jajrussel

One of the thoughts I had that made me think it might work was that the article said the gravitational difference in the center of one of the mascons was equal to four ounces more than something that weighs fifty pounds at normal moons gravity. I am paraphrasing my understanding of what I read. This seemed to mean, to me at least, that if I set up a scale and put fifty pounds on one side, and fifty pounds four ounces on the other, then stated pushing the scale with the fifty pound weight end toward the Mascon I should reach a point somewhat along the way where the scale would balance. This seemed to imply torque. Then I thought if I did it again with fifty pounds on both sides of the scale. The side entering the Mascon first should begin to act as if it weighs () more then begin to drop. Again this seemed to imply torque. Then I thought why not use a large perfectly balanced wheel. I am assuming now that my thinking was wrong. Nothing that simple should actually work anyway. It would be way to simple. I removed the words (four ounces) that were between the parentheses in editing because I realized that four ounces more would be a bit extreme. Even if ones assumption is wrong, one should try to be more precise...

You are right; I haven't, and I am making assumptions. Now I'll work on figuring out why you are right, and why my assumptions are wrong. I know I can be hard headed, especially when something seems obvious to me. So thanks for everyone's patience.

Are you saying that each arrow on the wheel has the same acceleration value? Without regard to what the acceleration value is over the moons surface? Without regard to the wheels position?

The sides aren't balanced that's kind of the point. Nature seeks balance. Everyone keeps telling me that the two sides are balanced, but I can not see how they are, and that is why I cannot understand what they are saying.

Okay,I am beginning to think that the answer to my original question has to be no. I was in a sense thinking of the whole structure as an equation, but probably to simple an equation to start. Basically x=x+1. Where the equal sign represents the axis of the wheel,x represents gravity, and the plus one represents the difference between the left side of the equation, and the right. Now put a downward arrow on both sides of the equation simply to signify the direction of force as it is applied. It seemed to me that the right side would accelerate faster than the left side, and that the axis would force a clock wise shift in mass, an effort to seek balance. Anyway, this was my thinking, and why I wanted to know if it would work.

So, don't stop providing energy. The idea is to provide just enough energy to keep the wheel going, which should be less than the energy that would be needed if the gravitational forces were the same on both sides of the wheel.

If I understand your question. The wheel would have to be large enough to span the the greatest difference in gravitational forces. Half in the Mascon, half out. It would not turn on its own because because the g force on the Mascon side won't be enough to push the other side up, but if the wheel is made well, using energy you can start it turning then as its rotational force increases the slightly greater g force on the Mascon side would assist in the downward momentum on the Mascon side. This would result in less fuel being required to maintain the wheels momentum. The moons gravity is 1/6 ours large structures might be feasible. There is no atmosphere to resist the wheels turning. The moons rotation might interfere with the wheels rotation if the wheel is large enough, but then again strategic placement might assist rather than hinder. I don't know what a four ounce difference translates to in terms of g force, but with enough mass behind it, it might be significant enough to make a difference in how much fuel we need to carry to the moon in order to thrive. This is not perpetual motion, but a difference in forces. And, it's probably no more feasible than actually living on the moon.

I had not read the article until you posted it. The conditions are no where near the same. The earth is not the moon. Mascons exist on the moon. They do not exist on earth. The ones on the moon are large. You have it in your head that because something won't work on earth it won't work on the moon, and if I were taking about perpetual motion I would agree. It won't work. But I am not talking about perpetual motion. I am talking about one spot on the moon having a greater force of gravity than another spot. Enough of a difference that for every fifty pounds on one spot an acceleration difference of four ounces exist on the other spot. That is a difference in force. It exist. I am talking about a machine that uses that difference in force to transform that difference into something usable. The machine might not be feasible, but if the source exist it is just a matter of figuring out how to feasibly use it. I don't expect the wheel to turn on its on. What I do expect is that a difference in force might somehow be used to assist in that turning. If we ever get to the moon to live, taking advantage of every natural resource would seem reasonable to me if it is feasible. Though I could be misunderstanding what you are saying. Are you saying that a difference in force can not be transformed into work, and using the article as proof?

It appears that I edited between post. I believe I have explained in the editing. I read recently that an astronaut in fifty pounds of gear equivalent to moons gravity would weigh fifty pounss, four ounces in the center of a Mascon. I am talking about taking advantage of a natural condition of the moons gravity, and using it to assist in creating electricity. Cool article, but I am not talking about creating gravitational shields, or perpetual motion. I am talking about taking advantage of natural conditions that exist on the moon to assist in creating electricity. If it is not feasible it will not be because I am trying to defy physics by designing a perpetual motion machine. It will be because it is not mechanically, and or structurally feasible. What I am talking about is no different than slingshoting around the moon to get the extra energy needed to get a satellite home to earth. Except I am taking about putting that little bit of energy back into turning a wheel. I just figured that if the mascons have enough force to take a satellite out of orbit there might be some way to take advantage of that force on the moons surface.

I am not talking about perpetual motion.It would need energy to get it started, and keep it going, but it should get a gravitation assist in the Mascon side since things on that side will be heavier. Actually heavier is not the right term. The gravitational force is greater on the mascon side. This might assist in turning the wheel. We would still need to supply energy to turn the wheel, but with the gravitational assist we might use less resources.

Actually I was thinking of a giant ferris wheel strategically placed on the moon where the Mascon would cause one side to be heavier than the other thus the wheel turns. I figure a mechanical genius and a structual genius might be able to figure out how to build it and make it work?

Would it be possible to take advantage of mascons on the moon to generate electricity?

Considering your statements my use of the word invariant with regard to time was a poor choice. I have this desire to say that one observation is more accurate than the other, but it seems that if the one nano second represents time dilation then both observations have to be accurate. Well, reasonably accurate. If one nano second represents difference then all observers have to be in a state of time dilation. Would you agree?

Both of you are explaining what I am thinking so much better than I can. When I use the term invariant in regard to time I mean that the results are reasonably predictable. Your measurements standing along side the road will be different than mine in the car. Now, if we take the measurements again and the only seemingly different variable is how fast the earth is moving we should all get the same measurements as before, because space/time dilation will adjust all the other variables within the system. Your calculation will be one nano second different than mine. In essence how fast the earth is moving isn't a variable to be considered. Time dilation assures that our measurements do not change. This is what I mean by time is invariant. I am not a chart person. I can not draw a chart that shows what is happening, but I suspect that if such a chart were drawn that we should be able to fold it and the resulting pattern would be the same as it was before folding.

Okay, I am not sure where the 180000 seconds comes from, but I understand the implication of the 180000.00000001. As I read the back log of the thread I am not certain that time needs an observer, actually I don't think it does, but we three could hardly know that our relative velocity is zero if at least one of us doesn't make the observation. Time dilation though, seems to be dependent on two observations. The three of us are unable to make that determination simply based on our relative velocity of zero. Which by the way confuses me where you point out that zero and not sixty is the relevant point in the equation. If what you mean is that zero divided by c means no time dilation then I am not as confused as I think I am. Though I see the point of Swansont and JonG making an observation as they stand along side the road their observation is only going to confuse me as I determine how much fuel we need for the return trip.

This is the sense I got from the thought while thinking about it. This would seem to mean that if earth were hurling through space art near C then my speedometer on the car would have no trouble determining 60mph as I drove down the highway. This would seem to mean that time is as invariant as C. If it were not it would seem that time dilation would be impossible predict or observe.

I think I understand what people are saying about time, but I tend to have trouble understanding why they are saying it, sometimes. For instance someone can be in front of me, and someone behind me, but why imply that the statement means that time is different for them based simply on that statement? One may be two minutes in front of me, and one may two minutes behind me, but if the rate of change is the same for each of us then time dilation should be the same for each of us. It would seem that each of us would determine that we each are traveling at the same speed, and there should be no apparent time dilation. If we were to determine that each has a different rate of change at what point do different rates of change become time dilation? Why does neer C speeds cause time dilation while 60mph does not?

Okay, now I am a little confused because some of these replies were not showing up on my devises, well the main devise my phone where I started the thread. Then suddenly they were here. Up until that point I kind of just kept rambling, and it just kept attaching those ramblings to the end of my post. Why shouldn't I? I can understand your point on the difference between a bang and rapid inflation, but what part of not knowing if an event did or did not occur negates the the point of thinking about it? I have read that new discoveries throw some of the inflationary models out. I am fairly certain that until there is more solid evidence toward the new discoveries that those who support those ousted models while be trying to keep them in the running. As it stands I don't care which model wins. What I want to see is, that model tied to all things current to include Time and Relativity. I am curious; can rapid inflation be explained by time fluctuation? I haven't exactly figured out how to put it in words that do not make me sound completely ignorant. Thus your point of distinction between a bang, and rapid inflation. To say that the universe suddenly inflated may be supported by current evidence, but it does not explain why it could, or would happen. Generally, the hangup in any model whether you are talking about the Big Bang, or the Standard Model is that it don't fit, or work until someone thinks of something that makes it fit, and work. One should probably wait a while before they say no point in thinking about this; we don't even know if it actually occurred. One person says gravity is on, then turns off, then turns back on. Another person says time starts with the big bang, period. I prefer to think at the moment, that the event referred to as the Big Bang, or rapid inflation occurs within time. It is kind of necessary, if the event is the result of the accretion of some nearly gravity neutral material that once a specific pressure is reached begins a reaction at the center and works its way outward, and continues outward because the pressure wave creates enough force to continue the reaction throughout the material. The result being rapid inflation, then other reactions. These are not my ideas, I am just trying to think of another creative way to put them together. I know it is not going to be that simple.

You are right we don't know, but the theories exist. The event is speculation not of my making. Your statement itself is theory. There is no specific place we can pick and say time started here. Some try to do this when they talk about the big bang. They use terms like in the beginning. It is an arbitrary point. You need to start somewhere. It signifies an event. Not necessarily the beginning of all. Time, from a relative point of view suggest that certain events can only occur if time is in a certain state. If we are moving very fast, time is slow. If we are moving very slow, time is fast. It applies across the board. I don't want to confuse the thought with semantics, but perhaps,I should have used the word phase, rather than state in regard to time. ? Perhaps, both apply... Okay I have succeeded in confusing myself. ...In a recent thread/post it was said that c is invariant, and that currently the reason why is uncertain. What I am trying to do, not with this thread, but at this moment is suggest a reason why. When we move faster or slower time shifts. From our point of view time is invariant. The clock will not appear to move any slower, or any faster. We use this same clock to measure c. Therefore c is and will always be invariant. Now, we can use two clocks in two different positions and note a time difference, but from each clocks point of view there there is no time difference.

Actually,I am thinking of the big bang as an event. Not not just an explosion;Not just rapid inflation. Chronological processing is already applied to the event.Do we take two views of time? In a sense we already do. How time applies to us at one speed, and how time would apply to us at another speed, but that is actually one view, and should be consistent with the event. If there was a lull then rapid inflation, then a minor lull, then a steady accelerating continuation of inflation. Then the current view of time says that time was moving very fast, slowed down rapidly, sped back up, and is now slowing back down at a steady accelerating rate.

I don't know how to discuss this or even ask questions without falling into speculation, and though there are a lot of threads about time in non speculative parts of the forum I couldn't figure out how to bring this up without feeling like I might be hijacking the thread, so this is probably the best place for the thought. Current views on time are that the faster you go the more time slows down, and that if you are the one going faster you are not even going to notice. Apply this thought to falling into a black hole and time slows. At least this is the way I understand it. Apply this thought to the big bang. What then? It wouldn't seem to make sense that the universe started as a black hole because the bang part of it implies extreme acceleration, so without regard to how fast things were moving before the bang it very suddenly got so much faster. Comparatively speaking this would seem to imply that at the point of bang time started slowing down, and with each second that passed time got slower. Reverse the thought and you get time going very fast near the beginning of the bang, perhaps before the bang. I do realize some people say that time started after the bang though I don't know why they feel that needs to be true. Anyway, it seems to me that a very dense gravitational point would have to be out of the question. I have also read that gravity didn't exist before the bang. Does anyone have a clue as to how fast time can go? In speculating how fast the universe initially expanded how much would time have slowed down? I have other questions, but it is bed time.

I have found this conversation to be confusing. This confusion may show up in my questions. I thought that absolute frame of reference specified an objects location based on arbitrary bearings? Are you saying that c should be regarded as an absolute frame of reference? I do notice that the term universal is used rather than absolute later in the conversation, but the two words are not the same even if a / is drawn between to two words. If the old light and the new light are moving through the same medium, would you expect them to be different? If the term vacuum is necessary to define c then I would assume that where it is stated that they will be found to be moving at the same speed, does not necessarily mean c. I realize that my own ignorance plays a large part in my confusion, but I do have another question. You state in, I believe it was post number 5, something to the effect that c is not relevant. That it only matters that the photons are grouped together. Not your exact words, I know, my short term memory is terrible, but if the photons speed is not c and could possibly vary what exactly is to be considered as absolute?

An SG3

If I tap the thread title in the topics list it takes me to the last page of the thread. After there, I scroll up to the top of the page and there is a repeat of the question in a black bar(the only thing resembling a title on the page). Tapping it does nothing. I normally switch to the full version so I can pick the page I want, but it won't stay put. In the full version each time I change pages.I have to make it readable again. In the mobile version, not being able to select a page makes finding a particular post in the thread tedious. Apparently not all mobile versions are equal. Does the black left arrow mean the post has been moved?

The mobile version always goes to the last page of a thread. Is there any way to get to the first page without having to repeatedly hit the previous button?