Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

Thanks Andrew

This is exactly what happens when a photon for a short time follows a 
(1x1) orbit. The optimal coupling happens if the polarization is 90/180 
degrees depending on what effect you like. Photons basically have 1x1 
orbits with a varying angle.


This photon coupling is also happening in the Holmlid UDH fusion case 
where Laser photons do accumulate in the 1x1 orbit, because emission is 
suppressed.


As I mentioned many time before. SO(4) physics will change almost all of 
physics even if some effects happen at the rounding of the 5th digit (1FC).


J.W.

Am 25.01.20 um 10:40 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:

Harry,

I'm glad that people are reexamining models of the motion of trapped 
"bodies" on the surface of a "sphere".


Your comment about the varying weight density of the stone may touch 
on the explanation of the Goos-Hanchen and Imbert-Federov effects on 
total internal reflection at the optical level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goos%E2%80%93H%C3%A4nchen_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect
I consider these effects to be important in the 
total-internal-reflection, bound-photon, model of the electron.


Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:36 PM H LV > wrote:


Andrew,

Andrew,

This is amazing. I have been pondering what puts the curl into a
curling stone for over 15 years and this week my intuition has
been bolstered by letting the entire surface of a planet be a
curling rink and reading about the work of Eötvös. The physics of
curling is a controversial area of physics with competing
theories. However, I don't think anyone has considered what effect
the rotation of the planet might have on the weight of the stones
as they move.

I don't know about GR but some interesting things would happen if
the disc also spins as it slides over the surface like a curling
stone on ice.
The weight-density of the disk will vary around it even if it is
of uniform mass-density. This because the contact velocity also
varies around the stone do to combination of its orbital and spin
motion. If the surface is frictionless but supple (not perfectly
rigid) the reactionary force around the disk will vary and be a
maximum where the weight density is a maximum which will result in
a orbit that isn't a great circle. Alternatively if the surface is
perfectly rigid but does have friction this could generate some
non-circle paths as well before the disk comes to rest.

Harry

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:06 PM Andrew Meulenberg
mailto:mules...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Harry,

You are touching on an important area that I am also
contemplating. Your frictionless, smooth, planet provides a
constraint to the motion of a disk on its surface. It is a
real (physical) constraint, independent of frame of reference
and disk velocity. What about the nuclear hard core or the
centrifugal force?  The centrifugal force is frame dependent
and only provides a virtual potential. I don't know if the
nuclear hard core has been adequately defined yet.

However, if your disk is traveling fast enough to not touch
the surface and then slows down just enough to touch the
surface, then its interaction with a "weight-measuring" device
would indicate it to have no weight prior to touch down and a
very small weight afterward. In GR, a small deviation from a
geodesic (where "weight" would be zero) would result in a
small restoring force. Thus, as the disk slows down, its
geodesic changes. If the planet surface prevents the
alteration of the disk's path to follow the changing geodesic,
then it experiences a slight force from the attempt to alter
the path to get the disk back to its geodesic. This small
force on a measuring device would certainly not correspond to
the weight of the disk if it were stationary on the surface.

Andrew


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:01 PM H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since
the surface is frictionless.

Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world
that is exclusively due to the rotation of earth is
complicated by many variables.
The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force
could be one of those variables as well as the coriolis
force. If a spring balance is used to measure weight,
wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
the rotation? If so they could give the impression of
weight change when the spring is loaded.

Harry


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg
mailto:mules...@gmail.com>> wrote:


 

Re: [Vo]:cannon balls and curling stones

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Harry,

I'm glad that people are reexamining models of the motion of trapped
"bodies" on the surface of a "sphere".

Your comment about the varying weight density of the stone may touch on the
explanation of the Goos-Hanchen and Imbert-Federov effects on total
internal reflection at the optical level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goos%E2%80%93H%C3%A4nchen_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbert%E2%80%93Fedorov_effect
I consider these effects to be important in the total-internal-reflection,
bound-photon, model of the electron.

Andrew
_ _ _

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:36 PM H LV  wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Andrew,
>
> This is amazing. I have been pondering what puts the curl into a curling
> stone for over 15 years and this week my intuition has been bolstered by
> letting the entire surface of a planet be a curling rink and reading about
> the work of Eötvös. The physics of curling is a controversial area of
> physics with competing theories. However, I don't think anyone has
> considered what effect the rotation of the planet might have on the weight
> of the stones as they move.
>
> I don't know about GR but some interesting things would happen if the disc
> also spins as it slides over the surface like a curling stone on ice.
> The weight-density of the disk will vary around it even if it is of
> uniform mass-density. This because the contact velocity also varies around
> the stone do to combination of its orbital and spin motion. If the surface
> is frictionless but supple (not perfectly rigid) the reactionary force
> around the disk will vary and be a maximum where the weight density is a
> maximum which will result in a orbit that isn't a great circle.
> Alternatively if the surface is perfectly rigid but does have friction this
> could generate some non-circle paths as well before the disk comes to rest.
>
> Harry
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:06 PM Andrew Meulenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Harry,
>>
>> You are touching on an important area that I am also contemplating. Your
>> frictionless, smooth, planet provides a constraint to the motion of a disk
>> on its surface. It is a real (physical) constraint, independent of frame of
>> reference and disk velocity. What about the nuclear hard core or the
>> centrifugal force?  The centrifugal force is frame dependent and only
>> provides a virtual potential. I don't know if the nuclear hard core has
>> been adequately defined yet.
>>
>> However, if your disk is traveling fast enough to not touch the surface
>> and then slows down just enough to touch the surface, then its interaction
>> with a "weight-measuring" device would indicate it to have no weight prior
>> to touch down and a very small weight afterward. In GR, a small deviation
>> from a geodesic (where "weight" would be zero) would result in a small
>> restoring force. Thus, as the disk slows down, its geodesic changes. If the
>> planet surface prevents the alteration of the disk's path to follow the
>> changing geodesic, then it experiences a slight force from the attempt to
>> alter the path to get the disk back to its geodesic. This small force on a
>> measuring device would certainly not correspond to the weight of the disk
>> if it were stationary on the surface.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:01 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>> I don`t think it matters if the planet is rotating since the surface is
>>> frictionless.
>>>
>>> Of course measuring a change of weight in the real  world that is
>>> exclusively due to the rotation of earth is complicated by many variables.
>>> The link you provided on the reactive centrifugal force could be one of
>>> those variables as well as the coriolis force. If a spring balance is used
>>> to measure weight, wouldn't the length of an unloaded spring be affected by
>>> the rotation? If so they could give the impression of weight change when
>>> the spring is loaded.
>>>
>>> Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 8:19 AM Andrew Meulenberg 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 Harry,

 For your ice covered planet, you may need to indicate if it is rotating
 or not and then, depending on your frame of reference, address Coriolis
 forces.

 This link addresses the weight at poles vs that at the equator.


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force#Weight_of_an_object_at_the_poles_and_on_the_equator

 The difference between* centrifugal force* vs the *reactive*
 centrifugal force[41]
 
 [42]
  is
 interesting.


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce

 Andrew
 _ __ _

 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:30 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:46 PM H LV  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM H LV  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2