I'm Looking For Special Research Group

A

ABV

Registered Senior Member
I'm looking for physics lab which can do special research my physics hypotheses from this site.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
I'm not physics scientist and hypotheses form this site wasn't written as scientific research document.
I have a doubt about classical mechanic motion principle. The modern physics say the nature has two main translational and rotational motions with their own law of momentum conservation. My hypotheses introduces the nature has just one main rotational and translational motion with it's own law of momentum conservation and rotational motion and translational motion are part of this main motion.
The modern physic says net off all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will be a zero after repulsive action.
My hypotheses says net off all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will be a zero after repulsive action if all objects of isolated system will conduct translational motion only. If one of the object after repulsive action will conduct a translational and rotational motion then the net of all translational momentums of all objects into isolated system will not equal to zero. I made some experiment which it shown on my site. However, it is not enough to show good result without physics lab environment. I want to check it and spend some money for it and prove or disapprove this modern physics motion concept. I'm looking to physics lab which can do custom research and produce this experiment. Would it possible to do this in your lab? I would appreciate if you look into my site.

Thank you
 
Is there any application to golf in this physics you are presenting?

Just that all those pictures of rods and talk of angular momentum makes it sound lke there might be :)
 
Alex, Alex, Alex. You've been spamming multiple sites with this stuff for years now.

Digging into the sciforums wayback machine, here's but one: [post]2276142[/post]
BenTheMan said:
I was hoping that ABV might see where he was mistaken, but I guess not. Probably I've left this thread here too long.
Click to expand...
 
D H said:
Alex, Alex, Alex. You've been spamming multiple sites with this stuff for years now.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reminding.
There was just a pre hypotheses ideas.

I perfectly understand modern classical mechanics. Actually, how I got degree without that :). However, I would like to test modern physics motion principle by this experiment. I would like to see how law of momentum conservation works for objects which conduct different type of motion. Translational and rotational and translational motions.
My doubts I always check on practice :)
 
John Connellan said:
Is there any application to golf in this physics you are presenting?

Just that all those pictures of rods and talk of angular momentum makes it sound lke there might be :)
Click to expand...

Yeah :)
I didn't even think they do this experiment all the time :)
 
I think you're confusing concepts in classical mechanics. An object with rotational momentum affected by a translational force will behave the same as if it had no rotational momentum - assuming the rotation did not affect the interaction. (Say the rotational axis is orthogonal to the translational force).

In your provided case - momentum could be distributed through rotational momentum and translational. In your experiment of two pencils, assuming both are affected by equal force...the sum of the rotational momentum and the translational momentum of both should be equal. Assuming one has no rotation [OBJECT1], the rotational momentum should be the the translational momentum of [OBJECT1] minus the translational momentum of [OBJECT2]

EDIT: I see he's been asking this question for years (DH), so I guess my simplified response will be without point. I will never understand this internet phenomena; how one can go for years and not understand a basic concept of Newtonian physics, basic algebra, or some other misguided belief. I ponder, does this phenomena have a name - other than 'crackpotery'?
 
Last edited:
Chipz said:
I will never understand this internet phenomena; how one can go for years and not understand a basic concept of Newtonian physics, basic algebra, or some other misguided belief. I ponder, does this phenomena have a name - other than 'crackpotery'?
Click to expand...

I would like to prove modern classical mechanics motion concept by experiment. May I? What is the problem with you? There is nothing about 'crackpotery'. I would like to see an experiment, that's because I'm looking for a special research group for that. I just want a spend a money for good experiment and science report for it.
Do you need a money? Could you do it please?
 
This could be used for new experiment
experiment21.jpg
 
ABV said:
I would like to prove modern classical mechanics motion concept by experiment. May I? What is the problem with you? There is nothing about 'crackpotery'. I would like to see an experiment, that's because I'm looking for a special research group for that. I just want a spend a money for good experiment and science report for it.
Do you need a money? Could you do it please?
Click to expand...

Do you want to "prove" modern classical mechanics motion or do you want to prove yourself?
 
ABV said:
Both :) I want to see good result from high precision experiment. Could you help with that?
Click to expand...

Looking at the schematic above- I have no idea how that "apparatus" is supposed to help you achieve one.

Looking at the commentary in which it was pointed out that you have been pushing the same question for years, WITHOUT You researching all the experiments that have confirmed independently the motion of mass for decades, much less centuries...

Can't say I feel too helpful, sorry.
 
Neverfly said:
Looking at the schematic above- I have no idea how that "apparatus" is supposed to help you achieve one.
Click to expand...
Well :) It's very simple.
The powered electromagnet(13) on console(14) hold connected objects (4)(11) at initial time. After power off, electromagnet(13) release connected objects(4)(11) to free fall. After loosing magnetic field the (Normal Closed) NC reed switch(1) connect motor(3) to battery(2)(7), which rotated rotor physically disconnects from objects detaching nut(12). This action release spring (9) which repulse objects (4) and (11). After repulsing action object (11) will conduct translational motion and object (4) will conduct rotational and translational motion. LED's (5)(10) is simplifying center of mass detection for high speed camcorder during whole experiment process.
Updated construction.
experiment22.jpg


Neverfly said:
Looking at the commentary in which it was pointed out that you have been pushing the same question for years, WITHOUT You researching all the experiments that have confirmed independently the motion of mass for decades, much less centuries...

Can't say I feel too helpful, sorry.
Click to expand...
I understand your sceptic point. However, I don't want to convert physics science to philosophy debates. I think, history has a lot of examples. One of them Galileo's experiment when he dropped balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
This experiment was contrary to what Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight. Why everybody use it and no one did a simple experiment as Galileo to approve or disapprove it?
Here's same situation. Everybody think and predicts result of experiment and no one wants to check it. I'd like to see it on simple experiment. The result of this experiment will bring the truth, but not philosophy debates about it. Do you agree with this?
 
ABV said:
I understand your sceptic point. However, I don't want to convert physics science to philosophy debates. I think, history has a lot of examples. One of them Galileo's experiment when he dropped balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
This experiment was contrary to what Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight. Why everybody use it and no one did a simple experiment as Galileo to approve or disapprove it?
Click to expand...
This is true. They practicied philosophy instead of science. They did not test well.
But the case You are discussing now has been tested repeatedly.

ABV said:
Here's same situation. Everybody think and predicts result of experiment and no one wants to check it. I'd like to see it on simple experiment. The result of this experiment will bring the truth, but not philosophy debates about it. Do you agree with this?
Click to expand...

No, I do not agree. You claimed that no one wants to check it. It's been checked. You didn't look it up.
Let's remove that line... and requote you with that part deleted.

ABV said:
I'd like to see it on simple experiment. The result of this experiment will bring the truth, but not philosophy debates about it. Do you agree with this?
Click to expand...
THAT I agree with. It's too bad that you failed to qualify that the experiments have been done in various ways by many independent parties over a long time.
If you want to check it for yourself, Knowing others have checked but you just want to confirm it- That is FINE. In fact, it's Outstanding.
But don't claim that others haven't. That statement is just plain untrue.
 
Neverfly said:
This is true. They practicied philosophy instead of science. They did not test well.
But the case You are discussing now has been tested repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Really? Could you provide similar experiment with results please? I think, it wasn't tested, because base on Newton's classical mechanics result is predictable.


Neverfly said:
No, I do not agree. You claimed that no one wants to check it. It's been checked. You didn't look it up.
Let's remove that line... and requote you with that part deleted.
Click to expand...
Again. same question. I need an experiment with results. Till no experiment with results it would be philosophy discussion.

Neverfly said:
THAT I agree with. It's too bad that you failed to qualify that the experiments have been done in various ways by many independent parties over a long time.
If you want to check it for yourself, Knowing others have checked but you just want to confirm it- That is FINE. In fact, it's Outstanding.
But don't claim that others haven't. That statement is just plain untrue.
Click to expand...

I don't think the scientists did an experiment a specially for that. Till experiment wasn't not created, the physics statement part of philosophy, which based on logic of existing theories. Need an experiment.
 
One more thing to defend my hypotheses about single main rotational and translational motion.
The law of momentum conservation works well for both motions as translational and rotational. But how about case when body conducts rotational and translational motion together. Let imagine case where body with rotational with velocity W and translational with velocity V motion collide with wall by it's on center of mass. What will happen? Base on modern motion concept all translational and translational momentums body will transfer to the wall separately from each other. This is correct, because center mass collision point of body will have normal velocity V relativity to the wall. But how about case where collision of body will be away from it's own center of mass? The velocity of collision point will be V + W*R relativity to the wall. In this case the translational momentum of body cannot be count as simple formula mV. because velocity is different.
On my site I described hypotheses about main single rotational and translational motion with it's own law of momentum conservation.
http://knol.google.com/k/paradox-of-classical-mechanics-2#
Please read it.
 
Last edited:
ABV said:
But how about case where collision of body will be away from it's own center of mass? The velocity of collision point will be V + W*R relativity to the wall. In this case the translational momentum of body cannot be count as simple formula mV. because velocity is different.
Click to expand...
The fact you're unfamiliar with the specifics of mechanics taught to students doesn't mean there's a paradox in mainstream physics. Yes, doing the equations of motion by hand can be either very difficult or impossible but numerical solutions of spinning things bounding off walls and one another is common place. Hell, its the sort of thing someone learning how to make realistic computer game physics engines would likely cover, never mind anyone who has to do physics applied to real world situations. For instance, a major example of spinning moving things bouncing off surfaces would be rock avalanches. These sorts of things are very important to understand. Another example is dust cloud collapse to form solar systems, which involves a lot of moving spinning things.

These aren't untested models, they are applied every day by many people who rely on their accuracy to build things. Your position that they are utterly wrong is demonstrated false.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
These aren't untested models, they are applied every day by many people who rely on their accuracy to build things. Your position that they are utterly wrong is demonstrated false.
Click to expand...

You're jump up to conclusion without nature experiment. Let's test it first and see results :)
 
Alex, please, please do learn the subject matter at hand. Your Rube Goldberg devices are, to be blunt, an embarrassment to yourself. There is no reason to test your Rube Goldberg devices. Your concepts are flawed. Why should scientists waste their time testing your flawed concepts?

Please learn to model all of the effects. You continue to ignore that angular momentum results from both translational motion ($$\vec r \times \vec p$$) and rotational motion ($$\mathbf I \vec {\omega}$$). Your perceived contradictions are just a result of your failure to model things correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top