Mike Smith Cosmos

Evidence in heavy water ratio seems to prove much of the water on earth came from a different source than our Sun . Link :- http://rt.com/news/190832-water-earth-older-sun-system/ Mike

.But if there was a hole in your bucket ? Would a drop of water appear at the top /outward bottom of the bucket. And continue to fly upward having been liberated from the restraint of the bucket . Or now it's containment " force " is no longer in contact . Will it now just float there , just beyond the hole ? Assuming for this discussion there is no air currents or wind pressure to displace it . Mike Ps I think if everybody insists I do this experiment with the water in the bucket as well as bleeding through the hole , I can't win either way . Whether the centrifugal force , continues after the effects of the centripetal force are ' there ' or 'not there ' , when the hole appears . Either way I am going to get wet .

So how is the water staying up there ? Mike

So following your above example , but with the bucket and the water . { using your different objects principle } We are exerting a force ( centripetal toward the Centre or operator ) by pulling on the bucket handle with a swing . Which exerts its force on the water. The water in turn exerts its centrifugal force ( away from the centre ) on the bottom of the bucket . Equivalent to what it would do ,if it was standing normally on the ground , where normal gravity pushes the water into the normal bucket. Surely what we have just achieved with the bucket ,swinging above our head , is the equivalent to what gravity normally does . But now ,above our head , we have managed to reverse the process . We have achieved producing an opposite to gravity by : Swinging a mass (water) in a partial arc ( bit above our head ) . I appreciate a lot more happens during the rest of the circle. Mike

.I do not think, that is what it does or can do. As the resolution of any force is into its two right angle components (F cos theta ) and (F sine theta) . At right angles theta is 90 degrees . And cos of 90 degrees is zero . The force is produced as a reaction to centripetal gravity . Continuously changing its direction towards the centre of the Earth. Perhaps this is similar to the action of electro-magnetism , where cutting the lines of magnetic flux induces a back electro motive force ( back EMF) and an electric current . Whereas here we are crossing the lines of gravitational field lines and inducing a back gravitational force , centrifugal force . Oops! "That will have set the cat amongst the pigeons " Things like to continue to go the way they are going, and if you try to change that ,they react in the opposite direction . Hence with magnetism and current , now with gravity and inertia . Mike Quoted here for reference purposes :- Newtons three laws of motion link :- http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html The one we are dealing with here to do with centripetal ( action ) And centrifugal ( reaction ) Centripetal being Gravity ( as the action ). Centrifugal being the effect of opposing gravity ( as the reaction .

.M. Well I hope I can prove that wrong , in other words that it is possible. however if I am proved wrong it is a shame , but I would then concede defeat. Mike Another driver . The oscillator or transducer driver . This is the device stimulating and topping up resonance , the 40,kHz 4 inch peak oscillation . Acting to produce the two masses to move in opposite directions . Remembering they are cleverly linked along the partial arc is a way to retard and feed each other , in the way ( but NOT the prong configuration ) tuning fork works in supportive resonant anti phase. I am happy to meet up with you , seeing as we live in the same Country . Even though not the same County . Mike

Has anybody identified , who is looking out for the Earth as a whole , as things are getting pretty desperate at the moment ! Mike

Could it be that Serendipity ( a fortunate coincidence ) is some form of communication from somewhere ? Where? Are we missing a 'trick' by ignoring this reasonably frequent phenomenon . Mike

Balance in a picture . We understand intuitively when a picture or scene is Balanced. Is this something we have learned happens in nature , that we take for granted , yet use everyday in our existence and activity in the world around us. Raphael did the formal balance by putting the main focus of attention in the centre of the picture. Later developments moved to balancing a heavier focus to one side , BALANCED by a smaller item on the other side . Notice the more acceptable feeling to having this balance big to left , smaller to right . Old fashioned scales ,sometimes seen in old chemists shops . Have a long lever , with heavy weights on one side , a long lever , with a small item out at a distance from the fulcrum . Scientifically this works , aesthetically this works in the picture . Mike

Ok. I will return with :- Experiments . Results Observations Evidence Watch this space . Mike

Ok. I do not wish to be construed as "soap boxing " as that certainly is not my intension. And I have spent too much time on this project for it to be dismissed out of hand. What would be nice is for someone to say ! Jolly good Mike , you are a nice chap. I think you might be on to something there . Keep going . You can make it ! But be prepared to be wrong. That last phrase ,sends shudders through my very being . However I do have doubts ,sometimes in the middle of the night . Then I get fortified as I do observe and learn of such wonders both in the atom , the world , my experiences , the earth moon and stars , now galaxies , super large structures and beyond. As a Famous American once said " why shall we go to the Moon" " because it's there ! " So " why should we explore ways to overcome the confinement of Gravity ". " because we can " maybe not me , but somebody will ! " because the solution is there , somewhere " Mike Ps. However , not to sink too far down , beyond the water level . I will reflect on what ,you all are saying , and see what I can come up with. I do understand most of what you chaps are saying , BUT I still think there is something there . I wish someone else would say " you are on to something there Mike , keep going ! Mike

1. I am not totally certain what you are saying I can or cannot do . I personally find it almost impossible to even talk to myself ,let alone any other engineer , without a diagram . Say like my sketch of the proposed gravitational centripetal and centrifugal reactive forces. I was brought up on graphs . If you mean my drawings of engineers setting up and flying up in the air . That was intended as a ' lighten up the atmosphere of the subject, serious as it may be. Well I think it is . So which diagrams or pictures is it you are saying endless about. 2. I would assume that the v used in mvsquared /r refers to the instantaneous speed . This v surely contributes to the momentum as in angular momentum . That is why surely the motion in a circle without friction is surely infinite. The angular momentum is conserved. Like energy it cannot be destroyed only changed. Electrons buzzing about ,however they do it , conserve their angular momentum or spin , I believe. 3. I am not sure ,I can get my head round your point here . Again going back to electrons , that's why the masters of old were worried electrons would radiate their energy away and decay . There is some perfect elasticity afoot with electrons ,that appear to allow them to be,buzz,and move about ,where only their fields interact in perfect elasticity , energy is conserved perfectly , angular momentum is conserved perfectly . Radiation is not bleeding away energy ,inefficiently . I appreciate electrons are not the machine we are discussing here , but I have to use natural phenomenon as models as observations and proof that such apparently orbital systems are possible as I am discussing. It is part of the proof , part of the model. I am happy to learn , very much so, but you sound like you have a forgone conclusion that I am wrong in my proposal? Maybe I am . But when I first proposed it to the Science Research Council ( 1970's 1980's) they referred me on to various professors. In the course of developing this project I contacted Surrey University , when they were doing orbital trials with satellites , asking what accelerometers they used to check and measure in orbit . They said they ' don't' because the net force is so small practically zero , no accelerometer is sensitive enough. So their measurement of the balancing of forces in space was practically Zero. So why can my device ,all-be-it very near earth be designed to achieve practically zero by whatever method is used by satellites and electrons? Mike

.But hang about , you have introduced another equation , ( I am not saying you should not introduce another equation) , namely the force between two masses , namely a single mass m , and the earth mass M , As well as G the universal gravitational constant , as opposed to g the acceleration due to gravity. This is just stating there is a force of attraction between two masses. But by dint of the fact we are thundering off down range at 17,700 mph , all be it , for 1/4 of 1/40,000 of a second we invoke the other equation of motion that mg= mvsquared/r , then the centripetal force will invoke the reactive centrifugal force , thus neutralising the attraction between the earth and our little mass. m ( or at least one of them ) . The other one linked to it loosely is hurtling down range in the opposite direction similarly at 17,000 mph and invokes the exact same response ( but in the opposite direction of travel ) . If this were not the case, we or NASA would not have to send rockets down range at 17,700 mph to attain orbital velocity! I think ! Note both forces are present , in opposition so as to neutralise , so there is no net force . Device is effectively in an oscillating bit of orbit , just above the earth surface , not 500 miles up. So the theory is saying the device should hover in near earth orbit at bench hight. ( or perhaps 100 feet up to be on the safe side , see diagram below ) Neither going very far as a whole ,but internally the two masses are ,on average travelling at approx 17,700 mph which is escape velocity. ( That is if one could build the darn thing ! ) Mike See picture below . Start building : . . Wow ! . Phew! Just look at it go ! Mike

I have always thought of this balance of forces as being an instantaneous , or , integral ,slice of time or slice of distance around the circumference. Instantaneous and the line would be a tangent for that instance only . The next integral moment , the ingoing centripetal force due to gravity would be at a different angle to the last as it again points to the centre of the earth . This time or next instant would have a different angled tangent . The summation of all these tangents ( though individually strait ) ,the summation is a curve . At 17,700 mph this curve should be parallel to the surface . The corresponding instantaneous or integral centripetal force at each instant will be equal to the corresponding gravity induced centrifugal force at each instant. What happens during the other parts of the cycle ,where the instantaneous velocity goes to 22,000 mph and down to zero , I can only predict a mean value hence RMS predicted 0.707 of peak which is approx 17,700 mph . I think because this is happening 40,000 times a second it should smooth out ,or shake the apparatus to destruction! In the electrical analogue, one would have a smoothing capacitor to maintain the potential at a constant DC voltage having been rectified from a continuous sine wave AC .IN THIS CASE I AM OBTAINING ( or hoping to obtain ) a rectified v squared value of centrifugal force in a similar to full wave electrical rectification . What the capacitor equivalent is I am not sure ( inertia , momentum , angular momentum ? ) Mike Centrifugal force waveform Ps the centripetal force waveform would be ?..? Must be the same , but how can it be ?

At equilibrium, ie when a mass is in orbit then the force due to gravity . ( F= ma ) where a is the acceleration due to gravity ,namely 32 ft/sec/sec known as g . So then the centripetal force = centrifugal force mvsquared/r = mg m's cancel So v squared/r = g v squared =rg Which the last time I worked it out v = 17,700 mph Mike

I shall by then be either going skyward or in a lunatic asylum . Mike

No I would not dare to say that Isaac Newton was wrong . I have his Principea it props the bed up. I am not quite sure what you are saying , that I am saying . I am saying that when a mass moves in a strait line . It has inertia in the direction of the strait line . When gravity acts ORTHOGANALLY or at right angles to that strait line , so as to move it towards the centre of a sphere like the earth IT will in so doing generate a force .. Centrifugal force acting in opposition . Or away from the centre. But this is physics as I know it. But it is real as is anything else. Which most things are not real anyway , they appear to be the result of something else. ( as here centrifugal force is as a result of gravity and strait line inertia being changed . I don't think this is new . I think it is how we thought in olden days . Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying ? Ps orbiting bodies left to there own devices would prefer to travel in a strait line . It is only the interference by gravity with its ( towards the centre or centripetal force ) force , that converts the strait line trajectory into an orbit . And in so doing generates centrifugal force . The two balance and so appear weightless. There is no resultant force left to be measured Mike

There appears to be a relentless drive to say : " That " Father Christmas ...God .. & ....Centrifugal force ... Do not exist " When I was teaching Physics in school , they had even removed. Centrifugal Force from the text books . All this misleading information about firing a Canon off a mountain fast enough, and it just keeps falling " said Isaac Newton " I believe , is all very well if that is what you want to do ( fire a cannon ball off a mountain . ) and I am not saying that does not occur but it is misleading people into thinking centrifugal force does not come into being when we tamper , as gravity does , with strait line inertial motion. But if you want to work at human scales . Inertia in a strait line , acted on by a gravitational force radially , producing a reactive centrifugal force is as real as most things get . Centrifugal force does exist by dint of the speed of the mass giving strait line inertia. Because that's what our dear colleague Isaac Newton said ( for what ever reason , things want to continue to move in a strait line.) Like a rugby player running for the goal mouth . Try to push him off his course , sideways , and you will feel that force in your chest . This is the centrifugal force we are using to combat gravity . The greater the velocity v The bigger the force ( even squared ) . To say it does not exist is strictly untrue . It might be derived by motion , mass, velocity , inertia , like everything else is derived from something . But unlike Father Christmas it does exist . ( Centrifugal force exists ... When ...bla..de...bla ) we are all in a ' when ' , nothing is very permanent . Mike It all goes on ' here ' :- Both sides I could concede you put two cannons back to back in the middle ! Just a bit cumbersome , I was thinking more like some small lightweight powerful electro magnetic pulser !

But they have noticed it . 1000 of people are working on it . The problem is it's going on all the time up there 500 miles out of sight out of mind . We have become so accustomed to it , we think this is the only way possible . All I am saying is the physics is the same down here , using two objects in opposite directions at the same time , with a clever bit of mechanical coupling , at a smaller scale . It's here, up there , at a bigger scale, in one direction . Noticed ! And moved on .. Forgotten by many as they get on with life as is. . IF this was solvable , what I am proposing , it would be pretty revolutionary as a means of travel ! Mike

Yes I have already done a few experiments and results at very low frequency ,using a quartz crystal shock sensor and digital plotter . Here is the apparatus , I will dig out the results & graphs ! Mike

No. But if you imagine for a moment a perfectly elastic reversal after say 4 inches. . Then you have exactly the same in the opposite direction. I have already established this process is not direction sensitive provided it is on the orbital shell. How though you might say do you get this perfectly elastic reaction? Provided the connection to the other mass is along the orbital shell , then the return trajectory will be along the orbital shell and thus in fact be effectively perfectly elastic ( as if there were an elastic brick wall there . ) Mike

But surely during the section of time 'say' when one of the masses is moving at 17,700 mph during a 'bit ' of partial arc . Who knows where it came from ? How it got there? Where it is going in the immediate future? Surely for that integral part of time , if the conditions are met , by the physics , :- The mass is travelling along a tangential orbital line, it's speed is 17,700 mph , the gravity (vector force as you put it ) is centripetally acting on the mass , from a strong inertial point of view the mass would soon keep going in a strait line. Thus it will respond , re actively with a centrifugal force acting against the gravitational force . This in such a way as to ( for that integral of time at least ) , by the physics and maths calculation , it will maintain orbit , even though this is ' near ' the surface of the Earth' Surely if we were to look at all the integral steps ( some at greater speeds , up to 22,000 mph , and down to 0 mph ) we would come up with this RMS mean of 17,700 mph that I have explained in the previous paragraph. The pushing up surely is the reactive force ( centrifugal force ) caused by gravity attempting to push the inertial mass in toward the earths' centre. Some times ( at say 19,000 mph ) the pushing by gravity is insufficient , other times it over sufficient say 12,000 mph . Other times just right at 17,700mph. Possibly needless to say the summation of all these time integrals is what I have proposed , namely an average or mean ( root mean squared value ) always positive by dint of mvsquared /r Direction INSENSITIVE on the surface of the orbital sphere. So a change in direction is IMMATERIAL , surely . Mike It is the strait line inertia that causes the (centrifugal ) reaction to gravity ( centripetal ) . The compromise or ongoing calculation is an orbital curve of some sort . Less than 17,700 mph ...downward (lower orbit ) ......Equal to 17,700 orbital ......more than 17,700 Upward ( higher orbit )

. The transducer elements (2) are the main mass of the device . Any containing ( possibly vacuum casing slightly curved to the contour of the earths surface ) housing would be comparatively light compared with the two moving masses of the transducer device. This could be viewed symbolically as two masses moving in opposite directions along the ( close to earth ) orbit. They are however linked elastically( not literal) such that the masses change direction sinusoidal fashion . However because of the V squared term in the equation of motion , the centrifugal force equalising the centripetal force (gravity ) is always positive . Thus is achieved rectification of an analogous sine wave electrically . Hence although the peak speed of mass is likely to be approx 22,000 mph , and the change direction low ' 0 ' , the RMS ( root mean squared ) speed should be approx 17,700 mph . Giving a mean force of zero ( however in orbit , at near to ground level ) . Presumably to raise or lower , would hopefully work, by more or less energy , input into the transducer system. .I would believe so , as the cross explanation , just given to 'Spyman ' ( your second --"or "-- comment/ question ) The Grey tube illustrated below ( non massive yet strong ) is symbolically the container for , the device for achieving and maintaining " Near to Earth Orbit ". The key component/s and by far the dominant Mass is/are , the two masses illustrated Brown . The two grey lines joining the two masses are symbolic of the mechanism to ( a ) accelerate the opposing masses( zero to peak ) and (b) decelerate the opposing masses( peak to zero ) . This could be named transducer. It is important to note that these lines ,as with the container follow the curvature required eg, ( earth surface curvature) , in this way forces between large masses run along a tangential line . Also the orthogonal lines ( 90 degrees ) to the masses , follow the same direction as the earth radius ( gravity field lines core to far outer space ) . The relevant physics assumptions here are : - the laws of physics as regards these masses is ' that they are subject to the same centrifugal and gravitational forces , in principle , here near the surface of Earth , as is 500 miles etc , up at conventional orbitals. Also that the forces are the same of each of both masses , irrelevant as which direction they are pointed opposed but as long as they are across the sphere of equal radius . The overarching idea is that the two masses are in some way connected and coordinated in an anti phase arrangement , oscillating at resonance ,about a short distance on the surface of the sphere ,previously mentioned. Below with values of balancing force as they move from zero to max and zero to max ( no negative ) Mike Separate though relevant .--------------- appendix (A) ---------------- Appendix (a) It has also been posited here that a similar arrangement MAY exist is some way , with electron pairs . I appreciate this is another subject all together. But I mention it here , as 'one ' does need to get 'ones ' ideas from somewhere . And although the main thrust of the idea came from the surprising operation of the way I uncovered how tuning forks and resonance works , very soon in the development of the idea , electron spin and pairs came blasting into the arena . So it is difficult to totally separate them .

Yes, I am aware of all that you say regarding the atomic analysis of electron models. I don't think I could compete with all the quantum mechanical analysis of atomic theory at this time. I threw it in a bit of the 20th century history development of ideas about electron orbits. However I am more interested at this ,moment , for human scale vibrations , in partial arc motion , at world size radii. Here then , when we plug in a figure for radius of 4000 odd miles to get to say bench height in a lab , we can set up ( with a humungous amount of mechanical engineering ) a transducer with a horizontal displacement of 4 inches ( both ends 4 inches , each in anti phase with the other end ). Power it up with a drive of 40 kHz . Stand back and watch the said transducer vibrate in a horizontal orientation " In Orbit " but here , near the Earth surface. ( if I have done my sums correctly . ) Mike

I will have to discuss this later . ( out for the day painting) I am sure my formulae would work with the moon in orbit around the earth . Have never done it . But I am sure the past masters did . See you later Mike