kinetic energy hypothesis

[Bill_Mothershead]

Googling around eventually gave this:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... space-time

which has a link to a downloadable .AVI video file:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/ ... sequence=2

[preoccupied]

Bill_Motherstead, http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... space-time caused my browser to crash for two minutes. I am not downloading the AVI. But go ahead and tell me about it a little more? I would like that.

[preoccupied]

The dumb bell experiment is the empirical evidence that has driven me to proclaim that I have got this. I tried a long time ago to test my hypothesis about weights but I didn't have dumb bells. Some time ago I got two ten pound dumb bells. I have known since then that my hypothesis was correct. I was originally misled by my dumbbell-less experiment where I waved my arms without dumbbells. I should have just followed my instincts and then I would have been correct all along. I've had my hypothesis for as long as I can remember. Limited resources, procrastination, distracting other ideas and head injury is the only thing that kept me from testing it sooner. I am very confident that my hypothesis about shifting weights is correct. We can fly by flapping heavy weights if only our arms were strong enough! Maybe an astronaut in weightlessness would use this to get around.

#ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity
#flyingcar

EDIT

The experiment is, lay on your back and push up two dumb bells. Pull them back down harder than you were pushing them up. You will be lifted into the air by where the weights were going before you pulled them back down harder.

The experiment to show how a flying car would work or a man in weightlessness could move around, is standing; swing the weights to your side with straight arms. Swing them forward in front of you harder. You will be thrust backwards.

This experiment explains why the Milkovic pendulum produce lift when change direction at the bottom of its swing. It also explains the chain fountain. The Mould Effect is false because this dumbbell experiment is a better explanation of why the chain flies into the air when falling out of its container.

[preoccupied]

#ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity
#Flyingcar

This is a four piston thruster for a flying car. The weights in grey is where the weight is heading and vise versa. They move back and forth to create thrust towards the left in the picture. This is very likely to be a strong propulsion method. I can lift myself three inches off of the ground with two ten pound dumbbells while laying on my back and I weight 230 pounds. I'm not super muscular, it's just really easy. If a machine with great horse power were used on a couple ton car a few hundred pounds of weights would cause the vehicle to probably move incredibly fast. I'm pretty sure. Maybe 90% sure. It's a speed estimation dilemma. Make flying cars you fools!!!

[preoccupied]

Dr. John S. Biggins gives his explanation of the chain fountain here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEi7fO0_O0

He begins his short lecture at 2:18.

The first flaw in their explanation is the comparison of the chain to a ball that goes up and down. He say "However what's going on here cannot be quite like that... When the ball goes up it stops at the top turns around and comes back down again. That would suggest that the chain would be stationary at the top of the chain. uh but if the chain would be stationary here... it would be piling up in this region. That's clearly not observed" "...um ...uhm... if it's not gravity that turns it around what turns it around?" It's 4:03 now in the video.

Really bad logic by the Professor here, I really think so. First it's stupid sounding. I'm not going to sugar coat this. What kind of logic says "that would suggest that the chain would be stationary at the top of this region"?

He is right that is should act like the ball as the ball is the same as the beads on the chain, and it's right that current physics would suggest that the chain would remain stationary at the top of the chain. So instead of keeping the ball theory he assumes it's wrong and then goes on to the macaroni chain idea.

I believe the ball idea that he started with was the right idea to look into but he appears to just throw it out. It's when he begins to throw away his classical physics and moves on to explain the macaroni idea instead that he basically starts saying "uh" and "um" suddenly. I believe that he doesn't believe his own idea. I know that it's motion without external force. I'm 80% sure it is because of the separate dumbbell experiment that I have that lifts me into the air when I pull weights at different speeds.

At 8:54 the heavy beads with long slender thread fall all at once because they were tangled. Then a second later at the end of the fall the remainder beads begin to fly into the air. The remainder beads that flew from the heavy chain with the long slender thread were thrown into the air by their momentum. This momentum existed while there was forces on both sides. The momentum would have lifted both sides up if there was enough of it. In addition to this momentum there is also motion without external force that is applied because the beads change direction with more force, which adds some amount of a bonus to the momentum as observed by the dumbbell experiment. If there was not a long slender thread there would be more of this bonus from changing direction and it would be more likely to lift both sides into the air (motion without external force). Some math formula could be made to calculate exactly how much motion without external force there is to propel a #flyingcar. There would be forces on both sides of the chain and the bead exactly when it changes direction. So instead of the bead being lifted off of the table creating the extra force, when the bead changes direction at the top it produces some lift. That is what the Mould effect should have been. It was not. So the Mould effect is false and #ICallBSonCambridgeUniversity.

I think Dr. John S. Biggins had a funny looking smile nearing the end of the video which leads me to believe he is really proud of himself. Maybe I could call him giddy. So I legitimately think that I called out a flaw in something important here. This is a really big deal. Without people acknowledging my correction to this scientific paper, there will be endless school children falsely believing this guys bad idea about the chain fountain.

To test the dumbbell experiment that shows changes in direction produce lift. The easiest way if you are not super muscular or strong or whatever, is to first lay down with a pillow under your head because you will bunk your head doing this. You push up the dumb bells and pull them down harder. Your upper section of your body or even your entire body if you do it hard enough and have good posture, will lift into the air. I lift into the air about 3 inches with two ten pound dumb bells and I weight 230 pounds. My stomach muscles are not creating this effect because my butt lifts some too and really my stomach muscles are slow and dopey behavior recently. I am not an athlete at the moment and really seriously these dumbbells didn't get stuck in the air because of their motion, they went higher into the air while I was trying to change their direction, and they pulled me with them. I might be just a little bit wordy with my description and I guess that is just a flaw that I have. I have been told that a short and simple writing is easier to understand and looks better to the reader. Maybe after I learn how to write I will invent something better than motion without external force. Eh? Look forward to that then, humanity. I'm at the beginning of my career in fantastic public inventions that happened after 2013. So there.

I'm right and Professor John. S. Biggins is wrong. NANANANA - I'm right he's wrong. haha. I'm the best. Who thinks I'm the best? I do. You do? Of course you do!! The ladies are going to love my swinging flying heavy balls because they will take them to their needed grocery store runs in the future, as flying cars will be no big deal in the future. Makes me wish what I am sharing was a little more important in hindsight. I am not going to make a single penny on this am I? I might always be a penniless loser, but I'm right, baby. I'm always right.

[preoccupied]

My kinetic energy hypothesis explains nuclear weapons. However it might be at odds with the scientific consensus. I'm just pulling this out of my Angle Side Side and rubbing it all over all that is holy about peoples perceptions of energy. Here I go... I think nuclear weapons explode and release zero heat energy. According to my kinetic energy hypothesis kinetic energy is space and motion and structure. When the excess kinetic energy is released from the plutonium it then takes up more space and allows thermal conductivity to become really super fast which causes an implosion that heats up matter using its own heat energy in a smaller amount of space.

An experiment to prove whether my kinetic energy hypothesis is correct or not would be to see if you can use a nuclear weapon in a cold environment, such as the Antarctic. I think that if a nuclear weapon were used in the Antarctic that it would be very small effect. I don't think atomic bombs can melt the ice caps easily.

So if anybody is thinking about using atomic bombs to terrorize, heaven forbid, you will only be able to captivate a nice warm area or only during the warm season in an area that gets very cold. So if the ice caps melt and global warming takes control, year round there will be constant threat of nuclear annihilation. Therefore we should keep our ice just in case there is a nuclear war because that would be a safe zone.

Am I right? I don't know. I never studied atomic stuff. However, I do have this nifty kinetic energy hypothesis. I literally don't remember much about classical mechanics and I'm using the word kinetic energy pretty loosely to describe energy that I perceive for my hypothesis. That's my damn hypothesis, take of it what you will.

Since Russia wants the Arctic, they better freeze it if they want it to be a nuclear safe zone, if my kinetic energy hypothesis is correct. Like a frozen desert would require thousands of times more nuclear bombs to melt than to destroy a continent with the same bombs, if I'm correct. I think I'm always right. I'm right, right? Right? Oh, I so hope I'm right. The ladies will want to stare deep into my nuclear missile and wonder why it's so simple and beautiful to understand now. It's easy, use in one direction. Giggity. You don't know you're beautiful? That's what makes you beautiful?

Best of Quagmire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0PdeLSK1m4

I feel just silly enough.

[Ed]

What could make one a "dumbie", IMHO, is continually firing off several paragraphs of text while wondering if they are right, hoping that they are right, claiming that they are right, all the while neglecting to use the worlds largest library sitting right in front of them every single time they do it!

[rlortie]

Ed, he is Pre-Occupied!

[preoccupied]

What could make one a "dumbie", IMHO, is continually firing off several paragraphs of text while wondering if they are right, hoping that they are right, claiming that they are right, all the while neglecting to use the worlds largest library sitting right in front of them every single time they do it!

Internet is not a library. It's a front counter for software products. I'm afraid to look on the internet for information sometimes. I'm afraid it will corrupt my otherwise better judgment. Sometimes foreign influences will obstruct you from making the right choice. At the very least I want to think about something before I learn about something. That is how I was taught to learn in school. IMHO you like to tell a lot of jokes. Get real.

[Ed]

I'm 80% real... At least I hope I'm real. That is, the chicks dig real. Man, I hope I'm real.

It sounds like you had a real recursive experience in school.

The Internet is a library, whether you want to believe it (or use it) or not. You need to learn how to use it, not be afraid of it... or be paranoid.

[preoccupied]

School was easy up until year 2002 when I hit my head really hard and it was probably easy because I learned how to think. Do you go straight into a subject without getting a little bit preoccupied about it first? If you do it's wrong. You need to think before you learn, it's proper.

If the internet was a library it would be not be organized the way that it is. Only a library catalog website is a library on the internet. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. Everything on the internet is flawed and full of greed. I think I might hate the internet because it's dumb like television. If the internet were taxed everything would cost money and it would have content of greater value but that just isn't the case.

[Ed]

Really? 'Cause you could have known 100% if Hitler wrote a book, or how to spell words or use grammar, or know many facts about history, etc. None of these things are political or spam or malware. Only the most controversial subjects are more difficult to get to the bottom of on the Internet, and even then it can be done. You have to be your own index cards and "smart" filter. If you don't know how to properly filter, it takes experience but will come, if you care enough to do it. If not, you can be the only one left thinking about reading books. I just hope your glasses don't break...

[ARMCORTEX]

Can you find the chas campbell video in a library.

Nope.

I trade knowledge of that machine for any doctorate and 100 engineering books.

[preoccupied]

The Hitler's book thing is for the ISIL topic off topic. I did know 100% that Hitler wrote a book even if I couldn't remember the content or name. Old people told me during the 90's that Harry S. Truman was President before WW2 and after WW2, even though that is not written in history. If I had read the internet I would have had a difficult time remembering what these old people told me I think. My method is working. I have been hit on the head many times and I have to be careful about what I put in this thing before I get myself pulled back together mentally.

I've never worn glasses but I think you're referring to the twilight zone.

ARMCORTEX (I almost couldn't write your name because it is in all caps) read what I wrote so far and then post with a few words that I wrote with in your statement so that I believe you read what I wrote. This is my topic sir.

In addition to the Harry S. Truman thing those elderly did not acknowledge the stories about Adolf Hitler, I remember that Adolf Hitler was arrested once and not for violence but for using a phrase claiming the moon would fall into the Earth which was taken out of context and meant nothing. The date in which the wikki says Hitler's autobiography was written is much earlier than it should be and because of this I don't even know if the contents of any book that can be read by Adolf Hitler were ever valid. Adolf Hitler believed the Jewish were conspiring and terrorists and that Harry S. Truman was involved or I think that is the gist of what I can remember. I didn't find anything like that on the internet. Not even the conspiracies supporting Adolf Hitler make mention of it. It's possible my city might explode right now here in Michigan for all I know because of what I'm saying, because I got the general impression that this President took over the USA and caused the war to control the country. Those old people might have been wrong though. Maybe I should have read a regular text book.

This topic belongs in ISIL topic in off topic area. I don't even know why I brought it up there, something about oil theft or something?

[daxwc]

Women love dented domes more than perpetual motion machines, a little known fact. Climb right back up on that horse, it will not be till next week that you realise it is a camel.