I have posted this at cropcircleconnector.com.
I don't expect anybody with book reading experience to agree with my experience regarding the wheel.
Nor do I expect them to have speculated that the size of the smallest particle in a solar system must have a proportional relationship with the largest particle - it's sun.
What is read is fact, despite no empirical proof - a test outside the solar system or in another one will do. I suspect that all solar systems/galaxies have a local light speed, just like planets have their own gravitational field. Until that happens I have an open mind and intend to prove by theory of minimum e=0*6^2.
The books would not read right
The speed of light has been empirically measured on this planet a few times so we assume that light speed is a universal constant in a vacuum and ignore the relationship between the mass and it's frame in mc^2.
Yeah... I know, when hell freezes over!!!
Ant
I believe in the possibility of a new heaven and new earth.
e=mc^2
Moderator: scott
re: e=mc^2
What I am trying to explain it does not discredit anything conventional within this solar system.
In a vacuum on this planet in this solar system man has tested the speed of the photon. What does a photon, a particle of light, the lightest mass travel on? What is making it move? In a vacuum there is no energy!!! A weight dropped in a vacuum test on this planet would make it fall under the influence of gravity...
The speed of light relative to us - it's constant - but I theorise the size of our sun reduces the speed of light to a local speed by it's square waves/particles.
My theory is that incrementing square waves are emmited from the sun. Matter is trapped within its zone of influence as planets, the influence of planets ensnare moons all with a square ratio.
The largest source of photons is our Sun. If we were to go round the universe and have a look at other size suns they are different sizes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbF1jVlnzGY
I believe the smallest and fastest particle of mass (photon) is proportional to the largest and slowest (Sun) in a solar system. In consequence the speed determined in the vacuum is limited and generated by the sun. For example what would the speed of light be for lets say Arcturus' solar system? Arcturus has somewhat more mass than our sun.
Mass cannot reach the speed of light because the photon or light is the fastest and smallest mass in this solar system. The photon in a vacuum has an exact integer speed of 299,792,458 metres per second.
The speed of light fits into the magic 7 square. There are 16 straight line constants within the magic 7 square.
At minimum all ODD magic squares = 0 and can demonstrate a rotational pattern. All EVEN magic squares can have a minimum magic constant of half their order, 6^2 minimum constant 3, 8^2 minimum constant 4, etc etc etc.
Transfering these 16 straight line constants into squares, 4 squared is formed. this cannot be configured to show the same rotation property of odd squares. This 4 square represents the frame of a 3 square or the content of the frame 5 square. 4 square is between the minimum hypotenuse 5 and the other side or 3 in a Pythagorean triangle.
In integer magic square constant sharing rules a magic 6 square always shares its constant with a magic 3 square, which with more frame mass inserted can be cubed to 3^3 then turned into the frame of a 6 square etc.
Leisurely study of magic squares (mc^2) for about 17 years results in little conventional knowledge, but I know stuff that either the traditional establishment prefers to ignore or hide by dis-information.
The stuff I know comes from the practical experiments that I have carried out despite mostly discouragement.
To compare e=mc^2 is about the solid world and c(sum of mass)^2/c is about the frame energy. The same type of frame that gravitons travel on, light travels on etc, they no doubt resonate in harmony within the magic square constant sharing rules relative to their mass, size, density, position etc. I believe when it becomes unharmonic - planets become asteroid belts.
Gravitic Entanglement I think would describe it well.
Manipulating nothing but the frame and squaring the mass of 0, the theory is minimum energy can be extracted from 0*6^2 an empty tetrahedron in 3D.
I believe though the experience, that the arm at the top/bottom will perpetually drop open/drop closed displacing enough weight when the arms are long enough. A bit like a slinky (long spring) 'walking downstairs', won't work properly 'til it's long enough. I don't have access to the required resources.
Gravitic Entaglement be done on earth as it is in heaven.
The world of frames!!!
c(sum of mass)^2/c
The world of solids!!!
e=mc^2
Ant
In a vacuum on this planet in this solar system man has tested the speed of the photon. What does a photon, a particle of light, the lightest mass travel on? What is making it move? In a vacuum there is no energy!!! A weight dropped in a vacuum test on this planet would make it fall under the influence of gravity...
The speed of light relative to us - it's constant - but I theorise the size of our sun reduces the speed of light to a local speed by it's square waves/particles.
My theory is that incrementing square waves are emmited from the sun. Matter is trapped within its zone of influence as planets, the influence of planets ensnare moons all with a square ratio.
The largest source of photons is our Sun. If we were to go round the universe and have a look at other size suns they are different sizes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbF1jVlnzGY
I believe the smallest and fastest particle of mass (photon) is proportional to the largest and slowest (Sun) in a solar system. In consequence the speed determined in the vacuum is limited and generated by the sun. For example what would the speed of light be for lets say Arcturus' solar system? Arcturus has somewhat more mass than our sun.
Mass cannot reach the speed of light because the photon or light is the fastest and smallest mass in this solar system. The photon in a vacuum has an exact integer speed of 299,792,458 metres per second.
The speed of light fits into the magic 7 square. There are 16 straight line constants within the magic 7 square.
At minimum all ODD magic squares = 0 and can demonstrate a rotational pattern. All EVEN magic squares can have a minimum magic constant of half their order, 6^2 minimum constant 3, 8^2 minimum constant 4, etc etc etc.
Transfering these 16 straight line constants into squares, 4 squared is formed. this cannot be configured to show the same rotation property of odd squares. This 4 square represents the frame of a 3 square or the content of the frame 5 square. 4 square is between the minimum hypotenuse 5 and the other side or 3 in a Pythagorean triangle.
In integer magic square constant sharing rules a magic 6 square always shares its constant with a magic 3 square, which with more frame mass inserted can be cubed to 3^3 then turned into the frame of a 6 square etc.
Leisurely study of magic squares (mc^2) for about 17 years results in little conventional knowledge, but I know stuff that either the traditional establishment prefers to ignore or hide by dis-information.
The stuff I know comes from the practical experiments that I have carried out despite mostly discouragement.
To compare e=mc^2 is about the solid world and c(sum of mass)^2/c is about the frame energy. The same type of frame that gravitons travel on, light travels on etc, they no doubt resonate in harmony within the magic square constant sharing rules relative to their mass, size, density, position etc. I believe when it becomes unharmonic - planets become asteroid belts.
Gravitic Entanglement I think would describe it well.
Manipulating nothing but the frame and squaring the mass of 0, the theory is minimum energy can be extracted from 0*6^2 an empty tetrahedron in 3D.
I believe though the experience, that the arm at the top/bottom will perpetually drop open/drop closed displacing enough weight when the arms are long enough. A bit like a slinky (long spring) 'walking downstairs', won't work properly 'til it's long enough. I don't have access to the required resources.
Gravitic Entaglement be done on earth as it is in heaven.
The world of frames!!!
c(sum of mass)^2/c
The world of solids!!!
e=mc^2
Ant
re: e=mc^2
I believe the novelty factor of my theory is to transform that mass or weight that causes so much grief when trying to manipulate it round a wheel, into an incrementing square wave, (particle to wave) then use the subsequent weight displacement in the square wave (wave to particle) for rotation, the incremented square wave arms oscillate, just as a square wave would.
The design uses the frame of the minimum hypotenuse or the 6 edged tetrahedron frame and it gets to hitch-a-ride on the frame that little or no mass travels on, the 'inner energy' of the solar system manifested as light.
A bit like water it's a drag to walk through but not for a fish the water is not there, to the fish water don't weigh anything and it functions normally and swims through it taking advantage of the drag.
Proving minimum energy can be produced in this way, would be a step forward to prove the validity of my other claims changing the view of the frame of heaven...
The design uses the frame of the minimum hypotenuse or the 6 edged tetrahedron frame and it gets to hitch-a-ride on the frame that little or no mass travels on, the 'inner energy' of the solar system manifested as light.
A bit like water it's a drag to walk through but not for a fish the water is not there, to the fish water don't weigh anything and it functions normally and swims through it taking advantage of the drag.
Proving minimum energy can be produced in this way, would be a step forward to prove the validity of my other claims changing the view of the frame of heaven...
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: e=mc^2
Hello Ant,
Your accomplishments I've noticed are excellent. You have presented a theory for anyone to examine. Then you've modeled the theory for anyone to examine.
By the power invested in me to declare my humble opinion I hereby pronounce you Honorary Scientific Dude! You go, Ant! :)
It is obvious your model is being pushed. The rotational kinetic energy diminishes to near zero at times. That is apparent from the video. The question I have is, 'is this push adding rotational kinetic energy coming from within the model?'
It would fit with your theory the push is internal. On the average it seems to be spinning at 7.6 rpm. If the energy spinning this wheel is internal you've accomplished a gravity powered wheel. That is a fantastic accomplishment.
If that is true you are a real credit to the colony. You should be in charge of Insectopia!
Your accomplishments I've noticed are excellent. You have presented a theory for anyone to examine. Then you've modeled the theory for anyone to examine.
By the power invested in me to declare my humble opinion I hereby pronounce you Honorary Scientific Dude! You go, Ant! :)
It is obvious your model is being pushed. The rotational kinetic energy diminishes to near zero at times. That is apparent from the video. The question I have is, 'is this push adding rotational kinetic energy coming from within the model?'
It would fit with your theory the push is internal. On the average it seems to be spinning at 7.6 rpm. If the energy spinning this wheel is internal you've accomplished a gravity powered wheel. That is a fantastic accomplishment.
If that is true you are a real credit to the colony. You should be in charge of Insectopia!
- Attachments
-
re: e=mc^2
This video shows the actual hand moving involved. The arms movement is not shown and the wheel is a little more balanced.
1 to 30 square 2 arms
This is the video when the arms were 1 to 14 long, it was badly balanced, but the difference is clear in my opinion. Add a longer arm and the effect is greater.
2 short arms of 1 to 14 square.
compare 1 to 14 and 1 to 30 square
I have since moved the arms to the centre to oscillate the arm through the axle, test it some more tomorrow and over the weekend before starting to strip it on monday to make a 55 square eight thick.
As these arms are only 7 thick I may test them again when up to spec.
I would love to talk about this more, perhaps I could get guidance for testing the one I have before altering it. I have now made a reasonable enclosure for one pair of arms.
The three pairs of arms 1 to 111 long is unmanageable when I recon the math can be back engineered to a 2^2.
Did you hear the arm banging?
1 to 30 square 2 arms
This is the video when the arms were 1 to 14 long, it was badly balanced, but the difference is clear in my opinion. Add a longer arm and the effect is greater.
2 short arms of 1 to 14 square.
compare 1 to 14 and 1 to 30 square
I have since moved the arms to the centre to oscillate the arm through the axle, test it some more tomorrow and over the weekend before starting to strip it on monday to make a 55 square eight thick.
As these arms are only 7 thick I may test them again when up to spec.
I would love to talk about this more, perhaps I could get guidance for testing the one I have before altering it. I have now made a reasonable enclosure for one pair of arms.
The three pairs of arms 1 to 111 long is unmanageable when I recon the math can be back engineered to a 2^2.
Did you hear the arm banging?
This is the link to the crop circle connector where the theory is discussed further.
If there is anything you want to ask here, about what I've put there, please do.
1 to 30 compared with 1 to 55.
Made one arm a few years ago at 112 X's long to see how long it would need to be for a six arm version.
If there is anything you want to ask here, about what I've put there, please do.
1 to 30 compared with 1 to 55.
Made one arm a few years ago at 112 X's long to see how long it would need to be for a six arm version.
Last edited by Ant on Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: e=mc^2
Hello Ant,
It is a difficult matter for one to spend all their energies looking for this impossibility. I don't know what to tell you. It does seem you're at a crossroad. I can appreciate the conflict.
Best of luck to you.
It is a difficult matter for one to spend all their energies looking for this impossibility. I don't know what to tell you. It does seem you're at a crossroad. I can appreciate the conflict.
Best of luck to you.
re: e=mc^2
I believe enough to try again with a two arm design. I was so stuck with understanding 36 within a magic square I did not think to try a 2 arm version, I have the bits so why not.
The math suggest a four armed version would not work as the 'law of the squares' does not allow rotation and oscillation within a magic 4 square.
The math suggest a four armed version would not work as the 'law of the squares' does not allow rotation and oscillation within a magic 4 square.
re: e=mc^2
Ok... Here is the theory after playing with the two arms at 1 to 30 yesterday.
Pythagorean Triangle.
The 'alpha' or start number & 'omega' the end number of each square is different.
Instead of measuring the physical line, measure the energy of that line.
The energy is 30, 30, 30.
Make a 3 arms at 1 to 30 square interlocking them round the axle. Insert a spring that allows movement from closed 3 to open 5.
My closed arm from 1 to 30 are 7 thick, measures 22cm
22cm=3
Therefore 5 = 36 2/3cm
Install a spring that allows that oscillation.
Three in one it looks like an ariel which has been mentioned before.
Pythagorean Triangle.
The 'alpha' or start number & 'omega' the end number of each square is different.
Instead of measuring the physical line, measure the energy of that line.
The energy is 30, 30, 30.
Make a 3 arms at 1 to 30 square interlocking them round the axle. Insert a spring that allows movement from closed 3 to open 5.
My closed arm from 1 to 30 are 7 thick, measures 22cm
22cm=3
Therefore 5 = 36 2/3cm
Install a spring that allows that oscillation.
Three in one it looks like an ariel which has been mentioned before.
re: e=mc^2
This is what it looks like.
-
LustInBlack
- Devotee
- Posts: 1964
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am
re: e=mc^2
Hey Ant,
I've read the entirety of the Crop Circle connector..
At first, I thought you were nut... But you made too much sense and you really don't read like a nut, so I kept reading..
I think you made much sense by the last page with your pictures..
I don't know why you didn't post them at first, it would have explained everything of your theory.
Now, I think what you are doing is "patternising" some numbers within incrementing 2d squares and hoping to find some new value/parameter inside the square that defines a 1d observation ..
It's an idea, I think it is worth going after ..
My personal theory, is to take observations into a chaotic formula and interpreting these observations as casual effect and trying to find the cause..
Maybe you should try following that path..
I respect what you are trying to achieve..
Normally, I would say: Man you are a real nut .. But your effort convince me you are onto something ..
I've read the entirety of the Crop Circle connector..
At first, I thought you were nut... But you made too much sense and you really don't read like a nut, so I kept reading..
I think you made much sense by the last page with your pictures..
I don't know why you didn't post them at first, it would have explained everything of your theory.
Now, I think what you are doing is "patternising" some numbers within incrementing 2d squares and hoping to find some new value/parameter inside the square that defines a 1d observation ..
It's an idea, I think it is worth going after ..
My personal theory, is to take observations into a chaotic formula and interpreting these observations as casual effect and trying to find the cause..
Maybe you should try following that path..
I respect what you are trying to achieve..
Normally, I would say: Man you are a real nut .. But your effort convince me you are onto something ..
re: e=mc^2
Thanks it has taken a long time to make sense. Glad it's appreciated.
Anyway here is an update...
The three interlocked arms don't work.
I have now built a housing for each arm wider on the outer edge, as the new configuration makes the closing arm drop closed in a loop, like a steam trains bar linked wheels, without the link.
I have not tested it yet, that's tomorrow.
It's looking more like Besslers wheel all the time.
Anyway here is an update...
The three interlocked arms don't work.
I have now built a housing for each arm wider on the outer edge, as the new configuration makes the closing arm drop closed in a loop, like a steam trains bar linked wheels, without the link.
I have not tested it yet, that's tomorrow.
It's looking more like Besslers wheel all the time.
-
LustInBlack
- Devotee
- Posts: 1964
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:30 am
re: e=mc^2
Be careful with those "ressemblances", they are evil ..
Follow your idea instead..
I am not sure about the wheel tho .. You might be better with another kind of setup .. Something a bit more complex ?
I have some complex setups with 2 wheels side by side that exchange a virtual weight ..
I'm just proposing that you extend your theory to something else than a wheel ..
Don't take this as an offence, it is not..
Follow your idea instead..
I am not sure about the wheel tho .. You might be better with another kind of setup .. Something a bit more complex ?
I have some complex setups with 2 wheels side by side that exchange a virtual weight ..
I'm just proposing that you extend your theory to something else than a wheel ..
Don't take this as an offence, it is not..