David Callahan

Lol

Hoola, Thank you for your response. IMO, if mathematics does equal the universe, then mathematics has always existed, it is our intelligence that identifites the relationship. If my argument is correct, and if you can follow my argument, then you will can see that predictability is impossible. You can never reach zero. I am glad that you have identified the lack of free will in my model. There are two conclusions to this. Either there is no free will. Or we can control space within our minds. I do not like the idea of more than one universe, it is nonsensical to me. Maybe there are is a larger organization of matter like galaxies, and maybe we exist in one of those, but it would still be interacting. My model restricts the universe to itself, but where we exsist in this model is infinite. We could exist anywere between zero and one. David

Abstract Science has been describing the behavior of gravity ever since Newton and his Laws of Motion, and then later refined by Einstein with his General Theory of Relativity. The frustration of science is that it has not been able to give a definitive cause for the behavior of gravity. This is not for the lack of effort by some of the most brilliant men who ever walked the Earth. The difficulty lies in physics, every observation must be related to each other. The universe is the universe's most difficult puzzle. This difficulty creates esoteric disciplines that could obscure the vision between science. However, the commonality between these disciplines is mathematics. Mathematics is inherently simpler than physics, consisting of finite mechanics. This mechanical behavior has the ability to describe infinity. Because of this, it is possible and conceivable that a mathematician could literally stumble upon the algorithm that the universe uses without ever studying physics. This paper investigates the mechanics of gravity by examining the potential of mathematics. The following research assumes that mathematics is the universe, the possibilities and restrictions are the same. This paper unfolds with sciences current description of gravity, and then pairs mathematics with gravity to give a possible cause for gravity. Callahan An Investigation into the Mathematical Nature of Gravity.pdf The direct intention of this was not to bump it up, it was a secondary intention. The direct intention is to ascertain the viability of this argument and to gauge the response even though the paper is far from complete.

Ok, I concede. I finally see the light.

Swansont, The angle is a variable. The theta was just an arbitrary angle to demonstrate mechanics. The angle can be increased to transfer the maximum amount of force in the vertically up direction, minimalizing the reactive down force.

I have attached some figures and some simple mathematics that illustrate the intended mechanics. The diagnosis was that the mechanics are terminal, meaning DOA. But like all terminal diagnosis, I am seeking a second opinion. I feel that I understand Newton's Laws of motion, and nothing that I am proposing seem to violate them. The scenario: This is an ideal system with only gravity as an opposing force. There is a mechanism inside a box. The mechanism inside the box provides a horizontal Force onto an object. The object responds to the force by accelerating in the vertically up position. The object encounters the top of the box. Momentum is exchanged between the object and the box. The box responds by accelerating in the vertically up position. The above scenario is said to be false. The force of the object will not move the box, no matter how much force the object has. I assert that dependent on the force of the object, that it will move the box. What am I not seeing to make my assertion false? Correction in Proposal: ∑ Fhorizontal= 56.56 N Mechanical Proposal.pdf

Bignose, Your comment about the boat reminds me of this: http://youtu.be/uKXMTzMQWjo. It is from mythbusters where they blow their own sail. But going back to the original premise, I've done some simple math and figures that I will upload tomorrow to illustrate my reasoning in a separate post. If it is determined that it is mechanically fatal after this, I will concede. Like all terminal diagnosis, I am seeking another opinion.

Changed.

Reply to Swansont sent via PM because the information is considered sensitive.

Swansont, Thank you for your response. I think I understand where the miscommunication is. The force is cancelled in such a way that the energy is transferred as the accelerated projectile. The recoil is not in the same plane as the vector of the projectile.

Spyman, Thanks for your reply. Yes of course I thought of the recoil. But the recoil has been minimalized because the force that is applying the acceleration to the projectile is cancelled. The end result is almost pure acceleration of the projectile in a predicted direction. Please give me the benefit of the doubt to have thought of the most obvious problems. Your question on deceleration is that the cycle must repeat before the craft can decelerate back to zero. The ideal mechanic is that the projectile is returned to the initial start position when or before the craft achieves maximum acceleration in order for the projectile to be fire again in order to increase velocity. Swansont, Thanks for your reply. Please think of it this way. You have a sphere, and inside the sphere are multiple springloaded projectiles. The projectiles are fired in sequence which in turn accelerate the sphere. In this system no mass needs to be ejected. Unless you are talking about mass of the potential energy. This system is only an analogy and is not the actual system, but the principle is the same. Alcon, This is not a perpetual motion machine, energy has to be introduced into the system. I am just increasing the efficiency of the system. The problem I am working though now is the question if I am going to have a net force by the projectile over gravity. To increase the force of the projectile, I am going to have to increase the capacitance of the system, resulting in increase weight. Am I in a self-defeating cycle? This is an engineering problem. The power plant has to provide constant power, while the capacitors are going to to provide instantaneous power. Will the power plant be able to restore the capacitors in a given cycle? There are now capacitors that can store 1 Farad the size of coins, how long does it take to recharge one, and what is the instantaneous power of this capacitor? These are the questions I am trying to resolve now. My gut says that I will have a net force of the projectile, but how long will I be able to sustain this net force? Long enough to reach Earth orbit? My system will definitelly work in space, and will be a significant improvement on current platforms. In fact I would have to say that this is the end game of propulsion in space, being able to provide the same force to the system for years, reaching within fractions of relativistic speed. The only thing that would be faster would be the warping of space, but my opinion is that it is a fairy tale, not necessarily because it is impossible, but because it would take astronomical amounts of energy, not even figuring in the damage to local space. You would be permanently rearranging the geometry of any system you would be travelling through. Spyman, Please do not assume that I thought of all the obvious problems. Before answering the more technical problems, we need to ensure that all of the basics were covered. Thank you for your input. But your question to the problem of conservation of momentum has been solved and is not really the question. It is not a closed system. Even though the projectile is technically part of the system, it is not part of the system in a literal sense. Potential energy is stored in the capacitors, which turns into kinetic energy in the electromagnets. Momentum is transferred to the projectile which then the energy is tranferred to the craft. The projectile transfers the energy by an opposing electromagnet. The opposing electromagnet allows for an approximate instaneous transfer of momentum. During this transfer of momentum, the opposing electromagnet increases force, moving the projectile back to initial position faster than gravity, some energy will be lost in this transaction, but there will still be a net force opposing gravity because the acceleratation of the projectile will not be the same. It is the same concept as mult-stage engine in a rocket, except instead of using chemicals, we are using kinetic energy, and the stages approaches infinity. I hope I cleared some technicalities up for you. In this system the mass will be a constant, the only variable is acceleration. Initial acceleration of the projectile will be much much greater than the return acceleration resulting in a net postive force of the initial acceleration.

Just FYI, my research paper contains the structure that is described in the intitial post. I am just commenting because the views do not commensurate the downloads of the paper. My attempt to create this structure incorporates mechanics that approximate gravity and dark energy. Any comments are welcome and appreciated, especially by the professionals that have a strong background in math and physics that view this website. The research paper was part of a larger project and if it makes references to subjects not included in the paper, this is why.

The assumption is that the universe is the physical manifestation of mathematics. If this is true, the universe would have to behave with a mathematical model that is bounded only by itself, and to be able to predict everything about itself, simultaneously. This is my attempt to build such a model. The model is describing a structure that is bounded by 0 and 1, but has the ability to predict every point between 0 and 1 and also including 1. Not only does it have the ability to predict every point between, but also has the ability to predict every point of every point within, approaching 0, simultaneously. The paper is an excerpt from a larger paper, so it maybe a little off. Callahan Research Paper.pdf

I really do not know how to discuss my proposal without going into any specifics but I will try. There is nothing magical about my proposal. The mechanics are simple. You can think of it like this using the Navy's Railgun as a reference: The electromagnets accelerate a magnetically reactive projectile, the projectile encounters an opposing force. As the force of the projectile equalizes with the opposing force, the engine and the craft that the engine is attached to will accelerate. The force of the projectile at some point will be less than the force of the opposing force, which will allow the projectile to be placed in the initial position where the electromagnets can fire the projectile again. This cycle will have to happen faster than the craft can deccelerate in order to increase velocity of the craft. Using Coulomb's Law: F = kq(1)q(2)/r^2 A -1 Coulomb charge will repulse another -1 Coulomb charge with a million tons of force. This is the potential that I am tapping into. The first obvious counterargument is going to be that the projectile will penetrate the opposing force, but we are not trying to achieve the greatest change in instaneous velocity, all we are trying to do is propell the projectile with enough force to counter the force of gravity with whatever mass coefficient. The velocity of the craft will increase with each cycle of the projectile. Even if the velocity of the craft is 1 m/s after each projectile cycle, assuming a cycle of 1/s, after 60s we will be travelling at 60 m/s or ~134 m/h. In one hour we will be travelling at 3600 m/s or ~8053 m/h. after 1 day of projectile cycle the velocity would be at 86400 m/s which would be ~193271 miles/hour. In space, instantaneous change in velocity will be increased since we no longer have to worry about gravity. In space, let us assume that each cycle of the projectile increases the velocity of the craft by 10 m/s. In 1 minute the velocity will be ~1342 m/h. In 1 hour the velocity will be ~80529 m/h. In 1 day the velocity will be ~1932713 m/h. A craft with a nuclear powerplant could provide constant acceleration for years. You can think of the projectile as a piston moving back and forth. The next argument is going to to be opposing forces. On the ground, you do not necessarily have to worry about opposing forces since you have the mass of the Earth to provide the opposing force, but the problem arises when you are no longer have the opposing force of the Earth. This is where my solution is.

CaptainPanic, Thank you for your reply and your suggestions, I have thought of these various options that you have suggested, and I will be following a path that is most beneficial to me to the least beneficial. But I am willing to do mostly whatever needs to be done to explore this possibility. Seeking a venture capitalist is the last on my list. I have been entertaining the thought of contacting an educational institute with assistance on building a technology demonstrator. Spyman, I appreciate your concerns, they are rational concerns. But I assure you it is not scam for a perpetual motion machine. I am not asking for funding from any individual from this forum, I am asking how I can get a grant/funding from the government, or other organizational entities. Or at least to get professionals in this field interested enough to lend some weight as to give me some credence or even want to jump on board. I assure you, that if it was a scam, that my proposal would go far as someones wastebasket. Those who want to jump on board will be given the chance to be co-inventors dependent on their level of contribution, like a major change in utility, not a design change. I have not formed a company, but that will be my next step, that is if this technology is deemed possible. I stated that I don't fully understand the principles, because who can say that they absolutely understand anything. If you are interested, pm me and I will send you a NDA/NDS if you are a professional that can give credible advice. After I get the signed NDS/NDA I will send you quasi-technical drawings (quasi because they are not professionally drawn, instead drawn by me, and I do not have the money or the technical skills to use some sort of CAD) that you can examine for any fallacies. Then you can post something on here that either endorses my idea or discounts my idea without giving any proprietary information away. I realize that there is no free lunch, that since I am using electromagnets, that I am going to need a source of electricity to power them. This could be provided by nuclear, or a completely novel production, which I also have an idea. This novel idea may not be able to provide all of the electricity needed by my system, but it could reduce the load on more conventional methods like nuclear or solar. Your third point is false. It would not need the same energy because up to 90% of the energy needed using conventional rockets is required to transport the unspent propellant. I suggest to you to send me a request for a NDS/NDA. Any critical evalution is welcome and needed, even if the conclusion is that the technology is false. If this is the case, to save me time and energy. I never said that it would take very little amounts of energy, I just said that it would not be as much as a chemical rocket, but I guess comparatively, it would be very little. CaptainPanic, I am familiar with the technology that you linked, and the only similarity is that both uses electromagnets. ALCON, I know I am asking you to go out of your way to sign a NDS/NDA, but if this technology is feasible I do not want the intricacies to be public knowledge. After evaluating the mechanics, I would like you to repost back here and endorse it or discount it without disclosing specific knowldedge. By endorsing it, it will interest other professionals, and I would also ask permission to use that professional as a reference when writing my white paper, and by discounting, well the repercussions would be obvious. I see where the error in the discription is. Most of the energy will be used to propel the payload and habitation instead of being used to propel the unspent propellant.