Mike Smith Cosmos

.I think with our active looking , listening , and desire to locate other intelligent life in the universe , we perhaps ought to concentrate on how it is possible to communicate with them . If they are. :- 1 )there, 2. ) more advanced than us 3) possible very much more advanced than us . Then seeing as how they would be totally aware of us , possibly if Roger Penrose is right , through our micro tubules , we ought to use our micro tubules to " Ask them if they are there ? If they are not there/ not able to listen. / not inclined to listen/ not inclined to reply . .. Then we will not get an answer. If they are there ! And inclined to reply , we better get in touch with SETI. Well there is a thought ? Mike Ps ? I have already tried.

Yes but that is just an arbitrary statement. If however , one put forward an idea , which had absolutely had no evidence , yet there were other evidence to do with similar 'things ' then one could have a winning idea , yet without evidence. I think super symmetry is like this ,if I have picked it up right . They suggest a whole set of particles may exist in another form , but not one of them has yet been discovered . Or am I behind the news ? More simplistically we could theorise , there is another earth with human style life on it. But no evidence yet . Mike

How do you guys get your head around all this stuff, I suppose you are happy seeing it in maths form , I need to visualise things going hither and thither , pushing and being shoved , pulled or whatever , and some of it is SO CONTORTED , I have to watch I do not go STARK STARING BONKERS and insane . It's all gone black , I think I may have blown a fuse in my brain ! Oh no ! It was my I-pad just ran out of charge . Oops ! I need to recharge ! "" You can do this with quark anti quark scattering at tree level. You can extract a short distance potential. For the singlet structure you get a -1/r potential. For the color octet you get a 1/r potential. ""Quote Ajb Ahhhhhhhh! He ran screaming from the building and jumped in a duck pond ! Mike

Yes , I am sort of familiar with that explanation , but it feels so real , so ever so real , and it does get used ,in the examples I have quoted. Quote " I am sure I could measure it . really measure the force ? It appears real . Measures real . How much more real must it be to be real . Also there are all manner of devices that use these forces to extract material by filtration , spinning separators, centrifugal pumps, astronaut training rig , radioactivity refining centrifuges for nuclear power station fuels ,etc . How can these work if , centrifugal force is not real ? " Unquote I need to go and think a bit ! Mike

Do all these four types of forces have .. Attraction and repulsion namely both directions to the force ? Both towards and away from ? Or is it even possible for a force to be Uni-directional ? And How do we know that ? Or is the old adage " what goes up must come down ! ". Out of date ? Mike . . " the force is not there." You say ! Is the bit I have a problem with . Although I can probably not do the math you describe there with your. 'analyse the system from an inertial frame' bit . It puts me into a questioning mode ,when I remember all my experiences through my life where I have actually felt those centrifugal forces. A so called set of Observations . Being the outside person on a skating chain going in a circle round an ice rink. Being on a playground fast spinning roundabout, hanging on for dear life ,while being slung to the edge. Feeling and seeing the water in the bucket above my head. Throwing a discus. Having to lean back while swinging a shot weight around me , on a rope. Being driven round a tight bend , being pushed up against the passenger door. I understand all the bit about , where you go if you let go, (strait forward) . But while I have not let go I " feel this force , pushing me or it , outward or upward . The force does not feel fictitious , it feels very real . My senses tell me this to my very being ! As a motor cyclist I feel it daily , every corner I go round . So how can it be fictitious if I feel it so bad, and if I put a Newton meter there ,I am sure I could measure it . really measure the force ? It appears real . Measures real . How much more real must it be to be real . Also there are all manner of devices that use these forces to extract material by filtration , spinning separators, centrifugal pumps, astronaut training rig , radioactivity refining centrifuges for nuclear power station fuels ,etc . How can these work if , centrifugal force is not real ? Mike

Modified . So if ,in the case of electricity we call the one force ' Electromagnetism ' , what do we call the forces like gravity ( gravitational attraction, centrifugal action, cosmological constant, Kashmir effect etc mechanical attraction, repulsion ) ? Or are you saying , there is only one force. ' Electromagnetism ' and that is it ! Like ' Charge ' and it's effect, is all there is ? As regards to forces , that is ? Mike

Posted today 31st March 2015 Through the General theory of Relativity ,produced by Einstein , we have learned that MASS produces a distortion in space in a proportion to that amount of mass involved. As other fundamental forces have opposites . Eg Electrical positive charge has negative charge as an opposite . Magnetic fields appear to have North and South poles as opposites. If Gravity is a fundamental attraction towards , caused by a certain type of distortion in space as Einstein indicated. ( A ). What is a possible opposite force or repulsion ? ( B ). How can these counter distortions be achieved ? ( C) . Can Centrifugal forces be utilised in this endeavour ? Mike

What ? Do you mean it is possible for an idea to be ' right ' because it really sounds right , Yet there is 'no ' evidence for the idea what-so-ever ! Is that the sort of question ,you think could make an interesting debate . That's my sort of question , I like it . But it's your question, not mine, I am in enough trouble , without getting tarred with that brush . However I must say I quite like it ! Mike

I am not sure how Roger Penrose's. Micro Tubules in the synaptic gaps around brain neurones , that he suggested were the seat of human consciousness ,, figure in all this. Or whether one can communicate via consciousness through the micro tubules ? Can a higher intelligence communicate , can a person recently dead ,communicate , not sure what Roger Penrose's latest thoughts on this are ? Mike

Let's try this in the communication of a difficult science idea ....one that scientists agree on , but lay people find difficult to get there head around ? .... .I am thinking .! Something that some people find hard to understand ? Humm? ENTROPY I have just tried this out on a complete stranger , this afternoon , on the train home . Sketch of the art , painting yet to come . But the composition is already in place , in principle Entropy 0 bottom left , raising to blank Big Bang , inflation , the picture focus on the golden section, with its centre of gravity , balance with the earth much later in the increase of entropy ,on in whirls to greater disorder and entropy . Just an outline . Picture to follow . Mike

Right this moment 3;16 pm mon , 30th march 2015 ,, and ... I recon I am sitting on the bed of a 100, to 250 million old river bed : one of the rivers of the old supercontinents, as was before Pangea split , then the river torrent swept down out of now Germany, France and across to Now Lympstone then this started to become part of the English Channel . . Mike

.Why are we teaching our potential scientists in England , a methodology that ' is not how it is ' , if that is the case . I went out into industry and invented all manner of things . Not all successful I hasten to add. When I ended up teaching in my latter career . My students , said I inspired them , as I threw buckets of water over my head , dropped 10 Kgm weights to the wooden floor measuring the temperature with a digital thermometer before and after collision and calculate the change of potential energy to heat . Took them out in the playing field and let them swing a 5 Kgm weight around on the end of a rope , and told them to " feel the force " . ( unfortunately , maybe , for many of them are going to believe in centrifugal force , one went off back to China saying he was going to build a device . ) To drop a real lemon and a concrete lemon off the top of a fire escape to see them both land at the same time . ( having first done this in Italy at the tower of Pisa ) much to my wife's disgust. But I took those same students out on walks about the school grounds to lay on their backs and look at clouds , to measure the solar energy inputting a small solar panel to move a motor to turn a stone around , watch the air driven seeds fly by , to watch water rockets do action and reaction as they sped skyward , to send hot air balloons aloft . To think . To ponder . To innovate . In the evening in science clubs they would speculate on the most bizarre devices and try and make them work . Some would build sensible devices. Then most of them came to me before they left school and said mr smith you are a legend , you inspired me to become a researcher and designer in science or engineering , a scientist . They should about by now ,be hitting , the Research pool . I do hope I have not inspired them to no end . Surely we all must wonder at the universe about us , and try desperately to learn some of its secrets ! Mike

I trust I can do this in bits , otherwise it will become a sea of reading that no one will read .So assuming that is o.k. First The ASSUMPTIONS:- 1) That the total physics that normally apply to a satellite usually travelling in orbit say 500 miles up above the earth , will equally apply 10 ft above the earth surface. Be it that it is travelling very fast in near earth orbit. Thus the physics is able to apply to my device near the earth surface . 2) That there is no difference apart from a minor difference in radius to the speed of operation of 17,700 mph of the satellite 500 mile up to that at 10 ft above the earths surface , in principle . 3) That there is no difference in the physics in either of these situations if the satellite or device move in the opposite directions . The formula and effect is identical ( except for direction of flight) 4) That for such a device ,if the device consists of flexible masses , such that different sections of the mass are able to move at different speeds ranging like a half wave sinusoidal distribution between 0 ( zero ) and a peek value of approx 22,000 mph and back to zero , but not negative in value. that the applicable value of speed, would be as if the mass as a whole were moving at a RMS ( root mean squared ) value of 17,700 mph. Which ever direction ( forward or backward ) . 5) That because the near ground device is moving within the atmosphere , and clearly speeds of 17-22,000mph might seem prohibitive .we are talking of a device overall only moving 4" at either end , which if necessary can be mounted in a vacuum . 6) That we are not looking at lift from one orbit to a higher orbit without some other form of energy introduced to change orbit height. 7) That ,as can be seen in the formulae that follow that, because the masses cancel on either side of the equation ONLY the SPEED is the critical required variable condition . 8) That although only a reactive force which disappears when the applied force disappears , that the FORCE OF GRAVITY constitute the applied CENTRIPETAL FORCE ( applied force ), nevertheless induces a CENTRIFUGAL REACTIVE FORCE Equal and opposite to the force of gravity ,according to Newtons laws of motion. 9) That this induced CENTRIFUGAL FORCE is as a result of the force of gravity acting on the speeding inertial mass, trying to travel in a strait line according to Galileo's and Newton's theories of motion 10) That the physics is true , even if only a small section of an orbit ( partial arc ) , is completed ( namely 4" to 8" ) and then reverses to the opposite direction along the path from which it came . The EQUATIONS standard for circular motion . Action and reaction . 1) GRAVITY acting as a Centripetal force is given by the equation namely Centripetal force ( force due to gravity ). F = m g where m is the mass in kg g is the acceleration due to gravity in meters per sec per sec . 2) REACTIVE Centrifugal Force F = m v squared/ r where m is the same mass in kg , v is the instantaneous velocity and r is the radius of the circle or partial arc transcribed by the mass. In meters .Radius of Earth. 3) As the forces are described by newtons laws to be equal and opposite . Then it follows that The equated equations read m g = m v squared/ r 4) as the mass m is the same on either side of the equation . . Then g. = v squared/ r 5) Then. V = 17,700 mph Or metric equivalent To follow :- The Interactions/ OBSERVED RESULTS 1) 2) 3) 4) EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE 1) 2) 3) 4)

Well here in the U.k. " How Science Works " was rolled out about 5 years ago as the National Curriculum for all teaching of Science in the .U.K. So your comments to me ' who are you to say ' is not me ( after all who am I, although I do have a certain amount of industrial scientific experience ) . However Who am I . Is not what I am saying . It is the U.K. National Curriculum Authority. Who are the 'They'. They as an august body, set the teaching of Science to the U.k. Future educated youngsters tomorrow's scientists, U.K , that is . Here is a warning . If you say the current methodology is creating today's results, today's world. Are you sure it has made a good job ? We have before us a mechanical world , a mathematical world , which is not user friendly, let alone human friendly . It is gobbling up earths resources , like there is no tomorrow . Half the world is starving , the other half is continuing to exploit the globe by technology . I am not so certain as you that we have got it right . I think we aught to put the Human element in front , before we totally decimate our world . Now that is a serious reason for putting ' Human observation and human brain hypothesis in the lead ! Mike

By my not commenting on the examples you indicate , is not meant as a denial of these examples. Of course there are countless examples of how maths has popped up with an indication that there is something possibly there , if we go looking. The more so with all this examination of particle energy , to get a hunch that there should be a certain energy. particle to be found. Even in the early years of atomic physics , neutrinos and antimatter were both suggested by mathematical scientists. (Dirac , Pauli.) That is like saying a mathematical series goes 1,2,3,4,5,6, - 8,9. Of course a mathematician is going to scream out loud " I believe there may be a xxxx existing at 7 . Or some other far more complex mathematical pattern indicates something is there to discover. My proposal here in this thread is that should be an exception rather than a rule , because we as humans are primarily ' observational ' creatures and we usually :- see, hear, touch, detect, smell, feel , patterns and think with the most powerful computer in the world - our brain. So I am saying we should keep this method of leading the field , in front , rather than be overcome and swamped by a mathematical initiative to lead the field . ( as I said previously , maths is blind if compared to the human observer. We would miss out on , ' as yet unobserved discoveries. And it's not my idea , it is in fact the standard understanding as to " how science works " . But there is a danger that potential discoverers ' people ' will shrink back , thinking they cannot or are not allowed to trespass on the preserve of mathematicians. This was true , when computer programming took over at the early growth of personal computers . PC's . To beginning , the programmes were impossible to use , unless you were a computer orientated individual, and you knew in which menu to find a way forward , or even which convolution of keys you needed to press to access a menu. Finally , just , with more user friendly screens you can batter your way through things , although still some devices can ' freak ' some people to despair. Such is the 'lot' , when you allow technicians to ' lead in front. It is the old battle of ' function verses form ' . The human body is an ideal example of this conflict . FUNCTION. . . is beneath the skin , looking frighteningly ghastly to most people , blood and tubes all higgle de piggledy . FORM . . . the beautiful human form as seen with the skin on. Fortunately , we have a situation where ' FORM '. Leads or is seen first. We would be lost without the function , but that is all behind the surface . So it should be with the difference of :- Human observation and Human brain hypothesis , and Mathematical approach where mathematical clues and computer simulation tries to lead exploration . Human observation and brain should lead ( not dominate, but be allowed to lead ) Mike

. Sorry , but with all due respect , I have to say " No I am not . I am dead Centre " Wikipedia :- Says :- The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.[1] This is the Wikipedia definition of the scientific method Link :-, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method This is precisely what the National Curriculum instructed me to teach when teaching Physics . It was called " How Science Works " everything was supposed to fit within this Paradigm . However so as not to sound pedantic , I agree once the above circle has been travelled , the successive times around will start from different starting points. However my point is that maths must not be considered the driver , but rather a spoke in the wheel of " How Science Works " and the wheel clearly points out , what normally " . Leads in front " namely....------ Observation . and. Hypothesis . ....---- I am afraid its QED on this one. . quod erat demonstrandum Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, originating from the Ancient Greek analogous hóper édei deîxai (ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι), meaning "which had to be proven". Mike

I do not remember saying about scaling . However I have given that some thought , seeing as you mention it . Also Strange has also said why don't I make a small version and test . I think , the small local tuning fork would not work in response to gravity , but rather in response to tension in the structure. My investigations have shown me the two prongs and joining ' Y ' are a closed system . Although the base can be applied to a sounding board to give vibrations for measurements of comparative sounds , it works well on its own in your soft fingers . It is clear the force for movement comes from a tap on a blocks somewhere . Once this initial energy input is introduced the and forces are started by the tensions in the prong sideways movement and tension . The restorative action is induced by this tension , which produces waves and tensions to travel to the other prong . Whereby the system stabilises into an oscillating , resonant system . Gravity would have little if no effect at this level of velocity and energy . A driven system could be made by stimulating one prong with the resonant frequency . This would then spread to both prongs and quickly ,if not instantly into anti phase resonance . Here still though the system is not working with gravity , but with tension in the metal and sprung return tension in the extended prong. So I believe it would settle down to a balanced , closed system . Similarly with quarks and the strong force with different distances having totally different effects. It is when the system proposed is driven so hard with a massive amount of energy , so as to work at 40 kHz 4inch max displacement ., each prong working in anti phase . Having a simulated radius of the radius of the earth . Then prong end speed ( 17,000mph could be driven to 40khz, ( then the mass causing centripetal ( towards the centre of the earth ) as it reacts with gravity kicks in . And the reactive centrifugal force causes the devices to float due to speed of movement being bent by gravity centripetally gaining the centrifugal reaction to the inertia change , thus overcoming gravity. The thing I would say . This sort of different responses at different orders of magnitude , is oft quoted when discussing . (Say a magnet sticking a sign or toy figure to a fridge ) being stronger than gravity. Yet away from the fridge gravity is the major player everywhere . ( Nearly .) I do not think you could invoke this effect at orders of magnitude this different in velocity and radius . (A). I think what is happening here is that at small scale internal tensions are what influences the system and the system balances internally. ( would drop to the floor ) (B) . In the large scale system external gravity and internal oscillating masses dominate the system and the system is balanced externally by working against gravity . ( can do nothing else but stay in orbit 8 foot above the ground when run up to the figures previously quoted ..40 kHz , 4" displacement .. RMS 17,700mph ) Mike

I appreciate what you are saying Strange . I have in fact done precisely , or nearly similar to what you say , as I am sure you can imagine . ( back in the 1970' s ) . It is not quite as easy as you imagine or describe , at least then it was not possible , as there were no sensitive digital measuring devices then . So I built a large tuning fork and fed it electro magnetically , as I previously described , fed with / through an amplifier . It bounced around all over the place , I am sure you can imagine . The vibrations hitting Everything . I got involved with the computer PC boon , and ended up making cables for computers in a manufacturing business. Even built myself a lab on the factory to do R.&D on centrifugal project , while cables were manufactured , never got time . Marriage, children ,( four daughters ) bringing them up , grown up , moved away then back to university , where I made it my final year project . " In search of Centrifugal forces . " theory and experiment . Teaching for 10 years , And here we are today 35 or so years later . Wow life isn't half full . Mike

Well I have certainly noticed tremendous forces at work , in arc tracing , moving mass. Often these are held tight within machine manufactured discs, cogs, flywheels . Always remembering that a flywheel is no more than a single prong of a tuning fork , repeated many times about a circle. And in one direction only. These forces are there , away from the centre , centrifugal . But locked into a wheel , say flywheel, unnoticed by many . One lesson I was conducting , physics lesson , with children behind a perspective screen for safety. A small 3" x 1.5" electric motor , I squeezed on a plastic propeller with a plastic ring about its circumference. I ran it up to full revs . It shattered ,having partially shot toward the ceiling , centrifugal force had blown it apart. Ripped it to shreds. I am sure jet engine designers must take these forces into account during design, of these rotating devices. Partial arc is merely one small portion of a circular device but moving in two directions over a small angle of rotation. Mike .I think, like the flywheel , the developed force , produced by centrifugal action , thus in this case ' away from the prong base ' not quite central . But effectively the centrifugal force ,reacting to the centripetal force of the top mass of the prong , wishing to move with inertia in a strait line is being pulled into a partial arc of a circle about the base of the prong. The reaction to this pull towards the centre of the base of the prong , is the reactive centrifugal force away from the base of the prong. This could only be measured by a strain gauge in the base of one of the prong, or the base of both prongs It is this oscillating strain or force , at the base of one prong is transferred to the other prong , and so to induce the oscillating action on the other prong ( in anti phase ) . In this condition the force remains in a closed system , as with the gyroscope . The secret is to release the force out of the closed system . I believe this occurs when the Velocity is sufficient . When you scale up to Earth radius and motion of mass to 17,700 mph then The oscillating masses I believe will balance the force of gravity Mike

Yes , and I am impressed as you are of Newtons's calculus, which others have expanded on . This giving maths the degree of precision and the ability to mathematically manipulate number , as well as make incredibly accurate , quantification. I am not denying the rigor of maths or its banishment . I am just trying to champion the ....' root concepts ' .....that are needed to feed the machinery of discovery. I do feel that although discoveries can occasionally , be spawned directly out of maths from time to time , but I do feel ( as the original proposal states ) , that it is the concepts that should lead the field of discovery , by observation and hypothesis, not the maths . As maths is " Blind " whereas we as humans have a lot of different observational senses and a brain , all of which ( I will probably be shot down ! ) are non mathematical in their operation! Mike

Hi Acme . I have edited a Note A above in the last post . Hopefully explaining the operation . Mike

What frequency , say an audible frequency like 1000 hz ( 1 kilohertz ) ? Shall we say the portion of the tuning fork mainly doing the moving ( the prong ends , say last 1 cm ) ? Each prong end say 25 grams ? (0.025 Kgm ) Length of a prong , namely radius of partial arc 5 cm ( which = 0.05 metre ) We could say the total forward displacement of one fork prong is say ( 1 mm ) . It does this displacement 4 times every hz or cycle . So in 1 second the prong end will travel a distance of say 1000 hz x 4 x 1 mm/sec . So V = 4 000mm/sec = 4 meters/ sec Centrifugal force ( for each prong ) = m x v squared / r = 0.025 x 4 x4 / 0.05 newtons = 8 newtons . This is per prong . The joining of the two prongs of a tuning fork tend to be a curvy 'Y' You might have to measure this as strain in the joining area of the fork's two prongs . To get it to continuously ring you have to magnetically couple one prong to a coil receiver , feed it through an amplifier and back through an electromagnet to the opposite prong. Ensuring the anti phase is arranged as tuning forks only work in anti phase. Note A I would suppose , that the reason the small tuning fork works , is not because of any centripetal force caused by gravity generating a reactive centrifugal force as in the machine I am proposing, but because each prong is acting and reacting against the other fork through the ' Y' link at their base. Hence while one prong is going to the left , the other will be going to the right . So this system will run irrelevant of any effect of gravity. In the case of the large couplet , I am proposing the similar counter oscillation will be set up , but at a curvature radius = radius of earth , and of movement velocity RMS 17,700 mph . Under these conditions gravity will be a significant force centripetally acting on the oscillating masses, and thus will invoke counter centrifugal forces equivalent but opposite to gravity. Mike

See footnote on post 206 Mike

I have done the math. But only for the one I am interested in : namely with prongs the length of the radius of the earth. * Set up with a vibration frequency of 40 kHz , and a peak amplitude of 4 inches. ( each prong ) . Then the wight loss is enough to overcome Gravity . ( that is by my calculations ) Mike * rather than having prongs the radius of the earth , one can make a linked sprung system that has a partial section of arc support system ( > 8" ). following the circumferential line of the earth ( nearly strait but not quite ) this is easier ,