Decoupling Per-Cycle Momemtum Yields From RPM

[Fletcher]

Take it easy mate .. lucky you didn't damage the chopper ;7)

[agor95]

MrVibrating

Really give your body some time to heal.

Remember this 'Your body is a template not a temple'.

What you will become is built on who you are now.

If you didn't heal well then it will be with you into the future.

All the Best

[Robinhood46]

That is a bit of a bugger.
The sticky out part is already fixed, the pain will die down and become bearable pretty rapidly. The w/o income part is often the longest to recover from, i hope it isn't your case.
I hope you didn't wack your head in the fall, because we need that. Six weeks of uninterrupted neural activity might just do the trick.
Take care.

[MrVibrating]

Cheers guys, impromptu holiday's obviously a blessing, probably also a good omen if gravity's out to get me, like it did Bessler - so long as i use the time constructively, and try to avoid any altitudes over 6 cm, i've a good feeling about this..

[MrVibrating]

OK, idea for a simple testing regime:

- to help idealise the maths, 'unfurl' the action into a linear system

- the inertia of the 'wheel' is instead provided by a horizontally-sliding mass

- the 'OB' weight is instead a separate mass on a vertical slider

- connect 'em via a 90° pulley

- hence they're independently variable; the key being that the ratio of gravitating to non-gravitating mass determines how fast it's gonna drop, in turn affecting the fall-time available for a third mass that will be dropped onto the descending weight..

- ..in turn affecting rel. vs abs. impact speeds, G-times (momentum yields) from each of the two falling weights, and the amount of KE dissipated each collision etc.


On the metering side, the objective will be to plot rel. vs abs. traces for speed, energy and momentum - IOW, measuring in two different FoR's - 'on board' vs 'ground'.


Linearising the interaction obviates needing to factor in the usual variation in OB torque as a function of changing angle.

If a momentum disunity is found between the 'falling' and 'ground' FoR's, we can curl the interaction back into a rotating closed loop, with a firmer handle on the exploit..

[MrVibrating]

...just on 1st principals tho..

Galileo's principal, eh?

IE. because it's a uniform acceleration, not a 'force' per N2, gravity's already a kind of 'divergent' FoR, in that it only cares about mass ratios between 'weights' and the planet.. not between falling weights themselves..

..IOW perhaps gravity can be viewed as a handy, parallel-but-divergent FoR that we can dip in and out of, potentially mid-way thru an interaction..

..hence yielding closed-loop mechanical cycles that are nonetheless thermodynamically open to an accumulating momentum asymmetry..?

The basic framework for OU seems to be there...

But then also - the hammers! Depicting what else but 'directional' impacts, right? Derp..

Closed-loop inertial interactions must by definition have an acceleration phase..

..but also a deceleration / collision phase.. and an effective N3 break on either will form a closed-loop asymmetric inertial interaction!

MT ends / culminates with these directional impacts... not 'accelerations'..

[MrVibrating]

For at least 5 years tho, all i've considered is 'reactionless accelerations' of one form or another.. so when looking at say MT 133 - 134, assuming that the hammers are 'directionally biased' during their acceleration phases - i.e. by effectively-reactionless accels - with the collisions merely 'consolidating' the net momentum rise via their inherently-equitable redistribution of that 'accelerative' momentum asymmetry..

..IOW just taking it for granted that collisions always observe N3.. and thus can only book-end an already-extant momentum asymmetry, rather than being a forge for them in the first place..

But if collisions 'observing N3' in a gravitating FoR cause effective momentum asymmetries in the ground / KE FoR, bingo.. and i've been looking the wrong way thru the 'scope all this time..

[agor95]

MrVibrating

It is believed that development of language helped focus the mind to solidify abstract concepts. This then allowed the creation of new novel solutions not seen before.

A language started with drawing animals and a language of sounds for those animals.
Token counting developed in a mathematical language.

Well nothing changed Draw it, Speak it, Write it, Count it. Ho eat the moles :)

All are hunting the same animal.

[MrVibrating]

Yes, development of a universal 'abstraction-layer' for deriving / processing, storage & retrieval of meta-information - the info about how things relate, causation, context, meaning and semantics - rather than primary sensory stimuli themselves, is the 'difference of quantity' marking human intellect. It's a personal interest TBH - cogsci generally but especially WRT this particular facet, and its general underlying processing principles.

The more sobering notion simply that 'if you can dream it..' - that power of agency, to 'create' new forms, even superseding nature herself - personified in Bessler's certain conviction that "the thing must be out there, in nature", upon realisation of which it was simply his to reach out and take.. only a matter of trial & effort..

Whereas for us, following his lead - what with our modern clear-cut physics - there's low-hanging fruit.. and then rotting cider apples; this case should be trivially solvable from 1st principles (hold on, i'm getting there)..

..all old Orffreus had was a dream..

[MrVibrating]

..if a pic were even necessary, here's your basic 'OB wheel' w/o the faff:



- displacement / pulley length obvs. arbitrary

- independently-variable weight / inertia ratio

- a 3rd mass will be dropped onto the falling 'OB' weight

- 3rd mass (or '2nd weight') equal to net inertia of 'OB weight' + 'wheel'

- hence a 50:50 velocity distribution from the inelastic collision

- rel. vs abs. velocities / momenta / energies will be plotted

- relative CoM in the gravitating frame is expected to deny absolute CoM in the ground frame

IOW a 'positive' result will be an effective N3 break from the static FoR..

[MrVibrating]

Before proceeding (at this left-handed snail's pace), this basic system has a particular interesting property of note:

- keep the amount of gravitating mass constant, but try different values of non-gravitating mass

- you find that whether the latter is 1 gram or 1 ton, the system's net change in momentum / time is a constant - 9.81 kg-m/s^2 per kg of gravitating mass, invariant of the non-gravitating mass ratio


I've demonstrated this phenomenon previously with corresponding telemetry, but the real points of note are the subsequent - seemingly 'safe' - conclusions that:

- a given drop / output GPE thus has a 'hard-wired' associated momentum yield

- chuck it upwards instead and it'll shed back precisely the same momentum to gravity

- closed-loop trajectories thru G fields thus yield zero net momentum

- CoM thus appears to be 'pinned' to space itself - as if it's concerned with conserving momentum relative to Cartesian coordinate space

- in free space (no gravity), N3 reigns and the zero-momentum frame is thus essentially static, as if it were indeed marking that particular spot in space, that location or vector

- and as noted, GPE interactions are also inherently momentum-symmetrical, also locking the ZMF to a given, unwavering, position

Thus momentum's obviously conserved with respect to space, right? It holds for both gravitational and inertial interactions.. and equally for EM interactions per Lenz's law, tho overstepping our remit here..

So the net momentum of the universe must be constant, if not a net 'zero', right?

Right?

Watertight.





My arse.

The 'ice skater effect'.

'Kiiking'.

Conservation of angular momentum supercedes conservation of momentum WRT G*t.

I/O momentum yields from closed-loop GPE interactions are thus arbitrarily variable functions of these transiently-reactionless +/- inertial torques..

..and stasis of the ZMF is temporally, not spatially, bound!

CoM as we thought we knew it was always just an epiphenomenon of the usual time-symmetry of fundamental force interactions - always observed in nature, since effective asymmetries can only be caused by sentient intent - a bouncing ball can only ever have equal I/O G-times, ditto for orbiting bodies etc., - which don't produce inertial torques at all, let alone asymmetrically between I/O phases - so stasis of the ZMF only seems a 'natural law' from a condition of ambient circumstance..

Make no mistake, we'll not be needing Msr. Alcubierre's fantasmagorical reality-warping machine with its ocean-reserves of negative energy..

You want c? 60 MJ / kg mate.. and i ain't even makin' nothing on that - half it gets dissipated straight to heat, so you're only really getting 30 MJ of useful work done anyway.. tell you what tho - you ain't gotta pack the 60 MJ and take it with ya.. just scoop it en-route!

Still, we're not going for propulsion just yet.. besides, obvs. can't do inertial torques in this linear system, hence the available momentum change over a given height will be conserved (you'd think, anyway).. however the objective now is not to modulate the G*t yield itself, so much as relative vs absolute distribution symmetries from inelastic collisions in the gravitating frame..

[agor95]

Conservation of angular momentum supercedes conservation of momentum WRT G*t.

I have treated CoM [Conservation of Momentum] as being present when movement is in a line or a circle.

The circular path is the result of an external force created by material stress.

There word 'supersedes' seems not to apply.

What is your definition with respect to this context?

Now the force of the deflection from a straight path is an interesting study area.

The activity of a mass accelerating due to gravity and following an arc path.

Your point with regards gravitating different mass have the same accelerate at the same rate.

I chose to treat acceleration and the resistance to that call inertia is an example of lens law.

If mass was superconductive at the atomic level then acceleration would create a counter force [inertia]. The larger the mass the greater the counter force.

I have put forwards how the effect of gravity is cause without breaking CoM at the atomic level.

P.S. Slow brings more readers to your thread and allows validation and prevents you talking to yourself :)

Cheers

[agor95]

inertial torques

Now this is interesting as you pointed out were a mass rotating around the centre compared to one rotating around it's end.

When you study this separately and look at it as masses following circular paths.

Then it reduces to momentum being transferred between masses were their speed and direction is in effect linear as the arc is cancelled by the material stress.

This is my understanding of the term 'reactionless' relates the transitory variation in the material stress.

How combining the effect of gravity and the creation of the above force from material stress
one can find the 'wriggle room'.

P.S. The effect of gravity could be reduced to material stress. As defined on another post.

Cheers

[MrVibrating]

P.S. Slow brings more readers to your thread and allows validation and prevents you talking to yourself :)

Dude, i am talking to myself - this is off-the-cuff, seat-of-pants R&D, not exposition of a completed work or result - there currently is no experimental anomaly to espouse, i'm just trying to dig wherever 'X' seems to settle on the map this morning, as ever..

pullin' all of this outa me arse, mate.. take all with a hefty pinch, i AM an idiot and every 'anomaly' found thus far has been error - sometimes s/w, but usually me..

Caveat emptor etc.

[Robinhood46]

Sensible serious thoughts have not got us any nearer to the answer in more than 3 centuries.
Keep sharing those crazy stupid thoughts Mr Vibrating, they are our only hope of stumbling on the detail that is being missed.
It is not because i'm thinking about the moon being made of cheese that i think it is made of cheese.
Thinking the moon is made of cheese is pretty stupid, but asking oneself the question is not. One could argue that asking the question is completely pointless, because it is obvious that the moon isn't made of cheese, and this would be a justified criticism.
Why does Bessler's wheel defy fundamental laws, is not so obvious, so any crazy thought is justified.
In my opinion.