im spinning something very slow around me and take the object to the center of rotation, i can do it

but according cons of momentum if i half radius it doubles speed and to reach the center you must half radius infinitally, so you get an infinite speed spending infinite energy to reach the cenetr, but this doesnt happen

Usually I use my arms to pull something towards me, but hey... <shrugs>

You always question established things Raaid. I like that about you. It shows your "smarter then the average bear"

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
You always question established things Raaid. I like that about you. It shows your "smarter then the average bear"

There`s smart, and there`s so smart that you paralyse yourself through constant analysis and achieve very little compared to the average less-smart person.

And then there's so smart that you can't even understand that the object will hit your hand BEFORE the radius reaches zero. Even the most average of bears knows that.



--Outlaw.

quote:

And then there's so smart that you can't even understand that the object will hit your hand BEFORE the radius reaches zero. Even the most average of bears knows that.

nope you can pass it over your head

Bad assumption on my part (purely horizontal motion and your usual neglect friction and gravity).

Regardless, you still have a non-zero radius vector at all times and now have the ability for the object to spin about it's own axis. Therefore, it's easy to see how momentum is conserved (neglecting the energy input required to create such a system on the Earth).

Average bear still wins.

--Outlaw.

quote:

Originally posted by stalkervision:
You always question established things Raaid. I like that about you. It shows your "smarter then the average bear"

...among so-called independent thinkers for every Galileo there are a hundred Von Danikens.

in a 2 particles system is imposible to bring them together nevertheless get through because the slightest movement would increase infinitally

is it only me who finds it odd

quote:

Originally posted by raaaid:
in a 2 particles system is imposible to bring them together nevertheless get through because the slightest movement would increase infinitally

is it only me who finds it odd

A totally meaningless statement. It is true that in many cases bodies can be treated as particles with acceptable levels of accuracy, however, a particle (in the physics sense) is a definition and nothing more. There is no such thing in the real world.

It would not surprise me if you were the only one who found it odd.

Average bear wins, raaaid loses.

--Outlaw.

well i won in my concept of gravity,you retired, equal areas in equal times but inwards spiral bigger pull than outwards one, cons of momentum is wrong

just being right on this and total sucess in life

anyway lets bring some enlightenement: so its not the same a spinning person with weights that considering 3 particles?

there are 3 entities the person and the weights, why cant it be considered as particles, the ideal world must match the real but it doesnt

This message has been edited. Last edited by: raaaid,

quote:

Originally posted by raaaid:
well i won in my concept of gravity,you retired, equal areas in equal times but inwards spiral bigger pull than outwards one, cons of momentum is wrong

More like got bored, but, if you wish...

If you call that pathetic diagram "winning", then I've won every Olympic event since the very first games b/c I've got a hand drawn sketch of stick figure me accepting the gold medals from well endowed stick figure chicks.

As far as equal times goes, based on the direction you wish to travel, I used the opposite cutting plane than you did which are obviously different times. Nonetheless, if you want your masses to follow Kepler's laws (and equal times for equal areas), you should probably remove the constant force constraint you are imposing. The force of gravity is not constant. Kepler's laws apply to planets UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF GRAVITY ONLY.

Until you show a free body diagram and derive the equations of motion your "theory" is total cr@p. Drawing a sketch of the motion and then adding forces MEANS NOTHING. Draw the free body diagram, including the forces, and then CALCULATE THE MOTION. Why do you refuse to do this?

Once again, why won't you show your derivation of the equations of motion?

Of course, even if you do derive the equations of motion, neglecting friction and the mass of the connecting members makes the whole thing nothing more than an exercise anyway.

You ASSUME that the masses will follow an elliptical path. PROVE IT.

quote:

Originally posted by raaaid:
anyway lets bring some enlightenement: so its not the same a spinning person with weights that considering 3 particles?

My reference to particles corresponds to THIS THREAD, not any of your other threads.

More nonsense gibberish. Enlighten who with what?

quote:

Originally posted by raaaid:
the ideal world must match the real but it doesnt

ABSOLUTE GARBAGE STATEMENT. There is NO SUCH THING as "the ideal world". Why should something that does not exist match something that does? Furthermore, HOW CAN IT?

--Outlaw.

well outlaw probably you are educated but not very smart, you proved it to me in the barometric semivacuum concept where an unuducated person corrected you

you know what im not building this engine, its so easy it must have been done before but supressed, see schauberger, im not that crazy

i rather prefer to work on my enlightening systeem via sync of both brain hemis

that can be a hit to this nazi system where third world countries are now dead camps

can you imagine a world where everybody can scan everybodies mind,dogs will turn on their owners, vengeance is better served cold

For a pointlike objects, yes. But I don't know any, apart from completely fictious mathematical presentation (named: point) for very small objects.

now i feel bad for saying you are not smart

but planets follow angular momentum laws, spininning cannonballs follow angular momentum laws,planets sweep = areas in = times,THEREFORE SPINNIN CANNONBALLS AS WELL sweep = areas in = times

did you get your ingeenering by interent?