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

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-09 02:25:56

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

Euler · 2004-07-09 12:01:42

Not only will it not work, it is hard to see how anyone could think that it would work. You would need to have a whole series of bizarre misconceptions to come up with something like this.

Feyona · 2004-07-09 15:31:29

My first message to this forum, so be kind and humour me please...but why should this idea be dismissed as unworkable and why would someone get personal with the reply?

Bizarre misconceptions?????....have you read the title of this list???

Love and light
Feyona

JimM · 2004-07-09 16:06:47

but why should this idea be dismissed as unworkable?

Because this so-called gravity wheel is a perpetual motion machine, which is about the oldest and stupidest self-delusional impossibility (for the inventor) known to science.

Feyona · 2004-07-09 16:16:58

Then why do so many people persue it with great conviction, and why should their belief's be ridiculed any more or less than than the concept of going to Mars...surely that concept could be ridiculed as 'old'....

Feyona

JimM · 2004-07-09 16:46:30

Then why do so many people persue it with great conviction...?

Heaven knows. But to give a measure of the idiocy of the whole business, consider the question...

Is 6 * 45^2 the minmum solution to E=MC^2?

... is actually entirely meaningless twaddle.

Einstein's equation defines the relationship between mass and energy. 'C' is the velocity of light in a vacuum, which is a constant. It does not vary, ever. '6*45^2' is a pure number, and so cannot be anthing to do with Einstein's equation, because in 'E=MC^2", 'M' is a mass and therefore has to be defined in grams, lbs, Kg, tons, or some such, and C is a constant (and well known) number of miles per second (approx 186,000 miles/sec), kilometers per second (approx 300,000 kilometers/sec), or equivalent. It sure ain't 45.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-09 17:02:05

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

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-09 21:01:51

Wooow this is getting down right psychodelic, I can feel the colors...

Beliefe is irrelivent... 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.

BWhite · 2004-07-09 22:47:31

Wooow this is getting down right psychodelic, I can feel the colors...
Beliefe is irrelivent... 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.

Except, of course, if you are Vernor Vinge.

Stay out of the Slowness!

JimM · 2004-07-10 02:53:00

Wooow this is getting down right psychodelic, I can feel the colors...

That's strange, I can hear them. What have you been smoking?

...the speed of light is always the same everywhere...

To be pedantic, the velocity of light in a vacuum is the same everywhere.

Of course it may travel a little slower in a light sabre.

May the Force be with you.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-10 03:14:21

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

JimM · 2004-07-10 03:58:35

Einstiens equasion of E=MC^2 is the relationship between energy and inertia. If this was understood, we would have Gravity drive already and perhaps antigravity.

No it's not. It defines the relationship between energy and mass which is not the same thing as inertia. E=MC^2 is often called the mass-energy equivalence ratio. It is not susceptible to 'solutions' of the kind you appear to be peddling; there is nothing there to be 'solved'.

Perhaps you are confusing E=MC^2 with the somewhat similar-looking but strictly Newtonian equation, E=0.5MV^2, where--

E is kinetic energy, which is the energy a body has by virtue of both its mass and velocity.
M is mass, which is the amount of matter possessed by a body
V is velocity, which is rate of change of position, measured in terms of both speed and location.

Now E=0.5MV^2 can be solved, as V is not a fixed constant. But your gravity wheel perpetual motion machine is still doomed to sure and certain total failure. If you wonder why, go away and find out about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-10 04:44:53

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

Euler · 2004-07-10 11:19:46

Minimum Energy = smallest Mass (a 'thing' of substance, largest the sun, smallest a tetrahedron, 6 lines in a cube)

There is no minimum or maximum mass, it is true for any amount of mass.

times C^2 (minimum of a square matrix of lines starting at 1 ending at 45, maximum light).

C in this equation is a constant representing the speed of light in a vacuum. C^2 is approximately 9*10^16 m^2/s^2.

If the letters were not variables, then why is it presented as an algebraic formula?

The point of E=mc^2 is that is shows that mass and energy are equivalent, and it gives the conversion ratio. There is no "minimum solution."

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-10 13:43:32

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

Rxke · 2004-07-10 14:10:01

I see a fraction in the formula you have presented. I don't see one in E=MC^2.

C is expressed in m/s... That's meters per second.

JimM · 2004-07-10 14:47:26

I don't see any reference to quantum string theory, or the uncertainty principle.

Nor to the Theory of Evolution, which seems to have passed you by.

The Gravity Wheel and all your facile 'theories' are childish gibberish. Come back when the Gravity Wheel has been conclusively proven to work in front of reputable independent witnesses, or cease making a laughing stock of yourself.

At least, that's my advice if you want to take it.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-10 16:39:10

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

JimM · 2004-07-10 17:21:19

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.

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.

An interesting note is that the 360 degrees in a circle can be obtained by 10 times the sum of 8.

Eight whats? Or do you mean 10 times 8? But that's 80, not 360. And what on earth has this got to do with the velocity of light?

(How old are you?)

Euler · 2004-07-10 18:23:31

the mass of these squares are empty.

Huh? What do you mean by that?

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 think the word you are looking for is numerology, not math.

I believe the speed of light is dependant on the medium that carries it.

It sounds like your theory is based on the pre-relativistic "ether" model. However, there have been many experiments such as the Michelson-Morely experiment that have failed to find any evidence of an ether and have found strong evidence against such a model.

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.

So you think that the speed of light is determined by the strength of the local gravitational field? If this were the case, then light would travel more slowly in the outer solar system than in the inner solar system. Since the time that it takes for light to get to us from other planets can be measured with a very high accuracy, we know that this is not the case. In your theory light would also travel faster near the Earth's surface than it would in orbit, despite the fact that our experience with GPS gives strong evidence to the contrary. For interstellar measures of the speed of light, we can use binary stars to get a pretty good idea of the speed of light by carefully timing their rotation as long as we have a good estimate of their mass. We can also use gravitational lensing to get another confirmation of the speed of light. Finally, there is strong evidence that black holes exist. However, if light got faster whenever it was deeper in a gravitational field, then light would be able to escape from any gravitational well, and there would not be any black holes.

The constancy of the speed of light is one of the postulates of special relativity, and there is strong evidence to support it. If you believe otherwise, you should find evidence to support your claims and you should stop trying to use relativistic equations. If the speed of light is not a constant, then the standard way of deriving E=mc^2 is invalid and you should not use that equation.

Eight whats? Or do you mean 10 times 8? But that's 80, not 360. And what on earth has this got to do with the velocity of light?

He means 10*(8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1)=10*(8*9)/2=360. It has nothing to do with the velocity of light, it is just a litle bit of numerology trivia that he tries to use to justify his idea.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-11 00:41:23

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.)

JimM · 2004-07-11 04:18:51

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."

But did you read on, as immediatey following that remark there is this:

Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant?

At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition!

Well that's that, end of discussion. Love it or loath it, c is a fixed, exact value.

If that screws up the theory behind your gravity wheel, that's no surprise to most of us.

JimM · 2004-07-11 12:52:14

"You have already voted in this poll" I'm told.

Well, I've not, but that's what I'm told.

Rxke · 2004-07-11 14:29:07

JimM, maybe you clicked the 'view results(null vote)' as i did, the first time i encountered a poll on the board... When you do that, you can't vote anymore...

JimM · 2004-07-11 16:10:42

Rxke -- yeh, that's it. Thanks.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-09 02:25:56

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

#2 2004-07-09 12:01:42

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

#3 2004-07-09 15:31:29

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

#4 2004-07-09 16:06:47

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

#5 2004-07-09 16:16:58

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

#6 2004-07-09 16:46:30

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

#7 2004-07-09 17:02:05

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

#8 2004-07-09 21:01:51

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

#9 2004-07-09 22:47:31

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

#10 2004-07-10 02:53:00

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

#11 2004-07-10 03:14:21

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

#12 2004-07-10 03:58:35

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

#13 2004-07-10 04:44:53

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

#14 2004-07-10 11:19:46

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

#15 2004-07-10 13:43:32

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

#16 2004-07-10 14:10:01

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

#17 2004-07-10 14:47:26

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

#18 2004-07-10 16:39:10

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

#19 2004-07-10 17:21:19

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

#20 2004-07-10 18:23:31

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

#21 2004-07-11 00:41:23

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

#22 2004-07-11 04:18:51

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

#23 2004-07-11 12:52:14

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

#24 2004-07-11 14:29:07

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

#25 2004-07-11 16:10:42

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

Board footer