Mike Smith Cosmos

.Maybe one day . In the distant future ! . . Ahh. Yes, but one of my ' blue sky ' ideas will 'come up trumps ' , one of these days ! There is a place for me ! .. Thanks Janus , perhaps maths has a place , after all! Humm! . Could they not just pop out of the tube at low earth orbit height, say 500 miles up , turn left 90 degrees to a horizontal direction and accelerate up from 0.5 kilometers per second to 8 kilometers per second , and sail off into the sunset ? I suppose that could be a bit tricky ! ---------- ------------ Humm! Yes! Well I guess , " ,it's back to the drawing board " for me , as they say ! . " I knew there was a snag somewhere ! " . . Has anybody got a ' slide rule , I can borrow ' ? Mike

.. Yes I figure out its possible, but not observed as everyday happening, because either the tube or the earths surface would need to be travelling at a circumferential speed of approx .17,700 mph . Which is not an easy , everyday occurrence . But in theory it is possible and with a bit of 'gigery pokery ' it could be arranged practically! Currently ,this is the sort of trajectory NASA uses to launch satellites. Except they use a, loose rocket ,rather than a vast tube ! Mike

. Yes, but if the tube extended into the sky , above the surface of the earth , the metal ball would continue to rise up the tube " as if by a fictitious centrifugal force ( or whatever else you want to call it ) ""Looking like"" it was being, pushing in a skyward mode " , is that not so ? ( as far as looking at, in , up and around the tube ) the ball in the tube would 'look like ' an ascending elevator .

It is interesting , last night an horizon program BBC 4 , was interviewing major , popular scientists, One of which was Michael Kaku . As well as Mark Tegmark , etc they were discussing singularities , black holes , and the beginning of the Universe. All of which little if nothing is known about , apart from their effect. Gravity was an issue , as Einstein was said to be the first to mention black holes from his General Theory of Gravity / relativity. Michael Kaku was saying about gravity being distortions in space. "Remember " Kaku said " GRAVITY is NOT PULLING DOWN on a mass , towards the Earth, like on a string . But SPACE IS PUSHING DOWN! towards the centre of the earth . If this is the case then the reactive ( equal and opposite force ) is pushing up on the mass surely ? Mike

But it would still rise up the tube though, whether it was tangential to radius or not, surely ! . ( which I sort of understand . ) but I think it is sort of oscillating into and out of 90 degrees as it ( is tangential, in orbit, is climbing non tangential, tangential, in orbit , non tangential , climbing . Etc ) though I must say not sure ? Mike

Tar , I know your model is the plastercine and the pick sticks with blobs . But am I to understand, with your encouraged diagrams from Janus . That :- If one sets up a ROTATIONAL ACCELERATING FRAME, rotating about a central point , where at a radius of approx 6100 Kms with a rotational speed at that 6100 km orbit of 17,700 mph . That , working on a (reflected , reactional ,fictitious ? ) value of centrifugal force , to gravity. In other words , centrifugal force , be it apparent, fictitious , or not that :- the device , if it were in a tube, reaching from the centre of the earth , all the way to 100, Kms above the Earths surface , namely 6100 Kms. That The mass would rise up the tube , from the centre of the Earth to orbital height ? ( 6100 Kms from earth centre. ) Be it that it is not up a straight up a radius ( as one normally visualises a radius ) . But rather a drawn out radius, as per Janus's diagram? This must only be an earth size version ,of what goes on in a medical, chemical , test tube centrifugal separator( filter) . I am pretty certain a tube model with a steel ball starting at the centre , rotating , would see the steel ball , rising up the tube . Mike

Higgs . Quote from Wikipedia :- Quote " Higgs mechanism In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is essential to explain the generation mechanism of the property "mass" for gauge bosons. In the Standard Model, the three weak bosons gain mass through the Higgs mechanism by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space. " Unquote -------------------------------------------- Link :- http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field Thus any mass that travels or is stationary , or goes along a straight line , must relate to the Higgs Field . Mike

. I do not get it .? How can you discover new speculative discoveries , if you can only repeat , established first semester physics . And are not allowed to Speculate around the subject ? Surely the whole idea of this ' speculation forum ' was " to have a go ! " " put your pet theory/ speculation up " " let your fellows cross examine you , on your theory " WHAT CHANGED ? Mike

Linear motion . Is motion in a strait line where the vectors ( which normally would infer direction sensitivity ) are not used , other than specifying the initial direction of the straight line . See Wikipedia link :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_motion So start something off on the rectilinear straight line and it will keep going . We are now ready to add a force at right angles so as to create a curve and circle . Mike

. Not sure I fully understand what you mean about ignoring earth and suns gravity . I would have thought they are both a fairly significant influence on straight line motion ? Back to root basics : space is not empty , it's full of something , say the Higgs Field . Is that not so ? A mass moving along in a straight line , must be interacting with the Higgs field with the Higgs bosons ( not that I understand how ? ) and presumably there is a preferred direction on going through this field .. ( like grass bending in front of you ) ...Which is Straight... I presume . Perhaps the more momentum a mass has the more it bends the 'hairs ' of the Higgs field down like grass , which spring up behind the mass when it has passed by! Sending the mass on its way ? Straight ? I mean things like a balloon , ( little momentum ) if you moved it forward in a straight line would just ,pretty well stop , when you stopped moving it , in a line . Straight? And if you never started moving it , it would just sit there , on the hairs of the Higgs Field ( so to speak ) ? Unmoving ? Mike Ps I guess your comment about ignoring, sun and moon , are because we are in some form of Frame of reference . Is that what you mean?

. To me the build up of straight line inertia is the bedrock. . What I am not sure is what it is relative to when working out inertia say in free space . . Nothing else around . Maybe it is traveling very fast , by being shot out of a supernova aeons ago, long lost , nothing else around . Is velocity (v) for the (mv momentum ) given by this long forgotten source ? Or is it based on whatever velocity has accumulated locally? Mike

..Yes but the Big Bang had to come from :- Somewhere ! Something ! SomeBigone! Sometime! The jury is still out , as to the first second, or within the first second ? Quite what went on , at the earliest moment? If the Somewhere ! Something ! SomeBigone! Sometime? Linked minus infinity to plus infinity somehow in a giant or minuscule circle. Maybe it could go off with a thumping great ginormous mighty Big Bang . , including 'pi ' in the process. Maybe, maybe not ? Mike My only evidence for this is :- When we first sat at our home computers. They were disc operational using .MsDOS And BASIC as a programming language. We played around with simple instructions , like.10 print (x,y ) , 20 GOTO. 30 LET X=X+1, LET Y=Y+1, GOTO 10 . RUN XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The screen went. Berserk ! And rolled and rolled forever ! Mike

O.k. Flat space time --------------------------------------------------- O.k. But to plus infinity in one direction . Minus infinity in another direction . Then if possible ! Please ! The " opposite infinite ends of the straight lines curled over" , so they meet in a very large circle . And calculate pi. please ? --------------------------------------------- If not . How much of the above ? Is permissible ? Mike STRAIGHT LINE . Accumulation via Energy Momentum via the Mass And Velocity Having gained an original motion , By Newton laws of motion , this Mass , will continue forever, unless acted on by a Force. The action we require is an orthogonal (90 degree ) force to produce a circle . Somewhere along the straight line . The issue here is that at this moment , the mass , with its inertia ,is quite happy going on forever , without any further input of energy , ( if it is in a straight line ) . If however we wish to create a circle , we need to input ADDITIONAL energy , via a force In such an orthogonal direction so as to produce a circle . Namely by changing the direction of the momentum or Inertia . The mass does not like this as ( by newtons laws ) it wants to continue in a straight line . This is a critical junction .... Making some mass move in a direction that is contrary to momentum and inertia.? So there appears to be a battle of wills , forces , going on at this junction . Mike

Some of these descriptions of ' straight lines ' in space sound , quite correctly very Mathematical . I can do the imagining ! The idea that one could imagine a point on ones right hand side being plus infinity and growing . Similarly a point on ones left hand side being minus infinity and growing . Also one could posit what form of structure would be made if one was able to Curl over ( PLUS INFINITY to MINUS INFINITY) while still growing . One could then imagine the Ginormous circle continuing to grow . A value of Pi could be described in mathematical terms .? Others more mathematically qualified than I , may be able to shed more light on ' straightness ' . Possibly also a related mathematical description of the ultimate in straight lines. Mike

Well , one could ask , what is the type of straight line that Isaac Newton supposed in his laws of motion , and where were the masses going to end up , if they continued their journey , for ever? Mike

It appears we live in a Universe that ' Likes' these two states. Does this indicate some fundamental nature of the Universe? P.s. If we were to take a straight line going from PLUS INFINITY to MINUS INFINITY. And we were of sufficient dexterity or might so as to CURL either end so as to join .. CURL. ( PLUS INFINITY to MINUS INFINITY ) Would it make the most Ginormous Circle , the universe has ever, experienced.? Would this liberate the ultimate value of Pi ? also What happens if the reverse of this process is attempted ? Mike

If not a force radially out , a pull from an effectively flying object. Flying because it is trying to go on its way , linearly due to inertia, ( newtons laws) , it's preferred direction . This would be tangentially ( only if there was zero restraining centripetal force , but being pulled up to a higher orbit if there was some centripetal force ( eg gravity or a spring , or a gripping force by a person ) . Having reached the higher orbit, or circular trajectory , This will surely either stabilise, or continue a similar process , if an angular speed is increased , again repeating the process described in the previous sentence . This is what I was attempting to show in my rotating tubes diagram . The centripetal force here can be anything ( eg gravity or a spring , or a gripping force by a person ) . Note here, that at no time does the ascending object reach a conventional tangential straight line grazing a circle . See following model :- First ( near centre ). Second ( crossing border, whatever that is ) . Third (way , away , leaving the locality) ....... There is a danger here that we are arguing about semantics ( word ways of describing something ) rather than whether there is some " Whatever ? , Mechanism " , which can and does ( pull, push , whatever a mass upward into increasing hight / distant orbit!) which is the brief of the original question OP From what has been discussed mostly here, it is the INERTIA which appears to be responsible for the ' Lift '.? Is that not so? Mike

TAR . THANKS! For the model demo! Great , you have demonstrated it . brilliant , you are my friend for life ! Probably a dubious accolade ! http://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_05_2015/post-15509-0-26827800-1430955133.jpg Wow! You guys have been busy while I have been asleep. . I like it! . like it a lot ! EUREKA , .....BINGO! .... It is perfectly clear now this WHOLE THING is about the CONVERSION of . . . LINEAR MOTION . TO . CIRCULAR MOTION and Visa Versa ( other way round) CIRCULAR MOTION. . TO. . LINEAR MOTION . See Diagram :- Mike Ps . Probably to be separate thread :- ...{{{{ --------- The Conversion of Linear Inertia To. Angular momentum . ---------}}}}}}}} Robotitybob. Are you going to do it or am I to do it ? It was suggested by Swansont . That it would make a good or mandatory , separate thread ? . Mike Hey . Ho ! Tum-- Tiddly -- Tum ..! Today's the day ' we break the Bank '. at Monty Carlo.... Tum-- Tiddly -- Tum ..! Or did I just Reinvent the Wheel ? ... Mike Tum-- Tiddly -- Tum ..! . . Tum-- Tiddly -- Tum ..! . . Today's the day ' we break the Bank ' at Monty Caaarlloo.... Tum-- Tiddly -- Tum ..!

I think I can see what is happening here. A mass is travelling in a straight line having linear inertia . By an application of the appropriate orthogonal ( 90 degrees to ) force on the mass. This force can be made to be an inward facing force ( centripetal ) . The mass then moves in such a way as to follow a circle . The linear inertia is converted to an angular momentum. This would be some form of balanced , stable state at a set radius . If the mass is held by a stiff but flexible radius. Then if angular velocity is increased the mass will ( by an increase in centrifugal force travel up to a higher radius , until a new orbit is Achieved , whereby the system is again balanced , but at an extended new radius. Higher . Again with further input , and increase of orbital velocity , the mass would move outward ( Centrifugally ) under the influence of increased angular momentum. If the radius was then cut the mass would move from the circle edge , tangentially. It would seem that centripetal force pushes inwards and changes linear inertia ( straight line ) into a circle of exact size to reflect the linear inertia magnitude. It would seem the centrifugal forces are generated by increased circumferential speed. This in turn causes the mass to be under pressure to rise to a higher value of circular radius. With appropriately adjusted values of centripetal force , and in turn angular momentum. Mike

Yes, I agree with that , it is the straight line inertia which indirectly gives this mass an outward going trajectory ( or pull from the centre, if it is being restrained in any way, say by a spring ) if you look at it in the context of the circle it was being restrained to travel . Mike

Yes ,I can concede that the materials are a significant contributor to this phenomenon, but I also think the idea of 'rolling' under the influence of a very precision field ( namely Gravity ) is also a major factor in this observation. One side pulling down by gravity, the other side fighting against gravity as it is pulled up. However I have noticed the oscillation is NOT significantly changed by the fulcrum change . Which it would be , if it were totally see- saw in its derivation! ? Perhaps a bouncy see-saw( Bee-Baw). Thus the dominant phenomenon IS ..ROLLING, AS THE EULER's disc is , ( spolling ) ( spin and rolling ) and again the surface materials are a key issue. So my 'loose' proposition so far is that :- " Rolling across a bouncy ' exposed ' atomic lattice in a precision gravitational field , is an efficient way to avoid frictional resistance to movement " . Is this what oil does as a lubricant? except it does not allow the gravity roll to occur because of the viscosity of the oil ? How about very , very thin oil ? Micro carbon bucket balls ? Graphine ? Mike

Yes . That was clearly a typing error .. I meant to say .. Mike Smith Cosmos, on 05 May 2015 - 10:11 PM, said: Also where a force is inward , toward the Centre. ... ( centripetal ) ....And another force acting in the opposite direction is not equal (magnitude wise) , whereby the inward force is either reduced or indeed overcome . This gives rise to an outward circulating force. The title of which seems elusive ? ................. . ........... dare I say it centrifugal in some wise .........?

Yes. But surely there are conditions where ( a) there is a transition time when total restrained moves smoothly across through partial restrain to unrestrained . Where the circulating mass has different trajectories other than circular or tangential . Also where a force is inward , toward the Centre ( centrifugal ) And another force acting in the opposite direction is not equal (magnitude wise) , whereby the inward force is either reduced or indeed overcome . This gives rise to an outward circulating force. The title of which seems elusive ? ................. . ........... dare I say it centrifugal in some wise .........? Mike

.. I appreciate you referring to Serendipity . Many scientists may be scared off by my use of the word as ' fairy Tales' and the like . But as Wikipedia highlights it is NOT to be neglected .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~.~. Quote from Wikipedia " The serendipitous can play an important role in the search for truth, but because of traditional scientific behavior and scientific thinking based on logic and predictability is often ignored in the scientific literature. Successful researchers can observe the results with a careful attention in the mood to analyze a phenomenon under the most diverse and different perspectives. Question themselves on assumptions that do not fit with the empirical observations. Realizing that serendipitous events can generate important research ideas, these researchers recognize and appreciate the unexpected, encouraging their assistants to observe and discuss unexpected events. Serendipity can be obtained in groups in that the "critical mass" of multidisciplinary scientists working together in an environment that fosters communication, establishing the idea that the work and the interest of a researcher can be shared with others who may find a new application for a new knowledge. Serendipity in science and technologyEdit Main article: . ROLE OF CHANCE IN SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Various thinkers discuss the role that luck can play in science. One aspect of Walpole's original definition of serendipity, often missed in modern discussions of the word, is the need for an individual to be "SAGACIOUS " *. enough to link together apparently innocuous facts in order to come to a valuable conclusion. Indeed, the scientific method, and the scientists themselves, can be prepared in many other ways to harness luck and make discoveries. Serendipity and innovationEdit Serendipity is typically used incorrectly as a synonym for opportunity, coincidence, luck or providence, a concept that prejudices the appreciation of the term in relation to its contribution to the innovation process. It is often a misunderstood quality for discovery and innovation. It may become a powerful tool in the contribution of innovative insights that lead to the attainment of entrepreneurial visions. Understanding the processes of their development and uses allows managers, innovators and researchers as they can use "serendipity" as an important contribution to the competitive success of a given company." Unquote . .. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So if you are asking me " why are you looking for things , as this is ordinary ...whatever?" I am saying I have a scent for something that seems , NOT ordinary . So I am ' positing ' that gravity fields are particularly precise, level , stable , reliable , dependable , consistent , like a brick wall , etc ' if one tries to bounce a ball against a sack of potatoes ' it is a disaster . If you try to bounce a ball on perfectly level concrete , you have a precise bounce. I am also ' positing ' that china on granite in a ' ROLLING ' condition is demonstrating ' some form ' of atomic interfacing which is efficient, reliable , consistent, accurate , Energy Conserving , and other goodies. Mike * sagacious :- (adjective) . Mentally penetrating, gifted with discernment, having practical wisdom, acute-minded, shrewd, ( of saying,plan etc) showing sargacity ( of animal) exceptionally intelligent, seeming to reason or deliberate.

Yes, I think you may be right! I also think the medium of the Gravitational field , ( the phenomenon would not occur in Zero Gravity ) has its part to play . What I am saying also is that the characteristic of this field ( which is invisible ) as you do not see this field directly . ( it is very very precise) This is demonstrated when you see a speeded up film of boats coming in and out of harbour . They show up as ' dead ' flat . Unlike when you see them live . Mike