Programmable Inertia Generators (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OEwLvrmPOc):
By moving internal masses in reaction to accelerations induced by the user, the effective inertia of the device can be modified in order to render a prescribed inertia (including no inertia).
This simple experiment on defying gravity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLVa_yBIAm8) also cancels the inertia of the system naturally, similar to how the programmable inertia generators can modify or cancel the inertia. Increasing the moment arm increases the torque, which then increases the acceleration of both weights. However, the moment of inertia also increases which decelerates both weights. The end result is a cancellation of torque and inertia, which maintains the system at a constant uniform velocity. The system lifts the heavier weight as if it had no mass and no inertia via Newton's first law.
Gravock
QuoteThe system lifts the heavier weight as if it had no mass and no inertia via Newton's first law.
Then there should be no tension in the string.
But of course there is.
I suggest you review your Beer & Johnston before making any more silly claims.
Quote from: gravityblock on August 21, 2015, 06:23:36 PM
The system lifts the heavier weight as if it had no mass and no inertia via Newton's first law.
Quote from: TinselKoala on August 22, 2015, 01:53:33 AM
Then there should be no tension in the string.
But of course there is.
I suggest you review your Beer & Johnston before making any more silly claims.
This is absolutely absurd to promote such B.S. as this. The tension in the string remains unchanged and uniform between both objects throughout it's motion and is maintained by the uniform motion of both objects. Both objects are linked and moving together with the same uniform speed, thus there is no change in the tension of the rope, relative to the tension before they had movement. I can't believe you would post the ridiculous idea that one object can lift another object that is connected to it by a string without there being any tension in the string itself. Now, I already know what your next replies will be, so go ahead and put it out there if you feel you can successfully defend it.
Gravock
TK,
Also, an object only resists it's motion when there is a change in it's velocity. If there is no change in the objects velocity, then this object isn't resisting it's own motion, thus there is no inertia. I have already shown how the torque and inertia are cancelled in the system due to conservation of momentum and the change in the length of the moment arm as the lighter weight moves outwards from the center of rotation, thus it's velocity remains constant and uniform with no inertia and moves as if it had no mass. You need to prove this wrong in order for you to be correct. Now, are you going to dance around this with ridiculous assertions as you normally do, or are you going to deal with it head on?
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 21, 2015, 06:23:36 PM
Programmable Inertia Generators (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OEwLvrmPOc):
By moving internal masses in reaction to accelerations induced by the user, the effective inertia of the device can be modified in order to render a prescribed inertia (including no inertia).
This simple experiment on defying gravity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLVa_yBIAm8) also cancels the inertia of the system naturally, similar to how the programmable inertia generators can modify or cancel the inertia. Increasing the moment arm increases the torque, which then increases the acceleration of both weights. However, the moment of inertia also increases which decelerates both weights. The end result is a cancellation of torque and inertia, which maintains the system at a constant uniform velocity. The system lifts the heavier weight as if it had no mass and no inertia via Newton's first law.
Gravock
Do you agree that if the inertia of an object is zero, that it requires no force to accelerate that object in any direction? If you do agree, kindly explain how your experiment demonstrates such acceleration on the test object.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 06:59:05 AM
Do you agree that if the inertia of an object is zero, that it requires no force to accelerate that object in any direction? If you do agree, kindly explain how your experiment demonstrates such acceleration on the test object.
The question is worst than wrong on so many levels. For one, an acceleration is the effect of a force, so how can you state that it takes no force to accelerate that object in any direction? And for two, inertia is the resistance to a change in velocity, so how can an object have zero inertia if it's being accelerated in any direction (acceleration is a change in it's velocity, thus it has inertia)? The question you asked, wrongly implies several things, so there's no correct answer to your non-logical question. The inertia of an object is only zero if it's not being accelerated.
Gravock
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 06:59:05 AM
Do you agree that if the inertia of an object is zero, that it requires no force to accelerate that object in any direction? If you do agree, kindly explain how your experiment demonstrates such acceleration on the test object.
Let me re-word your question so it's fundamentally correct, without it wrongly implying several things.
Do you agree that if the inertia of an object is zero, that it requires no force to maintain that object at it's current velocity? Yes, I agree! The experiment doesn't have an acceleration after the system is balanced due to the torque and inertia being cancelled by the conservation of momentum as the moment arm increases by the lighter weight moving outwards from the center of rotation, at which time the system maintains a constant velocity or uniform motion.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 07:31:03 AM
Let me re-word your question so it's fundamentally correct, without it wrongly implying several things.
Do you agree that if the inertia of an object is zero, that it requires no force to maintain that object at it's current velocity? Yes, I agree!
LOL, Newton's First Law tells us that it does not require any force to maintain constant velocity of an object that has any value of inertia. So that behavior does not distinguish whether or not an object has inertia. So, kindly answer my question.
QuoteThe experiment doesn't have an acceleration after the system is balanced due to the torque and inertia being cancelled by the conservation of momentum as the moment arm increases by the lighter weight moving outwards from the center of rotation at a constant uniform velocity.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 07:22:12 AM
The question is worst than wrong on so many levels. For one, an acceleration is the effect of a force,
acting against an inertial mass
Quoteso how can you state that it takes no force to accelerate that object in any direction?
LOL, you claim there is no inertia. Ergo no force is required to effect an acceleration.
QuoteAnd for two, inertia is the resistance to a change in velocity,
Otherwise known as the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration.
Quoteso how can an object have zero inertia if it's being accelerated in any direction (acceleration is a change in it's velocity, thus it has inertia)?
LOL, again, you claim that you have a demonstration of zero inertia. It is up to you to explain how it is that the demonstration supposedly shows such a thing.
QuoteThe question you asked, wrongly implies several things, so there's no correct answer to your non-logical question. The inertia of an object is only zero if it's not being accelerated.
Gravock
No, I think the question plainly exposes another one of your gross fails. Hence, you don't wish to answer it.
MarkE,
Please state what you disagree with, and give an explanation for the disagreement.
1.) Do you agree that the system will have more inertia and decelerate as the moment arm increases due to conservation of momentum?
2.) Do you agree that the lighter weight will have more torque as the moment arm increases as it moves away from the center of rotation, which will accelerate the system?
3.) Do you agree that the acceleration provided by the torque is canceled by the deceleration of the system due to the conservation of momentum? <-------This is how the Programmable Inertia Generators function, which is cancelling an acceleration with a deceleration, or cancelling a deceleration with an acceleration.
4.) Do you agree that the system will reach a constant velocity and uniform motion due to the above.
5.) Do you agree an object doesn't resist it's own motion when it has a constant velocity?
Gravock
LOL, so it's off into the bushes you go without offering support for your claim of eliminating inertia.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 07:57:01 AM
LOL, Newton's First Law tells us that it does not require any force to maintain constant velocity of an object that has any value of inertia. So that behavior does not distinguish whether or not an object has inertia. So, kindly answer my question.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 08:32:15 AM
LOL, so it's off into the bushes you go without offering support for your claim of eliminating inertia.
There is no inertia at a constant velocity. Newton's first law is called the "law of inertia". So, if it doesn't require a force to maintain constant velocity of an object, then it's because there are no resistant forces acting on the body, including inertia itself. However, if the object had inertia at a constant velocity, then the inertia of the object would resist it's motion and decrease the object's velocity, which would then require a force to maintain a constant velocity which would then make Newton's first law contradictory. In other-words, this behavior most certainty does distinguish whether or not an object has inertia or not.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 08:41:05 AM
There is no inertia at a constant velocity. Newton's first law is called the "law of inertia". So, if it doesn't require a force to maintain constant velocity of an object, then it's because there are no resistant forces acting on the body, including inertia itself. However, if the object had inertia at a constant velocity, then the inertia of the object would resist it's motion and decrease the object's velocity, which would then require a force to maintain a constant velocity which would then make Newton's first law contradictory. In other-words, this behavior most certainty does distinguish whether or not an object has inertia or not.
Gravock
LOL, make up all the junk claims that you want. I suppose it helps when you invent your own definitions for well-established terms. The property of inertia is such that it requires force to accelerate an object of non-zero mass. Zero acceleration means zero force, not zero inertia. You fail again.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 08:59:38 AM
LOL, make up all the junk claims that you want. I suppose it helps when you invent your own definitions for well-established terms. The property of inertia is such that it requires force to accelerate an object of non-zero mass. Zero acceleration means zero force, not zero inertia. You fail again.
Below is the definition for the well-established term of inertia in quotes (this definition is not of my own invention as you falsely asserted):
"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion, including changes to its speed and direction or the state of rest".
An object that has constant velocity doesn't have any change in its state of motion, thus it has no resistance or inertia, and there is no force required for it to remain at that constant velocity per Newton's first law.
Gravock
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 08:59:38 AM
The property of inertia is such that it requires force to accelerate an object of non-zero mass. Zero acceleration means zero force, not zero inertia. You fail again.
Yes, it does take a force to accelerate an object of non-zero mass because an object resists any changes in it's motion, which is known as inertia. However, we're not talking about accelerating an object are we. We're talking about a constant velocity with no changes in it's motion, in case you haven't noticed, and I have showed how the experiment achieves a constant velocity, and you have refused to say which portions you disagreed with along with an explanation for that disagreement. It is you who is consistently failing, and not me.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 09:11:29 AM
Below is the definition for the well-established term of inertia in quotes (this definition is not of my own invention as you falsely asserted):
"Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion, including changes to its speed and direction or the state of rest".
An object that has constant velocity doesn't have any change in its state of motion, thus it has no resistance or inertia, and there is no force required for it to remain at that constant velocity per Newton's first law.
Gravock
LOL, that's called pretzel logic.
I didn't realise how involved some of these outwardly simple looking
things could be, you have an "inertial frame of reference" and
then "fictitious force" appears. I think Newton was pretty smart!
John..
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 09:54:42 AM
LOL, that's called pretzel logic.
This is another assertion by you with nothing to back up your false assertion.
Gravock
Quote from: minnie on August 22, 2015, 09:56:31 AM
I didn't realise how involved some of these outwardly simple looking
things could be, you have an "inertial frame of reference" and
then "fictitious force" appears. I think Newton was pretty smart!
John..
Newton was an amazingly smart person.
Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 10:02:31 AM
This is another assertion by you with nothing to back up your false assertion.
Gravock
LOL your declarations such as:
QuoteQuoteAn object that has constant velocity doesn't have any change in its state of motion, thus it has no resistance or inertia, and there is no force required for it to remain at that constant velocity per Newton's first law.
are completely confused tripe. Force is required to a-c-c-l-e-r-a-t-e a mass
because of the mass' property of inertia. You just keep goring round and round on the same fail.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 10:33:31 AM
LOL your declarations such as: are completely confused tripe. Force is required to a-c-c-l-e-r-a-t-e a mass because of the mass' property of inertia. You just keep goring round and round on the same fail.
Yes, once again force is required to
accelerate a mass because of the mass resisting a change in it's motion, which is inertia. I don't disagree with this. I'm not talking about no inertia with an accelerating mass, as you continue to falsely assert. It is you who keeps going round and round on the same fail and not me. How many times do I have to say no inertia with
constant velocity? There's a big difference, and you're intentionally failing to make a distinction between acceleration and constant velocity. A mass doesn't resist it's own motion at constant velocity, unless there is a change in that velocity, which is either a deceleration or an acceleration. Stop intentionally being a jackass! And no, this isn't an ad hominem attack as you will once again falsely assert. It's an attack on your idea and concept of
intentionally being a jackass.
I say velocity, then your reply is related to acceleration and not to velocity itself. You're not fooling anyone MarkE!
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 10:46:58 AM
Yes, once again force is required to accelerate a mass because of the mass resisting a change in it's motion, which is inertia. I don't disagree with this. I'm not talking about no inertia with an accelerating mass, as you continue to falsely assert. It is you who keeps going round and round on the same fail and not me. How many times do I have to say no inertia with constant velocity? There's a big difference. A mass doesn't resist it's own motion at constant velocity, unless there is a change in that velocity, which is either a deceleration or an acceleration. Stop intentionally being a jackass! And no, this isn't an ad hominem attack as you will once again falsely assert. It's an attack on your idea and concept of intentionally being a jackass.
Gravock
LOL your argument is completely twisted around itself. You attempt to use the description of inertia to claim that it doesn't exist. It's hilarious.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 10:50:33 AM
LOL your argument is completely twisted around itself. You attempt to use the description of inertia to claim that it doesn't exist. It's hilarious.
No, you have it backwards, as is normal for you. You're attempting to use the description of inertia to claim it does exist and there is a resistance to an object's motion even though there is no change in it's motion. According to you, Newton's first law is contradictory to itself. It is you who has completely twisted the law of inertia around itself and made it contradictory. You're pushing total nonsense MarkE.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 22, 2015, 11:02:37 AM
No, you have it backwards, as is normal for you. You're attempting to use the description of inertia to claim it does exist and there is a resistance to an object's motion even though there is no change in it's motion. According to you, Newton's first law is contradictory to itself. It is you who has completely twisted the law of inertia around itself and made it contradictory. You're pushing total nonsense MarkE.
Gravock
LOL You are worse than wrong ... again.
Quote from: MarkE on August 22, 2015, 11:08:25 AM
LOL You are worse than wrong ... again.
Yeah, from your inverted perception of reality where you put right for wrong, and wrong for right...then I guess that would be worse than wrong for you as always.
Gravock
LOL
Quote from: minnie on August 22, 2015, 09:56:31 AM
I didn't realise how involved some of these outwardly simple looking
things could be, you have an "inertial frame of reference" and
then "fictitious force" appears. I think Newton was pretty smart!
John..
For one, a frame where the "so-called" fictitious forces are present is not an inertial frame! For two, the fictitious centrifugal force isn't necessary to explain an apparent outwards force in a rotating reference frame. The fictitious centrifugal force is only necessary according to conventional thinking, the kind of thinking which twists Newton's law of inertia around itself to make it contradictory to itself, like MarkE has.
John, do you really think they have it right if they need to introduce fictitious forces in a rotating frame? <-----Making imaginary things up is a sure tell sign they don't have it right!
Gravock
LOL
Quote from: MarkE on August 23, 2015, 02:37:31 PM
LOL
Yeah, once again the laugh and joke is on you.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 23, 2015, 02:44:25 PM
Yeah, once again the laugh and joke is on you.
Gravock
ROFL, sure it is. That is why all the machinery developed and deployed using Newton's Laws has such difficulty functioning properly. <end sarcasm>
Quote from: MarkE on August 23, 2015, 02:48:02 PM
ROFL, sure it is. That is why all the machinery developed and deployed using Newton's Laws has such difficulty functioning properly. <end sarcasm>
ROFLMAO, you always have it completely backwards and upside down! Get rid of the "so called" fictitious forces, such as the centrifugal force, Coriolis force, Euler force, etc and see how the machinery developed and deployed according to the conventional understanding of Newton's laws don't function properly.
Gravock
Reinventing the wheel ? hahah I got one it never stops accelerating ahahahah so what is the purpose of it unless its just a thing ? join the revolution hahahah email me g block asap
atom1