Plying CF as pseudo-inertia to scam N3

[MrVibrating]

Mr.V. I must admit your posts are far too long to read. But, in its most simplistic description, it will take more energy to hold one object up while the other accelerates away than it would to simply let it drop. There essentially needs to be an acceleration greater than that of gravity to drive them apart, which then becomes the problem. You are starting out with having a primed mechanism of stored energy. Once this energy is used up, how will you get it back? How will you recompress the spring so-to-speak? The UKDOE will take one look at it and not reply because of the same problem that has always existed.

As far as the slinky goes, what "asymmetry" are you talking about? You mention asymmetry a great deal. It's just acceleration. The slinky is just a spring contracting at a rate relative to its K constant.

The DoE probably have a half-decent filter for this kind of nonsense i expect, but either way, i've done my civic duty, now let's get on with depleting the Higgs field and propelling Earth into the Sun.. Free energy for everybody!!! Who'da man? Yeah, you know it..

But yeah, i do go on a bit. God knows, if anyone else was posting all this shite i probably wouldn't be bothered to follow it either.

I'm basically using gravity to cancel or reverse the sign of counter-momentum, causing a non-zero sum of positive and negative-signed momenta, and thus a net gain, the energy cost of which is a constant speed invariant function of inertia, and the energy value of which is a function of V^2, per the standard KE term. Since I/O energy fields have different scaling dimensions, CoP is a variable function of RPM, and we can thus generate free KE, with almost no flesh-eating ogres whatsoever. It would be fully-scalable, and if the static field requirement were fulfilled by EM, rather than gravitational, force, then peak power densities could be almost arbitrary, limited only by material endurances, and the flesh-eating ogres would mostly come at night, mostly. It could be made quiet-running and almost vibration-free, available in a variety of smart colour schemes and no indemnities implied or accepted for flesh-eating ogre-related injuries.

That's the basic synopsis thus far, tho ask away if i can clarify anything particular..

[MrVibrating]

I don't know who Wayne is nor do I know his contention and so cannot communicate on this frame of reference lol.

Furcurequs. Sorry, cross posts, he had me panicking for a minute. I'm alright now.

Well no worse, anyway.

[Art]

When I'm under the affluence of incahol I sometimes think of gravity as just being a special case of inertia .

In the absence of a gravitational field the force resisting the acceleration (the inertia) is the average of all the attractive force of the mass of the Universe within striking distance. The motion imparted to the "inertial mass " being measured comes at a cost of a certain amount of energy which has to be inputted from a second mass and this is what we say is a measurement of it's "inertia".

In a "gravitational field " the "inertia" of the mass is skewed towards the large overbearing mass on one side causing the gravity and the force required to 'break the attraction ' of the average mass of the Universe becomes directionally skewed in relation to the mass providing the "gravitation".

[If we measure the "gravitational/Inertia " in a gravitational field , it is greater upwards than downwards because of this skew :)]

There is a prediction which can be derived from this reasoning which explains the behaviour of Dwayne's Slinky.

The reason the bottom of the slinky doesn't start falling as soon as the whole Slinky is released is because since inertia and gravity are the same thing , no movement of the mass can take place unless a force is exerted in the correct direction , - which in this case is downwards .

So the bottom of the Slinky will not start to move downwards until there is NO force acting on it in the opposite direction . This doesn't occur until the top part of the spring stops pulling upwards (any degree of force at all still remaining in the spring constitutes force upwards ! ) , and until the momentum of the top part of the spring transfers its force to the bottom part of the spring in a downwards direction "gravitation" is not relevant to the motion (or lack of motion in this case ).

That Slinky in the video is not behaving as it should if how we think about how gravitaion should act is correct .

The bottom of the Slinky should start accelerating as soon as the top part is released !

[ME]

OU=(interactions/4)

Thanks...
So, umm... why, then? I mean from the physics POV...?

I don't know yet as I first have to understand what you wrote. This formula just matched your data.

That Slinky in the video is not behaving as it should if how we think about how gravitaion should act is correct .

The slinky is stretched by gravity, so an "unstretch" resists gravity.

The CoM is below the center: the top (take one single loop for instance) is stretched by a lot of weight below, and the bottom (single loop) is stretched only by its own weight. Emphasize on the *stretching of the bottom part*: it's not compressed as it may seem.
When the slinky goes then the CoM (the whole slinky) simply drops by the nature of gravity.
In the meantime both the top and the bottom rushes towards the CoM: the top moves significantly faster than the bottom, because of the just explained stretch: IOW when looking from the CoM-reference this action reacts exactly as if it was suddenly weightless.
Because the force of gravity is like "imprinted" (for the lack of something better) in the whole slinky (actually stored energy but with a stretch-differential) the slinky-bottom is able to resist the drop because it still tries to unstretch its stretch with the same force as was stored due to gravity, albeit a lot less then the top part.
Because the bottom part was stretched by exactly the same gravity as it now tries to restore, it's stationary until the spring expands. As the nature of the spring: it can only expand by itself after the collapse is complete. Because a slinky is a bit of a weak spring, so doesn't really expand; instead, the inertia and volume of the rest of the slinky bumps the rest downwards.
...or something like that.

[Art]

Yes Marchello , I can see what you are saying and it seems to make sense without the incahol !

When I try to visualise the micro happenings though it seems to get a bit complicated .

When the spring relaxes , it expends its energy with reference to a fixed point somewhere in the length of the spring (presumably somewhere close to the CoM maybe two thirds or some figure down the length of the spring) ie what an Astronomer might call the 'Attractor' ).

Both the top and the bottom of the spring should both snap towards this point and both will do so with a speed and force dependent on the inertial resistance of the mass that the force is working against . The calculation of how far each end of the spring moves towards the "attractor" in relation to the attractors position to the CoM would have to be a nightmare but presumably it could be done !.

However ! Theoretically nitpicking :- Acording to our theory of gravity , the CoM should drop a certain distance under the influence of gravitational force right from the first instance of release, and that doesn't appear to be happening in the video which is why it looks unintuitive .

The position of any of the various constituent atoms of the spring during freefall shouldn't matter because they should be all neutral in relation to the CoM , unless some kinetic energy exchange mechanism similar to Mr V's and/or Pequaid's can effect the CoM in relation to GPE.

What would be nice to see would be that stretched Slinky dropped from the Leaning Tower alongside an unsretched Slinky at the same time (with their CoMs at a matching height at the start) .

Which will hit the ground first ? Does the release of energy in the stretched Slinky have any effect on the time that the respective CoMs reach ground level ?

------

Hi Dwayne ,

That portion of the video would be really neat to watch run backwards !

Could that be done ?

[MrVibrating]

It is intriguing and everything, but try not to distract him too much right now as i'm kind of depending on him to find out if i really am the messiah?

I mean imagine if i was being interviewed by Charlize Theron for Time magazine, and she's like all batting her eyelids at me, during an audience with the Queen and Pope aboard The Enterprise, and then Stephen Hawkings rolls onto the bridge shouting "Stop! He forgot to carry a 3!" How awkward would that be?

I just need Marcello's due diligence to keep myself planted right now.. but if he says it's a goer i promise to designate a whole star system dedicated to slinky-spring research.

[MrVibrating]

Will try keep the posts shorter to make it easier to catch up.. i''ve prolly investigated less than 50% of the conditions so far speculated, so not a great signal/noise ratio..

Later today i will investigate the recent prediction that in principle, we can prime the system to its 'unity' condition, equivalent to four successive reactionless accelerations - wherein it has the same energy and momentum regardless of how it is generated - and then apply a single reactionless acceleration, to achieve the same end result as five successive RA's.

This seems an extremely exciting and provocative experiment!

For starters, it will shine a spotlight onto the perennial issue of whether or not a simulation is intrinsically capable of even reproducing a symmetry break in the first place!

I will re-use the linear-linear case for clarity and consistency, so please keep in mind angular-angular and angular-linear equivalencies when considering implications or questions.

As i see it, there's two ways to initiate the sim:

- we could simply begin applying the RA, as before, the instant the masses are released into free-fall, having pre-loaded them with downwards velocity, and thus momentum and KE, equivalent to the unity threshold

- or we could just drop them from stationary, and then time the RA to trigger at precisely the unity threshold

..will prolly try the first one first, maybe also the second too..

An easy prediction seems to be that the sim is going to be stuck in one or other reference frame - either the internal, or external one.

Mathematically, the amount of work performed by the RA remains constant, since inertia is speed-invariant.

But presumably, the sim will calculate the resultant rise in KE via 1/2mV^2 relative to the static FoR.

And thus the only way to resolve that discrepancy would be to presume that inertia itself had somehow increased - which of course is impossible..

So this really does seem the keystone experiment, pitching two mutually-irreconcilable axioms against one another..

In the red corner we have CoM:

- Inertia is speed-invariant, because mass constancy, E=mC^2, it's mediated at lightspeed / instantaneously etc. This is not up for negotiation.

And in the blue corner, CoE:

- KE is equal to 1/2mV^2 relative to the inertial FoR. This ain't up for discussion either.

Yet if both conditions must be true at the same time, then OU seems a foregone conclusion! Input and output energies simply cannot be equitably resolved!

Who will win in this battle of Titans? There can be only one!

Gentlemen, cast your bets..

[cloud camper]

One major factor we have completely glossed over in the excitement is the mass of the jack spring system.

We cannot have a dissasociated force hanging out in space completely unsupported by any physical mechanism.

Currently this mechanism is in free fall accelerating at 1G.

By definition it cannot be attached to a wheel while it is in free fall unless the wheel rim is accelerating along with it at the same 1G.

Presuming the wheel is accelerating at all it can not accelerate at this rate due to work requirements of the ascending side of the wheel.

So it should be clear that the wheel rim on the descending side will NEVER accelerate at 1G, meaning that the reaction will always get ahead of the wheel rim eliminating any possibility of reset.

Then we're saying that the entire jack spring mechanism must be completely detached from the wheel during the reaction.

And as discussed previously the wheel will experience a large countertorque during this time interval as the descending side is completely unloaded and the wheel tries to reverse direction.

Never mind having to catch and reconnect the jack system at the bottom of the cycle along with the two reaction weights, lift it back to the start position while simultaneously recharging the jack.

So it seems we are looking at a hypothetical process that cannot exist in reality.

Not trying to do any harm here just looking at the physical tasks a potential mechanism must execute in order to utilize this scheme!

[eccentrically1]

I tried CC, some guys just aren't hands on in their minds.

[ME]

It is intriguing and everything, but try not to distract him too much right now as i'm kind of depending on him to find out if i really am the messiah?

I mean imagine if i was being interviewed by Charlize Theron for Time magazine, and she's like all batting her eyelids at me, during an audience with the Queen and Pope aboard The Enterprise, and then Stephen Hawkings rolls onto the bridge shouting "Stop! He forgot to carry a 3!" How awkward would that be?

I just need Marcello's due diligence to keep myself planted right now.. but if he says it's a goer i promise to designate a whole star system dedicated to slinky-spring research.

Jeuh, thanks for to confidence.

How do you know If I'm able or qualified to determine your messianic value?
If I'm really one of the few able to recognize such quality, while the subject apparently depends on recognition, wouldn't that make me (one of) the actual messiah?
Do we need to go to battle now... forever? For it's still a perpetual subject, you know.
;-)
And what if I make a terrible mistake?

I actually thought my role was much easier because a winning idea should be self-evident and totally unaffected by levels of understanding, opinion, hope and effort...
It either works or doesn't. There's no "nearly", for instance; it's either OU or UU.
I usually just dump how I understand something, and then hope it has some benefit somewhere or make contradictions (wherever they may be) surface.

Now you ask me to do some real works, because I lack seeing where you show your evidence... hmm.


For me that slinky shows the exact same situation as your linear example.
It shows the same kind of motionless motion, and (I have no idea how much) >>1G acceleration on the other side.
For the better explanation it seems best (to me at least) to split things up in a freefalling CoM and an expanding/contracting system.
As of yet, I don't see how those two actions may affect each other to get: a reactionless-effect, an asymmetry, an N3-break...

So instead I'll try a slinky demo anyway, just for fun (before I get send back to my home world and have to do it as slave-labor) - uno momento.

(Hopefully I'll get some insight in how we can do a slinky-modification so we see where we may carry an N3)

[Furcurequs]

Hi Dwayne ,

That portion of the video would be really neat to watch run backwards !

Could that be done ?

Hey Art,

Is this what you wanted? I reversed the gif and then used an online optimization program to reduce the file size some. It was still too large to upload to the site, so I uploaded it to imgur.com and am hotlinking it.

[MrVibrating]

Well since we're sticking with this for now, i just had quite a long soak in the bath, and noticed that if we perform the reset stroke - pulling the masses back together on the ascending side, again while they're in free-fall, then this inverse interaction also produces a net momentum, of complimentary sign (ie. so we could get a net downwards momentum rise on the descending side of the rotating system, and a corresponding net upwards rise in momentum on the ascending side, basically doubling the efficacy of the system.

So in short, resetting while horizontal, while viable, is a wasted opportunity.

I'll follow up with a quick sim, which should show pretty much the same thing as that reversed-time slinky drop, only the lower mass should race up to meet the upper one..

[MrVibrating]

OK here's the very first sim, which began from a standing start, resetting whilst falling still falling downwards (so the net system is still being accelerated by gravity):






...and here's the same reset again, when the system was already at 10 m/s when the initial expansion stroke was applied, and falling upwards (so the net system is being decelerated by gravity):



..so again, it looks like after subtracting the KE and momentum added or removed by gravity, we're left with a net rise in momentum caused by the inertial interaction.


Might still be easier just to reset while horizontal tho..

[MrVibrating]

Hmmm that can't be right? Surely pulling them back together whilst falling upwards should cause an asymmetric interaction in the opposite direction to the first, cancelling out the inital gain? That's what i thought before, anyway..

Probably just confusing myself with this.. better to stick with alternating vertical / horizontal alignments for inputs and resets..

That way the momentum already on the masses can be re-used elastically to reset them, 90° of rotation later. That's gotta be simpler and more efficient..

[MrVibrating]

It is intriguing and everything, but try not to distract him too much right now as i'm kind of depending on him to find out if i really am the messiah?

I mean imagine if i was being interviewed by Charlize Theron for Time magazine, and she's like all batting her eyelids at me, during an audience with the Queen and Pope aboard The Enterprise, and then Stephen Hawkings rolls onto the bridge shouting "Stop! He forgot to carry a 3!" How awkward would that be?

I just need Marcello's due diligence to keep myself planted right now.. but if he says it's a goer i promise to designate a whole star system dedicated to slinky-spring research.

Jeuh, thanks for to confidence.

How do you know If I'm able or qualified to determine your messianic value?
If I'm really one of the few able to recognize such quality, while the subject apparently depends on recognition, wouldn't that make me (one of) the actual messiah?
Do we need to go to battle now... forever? For it's still a perpetual subject, you know.
;-)
And what if I make a terrible mistake?

I actually thought my role was much easier because a winning idea should be self-evident and totally unaffected by levels of understanding, opinion, hope and effort...
It either works or doesn't. There's no "nearly", for instance; it's either OU or UU.
I usually just dump how I understand something, and then hope it has some benefit somewhere or make contradictions (wherever they may be) surface.

Now you ask me to do some real works, because I lack seeing where you show your evidence... hmm.


For me that slinky shows the exact same situation as your linear example.
It shows the same kind of motionless motion, and (I have no idea how much) >>1G acceleration on the other side.
For the better explanation it seems best (to me at least) to split things up in a freefalling CoM and an expanding/contracting system.
As of yet, I don't see how those two actions may affect each other to get: a reactionless-effect, an asymmetry, an N3-break...

So instead I'll try a slinky demo anyway, just for fun (before I get send back to my home world and have to do it as slave-labor) - uno momento.

(Hopefully I'll get some insight in how we can do a slinky-modification so we see where we may carry an N3)

The concept is merely momentum gain, from an inertial interaction.

By "inertial interaction", i mean a force, and resulting mutual acceleration (or not!) between two free inertias.

The only difference here is that one or both of these inertias is also subject to gravitation, during one half of the full-cycle interaction (so either when the masses are mutually accelerating or braking against one another).

The resulting rises in momentum between the two inertias are effectively reactionless accelerations (RA's) and produce the same amount of momentum, for the same input energy, regardless of ambient system velocity.

Conversely, the standard energy value of momentum is given by KE=1/2mV^2.

So the energy cost of making momentum is fixed, regardless of speed.

But the energy value of that momentum is totally a function of speed.

So input and output energy terms have different, mutually-incompatible dimensions - their line integrals intersect at precisely 4 reactionless accelerations in series.

Hence below 4 RA's the system's under-unity, and above 4 (so 5 or more) it is over-unity.

In summary, 5 successive reactionless accelerations nets us a 25% discount on the energy cost of the resulting momentum.

So we can then cash-in that momentum for 125% of whatever we paid for it.

Or, after 8 RA's, 200% what we paid for it..

For example, using two 1 kg masses, each 9.81 kg-m/s of momentum costs us 96.23 Joules, and we make 8 successive purchases at that rate, so our net input energy is 8 * 96.23 J = 769.84 J.

For that input energy, we've raised 8 * 9.81 kg-m/s = 78.48 kg-m/s of momentum.

Therefore each 1 kg mass has 78.48 / 2 = 39.24 kg-m/s of momentum.

And per KE=1/2mV^2, 1 kg at 39.24 meters/sec has 769.88 J

Precisely our input energy...

..except we have two 1 kg masses... both at that speed...

So, we have 200% more energy than we spent.


What more could i possibly say to add further clarity?