Mike Smith Cosmos

But MORDRED these formulas were used in textbooks . At one stage not too long ago the balance of forces in the atoms , in text books showed electrons in orbit around the nucleus as the balance of electrostatic forces pulling in ( like gravity in my equation ) and centrifugal forces pushing out as the electrons spun in orbit around the nucleus ( like my centrifugal force ) . We have become a little blind as we have moved to energy bands . Although another way of looking at it . Surely the fundamental physics remains hidden underneath. Centrifugal forces are still there . I am sure the astronauts can vouch for that in their centrifuge training for 'G' forces . Mike

?If my understanding is incorrect . A satellite would not stay in orbit ! Surely ? Mike

What is wrong with this :- Mike

Inertia seems fundamental to the movement of mass . So if an object with mass is moving ( by) , as part of an oscillation , from left to right . By Newtonian reasoning and acceptance , it wants to keep moving in that straight line . Unless acted upon by a force . If a steady force , gravity acts ORTHOGANALLY , at right angles to the movement of the mentioned object , it will attempt to move push the object downward ( could be named centripetal force ) . However due to the tremendous inertia of the object , this will be resisted , ( could be named centrifugal force ) . As the speed of our object is 17,700 mph the sums involving these equations namely (mvsquared/r =mg) the object will levitate! See following sketch. Mike

As I understand it .Field theory was particularly used by Einstein to produce his General theory of relativity and explained Gravity as distortions in space time . The common pictorial representation of this is to show a trampoline like 3 dimensional grid , with what looks like displaced grid lines where mass is strong . ThIs is sufficient for me to say " if we want to mitigate this effect we need to equalise out any distortions that we come across . I see it more as a uniform 3 D field lattice that would be cubic strait lines ( ) , which of course are no more than similar to magnetic field lines that can be followed for direction by a mini compass , if we wish to trace them from North to South about a bar magnet. Or fields of electric charge induced by static electric , which can be followed by even human hair ( ). Now we are dealing with gravitational fields some of equal field strength and others at right angles . Not so easy to see what is going on , as we seem to know less about gravitational forces. Sufficient to say most people pick up a flavour by the sort of trampoline images bandied about. The thrust of my investigation has been to follow the lead that "CURVATURE " seems to be fundamental to Gravity. Here also often forced motion about a curve produces lines tangential to a curve and at right angles .( ) . Also that ORTHOGONALITY rears its head . ( at 90 degrees ) Mike

Ajb Sounds interesting : could you possibly elaborate a bit on: A) Negative energy densities B)Negative Mass C) Form of the cosmological constant D) Slow roll inflation - inflation field and false vacua Thanks in anticipation Mike

Oops! Got my miles and kilometers muddled. When I last did the sums the surface speed required was not much more that that required 500 miles up. It is a popular misconception that gravity goes to zero up at 500 miles , seeing all these spacemen drifting about in space stations. They , and everything else that orbits in low earth orbit is travelling at 17,700 mph approx , that's why they appear weightless . The gravitational constant is not a lot different 500 miles up than it is at ground level . What we are battling with is these distortions in space caused by this massive lot of rock , water and metallic elements making up the Earth . We need to re-distort them back to a more neutral condition by doing something less significant but far more local . ( ie . This vibrating mass at 40 kilohertz. ) The other way of course is to put another massive rocky/ metallic object like the moon to re-distort ,which of course is what the moon does , part way between earth and moon . But apart from doing your ' sling shot ' journeys across the solar system , we need another method locally about the low earth orbit, or takeoff position . Mike

Because the physics is no different just adjacent to the earths surface , as it is 500 miles up . The radius difference , from the earth centre to ground level compared to 500 miles up , might need a little adjustment . But the radius of the Earth is 4000 miles so that would now be 4500 miles from earth centre. So the formulae mv (squared )/ r = mg , would need keeping an eye on . This formula when adjusted for meters and seconds instead of miles and hours , should give 17,000 mph . Which is why most space launches of spacecraft go down range to approx 17,700 mph to make earth orbit . But you can do this at ground level ,in your back yard , provided you do not travel too far ( say 4 inches ,would be o.k. ) . But to reach a root mean squared value of 17,700mph , you will need something fairly massive oscillating 4 inch peak at 40,000 times a second ( 40khz ) . It's doable , but do not stand too close. This oscillating mass needs keeping in a vacuum, or it could be like a rock festival gone A.W.O.L Mike

Failure to maintain correct speeds , in orbit , namely 17,500 mph at 500 miles above the earths surface, will result in insufficient opposition to gravity . Similarly for experiments carried out at smaller radius ( eg swinging water bucket ) speeds are less, but must be maintained in one direction or another , or a soaking will result . However it must be stated. The direction of the motion speed , provided it is at right angles to the radius of the earth is irrelevant. Similarly is the length of the trajectory . It could be 4 inches. I have worked it out it is 4 inches at 40,000 htz If you move any object in an oscillatory vibration at 40,000 Htz over a distance of 4 inches , it should levitate . ( if I have done my sums right ) ( as that should be an RMS velocity of 17,700 mph ) otherwise :- Mike

Well I am quite happy for the two threads to be merged. But Capt refreshment . Suggested it might be sensible to start another thread . I made the access to the later part. I have often had a muddled thread when trying to copy information across from one thread to another. Rather than typing it all over again . A clean merge is ok. If the posts from this new thread appear last as the most current information. Thanks. Probably merge is the best solution . On a large scale this is true , but on a local scale ' gravity is defied ' there is a distinct difference between holding a bucket of water above ones head ( without partial arm motion ) ' a good soaking ! And producing partial arc motion for a small period of time , ( water as shown stays in bucket , ' no soaking ' gravity is defied ) for that period of time , or that trajectory . The mechanics become more complex , yet possible to produce these partial arc's . As is the case with electrical , electronic analogy , of rectification, where unidirectional chemistry and / or electronic switching is required . Also , my reasoning on satellite motion is that the satellite does NOT need to complete its orbit for the physics to be true. It is true for a part of its orbit . Similarly in the opposite direction it would be true. Combine the two , and you have the mechanism described previously with two opposing partial arcs . Mike

. Swing a bucket half full of water ,on the end of a short rope over your head. But the water is there in the bottom of the bucket , when it is over your head. You can look up into the sky, and see the water pushed up into the upside down bucket .. For that partial arc part of the time . The water appears to defy gravity ! Mike Ps I appreciate there is the rest of the circle to go at . But for that ' partial arc ' sector of time . Gravity with the water is ' overcome ' The difficulty is cutting that section out . But this is achieved in the electrical analogue by 'rectification ' I believe this is possible mechanically by the ' Tuning Fork '. Principle . Two opposing partial arc oscillations . Albeit slightly more involved than a bucket of water or two , and at a much reduced size . Could electrons be in such a condition ?

What quite is this Negative Mass , that you speak of ? Mike

Quote : Access to previously furnished Data, experiment , Maths , and summary conclusions . Reference : - Partial Arc oscillation as a source for counter distorting of ' spacial distortion ' caused by Gravity. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77276-possibility-for-mass-transport-system-could-take-us-up-a-gear/page-5#entry767763 Mike

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 every other force has opposites ( positive charge has negative charge as opposite . ) Magnetic fields can have North and South poles. In Gravity attraction is towards , caused by a certain type of distortion in space . ( A ). What is the possible opposite force or repulsion . ( B ). How can these counter distortions be achieved . Mike P.s. Is it possible these distortion reversals can be achieved by " Partial Arc Oscillation /Vibration" .( As if only a part of a revolution of a Gyroscope was achieved . The counter part , balancing the system . )

Well , I am not so sure about that . I definitely ' feel ' very comfortable when I am ' pootling ' along the road at a steady 30 mph in a strait line . I then feel pushed into the back of my seat when I hit the open road and go quickly up to 70 mph still in a strait line . Then as I swerve to avoid some idiot on the road that has braked hard in front of me , playing with his tablet , I 'feel' a distinct pressure on my side , as I am pushed up against the door hard . Now as what is happening is happening to me , that is important . Maybe the greater reality could not be too concerned with my feelings , I agree. But I am the important one in this issue. If I want to fly against gravity , I need to do something with that big distortion in space caused by the Huge mass of the Earth. I think we can do it ! Mike Well I think in the case of the gyroscope , all the distortions cancel each other out , so there is no net distortion correction of gravity. But within the gyroscope there are colossal forces at work and no doubt colossal distortions locally . Even though their net effect is zero . I had a small one come apart on me , a couple of times, not nice . So if you want to get a resultant distortion , we need to break out of the complete circle . Partial arc . In some respect I think electrons already do this . Mike

I think I can agree there is no free energy . However I am a bit more reluctant to concede that there is not a way of manipulating the distortions of space already produced by the influence of mass. I feel it might be possible to undo the distortions so as to allow an equilibrium condition to exist. Furthermore I feel that the mechanism for undoing these distortions COULD ( not definitely ) be found within the sphere of mechanics involved with ' non strait line motion ' . Mike

swansont said. .......The "some reason or another" is called physics. Reply :- Established Physics is not always " the complete picture or view " hence some of the comments in the thread next door about mass show. Different frames have different values or effects Here in this subject of rotation we have added problems ,in that we do not find it easy to see ourselves spinning in circles. In fact most of us get quite dizzy if rotated fast for only a few spins. We seem to be much happier standing 'still' . Yet we all know , nothing much in the universe is still. In fact SPIN in one of the most common phenomenon . What with spin of particles , spin of planets , spin of suns and pulsars, spin of Galaxies , and may be even the spin of the universe. So I do not think we should dispense quite so easily with rotation as being a possible Frame or view to having some ' change of gravity ' effect. Mike

Professor Laithwait of Imperial College London , introduced this idea in the late 1960's early 1970's . He appeared at the Royal Institute and demonstrated a similar experiment. Although having invented the linear motor and magnetic levitation as an idea for mass transport of the sort now used in Germany and Japan , he was thoroughly discredited for his introduction of the ideas around gyroscopes and anti gravity. For some reason or another the subject attracted scorn from the academics of the time. Prof Laithwait later went on to do experiments, produced a patent , with a Colleague , then died. The subject remains open as people try to find alternative ways to overcome gravity ,rather than expensive Rocket Technology. Professor Laithwaits challenge was " the first person to bring a working model to the table " will win ! Mike

The only thing I have noticed..... And gives me some sort of anticipation , if I were to wake up in some possible future life ...is based on the odd one or two lucid dreams I can remember .( lucid ..in the dream being this feeling very conscious , even though in a dream , and steering the dream a bit. ) I have had a sense of 'me' from being young , when I was in school ,I had the same sense of 'me'. ness . When I was in my 20's similarly , and now in my early 70's I feel me 'mike' . Now when I was in this lucid dream , I had this bicycle but it's tyres were flat , so I peeled off the outer tyres and they were full of rabbits . I did not question this in my dream , I was conscious of being me ' mike ' and there was nothing to worry about rabbits being in my bicycle tyres. .. When I woke up I thought about the dream , I still felt ' me ' mike BUT felt how ridiculous it was to have rabbits in my tyres. So. My guess ( only a guess ) is that I, we , would in a possible new future life , feel the same ' me ' mike , but we would cope with a possible new set of circumstances that we find ourself in this possible new life. . { this tends to be in sympathy , with what Ten Oz has just iterated } posted while I was posting ! Wether we then look back on this life as a sort of dream , I do not know ? Mike

Hi Lisa , Welcome . Mind you don't get hit by a swinging cat ! Mike Ps . I just spent the last hour listening to Jim Al-Khalili .at the Royal institute . Really , really ,really worth the hour . Jim Al-Khalili - Quantum Life: How Physics Can Revolutionise Biology Link : Whatever you do . Do not miss the last 2 minutes of the video !

But of course ,you do not need to go anywhere. If there is a higher form of intelligence ,out there somewhere . They will have long since developed an advanced system , that could tune in to what any individual was thinking , if they so choose . At the same time they would have devised a way of communicating with an individual ,or everybody if (a ) they are allowed to. And (b ) they choose to . So the point remains : What to do about it and How to go about it ? Mike

Winding the clock back to late dinosaur times :- We have an ocean crust below the sea level and meteors arriving crashing in to vegetation sea and land . Somewhere my stone ' could ' have existed at this time . ' did ' exist at this time , somewhere . Perhaps Serendipity came into play . Why not ? Not if we are taking ' a Bottom up approach ' . But what if we take a ' Top down approach ' This is the difference between Digital Computers and Analogue Computers . It has to be said that our brains work more like Analogue Computers than Digital Computers , sometimes . So if we are looking for the perception of ' what is going on ' at a universal / Macro scale then perhaps we need to follow the style of approach the human brain uses . Namely ' overall understanding at a macro level, top down , best understood by an Analogue method ? Recent research has revealed that rather than go to sleep , on understanding issues , certain parts of the brain , ' crank up ' at night . That is why you ' sleep on it ' , and wake up in the morning to an insightful understanding of a problem of the night before . This is because the brain is juggling ' all sorts of possible ideas ' in an analogue fashion while you ' the logical , digital bit sleeps . Sweet dreams ! Mike

This stone is , I fondly believe , relevant to why the dinosaurs found in South America Argentina are , was very large ! It was found in western Canada , lodged in a cleft of a tree. Wherein the tree had further grown around it. It could be a meteorite or a broken off piece of ocean floor basalt well weathered. It was brought to me as a gift by a friend to England ,where it rests now . ( it is very heavy ) . The experience with this particular rock , may illustrate how it is possible to form a model for interpretation of what is going on here ! In trying to reason , as previous posters on this thread have reasoned , in the green glades of Dinosaur times everything was there for some dinosaurs to grow large , and not much to prevent them from growing large . Water , trees , grasses, sunshine , and space to do things . Predators were few and one or two species came out on top . It was probably not predators that limited their size , but rather the strength of their bones as their mass fought with gravity . ----------------- quotations ------------------ A few current scientists, including myself , have argued that " if things can happen , they happen " Prof Cox & colleague or as I put it " if there is not a reason for things not to happen , then they will happen , if there is an initiative for them to happen " Mike Smith ------------------- unquote -------------------- In the days of the Dinosaurs there were no predatory , modern fire-armed humans , to prevent dinosaurs growing bigger and bigger ,genetically . However there was a momentum of initiative to grow big and tall as with Giraffes reaching higher and higher for food until gravity won . Mike

Hi Tar Pretty darn fancy , and getting more fancy at every turn ! Mike

Yes. There was a televised experiment conducted on one of these 'science experiment ' programmes a year or two ago. They strapped a fast counter to a mans arm . Under normal circumstances , the figures went by as a complete blurr. Then the dropped him , unconnected from a great hight 200feet or so . There was a great air bag below , so far down that one was not conscious of it . He was then filmed and his observation was recorded of his response to the fast counter. He was heard, and recorded saying " I can see the numbers going by individually! " ----------------------- A few years ago , say 10 or 15 years. I did a bungee jump off a 150 foot crane in Cyprus , on a beach , over the sea. It was horrific , I would never do it again, I thought I was going to die! I was expecting the feeling of some form of support by the bungees, but there was no support on the way down , as the collection of un-stretched ' bungee s ' free falls with you . So it was like falling to your death . As I landed I hit the sea , only then to be sucked up into the air by the bungees . It was yet another ' near death experience' I must admit I felt good , after the experience . But during those falling moments .....perception changes radically . Mike