You are not logged in.
On the scale of things an atom is huge?
The Hydogen atom is a unit that is small relative to us, but sets our scale of life.
Just as the speed of light sets the scale of vision.
In the experiments and math I am involved in, The ^n function is seen as an increase in thickness.
The function ^n in FLT of x^n+y^n = z^n there is a triangular solution ^1 as well as a square solution.
I understand the 3.4.5. Pythagorean Triangle square hypothosis differently. This whole number right angled triangle tells me that an equilateral triangle of 3 lines can open to reveal 4 triangles inside, closes again making 5 triangles. When ^2, double triangles make 5 triangles two thick (10) or 5 squares.
I understand the 1.2.3 triangle to represent a stellated tetrahedron, oscillating to a cube.
If you divide the sides of the 345 triangle by the the same number for all the sides it will become a smaller triangle.
What happens when a line is so small that it's the size of the smallest atom and cannot be divided anymore without changing the measurement to a different sub-atomic scale, which will in turn have a smallest scale of line.
The 3^2 in the smallest 3,4,5 Pythagorean triangle is too big. I think at this scale Pythagorus' theroem would not work, unless a 1,2&3 triangle exists. A series of hypotenuses would become more apparent.
With the switch of thickness to FLT of x^n+y^n=z^n it has an altered concept.
The double equilateral triangle unfolds to a square.
5 does not equal 9.
I have concluded in my studies that in the equation x^n+y^n=z^n, n has only 5 possible variants in whole numbers. I have organized them into tetrahedral shapes.
1^2+2^2=1+4=5
3^2=9
5 does not equal 9.You also can't have a 1,2,3 triangle at all since the 3 side is as long as both the other sides combined.
A 3,4,5 triangle is the smallest pythagorean triangle.
Yes I know.
But when it is treated abstractly I can see a smaller 1,2&3 solution.
x^2+y^2=z^2
As this is the case 1^2+2^2=3^2 must work.
Or did Fermat believe the 1,2,3 triangle had no square relationship, and name the equation x,y&z instead of a,b&c?
Any comments?
The solution I have found is in Fermats Last Theroem x^n+y^n=z^n. It only works in whole numbers when n<3.
FLT Proves the only whole number solutions to x^n+y^n=z^n is when n<3. The only equations that work in whole numbers are the 5 below.
x^-2+y^-2=z^-2
x^-1+y^-1=z^-1
x^0+y^0=z^0
x^1+y^1=z^1
x^2+y^2=z^2
123
456
789
3^2 = 3*3 = 9 Squares.
3^1=9 Triangles.
1
234
56789
I have been mucking about with numbers for a while and would like to know if a Pythagorean triangle with the values of 1^2+2^2=3^2 is known?
The solution I have found is in Fermats Last Theroem x^n+y^n=z^n. It only works in whole numbers when n<3.
I have scanned and the smallest appears to be a 3, 4 & 5 triangle.
Does anybody know anything about an even smaller 1, 2 & 3 Pythagorean triangle?
Yes, I knew what the speed of light was, but just wished to point out you should not give figures without a unit in this context.
Ok, thanks, I'll try to be more careful in what I say next time. I am glad you picked it up.
Ta
Hi graeme
An earlier quote from Jim.
It is a CONSTANT, which is BY DEFINITION 299,792,458 meters/sec. That is the ONLY value it CAN EVER have. Period. To talk of minimum and maximum values for c is just nonsense. Learn to live with it.
Speed of light.
Nearly 3x10^8 meters per second
The square mechanism scale I am copying was 1= 1/8 inch or 1.5 mm.
The square wave mechanism has fully closed (triangle), normal close (string of diamond shapes, getting 1 bigger than the next), opening (from diamond to square to diamond) to a bumpy straight line positions.
When fully open and raised at the middle, the fully open square wave looks like an arc - like a rainbow.
This week the triangle will be copied in MDF the tip of the triangle cut off and made 15 cm wide. 40cm wide the long end. The rectangle is 100cm long. Each rectangle will be 8 thick.
There will be 3 of these 8 thick rectangles arranged equally so that all the 15cm ends are positioned above the axle and point out 90 degrees relative to the axle line. And will be allowed a small oscillation.
When it's made, working or not, I'll publish the results and pictures.
Ant,
Why does a 200 lb man at the north pole weigh only 199.5 lbs at the equator?
Dunno, I havent been exposed to that snippet of information.
At a guess, earth looks fatter round the equator than at the poles no doubt due to some rotational dynamic.
What's the south pole measurement and do you have incremented values for the other lattitudes?
I can see patterns looking at raw data. I have not seen the raw data for this scenario. Obviously someone has checked the raw data and drawn conclusions.
I think the rotational dynamics of a sphere are more complex than the rotational dynamics of a square and so far I have not studied them.
I have taken a while off. Back working at it again tomorrow.
I think the solution will be 3 arms made of 6 mm MDF, that are 100 cm long
(10 in a square, Square=4 lines=1+2+3+4=10. 10x10=100cm) copying the correct closed square wave mechanism shape . And 8 thick. The 3 arms balanced equally round an axle thin end above axle, pointing 90 degrees clockwise or anticlockwise.
Will be building this new best guess next week.
Speed of light nearly =3x10^8
Proposed rotational energy from oscillation =3x10 squared (or 100cm long) by a thickness of 8.
I am using 100cm but knowning my luck the length may be 3 foot 6 inches. 3 6 0.
Revamped website renaming etc removed New frame try a refresh. Not so mad sounding now... so I've been told.
http://www.stargrail.co.uk]www.stargrail.co.uk
Ant
Hi back again...
The size of the square mechanism is now too long to be safely managed. It turned out the best movement was with the smallest oscillation.
After drilling all those holes I discovered that what I was doing was making a elongated triangle. The measurements of the triangle made from the 'square wave' was replicated in MDF.
Placing this triangle on an axle and allowing a little oscilation had the same effect as the metal mechanism but not as pronounced.
I played about with 15 arms in total. Each had a length of 1 meter the wide end was 30cm wide and the short end 6cm wide.
The optimum movement was when 8 arms were joined behind each other - seperated by washers at their corners.
It did not work as I expected as I do not think it is long enough. (may be 111cm+)
However I am in the process of puchasing more 6mm MFD and extending the arms to their rotation point to find minimum energy weather permitting.
I have not rewritten the minimum energy page, as I have not found it, but the rest of the site hopefully a little more understandable.
At the wheels optimum rotation, with a single arm, it looks like a small scale Cleopatra's needle on an axle!!!
Have you seen the http://www.thefinaltheory.com]final theory site yet?
Ant,
What if the thing was made from carbon nanotube material?
If you mean to reduce the friction, good idea but the concept has now developed in an unexpected way.
Ant
I continue drilling and extending...
Stop the drilling, you will not find oil.
You just proved that http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asia … /]Einstein was wrong.
No need for more magic square holes.
Na, not until they come up with an application to minimum Energy.
To me the article says it looks like light which is believed to be the fastest constant is slowing down over time, but I reason every solar system looses mass as does every galaxy, universe etc. This loss of mass I believe slows the constant linked with Mass or E=MC^2. This would slow light speed even if it is the quickest constant.
NASA Science News for October 18, 2004
Something strange happened on the sun last week: all the sunspots vanished. This is a sign, say forecasters, that solar minimum is coming sooner than expected.
FULL STORY at
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004 … 97684]nasa
I made this comment today quoted from http://www.lifeisannoying.com/forum/ind … ardseen=1] life is annoying.com
Re:gravity wheel fetish
« Reply #99 on: Today at 19:24:37 »
Quote from: Venom on 16:12:23
No combination of levers, elbows, weights or proportions are gonna make that wheel go over-unity, because the -principle-, not the design, is fundamentally flawed. It’s a dead end. I wish it weren’t, but wishes don’t change physics.
It's impossible with this design... are you sure? Or has the knowledge been suppressed for it to be rediscovered when it's needed, hopefully before our nostrils dam us to extinction.
I don't expect anyone to believe what I have observed (Second law of thermodynamics), as I haven't released any visual proof's. The two people that have seen the ongoing design demonstrated, agree that it's very near to working.
Your intentions are golden, and I respect that. But friend, you’re barking up the wrong tree. If you honestly intend to make a difference, use that cash you’re about to throw away on materials, and buy a college physics book--and study it cover to cover. Then you’ll know how to ask the questions you want to solve, and you can apply your imagination and understanding of physics and math to solving those questions.
I have read too much already, I have an overview of most things. I don't want to the best reader of physics books, I just want to prove minimum E=MC^2... Or should I say Energy squared = Mass Squared times C Cubed is where I see the solution.
All I am suggesting is that C^2 is not the constant that science has set. E=MC^2 is an algebraic equation which has a minimum solution.
Science, not magic squares, got us to the Moon. It’ll get us to the stars too.
The planets orbit according to Newtons Laws, blah... blah... He established the law 'Every body attracts every other with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square and the distance between them.'
I understand the minimum C^2 to be the minimum inverse proportion oscillated within a square. All the math needed is contained within a minimum Magic Square and Pythagorean right angled Triangle, abstractly seen as a cube turned into a square.
I wonder why...
Top story quoted from today's newsletter from Space.com.
The Problem with Gravity: New Mission Would Probe Strange Puzzle
Imagine slogging through your day with a nagging suspicion that what held your world together, a constant and consistent presence you'd come to understand and rely on, wasn't what it seemed. That's how scientists feel when they ponder gravity these days.
UPDATE 17th October
The 3 arms at 0 to 72 square has been made, the arms have been angled and reangled on the wheel to give the maximum effect.
At it's current length when the arm mechanism swings out the other is now automatically retracted and the wheel has a greater rotational swing that is constant no matter which arm is examined.
The swing created is not enough to make the protype gravity wheel work using 3 arms, each with a 0 to 72 squared mechanism. But from my observations it is nearer to rotating on its own than the last version made.
I continue drilling and extending...
UPDATE 8th October
I Have now completed 3 arms and have expanded them to 64 square, don't work yet. It appears if more arms were attached would make it work, but I will stick with 3 arms for the moment.
Next week I should have completed 3 arms upto 72. Give an update then.
UPDATE 24th September 2004
After constructing one arm from 1 to 57 square, the first square starting at 6 units square, there was a significant rotation difference from the previous constructions. It appeared that eventually only 1 arm would be needed.
The differences in swing has been marked on the Wheel and one arm was extended then assembled 4 squares at a time. I have extended one arm now from 1 to 70 square, not working yet. I currently have the ability to extend to 76 squares.
Next week I will finish extending the one arm to the maximum I can - 76, to see if it works then construct the two remaining arms to 1 to 57 square, the first square starting at 6.
I will need to use parts in the 76 square to construct the two arms at 1 to 57 square. Once they have been used they cannot be reused to extend to 76. Hence the reason for extending one arm first.
I'll give an update next week.
Update 17th Sept 2004
Now completed 3 arms x 6 to 54 Sq. (1 to 49 visable squares), not working yet.
Next week I will extend the mechanism to up to 1 to 57 visable squares, starting at 6 square.
I have relocated to a workshop and working is now easier, drilling continues Monday.
Magic Squares can be presented in different ways.
Here is a different Alpha and Omega explaining organization on the smallest level.
Normal
14 15 16
17 18 19
20 21 22
A math with a different Alpha of 14 and Omega of 27.
1 2 1 * 15 *
2 2 2 * 16 * 17
1 2 1 * *
*******************
18 * 20 * 22
19 * 21 * 23
* *
*******************
* 25 *[
24 * 26 * 27
* *
I was wondering;
what subjects will I need to take at school and what degrees should I aim for at Uni so I could become an effective martian colonist/astronaut?
I suggest self motivated study, which you seem to have.
Magic Squares constants will be the technology of the future, when applied to eletromagnetic fields. I suggest you study that in addition to all that is here. In it's advanced levels it is how all mass can be organized, cataloged, understood and expressed, from the smallest to the biggest.
From a European point of view, having an overview of the structure of the Ancient Celtic, Druid, Egyptian, Greek and Roman God's etc can help in explaining some aspects of the forces found in the solar system.
http://www.sitchin.com]Zecharia Sitchin is a good read too.
UPDATE 11 SEPT 2004
I wasn't going to post a new message as nothing new to say, except its getting there, but I thought I ought to post an update.
Not many X's remaining to make, for the lastest version, the joints are holding me up. I am waiting for delivery of the new friction less joint pins. Delivery going well, 3 x 0 to 54 Sq. and 3 x 6 to 57 Sq. will be completed and tested within 2 weeks.
I am having a total break from drilling this weekend and making it a restful one.
FURTHER UPDATE:
Half of the joint delivery came Saturday, so I joined what I could. Now 3 arms are constructed from 6 to 43 square. I will be drilling again Tuesday to extend them from 44 to 57 square over the next 2 weeks.
Next update Friday 17th...
Total: 1063, must be close to a new record!
Cheers, still drilling...
Tapping gravity would make sense if it oscillated but is in not constant?
The constant for the articulating square mechanism is based on a 3 Magick Square.
The square mechanism is based on the constant, the hypotenuse, diagonal or between corner values of a Magic Square upgraded to a Magick Square oscillated from 9 to 10 then cubed.
The mechanism mimicks this constant, progressively starting at 0 and ending at 55. Or in a fully oscillated Magick 6 Square or 6 cubetetracolumn the first visable cube in 4D is 6 and the last 57.
When opening and closing, the mechanism looks like a compressed wave, the progressively diminishing squares look like the wave of a coiled spring. The coiled spring has an equal length wave when pushed and pulled unlike the design of this mechanism.
The design of the latest mechanism each arm can be extended to over 60 progressively incremented squares. Progressively incrementing the mechanism to 36 is the equivilant to extending it 666 single squares.
In my experience 10x36 squared does not create Energy nor does 6x45. Could 'E' be 4x55 Squared or 3x6to57 squared? The last 3 complete arms at 0 to 45 Squared will start to be cannibalized tomorrow.
UPDATE: Built 3x33 squared completely joined, plus 2 sets of crosses (up to 35 squared) awaiting new delivery of less friction joints. Drilling continues tomorrow...
But I think on the other hand you one of those people that if the actual talk was about 30 dimensions would see something in the bible about 30 dimensions and hidden messages.
Thanks for your comments. I have more of a belief in Star Trek. Not into organized religion, I see truth in number.
As you mention 30, to me it's the minimum line constant sum of a 4x4 Magic Square. I understand that number to also be associated with basic self awareness in terms of a tetrahedron, according to Magic Square Sharing rules. If it's seen as 3 ten shapes absractly that's 3 galaxies. It's also the sum of the surface of an approriately arranged stellated terahedron.