Only for those who don't know everything about gravity !!! :)

[Leafy]

I thought of a way to exploit this antigravity effect.

Supposed we have a massless elevator as shown. Inside the elevator we have a hanging slinky and a 1kg mass attached to the slinky. We will give the elevator a initial constant speed of 1m/s upward. Then we cut the top of the slinky. The slinky is designed to fully contract in 1 second. During this one second, the mass is weightless and move up at constant speed of 1m/s. After 1 second the mass gain 1m in potential energy. This is free energy.

[knobby1]

I wouldn't say "free energy". Where did the energy required to get the elevator to a vertical 1m/s speed come from.?? And the energy required to lift the weight and spring to attach it to the top of the elevator..where did that come from..??

Smithy.

[thx4]

https://youtu.be/xOBZsCWMDzI

Something to think about. :) See you next year.

A++

[thx4]

https://youtu.be/NYAtYEEnuE8

I didn't know this lever... :)

A++

[thx4]

https://youtu.be/pwx12kwgOAM

Decidedly the acceleration in descent is very fashionable at the moment. lol
A++

[agor95]

Thanks thx4

Nice to see an example of a mass accelerating down and a mass decelerating up produce less force [we call weight].

Regards

[eccentrically1]

And a good demonstration of how counterintuitive is B’s principle. Weights in free fall (“first heard to fall”), don’t have any force (we call weight).

[agor95]

And a good demonstration of how counterintuitive is B’s principle. Weights in free fall (“first heard to fall”), don’t have any force (we call weight).

If you look at it from the device is accelerating up,which is counterintuitive, then the weight force observed is intuitive.

Also why mass does not matter in a pendulum swing becomes intuitive.

Regards

[eccentrically1]

No one looks at it that way. The device acceleration is below the threshold of perception; negligible. But, its force does oppose any force the spinning wheel has as it descends. Counter intuitions everywhere.

[agor95]

No one looks at it that way.

I guess you are referring to my post.
Were I look at the interaction using an equivalence perspective.

Which means there is one who does look at it that way.
And were there is one there is many.

Force is a measure of how hard you have to pressure a mass to accelerate or decelerate.

It is a transaction one mass against another.

How you record this interaction is your call, but it is a construction of the mind not of nature.

Nature is contact pressure, acceleration and inertia.

The first is electric fields and the last is magnetic fields.

So no one looks at it that way. Hello I am no one.

All the Best

[eccentrically1]

"No one looks at it that way" isn't a literal statement. Of course you or anyone can look at it that way, but that perspective doesn't show the counterintuitive nature of the interaction as well as the perspective of the spinning wheel accelerating down and having less force/weight.

So, if you're so inclined, do the math for us (how an interaction is recorded) and show how much less force/weight the earth has during the interaction. Your call.

[eccentrically1]

-

[eccentrically1]

-

[eccentrically1]

-

[eccentrically1]

-