British Prof. Eric Laithwaite showed that variable inertial mass occurs via some anomalous gyroscopic demonstrations during his famous 1974 Christmas lecture to the Children of the Royal Society (that may easily be found on the Internet), and Russian Prof. Alexander Dmitriev has preformed some experiments involving the anomalous falling acceleration of spinning rotors having horizontal spin axes that led him to conclude that their inertial masses need not always equal their gravitational masses. And now Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies and myself have devised a new mechanics that is obtained from Newton's mechanics by minimally relaxing the requirement that particle inertial mass need not be constant (as Newton thought was the case after some of his simple pendulum experiments) in the case of non-constantly accelerated (but non-relativistic) motion. And we use Prof. Dmitriev's falling rotor data to obtain this new mechanics that we refer to as "Neo-Newtonian Mechanics" since the prefix "neo" means "much the same as."
Dear Denny,
The effect is caused by gravitomagnetism.
When the rotor is spinning, there is a gyrotation field (= magnetic gravity field) created. I use the right-hand corkscrew as definition. So, if the angular momentum vector is represented for right-hand corkscrew, the transmitted gyrotation vector is also directed the same (Jefimenko used the opposite direction). It is an intermediar process, so the definition of the vector is conventional.
The rotor is moving about the Earth at 40000 km/24 hours at the equator. So, I guess that Dmitriev performed his tests at 60° of latitude (Saint Petersburg), hence, a factor 0.5 of that speed.
When using the equations for calculating the internal and external gyrotation Bg at the inner and outer surface of the rotor, we can find the average.
When applying the Lorentz-like force F = m (g + v x Bg) we get the force that acts upon the rotor.
[Notice that the Earth also has a value for Bg(E) but at the Earth's surface at a latitude of 50°, it is rather vertically oriented, so will deviate the rotor a bit horizontally. However, that Bg(E) is a steady value, independent from the experiment.]
If the rotor is horizontal, the cross product between Bg and the orbit speed about the Earth will be vertical upwards or downwards, depending from the apparatus' orientation. Depending from the angle, it will be large or small.
Hence, Dmitriev should perform his tests with the rotor oriented in North-South direction, in order to get its angular vector East-West.
If he uses two rotors they should be oriented the same to get an effect. He can experiment with orientations and with amplifying or anihilating rotors.
Moreover, he should perform the test at the same hour of the day and within a few days, because there could also be argued that the drag velocity of the Earth in the solar system and the Milky Way can play some role.
Best wishes,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Denny,
By the way, Eric Laithwaite was wrong: he was blinded by the effect of inertial momentum. However, when one makes rotate a wheel in a vacuum (say, the Moon), it will fall as fast as any other mass.
The apparent levitation that can be shown with an inclination effect of a rotating device, when holding one side of the axis, is an additional inertia, but it doesn't affect the gravitational mass.
This only proves that Newton's gravity law must be written down with "mass" as "gravitational mass".
Angular inertia is unaffacted by gravity. Only the equivalent mass is, even if one can associate that to "inertial mass".
Dear Thierry,
Many, many thanks for the very informative reply.
Yes, the gravitational mass is unaffected by angular rotation according to Jeremy's and my new mechanics (see attached), but consider Harvey Morgan's experiment (again, see attached) that very clearly shows a Lenz law type effect. Can this be a gravitomagnetic effect ... rather than an inertial inductive effect? And, if NOT, then how can you so boldly assert that a spinning rotor (or wheel) with a horizontal spin axis would definitely fall at the usual classical acceleration (say) on the moon ... because it would then be in a vacuum? How can the atmosphere of the Earth change anything here ... if one (naturally) ignores the very, very small air friction effect on the fairly massive & compact (aviation) rotor that, moreover, falls only about 5 cm?
And, Thierry, would it be possible for me to obtain a detailed copy of your (partial?) calculations showing that Dmitriev's falling rotor experiment was simply a gravitomagnetic effect so that I could then carefully check both your mathematics and your physics in detail? Because qualitative is not (as yet) quantitative, you know; and Newton's gravitational constant G is only about 6.67 x 10^-11 (MKS) ... which is awfully, awfully small, of course.
God Bless, Denny
Dear Denny,
"Harvey Morgan's experiment../.. Can this be a gravitomagnetic effect ... rather than an inertial inductive effect?"
If there is no air between the disks, if the system doesn't have electrostatic charges of magentic fields due to the electric experiment, and the whole system isn't trembling by the high speed, then it might be due to gravitomagentism, as I told before, due to the speed of rotation of the Earth, combined with the rotating mass.
"how can you so boldly assert that a spinning rotor (or wheel) with a horizontal spin axis would definitely fall at the usual classical acceleration (say) on the moon ... because it would then be in a vacuum?"
I was referring to the example of a bike wheel, which, when falling as it rotates fast, displaces that much air that it falls slowly.
For the calculus, I need to know the mass and full shape of the rotor, rotation speed, the latitude of the experiment (assumingly 60°), and then I might make an estimation...
Best regards,
Thierry
Dear Thierry, Many thanks for the reply.
You say: " If there is no air between the disks, if the system doesn't have electrostatic charges of magnetic fields due to the electric experiment", but there IS air between the discs, and that would tend to cause the (free to turn) driven disc to turn in the same direction as the driver that is very close to the (lead) driver disc since the air has a small but positive viscosity. However, this effect is completely over powered by the Lenz law effect observed.
And, Theirry, just what is this "electronic experiment" that you refer to, and how does it apply to Morgan's experiment?
I apologize for thinking that you were referring to a wheel that would not experience the effects of air in falling.
As to the rotor experiments parameters such as size and masses of the rotor (air-tight) case, the rotor masses, the size and material of the cylindrical rotors (that might be hollow), and so forth. The rotors weighed 0.25 kg, the case weighed 0.77 kg, the experiment was preformed in St. Petersburg (Russia), and the rotors spins in Hertz are given in the second attached as the first coordinate and the second coordinate is the falling accelerations in units of Gal relative to g = 9.806 (meters per second squared) as a zero point (see Appendix 1 of Jeremy's and my "Part 1"). Also, the complete description of the experiment will be found in the paper given by reference [3] of the references of the first attached paper of Dmitriev & Snegov; and I have just today asked my local library to order this description paper for me that I'll send on to you (if and when I receive it).
God Bless, Denny
Dear Denny,
You wrote : "but there IS air between the discs, and that would tend to cause the (free to turn) driven disc to turn in the same direction as the driver that is very close to the (lead) driver disc since the air has a small but positive viscosity."
That is only a supposition. With turbulent air, you don't knwo what is really happening. I remember that the video I say years ago was showinga terribly trembling device. So, the experiment is worthless to me.
We better focus on Dmitriev's.
I will use the data you gave me. The quadratic fit doesn't say much, since we don't know at what day and time each test was performed, and at which orientation wrt N-S or E-W.
Dear Thierry, Many thanks for the reply.
No, the researcher, Harvey Morgan, was a very careful engineer, and would have reported any "terrible trembling" of his experimental device. And, as to his honesty, he was a long time volunteer fireman accustomed to running into burning buildings to rescue people and such other activities; NOT a smug, haughty, & smooth academic with a forked tongue ... as of today! And all this speaks for itself!
But I do realize that you certainly would like to know "at what day and time each test was performed, and at which orientation wrt N-S or E-W"; but can't you do some averaging and then give me the calculation details of a rough answer as to what one might expect the gravitomagnetic effect to be in the Dmitriev falling rotor experiment so I'll know whether or not to pursue this matter on my own?
God Bless, Denny
Dear Denny,
Unfortunately, the forces that act due to the spinning of the rotor, even when combined with the speed of the Earth in the Milky Way, are too small to be measurable at all. Order of 10^(-18) m/s².
Dear Thierry, I'm sorry to hear this. You know, I found out yesterday that I had a bad "unit problem" with my calculations of my two Neo-Newtonian Mechanical {universal) constants "C" and "K", and it was in connection with the unit of acceleration: "Gal". I had thought that it was one meter per second squared but it turns out to be one centimeter per second squared instead. So, then, I was treating the Dmitriev falling rotor accelerations (relative to g = 9.806 meters per second squared as a zero point) as if they were 100 times as great as they actually were measured by Dmitriev. (The unit, "Gal", is used -- in all of physics -- only in gravimetry, and so its definition wasn't even to be found in the "Oxford Dictionary of Physics", only on line.) What a downer!
But I'm pressing on, and so I'm attaching a revised version of Jeremy's and my "Part 2: Radiative and Inductive Effects" that treats Dmitriev's data (hopefully) correctly. And I'm also attaching the actual (new) calculation of both C and K ... using the unit "Gal" correctly so that this work can be checked.
Sometimes life has its disappointments, but we've got to continue on anyway and trust in God. God Bless, Denny
Can you help by adding an answer?
Answer
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Elementary Particle Physics
- Particle