Mike Smith Cosmos

. See twitter @CERN The LHC successfully circulated a beam at the record energy of 6.5 TeV last night cern.ch/go/kmG7 #RestartLHC Mike

Which position 'A'. Or 'B' e Mike

I have got the EULER's disk out of its box and cranked it up a number of times. Although a slight twist is necessary to start the disc operating , by a fall at an angle. Once it has started its ' spoll' ( spin and roll ), it is clear that spinning is not a dominant characteristic . I have measured it as changing between 1/3 rotation/ sec to a 1 rotation per second . Though it appears very active . This is the up and down bounce as one side is falling to the surface and the other side of the circle is bouncing up . It is the point of bounce ( surface contact ) that is rotating, also . But a mark on the disc can be seen to be rotating fairly slowly compared to the other fast movement of the oscillating bounce ( approximately 10 times per second ) . So one should ask if the angular velocity is so slow ( 1 rev per sec) to ( 1/3 rev per second ) can angular momentum , be the dominant characteristic , whereas the oscillating mass bounce ( 10 Hz and rising ) and roll seems to be where all the action is. Is this bounce not the falling to the surface under the pull of gravity , and the return force not the leverage of the base it is rolling on giving the upward thrust to push the restoring movement of the disc? Could it not be argued, that it is the fast up and down rolling bounce due to gravity , that is the key player in the Euler Disk phenomenon rather than the fast spin or angular momentum usually attributed to the stability of a spinning top? As 1/3 to 1 revs/ sec is very slow and would normally topple . Or have I got it wrong ? Mike Ps this fast up and down bounce , is reminiscence of a Ping pong ball getting trapped between bat and table at a couple of inches to one inch . The Ping pong ball rattles rapidly with a zzittt .

..This is sort of what ' I wondered or thought might be going on.' Not as a NOVEL effect , so much as a relatively very , very , CONSTANT effect for the time period of oscillation of the plate or rotation of the disc. But in a very precise , and very constant way . ( that is over the time period of one oscillation of the plate , or one rotation of the Euler Disk ). Not being privy to fluctuations in longer time going on due to the different times and paths taken by the influence of gravity , say coming from churning , molten iron core material, or moon 'wobble' or sun 'heaving' . This seemed to remind me of a Richard Feyneman lecture on light reflection from a mirror surface . Where he explained about ALL the possible paths , with there different probabilities paths being taken , but when all added taken into account ( the angle of incidence = angle of reflection was the one that dominated ) even though the other paths existed. Surely the high degree of stability of Gravity ( over comparatively short periods of time) , must play its part in this model , both in a stable restorative torque , as well as very constant, holding the model together on the surface of its operation? Mike

. Now experiment using a china ( not plastic ) saucer on a steel knife blade on a granite level work top, or on top of an even bigger china plate , no knife needed as a fulcrum here . You should be able to locate an irregularity for a fulcrum . Suddenly it will oscillate ! . . . Balance well ' to taste ' Mike ( now isn't this fun ! )

How will Eulers Disc respond to the gravitational influences from the earths gravity below and any other forces ? What model can I use Mike

. . Parts of the heavy steel disc, appear to keep falling under gravity towards the level mirror surface . See picture. The disc appears to keep falling around its circumference , but never makes it. So the disc continues to spin a long time. ( Not really a spin , more a slow turning as the fast falling oscillations occur. ) I have noticed : occasionally if china dishes are haphazardly laid on a hard granite surface , one plate will occasionally , rock back and forward almost indefinitely , going click, click, click.....again sides of the plate falling this side then that side , this side then that side . How does Gravity ? if it is gravity that causes both these phenomenon , do this ? Is there anything to learn about gravity by these sightings ? Mike Ps . Originally discovered by the celebrated Mathematician .. Euler .

Well the picture that is painted generally, say of the gravitational fields of the sun and the earth. Are of great swirling field lines that cross empty space and intercept earth. Or come up through the earth , similar to magnetic fields that intercept whatever location you happen to be at. What I am trying to say ( hypothesising ) is it's not like that. That space is full to overflowing with (darkenergyvacuummatteron) and we , wherever we are to receive the effect of gravity from these disparate places , do not see , what I said above , we just see the local border or edge of this (.darkenergyvacuummatteron ) Mike

.I am not so sure I am saying it is constant , I am saying it is local . In other words the ' thing' or ' force' , is as if it is there just inches away , I can figuratively touch it, feel it . Now should conditions change like you say the sun comes into play with the tides, well I expect the effect of the suns gravity to take its time getting to the earth , whether by wave , by pushing or pulling intermediate space , with all its occupancy of , vacuum energy , dark matter, dark energy and whatever else you guys have identified recently into a soup of interspace 'stuff' . But when the effect of the suns gravity in its tidal form journeys out across this 'stuff' it will arrive and my rocking saucer may take a bit of a wobble with this late arrival. When I as a saucer look out for gravity , I am saying , I don't see the sun , or the earth beneath my feet , I see my 'local gravity representative , whatever that looks like . A 'localidarkenergyvacuummatteron ' or whatever that local neighbour 'is . ' Mike

Yes, but I hate to say it , you are immediately reverting to maths , I am dealing with concepts of my observation. Which if you have never experienced it it striking . Find a stone very level flat work top . Start casually putting about china plates and saucers in small heaps . Suddenly one will go " ti,ti,ti,ti,ti,......you think it is going to go on for ever , it's extraordinary ! There is some very precise balanced bouncing forces at work . This is local , this has not wandered across 1000's 1,000,000 's miles of empty space. This is a local quiet spot in a heaving , absolutely massive universe. Mike

That , in a way is the point . If you were to use this formula twice , one of each side of the balancing item ( disc or plate) , you might over time have a fluctuating value for force as each side would have to have its own path back to the gravity causing body , which could be thousands or millions of miles away , each path subject to its own distinct interference or path length. If on the other hand , what I am saying is. You end up with a reliable local field where values are exact and reliable What it brings to the table , is a slightly different / additional view of Gravity. Rather than this remote , faraway view of gravity. We can think of gravity as being a locally induced value field , which has uniform ,precise values across short distances, should that be important. I suppose if all you are doing is working with planets and stars it does not matter. But if you wish to make use of local , very precise and very level surfaces, it could be relevant . Mike Ps this is well illustrated in occasional broadcast port scenes. Without this fast forward picture. The sea , looks like the sea , like the sea. If you watch a speeded up version, it is staggering how flat it is . As the boats skim about dead flat . So all this would suggest to me . The whole universe is full of something akin to a sea. People other than me have suggested all sorts of vacuum energy, energy density , dark energy ,dark matter . It would strike me if all that lot is spread out everywhere , there is enough to make up a sort of sea. That's before you start adding all the stars , galaxies, and other hot matter , that up till recently we assumed that was all there was . Now we have this sea of stuff that everybody Is working on . Well if the gravitational effect of all the normal matter , makes itself felt remotely with the formula (. F = -GMm/r2. ) that allows for my hypothesis to in principle work locally in the middle of this sea. Mike

Well I think that is it . We can and do have ( I am hypothesising ) , a local field , intact , set up from all these remote bodies . But in a way, the local conditions are identical, not wavering because a straight path is beating its way to each individual location locally , subject to millions of miles of slightly different ' interference'. A bit like the national grid, yes it's sort of a long way away , yet although the local supply indirectly comes from the national grid , it has its own transformer and everybody on that street or local transformer has the identical voltage . So I am saying the gravitational field is identical locally . Thus this very precise and accurate balance is easily achieved locally ( across a plate or across Eulers disk ) . . The other contribution to this idea, was listening to a Richard Feynman lecture where he spoke about metronomes and fish in a shoal . Where they all move in beautiful swirls. He said there was NO OVERAL guiding field, all there was, was the individual neighbouring fish , how they dealt with the shoal was only through their local neighbour fish. So in the greater context, nothing goes anywhere, it is all local. The only thing that goes anywhere, is if there is change. Then waves go across space . To effect a local change , sooner or later depending on distance . Mike

.I think this observation , has within it's highly balanced operation ,the makings of a ' good hypothesis ' for part of the nature of GRAVITY . Mike Ps I will time both the disc and the plates ,and give you the figures. Long was sufficient for me to come up with the hypothesis , but I will get the numbers for you . The hypothesis in principle is that this observation tends to point at Gravity as not being ' spooky action at a distance ' , but rather a ' Local ' phenomenon. Due to the precision , needed and demonstrated , by the clear balance provided by both the Euler Disc and the rocking dish. So rather than having to be feeling some difference effect transmitted by a giant object some vast distance away . That field or distortion is already set up across the universe . The local field is in place. So a near perfect and precise balance is easily achieved locally , by a precisely machined metal block or a crafted piece of china, both operating on a solid well machined mirror surface or crafted flat surface( eg granite kitchen work top ) It does not have to depend on some gravitational path across space which could be prone to the equivalent of atmospheric distortion seen with light images through the atmosphere. So provided the disc or in the case of a china dish is given the initial impulse, it will spin, fall, or rock in a very balanced perpetuated way.

. EULER's DISC Parts of the heavy steel disc, keep falling under gravity towards the level mirror surface ( 90 degrees to radial gravity field line towards centre of the Earth ) . See picture. The disc keeps falling around its circumference , but never makes it. So the disc continues to spin a long time. Only the surface contact resistance uses up the potential and kinetic energy , for it to eventually stop. ( Not really a spin , more a slow turning as the fast falling oscillations occur. ) I have made a related observation : occasionally if china dishes are haphazardly laid on a hard granite surface , one plate will occasionally , rock back and forward almost indefinitely , going click, click, click.....again sides of the plate falling this side then that side , this side then that side , under the influence of gravity . That is the ' OBSERVATION ' Mike

The last time I flew (aeroplane as passenger ) . When it was time for take off. I carried a heavy object in my hand. Like a concrete lemon . ( one used in an attempt , to drop from the top of the leaning tower of Pisa . ) . At the end of the runway , the engines revved up. It set off down the runway. I tossed the lemon up , in my seat ( difficult ) . It went strait up and strait down . Most of the way down the early part of the runway . Strait up and strait down , then as it got a good way down the runway , the lemon would go up then down at an angle into my chest , which I assumed was the acceleration bit as it took off, . I had never done this experiment on the plane before. During the times without the lemon , the runway to takeoff and into the air , 'felt ' the same all the way into the air except it felt smoother in the air. I presumed my experiment proved that it must have been constant velocity going down runway ( up and down lemon) and accelerating when ( into chest with lemon) . Then there was a force ( F = ma ) . So I suppose going down the runway was in an inertial frame , and late runway and into air a different frame . Of course there was also a change in direction. Going from horizontal ( runway) to climb at 20 degrees . Although I first noticed the lemon falling into my chest before the end of the runway . Is that right , then to do with frames ? Mike

Far from it. I think points that have been ' aired here ' , are how many scientifically inclined individuals , who are NOT mathematicians , have been put off , giving their valuable contribution, and not joined in some really possible worthwhile scientific discovery . This , all because they think that they have to be good at maths , to take part. I am saying there is a place for such individuals , and they should not be discouraged, just because they are not mathematicians. They have moved off and joined the Arts as an easier, alternative option. Yet these individuals , have imagination .. And all the things mentioned apart from maths . Why can they not join in with science to help in discovery , rather than abandoning science to all those confident in mathematics . ( which by dint of conflicting mental processes, tends , dare I say it , the ardent mathematicians tend to be slightly less flamboyant in their mathematical minds, due to the rigorous , ridged nature of maths ) oops ! Mike

I am a little unsure , which , or how I pick or apply the ' chosen ' inertial frame for my investigation of what really is happening , during a partial arc say 8 inches ( 4" in either direction ) 3 meters above my head , travelling at different speeds , say 17,000 mph , 22,000 mph , and zero mph. In either and both at different times , of opposite directions . Yet keeping it for all cases in inertial frame/s . So that I may use Newtons laws. Or does the Arc / part circular , exclude me using inertial frames ? Mike

.. Yes, but it might be annoying you, because you do not like to entertain the idea , that in the circumstances I illustrated , NOT in the main body of science , I might just be right. , ..to some extent . Mathematicians and computer programmers have , in large measure , claimed Science as their province . I do believe , despite the quote from Einstein , which I am sure he might have warmed slightly to my comments , that this desire to put maths on too high a pedestal, is what has led to the ..SLEW.. in engineering development , to produce the technological societies , which are making the current world a very vulnerable home ! That's how seriously I make my point on behalf of a possible more humanistic society that could be grown out of a more balanced distribution of the methodology of scientific development. In other words , to some extent lets look for new discoveries which have a heavier leaning to how we are, how we think , what's good for us both physically and mentally. Maybe the over bias to the use of mathematics as an exploratory tool, has been the source of , slew towards a mechanistic , and thus less humanistic society. Who knows ! Some science utopia which might lay just beyond the horizon , yet to be discovered, if only we knew where and how to look for it. There appears to have for a long time been a battle between ' function and form ' . The human body of how both can co-exist ! Mike Ps This is not political but the thoughts of a. Retired Engineering world traveller . So really now we have come to the two words in the original proposed question. " Is Mathematics Alone a "SAFE MEDIUM " for exploring.......etc If what I have just stated about the world is true , then it is NOT a SAFE MEDIUM for exploring ALONE or In Front for that matter. Mike

So when I find myself NOT in an inertial frame , whose laws if NOT Newtons laws must I use ?

Which frame am I in , down here on the surface of the earth ? And am I in the same frame if I am hovering just a few feet above the earth ? And what frame am I in , if I vibrate sideways back and forth ? Or travel round in a bucket as water , being thrown around by someone earth bound , a ) when swung around parallel to the earth and b) when swung up into the air and around down towards the earth and up again , and so on? Mike

-------Just because you can't lift the load does not mean others can't. ... Yes, quite agree with that. ---------- ----------- There is an implication in all you have said that mathematicians lack the gestalt you have promoted; No. That is not what I am trying to say . . I am trying to say there are tools or states of minds ,that are best for certain occasions . And I am not even saying this as an absolute rule , but generally , in an exploratory , borderline, boundary of science, blue sky situation , namely 'often in front ' ( not always) , that :- an observation based, hypothesising, even speculating , style :- is the most suitable approach in the first instance. To be too rigorous, too exacting in belief, too inflexible and rigid in the early exploration, could mean ignoring sensitive indications of a lead into new , unknown , regions of discovery. And I am not saying that individuals , including mathematicians are incapable of such an approach . But if they are to enter that frame of mind, there is a need of a " willing suspension of disbelief " for the times they are mentally occupied in discovery exploits. Or to take other style, explorers , more seriously, when they ' blather on ' in Non Mathematical language . ----------------- I hope that makes some form of sense ! Mike

Well there may be an element of truth in what you say in your comment . Yes. But every man to his own 'skills and capability' .I must be honest , I am not sure how to define mine . They are there though, and I have , and do use them to some beneficial end . The distrust, I believe I have , is that the equipment of maths is sometimes too heavy for the journey to some of the areas we could be investigating with different lighter equipment. ( metaphorically I mean of course ) . ( like trying to bore a 1 mm hole in a piece of computer motherboard electronics with a 3/4 inch drill bit . ) It probably yet remains , as to what my ' sticky end ' will be ! Mike I don't disagree with most of what you say ajb, In fact I do not want to become known as someone who disagree,s with a maths approach , goodness knows I spent many a year torturing my brain with the stuff. And am uncannily still drawn to those simple equations which seem to mean a profound lot! . But I must say , fore the specific task of ' blue sky research ' , I am pushing for a " maths free zone " type set of tools, which will enable some discoveries to be achieved, which will be impeded by a ridged mathematical approach . Mike

O.k. I understand your Straw man argument comment. That is fair enough. I just get a bit twitchy when maths is brought up so often , as the "b all and end all " of science and discovery. I do appreciate it is the fairly deep seated means of understanding and calculating many scientific subjects. I personally do not believe it is the ultimate bedrock of reality, although on occasions I must admit I have 'weakened in my own inner being ' to think it could be. But, do currently feel ,it is at least one or two layers up. I do feel that to make many fundamental new discoveries we do need to somehow penetrate to those lower layers , and the access , on those occasions ( not all occasions ) I believe , we do need to use such tools as observation, hypothesis, and other such looser tools to make the initial access to the new physics, or whatever subject area we need to access. I do accept totally ( though that might be a bit rash ) that maths has a pretty 'core style ' position and role in a lot of established physics , and accept that a lot of expert mathematicians are beavering away making Hugh progress in their subject area. I do accept that . I am though very sensitive to the area of science ,that I have been discussing throughout this thread . That is ' the borders of science ' , the ' blue sky ideas ' of tomorrow's science. The ' whole big picture ' of the universe , cosmos , whatever, . And I do not exclude that maths ' might be required ' to bore down to some fundamental ' sub structure ' that we do not yet fully appreciate . But on the other hand , I do have a serious 'hunch ' , that the ONLY access to that ,future domain, that blue sky phenomenon , that far distant wonderland , that deep ,deep, underlying fundamental whatever , ..will .. Only .. In the initial stages be touched on, by a Non mathematical route! I think the 'explorer ' metaphors ,in me are saying ' sorry chaps ' ' I am going to have go on ahead , with all your heavy equipment , and leave you here a while , chugging away , and go down this 'hole ' traveling light. Or climb this cliff face , with a light a load as possible. Or take off across this ocean , or this atmosphere , with some totally different vehicles and equipment ! ' Don't go away , " but I need to nip over this ridge ,to see what's causing that weird noise and smell, and strange smoke " Mike

Well if we were to take the two or three recent discoveries of ..Dark matter and ...Dark energy .. Dark attractor All of these are known to exist Mainly by evidence of existence , rather than mathematical prediction ? :- Dark matter by the Bullet nebula being shot through and gravitational lensing. Dark energy by expansion of the universe increasing . Dark attractor by all the surrounding large structures being pulled towards one distinct region of space. All three , we could say ," we have discovered them " , by the use of today's science and apparatus , BUT we know very little about all three , at this stage . Surely, it would be fair to say ,that maths with prediction , I would have thought , is not the dominant factor in their development ? Surely , at this stage , further observation and further hypothesis as to all three Dark Entities , is , or could possibly be , the leading impetus to its scientific development. Is this not so ? If we locked into maths and prediction , at this stage , before exploring ALL POSSIBILITIES , as to their nature , we could possibly miss out on the bigger picture, ( whatever that might be ) . Say a whole new area of physics and science we have not yet even dreamed of ? Mike

I do see what you are getting at . But I wonder if by trying to insist on predictability as a pre requisite for every single corner of science, you might be ' missing a trick ' I know I am just about 'to walk out on thin ice ' . But if I have got it right , and that is most unlikely , Women , do NOT Generally like to be thought of as predictable. Men like to be though of as dependable. Anyway the ice is creaking . ..........'Knowing ' .... about nature, I would have thought could be counted as scientific , even if we could not predict something about the behaviour of a something. I appreciate this is considerably looser than predicting the angle of a trajectory after a collision. That is fine rigorous and very useful . But as regards a new as yet unknown area of knowledge , surely just discovering that it exists, knowing that some 'thing' is actually there, with a few vague descriptions , is still conducting science and discovery , even though at this stage we can make NO predictions , as to its behaviour Mike .