Is antigravity a bunch of hot air?

> [James]: In ballistics, projectiles behave as orbiting bodies, i.e. they exibit Coriolis effects in relation to the surface of the Earth and projectiles fired in an easterly direction tend to go farther than objects fired in a westerly one.

For objects in a space as small as a balloon, this effect is negligible. You might as well invoke lunar tides. Work out the magnitude and see for yourself. A particle must travel a long way before any east-west asymmetry can be seen. -|Tom|-

> [James]: In ballistics, projectiles behave as orbiting bodies, i.e. they exibit Coriolis effects in relation to the surface of the Earth and projectiles fired in an easterly direction tend to go farther than objects fired in a westerly one.

[Tom] For objects in a space as small as a balloon, this effect is negligible. You might as well invoke lunar tides. Work out the magnitude and see for yourself. A particle must travel a long way before any east-west asymmetry can be seen. -|Tom|-

I recently performed an experiment where a round, symetrical, 5 quart pyrex bowl was placed in a 5 gallon bucket that was half full of water and the system sat for a week before taking measurements. By itself, I was able to detect 2 rotations per day of the bowl with time lapse photography. I then set a small fish aquarium air pump with a pump frequency of 60 hz and power consumption of 4.5 watts against the outside of the bucket to add vibration to the system. Again using time lapse photography, I recorded a continuous rotation increase of over 20 cycles per day. You may call it negligible, but it is noticable and measurable.

If a particle is moving back and forth east and west, it doesn't take long to travel "a long way" in aggregate.

James

I must repeat my previous remark: "It remains difficult to see why the explanation I offered is insufficient, or how spin can add anything useful to the physics of molecular collisions."

Even if spin were conceded, how does that help explain bouyancy? As far as you've explained it so far, your answer appears to have more arm-waving than "hot air weighs less" that you complained about.

The mean speed of hot air molecules vs. cold ones produces force that is sufficient to hold up a nylon balloon. And the reasoning previously explained shows how the force operates selectively upward. So that explanation works qualitatively and quantitatively. Are you clinging to a favored model at this point, or do you have an idea that can be clearly explicated? -|Tom|-

I think I missed something during the intermission-how does this new experiment with the bucket of water and the bowl fit in? It is very interesting that the bowl revolved twice a day-it must be gravity but how is this related to hot air?

Youjaes,

You've lost me completely, unless you throw some formulas out to calculate things with and show specifically how they relate to hot air balloons. You may have some new principle to discuss but that doesn't mean it applies to hot air balloons. What is your problem with buoyancy? Hot air DOES go out the bottom of the balloon, just not very much. You are right, there is no force of density, it is GRAVITY that creates bouyancy. Hot air is less dense than cold air and is shoved up due to the fact that the surrounding cooler air mass is being pulled more strongly per unit area than the hot air. Formulas based on the buoyancy principle are highly accurate, why an esoteric explanation for something that is simple to understand?

Something puzzles me about the hot molecule and cold one. The random motion model is fine for engineering -the hot molecule has more so is less dense. The effect is easy to see but the cause is not. What happens to the cold molecule to make it hot? I think this is the question that is not addressed here. Somehow the hot molecule is energized. I don't think it is explained how this happens in rereading the posts so far.