You are not logged in.
If you mean, I believe, I can make something go in a circular motion using an incremented square matrix, then yes, I am trying to square a circle, um... I would put it, that I was trying to cube a sphere.
If I'm right the maths of it are now published, free for all, but it has not been proved, that is why I am making the self funded machine to prove my theory and why a video clip of the principle is available.
Ant
Nice to see the uncertainty principal...
I'm almost afraid to ask, but ... where has there been any mention of that in this thread?
If you mean Hiesenberg's principle, no. I meant the word 'unless'.
But a practical application of just the words 'uncertainty principle', poses a question 'are you certain?', if you have seen or experienced then one is certain. If one has not seen or experienced then an opinion is formed based on what is read or heard. Because the knowledge is not realised, it is improbable not impossible.
Ant
To me E=MC^2 is spoken like Energy = Mass * See^2.
I can see and show 360 degrees in a 4 square. I believe I can use the math in a 4 square in an abstract way to produce Energy.
Another way of putting the basis of this math is that the hypotenuse is fixed. The square root is a whole number and not the fractional number. The other two sides of the triangle have the minimum and maximum fractional numbers.
I have noticed in my studies that the eight of an equally sectioned cube, when placed in freespace abstractly turns into 10, eight round the edge, two in the middle each half burried. Its also the number of cubes in a 3 cubetetracolumn. The two halves buried represent the 0 in our numbering system, seen is 123456789, with which we understand infinity. This shape abstractly is Galaxy shape.
I will continue my study into E=M^2*Sea^3 (*) once the Gravity Wheel's axle is sorted and I have witnessed it rotating under it's own power.
Nice to see the uncertainty principal... unless....
(unless you are dealing with Copenhaggen Interpreation of QM maybe)
Ant
* E = Energy, : M = Mass : ^2 = squared : Sea = C as a variable in the standand E=MC^2 : e = the speed unit : a = the distance unit: ^3 = Cubed
Star Trek is not as accurate or relevant or true as the philosophy of Robert A Heinlein: TANSTAAFL(*)
(*)There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
The evidence that I have indicates differently.
What if there the reality of TANSTAAFL is due to fixed minds? Those that are born into money, do they apply as well? If however you are talking about business etiquette then that maybe so. But I am not into business, I am into finding a way through belief, not money and hidden agenda's.
Remember the fiction of communicators used by the original Star Trek series. It's no longer fiction, a large amount of the population use mobile phones.
I have evidence of the principle behind the Gravity Wheel. It is now in a AVI video clip of 1.6 MG, and you are right it is an overbalancing wheel.
The math can be found in the smallest of Magic Squares, and they build up to infinity. I do not want to hold back on how it works so it's secret is lost again.
Ant
The axle keeps bending under the weight of the 6 arms.
Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that an antigravity machine can't support its own weight?
The weight of each arm is about 5 Kg. With six arms the machine is 30 Kg., that's without the weight of the hardboard etc.
The machine I am making is not an antigravity device, it is a Gravity Wheel. It displaces weight proportionally as an oscilating wave round an axle to produce a rotating motion.
I will have smaller AVI files of the 3 arm effect this evening. The 3 MB file is not being recieved.
Ant
Well I have tried to put it together and I have finished what I can do. The axle keeps bending under the weight of the 6 arms. I cannot continue until the axle is stronger. I'll look for a different one.
I have a few demonstration video clip of a 3 armed 1 to 45 square I intended to publish it somehow on stargrail.co.uk but it won't let me without unreasonable cost.
The AVI video file size is 3 MB. Email me at anton@stargrail.com and I'll send you it or a smaller one depending on demand.
In the meantime contacting the 'Establishment' is pointless without a working machine. This attitude will now be reviewed formally on the 25th July.
Ant
Star trek is so yesterday, star gate atlantis is the cool thing now of days.
I love the concept.
Think on the guts of a stargate, coiled loops of wire etc. If you can imagine using soon redundant tv technology - coiled loops, I believe that this electron gun technology(TV tube), which is being replaced, in the future will be reversed and become a worm hole entrance. A stargate to time and space.
Irreversable damage has already been done according to the Old Testament. The only way of reversing that is to control time, nice safety protocol or is it Jesus' resurection principle. Do today for tomorrow and yesterday. I would like to interface with a fly on the computer, say in the year 1717 and buzz arround... Butterfly huh!
The Heisenberg principle according to an 'imaginary' Star Trek will be cracked, check out it's transporter technology. Remember Atos from the original Star Trek series?.
Ant
Technically it is possible to build an apparent perpetual motion machine. That is to say, a machine that is gaining energy from a source which we cannot identify or masure.
The solar system works as a apparent perpetual motion machine. Gravity and the planets have ratio's that comply with square and square root ratio's. I am not claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine, the joints will wear etc., it will not last perpetually. I am tring to use a square ratio to create a rotation motion through oscilation.
To give an update. All arms have been put on the piece of hardboard. When I get back this afternoon, I will be adjusting the arms and completing the mechanism that closes one arm when the other opens. The unbalancing motion appears to be 'only just' enough. With this matrix I cannot see it going faster than 1 rotation every 2 seconds. I will soon know if E=6*(one to)45^2 is the minimum solution or not. I hope I don't need to add '0'!
Perhaps the paranoid 18th century inventor http://www.besslerswheel.com]Bessler did build a Gravity Wheel and died with the secret as to how.
As it is considered impossible, who will look? Only those that believe. Belief in my opinion is the quest for the impossible. I have enough evidence now to suggest an early meeting for our Action Plan Review Meeting scheduled on the 6th August.
Ant
Technically it is possible to build an apparent perpetual motion machine. That is to say, a machine that is gaining energy from a source which we cannot identify or masure.
The solar system works as a apparent perpetual motion machine. Gravity and the planets have ratio's that comply with square and square root ratio's. I am not claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine, the joints will wear etc., it will not last perpetually. I am tring to use a square ratio to create a rotation motion through oscilation.
To give an update. All arms have been put on the piece of hardboard. When I get back this afternoon, I will be adjusting the arms and completing the mechanism that closes one arm when the other opens. The unbalancing motion appears to be 'only just' enough. I will soon know if E=6*45 is the minimum solution or not.
Perhaps the paranoid 18th century inventor http://www.besslerswheel.com]Bessler did build a Gravity Wheel and died with the secret as to how.
Ant
Put simply, a perpetial motion machine is a machine (or any other process) that is more than 100% efficient. That is impossible, period.
If I do get this wheel working today or tomorrow and I am very confident I will, then the impossible will be possible and our understanding of energy will be changed.
I understand the Gravity Wheel to be the FIRST application. Without a Gravity drive how do we develop antigravity?
Ant
who was the second 'A' voter?
I had the opportunity to vote first and did but forgot the too in the question...
Ant
Thanks for your input. On Monday, I recieved the order of material I'd been waiting for. I have been drilling away for the past two days.
I have just (2000 GMT) completed all 6 arms at 1 to 45 square.
Tomorrow Wednesday 14th, I will be buying the axle and fitting the arms to the wheel.
A bit earlier than I expected. I'll know within 2 days worst case, this time tomorrrow best case.
SPEED AND TORQUE
I believe the Wheel demonstrates minimum energy so it will be relatively slow, however it's torque is not minimum as the arms are from 7 to 15 bars thick, for structural reasons.
With alteration to its square matrix the speed (more squares) and torque (more weight in the square matrix) can be varied.
I hope to prove my theory eitherway - within two days.
Ant
G
GOD
299,792,458 m/s is indeed the generally accepted value of c. It is not the maximum or minimum or average or anything else value, except the ONLY value of c. If you want to learn more about c, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R … .html]take a look at this.
Thanks, I liked the last sentence of the first paragraph of the link. "Experiments are still needed to measure the speed of light in media such as air and water."
I know you don't agree with my reasoning. I'll wait for the parts and finish the machine.
When I said the mass of the squares are empty, I could have said 'each square in the 1 to 45 grid matrix has a perimeter with an empty plane, no internal mass'.
Ant
(Age 43, actively looking since 1990 when I tried to make sense of "The Law of the Squares", by JRR Searl. Quantum Matrix Shapes by 1997. 17,000 cubes used in building cube shapes to get a basic understanding of number relatively 2002. Prototype Gravity Wheel 2004.)
I understand the maximum speed of light based on metres as it has been measured, nearly 3*10^8. That's 299,792,458 metres per second in a vacuum as tested and retested. An interesting note is that the 360 degrees in a circle can be obtained by 10 times the sum of 8.
My gibberings are based on the fact I have already seen a constructed wheel with three arms at 1 to 45 square. I constructed this before the six arms at 1 to 42 square because of bar shortage. The difference was noticable enough to give me the confidence to talk about it on this forum, before all six arms have a 1 to 45 square matrix.
I'll go back into the background until Monday week or sooner. No doubt you will relish the idea of failure, I hope to disappoint you.
Ant
You say that there is no minimum or maximum mass.
I am using progressively increasing lines shaped in a square. the mass of these squares are empty. This idea for the Gravity Wheel is pure math theory, based on the minimum shape in the platonic solids when viewed as a frame rather than a solid.
I believe the speed of light is dependant on the medium that carries it. This medium is determined by the mass of that solar system's Sun. The bigger the sun the faster the medium to carry light is, therefore the speed of light is faster. The smaller the sun the slower the speed.
I would be very interested if you can prove differently. I would like to see the results of vacuum testing from even the nearest solar system, can you supply them?
Oh... In the meantime I will build this wheel to try to prove it... looking inside out, rather than outside in.
I see a fraction in the formula you have presented. I don't see one in E=MC^2.
Ant
I don't see any reference to quantum string theory, or the uncertainty principle.
I believe and understand E=MC^2 as:-
Minimum Energy = smallest Mass (a 'thing' of substance, largest the sun, smallest a tetrahedron, 6 lines in a cube) times C^2 (minimum of a square matrix of lines starting at 1 ending at 45, maximum light).
You have your way of looking at it I have mine. If the letters were not variables, then why is it presented as an algebraic formula?
Regarding actual measurements you decide what '1' is defined as 1 inch, 1 centimetre 1 whatever... it's a proprotional math.
Ant
the speed of light is always the same everywhere reguardless, which is really one of the basic tenants of Relativity, and of all modern physics really.
Einstiens equasion of E=MC^2 is the relationship between energy and inertia. If this was understood, the human race would already have a Gravity drive and perhaps antigravity.
Even the book 'Einstein for beginners' stated that light was the maximum (so there must be a minimum) and concluded that 'gravity and electricity must be related somehow'. It speculated on what would happen if one went faster than light. Then quantum theory was put forward as suggested reading.
Since that I have found that a Quantum String also has a minimum.
I am putting forward the Quantum Matrix as the proposed relationship between Gravity and Electricity. The Gravity Wheel maybe the solution to a gravity drive.
I becon the understanding of antigravity with the application of Magick Squares.
Ant
Chill... I am only publishing my belief.
The system already knows, otherwise it would'nt have a black hole in their patent system for this idea. It's a math. None can patent a mathamatical process. A design right cannot be obtained solely on how it works.
The constant you quote is the maximum in this solar system. The largest mass is the Sun. Light is how we process vision which appears to have a constant maximum speed.
What speed do you think light will be in a solar system with a bigger sun?
The system proliferates secrets and distrust.
Ant
Is 6 * 45^2 the minmum solution to E=MC^2?
See http://www.stargrail.co.uk]www.stargrail.co.uk.
It may influence your answer once it is realised that a Gravity Wheel is based on a 6 Magick Square and http://www.sisrc.com]Searl Effect Technology is based on an 8 Magick Square.
Obviously I believe it will work, but before it is completed I am interested in your opinion.
The prototype will be finished by next Monday 19th July 2004.
Obviously the date above has passed. I have had trouble with obtaining a cheep suitable axle. As soon as a one with a stand is found the construction of the prototype Gravity Wheel will be delayed.
This link does make interesting reading.
Please vote please don't void it.
Thanks.
Ant
Could a Gravity Wheel and math be this easy?
http://www.stargrail.co.uk]stargrail.co.uk and
http://www.stargrail.com]stargrail.com
On this message board is a poll, please vote.
Currently I am currently costing an axle. Once this has been priced, ordered and here it will be completed.
I will update this board, as well as my website, on my findings.
Ant
G
GOD