Mike Smith Cosmos

. I hope that I am not about to be " Hoisted by one's own petard " , but I felt that stumbling ,currently , on this observed phenomenon . That I would possibly be guilty of ignoring an observation that could possibly be a glimpse into one of natures inner operations. Normally we are out here forcing things to work with minimal friction , by good metalwork machining processes , and super lubricants. Yet when under a microscope the touching surfaces look like the Rocky Mountain range. Yet here we are not scraping surface on surface but merely Rolling , namely touching surface to surface face on with no surface to surface movement. Also the materials , at first pass look very much like one immovable surface touching another immovable surface. Whether we are 'bouncing at an atomic level' , I do not know but it looks a bit like it to me. And because of the absolute ' still pond ' of a level field of gravity BINGO . We have ourselves a party ! Or am I ' over egging the cake ' It's just that I can not put a plate down nowadays on the granite work top without the rocking ,clicking sound . Both Prof Cox and Paul Nurse are encouraging us to look out for Serendipity. I am ' putting my hand up ' Sir , I think I may have found one ! ( Bouncing at an Atomic level , by Rolling ) Mike Demo of plate rolling in Exeter

Yes, well, I am not sure either ! It just seems, that compared with everything else in nature or the world for that matter, that vibrates , or flaps, or wobbles , it seems far more prolonged. ( abnormally , goes on a bit long ) . Not like a flapping leaf , blown by the wind , or a babbling brook, driven by falling water. Here , something with the slightest accidental placement ,tap, nudge ,in the case of the plates, goes into a prolonged oscillation. All this says to me is, there is either an extraordinary balance always having been accidentally happened on , or an inherent preponderance to vibration or oscillation. My surmise, like yours, is that there is no extra restorative force. It is completely perpetuated by Gravity. So I ask myself , what is it about gravity that prompts this oscillation? I am thinking it " may ! " be to do with some absolute precision and regularity in the field, and this particular interaction with that field ? With many natural interactions at the human scale, usually they are less precise, noise, variation, interference, etc this seems different. Not magic! just some happening on a very precise, balanced, repeatable setting . I just wonder what is it about this plate, china, marble work surface , Gravity field , interaction , that makes it the way it is ? . Mike

Ref picture to my previous post :- ...# 120 In this case the forces are not equal. Say men at 50 newtons per person : ladies at 25 newtons per person . The men are dragged shamefully towards the centre. The women having a larger total combined force , are working their way to the edge of the table, screaming with victorious joy. The rotation is assisting their pull by centrifugal force. Odd ones are clinging on the end of the rope , like skaters forming themselves in a rotating chain on an ice skating rink. While still holding on , they will rotate in a larger circle than the platform . They cling on in a flying mode, as if the centrifugal force is holding them in a flying mode. ONLY when the rope breaks do the frail ladies ' en mass ' fly off tangentially to the point at break. Is this a correct interpretation of this particular rotating , accelerating frame of reference ??? Mike Ps the difference in force ( men to ladies ) results in a modest acceleration of the overall tug-of-war toward the centre. ( the team forces are NOT equal. ) so in this case the centripetal force does not equal the centrifugal force .the centrifugal force is greater , hence end ladies flying off the rotating platform , I think ( is that correct ) ?

The rotational accelerating frame . Surely if you set up a large rotating platform . And you had ten lusty men pulling on a rope passing through the centre. On the opposite side pulling against these ten lusty men are 20 frail ,yet enthusiastic girls / women , pulling against the men. ( in a rotational tug-of-war ) , Then there would probably be a slight yet definite mismatch , where the force pull from the men was slightly less than the 20 enthusiastic girls/women . Here the women would be accelerating gently toward the outside of the rotating platform . The men would be , being accelerated gradually , drawn by the superior force towards the centre. Nobody would fall off the platform at a tangent . Quite what the end result would be , is anybodies guess. Possibly a skirmish of some sort ! Mike

There appears to be a tug of war of forces going on in the accelerating frame . Centripetal down ( in towards centre ) in this snap shot . And Centrifugal force up ( away from centre ) . It seems a net force , which can be zero ( when in balance then NO radial movement in or out ) , alternatively a residual force thus acceleration toward the centre centripetal or a residual away from the centre centrifugal. Again , Is this whole analysis Right or Wrong or 1/2 right 1/2 wrong? Mike

Having read many of the links provided by the experts and moderators on this science forum , concerning the issues of straight line motion and accelerated motion , as well as dredging up what relevant instruction I received in University , I have tried to pull together what I have read. And as such , if we were to acquiesce , and say o.k. We have created an accelerating frame which is circulating , by whatever means about a centre. Speed and vector velocity are very relevant , as is the issue of acceleration . I think? Say gravity in the case of the Earth, or .... a hand ,in the case of a rotating bucket , on the end of a rope , with water in the bucket ,.... or a motor bike , going round a corner that ends up as a circle , say 1/4 mile in radius . I hope ? If we look at the forces in operation about a radius rotating about a centre. Then we have a centripetal force acting on the mass so as to produce a vector trajectory down the radius, aimed at the centre. Left un impeded the mass would accelerate toward the centre, down the radius , and ultimately arrive at the centre. I would say ? However, we find that the developed ' centrifugal force ' causing an opposite force thus acceleration, outward from the centre.( depending on the value of the centrifugal force , which itself depends on angular velocity , will dictate the resultant acceleration.) { namely excess in , moving motion toward centre! excess out , moving toward outer . Balanced forces settle at a radial distance } this whole process like a tug of war . The net result of these two forces in the accelerating , rotating frame can be zero . So the mass neither accelerates away from the centre getting further away from the centre or accelerating towards the centre , and thus getting nearer the centre. I think ? We created this rotating frame in the first place , by taking straight line momentum/ inertia and by an applied inward force ( centripetal force ) down a potential radius , with sufficient energy , converted the straight line momentum/ inertia ( inertial frame ) into a rotating accelerating frame , creating , angular momentum , with its accelerating frame . The whole transformation holds true for both symmetry and conservation of energy , and conservation of momentum . I think symmetrical as the same holds true through all 360 degrees of movement ? Mike Appendum It has to be said , that if the radius link is cut or broken or lost then the rotating frame stops , is lost , and the mass will immediately revert to an inertial frame , whereby the mass or satellite ( gravity cut somehow ) the mass will fly off along a straight line ( or tangent at the point of cutting gravity. Or the bucket, complete with water will fly off down the tangent at cutting the rope. Or the motor bike will vier off the road , over the hedge , into the field along a straight line ,running from the point of separation . I would guess? I guess there must sometimes/ mostly be a mismatch between energies in orbit and energies in straight line trajectories. Hence the need for quantised energies with atomic interactions . I think ? In all three cases momentum, energy, and inertia will be conserved . Certainly ! I am not sure about symmetry . Probably symmetry will be broken? Mike .

The moment of inertia at any one point , or all points ,on or around the circle or the curve .. Is symmetrical , thus the energy and the momentum is conserved. This momentum before existed in a straight line. It was converted to a circle , the previous linear momentum was transferred both ( momentum and energy ) were conserved so symmetry was present . .. Ouch ! Mike Ps there must be easier ways than wading through , knee deep in " 3 d rotational Tensors " Surly I can throw a bucket of water on the end of a rope either in a circle over my head or around horizontally . I can see and feel the force ? Mike

I am sorry , I am not really sure , what you are saying to me? Mike

.. I appreciate the ' Inertia ' bit as Inertia is the key to it all , but is this not the point that when we try to tamper with the inertia , in the straight linear direction , taking it into a curve , we take the inertia with us so to speak , into a rotational or angular momentum , so that everything is conserved. But we get this reaction appearing as ' Centrifugal ..acceleration ..force ' Is this not so ? Mike

O.k. Although , somebody has defined it as a 'Fictitious Force', there is still, as far as I can make out a force (centrifugal force ) wheather it exists as an 'accelerating inertial frame ' , or whatever . It is ' there 'you can feel it , and it does some useful stuff in keeping satellites in orbit , exciting skaters on the end of a skating chain, and I do think it could be used more , if we could get rid of the ' fictitious ' bit. After all surely the reasoning by Einstein in one of his major ideas was that by the law of equivalence " linear (gravity and accelerating in a lift )and curved (centrifugal acceleration ) " , all , feel the same so by the law of equivalence are the same ! Or have I got hold of the ' wrong end of the stick ' again ? That is " my accelerating inertial frame , upside - down bucket of water " stick ? Mike

.. This is what I have been 'bleating on about ' for the last two years , but been told ' Centrifugal Force , it does not exist ' , or at least that is what I thought people were saying to me. Maybe they were not , and I just did not understand what people were saying to me! Mike

. .Plates that rock back and forth, and similar materials ( ridged , low loss , stiff, vibrational, ..etc) , "seem to be coming out of the woodwork " at me. I think that is because my mind is ' ticking along' on the subject , so I tend to notice it more. ( perhaps) . ( or the universe is trying desperately to say something , like ' find me ' . ) But not too many scientists like that slant. ( although some do) . * see ps. Plates , like EULER's disc , are on a ' Roll ' , no doubt about it. The nature of ' The Gravity Field ' existing in the region of the plate , must be -- ' very very stable, linear, equal, precise, '-- { I have noticed this in other areas of observation a) Water is very sensitive to the slightest difference in height, and runs or flows with the most minute ,differential. b) an item like a round pencil or any other mobile object, will run down a surface that is imperceptible in its ' level-ness' . Does this precision in gravity, coupled with the atomic/ molecular structure of the china plate and marble work top uncover the very balanced ' nature ' of both gravity and the atomic structure of both China and Marble ? Mike * PS. see Prof Cox recent Horizon program - Blue Sky Research ( Serendipity ) Also . Paul Nurse - New Research Institute - London currently being Finalised .

Well apparently the temperature at the core is approx 6000 C or K ( don't suppose the few degrees difference, makes a difference) , this 6000 degrees , being similar to surface of the sun. Apparently under the sort of pressures experienced , at the Earth centre then these experts (suggest in speculative mode ) , that solidification ( crystallisation, freezing ) , is possible , and is happening . The detection mechanism being the analysis of the relavent ' S' wave , or 'P' wave , whether trying to see solid or liquid form. Perhaps I have understood it wrong , they appear to be only very new into the research , like right now . ( see above quoted interview . Melvin Bragg with experts) :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05s3gyv#auto ps . In case the program is too long , it's near the end Mike

There is talk of slow rotational movement of earths core ! Is this a clock slowly ticking over millions of years . So that magnetic (North Pole - South Pole ), reversal is controlled from within , rather than without? Possibly caused by crystallisation of molten iron to solid iron? Modern research and speculation is considering the dual nature of the core as it crystallises and produces two very long rotational time periods , may trigger the reversal mechanism . Or be the clock underlying the mechanism. Ref :- link http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05s3gyv#auto Mike

Yes .ok. We are in an inertial system , travelling somewhere at approx 1000 mph . Why do I not experience the same symptoms I feel on a motor bike ? In other words , I must be pointing in some direction or other . Why do I not feel like mainly going in that direction , rather than all the other 359 degrees of compass directions ? Also why do I not feel that lightness I feel on the motor bike , like I was nearly flying ? And why do I not feel , it is not going to be easy ,to be able to start a turn , left or right , as I do on the motor bike when I am going comparatively fast at 70 mph? Yet now I am going 1000 mph ? Mike

So . Is it not possible ? that " Quantum Phenomenon" exist in another Dimension? And is only ? where that other dimension , shares an aspect of the Classical 3 dimensions of x,y,z, space ? , and the 4 th of time possibly ? . Share a common interest ( the Atom ) , that we become aware of the quantum world and it's queerness in its own dimension?

The results , observation , of the straight line (test 1 ).As stated above , when stationary ( a ) Stationary. The bike is heavy , and anything other than straight upwards is hard to keep balanced. Also very difficult to hold it upright if I lean a little. ( quite a heavy bike ) ( b) At any speed , slow, medium or fast. Here the inertia ,phenomenon kicks in . The bike definitely and sensed in/ by me the driver , wants to go straight . If I attempt to lower the bike from its up right condition , as when I am stationary , it does not want to lean over. The faster I go , the harder it gets to lean over. In fact at high speed it feels like all it wants to do is ' FLY' . In other words , it's as if I could raise the wheels like a plane does on take off , it would fly. (Above the ground). This is no doubt, why motor cyclists get such a bus in driving a motor bike fast , up the motorway ( to car motorists disgust ) . It gives you the motorcyclist a real buzz, as if you are somehow safe at speed. Of course this is not true , but nonetheless less , that is the feeling . ( children gets a similar experience , when they first learn to ride a bike . And often fall off , and graze their knees ) we all remember that, I still have the scars) What I don't understand , is why we do not feel this while stationary , and can't even balance , because after all , we are travelling at approximately 1000 mph on the earths surface , as it spins ( once every 24 hours) . We must carry that inertia , why do we not have the same feeling I get when on the motor bike at say 70mph now possibly 1070 mph if same direction of spin of earth? Is the inertia only relevant to the nearby Earth or is it absolute? If so where is the absolute ? If not where is the Reference? The ground, the gravitational field just nearby ? Observations ( 2 & 3 ) traveling on the motorcycle in a curve around part of a circular motion circle .(TO FOLLOW ) Mike

Here is a link to BBC and private spectacular pictures of the very recent Volcano in Chile . 23rd April 2015 Link :- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-32425370 . The pictures of the electrical discharges from and within the dust cloud are ' awesome ' It is also worth following the internal link , within the article , to another recent eruption in Chile . This mountain chain in South America. And the others, in Indonesia to quote " are the most active , powerful" in the entire Globe ! Mike

I am out on the road doing real live experimental science on my 250cc Madison Italian motorbike . I am going in straight lines. ( I can report first hand on the observation of Inertia . At slow and fast speed , and no speed ) I am going around circular paths ( I can report on leaning , either the bike only or the bike and me. . The feelings are distinctly different ) Report later : - Three observations. 1) Starting from being still. Stationary. The bike is heavy , and anything other than straight upwards is hard to keep balanced. Also very difficult to hold it upright if I lean a little. At any speed , slow, medium or fast. Mike

O.k. Thanks ACME. It really is back to the drawing board . Are there tables that show the rate of deposition of sediment and thicknesses , for each of the geological periods? The Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous , the Permian, the Triassic , the Jurasic, the Cretaceous , the quartinary , the tersary ? ( hope I have not missed any period or miss spelled? Mike

Yes , I thought it was radically different, more like tree rings , working on an annual basis . Thanks ! It is very interesting all the same what ACME is explaining . Going back to the 'normal ' sedimentary rock , if anything is normal . How does it work? That a 1 cm stone is found buried 'alive' in such a ' civilisation life span of time ' deposit . Did it take a whole ' civilisation life time span' to cover over a 1 cm stone ? It does not seem to make sense? Or have I got something fundamentally wrong? Quite probable ! If so what is it I am getting wrong? I need to fix this , as I am supposed to be giving a presentation to the local Geology Group of the U3A later this year . I have three months to get it right! For instance, do stones always come down in flash floods in an afternoon , then the other sediment blown in by wind , over 100's or 1000's of years ? Mike

Good! So I was not a mile apart my 1 million years a meter , your 1/2 million miles a meter . You notice I am rounding up numbers , ( the only way I will ever remember them ) . So if I think in terms of looking at a meter of cliff , it could be ( allowing for all the uncertainties mentioned above , and I am still getting my head around what ACME is saying with his post above ) . A million years a meter . ( but more likely half of that , 1/2 million a meter ) . That then brings me to something I noticed the other day, and with ACME's picture. The inset stones? In the layers! If a meter is half a million years (500,000 years ) , then 10 cm is going is going to be (50,000 years ) , then 1 cm is going to be ( 5000 years ) , which is like human civilisation ( Egyptians to today ) . So if I see an inbuilt stone in the layers , say a small 1 cm stone , it must have been sitting there for the same length of time ( a human civilisation length time 5000 years ) . And if it is a 10 cm stone , that's quite big , it must have been sitting there , layer by layer for 50,000 years . That seems incredible ? I need to go back and examine ACME,s year by year lake and the stones on the ice . Mike

..Yes , but up to now it was an observation of what happened , accepting its ' queer ness '. The work and explanation from the Imperial college ,In the form of research by Dr. Terry Rudolph is an explanation of WHY , it is like it is . It's another environment , all it's own , it's own domain . It has contact surely by sharing a particle ( the electron ) , not because it is part of the classical environment , with a bit of awkward behaviour. It is in its own environment . It's behaviour is Normal and rules as king ! Or have I misunderstood what Dr. Terry Rudolph is saying? A metaphor or analogy would surely be ' as if like a lodger in a family house.' The lodger is there to pay the family bill, by providing an income for the family. BUT the lodger is ' by no means ' family and never could be. So the electron is the lodger ( quantum ), with its different distinctive quantum behaviour. However because it has charge , ( a common requirement) it is needed as a lodger, to pay the rent , and make atoms what they are. Is that not what Dr. Terry Rudolph is saying ? Mike

Wow! That is fascinating . Just before ( long time really in our terms ) , the greatest Permian mass extinction event . Mike

Comments on the research being done at Imperial college re quantum v classical physics . It would seem his research has led to the idea that we see things that require time and place . A précis of what he said was :- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ classical ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You are over there and you are eating a banana . We are over here at this position or place sitting down , you are over there , eating a banana. Oh wait a moment , now you have stopped , now you are resting from your ordeal. Position, place and time, change of time , are all tied up in who we are , what we are , what we are doing from one moment to the next , and where exactly we are doing it . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ conclusion what we see and what we interact with is all about PLACE & TIME ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And more to the point the mathematics and computers are all maths , place and time , orientated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ with QUANTUM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Contrary to this , the particular area of quantum behaviour that he and his team are investigating have observed that the electrons or whatever particle or entity that they are specifically trying to observe , when left undisturbed are NOT PLACE & TIME orientated. Only when observed do they change their state and become PLACE & TIME orientated. They have another mode where they are everywhere, as regards time I think it is similar , not sure ? No time , simultaneous. ~~~~~~~ conclusion : we will never understand quantum using classical computing , current computers ,only quantum computers ~~~~~~ Interesting stuff Mike