Absolute Motion

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Abhi, Mar 7, 2002.

  1. Abhi Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Absolute Motion
    Mr. Abhijit B Patil, C/o Life Insurance Corporation of India, At/Po/Tq: Shahada City, Dist: Nandurbar, Maharastra State, INDIA. Pin: 425 409. Email Address: xabhix@hotmail.com

    Abstract:

    This Article aims to explain cause of absolute motion.

    Introduction:

    We know that speed of light is absolute i.e. it does not depend upon speed of its source. This Article intends to explain what can be cause of absolute motion of any body in general.

    Mathematical Model of Absolute Motion:

    Suppose that a person in the train moving with velocity v throws a metal piece in the direction of train with velocity v, then as we know, velocity of metal piece with relative to observer on station will be v + v = 2v and if thrown in opposite direction of train with same velocity, velocity of metal piece with relative to observer on station will be v -v = 0. Clearly, velocity of metal piece is not absolute in this case. It depends upon speed of source i.e. train. But there is one situation in which velocity of metal piece must be absolute i.e. it must not depend upon speed of its source.

    Consider rescue helicopter. Ends of blades of helicopter are rotating with linear velocity "v". This helicopter is stationary in air. Consider that small piece of metal in the ends of blade is broken and separated from blade. We know that this piece of metal will travel in tangential direction with velocity "v" with relative to observer on helipad or pilot of helicopter. Now consider that this helicopter is flying with speed "v". Remember that blades are rotating with linear velocity "v". Now in this situation if the piece of metal in the ends of blade is broken then it must travel with velocity v, be it with relative to observer on helipad or pilot of helicopter. Speed of source i.e. helicopter must not have any effect on velocity of metal piece. Why? This can be explained as follow.

    If we say that speed of helicopter will affect velocity of metal piece as in case of train, then it means that if metal piece is travelling in the direction of motion of helicopter, velocity of metal piece will be v + v = 2v. And in the direction opposite to motion of helicopter, velocity of metal piece will be v -v = 0. This is unthinkable because as the metal piece was part of end of blade, it means that velocity of blade itself in the direction opposite to that of helicopter is zero . It means that range of linear velocity of blades is from 2v to 0. This situation will destabilize blades and eventually break apart. To begin with, blades will not rotate at all. But as we know, this does not happen.

    Conclusion:

    Velocity of blades of helicopter is independent of speed of helicopter itself. Hence it will have no effect on the velocity of metal piece when it travels in space. Whether the helicopter is moving or not, if the blades are rotating with constant linear velocity v, linear velocity of metal piece will always be v. In other words, velocity of metal piece in this case is absolute. Speed of it's source i.e. helicopter, does not affect its velocity.

    Any body in circular motion do have absolute velocity. Motion of centre point of its centripetal force i.e. motion of its source does not affect velocity of body in circular motion.

    We can use absolute velocity of body in circular motion to release spacecraft to cross Galaxies. If the spacecraft is rotating in space with linear velocity v, when released it will travel in any direction with velocity v. Speed of its source will have no effect on velocity of spacecraft.

    Author And Material Request To:
    Mr. Abhijit B Patil, C/o Life Insurance Corporation of India, At/Po/Tq: Shahada City, Dist: Nandurbar, Maharastra State, INDIA. Pin: 425 409. Email Address: xabhix@hotmail.com
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Abhi

    How's the faster than light water theory going?

    I see several major problems with this theory that make it not only impracticle but highly dangerous.

    But most importantly, how are the astronauts inside the launch vehicle going to survive the massive 'G' forces during spin up and release of the launch vehicle?

    More questions to follow.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    In your helicopter example, I do not see why a piece of the end of one blade cannot have a different speed relative to the ground than it has relative to the helicopter. If, by some strange fluke, it acquired a velocity of v in the opposite direction to the helicopter (which was travelling forward as a whole at speed v), then the blade would have velocity 0 relative to the ground and simply fall straight down. What's the problem with that?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Abhi Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Experimental Verification:

    I request reader to take ride on bicycle on rainy streets. Let velocity of bicycle + you be v. Suppose that if you throw small stone with velocity v in the direction of motion of bicycle, then velocity of stone with relative to you will be v but with relative to pedestrian, it will be v + v = 2v. If you throw stone with same velocity opposite to direction of motion of bicycle, with relative to you will be v, but with relative to pedestrian, it will be v - v = 0.

    Now look at the front wheel. Linear velocity of tyre of wheel is v (because that is why bicycle is moving with velocity v). As you are on rainy street, some mud will stick to tyre of bicycle and as tyre is rotating, mud is also roating with tyre.

    Now when this mud is thrown in tangential direction, what will be its velocity with relative to you? If you say that velocity of bicycle will add to velocity of mud, then velocity of mud in the direction of bicycle with relative to pedestrian should be v + v = 2v and with relative to you, it should be v. That means, mud should escape from tyre of front wheel and travel before your eyes with velocity v. Are you seeing mud escaping and flying before your eyes (in the direction of bicycle) with velocity v?

    In this case, velocity of mud rotating with tyre is absolute. It does not depend upon its source i.e. velocity of bicycle. Velocity of bicycle does not add to linear velocity of mud. Hence mud and cycle has same velocity. So we can never see mud flying before our eyes. I have never seen mud flying before my eyes during last 17 years. I request reader to verify this.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The top of a spinning bicycle wheel travels forwards at speed v relative to the bicycle, and with speed 2v relative to the ground, if the bicycle is travelling at speed v relative to the ground. Therefore, mud flying out forwards would travel at speed v relative to the bicycle.

    Why don't we see mud flying ahead of the bicycle? Well, there are these things called <i>mudguards</i>. Also, mud tends to stick to things like bicycle wheels.
     
  9. ImaHamster2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    220
    Abhi posted: “Now when this mud is thrown in tangential direction, what will be its velocity with relative to you? If you say that velocity of bicycle will add to velocity of mud, then velocity of mud in the direction of bicycle with relative to pedestrian should be v + v = 2v and with relative to you, it should be v.”

    (James already gave much the same explanation as this hamster provides.)

    There may be some confusion between scalar speed and vector velocity. From the perspective of the pedestrian: The vector velocity of a point on the wheel touching the ground is zero. (Otherwise the tire would skid.) The tangential angular wheel velocity cancels the bike’s forward linear velocity. At the top of the wheel the forward velocity of a point on the wheel is 2 v. (Or v relative to the cyclist.) So mud is flung in front of the bike when released at the top. When released at any other point of rotation the forward velocity of the mud will be less. (Often lower than the forward velocity of the cyclist who would see the mud as being flung backward.)

    As to why Abhi has not observed this forward flung mud…

    The forward motion is constant so has no affect on “flinging” the tire mud. Only the centrifugal acceleration plus the force of gravity act to “fling” the mud. This combined acceleration is at a maximum at the bottom of the wheel and at a minimum at the top. Hence most mud is flung down.

    Unfortunately, some mud IS flung forward. No problem for the front wheel. But the back wheel flings mud forward onto the hamster back and butt. Yep, the hamster has experimental proof of this fact. <G>
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The James R has, like the hamster, also experienced the mud-on-back effect from the rear tyre.
     
  11. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Abhi,
    If the helicopter is flying through the air at speed v, then the lift on the side of the helicopter moving anti-parallel to the forward motion can, and does, lose "lift force", thereby ransferi9ng all the blade forces involved in lift to the opposite side opf the helicopter where the blades are moving forward.

    I obtained this information from an Army helicopter pilot who indicated this phenomena is day-one basic toal helcopter trainees. If memory serves me correctly the pitch of the blades are altered as they pass through the aft and forward points of motion.
    An analogy would be that if a fixed wing airplane loses part of a wing the pilot compensates by applying more "ailleron" angle on thedamaged side andless on the undamaged side.
    What you consider "unthinkable" is the way it is, sorry about that.
    Geistkiesel ​
     
  12. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Nothing is wrong with that.
    G.
     
  13. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Many years ago this poster was to be found riding on motor powered two wheeled vehicles on a regular basis. A few times the vehicle had chosen to abandon its mysteriously deformed front fender. A few of those times the vehicle chose to convey its rider in the rain upon wet and surprisingly muddy streets. In all of those times a substantial amount of mud was observed flying off of the top of the front wheel with an unmistakenly forward velocity vector. I naively thought that centrifugal force was flinging the mud whereas now that I have been told by real physics experts that centrifugal force is unreal, I have concluded that whimsical evil spirits were obviously the causal agents. My careful scientific assessment was that at absolutely low speeds the mud was flung ( flang? ) pretty much completely forward during its entire ballistic trajectory. However, at relatively elevated speeds, oncoming aerodynamic phenomena ( sometimes referred to as "wind" ) shortened and even redirected its trajectory with the astonishing result that the mud which belonged on the roadway, in keeping with Aristotlean Gravity Theory, consequently accomplished purchase on my uppermost frontal facade, sometimes called "my face".

    At the risk of dragging out an otherwise brief message, I reiterate that the wheel was seen flanging the mud forward at all times when it was spinning, but the wind frequently obscured this fact by blowing it back into my eyes, ears, nose and pie hole.
     
  14. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Cangas, I think you have it slightly skewed. The suppliers of the fendrers were also the primary designers and suppliers of the tires, the bike, the total concept of bio-sprocket-force-adjustitable-bipedal-dynamical-quasi-linear-transportation-system motion in order to justify the need for fenders - the big juicy profit source, like french fries and Dr. Pepper is to McDonalds (why do they effectivley give away BiG Macs, which are nothing more, nothing less than a convenient loss leader). You see, it isn't phsyics after all, just a simple case of economics and applied engineering.
    Geistkiesel ​
    .
     
  15. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Those big words are easy for YOU to say.

    I'm the one who got forward-flanged mud plastered over my pie hole.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2006
  16. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    I am so sorry, I didn't know. Was it very painful?
    I have an updated graphics in the Wheel of Fortune and a simplified step by step. Easy to picka part.
    Geistkiesel​
     
  17. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Actual physical pain was noticeable but minimal, even to my sensitive standards. But it rendered my nutritional intake activity unacceptably unaesthetic for an agravatingly long time.

    I am silently ( for now ) but interestedly following your wheel thread. All the same, thanks for the heads-up about it.
     

Share This Page