Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Do you know how a dyno works?
My gravity theory
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
Do you know how a dyno works?
Very true. In several of the fields I have taught in, there's often a point at which the better students realize "wow, this is really hard; there's a lot to this!" That's the point at which they are finally starting to "get it."
I have to interrupt right here, and will continue to read this thread, but this is crazy Motor Daddy. Einstein’s General Relativity, has been observed in laboratory examples year after year. Have you known yet that our GPS satellite clocks had to be adjusted for time dilation? One adjustment had to be made for Gravity time dilation, General Relativity and another adjustment for velocity time dilation, Special Relativity. Both corrections had to be made due to “magical” gravitational effects, both predicted by Einstein and decades before GPS road maps were part our daily drivers.
The clocks that were installed had to be adjusted (slowed down) before launching them into orbit; otherwise, your SAT NAV, in your new Chevy would be off every time you tried to check traffic reports for your drive to the Lube Stop, ten minute oil change.
Interesting to me is that the actual gravity (bending of Space-time due to mass), is about seven times more powerful than the time dilation adjustment due to velocity, or HP or Torque, as you wish. That fact is interesting to me because of the tangential requirements for these orbiting satellites. The force needed to maintain a standard orbit, is equal. Meaning that; the velocity (acceleration) force needed to keep the object in motion is exactly equal to the same, but opposing, gravitational (acceleration) force pulling the object toward the higher mass.
Chew on that for a while, but most importantly, learn from some of the folks around here. I have my own pet project, but unless I am willing to learn from those who have a higher understanding of the current model through the current understanding of physics and mathematics, than I will have nothing to show for it; or to offer. I would like you to look at some gear sets I am working with for road racing, to maybe advise a team of drivers if we can expect to increase our speed as fuel loads decrease, in all seriousness. That is clearly right up your alley, but for the sake of models of the universe? Please try and hear what others have to say would you? And when you have steered your thinking the wrong way turn it around and try again. Please do not continue to cover the same ground over and over. That is not learning, and really that is what we all are here to do I hope.
Motor Daddy said:
"Clearly shown by whom?", I wonder.
Obviously such a thing cannot be clearly shown by Motor Daddy, since Motor Daddy admits he hasn't bothered to learn about Einstein's theory. You can't debunk something you don't know.
So, clearly shown by somebody else? Who? Where?
Excellent post, Scott!!!
However, it will have no effect on Motor Daddy. He isn't nearly as ignorant as he makes himself appear - he's doing absolutely nothing here but trolling in an effort to cause trouble. The *only* thing that will ever "cure" him is that all of us stop responding to his nonsense. When that finally happens, he'll eventually get tired of talking to himself and stop.
I'm inclined to conclude that he actually is as ignorant as he makes himself appear, and more than willing to go out of his way to keep himself that way.
At present, he is reduced to making empty assertions about his expertise, his amazing conclusions and debunkings etc. There's nothing of substance he can post hasn't already been posted and debunked here. We've reached the limit of Motor Daddy's knowledge of physics, and found it wanting at every step.
I respectively disagree. Nobody could be THAT dumb and be able to find his way to the bathroom and back without help.
That is one of the conclusions of the Dunning & Kruger paper. So we should have at least seen a couple "".
So when does it actually become JUST trolling and no longer worthy of so much attention? 2500 more posts?
188 posts ago.
Yeah!!
To give Motor Daddy his due, he has remained remarkably patient in the face of certain posters belittling him, sometimes calling him names, and generally trying to get a rise out of him - which in itself is a kind of trolling.
Motor Daddy gets attention when people respond to his posts. If you think he doesn't deserve it, don't respond.
We don't ban people for being wrong or for being obstinate.
And in my opinion, there is not enough evidence that Motor Daddy is deliberately trolling to justify moderator intervention at this point in time.
It is rather refreshing to note you are equitable enough to state this.
Once again, goose .. gander!
The clocks that were installed had to be adjusted (slowed down) before launching them into orbit; otherwise, your SAT NAV, in your new Chevy would be off every time you tried to check traffic reports for your drive to the Lube Stop, ten minute oil change.
I've often wondered about this 'GPS = proof of relativity' thing. here's why;
- Your position is determined by your SAT NAV due to a concept approximating triangulation, right ? Meaning it recieves signals from several GPS satelites - signals that were sent simultaneously, and calculating the different time of receipt, works out your position. Now, even if the satelites lost some time it would be miniscule on that scale, and even so, would be irrelevent to the triangulation effect, as such time loss would be the same for each satelite, thus maintaining the accuracy of the triangulation effect.
- Also, why even HAVE hugely expensive atomic clocks that require exact complex synchronisation, etc. Wouldn't it be far less expensive, and far more practical and accurute and foolproof, to broadcast a precise time signal from earth to THEM, say once a day ?
Hmmm ?
Oh, yes - I recall those posts a while back.
Of course, I didn't read the many, many thousand word article you linked yesterday. The abstract however, was quite enlightening.
Let's test your claim that I don't know this material and you do. We have three pieces of data:
(1) Your post #1 vs my statement that the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them. You did not dispute this post, other than to throw stones at Newton (and Einstein).
(2) Your claim that objects are attracted to the core of another object (such as earth) vs my statement objects gravitate toward their respective centers of mass, which I gave as the location identified by summing each point mass in the body, times its mass, and setting the sum of those products to zero. I also gave you the example of an annular ring, which has a center of mass outside of the core of the object. You did not dispute either post.
(3) Your wild claim that Newton did not understand torque, followed by my post that he mentions moments some 68 times in Prinicipia, which you did not dispute. You did not point to anything Newton said in Principia that you disagree with. Further, I gave you the formula, torque equals the vector product r cross F. You did not dispute this. James R noted, and I repeated to you that torque is the change in angular momentum with respect to time. (First derivative, which you do not understand.) You did not dispute this either.
So far you're batting zero and I'm on top of my game.
Further I went to the trouble of converting the data you posted to SI units. You did not dispute that. I explained that you had posted redundant information. (You should post in SI so everyone else doesn't have to convert your numbers.) You could have left out the rear wheel torques and the hp numbers; I could have filled them in for you, assuming a lossless drive train, which is impossible, but that's what you posted, so I would have been in agreement with you by assuming the same. So far you haven't disputed this either.
I further stated, as did James R before, and as any of a dozen people posting here would have told you, that the greater the power, the more an object will accelerate. In the case of a car, this power has to be evaluated at the wheels when comparing one car vs another, in order to take into account for all losses and systemic differences in engines and gear trains. You haven't disputed that yet, and if you do, it will be because you don't understand physics.
One more definition of torque that readers will understand, but which you don't seem to, is that the vector dot product of torque dot omega (angular velocity in radians per second) equals power. For purposes of a rotating shaft, we can simply say that power equals the torque times the shaft angular velocity. This means your implied statement that engine horsepower is somehow magically decoupled from torque (if that was indeed your intent, you were being cagey so it's hard to tell for sure) is bogus.
Furthermore, the rectilinear power and power of rotation are similar forms. Rectilinear: power equals force dot rectilinear velocity; rotational: power equals torque dot angular velocity. Those are all vector quantities. We know you don't understand this, but you can look it up and confirm it.
The only other point of information I haven't mentioned is that conversion through the gears is done by dividing angular velocity by the gear ratios. Thus a 2:1 gear ratio reduces the output shaft velocity by 2. However this reduces the work by 2 and increases the available power by 2. Choking up halfway on a lever doubles the force applied to derive the same amount of torque. Similarly in a gear ratio of 2:1, in order to deliver the same torque on the output shaft as applied on the input, the force at the input would need to reduce by 2. This is equivalent to saying the available power doubles as above. Consequently since power equals torque times shaft velocity, and since output shaft velocity divides by gear ratio, we can conclude that the needed engine torque for a given rear wheel torque can be found by dividing rear wheel torque by the gear ratio. Conversely, engine torque times gear train ratio gives you the rear wheel torque.
Other than that, I don't know what else to tell you. I could give you the geometry, vector math and calculus involved, but that would be like talking to a brick wall. It already is a brick wall. That's just your chosen approach since you don't have the requisite background to explain science mathematically. However, if you will take that wall down, maybe your ideas will stop crashing.
You can read more about power and torque just about anywhere. If you like, find some authority that says anything different than what I've told you so far, and I'll respond to their positions. Until then, it still looks like you're batting zero and I'm on top of my game.
This would be useful stuff for a thread on vehicle design, but tells us nothing about gravity. Unless you think torque and gravity are related. I wouldn't be surprised.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Yes. You. There.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
James. Have you ever heard of the online character Eric M.?
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
There is a very cool discussion about GPS and how it relates to GR & SR. Basically you're idea of reseting the clocks once a day is used, but in the interum, the error would be in the neigborhood of ten miles if the clocks had not been preset with the proper math in place, over the 24 hour period. COOL STUFF. Recomended reading for all
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Really? That's not what Newton said. Do you care to elaborate on that statement a little more?
I'm gonna help you just a little, Aqueous, as I see you are sincere in understanding this.
If there is a 10:1 gear ratio with 100 lb-ft of torque on the output shaft, how much torque is on the input shaft if the rotational velocity is constant?