience.
This may not be answers you were looking for Luis,
Best wishes
Maddy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 10/11/2009 15:10:46
| | | Mandy, this is disappointing.
Your entire post is jiber-jaber. The first post you did was excellent and each one you subsequently did descended in cohesiveness and usefulness-- and now I see this incoherent blabber. You must go back and work very hard to regain the excellence. Don‘t be afraid to use an eraser and a trashcan. You know when it isn’t right. Trust your instincts, throw it all away when it rambles and start out clean again.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Maddy - 10/11/2009 22:30:29
| | | Hello Glenda,
Good point, and very good advice and thanks for your honesty too,
It was late and I was tired, there was a lot of things in between that were missed and I feel after reading it again, the plot was lost. My post before the last, which didn't make it to the website for whatever reason was much more pleasing to the mind.
Is there an issue with the website's system when posts are applied and don't show?
Best wishes
Maddy
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 11/11/2009 01:32:09
| | | Hello Mandy,
Actually my name is Glenn. Please remember that. You‘ll do fine. I’m pulling for you. Take your time. You have a really impressive mind and I know you’ll work it out. I look forward to seeing you put it all together. You are my ace, even if you don‘t never win a race.
Lots of lucky Mandy,
Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 12/11/2009 01:22:48
| | | Maddy, I was teasing you about your name. That used to flip [ lois ] Luis out. Forget about it.
:--)
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 14/11/2009 17:34:33
| | | Hi Maddy,
Thanks for providing a different point of view. I hope the gyro-propulsion effort can find benefit from our comments.
Best Regards,
Luis G.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/11/2009 08:19:18
| | | This kind of thing chafes.
Luis: “Thanks for providing a different point of view.”
Maddy’s work can not be evaded, or dismissed as a point of view, Luis. It is a perfect, simple, inarguable truth.
Luis“I hope the gyro-propulsion effort can find benefit from our comments.”
His counter argument opposed and overwhelmed yours. You would dismiss him without yielding to his truths, and then give him no credit and even attempt to raise your incorrect statements to the level of his correcting statements. “I hope the gyro-propulsion effort can find benefit from our comments.“
Maddy, I will answer for us all: Your reasoning is simple and ingenious and it is so sound an argument that it can neither be challenged nor ignored. Therefore, it must be accepted. Nobody has hammered your ultimate conclusion so hard and so long as our, Sandy Kidd. All is as it should be, your writing and style is clean, and clean writing and clean thinking go hand and hand. Congratulations. Glenn
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Luis Gonzalez - 20/11/2009 22:47:03
| | | Dear Forum,
We can all read everything above and makeup your own minds.
Best Regards,
Luis G
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
