trevorjohnson32

Alright, i'll give it to you guys that you come off as maybe non offensive the way science should be. So here's a question, If I was moving at the speed of light, and looked back on an object I was moving on a direct path away from, Would I see that object frozen in a second of time? and If I travelled faster then the light the object it emits, I would begin to watch that object go in reverse? what does this say about time dilation and the aging effect?

Anyways using the femto camera, from the film of the light moving out from a source, you pause the film when the light is at least partially illuminating the objects in the room. You then measure with a ruler on the frozen image itself the distance of illumination on several sides of the light source. If space IS and has properties like gravity, then the distances measured in the experiment will be all different.

alllllrighteyoh then I was not aware that maxwell proposed that there was a medium. I've heard people use the word field to describe gravity like it has some secret meaning. what is yours?

Yes that medium being space-time. yeah well if I prove my theory hopefully it will be more then the underbelly of a internet science forum.

Well uh I know there not as smart as you, Strange, but they think space time isn't made of something or anything because there experiments showed this and where GR came from. This would be contrary to the OP in that I imply that space-time IS made of something. Why would we need a new prediction of the speed of light? can you figure out an experiment from watching this video? I did.

Have you ever even heard of michelson and Moorley? Has anyone here?

Uh huh mechelson and moorley and all that. A kind of person like you, which there are MANY of, goes along with the crowd if they were all pulling out there fingernails and hair because it was the trend to make you smarter. Anything thrown on your plate is completely bias to whether you have read it before or what someone else has already said. Do you have a single original thought in your head? It's the most obvious cliche of a person to only believe things that are provable like if turn my VCR on, then the control button will perform this function. So GR and the Michelson Moorley experiment is your solid proof then huh? Tell me, does the light returning along the same path that it was sent out on in the interferometer experiment cancel the momentum gained or lost being sent out, have no effect, or some effect? By the way I do have an idea for an experiment using a femto camera to measure for the movement of space time. I didn't know I was REQUIRED to prove it to an idiot like you on the internet. SO SORRY!!!

I mean if you map space-time in a grid, the blocks of the grid become smaller in the denser regions of the gravity field rather then the grid 'bending' towards the middle like this photo which is up first when you search images gravity 3d. The edge of the gravity field is where it tapers off, but have they ever directly proven that a gravity field extends forever? and how did they do that?

oh?..........................................................................................................................................................................................why? Then here, the text from the video: A quark is a particle of extremely dense space time Its density puts a squeezing effect on the surrounding space time that it exists in The squeezing effect creates its gravity field and is stronger the closer to the quark A planet creates a gravity field of its own from the astronomical number of quarks in the planet When the Edge of a quark’s gravity field and the edge of a planet’s gravity field touch the gravity field of the quark is squeezed on its edge This pulls the quark in the direction of the planet’s gravity field The quark is continuously pulled in as the lavers of space time are denser the closer to the planet

This is just a short one minute video I made of a theory on how gravity works. Lets here your feedback if you got any.

Two methods for generating electricity with explosives: Method 1 Step 1: Build a cavity in the ground ten times as deep as it is wide. The deeper the cavity the more you increase the efficiency of the system to a point. Step 2: Line the bottom 10% of the cavity with steel Step 3: operate a turbine generator by lowering water weight from the top of the cavity to the bottom and dumping the water in the cavity. Step 4: Once the cavity is about 10-15% full of water a fusion explosive is detonated near the bottom of the pool of water. The water is cleared out of the cavity and caught inside a loop connected to and situated on the ground at the top of the cavity that eliminates exposure to radiation and allows for the weight to circulate to burn off any extra momentum energy it has. Step 5: The process is repeated So that the system can be re used. One could build several cavity's around one loop and use fusion lasers to set off the explosive. I estimate through experiments that this system could be 10-20% efficient from just the weight displacement . You could also gather heat out of this system As the water circulating through it would heat up over time. Method 2 Step 1: Cut into the ground with a saw or laser and create a single piece of earth in a 4,000 foot cube shape. Step 2: Detonate an explosive under the pre cut cube so that the force of the explosive pushes the piece from the ground. Step 3: once the cavity is created, the very large piece of earth that has been removed can operate a turbine being broken apart and lowered back into the cavity. I have proven that both these experiments work with fireworks and am working on a youtube video. I made efficiency estimates based on a surface crater created by the same firework. Method 1 could be 10-85% efficient and the method 2 from 4-10% efficiency. Also a fusion explosive is going to release up to 630 times the energy it takes to refine the fuel. I have reference for that.

Oh yeah, I can barely imagine it in a system maybe only 10 uses or so as landmark use of billions of kilowatts of fusion which is my bad habit.

Yeah I m not 100% on the efficiency's, my estimates are based on the known efficiency of a surface blast, all I know is that all three methods worked as I predicted and they all removed more weight then a surface blast. and I thought about firing weight into a loop to circulate it around, then the energy can be gathered using any number of devices, levers, a turnstyle that extends through the loop, coupled with spring or weight batteries to store the sudden burst of energy, but I decided the idea of firing weight into any system would cause too much wear and tear on that system, considering the average bullet travels at 2500 ft/sec. Allowing the weight to gather kinetic energy firing it into nothing and then catching it was a superior idea. You could also fire the weight directly into a spring without the loop, but again wear and tear. Thanks for your interest Dr.P

The cannonball system is totally different then a car engine. It's like comparing a solar panel to a wind turbine.

It's a system that uses fusion, not a reactor. The reaction occurs in the explosive.

weights of different materials displaced by a firework: dirt from surface blast 1.5 oz, pre cut piece of rock 10 oz, water from a can 7oz The weight removed doesn't include collecting any of the blast energy using gravity which is a big step up in efficiency.

yeah but it works with an efficiency of 2-40%. Show me just one other example of a fusion fueled power generating system with those types of efficiency's. You can't. You know why? cause there are none! Edward Teller couldn't think of one. His idea was to collect heat from explosions with circulating a type of salt inside a closed steel container. wikipedia's idea is to use abandoned mines filled with water to try to collect heat. No one has ever thought to convert blast energy into kinetic energy stored in the weight into electricity before.This system will still be used for thousands, even millions of years from now in combination with lasers. And at raw material cost I seriously doubt the energy required to do refining and cutting and the cost of the materials would add up to be more then the energy you create from using the described method.

Yeah, there's still another two to three years to go in the patent application before its granted. I'm fairly confident though from the examiner's report that I 'll be rewarded the grant. This is the first time I ve ever tried forums to talk about the invention. I'm happy to see so many views and responses.

Haha! well I ll try to answer your question anyways. The experiments I did compared the displaced weight of a fireworks surface blast to the displaced weights of a piece of pre cut rock in the ground and the weight of the water removed from a soup can. My estimates on efficiency's are 40+% for the cannonball, 2-18% for water cannon, and 5-10% for the pre-cutting the earth method. That means if you used a 10 billion kilowatt explosive to remove a piece of pre cut earth at 5% efficiency then you could gain back that energy by lowering weight into the cavity made and get 5% of 10 billion kilowatts which is 500 million kw which is at twelve cents a kw right now. The United States carried out a program for peaceful uses of nuclear explosives from the 1950's to the 1980's called Project Plowshare. They conducted several thousand test experiments with underground explosives and cratering mainly to build ports for ships. Previous ideas for the use of nuclear explosions to generate electricity were to gather the heat from them by setting them off in abandoned mines filled with water and to try to boil the water. The basic concept of weight displacement power plants is not to gather heat but to gather kinetic energy in weight being blasted against the force of gravity then convert that energy stored in the weight into electricity by lowering the weight back down. One day along with fusion lasers these systems will help replace fossil fuels.

I have a patent that involves creating electricity from explosives and gravity. I was just wondering if anyone has heard of any other ideas to create electricity from explosives. There are three basic concepts. The first basic concept is to blast a cannonball up into the air catch it where gravity pauses it then use the weight of the cannonball to pull down on an elevator type generator until the ball is back to where you shot it from at which point you can re load the cannon and start the process all over again. So you re using explosives as the fuel in the system. The second method is instead of using a cannonball as the weight you can fill the cannon with water and blast the water weight into the air which I ve experimented with using fireworks as the explosive and a soup can in the ground as the cannon and I observed that an explosion set off inside a water cannon squeezes the water inside against the walls of the cannon causing the water to shoot straight up pretty high into the air . Now one of the advantages of using a water cannon is you can build it several hundred feet wide and deep enabling one to use a much larger explosive say a fission or fusion explosive to clear the water out. And yet another method in the patent involves pre cutting the earth in a way that you can detonate an underground explosive and pop the piece of pre cut material right out of the ground ,a generator could then be operated lowering the weight or other weight back into the ground. I ve also proven this works using fireworks and it works really well comparing the weight to the crater i made with a fireworks surface blast. This method could make use of hundreds of millions even billions of killowatts from a single fusion explosive. This method also has limited amount of fallout because the single piece of precut material absorbs most of the blast energy related to fallout. this would be important if using a fission primary fusion explosive to remove the piece of earth. so anyone can look up the full patent by google searching trevor hawthorne and patentscope