Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

JimM · 2004-08-04 03:52:35

Frequency is the inverse of time.

No.

frequency = c/wavelength (where c = velocity of light in a vacuum)
wavelength*frequency = c
wavelength = c/frequency

The frequency of light (also called more properly, electromagnetic radiation) ranges from zero to 10^22 herz, where you find cosmic rays. The full range is called the electromagnetic spectrum, and whatever the frequency, it all travels at the same velocity, c, in a vacuum.

Visible light occupies only a tiny sliver of the spectrum, just below the 10^14 frequency. As the frequency rises above visible light we go through the realms of ultraviolet light, x-rays, gamma rays and then cosmic rays. As the frequency fall below visible light, we go through the realms of infra-red, and then radio, from super-high frequency radio all the way to super-low frequency radio.

So light has limits of min and max for the equation based on energy form that is released.

The higher the frequency, the higher the energy of the radiation. Thus gamma rays are more dangerous than x-rays, and so on.

But e=mc^2 is always true.

MarsDog · 2004-08-06 20:05:48

But e=mc^2 is always true

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.j … 6092]Speed of light may have changed recently
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077354/]Speed-of-light debate flashes again
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a … 9733]Speed of light slowing down?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g … html]Speed of Light, Other Constants May Change

More interesting than I thought.

ant of stargrail · 2004-08-12 15:44:24

I have now built the prototype 6 arms at 0 to 46 Squared. It does not work. Thanks for your time and votes.

It maybe futile, but I will now rescale and add more squares, as I have the materials. Time will tell.

Will contact this site on this subject again within 4 weeks.

http://www.stargrail.co.uk]Ant

Stargrail · 2004-08-28 04:21:35

Just to give an update.

I am in the process of reconstruction. So far I have drilled about 1200 holes individual holes in making the new mechanism, the equivalent to 1 arm, I can devote only a limited time to building it so it will take time, the boring is getting to be very tedious!!!

I have tried to expain how I see C^2 on my site, in my view there must be a minimum oscillation that produces rotation and creates Energy.

The apparent maximum speed/distance measurement is established as the speed of light, the longest defined C^2. I will eventually find the shortest C^2 only because I am looking.

MarsDog · 2004-09-02 13:35:05

there must be a minimum oscillation that produces rotation and creates Energy

There are pretty patterns which inspire.
Before you tap an oscillation and produce energy flow, you should first indentify an oscillation. For example, tides, barometric pressure, waves in the ocean, gravity variarions. If something is there to power a gravity wheel, use a sensor to detect it first.

Stargrail · 2004-09-02 16:16:54

There are pretty patterns which inspire.

Thanks

Before you tap an oscillation and produce energy flow, you should first indentify an oscillation.

The oscillation is the square articulating mechanism.

If something is there to power a gravity wheel, use a sensor to detect it first.

Gravity is here, it has not been exploited yet.

I don't have the equipment to test the dislacement of weight bar my experience. I have the will to build and see, build and see, build and see...

I understand the principle behind the wheel to be the displacement of weight or should I say the correct ratio of displaced weight. The joints in my opinion are not the problem, even before I upgraded them to be near friction free.

I am convinced because of my interest in Magic Squares and my belief that M & C^2 must have a minimum solution to Energy. The effect as the articulating squares have been lengthened has been noticably measurable.

I am now halfway to completing the next prototype of 3 arms, which is a more managable size and weight, one is as far as 33 squared. I may measure it with a spring loaded scale if I get one.

But I sussed that it's the working wheel that is required. Because my ideas are abstract and concidered impossible, the only thing that will convince the majority is proof; the gravity wheel working.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-03 13:27:25

Tapping gravity would make sense if it oscillated but is in not constant?

Stargrail · 2004-09-03 16:07:29

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...

Austin Stanley · 2004-09-06 03:59:44

Crackpot Index for gravity wheel.

-5 Point Starting Credit
53 = 53 Staments that are widely aggreed to be false, 1 point each
340 = 170 staments that are clearly vacuous, 2 points each
510 = 170 staments that are logicaly inconsistant, 3 points each
25 = 5 thought experiments that contradict real experments, 5 points each
50 = 5 new terms invented without defence (or even explination), 10 points each
20 = 2 claims that relativity is misguided, 10 points each
20 = 1 use of science fiction as fact 20 points
50 = 50 points for claiming your theory is revolutionary without concreate testable predictions.

Total: 1063, must be close to a new record!

Based from evaluation of website linked in orginal post.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html]Crackpot Index

MarsDog · 2004-09-06 05:16:43

We dream and build models in our minds. Presume and try, as we learn.
All ideas are ready to be discarded or modified.
-
"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true."
(Niels Bohr)

Stargrail · 2004-09-08 02:10:11

Total: 1063, must be close to a new record!

Cheers, still drilling...

Stargrail · 2004-09-10 17:39:33

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...

Stargrail · 2004-09-17 07:42:43

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.

Stargrail · 2004-09-24 14:19:38

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.

Stargrail · 2004-10-08 13:29:05

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.

Stargrail · 2004-10-17 14:18:11

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...

MarsDog · 2004-10-19 12:23:40

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.

Stargrail · 2004-10-19 15:23:29

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.

Kenshin · 2004-11-03 23:33:20

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.

Hello complete gibberish.

Is there a reason this thread hasn't been locked yet?

I thought this forum was for real science.

ERRORIST · 2004-11-17 17:58:29

Ant,
What if the thing was made from carbon nanotube material?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-17 18:30:34

arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh, carbon nanotubes aren't magical

ERRORIST · 2004-11-17 19:02:12

I agree not magical but they are fascinating.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-17 19:06:45

They have NO properties that violate any laws of physics, particularly thermodynamics.

They are just molecules, like any other, except shaped in a way that imparts above average strength and size.

ERRORIST · 2004-11-17 19:43:43

What about capillary action how far would water travel up the tube with capillary action?

Austin Stanley · 2004-11-17 22:41:35

Capillary action is not infinate, there is a limit as to how high it will alow a liquid to rise. You can caluclate that distance via the following equasion:

H = 2T/drg

H is the distance the liquid will rise
T is the surface tension bettwen the liquid and the tube
d is the liquid's density
r is the radius of the tube
g is acceleration due to gravity

I am unsure what the surface tension would be bettwen carbon nano-tubes and any given liquid, but if you knew that you could calculate the height. However, this all may be misleading because at such small distance (nano-meters) the action of surface tension may break down.

In any case the liquid is not going to rise far enough to help with space travel, and it is not going to make this loony "gravity wheel" work either.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-08-04 03:52:35

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#102 2004-08-06 20:05:48

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#103 2004-08-12 15:44:24

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#104 2004-08-28 04:21:35

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#105 2004-09-02 13:35:05

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#106 2004-09-02 16:16:54

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#107 2004-09-03 13:27:25

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#108 2004-09-03 16:07:29

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#109 2004-09-06 03:59:44

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#110 2004-09-06 05:16:43

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#111 2004-09-08 02:10:11

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#112 2004-09-10 17:39:33

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#113 2004-09-17 07:42:43

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#114 2004-09-24 14:19:38

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#115 2004-10-08 13:29:05

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#116 2004-10-17 14:18:11

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#117 2004-10-19 12:23:40

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#118 2004-10-19 15:23:29

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#119 2004-11-03 23:33:20

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#120 2004-11-17 17:58:29

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#121 2004-11-17 18:30:34

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#122 2004-11-17 19:02:12

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#123 2004-11-17 19:06:45

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#124 2004-11-17 19:43:43

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

#125 2004-11-17 22:41:35

Re: Gravity Wheel - Is E=6*45^2, minimum solution?

Board footer