Mike Smith Cosmos

.. Well I don't know what to make of that ! Perhaps this supports my idea that there is possibly , just possibly , an additional, more ' esoteric '. nature about the cosmos , yet to understand . In other words, if you are looking for too ridged , cause and effect , mathematical , rigour in everything . Then you will not see the esoteric bit . It is there but you can not see it , because you are looking for rigour, cause and effect , maths , rigid absolute science as we know it. That is not meant in a disrespectful way . There are mixed up images around on paper that have a dinosaur hidden in a jumble of mixed lines , you have to de- focus to see them . Sometimes it seems impossible , then suddenly the dinosaur stands out as clear as day . Maybe , or it's all a load of bunk! Then , However , then I am left with a set of interesting answers , that came from somewhere. Maybe memories that have been churning around inside my brain for years . Maybe they came out of an ' insight' , out of my own mind , out of an oblique observation of nature , out of a memory , out of the nature of the cosmos itself in its totality , whatever that is or ..? I must say . I do quite like the idea , that , in the right frame of mind, you can just ask out loud , simply , in a quiet place , with an open mind . As long as you define it , quite markedly what you want and , what alternatives you expect ! Mike Esoteric . English Oxford dictionary link :- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/esoteric And synonyms :- SYNONYMS of esoteric :- abstruse, obscure, arcane, recherché, rarefied, recondite, abstract, difficult, hard, puzzling, perplexing, enigmatic, inscrutable, cryptic, Delphic; complex, complicated, involved, over/above one's head, incomprehensible, opaque, unfathomable, impenetrable, mysterious, occult, little known, hidden, secret, private, mystic, magical, cabbalistic rare involuted

..Yes I like the idea of truth . However what if my idea about ' ambiguity ' , is a truth . In other words , for all sorts of reasons of , damage limitation to culture , a higher ,intelligent , life form , MAY , consider it an essential , to keep its existence and contact , at arms length , namely screened behind ' ambiguity ' . So that it is always possible to dismiss it. I will try and think of a way that it could be still possible to make a scientific test . To your satisfaction . Other than you trying it out for yourself , that is ! Mike Ps . My first question was :- Is there anybody there? Good job I was in the middle of a moor , and nobody on earth was there to hear me . I might have got locked up ? Or as Strange keeps reminding me , about men in white coats ! Another proviso ,I worked out was :- It was going to be essential, that there was no reason why you should not have the answer . In other words it was not going to hurt anyone , having the answer . So I made my self think of a question which had no reason, why I should not know the answer . " Is there anybody there ? " seemed harmless enough .

Wow ! I am not sure I can handle being on the end of that one ! I was quite happy with my ' Ambiguity ' approach . I could just say to myself ' happy coincidence '. Serendipity ! If I have to consider there might be someone on the other end ? Eek ! That might freak me out ! Zap ! Oops too much signal! Man! You just 'Burned me to a frazzle ' ! However it is a question? And it deserves an answer . If you don't hear from me again . You know I will have been scorched ! Help. Mike

Can you say that again in words that an idiot would understand ! Namely me ! Mike

Do you know I think I have it! I think I am getting the picture! Something is sinking in ! I believe I am getting ,what is going on here ! -------------------- If I think of what is really important to me . Me on the children's roundabout , or me on my motorcycle . And what could happen if I fall off the roundabout or fall off the motor cycle . This above all else , that is going on outside my circle , my bend , that is outside in some other sphere of operation , possibly what you say another frame . Absolute frame maybe. I don't care if there are strait lines or tangents or fictitious forces , what I am worried about is flying off the roundabout , off my bike onto the Tarmac. So! I must work on the roundabout to keep myself in the circle of the roundabout , I hang on , pulling myself constantly to the centre. Centripetally . I do get an outward force centrifugal force equal and opposite to the inward force. So to me in my close world, the one I am most concerned about , am in a state of force equilibrium , about my immediate world of ( the edge of the roundabout, and the centre of the roundabout. By hanging on , in my little 'frame ' from the edge ,to the centre. The two forces centripetal and centrifugal equal and opposite , cancel out . There is no net force now ( provided I hang on ) on my rotating radius (frame) , so along the radius there is no net force therefore , no net acceleration ( from f=ma =0 , along the radius) . Now out in the big wide world , things appear completely differently. A bigger frame , maybe absolutely big . Then from that perspective , everything looks completely different . Forces disappear, possible strait lines appear, things going down small radii are unimportant , more absolute things are important ! Similarly with the motorcycle , I do have to balance my forces , for me it is critical ,that I do not leave the circle , and slide along the Tarmac in a straight line, to my hurting , possibly critical cost. So again I must develop this outward force of centrifugal with the centripetal to keep me in equilibrium ( stay on my motor bike ) , keep it going in a circle , or at least for the corner. Then I can afford to let up , and go in a straight line along the straight road. So if I have it right . If we want to stay in a circle , we must balance the centrifugal and centripetal forces . Closed frame of operation . No net acceleration along the radius , neither in or out . If there were an acceleration along the radius, there would be movement, velocity, and the radius would get smaller, I would move closer to the centre , no , I hang on , neither moving in or out along the radius , staying at the extremity of the radius , If we wish to consider the much bigger picture . Outside the circle , some large or absolute frame , then all these peculiarities that have given me so much grief , have to be considered. Is that about it ? Mike

I am not sure I could have , or would even now , trust ,believing there was not some outward pushing force during rotation.When I played on those circulating playground rotary roundabouts. No way could I let go while it spun fast . I would be thrown off , to disastrous consequences ( this is survival ) . Similarly , when I am zooming along at 70 mph on my motor bike , no way , when seeing a corner coming up , going to think ' there is no force acting outward away from the centre of the corner'. I know , having come off to my cost in the past, that there is a dangerous real force away from corner centre, so I lean in desperately toward the centre , in a hope there will be enough inward pull by my levered angle , to combat that outward push . I cannot change this mental paradigm now, it's survival stuff. I will have a bad accident if I give up this mental paradigm. ( this is survival ) . I think it must be the constant change, or ' battle with ' inertia ' ( away from straight line to circular ) , that circular motion causes this effect ? Mike

Yes but surely that is just ' arbitrary ' . My remembering the device . The thing gets cranked up. Spinning . Then by a rhythmic imperceptible synchronous wobble the rotation is up to operating speed. You can see the top of the spring , being tugged at. The spring is stretched. The cause , the link to the bob, the bob itself is pulling at this linkage . It can only be pulling one way , otherwise the linkage would not be taught . It can't push in , it would all buckle up . But it can and does pull outward , away from the centre , centrifugally. No ? Mike

Not sure what you mean by instruments ( do you mean Newton meters measuring scale or do you mean mathematical model ) Because I would have thought if observation showed one thing and maths contradicted it by its model . Surely that shows a good case the maths model could be wrong . If you mean , measuring instrument ( instrument in science ) says one thing , whereas observation says another , then that is different. I have the feeling there is a ( from which perspective you view things ) . If all my life from roundabouts to swings to bicycles to motor bikes to wall of death , and a lot more besides ,I have seen and felt the force , ' centrifugal force '. Then I am now wrestling with a maths model that says " there is no centrifugal force pushing out like I feel it is , it's fictitious " . Then my reaction is to say " I just don't get it " . This conflict of inertial straight line motion to circular motion , to me seems to generate , this from the centre force feeling ( centrifugal force feeling ) . As regards measuring it . In the school physics labs they have a bob that you can swing around fast . It is connected to a string , this goes vertically down ." Inside is a spring with a needle indicating newtons . You twirl the weight around , it pulls outward on the string. Goes down the tube to a simple Newton meter. Shows a few newtons of centrifugal force . So you feel it you measure it . Mike

Sorry , what bit , have I not taken up your challenge. I am more than happy to discuss such an important subject , (provided it is not just pouring scorn on the ideas ! For the sake of it . ) Mike

What you appear to be saying here about " We can measure gravitational or modified gravitational ( due to spin, not MOND ) force directly by weighing things. What we find is that things weigh less at the equator because they feel less net centripetal force compared to the poles. Since they feel less net force there is a deviation from the spherical distribution of the mass/matter ..." Surely this is what I have been bleeding on about " feel less net centripetal force , means centrifugal due to spin has reduced the centripetal by subtraction . IE net centripetal = gross centripetal - centrifugal due to spin of earth . Is this not what you are saying ? Mike

Surely there is a conflict here ,between what we see and feel . And what some mathematical structure somehow says " there is nothing there!" It's fictitious . When our senses tell us something that we know and feel is happening to us . If we were in a cardboard box we would feel ourself moving toward the edge of the. Roundabout, as if some other child was pushing the box . Surely by the law of equivalence , then it is so! Mike

.Yes that is fair enough . But surely what energy is in the system. Say put in by a careless hand skewing the plate as we put it in . The the energy goes through consecutive kinetic energy caused by gravity acting on one side of plate , pulling it down . at the same time increasing the potential energy being increased on the other side edge . Then the whole cycle is reversed . Mike

I don't get it ! Everything that swings around in a circle , provided there is a bit of slop in the system , the Scotsman swinging a shot or discus around , spins out into a sort of fried egg. Eg the moons circle the planets so it looks like a fried egg. Jupiter , earth , Saturn , etc The galaxy spins out like an egg. , no doubt the universe is egg shaped, . The only thing that stops everybody falling off the merry go round is GRAVITY . Why don't we all turn around and say " look! The king has got no clothes on , " I don't get it , the spinning is everywhere , the fried eggs are everywhere, The forces pushing everything that is loose , goes out ward to make up the flattened yoke and pushed out egg white. It's the eternal battle between Gravity pulling in and something spinning causing a pushing out . We have all been there on those mini , merry go rounds . The straight bit is only the bit when we fall off. When we are loose on the roundabout we are being pushed to the barrier! Also "the wall of death" . Mike

I must say that since being a child , I have come across birds that seemed to have some form of accident , or setback . They all died, I never saved one . They seem so sensitive to disturbance. Since having acted with communications , in the good old days with " tuning in " things were so sensitive ! You soon lost communications if you tweeted or tuned in a rough handed manner . So I am saying here , maybe the universe is trying to communicate gently , maybe we will miss something if we are expecting too strong a signal . When a gentle signal is there all the time . Mike ( I am offering this in the 'Lounge '. Where one can meet friends , have a drink , and fireside conversation ! ) You could always take me outside and give me a good talking to, and tell me I have had too much to drink !

I need to say , that you have put a slant on this subject that is not necessary . Many people genuinely think about this subject " are we alone " even SETI is set up to this end . Years ago I thought about the difficulties of an advanced race communicating with us . I think personally , I would prefer the version as illustrated by the film ". Close encounters Of the third kind " ? However , I thought, as this has not occurred . This is about 20-30 years ago . I reasoned on long bus journeys . :- ... If such another space civilisation wanted to make contact , they ' might ' choose this idea of ' ambiguity' . Why , because it is such a gentle way of communicating . Individuals could gently have conclusions that could just as easily have originated in there own brain, come from something a colleague just happened to voice , or if you had access to monkeys typing on typewriters for a long time , in which case the idea could have come from random operations . So how do you tell which of those three or four methods gave the right answer. Surely the idea that was right. That's almost nature, or science discovery for that matter. So there is NO HOCUS POCUS there . How does any person question ideas they have . Try it out . Test the idea on colleagues , Think again. Now there are many people who can recount , episodes of Serendipity, coincidences of a fortunate kind . Over the years , I have taken note of these events , which can stimulate me personally to feel , is there some communication possible with the universe , as if it were some hyper, linked up , reactive , organised , system , that was beyond anything we can imagine. So rather than trying to get my head around that ! Why not just try it out ? So basically I did what I have described , assumed the universe was , what I said in the previous paragraph. Assumed any serendipity , must be viewed as possible ambiguity. And accept it as pure coincidence . But if there were any merit in the particular thought, try it out , test it , investigate it , discuss it with a colleague . I have read a lot of science , over the years, listened to many lectures , taken note of wise men , and avoided tripe. Maybe my head is full of different ideas. Maybe I am happy in my pursuit of truth ,discovery , and happiness. I am certain most people would agree ,we are no where near a complete understanding of everything. I appreciate I particularly love the fringe edges of science , not ignoring the solid content that makes up a backbone of understanding . However I feel there is much , much , much more out there to discover, so I like to have a peep! ( in my particular style ) . I am not at odds with much of science , I just can not, and never have been able to resist , " , what's way over the horizon , and beyond " Maybe my very occasional ( not every day , 25 in my entire life ) trying to select between ( right ,wrong , or in between ) seemed totally harmless . ( almost like " eeny , meeny, minee,,mo ) , I am sure many a management meeting has broken up with three equally plausible ideas, and the Managing Director has gone away and thought , ' it's an equal toss up between those three ideas" All I have done is ' dare I say it ' gone about things is a sort of scientific way , although clearly I have needed to bring in both philosophical and far reaching ideas. Why not think the unthinkable , think the impossible , think the far futuristic , think there really is a universe out there that wants to communicate with you , but you may have to , take , it will be ambiguous ( for all sorts of reasons ) why not ' nothing ventured nothing gained ' Mike

The china plate rattle on a minute fulcrum , both on top of a level granite worktop, I am sure must be the see saw motion , in principle . Two observations here , I believe , do shed some light on this matter . 1) The china plate on a small thin fulcrum , on a granite work top . Although this can be started by a small initial displacement. The system carries on clicking for some time. The surface interaction appears similar to the EULER's disc , surface interaction . Namely it is a sort of curved roll , rather than a sudden ' tap ' . Again I would suggest gravity is the energy to maintain the rattle. Coupled with a roll type changeover . 2) this is experienced very profoundly when on my 250 cc water cooled motor scooter . Although I have a small 100cc scooter that you can throw about ,all over the place. The 250cc scooter is very heavy . When you first sit on it while static , you have to be very careful to keep it upright. If you do not it can very easily pull you over sideways . Two persons on different occasions , had to assist me with getting it upright from a half leaning condition. Now out on the open road , the motor scooter just wings along , very upright. It take little or no effort to tweet it to remain upright. If I push it slightly over , it pushes itself upright. If I go round a corner ( I do not lean in the direction of the turn . Rather I push the motor cycle to definitely lean in the direction of the turn. You push against a spongy force , which tries to come upright . If I the go around a corner holding the motor cycle in a leaning over angle . It self supports this angle ( unlike when it Is stationary , where it pulls me over . I played with it the other day , and although not allowing too severe an angle , I can bounce it , in the leaning angle I have thought about this , and as far as I can work out . It is inertia that builds up , at even a small speed. I think pedal cyclists find this same experience. Once this inertia is there in a straight line , the motor cycle wants to continue in that way ( newtons law ) . To change to a curve , by leaning the bike over , you can feel this force pushing the bike up towards an upright mode . What I do not understand , is surely the bike already has inertia even when still , as the surface of the earth is supposed to be moving 1000 mph as it carries out its daily spin . Also what that spongy upthrust that I experience as I go round corners and push the handlebars down so the motor cycle is leaning over while driving along not only but particularly around a corner ? Mike

Well I must admit , I have often questioned myself , is this just talking to yourself ? , it might be an effective mechanism for questioning ones own beliefs on the subject identified. In other words " talking to yourself very effectively " A sort of mild , conscious , self hypnosis , on a visually grand scale , .......trouble is this definitely invokes the men in white coats ! I think you better send them in ! Mike

You were correct , of course .See following live pictures. The question remains ? How do I get the multi smeared fresh white acrylic art paint " off " my £ 45 precision machined Steel Euler disc , and well crafted mirror surface ? Mike Ps joking So you are correct the center of gravity remains level. So the device as a whole remains very stable and as a whole device not bouncing. However parts of the disc are continually moving towards the surface of the disc and opposite equal parts are moving away in this faster 10 Htz . This I presume must be termed the " spoll " identified on the Box as a mixture of spin and roll. I would suggest the up and down nature of this spoll is the equivalent of the bounce that I was suggesting previously as being bounce. So not bounce , more a Roll or spoll as they call it . Namely half of the mass of the disc , at any one time is :- As a summation of parts ( half the mass ) under the influence of gravity ,being pulled towards the surface , and the other half , by ( some means ?? ) being carried aloft, upwards? Surely this can not be angular momentum? As at the point of contact the steel about to go skyward is ' still' ( with ref to surface ) not moving either forward or backward ? Surely it is the opposite side across the Euler disc , that is now being pulled down to earth by gravity transfers it's pull into a push across the fulcrum of action ( say centre of disc ) , to push the other half of the steel skyward. For each part of the disc there is an equal and opposite part. So rather than there being a balance of gravity , of the two parts , there is a continuous , pull, pull, pull, pull, ....etc by gravity translated to an up thrust of each discrete pull down to its opposite discrete push up. A sort of see-saw action . Probably about that centre of gravity ( that is now an ever growing smear of white acrylic paint ) I am certainly not convinced yet , that this can be angular momentum as the main driver. Unless you are going to convince me otherwise! As I have previously measured any angular speed is a mere 1 Htz. Very slow , more a angular creep? That is unless the descending ,gravitational potential energy , is converted to some form of angular momentum ,as a kinetic energy , that is then somehow converted back into potential energy increase on the upward push? .? But I even then do not think it was any angular spin that might have been given to the disc in the first ,start? Surely not ? .... Maybe.. .... I need to get all this white paint off everything ! Now my fingers, the dining room table , my shirt.. My wife in going to go berserk! Mike Pps as a rider , I think something similar , in principle , but not the same , is happening with the china , ( that incidentally is now broken, my wife threw it at me ) . Half is being pulled down by gravity, pushing the other half up. ( continuous change in potential and kinetic energy . See saw .

...VOYAGER MISSION... Karl Sagan has just been explaining how a message would go out on the NASA voyager mission . Here in u.k. BBC 4 ( as we speak ) is reviewing this amazing once in 170 year window to launch a space mission going without fuel across the solar system and beyond . Started in the 1970s the mission would sling shot around the planets , using gravity, and the sun at each stage. It has only as a continuing mission left the outer edges of our solar system . On the mission craft is a message to other races, what we like , what we say , how we look , our music , our literature. Karl Sagan led this PR both to the sponsors on Earth , and any contact with any alien , that ultimately found the craft. I think any race finding us will be totally benign. In the mean time there might be some observation going on . Mike

Well I perhaps should have introduced the subjects we had recently been discussing , namely spinning around on a childhood circular 'stand on ' spinning mini roundabout , spinning buckets of water overhead, and satellites in orbit . Sorry about the spelling . I was still taking 'O' level English for the third time in 6th form ,while doing my 'A' level physics and maths . My English teacher said to me " smith , you are an enigma ! Now as regards the diagram , I am trying to reason out, that in order for NOT ALLOWING the inertial mass to go down that supposed straight line , had it been allowed to, it would have reached R 2 a larger radius . But to almost immediately after moment of release, I have to fight this sumo wrestler of force trying to take me down the strait line ( due to inertia) , by pushing me outward radially, which would if I lost have increased my effective radius to the greater R2 . However I am overcoming this outward force with my counter centripetal force. ( inward towards maintaining R1. In the circle . ) perhaps by pulling on the rope, holding the rail bars , or using gravity as an anti-force to the 'sumo' It would seem I on my travel down my legitimate strait line am in the right , the sumo 'takes pet ' when I am being dragged screaming into a circle by this R 1 restraining platform, rope or gravity , as the case may be . Then surely I become aware of this darn sumo wrestler pushing me to staining pitch out of the circle . As it happens the platform holds, the string holds , but anything loose in my pockets, hair, objects , water or whatever will fly off into a larger radius R2 . Is this not the operation of a centrifugal pump, centrifugal filter , and the facial mussel in an astronauts face as he experiences 2 or 3 G in his test centrifuge? Mike

.I think it is worth a trip down one of these tangential strait lines , when the radial line is cut ,temporarily. And also what happens as that temporary cut is re-established , and what is needed to re-establish it . ---------------- Firstly ,in the immediate moment , the circulating mass , for that instant , could be thought of as trying to do what every well behave mass does , and that is ' travel in a strait line ' as according to Newton . So irrelevant of what has gone before , at the moment of 'cutting ' , the strait line ( which is the tangent at that moment T1 ) , will start to continue , with that strait line . It has its tremendous inertia , so to do . At the moment of cutting the radius is say R 1 . If we imagine a moment later T2 , had the radius R1 had not been cut , then R2 = R1 . However the radius has been cut and the mass has moved on a bit tangentially . It is now at T2 , a little bit down its strait line , away from the circumference by a bit delta R . Now effective R2 is greater than R1 by a factor of delta R. If we try to restore the situation we would have to apply a considerable inward force ( centripetal force ) inwards to the centre along R2 in order to restore it to the same length of R1 . This is no mean feat, and has the appearance of an opposing force ( centrifugal force ) . Almost like a sumo wrestler trying to push us ' away from the Centre ' namely Centrifugally ( or apparently ) . If we do not succeed to oppose this wrestler , who is on the roundabout we will have found ourself out at R2 distance from the centre. ( even though no longer connected to the roundabout ) , which is greater than R1 by a factor Delta R . This whole experience has surely achieved , what appears to be a forced movement away from the centre . Is that not so? If this were to be considered vertically , upward surely it would be the same . Water in bucket, satellite in orbit . Both feeling a forced movement , Apparently acting opposite to gravity. Is this also not so ? ps Apparent centrifugal force..being like the Sumo wrestler in our story above . Mike

It is interesting that the electronic ' flip-flop' was one of the first ' valve' or 'transistor ' circuits , that gave the big kick into computers . Being a binary system , whereby positive feedback was used to push the opposing stage ( transistor ) into an alternate state . Namely either SWITCH OFF ( no conduction ) or SWITCH ON ( full saturation conduction ) . One stage would hold the other stage in its recently switched state. Thus the first binary memory was possible . Namely a 1 or a 0 . Then came the ability to add and subtract electronically , binary . . 10010110.. (8 bits is 1 byte ) . The rest is history ----------------- A million of them a Megabyte. A billion of them is a Gigabyte. My I pad memory is 50 gigabytes. That's a ' flipping lot ' ! Or a lot of flip flopping ! ----------------- Mike

It would be nice if someone were to make a really credible film ! Do you know of one ? Arthur c Clark , and Isaac Asimov , wrote some really futuristic yet credible stories . I suppose 2001 a space Odessy was quite good , with its follow ups 2010 etc . I also quite liked 'Contact ' by ....' thing me ' ? Mike

INDEPENDENCE DAY Independence Day is currently playing on U.K. TV . (Channel 4+1) Despite the Hollywood artistic licence , makes for interesting watching if you have any inkling that a hostile alien life could exist in the universe , in such an advanced form that they could visit earth . Some of the lines and argument make entertaining and interesting ideas. Personally , I think if there is a type of life , similar in form to us existing on a world like ours , near enough to visit us , then : - I think it would NOT be hostile , ( unlike those on Independence Day) , but reasonably benign . Kindly disposed . If a race continues to be overly hostile as development to the point , inter star system , space travel is achieved, :- Then : they would bound to be either kindly or self destructive ( these latter type , namely .."self destructive". . in which case they would NOT have survived ,so as to make the journey ) . Thus any visitors ,I think will be kind, non destructive ( unlike those in Independence Day film style ) , however the film , nonetheless , has some interesting aspects. Mike . .the end ..

I tried to set up their 'tweet' , using the link to twitter , but it did not seem to work . This is a direct comment from CERN the Large hadron collider in Switzerland which came in on my 'following ' Their twitter site, complete with picture. It was an announcement by them with picture that they had switched on yesterday and gained this new high energy level. 6.5 Tera volts . I think this is to help them look for more particles in the standard model , perhaps even in the super symmetry region. Mike