Tesla vs Einstein

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by birch, Mar 14, 2017.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,130
    Ok. That's why I wrote "provided your ball doesn't collapse under the water pressure". By "collapse" I meant to include "compress", but didn't state that clearly.

    A reversed example of this kind of thing is air bubbles rising in water. They start of small and rise slowly, but as they go up the water pressure decreases and the bubbles expand. As they expand, the buoyant force increases and they rise more rapidly. I don't know if you notice that kind of thing when you're diving.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,919
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,862
    Yes, people have to let air out of their jackets to control their ascent. And if you bring up a deep sea fish to the surface it often dies due to the swim baller expanding and rupturing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,759
    It's still a puzzle to me

    OK the ball shrinks the deeper it under a force which is pushing it down

    At some point it must loose boyantcy when it's mass becomes more dense than the water it displaces

    A sub makes itself more dense by filling hollow tanks and sinking

    It can hasten the sinking under propulsion to push itself down but even without propulsion it would sink

    To rise it and return to boyantcy it must fill its flooded tank using compressed air and become overall less dense than the water it diplaces

    However depth matters because as you go deeper the water itself becomes more dense

    If you do not have sufficient air under sufficient pressure to drive out the denser water you are going to stay on the bottom of the ocean sorry

    I tried this but failed (miserably?)

    Anyway thanks for the info but beyond my two neurones capabilities

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,087
    Considering quarks interaction between two mass; may be the resultant effect is always attractive.

    Electrons have negative charge equal to protons charge by magnitude. Comparatively electrons mass is negligible to protons mass. Though electrons have a positive mass. Presently electrons are mysterious. It is still unknown about their constituents.

    Compare Lorentz Force ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html ) with Gravitational Force(Newtonian Model). By nature they are same. Both follows F=ma principle where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration. So gravitational force(Newtonian Model) can have electromagnetic component within it.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,130
    But why always attractive regardless of electrical charge? If charge is supposed to cause gravity, that is.

    Depends what you call negligible. Is 1/1836 negligible?

    Electrons aren't made of any smaller particles, so far as we know at present.

    F=ma is tied up with the definition of force, so all forces follow that.

    The mathematical form of Coulomb's law is the same as Newton's law of gravity, but that is a result of the point-like nature of the sources of the fields, combined with their infinite range. And the point is that in Coulomb's law the charges can be negative, whereas in Newton's law the gravitational "charge" is always positive. So, the problem of why gravity is always attractive if it is a charge phenomenon remains unresolved.
     
  10. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,502
    It is probably easier to work backwards. Note - if you use rubber it will never reach neutral buoyancy - rubber is < 1 g/cc
    using nylon with a density of 1.15 g/cc.
    Assume the ball is composed of 1 cc of nylon.
    how much air (assume air has no weight) volume must be added to the nylon to make it neutral.
    So the weight of the nylon is 1.15 g
    1.15g / 1.15cc = 1 g/cc or neutral buoyancy.
    so the air must be compressed to a volume of 0.15 cc.
    using the formula at the site start with whatever initial volume you want at 1 atmosphere and see what the final atm is
    1 atm = (about)10 m of depth.
     
  11. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,087
    The electrical charges are not static. They are also intrinsically spinning. So, there is also a magnetic field surrounding these electrically charged particles. So, in the resultant effect, this magnetic field also should be considered.
     
  12. el es Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    256
    I don't think Robert Arnett Otey has anything original. It seems to be a rehash of Walter Bowman Russell's Electric Universe.

    I stopped reading that when it had centers of potential are drawn to centers of potential. I decided further reading would not be fruitful.

    Its not the road to quantum gravity.
     
  13. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    He says it is anwered by buoyance and density and the argument is that the ball would sink if it were gravity.
     
  14. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,502
    That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. In a weightless enviroment the ball would not sink or float, gravity is required for buoyancy. So like I said he does not understand buoyancy, nor gravity it seems....
     
  15. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,454
    Either he is saying buoyancy does not make sense with gravity or that gravity is not related to weight as he makes a distinction that gravity is not needed to explain the process at all.
     
  16. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,502
    He is simply wrong.
    Get a helium balloon and put it in a car. Now you can accelerate the car, you will be pushed back in your seat, a ping pong ball on the dashboard will be roll towards the back of the car and a cup of coffee on your seat will spill towards the back of the car. This is all pretty obvious right. It is because the acceleration of the car produces a force. Guess what, the helium balloons will move to the front of the car when you accelerate. Why? Because of the buoyancy of the balloons in the air. The acceleration of the car causes the air to move to the back of the car and therefore the pressure is higher in the back of the car. This is directly analogous to buoyancy in the water. The force from the car accelerating increases the air pressure in the back of the car and the force from gravity is causing the water pressure to be higher the deeper you go into the water.
    This is fundamental physics, the guy on the site does not have a clue what he is talking about.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,510
  18. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,087
    Is there any difference between Lorentz Force and Gravitational Force in Newtonian Model?
     
  19. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,502
    First the Lorentz force was not found until after Newton died and secondly they are completely different.
     
  20. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,087
    What is the difference between these two forces, when they are applied on a mass m?
     
  21. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,502
    One electro-magnetic and the other is gravitational.
    A mass with a neutral charge will not feel a force from an electric field but it will feel a force from a gravitational field.
    A charged mass will feel a force in an electric field as well as a force from the gravitational field. The force from an electrical field is much stronger than gravity.
     
  22. ajanta Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    597
    But if you consider that you are talking only about electromagnetism then...... Are electric field and magnetic field same /no difference between them ?
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,130
    Yes. For example, suppose a particle has mass \(m\) and electric charge \(q\). Then the force on it due to gravity \(g\) will be \(mg\) and the force due to an applied electric field \(E\) will be \(Eq\). The acceleration of the particle will then, assuming the electric and gravitational fields are the in the same direction, which they often are not:

    \(a = g + \frac{Eq}{m}\)

    It is experimentally observed that we can alter \(q\) and \(m\) completely independently and therefore observe different accelerations under different conditions. On the other hand, if it were really the case that gravity is a form of electromagnetism, then presumably we'd have \(m=q\) and the acceleration would always be the same.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2017

Share This Page