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

JimM · 2004-07-17 13:55:48

The machine I am making is not an antigravity device, it is a Gravity Wheel

Yes, I'm sorry, that was my mistake.

Your Gravity Wheel would seem to be a classic version of perpetual motion machine known as the "Overbalancing Wheel".

One of the first people recorded to have suggest this sort of device was John Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, who in the 1670s proposed a number of machines like this that relied upon "The Natural Affection of Gravity". Naturally neither the good bishop nor any of the hundreds of people since that time who have each thought they were original inventor of the overbalancing wheel have every been able to make it work.

So why cannot it work?

The First Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the energy of an isolated system is constant. What that means is you can't get something for nothing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy of an isolated system increases in the course of a spontaneous change. What that means is that you're going to get less out than went in.

Or to put it another way, the philosophy of 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.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-17 14:45:43

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

JimM · 2004-07-17 16:38:30

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.

I am not talking about business, or etiquette, but the way the world works: physics, or natural philosophy as it used to be called in Scottish universities.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The evidence that I have indicates differently.

The triumph of hope over experience, more like.

Every one of your many hundreds of predecessors, from the Bishop of Chester back in the 1670s on, had 'evidence' that their own particular variation of the overbalancing wheel was certain to work but not one of them could ever actually make it work. Unsurprisingly, because the whole concept is utter baloney. This is one of the most certain facts there is in the world. That's because so many people have tried and so many have all utterly failed--the overbalancing wheel is one of the most certainly false ideas in the history of the human race.

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.

So? What happened to people being 'beamed up'? Why are we still waiting for 'warp drive'?(*) One could go on... There's an amusing and very informative book by Lawrence Krauss called 'The Physics of Star Trek' you should read.

(*) I'll give you something else to chew over. In terms of the Theory of Relativity, faster-than-light travel, if possible, would be indistiguishable from time travel.

And what's the best evidence that neither is possible? The complete lack of time-tourists, of course.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-17 21:50:02

What if there the reality of TANSTAAFL is due to fixed minds?

One foot over the cliff of Psuedoscience/Antiscience...

In science, (unless you are dealing with the Copenhaggen Interpretation of QM maybe) then what you believe or think or have faith in has NO bearing or connection or effect on the physical laws of the universe... otherwise you are brewing your own particular brand of intellectual witchcraft.

MarsDog · 2004-07-18 02:00:18

All ant has to do is find the appropriate theory:

"We may learn to deprive large masses of their gravity, and give them absolute levity, for the sake of easy transport." -Ben Franklin, 1780

http://www.tachyonics.com/Extract.pdf]Extract gravitational energy

http://home.earthlink.net/~danielemilio … l]Shifting Theory of Gravity

JimM · 2004-07-18 04:12:50

In science, (unless you are dealing with the Copenhaggen Interpretation of QM maybe) then what you believe or think or have faith in has NO bearing or connection or effect on the physical laws of the universe... otherwise you are brewing your own particular brand of intellectual witchcraft.

GCNRevenger, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (also known as the Standard Model) does not say that what you believe or think or have faith in matters, but that the act of obesrvation affects what is observed.

I think it's important to make this point, in order to try to prevent Ant picking up the ball and running with the idea that QM depends on what you believe, etc.
------------
Meanwhile...
(Sigh)

• Extract gravitational energy

A Korean gentleman who is confusing the difficulties of solving the three-body problem with a failure of Newton's Laws of Motion and Law of Universal Gravitation, who then wraps up this rather basic misunderstanding into some gloriously scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo, complete with very authoritative-looking mathematical formulae.

The three-body problem is the name given to any attempt to predict the motions of any object in a gravitational field where is more that one significant gravitating body (say, Apollo when travelling between the earth and the moon), using Newton's Laws. The problem arises frequently in astronomy and astronautics; for instance any body travelling through the Solar System is subject to the gravitation influence of very many objects-- the sun, Jupiter, Saturn, earth, etc., etc., etc.... In practice the solution is arrived at by a process of calculating the effect of each body on the object in turn for each minute fraction of time and then accumulating these effects to get a net effect, then repeating the process again. and again, and again.... The arithmetic involved is vast, and the process was extremely tedious and timeconsuming when done by pencil and paper--but it could be, and was, done. The computer now makes it a much faster and pain-free process, although the amount of calculation required is immense.)

• Shifting Theory of Gravity

This is not worthy of much discussion. For a start, the author clearly does not comprehend the Two-Slit Experiment, which does not just apply to photons, but (much more significantly) to electrons too.

I'm also not clear if he thinks he's replacing the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Theory or both. I don't think he knows either, but I do commend his valiant but doomed failure to take on this mighty task without benefit of mathematics.

"We may learn to deprive large masses of their gravity, and give them absolute levity, for the sake of easy transport." -Ben Franklin, 1780.

I think Ben would have agreed airships, then aircraft, fitted that prediction pretty well.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-18 05:30:37

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

JimM · 2004-07-18 08:11:27

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.

Well at least this means we should have a nice long breathing space before we have to contemplate that... a few decades or centuries, at the very least?

Nice to see the uncertainty principal...

I'm almost afraid to ask, but ... where has there been any mention of that in this thread?

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-18 08:47:12

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

JimM · 2004-07-18 10:57:42

If you mean Hiesenberg's principle, no. I ment the word 'unless'.

'Unless'? Huh? Where? That makes even less sense.

It's clear you have not the least notion of the real significance of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (To be fair, not that many people do.)

However, since you can't grasp that the 'c' in E-mc^2 is a fixed value by definition, I don't think I've got enough energy left to get into trying to explain quantum mechanics...

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

JimM · 2004-07-18 11:05:54

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.

It's just dawned on me that you think you can square the circle.

ROFL!!!!!!!

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-18 12:56:59

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

JimM · 2004-07-18 14:33:50

If I'm right the maths of it are now published, free for all, but it has not been proved.

You're darn right it's not been proved. On the other hand it has been conclusively disproved:

In 1882 the Lindemann Theorm provided a rigorous and conclusive mathematical proof that squaring the circle is impossible because Pi is a transcendental number.

End of circle-squaring (or sphere-cubing) story, folks.

MarsDog · 2004-07-18 22:02:56

The proof was in Euclidian geometry. What is similar in curved space ?

-

Things are not so straightforward;
Apparently, light can go faster than the speed of light.

http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0007/1901.html]Faster than the speed of light..

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-18 22:24:50

The physics of what goes on as light enters the Cesium tube and when it enters is a little oversimplified in the article I think... The light beam itself doesn't actually travel beyond 1C through the tube so much as it is "teleported" or the original beam is lost and a new beam of similar properties is generated on the other end...

The 1C limit still stands

JimM · 2004-07-19 02:03:26

The proof was in Euclidian geometry. What is similar in curved space ?

The value of Pi is unchanged and so remains a transcendental number in any geometry. Therefore the Lindermann proof holds against squaring the circle in any geometry.

Apparently, light can go faster than the speed of light.

GCNRevenger is absolutely right; the physics of what's happening here is more than a little complex. I believe this apparent superluminal travel is an interesting efect similar to but not the same as quantum tunnelling.

However, reading the report carefully again, an even more interesting report seems to have been discovered:-

...The 3-microsecond long pulse of light would normally take only 0.2 nanoseconds to pass through the chamber in a vacuum. But when passed through the specially prepared chamber, light emerged 62 nanoseconds earlier than it would have had it passed through the chamber in a vacuum.

In other words, it emerged from the chamber 61.8 nanoseconds before it entered it.

Yeh, right.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-19 04:16:21

What has http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/pi3.html] Lindemann got to do with using squares to make a wheel rotate?

Pity he did'nt have a piece of string!!!

Ant

GraemeSkinner · 2004-07-19 07:03:29

However, reading the report carefully again, an even more interesting report seems to have been discovered:-
...The 3-microsecond long pulse of light would normally take only 0.2 nanoseconds to pass through the chamber in a vacuum. But when passed through the specially prepared chamber, light emerged 62 nanoseconds earlier than it would have had it passed through the chamber in a vacuum.
In other words, it emerged from the chamber 61.8 nanoseconds before it entered it.

You mean someone has invented time travel and they just don't know it yet? I'll just nip off and place a few bets just in case

Graeme

JimM · 2004-07-19 07:19:03

Thus when Lindemann proved in 1882 that Pi is transcendental (not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients) he effectively proved that the construction was impossible with only straightedge and compass.

This is a rather silly definition, although reasonably accurate as far as it goes. I'd have put it this way: you can't square a circle because it is impossible to accurately square Pi, or derive its square root (or, BTW, cube a sphere because you can't cube Pi or derive its cube root) due to its transcendental nature.

Pity he did'nt have a piece of string!!!

Uh, a piece of string is simply the poor man's pair of compasses, but much less acurate.

What has Lindemann got to do with using squares to make a wheel rotate?

You tell me.

ME: "It's just dawned on me that you think you can square the circle."

YOU: "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."

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-19 12:55:28

Pi is the ratio between a radius and circumference.

Uh, a piece of string is simply the poor mans pair of compasses, but much less acurate

If one was to turn a circle into a square using infinitely different lengths of string. Each string joined together at their ends. A ratio between the radius of the circle made and length of square made would emerge. This ratio would have mystical properties just like pi, and would solve the emigma, if there is one.

Ant

JimM · 2004-07-19 15:04:24

This ratio would have mystical properties just like pi

Mystical, schmistical.

Pi is just a transcendental number.

A transcendental number is a real number that is not the root of an algebraic equation with rational coefficients.

There are an infinite number of transcendental numbers, and they do not have any 'mystical' properties, any more than any other numbers. There is nothing very special about being a transcendental number. In fact there are infinitly more transcendental numbers than those that are not--although there are an infine number of non-transcendental numbers too, of course.

IOW:

The set of all transcendental numbers = Infinity
The set of all non-transcendental numbers = Infinity
but...
(The set of all transcendental numbers/The set of all non-transcendental numbers) = Infinity

If you've followed this so far, you might very well conclude that if there is any odd sort of number around here, it's infinity!

clark · 2004-07-19 15:09:24

And here I thought "infinity" was a concept, not a number.

I'm guessing it comes somewhere after ten. I think I'll try to count to it.

JimM · 2004-07-19 15:19:20

And here I thought "infinity" was a concept, not a number.

No, it's a number. But it's infinitely big.

I'm guessing it comes somewhere after ten. I think I'll try to count to it.

You mean like, "1, 2, 3....8, 9, 10, lots" ?

clark · 2004-07-19 15:24:05

It's a number that is infinitely big? You mean like bigger than a breadbox?

What is the number prior to infinity?

10.1,10.11,10.111,10.1111,10.11111,10.111111... getting closer, this may take a while. This is why I hate singing 100 bottles of beer on the wall with math majors.

ant of stargrail · 2004-07-19 15:49:25

Pi is just a transcendental number.
A transcendental number is a real number that is not the root of an algebraic equation with rational coefficients.

The ratio that would ratify a solution to squaring a circle would also be a transendental number, obtained from the radius and square length ratio.

Are you implying that C^2 can only been seen as the transendental number of the speed of light as measured in a vacuum?

I can only see the 2 of E=MC^2 as a transendental number the rest an algebraic formula.

Ant

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-07-17 13:55:48

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

#52 2004-07-17 14:45:43

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

#53 2004-07-17 16:38:30

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

#54 2004-07-17 21:50:02

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

#55 2004-07-18 02:00:18

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

#56 2004-07-18 04:12:50

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

#57 2004-07-18 05:30:37

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

#58 2004-07-18 08:11:27

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

#59 2004-07-18 08:47:12

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

#60 2004-07-18 10:57:42

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

#61 2004-07-18 11:05:54

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

#62 2004-07-18 12:56:59

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

#63 2004-07-18 14:33:50

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

#64 2004-07-18 22:02:56

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

#65 2004-07-18 22:24:50

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

#66 2004-07-19 02:03:26

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

#67 2004-07-19 04:16:21

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

#68 2004-07-19 07:03:29

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

#69 2004-07-19 07:19:03

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

#70 2004-07-19 12:55:28

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

#71 2004-07-19 15:04:24

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

#72 2004-07-19 15:09:24

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

#73 2004-07-19 15:19:20

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

#74 2004-07-19 15:24:05

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

#75 2004-07-19 15:49:25

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

Board footer