Petrus's Opinion on Gravifugal Force

[Nereid]

Gravity Probe B?

Originally posted by agravity
Yes,
all gravimetrical meassurements, at all geographical altitudes, and several experiments with spining gyroscopes, These the last, unfortunately gave very small values.
Many scientist regard it as an errors in meassurements.
Crutial experimental proof up now is a changing in direction of spie
military satelites. When they are changing the direction of its motion (orbit, its behaviour is identical to that of mass of rotating ring. During the changing of direction those satelites are not loosing its altitude.
Thanks for your disscusion.
Petrus

Please give us your predictions for what the results from the Gravity Probe B probe will be.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

AFAIK, Gravity Probe B will be the most precise 'gyroscope' ever, by many orders of magnitude.

I'm also interested in how small the 'errors in meassurements' [sic] that you say many scientists find but dismiss are. Please state them in microradians.

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by Nereid
Please give us your predictions for what the results from the Gravity Probe B probe will be.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

AFAIK, Gravity Probe B will be the most precise 'gyroscope' ever, by many orders of magnitude.

I'm also interested in how small the [sic] that you say many 'errors in meassurements' scientists find but dismiss are. Please state them in microradians.

Value of "errors in meassurements" were in levels of nanograms, or particles of mm/sec(scuared),in a free falling down acceleration.
Extremly small values were caused by very low average velocity of mass of gyroscopes.

Gyroscope need not to be precise, than rather very fast, and not making vibrations.
The most important is a average linear (and not angular) velocity of the mass of gyroscope (or ring).
Why?
Gravifugal force, Fgf depends on the velocity of that mass ina accordance

F gf = m v(squared) /R
Where m is a mass of gyroscope or ring, v its velocity, and radius R distance from center of gravity of celestial body.

Ring is much better forme than gyroscope, since its mass is much better situated than the mass of a gyroscope.
Ring levitating and rotating in electromagnetic field can not produce vibrations.
The highest possible velocity of ring made in commercial carbon-fiber
and siluminum aloy is cca 1800m/sec. That velocity can decrease the weight of ring per max. cca 5%
Ring made in nano-tubes can achieve up to 9000m/sec.
Only ring made in nano tubes could levitate,(at velocity 7900m/sec. - velocity of satelization) and elevate itself, and bring small craft (if the ring would be small).
You can calculate all of it using above equation.
I hope you are critical person and you have serious interest in this matter.
For other details please consult my site:
http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
Thank you
Petrus

 

[Nereid]

agravity,

Perhaps I misunderstood, but you don't seem to have answered my question about the Gravity Probe B. To repeat it: What precise predictions do you make as to the data that will come from this experiment?

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Nereid
To repeat it: What precise predictions do you make as to the data that will come from this experiment?

And to think I sent him $23,640.61. Hrmph.

- Warren

 

[Nereid]

Nereid asked (paraphrase): how small are the 'errors in measurement' that you say many scientists find but dismiss?

agravity replied: Value of "errors in meassurements" were in levels of nanograms, or particles of mm/sec(scuared),in a free falling down acceleration.

I'm confused. I had thought that gyroscopes measured direction, not mass or acceleration. Perhaps we are talking about different instruments?

AFAIK, a gyroscope is supposed to tell a pilot (say) which direction he is flying in, by the difference between a direction in the plane and the spin axis of the gyroscope. No gyroscope is perfect, of course, so it will not point consistently in the one direction. I am interested in knowing how small the errors are, measured in microradians, of gyroscopes studied by scientists.

 

[Ethan Skyler]

Centripetal/Centrifugal action/reaction forces

Hello Professor Petrus:
You are a brave man indeed to venture so far beyond the charted waters of Physics. I find your answers imaginative. I wonder though if you have spent enough time analyzing the problems that give rise to your answers.

First the good news: I like your definition of centripetal and centrifugal forces in that you make it very clear that these terms refer only to the direction of the force under study. Thus the reader should understand that a centripetal force is one that is directed generally toward the center or axis of the curved path of travel. Conversely a centrifugal force is one that is directed generally away from the center or axis. Since both centripetal and centrifugal, (center seeking and center fleeing) imply movement toward or movement away, it is easy to see how these Latin terms are poorly suited for describing the action/reaction forces present in an event where an object is orbiting an axis while maintaining a constant radius from that axis. To eliminate the confusions caused by these Latin terms, I prefer to use "inward-directed" and "outward-directed" which hopefully stimulates the visualization in the readers mind of the direction of the force vector and nothing more. Good show on your part.

Now for the not-so-good news: I find that every complex theory in Physics has a simple beginning. It appears to me, without the benefit of reading your books on the matter, that you attempt to answer the question: "When the inward-directed force is gravitation, what is the outward-directed force?" For sure this is a tough and vexing question to answer. I am wondering if your answer is correct. If you have answered incorrectly, then all your work that is based upon this incorrect answer is itself incorrect. Physics is heartless in this regard. The history of Physics is filled with complex explanations of incorrectly answered problems of a simple nature.

You list possible inward-directed or centripetal forces as being caused by "Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism, Nuclear and Cohesion." You name these acceleration-causing action forces as: "Gravipetal, Electropetal, Magnetopetal, Nucleopetal and Cohesipetal." You then name the outward-directed or centrifugal forces as being a match for each as: "Gravifugal, Electrofugal, Magnetofugal, Nucleofugal, and Cohesifugal." Here I see you have made the assumption that when acceleration is caused for an object by an action force of some type, the object's reaction force to that acceleration always takes on the same type of characteristics as possessed by the action force. Are you sure this is correct?

In other words, if the inward-directed acceleration/Action force is a mechanical external contact force applied by a rope glued to the orbiting object's surface (Cohesipetal) then you predict that the outward-directed acceleration/Reaction force present within the object being whirled around your person is a Cohesifugal force. Is that generally correct? Here I wonder if you have it right since the inward-directed acceleration-causing action force is an external contact force while the outward-directed reaction-to-acceleration force is an internal force being reactively generated within each component of the orbiting body's matter. This myriad of individual acceleration/Reaction forces stack up to reach a maximum force at the mutual contact point between the rope and the whirling object. Remove one atom from the object and its own individual internal reaction force will go missing resulting in a reduction in the a/A force required to maintain a given rate of acceleration along with an equal reduction in the whirling object's cumulative total a/R force. Since this action/reaction pair of forces are of different types, one external, one internal, I do not think it is correct to term them as being of the same type, "Cohesipetal and Cohesifugal". Also here I think it is important to point out that the activity of acceleration is inward-directed and being caused by the external acceleration/action force. This a/A force also represents the cause of the object's internal acceleration/Reaction force which provides Newton LAW III support while itself being incapable of causing any event. It just goes along for the ride.

Now let us have a look at your Gravipetal and Gravifugal forces. I agree that gravity often does act as an acceleration/Action force. But I wonder if the reaction-to-acceleration force from the gravitationally accelerating object is any different from the internal acceleration/Reaction force present within the former whirling object event? In other words I wonder if the Cohesifugal reaction force is the same Gravifugal reaction force is the same as the Electrofugal reaction force, etc. More importantly for your conclusions, I wonder if there is any evidence suggesting that any of these outward-directed forces can ever act as the cause of any event. I wonder this for it is my understanding that all such outward-directed forces are internal reaction forces that are reactively caused by inward-directed action forces and as such are incapable of acting to cause any outward-directed event.

Ride in a car as a passenger. When the driver presses on the accelerator, the seat back impresses an external (contact) acceleration/Action force against your torso. Your body's component's of matter each reactively generate internal acceleration/Reaction forces whose cumulative total reactively bears back against the seat. (Do this in a really fast car and you can feel the acceleration/Reaction weight of your eyeball bearing horizontally back into their sockets.) Insert a compression scale between your torso and the seat to measure the action/reaction pair of forces impressed on their respective sides of the scale. Remove one atom from your body and the scale reading will decrease proportionally. Notice that your torso's rearward-directed reaction force does nothing to decrease or cancel your body's forward-directed acceleration. It just reactively goes along for the ride.

Climb the tallest tower near Earth's equator and drop a bowling ball. (For safety reasons, don't actually try this event.) Internal "Gravipetal" acceleration/Action forces directed toward Earth's axis are the cause of the ball's observed acceleration toward that same axis. (In Galileo's day much was made of predicting where the ball would land, at the tower's base, east of the base or west of the base.) I think we both agree that a gravitational internal acceleration/Reaction force is being actively generated within each component of the ball's matter and acting as the cause of the ball's Earthward acceleration. I also think we agree that an internal force of some type is also present within each same component of the accelerating ball's matter. While you may not view this outward-directed force as a reaction force as do I, you must admit that its presence, like the presence of your torso's acceleration/Reaction force does nothing to decrease or cancel the ball's acceleration. It just goes along for the ride providing the Newton LAW III required support.

Now you may object to the vertical path of the falling ball and contend that centripetal and centrifugal forces are not involved. Remember though, these Latin terms refer to the direction of the action and reaction forces present which clearly describes the forces present during the falling ball event. The only difference is that I have not given the ball any sort of sideways velocity prior to it being released. Newton presented just such an example where he mentally fired the ball from a horizontally-directed cannon placed on an impossibly tall mountain top. First with a small charge then with larger and larger charges until the ball was granted sufficient velocity so as to encircle or orbit the globe. The point is that regardless of the sideways velocity of the ball upon release, the gravitational force remains the acceleration/Action force that causes the ball's acceleration that is directed toward Earth's center of mass, with this force acting as the cause its own support in the form of the ball's internal acceleration/Reaction force. Again as in all cases I can think of, this acceleration/Reaction force is never the cause of any event. It just goes along for the ride.

I think the truth in nature is that within the matter of any object experiencing acceleration, both linear and centripetal, there is present the same internal acceleration/Reaction force whether this acceleration is being forcefully caused by an external (contact) action force (rope, auto seat) or an internal action force such as gravitation, magnetism, etc. I think this often neglected reaction force should go by the descriptive name "acceleration/Reaction force" in all cases involving acceleration. It is important to recognize that at times its existence may be determined by scale when the a/A force is an external contact force. Finally, as a reaction or reflection force, its cause lies elsewhere and so I see this as the reason an object's a/R force is incapable of acting as the cause of any event. Again, it just reactively goes along for the ride.

Thanks for prompting this discussion. A lot of intelligent minds have blazed the trail before us, that is for certain.

Ethan Skyler

 

[agravity]

Thanks for prompting this discussion. A lot of intelligent minds have blazed the trail before us, that is for certain.

Ethan Skyler [/B][/QUOTE]

Dear moderator,although this reply maybe is not at the rihgt place, I hope this my message to Mr. Skyler will not be deleted.

Dear Mr. Ethan Skyler.
Unfortunately I found your exelent analise only in archive.
Although I do not agree with main of your statements, I regard your
text as an exelent scientific analise.
Maybe, you are right?
It will be shown by future disscusions and experiments.
I believe there (in a field of gravifugal force)would be still many disscusions.
I hope I will not abuse your patient and great inteligence if I would draw your attention to the following:
"""At this juncture I should point out that the value of the gravifugal force cannot exceed the absolute value of the gravipetal force (gravity) since that would contradict Newton’s Law of action and reaction. When the velocity of the observed mass exceeds the velocity of satelisation, vs it is not the value of the gravifugal force which increases, but rather the observed mass must increase the radius R of its trajectory, i.e. the distance from the centre of the celestial body -- that is to say, from the point of application, or source of the gravipetal force. In fact, the observed mass must lift off the surface -- in other words, it starts to levitate."""
This part of text was taken from:
http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
I want to draw your attention to the different manner in behaviour
among pseudoforces (cohesipetal-cohesifugal), and gravipetal-gravifugal.
In the first case, consequence of increasing velocity is also increasing both forces, i.e. stress or mass of rotational body.
In the second case, consequence of increasing of velocity (eg.velocity of artificial sattelite) will be decreasing of gravifugal (and gravipetal) force, but increasing in the radius R.
Behaviour in a both cases are contrary, but in absolute accordance with Newton III.
Orbiting of artificial satelites and floating of astronauts within them spaceships is based just at that paradox, i.e. onto the fact: gravifugal force, which is weering mass or satelites toward centre of gravity, is a fundamental force, and its behaviour ios as was shown.
Thank you for your disscusion and cooperation.
Sincerely
Petrus

P.S. Terms "inwards" and "outwards" seems much better and me too, but i am afraid that old terms used in science has much larger inercy than Gallileian mass.It is spiritual inercy in science.

I will abuse your patient with one hypotetical example to make as clear as possible the difference in behaviour betveen action-reaction of fundamental forces and pseudoforces at inward and outward direction.
Let us observe artificial satelite orbiting Earth. Gravity performs as inward (gravipetal) force. Let`s now increase the velocity of satelite to 9 000 m /sec.
After acceleration, astronauts will levitate inside, as well as at velocity 7 900m/sec.
But let us conect the sattelite with some very strong non-elastic string to center of gravity of the Earth, and let`s increase its velocity from 7 900 to 9 000 m/sec.
In such case astronauts would have «antiweight», ie. they could walk through ship (satelite), but with feet up and head down. They would be subjected to «antigravity».
In the first example the fundamental force is performing as a inward force (gravipetal) . Reaction is outward, gravifugal pseudoforce. In this case, paradoxicaly, levitation is a manifestation of inercy of astronauts bodies, or by other words inercy manifests itself as a levitation.
In the second example inward force would be cohesipetal force, pseudoforce. Outward reaction would be also pseudoforce, cohesifugal force. But manifestation of inercy of astronauts bodies mass will not be levitation than rather veight, i.e. more correctly «antiweight».
Conclusion:
It is possible to exploite gravifugal force in human purposes or aims only in a case in which some fundamental force functions as a inward (centripetal) force. That force have to be able to attract the mass and provoke its inercy. That force is gravity, or inward gravipetal force. At the orbiting velocity 7 900m/sec the observed mass will levitate in regard to Earth. If we increase the velocity, the mass will also levitate (in regard Earth), but it will increase the radius , R od its orbiting.
The human aims is not levitation than rather to achieve choosen orbit.
I believe my analise of this hypotetical examples is not erroneous one.
Thank you for reading this text!
Petrus

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by Nereid
I'm confused. I had thought that gyroscopes measured direction, not mass or acceleration. Perhaps we are talking about different instruments?

AFAIK, a gyroscope is supposed to tell a pilot (say) which direction he is flying in, by the difference between a direction in the plane and the spin axis of the gyroscope. No gyroscope is perfect, of course, so it will not point consistently in the one direction. I am interested in knowing how small the errors are, measured in microradians, of gyroscopes studied by scientists.

Sorry I am so late.
yes, it was the missunderstand. You ment gyroscope as an instrument indicating direction of motion used eg. in inertial navigation.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by agravity
Sorry I am so late.
yes, it was the missunderstand. You ment gyroscope as an instrument indicating direction of motion used eg. in inertial navigation.

So how does 'gyroscope' in your idea differ from a 'gyroscope' which indicates direction of motion?

 

[Ethan Skyler]

Orbital Event 1

Hello Professor Petrus:
Thank you for your reply. I enjoy thinking about your examples. While we draw different conclusions from these events, I appreciate the opportunity to present my thoughts while pointing out our differences. Overall it is refreshing to converse with someone such as yourself since clearly you do your own thinking.

First a couple of points. I view force as a push or pull. Sometimes the force can be measured with a scale. Other times its presence may be determined by the behavior of the affected object such as the object's changing velocity (acceleration). I do not accept that there is any reality to the term "pseudo force". I suggest you avoid its use. It is my understanding, supported often by an analysis of the object's path, that if the path, when viewed from a non-accelerating frame of reference, is a straight one then for an accelerating observer to point to the non-accelerating object and claim that the presence of a "pseudo force" explains the object's "curved path" when viewed from within an accelerating frame of reference, represent nothing more real than a pseudo-observation. The object's true path is straight. There exists no acceleration and most importantly no acceleration/Action force. Thus there is no need to name the "force" that does not exist.

Overall, many modern observations are flawed. We have our hands full naming that which is real. Naming that which is not real falsely grants a reality to nothing that is hard to shake. Newton's "inertia" is just such a false or unreal concept. When you say "inercy" are you meaning to say "inertia"? May I suggest you visit my work on this non-concept at PhysicsNews1.com. "Inertia" is covered in Article I, in the Press Room Article PR1, and also in the answer to Question 11.

Conversely, I find it equally false to observe the action or reaction of a force, that is often measurable by scale or otherwise determinable by the acceleration present, only to conclude that the force is "pseudo" or "fictitious". There is nothing "fictitious" about a scale's force display or an object's curved path of travel when correctly determined by a non-accelerating observer.

From my earlier post, you will remember that I view force as being either an external (contact) forces such as the contact force between the bottom of your foot and Earth, or as an internal force actively or reactively generated within each individual component of an object's matter such as the gravitational internal action force that one atom located in your hair is passing along to bear in the downward direction against your scalp. I find it especially interesting to note that external (contact) forces are always mutual in that in order to bear in one direction they always bear equally in the opposite direction. On the other hand, internal forces such as gravitation are able to bear in one direction with no need to bear in the opposite direction. For example, the atom in you hair is able to bear in the downward direction with no need to push up on any object above.

While one internal force can find support against an opposing internal force making this interface self-contained with the atom, often internal forces have to venture beyond the subject atom in order to find support. For example, while you are standing on a scale, the internal force of gravitation being generated within the atom in your hair is passed from atom to atom all the way down through your body to the scale. As each atom in the sequence receives the internal forces from above it adds its own internal gravitational force and passed on down a stronger force to atoms below. In this manner, I see internal forces stacking up or culminating to reach the maximum external contact force of your gravitational weight against the scale. This stacking-of-forces effect is either unrecognized or generally ignored yet I see it as an excellent indicator that an external contact force in one direction is being opposed by a myriad of internal forces in the opposite direction. I mention this effect, call it the Skyler Effect if your wish, for I will employ it while analyzing your proposed events.

I really like the events you describe. They are simple yet powerful. Since my understanding of your words has gaps, I will re-describe each event in my own words. Then I will add a description of the forces present and we will see where the conclusion takes us.

Event 1: A spacecraft is orbiting Earth at the correct velocity required in order for the vehicle's altitude above Earth's surface to remain fairly constant. An astronaut inside is weightless being unable to freely bear with the external (contact) force of weight against any surface inside the spacecraft .

Event 1 Path: The spacecraft plus astronaut are following a curved path that encircles Earth. This fact indicates the presence of acceleration away from a non-accelerational straight path repeatedly drawn tangent to the spacecraft 's curved orbital path. Thus the direction of the acceleration is inward.

Event 1 acceleration/Action Force: The inward-directed acceleration/Action forces responsible for causing Event 1 are the spacecraft 's and contents myriad of internal gravitational a/A forces being generated individually within each component of matter. If the spacecraft and contents were to be magically separated so that no atom was attached by any means to any other atom, they would all continue on with their mutual orbit of Earth, indicating that each component of the matter here generates within itself the acceleration/Action force responsible for causing its own inward-directed acceleration.

Event 1 acceleration/Reaction Force: Sir Isaac Newton pointed out in LAW III that no force exists alone. "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction..." With each atom of the spacecraft and of the astronaut's body the inward-directed internal gravitational a/A force causes its own immediate support in the form of that atom's outward-directed internal acceleration/Reaction force. With internal forces in equilibrium within each atom, there is no portion of the a/A force left over to stack up in any direction. Thus it is not possible for the astronaut to freely impress the external force of weight against any portion of the spacecraft . He remains weightless in Event 1.

Are you still with me in understanding the effect and forces present in these Events? Upon your request I will post my analysis of Events 2 & 3 along with the conclusion.

Best Wishes,

Ethan Skyler

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by Nereid
So how does 'gyroscope' in your idea differ from a 'gyroscope' which indicates direction of motion?

There are gyroscopes and gyrocompases...
In experiments with an "antigravity" gyroscope is used as a spining body which axis of rotation is coaxial with direction of gravitation force action. Weight of those spining gyroscopes or its acceleration
was examinated thing, and resulst are ?
Petrus

 

[agravity]

Originally posted by Ethan Skyler
Hello Professor Petrus:
Thank you for your reply. I enjoy thinking about your examples. While we draw different conclusions from these events, I appreciate the opportunity to present my thoughts while pointing out our differences. Overall it is refreshing to converse with someone such as yourself since clearly you do your own thinking.

First a couple of points. I view force as a push or pull. Sometimes the force can be measured with a scale. Other times its presence may be determined by the behavior of the affected object such as the object's changing velocity (acceleration). I do not accept that there is any reality to the term "pseudo force". I suggest you avoid its use. It is my understanding, supported often by an analysis of the object's path, that if the path, when viewed from a non-accelerating frame of reference, is a straight one then for an accelerating observer to point to the non-accelerating object and claim that the presence of a "pseudo force" explains the object's "curved path" when viewed from within an accelerating frame of reference, represent nothing more real than a pseudo-observation. The object's true path is straight. There exists no acceleration and most importantly no acceleration/Action force. Thus there is no need to name the "force" that does not exist.

Overall, many modern observations are flawed. We have our hands full naming that which is real. Naming that which is not real falsely grants a reality to nothing that is hard to shake. Newton's "inertia" is just such a false or unreal concept. When you say "inercy" are you meaning to say "inertia"? May I suggest you visit my work on this non-concept at PhysicsNews1.com. "Inertia" is covered in Article I, in the Press Room Article PR1, and also in the answer to Question 11.

Conversely, I find it equally false to observe the action or reaction of a force, that is often measurable by scale or otherwise determinable by the acceleration present, only to conclude that the force is "pseudo" or "fictitious". There is nothing "fictitious" about a scale's force display or an object's curved path of travel when correctly determined by a non-accelerating observer.

From my earlier post, you will remember that I view force as being either an external (contact) forces such as the contact force between the bottom of your foot and Earth, or as an internal force actively or reactively generated within each individual component of an object's matter such as the gravitational internal action force that one atom located in your hair is passing along to bear in the downward direction against your scalp. I find it especially interesting to note that external (contact) forces are always mutual in that in order to bear in one direction they always bear equally in the opposite direction. On the other hand, internal forces such as gravitation are able to bear in one direction with no need to bear in the opposite direction. For example, the atom in you hair is able to bear in the downward direction with no need to push up on any object above.

While one internal force can find support against an opposing internal force making this interface self-contained with the atom, often internal forces have to venture beyond the subject atom in order to find support. For example, while you are standing on a scale, the internal force of gravitation being generated within the atom in your hair is passed from atom to atom all the way down through your body to the scale. As each atom in the sequence receives the internal forces from above it adds its own internal gravitational force and passed on down a stronger force to atoms below. In this manner, I see internal forces stacking up or culminating to reach the maximum external contact force of your gravitational weight against the scale. This stacking-of-forces effect is either unrecognized or generally ignored yet I see it as an excellent indicator that an external contact force in one direction is being opposed by a myriad of internal forces in the opposite direction. I mention this effect, call it the Skyler Effect if your wish, for I will employ it while analyzing your proposed events.

I really like the events you describe. They are simple yet powerful. Since my understanding of your words has gaps, I will re-describe each event in my own words. Then I will add a description of the forces present and we will see where the conclusion takes us.

Event 1: A spacecraft is orbiting Earth at the correct velocity required in order for the vehicle's altitude above Earth's surface to remain fairly constant. An astronaut inside is weightless being unable to freely bear with the external (contact) force of weight against any surface inside the spacecraft .

Event 1 Path: The spacecraft plus astronaut are following a curved path that encircles Earth. This fact indicates the presence of acceleration away from a non-accelerational straight path repeatedly drawn tangent to the spacecraft 's curved orbital path. Thus the direction of the acceleration is inward.

Event 1 acceleration/Action Force: The inward-directed acceleration/Action forces responsible for causing Event 1 are the spacecraft 's and contents myriad of internal gravitational a/A forces being generated individually within each component of matter. If the spacecraft and contents were to be magically separated so that no atom was attached by any means to any other atom, they would all continue on with their mutual orbit of Earth, indicating that each component of the matter here generates within itself the acceleration/Action force responsible for causing its own inward-directed acceleration.

Event 1 acceleration/Reaction Force: Sir Isaac Newton pointed out in LAW III that no force exists alone. "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction..." With each atom of the spacecraft and of the astronaut's body the inward-directed internal gravitational a/A force causes its own immediate support in the form of that atom's outward-directed internal acceleration/Reaction force. With internal forces in equilibrium within each atom, there is no portion of the a/A force left over to stack up in any direction. Thus it is not possible for the astronaut to freely impress the external force of weight against any portion of the spacecraft . He remains weightless in Event 1.

Are you still with me in understanding the effect and forces present in these Events? Upon your request I will post my analysis of Events 2 & 3 along with the conclusion.

Best Wishes,

Ethan Skyler

Thanks for message.
I will read it again and more carefully ant answer to your questions.
All the best
Petrus

 

[Ethan Skyler]

Orbital Events 2 & 3 + Conclusion

Hello Professor Petrus:
Here are Events 2 & 3 followed by my conclusion.

Event 2: Here the spacecraft 's rocket motor is fired for a few minutes effecting an increase in the spacecraft 's velocity. After the firing is over, the spacecraft and its contents continue to orbit Earth.

Event 2 Path: In order to maintain a constant radius of orbit, the closer a spacecraft is to Earth, the faster it must travel along the orbital path. Conversely, the farther away the spacecraft is from Earth, the slower it must travel. This reduction in velocity is a consequence of the effect of gravitation being reduced inversely to the square of the distance between the spacecraft and Earth's center of matter. Double the distance and the internal gravitational forces generated are 1/4 their former value. While following a constant-radius orbital path, the spacecraft is constantly and forcefully falling (accelerating) in Earth's direction. But when its forward velocity is factored in, the path that results has a curve that is a match for the curved path required to maintain the constant-radius orbit. After firing the rocket motors you can see that the spacecraft is now traveling too fast to continue following its former constant-radius orbital path. At this altitude, it continues falling (accelerating) toward Earth at the same rate but when its now faster forward motion is factored in, the resulting curved path is, at least initially, less curved so the faster spacecraft abandons its former orbital path as its altitude above Earth's surface increases. (This increase in altitude is only temporary unless the spacecraft has achieved escape velocity.)

Event 2 acceleration/Action Forces: With its higher altitude and velocity after the rocket's burn, the spacecraft plus contents returns to the balanced weightless state of internal equilibrium. The acceleration/Action forces are again gravitational though weaker now.

Event 2 acceleration/Reaction Forces: Weaker internal acceleration/Reaction forces again provide balanced support. The astronaut is again weightless the moment the thrust from the rocket motors goes missing. Here it is important to mention that during the rocket burn, the thrust the rocket applies to the frame of the spacecraft is transferred forward to act as the cause of forward-directed acceleration of its contents including the astronaut. If a scale is placed against a cross hull bulkhead and the astronaut steps onto the scale, the astronaut will then be able to read the magnitude of his acceleration/Reaction force of weight. Here an external force is causing the astronaut's forward-directed acceleration while also causing the reactive generation of its own support in the form of the astronaut's internal rearward-directed acceleration/Reaction or a/R force just as one experiences in an accelerating car. Remember what I said about the stacking-of-forces effect? It is alive and well during the rocket burn as each atom of the astronaut reactively provides a rearward-directed internal force of support and termination for a small portion of the rocket's forward-directed external a/A force. What each atom can't support and terminate it passes forward to be supported and thereby terminated by atoms in front. It is in this manner that the reaction to acceleration forces stack down in magnitude to the rear in direction from a maximum at the scale to a minimum at the astronaut's hair. Here an external a/A force through the activity of acceleration causes its own internal a/R support force against which it terminates.

Event 3: Earth has magically taken on the form of an immense yoyo. It's atmosphere has gone missing. One end of an unbelievably strong and thin wire is attached in a frictionless manner to Earth's axis, the yoyo shaft. The other end of the wire is attached to the belly of the spacecraft described in Event 1 which is already traveling at the correct velocity to allow it to follow a constant-radius orbital path. As the wire is hooked up, the astronaut is weightless within, just as in Event 1 and for the same forceful reasons. Now the rocket motors are fired causing the increase in velocity described in Event 2.

Event 3 Path: Due to the addition of the tension force provided by the attached wire, the now faster traveling spacecraft continues to follow its former constant-radius orbital path.

Event 3 a/A Force: With the rockets switched off, the spacecraft is now traveling faster around a circle with the same radius as before the firing. Thus the spacecraft 's inward-directed acceleration is greater than before. Yet the internal a/A force of gravitation is unchanged so an additional acceleration/Action force must exist to make up the extra amount required. This extra amount clearly comes from the inward-directed external tension force the thin wire is impressing on the belly of the spacecraft . Together these two a/A forces, one internal, one external (contact) accomplish the forceful task.

Event 3 a/R Force: Since a greater acceleration rate is occurring to the faster traveling spacecraft , a greater (equal and opposite) acceleration/Reaction force is also immediately present. While this a/R force is always an internal force, in this event, with the wire attached, a portion of the acceleration/Action force is internal (gravitation) while the balance is external (contact by wire). Let us say that the ratio of internal gravitation to external wire force is 5 to 1. Say also that the astronaut's gravitational weight if supported at this altitude with acceleration absent is 150 lb.f. When he or she is weightless at this altitude in Event 1, this 150 lb. inward-directed internal a/A force of gravitation causes its own 150 lb. outward-directed internal a/R force of support and termination. Back in Event 1, with equal and opposite internal forces present, the astronaut is weightless. Not so here in Event 3. Remember that whenever an external force finds support against an internal force, the stacking-of-forces effect is present giving you the external (contact) force of weight when you stand on a scale on Earth or against a cross-hull bulkhead in an accelerating-by-rocket spacecraft . The inward-directed acceleration of Event 3 is caused by a 150 lb. internal gravitational a/A force and a 30 lb. external force impressed by the wire. The astronaut's total internal acceleration/Reaction force equals 180 lb.. Of this total, 30 lb. of this outward-directed reaction force is caused by, supports and thereby provides termination for the external inward-directed a/A force supplied by the wire. Thus the accelerating astronaut will be able to measure the external contact force his body will automatically apply to the inside surface of the outward wall of any space in the craft that he occupies. The 30 lb. contact force he will apply upon contacting this wall will be the reactive result of the 30 lb. a/A force from the wall causing the additional acceleration required in order for the astronaut's body to follow the correct constant-radius orbital path dictated by the length of the wire attached to Earth's axis.

Conclusion: With all forces and weightlessness and later the stacking-forces accounted for, I think any mystery is removed. The outward-directed forces are all reaction forces that a portion is measurable by scale when the wire is attached . But in no case do I think these Events prove that any outward-directed force, other than a reaction force is present. Since reaction forces are not in possession of their own cause, they are incapable of acting on their own as the cause of any event. This means to me that no oppositely-directed force of "levitation" exists in these orbital events to counter the inward-directed action force of gravitation. Instead, these acceleration/Reaction forces are just along for the ride.

I know this is not the conclusion you were wishing. For this I am sorry. I wish there was more of your work that I thought was correct for it is not my aim to discourage the efforts of an original thinker. But if they are efforts in what I think is a false direction, perhaps I can have some positive influence on your work in the future.


Best Wishes,

Ethan Skyler

 

[agravity]

I know this is not the conclusion you were wishing. For this I am sorry. I wish there was more of your work that I thought was correct for it is not my aim to discourage the efforts of an original thinker. But if they are efforts in what I think is a false direction, perhaps I can have some positive influence on your work in the future.


Best Wishes,

Ethan Skyler [/B][/QUOTE]

I know this is not the conclusion you were wishing. For this I am sorry. I wish there was more of your work that I thought was correct for it is not my aim to discourage the efforts of an original thinker. But if they are efforts in what I think is a false direction, perhaps I can have some positive influence on your work in the future.


Best Wishes,

Ethan Skyler [/B][/QUOTE]

The first:
My health was wery bad, so I could nt take palce in the disscusion.
Now I am much better.
Your conclusions are in agreement with my opinions. I do not see any difference.
The most important questions are:
Would the ring behaviour in the same manner - in accordance with Newton laws - as an artificial satettlites do it?

Could the ring propulsion be less costinngs than rocket propulsion?

I must repeat: the levitation is not any aim of spatial flights.
Those flights are not amusement.
Sincerely
Petrus