Mike Smith Cosmos

.I think to focus on ,one , or many analogies as an example of how vague compared to maths , analogies can be . Is a fair comment . This however does not exclude scientists or other disciplined persons , or just anyone making an observation, maybe by dint of circumstance, or by chance , or by Serendipity as a convenient coincidence . Then seeing a model that appears to work in nature one way, and wonder if it could work in another set of circumstances . Such an hypothesis should NOT be ' tossed out ' . But rather listened to, considered, tested for possible patterns and not suffer the fate of chucking the ' baby out with the bath water ' just because it does not have ' calculus ' or ' la place transforms ' in the hypothesis. I am sure Einstein never had this rebuttal when he noticed pollen grains on the surface of water , being buffeted , as his insight to Brownian motion of atoms, giving him the right to hypothesise about Atoms behaviour . Mike

..Quote ----------------------------------------- .ajb, on 25 Mar 2015 - 07:06 AM, said: Indeed, interpretations and analogies are useful. However they should come after the mathematics and for sure not separate from it. .unquote. --------------------------------------- . . WA HEY , WOW ! . I AM NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT ,! I met up with a well known colleague of this forum ,in person yesterday . We discussed this very subject . That mathematics is in fact a HUMAN construct. The terminology composed by man, the transforms identified by man , etc, YES drawing its structure from what man perceives the much underlying structure or reality that exists BENEATH maths . One layer down. What this is , or what one could call it , I do not know . Whether Plato had some ideas on this , I am not too sure. In this underlying structure are all the ridged reality from which mathematics is able to derive its formulae, it's transforms , it's mathematical mechanism for doing its calculations , relationships , it's ability to work with separateness and thus Number . Yes in some ways it might look like maths IN PART . But the bit we know and think of as maths is only an image of the reality beneath . It may not be complete, it may be wrong in some areas , it may have many more types to discover, yet that incorporate flexibility, probability , statistics , and something not yet even named. To use the term mathematics to describe everything down there in that reality , say like Mike Tegmark has attempted to do , is likely to persuade mankind that mathematics and for that matter science covers everything. IT DOES NOT . At the moment maths and science only glimpses a small portion of reality. There is ( I believe) and I agree I could be entirely wrong , a whole sea of reality that looks nothing like our current scientific and mathematical view of reality. And to limit our horizon to ' only that which can be calculated , and only that which fits in with our current methodology for conducting science , is likely to blind us to future discoveries, and dismiss observations that can give us a clue to the REAL REALITY that lays beneath. ( or sideways and above , for that matter, ) Mike Ps. . I do , none the less concede that mathematicians and scientist are digging , ever deeper into the ' substructure into the earth so to speak ' , but there may well be a 'whole sea of reality up the other way ( into the sky and beyond ) " . Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, Today, 09:12 AM.

. . WA HEY , WOW ! . I AM NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT ,! I met up with a well known colleague of this forum ,in person yesterday . We discussed this very subject . That mathematics is in fact a HUMAN construct. The terminology composed by man, the transforms identified by man , etc, YES drawing its structure from what man perceives the much underlying structure or reality that exists BENEATH maths . One layer down. What this is , or what one could call it , I do not know . Whether Plato had some ideas on this , I am not too sure. In this underlying structure are all the ridged reality from which mathematics is able to derive its formulae, it's transforms , it's mathematical mechanism for doing its calculations , relationships , it's ability to work with separateness and thus Number . Yes in some ways it might look like maths IN PART . But the bit we know and think of as maths is only an image of the reality beneath . It may not be complete, it may be wrong in some areas , it may have many more types to discover, yet that incorporate flexibility, probability , statistics , and something not yet even named. To use the term mathematics to describe everything down there in that reality , say like Mike Tegmark has attempted to do , is likely to persuade mankind that mathematics and for that matter science covers everything. IT DOES NOT . At the moment maths and science only glimpses a small portion of reality. There is ( I believe) and I agree I could be entirely wrong , a whole sea of reality that looks nothing like our current scientific and mathematical view of reality. And to limit our horizon to ' only that which can be calculated , and only that which fits in with our current methodology for conducting science , is likely to blind us to future discoveries, and dismiss observations that can give us a clue to the REAL REALITY that lays beneath. ( or sideways and above , for that matter, ) Mike Ps. . I do , none the less concede that mathematicians and scientist are digging , ever deeper into the ' substructure into the earth so to speak ' , but there may well be a 'whole sea of reality up the other way ( into the sky and beyond ) " .

. Surely you need both , in fairly equal doses. We could not live and exist in a purely mathematical world and conceive " what ever is going on " , neither could we gain numerical quantities with any degree of accuracy without the mathematical calculations . Surely that is so ! Mike

.. I see, " and the walls came tumbling down " Very good . .. Fascinating ! I knew I was on to something big. I will have to watch out for what actually resonates with 40 kHz. . ? Perhaps my brain! I will fall to bits when I switch my machine on ? I have built the device in the 1970's/ 1980's with positive feedback magnetising AC coils and Amplifier, around a double pronged giant tuning fork . This worked in anti phase each prong. It was pretty dramatic , but impossible to make force measurements. The second device was ,in university labs at slow oscillation of a single pronged ( swinging prong ) there measurements were taken and recorded with a strain detector. There were detectable traces on a graph recorder. I have not yet built the 40 kHz at 4 inch displacement oscillating anti phase tuning fork style arrangement . That is a lot more difficult ! Ps a tuning fork naturally oscillates in anti phase , that is the root of operation of this system . This is a naturally occurring phenomenon . Which is why I keep bringing up the subject of electrons . I believe they follow this same natural type of counter oscillation when in pairs of electrons ( + and - ) spin . . . See comments to Acme ,in this post , above , of my previous attempts to build and test the proposed device . I will attempt to find my notes and drawings and post selected parts . I will look forward to further possible discussions around " the counter oscillating masses in a partial arc condition , and how the centrifugal forces thus developed . " show themselves . ( or don't ) MAIN PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION . .. CONVERSION OF STRAIGHT LINE INERTIA TO ORBITAL FOR COMPONENTS OF DEVICE . MIKE

Why Joshua ? Mike

Very interesting video , some good background , Tesla practically vibrating a building to bits , by hitting the wavelength or half wavelength natural frequency of the building . Also some very impressive acoustic vibration levitation through node identification. And the development of a magnetic and attractive combination based on some wings of an insect . Impressive . BUT However the vibration I am suggesting should be invoked is NOT those in the video but those of an ultra sonic frequency , primarily so it does not blow human eardrums apart and that the 4 inch amplitude in the opposing masses of the tuning fork device , will produce a 17,700 RMS MIles per hour when running at 40,000 cycles per second or hertz . Also the devise I am putting forward invokes centrifugal action /force direct in the fabric of space . Mike I believe I am ' on the case' with the long radius ( to centre of earth ) , RMS SPEED in both directions , by the two tuning fork extremities. The joining apparatus must keep the force lines instantaneously present . Mike

As I may or may not have told you, I have been just now been moving house so my personal files and stuff is all jumbled up all over the place and can find nothing , even my brain , very well . I will try and find my thesis ,I did during a mature Degree , about centrifugal forces. I obviously have it in my head , but the evidence , Swansont , is asking for is partly in that thesis. Basically , I have been seeking a way to ' extract' the possible UNI directional benefit of centrifugal force . In other words not loosing the instantaneous effect of centrifugal force over a small arc , by loosing its overall effect around a complete circle .( where the sum total benefit is effectively zero. ) Laithwait noticed ,as many people do that there is some useful effect in a gyroscope , but never fully developed it into a linear ' usefulness ' . He did with the electro- magnetic motor , by designing the linear motor. This has later been taken up by the Japanese and Continental railways as the 'mag-Lev -'. High speed railway . He never completed it with his gyroscope idea. While he was exploring the gyroscope , I was exploring the Tuning Fork as it appeared to have a part arc reciprocating oscillation , which by my reckoning , was half way to a linear development for centrifugal force. I communicated with Laithwait , but although prepared to discuss , really wanted to go on with his gyroscope idea. I tried putting a patent on the tuning fork idea back in the 1980's 1990' s but the patenting agents could not get their head around it , any more than others nowadays seem to be able to get their head around it . I pressed on with my tuning fork idea , doing experiments and theory at a degree level project , while conducting a mature degree in satellite communications around 2002, bringing up four daughters and general married life and work rather stalled work on the project. Now in retirement I am trying to rekindle interest. In the mean time many others have been trying different issues mainly around complete circular motion , like gyroscopes . I still believe we will not ' crack' the problem until we break out of the complete circle namely ' the partial arc motion ' that I keep bleating on about . I drew this conclusion from my work as an Electrical/ electronic engineer , where here we convert oscillating AC electrical signal to DC unidirectional electrical energy by a clever means of ' rectification ' . Laithwait reckoned I had no right to draw such conclusions , so we went our separate ways . He died . Now I am trying to complete the task before I get too much older. If one cracks the problem then :- We have movement upwards and into motion about the near earth environment without rocket fuel , air propulsion or manipulation of air over a wing by high speed. We just lift according to the energy we put into the ' Tuning Fork style oscillator ' true we are talking largish numbers like. 40 kHz over 4 inches on both sides . But away we go . That's roughly what it is about ! Mike

.Coming. Soon .. Have two days ago finalised on house move , which has spread over last few weeks , including moving all my lifelong possessions ,to new house . And remember I am surrounded by seven women , wife , four daughters two female granddaughters ( that's enough women ,to send any man stark staring insane ! Also Everything and I mean everything is all jumbled up! It's really stressful .experience . I just do not know everything is ! So not forgotten , rearing to go . Just trying desperately to bring myself back to some form of sanity But things are moving forward on the centrifugal force subject in the mean time ! Mike

Welcome home ! Centrifugal force seems to be getting a ' come back ' , I am pleased to see ! Mike

.. I think the word ' orbit ' might be an arbitrary definition. Agreed the force acting on the water is gravity. But by newtons , law and indeed Galileo 's observation . The strait line inertia / momentum of the mass of water is modified by this force towards the centre( centripetally ) and newtons law says " every action has an equal and opposite reaction. " And although it appears to be very unpopular . This equal and opposite relation is none the less than ( this inertia/ momentum fighting back to stay in a strait line. And is overthrowing the force of gravity to create this centrifugal ( away from the centre ) force . No mater how it is named ' fictitious ' or otherwise . It may not be a generating force , but it surely can be an ' opposing force'. And seeing as the only force in the direction and attitude is gravity . It opposes gravity Centrifugally . Moving in a way ' away from the centre ' thus opposing gravity. If Einstein's general theory proved gravity distorts space , then it follows opposing gravity in this particular way must have ' adjusted the distortions in space ' .! In reversal to gravity. Newtons three laws ( third law ) :- http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html If one took pushing a block of concrete along a surface . There can clearly be seen in the horizontal direction a force doing the pushing ( perhaps oneself ) . Newtons law says there will be an equal an opposite reaction ( frictional force ) . So we can reach a stage where this frictional force is so strong as to preventing you from moving the stone . So by similar reasoning we can by inertia ( caused by movement and thus momentum ) reach a sufficiently fast movement in the case of the gravity experiment . ( usually approx 17,700 mph ) where the centrifugal force is sufficiently strong so as to oppose gravity. In the way the frictional force for other reasons increased in value so as to completely overcome the pushing force . Neither the frictional force or the centrifugal force can be larger than the originating force , it is assumed. Otherwise concrete blocks would be moving about under there own steam ! And presumably the universe would be drifting apart! Eek ! It is of course . Drifting apart ! Maybe the angular momentum is too big ? Mike

If we were to change the shape of the bucket ,during its overhead arc bit , of it's swinging above our head , in such a way as the bottom of the bucket circumscribes a partial arc whose radius is that of the radius of the earth during that short partial arc ' portion' . And the bucket at that portion travelled at 17,700 mph . That the water will be in orbit at 8 ft above the surface of the earth . If we then have a second bucket going in the opposite direction , doing the same thing . It. Also will be in orbit , but in the opposite . Direction . Link the two , and we have a theoretical system , where the two centrifugal forces , give orbit at near the surface of the earth , in theory . Mike Two relevant free body diagrams . FBD 's . Force of bucket on the water centripetal force Force of water on the bucket. Centrifugal force Mike It could be argued , that if this theoretical model could be translated to an actual dual device :- Then a mass attached to the twin device , provided it was a couple of orders of magnitude less than the mass of the two waters , then :- Such an attached mass would be supported aloft ( few feet above ground level ) , with no visible means of support other than by supplied tangential oscillating angular momentum . Thus is illustrated the tuning fork principle device as a crude schematic diagram. Mike

Half an hour ago , looking out of my back door at 9:25 am u.k Mike Image taken from a plane flying above Faroe Islands by BBC in the sea above UK. Actual shot out over next door rooftop , sun behind slight cloud . Last viewing of Solar eclipse in UK , was 16 years ago in 1999 , next viewing in uk in another 14 or so years . Mike

I think any higher intelligence would make an ' Avatar ' just like us , so we could not tell them apart from humans. Why? Because anything else would ' freak the living daylights out of us ' and humans would attempt to kill it out of fear . So .. So I would say we need to concentrate more on the " message not the medium " Where is the message ? +++++++ Bound up in the question and the Serendipity ? ++++++++ Where is the medium ? Does it matter, if we are not concentrating on the medium , but rather the message ? Maybe this is not a good thing , we may get caught up in a bad connection ? How can we overcome that problem ? Mike

There would be about a third of the world population , at least by historic cultural beliefs , believe that a number have visited earth and been seen and heard about 2000 years or more in the past. And at a similar time one important one walked the streets of the Middle East , Israel. Unfortunately , because of what he said , and what he claimed he was , he was killed. A third of the world ,went on to repeat information about this " walking the streets and parting with some interesting information , that later got incorporated into the statute books of many major nations . Nowadays there is a growing scepticism , but it had a big impact. What would happen in today's world if this happened with all the media. The economy would no doubt stop overnight . If you prefer the science style version. The film " The day the Earth stood still " is worth seeing , again our knee jerk reaction nearly did for us . Link Wikipedia :- Search using " the day the earth stood still 2008 " :- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_(2008_film) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Stood_Still_(2008_film).

Interesting video Acme ! I am coming round to think that there is more than meets the eye , with:- Recognition of Humour , also with my afternoon of Portrait painting , there must be a great deal that we take into account in Recognising someone . As I did a self portrait , yet I could not recognise myself in what I drew . Or for that matter any of the other faces people had drawn. Cartoonist - artists must have a particular. Skill! Also there must be some other recognition ( complex) that we have been building up since birth. So now we have face recognition and humour , as opposed to some simple characteristic like height , say Mike I never used to recognise individual sheep , when I was pre 30 years old . Since I have kept and bred sheep. I could go into a flock , mixed up with my 20 sheep. Say escaped by jumping over the wall ( rather climb ) . Then I could recognise my 20 in say in a flock of 100 . And pick out my 20 exactly. Yet to a passer by , they all looked the same .

Interesting point that, about humour . I must say I had not considered that before in communications . Now even more to think about . Hmmm ! Interesting , I wonder if it could be useful in radio and computer links ? Even though it is going to be more difficult now , with an ear missing . Mike

Good question! I will have a good think about that while I have a taught lesson session on a " self portrait" I may have an ear missing by the end of the afternoon ! Mike

..well Communications , has been my interest ,throughout my life ... First since being a little boy , I was utterly fascinated with the idea of RADIO ... Invisible waves that communicated . Second as a student and engineer ... Communication across the world Third as manufacturer ... computer to device , Forth as Mature student ...Satellites Fifth as Teacher of Science to students . Sixth as ......Seeker after an understanding of reality and communicating to whoever, artist , whatever ..... certainly in the electronics and computer realm , communicating , was and still is one of the most difficult , problematic areas. So it's no wonder we have , and still are struggling with any possible communication or lack of communication with Superior Intelligences. I am not sure it is easy to distinguish between .. Superior Intelligences .. and .. God and Angels . Other than they all need to be benign , kind , otherwise we are screwed ! Mike Remembering the difficulties up through my life to do with Communications , it is no wonder , we are left asking the question , you pose ..." Maybe they don't exist " ....usually it was more a case of " is it plugged in ? ". " is it switched on " .. " is the communication link , synchronised with the right speed " " code " " ASCII " the computer keyboard ..American Standard Code for Information Interchange " The whole communication thing is very difficult in our own species let alone with a superior Intelligence . I think we have to assume , if they are Superior , they will have made it Easy ( all the difficulties hidden behind the scene ) . That is why I think it needs to be reduced to ( Ask and Agreed protocol ...Simple Interpretation , like right, wrong , mixed ) However if you have a better idea , then great . but to say to someone , you meet on the street , before you speak to them " I do not believe you exist ! " is not going to get very far ?.." Not make a lot of progress . I don't think . Mike

Well even by today's internet , we can type in a question , even in a loose form , or speak it into your tablet. It does not take a great stretch of your imagination as to the possible ways an individual , can compose, and present a question ! ( To an intelligent super civilisation ) ( if there is one there ) When I have done it , I have proposed questions with three alternatives . definite correct ( to the right) , definite wrong ( to the left ) neither totally correct nor wrong. ( about the centre ) . So with the example in Wikipedia with the birds . I would interpret that as a clear ( neither totally correct nor totally wrong. ) namely ( about the centre ) . This one BELOW ,whatever the question I would interpret as definitely wrong . ( see white bird in tree ) . This one BELOW, whatever the question I would interpret as definitely right ( see red glow on right ) The rational :- The reason for all this , is , as I set the protocol for my questions as ( left , right, centre ) . Then look for something significant within a minute or two , of the question . Of course if you think this is all a lot of huwii , it would not work . If on the other hand , if .......... All three of the above , are suggested simple examples of Serendipity. Perhaps inspiring within the recipient an idea or in my examples case , indicators as to the correct interpretation of an observation. The ambiguous nature of this , can all be put down to complete unrelated coincidence , or as has been mooted by others , a little ( though ambiguous ) indicators as to an ideas' , correctness, falseness, or out right wrong. Mike

. Both these points/ questions are immensely deep and far telling in their meaning . So far the following two points are my method . 1. If you put yourself ( if this is possible ) in the shoes of an intelligent super civilisation . The chance is a-civilisation existing somewhere, aware of our presence here on earth . Can they just burst in on an individual's brain, life, consciousness , without invitation , or in an arbitrary way . Would not we as an intelligent super civilisation, hold back from intervention so as not to damage the progress of the less developed civilisation. The possible effects could be world sweeping and possibly dangerous. However a gentle intervention with an ambiguous interpretation could serve the purpose of A ) communication B) impact. 2. If included in the initial attempted question , some parameters or protocols were suggested , then this would allow for resolution( noise, choice, random , etc ) so as to identify a clear answer to a question., Yet still maintaining the possibility of an ambiguous interpretation. Mike

Welcome. Aboard ! . Plenty of thinking goes on here. Plenty of forgetting of age too! And where did I put my Glasses. Mike

If we were looking for an answer to the question " is there some form of Universe Wide Web , that has already been set up by these ' observers . Where would we find it ? How could we test it? I would suggest , we do what we do with the original www World Wide Web . ASK A QUESTION . ( just speak the question out into the air , try not to have anyone within hearing range or you are likely to get locked up ! ) How do you get an answer ? Take Notice of any serendipity ? Over the following 5 to 10 minutes . Definition of serendipity. :- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity Note: this picture above from the Wikipedia and the following quote . The accident here while taking a picture of a bird on a twig, he/she accidentally or serendipitously captures the other rare bird zipping through the frame . " The chance is an event, serendipity a capacity. The Nobel Prize laureate Paul Flory suggests that significant inventions are not mere accidents. Serendipity and scientific discoveries The serendipitous can play an important role in the search for truth, but because of traditional scientific behavior and scientific thinking based on logic and predictability is often ignored in the scientific literature. Successful researchers can observe the results with a careful attention in the mood to analyze a phenomenon under the most diverse and different perspectives. Question themselves on assumptions that do not fit with the empirical observations. Realizing that serendipitous events can generate important research ideas, these researchers recognize and appreciate the unexpected, encouraging their assistants to observe and discuss unexpected events. " Mike ( boy ! can you have some fun ! )

Another compositional tool to introduce into a painting is FLOW and Journey THROUGH the picture . It could be said to be often traditional to come in through the bottom of the picture and flow from place to place through the picture . Always remembering to easily bring people to the FOCUS of the picture , even if you continue to flow through the picture and return to the Focus another time. Note the flow in this following composition using the Dog . Note the long grasses can be noticed coming in from bottom left . Rising diagonally. You can not fail but be brought to the Focus of the picture , the ' Jack Russell' . However the dog is looking ' contemplating ' , you could ask what , and look at the clouds working there way up the sky in bands. Or you could romance about what distraction , is being caught by the dogs sense of smell ? Mike. These compositional tools are where" science is brought to work in art . If we were to bring some of these compositional tools to bear in a " science idea , Picture or illustration " maybe it is possible to use these in an " explanation of a Science Idea or principle ?

THEN. When you are in a dream it feels real and you seem to be in the dream and do "what appear to be real things at the time " even if later you think some of those things were a bit , " different" say like flying . NOW . When you are in the life bit we appear to all be in now . It seems fairly o.k. Now. FUTURE AFTERLIFE . Perhaps , if you wake up in an 'afterlife' , you might look back at this bit , and think ! Wow I did some crazy things back then . But ' in the future ', rather than now , could be as different again, as dreams are to current life experiences. Mike