Physics department: Mach's principle (no, not airspeed)

baxtrom

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
39
There's too little physics talk going on in CPF so I figured I throw this one in and see what happens :naughty:

From wiki:

You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move?

Mmm.. theoretical physics.. :clap:
Are there any physicists around here? What happens when you look at the stars, start spinning, get dizzy and fall? Is it the universe striking back?
 

AnAppleSnail

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
4,200
Location
South Hill, VA
In other words - centripetal force is based on rotation speed, but...rotation relative to what? For that matter, all fast objects have their momentum greatly changed as you increase velocity towards that of light - but velocity relative to what?

"It's all relative, but at least there's beer."
 

bshanahan14rulz

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
2,819
Location
Tennessee
circular acceleration in reference to your previous state. Complicated in that it shouldn't matter what your previous state was? I dunno, I think it depends on how drunk you are.
 

Kestrel

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
7,354
Location
Willamette Valley, OR
Definitely concur with the above.

Edit:
And here's one that makes me think:

Why do moving objects such as fan blades accumulate more dust on them?
 
Last edited:

AnAppleSnail

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
4,200
Location
South Hill, VA
Why do moving objects such as fan blades accumulate more dust on them?

It turns out that the fan blade acts as an electrostatic filter, collecting opposite-charged particles. These tiny particles do not bounce on impact - they stick! You can get some FANTASTIC dendrite structures this way.
 

orbital

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
4,252
Location
WI
+

Angular Momentum
is much more interesting





________________^ Katrina __________________________^ Pinwheel galaxy via Hubble
 
Last edited:

nbp

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
10,970
Location
Wisconsin
I'm schooled in biology, so I'll comment on the dizziness question. Had to take two semesters of physics anyways though.

You get dizzy after spinning because throughout that motion you get the fluid in the semicircular canals in your inner ear sloshing about and bending tiny tiny hairs in there. The movements of those hairs tells your brain your head's position. When you stop spinning suddenly the fluid keeps sloshing for a few moments, bending hairs and making your brain think you are moving even though you have stopped.
 

blasterman

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
1,802
Angular Momentum is much more interesting

Awesome picture comparison BTW. Things like this really make you think.

A big difference between the hurricane and galaxy is the stars in theouter arms of the galaxy are moving at nearly the same velocity as the inner stars. Something that has baffled physicists for quite some decades.
 

Julian Holtz

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
343
Location
Germany
In other words - centripetal force is based on rotation speed, but...rotation relative to what?
I would not see it as rotation, but constant acceleration. If someting moves in a circular motion, it constantly changes direction. To make something change direction, you have to accelerate it in the new direction. To accelerate something, you need to have a force act on it. Every force has an equal force, working in the opposite direction. The latter is what you feel in your arms.

When you stop spinning suddenly the fluid keeps sloshing for a few moments, bending hairs and making your brain think you are moving even though you have stopped.
Correct.
When the sensory information of different senses do not match, sichness can happen.
I always got sich in a car as a kid, when I was sitting relatively still and my eyes detected modion from the moving ladscape.
 

baxtrom

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
39
Thanks guys for interesting thoughts and nice pics! :twothumbs
Apparantly, Mach's principle even caused Einstein some headache so it's not simple. :thinking:
 

AnAppleSnail

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
4,200
Location
South Hill, VA
If we can measure rotation, then there is some amount of rotation that is 0. But 0 relative to what? A magic 'ultimate reference frame,' or just to the average position of all masses in the universe? Could one manipulate rotation frames with very large, dense shells?
 

baxtrom

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
39
I posted this thought experiment in a physics forum some time ago (yes, I'm a nerd):

Imagine you have two spheres floating freely in space. One, "A", is rotating at high speed around its axis, the other, "B" is in rest. The rotating sphere bulges due to the centripetal acceleration, the other sphere does not.

Now, remove the rest of the universe but remain as a passive, invisible observer
icon_e_geek.gif


Am I correct in assuming there is no way for nature to know if it is "A" that is rotating around its axis, or if "B" is cirulating "A" like a satelite, always having the same face directed towards "A"?

And if so, why is "A" bulging while "B" is not? If "B" is circulating "A", it would be rotating around its axis with the same angular velocity, so should it not also bulge?

:duh2: :thinking:
 

AnAppleSnail

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
4,200
Location
South Hill, VA
I posted this thought experiment in a physics forum some time ago (yes, I'm a nerd):

Imagine you have two spheres floating freely in space. One, "A", is rotating at high speed around its axis, the other, "B" is in rest. The rotating sphere bulges due to the centripetal acceleration, the other sphere does not.

Now, remove the rest of the universe but remain as a passive, invisible observer
icon_e_geek.gif


Am I correct in assuming there is no way for nature to know if it is "A" that is rotating around its axis, or if "B" is cirulating "A" like a satelite, always having the same face directed towards "A"?

And if so, why is "A" bulging while "B" is not? If "B" is circulating "A", it would be rotating around its axis with the same angular velocity, so should it not also bulge?

:duh2: :thinking:

That's the trouble here. The test is easy: Spread jelly on each sphere. One that is rapidly rotating will fling the jelly off about its equator. One that is orbiting will fling it from one side. One that is neither orbiting, nor rapidly revolving, will remain deliciously coated. But...why is this? What is rotation 'relative' to that we can perform such a simple test?
 

HighlanderNorth

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Messages
1,593
Location
Mid Atlantic USA
Definitely concur with the above.

Edit:
And here's one that makes me think:

Why do moving objects such as fan blades accumulate more dust on them?



I'd have to guess that they pick up a static electrical charge maybe, and they do come in contact with more dust than just about every other object in a room. Thats because they are sucking dust through them, and that dust is floating in the air, or is picked up from the floor, or from the surfaces of other objects and sucked through.
 
Top