Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Current Essay Contest

Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2013

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2012 [back]
TOPIC: The Latent Weight - Result of a Spin of a Massive Body and a Source of Superfluous Energy by Jacob Bitsadze [refresh]

Author Jacob Bitsadze wrote on Jun. 15, 2012 @ 12:24 GMT
Essay Abstract

In modern physics it is considered, that in a rotating body the moments of pulses mvR compensate each other. Hence the total moment of a pulse of a rotating body is equal to zero. It means that the weight of a body does not increase at rotation. At a level of the moments of pulses it is correct, but without attention there is a centrifugal acceleration. Even if the elementary particle has a spin, why a massive rotating body cannot have own moment of a pulse which is caused by centrifugal acceleration instead of tangential speeds? There is a question: if the weight of a body "increases" as a result of growth of linear speed why the weight cannot increase as a result of centrifugal acceleration? This elementary growth of weight as a result of rotation of a body about the axis is not taken into account in modern theories. The existing theory considers only the general influence of "cross-section" force on acceleration of a body as a whole, and centripetal acceleration inside a bodyappears not in a field of vision. In result there is "deficiency" of weight. But this deficiency is taken into account by a principle of equivalence. According to this principle, on the person placed in a centrifuge, the same force operates as though he falls from height . Considering a principle of equivalence, it turns out, that the body develops at rotation the more capacity, than at linear movement with the same speed.

Author Bio

Edukation 1990- 1995 Tbilisi State University 1995- 1998 Post-graduate Course (Aspirantur) Summary of relevant work experiense 1998- 2000 Agensy “Sarke” – Analist 1998 -2001 Ltd “ITEX” ¬¬- Manager 1998- sinse

report post as inappropriate

Dirk Pons wrote on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 08:47 GMT
Jacob

So as I understand it, the central idea is that the equations for rotary and linear motion have different forms. Hence constant speed of rotation results in centrifugal forces, whereas constant linear speed is not associated with forces.

The centripetal acceleration of a rotating body is not used in determining the kinetic energy, because this acceleration is perpendicular to the instantaneous rotary motion, i.e. for a rigid body there is no motion in the centripetal (radial) direction, only in the tangential. Also, you implicitly note that the tangential speed of a rotating body is highest at its outer surface and zero at the centre. Thus not all the mass in a rotating body is as effective at storing energy as in the linear case.

I'm not sure I understood you correctly, but you seem to infer that these differences are exploited in perpetual motion machines. Your proposed experiment does not seem to be a perpetual motion machine, but rather an apparatus to check whether there is a different angle of inclination (your 'corner of a deviation'?) for hanging weights that are orbiting, as opposed to hanging spinning orbiting weights. Have you done the test and what did you find?

You touch on a deeper question: Why it is that a body with linear speed will sustain that motion indefinitely (in the absence of any resistance)? And likewise a rotating body will sustain its angular velocity. I suspect there is a deep philosophical question in there. What really is mass?

Thank you

Dirk

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 22:51 GMT
Dear Dirk

I am very grateful to you for attention and an estimation.

You have understood the theory basically correctly.

The philosophy of weight is not clear even to great physicists.

As speak, The Higgs-Field resists to other elementary fields and thus create inert weight. But this resistance is not rigid but dynamical. Therefore the body has inertia.

But the weight creates the gravitation. Means, at interaction of Higgs-Boson with others bosons it should be created the graviton. Or graviton should exist independently itself and to create the weight as a result of an attraction...

Gravitational and Inert weights are equal precisely -it is proved experimentally.

Means Higgs –boson is itself a graviton.

Otherwise the weight of an attraction should differ from inert weight.

...

It is difficult for me to understand this confusion....

But let's compare already facts in evidence and formulas...

At linear movement the body has only weight (m)

At rotary movement the weight becomes the moment of inertia. That is the weight of a body is multiplied on a square of his radius.

If we shall consider philosophically, is it correctly to multiply weight on his parameter?

At rectilinear movement, the weight of a body is not multiplied on his length, width or volume...

You speak that kinetic energy of a flywheel is less, as linear speeds in the center of rotation has less. But kinetic energy is result of a impulse. The total moment of a pulse of rotating body is equal to zero. Means, the flywheel should not have inertia and kinetic energy... But it has inertia...

So it is necessary to take into account centrifugal acceleration instead of a moment of impulse in dynamics of a rotating body.

I did not carry out experiments. I work on underpaid work and I do not have superfluous financial assets. But in 2001 Tariel Kapanadze has appropriated one of variants of my mechanical generator and has lead successful experiment.

But experiment of Chas Chambell is more known. You can look them on a you-tube if you will type in search: Mechanical Generator Kapanadze or the generator of Chas Chambell

Gratefully

Jacob

attachments: To_Dirk.doc

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 15:18 GMT
On mine, if the weight is defined with Higgs-field, then a graviton it is not necessary. It is possible to explain gravitation with variety of Higgs-Boson. As assert, Higgs-Boson can accept any charge as plus so a minus. It can be absolute without a charge depending on circumstances.

Thus Higgs-field can provide both an attraction and inertia simultaneously. The curvature of space of time is only different density of a Higgs-field.

report post as inappropriate

Jacob wrote on Jul. 24, 2012 @ 15:47 GMT
Steve,

I do not understand, what I have stolen from your theory..

I have not understood in general, what is such O cubed. S - means the area as I know. I have thought, that you have simply joked of my formulas, as have written a zero cubed.

I study physics myself and I do not know complex features. I anywhere did not meet variable O and the more so cubed.

Can you will tell where it is possible to read your theory. Maybe I can understand it!?

post approved

Jacob replied on Jul. 25, 2012 @ 17:21 GMT
Steve.

Do you have the web-site where there is a theory and the information about your inventions?

From one sight your formula causes doubts. It is too much cubes, too much speeds.

Thus speeds are designated not by such symbols.

What do you name spin speed? - angular speed?

It seems to me that you have stolen my theory. :)))) -- You have taken my formula P = mV3 (cubed) then multiplied it for other speeds -- orbital speed cubed and spinal speed too cubed. :)))

Good Luck

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 17:37 GMT
I know English not so well Steve. Therefore I do not understand nonliterary English in perfection. Excuse if I shall understand something incorrectly.

I cannot spy in your computer. I do not understand such questions.

Bitsadze -- it is the real Georgian surname. On English it is translated as the dissolute man. Likely my ancestors very much loved wine and women.:)))

Many think, that it is a pseudonym that is means sad and bit. Therefore for English-speakingers I subscribe Bizer or Byzer. It is the name of an ancient Georgian tribe which was well-known for the metallurgy. As speak in legends, they have started to do the first steel and nonferrous metals.

But in official documents and competitions I am obliged to write my surname like in the passport.

I earlier very well knew higher mathematics. So good, that I deduced new formulas sometimes at examinations.

Also I very well knew German and normally spoke on English. But because of illness of a brain I have forgotten all complex things..

But I can understand well philosophy of the physical phenomena. I have understood your logic, that any movement has the energy. The planet goes in 3 directions - tangential, orbital, and besides hi has centrifugal acceleration. All these speeds and acceleration should be summarized.

But how and in what proportions -- is there is a question.

Regards

post approved

Steve Dufourny replied on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 11:38 GMT
No , I am not mad, I am right, I dislike the bad strategies of discriminations,

I pray for these poor souls.Mr Basudeba Mishra, well said about the meditations, but you know we loose our contemplations, how can be an universal mind in this global society.

You know, I will work with the first concrete proposition. BRICS or OTAN ....

Ps you know Europe is not very well.If you knew the psychological states of my region. The corruptions still and always.I f you knew how I have suffered due to bad people.But I continue even with people against me.I think that it is due to the hate, the unconsciousness, the stupidity, the bad, the vanity. In fact it is always the same probelm, the hormons and its meanders of irony. A real universalist never will fall down on the entropical arrow of times. The asians have a lot to give to this planet.I like their philosophy.India and China can save this world with USA .But are they ok to harmonize together this planet. The real secret is this respect in the high spheres. The rest seems vain after all. These high spheres can change this planet really and rationaly.

Mr Basudeba Mishra, take your responsabilities.And we shall sort the good and bad people :)siddartha Gottam Buddah sees in a fly of a bee, the hopes of a flower above the sufferings of human babies.

We loose our contemplations !!!

report post as inappropriate

Jacob wrote on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 18:13 GMT
I wish you success!

But it is better to create a website and put there all the math. Otherwise no one would believe only one formula. In addition, the formula should be written according to international rules. Otherwise, the all will think that your orbital velocity - O - is zero.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 14:24 GMT
well, if now my posts are deleted still for the strategy from stupid persons, so frankly , it begins to be very irritating. You know what Jacob? The universal love will eat the bad at the breakfast with a little of hope.That, it is clear no?

And also , your maths do not improve, don't make the generalist !

report post as inappropriate

Jacob wrote on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 19:50 GMT
There is one Georgian saying. To translate it precisely - it is impossible, but the sense is approximately such: "be happy as far as possible - according to circumstances. "

Diogen lived in a barrel but was quite happy. You likely know, what he has asked at Alexander the Great.

To work in research institute in the USA and to receive the Nobel Prize is certainly very perfectly.

But it is not necessary to be killed - if it will fail.

I have not understood in what context you speak about murder. If you will stay home somebody will kill you?

I do not think that someone wants to kill you. But in any case, to live under fear is not the best decision. The fear does not solve any problem.

True man should be always ready to war and death! :)

If somebody wants to kill you spit on them. They are dung. The worthy person never will want to kill you. And stupid dung never will understand that by means of murder it is impossible to destroy the person. The chemical body is one of your substances. If you will lose a chemical substance others will stay to live. Some from them will live eternally.

Except for that not-chemical bodies can revenge very easily. It is one of advantages of death.

But simply to die - is silly. Learn KaRaTe, buy the weapon and defend.:)))

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 4, 2012 @ 22:42 GMT
Hunger doesn't say "Stale bread" and cold doesn't say "Old coat" (Georgian saying)

A word and a stone let go can not be called back. (English saying). Take care.

post approved

Jacob replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 11:59 GMT
very well, Steve.

I like a poem Mayakovsky.

my amateur translation is:

in this life is not hard to die.

live in the world is much more difficult.

must first transform lives for the better.

after doing can sing a new life

so all success to you!

post approved

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:06 GMT
ahahah fear .Let me laugh ! Kalil Gibran said ,"how can you understand the secret of the life if you do not open your heart to the death, because the death and the life are linked like is linked the river and the ocean "

The death is just a step of evolution my friend, I don't fear to die. I wait it even ok !

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 5, 2012 @ 10:05 GMT

I have taken a look at your essay. I think you begin with some interesting questions. There is a problem in cosmology, which is there seems insufficient mass in galaxies for gravity to hold them together. For which dark matter has been suggested as a solution. So finding some extra unaccounted for mass would be helpful.(I don't think gravity is due to curvature of space-time merely due to the presence of a mass but the disturbance of the environment of space when massive bodies progress along their universal journey. For a planet that journey can includes rotations as well as orbits and progressions with star system and galaxy. I think inertial mass is due to an -alteration- of the default motion).So the deficiency of mass may be due to not taking into account the universal motion of the objects, (the extra inertia). I don't know how exactly cosmologists calculate the mass of galaxies.

There is a difference between rest mass and mass of a moving object. The faster it is moving the harder to alter its course, it appears heavier (due to the resistance of the environment to the change in my opinion) but the rest mass stays the same, the amount of object itself is not altered. IMHO the seeming increase in mass is not a property just of the object but the object environment relationship. I know a spinning gyroscope is harder to move than a non spinning one. There is a continued steady alteration from the default course when an object is spinning at constant speed so the (one off )resistance of the environment is added ( but in this scenario too the amount of object itself is not altered). I don't think it will -continue to gain mass- just because it is spinning, as this new relationship is steady and not changing. (Unless the deposition of material onto the surface due to gravitational attraction is considered).

I don't know if you will consider any of those musings, which fit with my own explanatory model rather than mainstream physics, relevant or will think that I am missing the point of your essay, I may be. I am not a qualified physicist and not best qualified to comment on your mathematics, so I skimmed over it- and it was a large part of the essay. I may have missed out on a lot of helpful explanation. Your essay is unusual in that most other essays do not suggest an experiment. The experiment does not look too difficult to set up and perform. Have you tried it and got any interesting results? It ends abruptly.

I hope you get more interest in your essay and helpful feedback. Good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Aug. 6, 2012 @ 11:38 GMT
Dear Georgina

I am very grateful to you for attention. Unfortunately I have no financial assets for carrying out of the described experiment. As the vacuum chamber is necessary for this device to exclude influence of Magnus-force . Official physics refuse to carry out this experiment. They name my formulas incorrect. But they cannot prove the criticism neither theoretically nor...

view entire post

attachments: To_Georgina.doc

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 15, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
Hello,

Jacob, intersting all that .:)

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:32 GMT
Who is this Jonathan ?

report post as inappropriate

James Putnam wrote on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 02:25 GMT

The Principle of Equivalency belongs to Relativity theory. If your work is not relativistic and yet produces agreement with empirical results, then you don't need, as I expect you already know, to employ it. Rather straightforward analysis of forces has no need for Equivalency. Equivalency appears to me to be another piece of theoretical invention to shortcut the need to differentiate between gravity and acceleration. The scientist in the windowless room only needs a window to understand that gravity and acceleration are not the same thing. I do not presume that you agree with what I say. However, I like that you look for answers that go deeper than that theoretical shorcut called the Equivalency Principle. That is what I think. I will come back to your essay for further consideration. Thank you for enterring it.

James

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Aug. 28, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT
Dear James

I am very grateful to you for attention and very essential criticism.

I agree with you but only in case we will focus attention only on weight - without acceleration.

On mine in this principle the main thing is not weight but inertness and the related acceleration. It is a principle of equivalence of inertia (acceleration) instead of masses.

The principle of equivalence proves that inertia (mass) of a body doesn't depend by nature (content, substance) of that force which affects on it.

I.e. gravitation is just the same force for a body as well as strength of the person or force of explosion of dynamite for example.

It means that gravitation doesn't change mass of a body, but simply gives it acceleration...

Thus, centrifugal acceleration it should be equivalent to rectilinear acceleration.

I use equivalence of accelerations on the basis of equivalence of masses.

Let's remember how Einstein defines an equivalence principle. In my opinion the main thing is equivalence of influence (and its result - accelerations) on weight, instead of the weight.

“ A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:

(Inertial mass) (Acceleration) (Intensity of the gravitational field) (Gravitational mass).

It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body.”

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 20:04 GMT
In general it is possible to specify that the latent weight is a relativistic weight of rotation of a body about the axis.

As I understand, the relativity theory considers only rotation on circular orbits. At such trajectory the body gets cross-section relativistic weight.

But if there is a cross-section relativistic weight then there should be a relativistic weight of rotation too.

Best Regards

Jacob

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 03:31 GMT
I really like your essay, especially the graphic at the end -- it appears to have been rendered using ambient occlusion or some other nice global illumination technique. I like that attention to detail.

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 19:49 GMT
I thank you for your positive opinion.

I will be even more grateful if you show this essay to people who might be interested in experimentation.

Best Regards

Jacob

report post as inappropriate

hoang cao hai wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 05:13 GMT

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 23:20 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai

First of all excuse me for answer delay. I had many affairs on work and only tonight has remembered FQXi.

Those questions which you put - are very interesting to me too.

If we don't understand new essence of the phenomena it will be difficult to describe them mathematically.

I think over these questions much and I will be glad to cooperate with you.

The true is born in disputes!

Kind Regards

Jacob

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:48 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear Jacob!

You make some very interesting conclusions. You might be familiar with the book Potapov "Energy of the Rotation." I highly appreciate your profound essay. Sincerely, Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Jacob replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 23:42 GMT

I am very grateful to you for such appreciation.

I didn't know about the book of mister Potapov. Though I heard about its inventions much.

Thanks that you have prompted to me. I have found its link on the Internet. I will read necessarily. There are many interesting themes.

Kind Regards

Jacob

report post as inappropriate

• Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

• HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

• You may use superscript (10100) and subscript (A2) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.

• You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation [hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation
clear equation
insert equation into post at cursor