Ruggero,
hi.
You don't need to explain anything about paternity.
I think exactly the same as you do.
Generally I'm a guy in constant state of ideas congestion... I have more ideas than I can pay, build and have free time.
Best regs.
Muliro SP jan/07
Reactionless conversion of angular to linear momentum(?)
Moderator: scott
re: Reactionless conversion of angular to linear momentum(?)
Sorry about the confusion there ... and sorry I haven't drawn anything. I'm really looking for a rational basic operating principle to explore, before I draw anything.
I am definately not a skeptic of gravity wheels - but i'm skeptical of most designs that don't have a basic operating principle behind them to start with. I think the idea that we can somehow make a gravity wheel that somehow tricks nature into allowing it to work are flawed before they start.
Imagine this: a heavy flywheel, in a vacuum, suspended on magnetic bearings. This thing, once run up to speed, will run for an extremely long time, and could be classed as a perpetual motion wheel for many intents and purposes. Most gravity wheels, no matter how complex, will never run as long as this perfect flywheel - because their internal mechanisms waste more power in friction, heat, sound etc .
A simple flywheel is actually a spinning mass of random electrons. Within that chaotic structure of the solid wheel, you could imagine practically any possible configuration of gravity wheel to exist within that chaotic structure - and the best they will ever do is achieve Unity.
I think we have to accept that with a closed reference frame energy input = energy output + losses.
What we don't have to accept is that a gravity wheel that develops useful power output is a viable possibility - provided we look for an external source of power, or possibly engineer a device that can exist in more than one reference frame.
IF we can alternate between two reference frames, then - AFAIK - energy is arbitrary and up for grabs - because energy is proportional to velocity squared, and yet velocity itself is relative to whatever reference frame we care to choose ...
For example, if two rockets traveling at 1000 m/s are traveling in the same direction, there is no relative velocity between them, and no useful work can be harnessed between them.
But imagine if one of those rockets could slam into some (relatively) stationary rotary device that absorbed all it's momentuun, allowed it to rotate 180 degrees, and then released it again with virtually no momentuum lost ...
The two rockets would now be travelling at (relatively) 2000 m/s apart ... and if the available power was tapped it would be astronomical.
For example ... we all think that we are stationary when sitting still, but in actual fact planet earth is rotation very fast around it's axis, and also traveling very fast around the sun ... which itself is travelling at speed, etc, etc. Depending on you point of reference - there is no such thing as a stationary object. But can we extract useful power by exploiting different reference frames? Foucaults pendulum and the Coriolus effect suggest to me that we can ...
I'll draw something when I think I have a strong operating principle to work with, but until then, i'm just searching for a basic concept ...
I am definately not a skeptic of gravity wheels - but i'm skeptical of most designs that don't have a basic operating principle behind them to start with. I think the idea that we can somehow make a gravity wheel that somehow tricks nature into allowing it to work are flawed before they start.
Imagine this: a heavy flywheel, in a vacuum, suspended on magnetic bearings. This thing, once run up to speed, will run for an extremely long time, and could be classed as a perpetual motion wheel for many intents and purposes. Most gravity wheels, no matter how complex, will never run as long as this perfect flywheel - because their internal mechanisms waste more power in friction, heat, sound etc .
A simple flywheel is actually a spinning mass of random electrons. Within that chaotic structure of the solid wheel, you could imagine practically any possible configuration of gravity wheel to exist within that chaotic structure - and the best they will ever do is achieve Unity.
I think we have to accept that with a closed reference frame energy input = energy output + losses.
What we don't have to accept is that a gravity wheel that develops useful power output is a viable possibility - provided we look for an external source of power, or possibly engineer a device that can exist in more than one reference frame.
IF we can alternate between two reference frames, then - AFAIK - energy is arbitrary and up for grabs - because energy is proportional to velocity squared, and yet velocity itself is relative to whatever reference frame we care to choose ...
For example, if two rockets traveling at 1000 m/s are traveling in the same direction, there is no relative velocity between them, and no useful work can be harnessed between them.
But imagine if one of those rockets could slam into some (relatively) stationary rotary device that absorbed all it's momentuun, allowed it to rotate 180 degrees, and then released it again with virtually no momentuum lost ...
The two rockets would now be travelling at (relatively) 2000 m/s apart ... and if the available power was tapped it would be astronomical.
For example ... we all think that we are stationary when sitting still, but in actual fact planet earth is rotation very fast around it's axis, and also traveling very fast around the sun ... which itself is travelling at speed, etc, etc. Depending on you point of reference - there is no such thing as a stationary object. But can we extract useful power by exploiting different reference frames? Foucaults pendulum and the Coriolus effect suggest to me that we can ...
I'll draw something when I think I have a strong operating principle to work with, but until then, i'm just searching for a basic concept ...
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Reactionless conversion of angular to linear momentum(?)
Greendoor,
I agree with your thoughts. Think about relativity as it applies to a balance or a seesaw. If the balance or seesaw is arranged in such a way that the beam on one side of the fulcrum is longer than the other side of the fulcrum the longer side will naturally fall due to its greater leverage over the other side. But isn't it true that what we typically describe as leverage is really a function of relativity? Either end of the beam has the same mass but their mass is influenced by their velocity which is defined by their distance from the fulcrum. Adjusting the beam so there is an "imbalance" is actually adjusting the relative velocity of one side compared to the other. This would seem to indicate that ambient gravitational energy can be exploited by simply shifting the "relativity" from one side of a fulcrum to the other.
I agree with your thoughts. Think about relativity as it applies to a balance or a seesaw. If the balance or seesaw is arranged in such a way that the beam on one side of the fulcrum is longer than the other side of the fulcrum the longer side will naturally fall due to its greater leverage over the other side. But isn't it true that what we typically describe as leverage is really a function of relativity? Either end of the beam has the same mass but their mass is influenced by their velocity which is defined by their distance from the fulcrum. Adjusting the beam so there is an "imbalance" is actually adjusting the relative velocity of one side compared to the other. This would seem to indicate that ambient gravitational energy can be exploited by simply shifting the "relativity" from one side of a fulcrum to the other.
Hmm - not sure I could agree with that. IMO, a fulcrum is a partial flywheel. It's a single reference frame object, and the best it can do is approach Unity, just like the perfect flywheel. No matter how many intricate components and ingenius devices are attached to it.
But when there are multiple fulcrums or wheels, or 'wheels within wheels', with more than one reference frame, I suspect there are possibilities ...
But when there are multiple fulcrums or wheels, or 'wheels within wheels', with more than one reference frame, I suspect there are possibilities ...
re: Reactionless conversion of angular to linear momentum(?)
Greendoor,
I was just finally writing down something that I had been thinking about for awhile that only tangentially related to what you were talking about. It was interesting, I was about to post a topic about the concept I was describing above and then I saw that you were discussing a similar topic in this thread (collective unconscious?).
My point is this: E=MC2 was just recently in the headlines as finally being proven. I've been thinking recently that a simple balance shifted to one side or the other is a good demonstration of a basic function of relativity. You move the beam so it isn't centered on the fulcrum which forces it to be affected by gravity at a higher rate EG: faster velocity which makes it heavier in reference to the side of the beam that is on the other side of the fulcrum.
It seams to me that the basics concepts of leverage and centrifugal force maybe ought to be re-examined through the lens of the now proven law of relativity. Many of our assumptions based on classical ideas of leverage, etc. might change.
I was just finally writing down something that I had been thinking about for awhile that only tangentially related to what you were talking about. It was interesting, I was about to post a topic about the concept I was describing above and then I saw that you were discussing a similar topic in this thread (collective unconscious?).
My point is this: E=MC2 was just recently in the headlines as finally being proven. I've been thinking recently that a simple balance shifted to one side or the other is a good demonstration of a basic function of relativity. You move the beam so it isn't centered on the fulcrum which forces it to be affected by gravity at a higher rate EG: faster velocity which makes it heavier in reference to the side of the beam that is on the other side of the fulcrum.
It seams to me that the basics concepts of leverage and centrifugal force maybe ought to be re-examined through the lens of the now proven law of relativity. Many of our assumptions based on classical ideas of leverage, etc. might change.
AFAIK - the forces involved in a fulcrum are well understood and I don't think relativistic effects have any significance to gravity wheels.
As far as popular conservative science goes, most of that is propaganda from the people who control the media. IMO, Einstein was a stooge of the conservative media who was used to cloud the truth and pervert the course of true science. E=MCsquared was hardly his idea, but some of the conclusions and assumptions made from this can't be true but help to serve a particular agenda.
Reinforcing E=MCsquared at this time helps maintain the deception. I'm more interested in the research that proves that communication faster than light speed is possible. I'm more interested in models of the universe that include (by whatever chosen name) a concept of luminiferous aether. The great scientists who gave us electromagnetics succeeded in their calculation because they acknowledged the existance of aether. I suspect that conservative science has been gutted for military/political reasons, because the truth is too powerful for the great unwashed.
The work of Tesla, Walter Russel & Harold Aspden many others who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater are of much more interest to me.
I guessing Bessler discovered some very basic truth that could be exploited with relatively simple materials and construction. Very probably he was killed by people who wish to keep the power for themselves.
As far as popular conservative science goes, most of that is propaganda from the people who control the media. IMO, Einstein was a stooge of the conservative media who was used to cloud the truth and pervert the course of true science. E=MCsquared was hardly his idea, but some of the conclusions and assumptions made from this can't be true but help to serve a particular agenda.
Reinforcing E=MCsquared at this time helps maintain the deception. I'm more interested in the research that proves that communication faster than light speed is possible. I'm more interested in models of the universe that include (by whatever chosen name) a concept of luminiferous aether. The great scientists who gave us electromagnetics succeeded in their calculation because they acknowledged the existance of aether. I suspect that conservative science has been gutted for military/political reasons, because the truth is too powerful for the great unwashed.
The work of Tesla, Walter Russel & Harold Aspden many others who haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater are of much more interest to me.
I guessing Bessler discovered some very basic truth that could be exploited with relatively simple materials and construction. Very probably he was killed by people who wish to keep the power for themselves.
Umm, relativity and special relativity in particular are proven fact. Einstien's equations were further proven in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (in case you forgot). I doubt that Einstien was a stoog of any maniachal conspiracy. In fact Einstien's work in America was a direct attempt on his part to thwart the Nazis from developing the atomic bomb first.
I disagree with greendoor on the "stooge" comment. Reasonable people recognize that Einstein made enormous contributions to our understand of the universe. But I think greendoor is partially right in another respect. Because of the sheer brilliance of what he did, there is a tendency to think that Einstein must have solved everything or that everything he said must be correct.
Neither of these things is true. As greendoor mentioned, new experiments are challenging the idea that nothing can travel faster than light. And I for one am skeptical of the space-time continuum, at least as far as it somehow providing a new insight or negating the existence of an ether. In fact to me the space-time continuum sounds like an ether by just another name.
-Scott
Neither of these things is true. As greendoor mentioned, new experiments are challenging the idea that nothing can travel faster than light. And I for one am skeptical of the space-time continuum, at least as far as it somehow providing a new insight or negating the existence of an ether. In fact to me the space-time continuum sounds like an ether by just another name.
-Scott
In some people's estimation, Einstein has derailed science by about 100 years. Most of his ideas were stolen and rehashed. At least he was honest enough to say that he was unsatisfied that he was correct, and longed for a better unified field theory.
The atom bombs didn't prove Einstein was correct. The understanding that mass is created from enormous amounts of energy existed prior to Einstein. There are aspects of his work that work good enough for satelite navigation, etc. But the more out-there speculations of Special Relativity are preached like a religion, when in fact it is still just another theory, with gaping holes. Einstein was a media darling, for whatever reasons existed at the time. The media generally serves the military/political agenda of the day. The Art of War is primarily about deception - and this never goes away, even in 'peace time'.
Harold Aspden wrote a good article called "Physics Without Einstein" which is worth reading. My conclusion about Einstein isn't based soley on that article - there are many people who believe the science taugh in schools has been gutted and perverted. I don't think he was a bad man - just that he was conveniently used.
The atom bombs didn't prove Einstein was correct. The understanding that mass is created from enormous amounts of energy existed prior to Einstein. There are aspects of his work that work good enough for satelite navigation, etc. But the more out-there speculations of Special Relativity are preached like a religion, when in fact it is still just another theory, with gaping holes. Einstein was a media darling, for whatever reasons existed at the time. The media generally serves the military/political agenda of the day. The Art of War is primarily about deception - and this never goes away, even in 'peace time'.
Harold Aspden wrote a good article called "Physics Without Einstein" which is worth reading. My conclusion about Einstein isn't based soley on that article - there are many people who believe the science taugh in schools has been gutted and perverted. I don't think he was a bad man - just that he was conveniently used.
re: Reactionless conversion of angular to linear momentum(?)
What parts of special relativity are still speculative? (Maybe start a new thread for that).
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
I think the assumption that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is highly speculative ... and it would appear that there is evidence to the contrary. This is of high interest to the military of course .. the implications should be obvious ... so don't expect much truth to surround this type of work.
I'm not a rocket scientist, and the maths gets too much for my tired brain. But I have been told that when rocket scientists do calculations about the effects of gravity between planets, they have to assume that gravity reacts instantaneously. In other words, you don't hear scientists discussing the 'speed of gravity' or trying to assert that 'gravity travels at the speed of light'. Apparantly, they just work on the basis that gravity is instantaneous action at a distance, and don't let the implications of this bother them. But if you think about that for a while, it should rock your world a little ...
I'm not a rocket scientist, and the maths gets too much for my tired brain. But I have been told that when rocket scientists do calculations about the effects of gravity between planets, they have to assume that gravity reacts instantaneously. In other words, you don't hear scientists discussing the 'speed of gravity' or trying to assert that 'gravity travels at the speed of light'. Apparantly, they just work on the basis that gravity is instantaneous action at a distance, and don't let the implications of this bother them. But if you think about that for a while, it should rock your world a little ...
re: Reactionless conversion of angular to linear momentum(?)
It's known that the basis of Einstein's equations didn't come from him. What he did was assemble various pieces together in a way that no one did previously. It wouldn't be wrong to call him a tinkerer, although a very bright one.
meChANical Man.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
--------------------
"All things move according to the whims of the great magnet"; Hunter S. Thompson.
Excellent - thank you. You are demonstrating exactly the assumption that I believe is wrong.erick wrote:It's not necessarily that nothing could travel at super-luminal speeds it's that in order to accelerate anything to that speed with a greater mass than a sub-atomic partical (anything useful) would require all of the energy in the Universe. Not very practical...
Are you saying that recent experiments that show faster than lightspeed communication is possible are mistaken?
Are you saying that gravity cannot work faster than light speed? Therefore, just like there are parts of the universe where light has not reached, there are parts of the universe where gravity has not reached yet? Or that it requires all the energy in the universe for gravity to work?
These are big, unproven assumptions based on a mere theory.
Tesla once told Walter Russel that the world wouldn't be ready for his theories for a couple of thousand years ... I believe they both knew there is far more to the universe than the version currently understood. I'm not saying I know the answer - but i'm fairly sure Einstein missed it.
IMO, there has to be a return to an understanding of Aether. As long as we deny it's existance, we are in the dark.
In some people's view, the concept of a Photon was one of Einsteins biggest mistakes. For practical purposes, we all know that light is a wave. How long must we deny that there is a medium capable of being waved? Light may exhibit particle-like behaviour too. There is a wave model that also exhibits particle-like behaviour ... smoke rings.
If we apply a pulse to a fluid - the natural effect is to form a smoke ring, due to the viscosity of the fluid. The fluid in the centre wants to travel faster than the fluid further away from the point of impact - so you get this natural curling effect that shapes the fluid into a rotating ring. Imagine a stream of these rings, being created at the frequency of light, in a fluid medium.
IMO - Aether is omnipresent, and all particles are pressure waves within the Aether. Aether is hard to imagine, because we can't see the forest for the trees. But if All Things are created from Aether, it has some very amazing properties.
The Casmir effect is, IMO, good reason to stop denying the existance of Aether.
Michelson Morley certain did NOT disprove the existance of Aether. There is reason to believe their experimental evidence was suspect, but even so, all they could prove at best was that light travels just as fast around the world one way as the other. In other words, they effectively proved that the Earth is not rushing through a stationary Aether. But if you believe that all mass is created out of Aether, then logically the Aether and the Earth are intrinsically intertwined, and therefore there will never be a velocity difference between Aether and Earth ... that's all they proved.
Anyhoo - I digress, but it explains my world view when considering Bessler.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
Just to jump in briefly, the so called Big Bang if correct may itself prove that the speed of light can be conquered. During the big bang either the universe synthesized itself simultaneously across space, or it began from a point.
If it began from a "point" then the size of the universe would be much smaller than it is now considering that the expansion could not exceed the speed of light.
If it began from a "point" then the size of the universe would be much smaller than it is now considering that the expansion could not exceed the speed of light.