Possibility for Mass Transport System could take us up a gear.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A Man of great Vision was Carl Sagan

.

.This shot was taken from the first episode of his series COSMOS. The shores of the Cosmic Ocean.

 

In this episode he, by speculation traveled from the depths of the universe 10 billion light years from earth , back across space , to arrive back and see the earth from above .

 

As a NASA consultant he was well poised to get a perspective on our aspirations, ambitions as well as realities.

 

.

 

. So beautiful to behold. Lets make it work

 

The Project I mean, although we could make the Earth work at the same time.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

. The Feeling that might be felt .

 

If you have ever had hold of a heavy gyroscope that has been cranked up in speed, even a small one to some extent, there are some directions it goes easily and other directions it fights back.

 

I am sure the oscillating masses will have some interesting directions of ease and others of fight back. Especially when the mass goes more , the peek amplitude and the frequency increases.

 

Interesting experiments I did with vibrating strings , showed that when the amplitude had nowhere to increase to, it set up another dimension in which to compound oscillate using the surplus energy . Waves, vibrations, oscillations , rotations even electrons have interesting shaped orbitals. The quantum world ~ May~ have , (only may have ) macro applications in the mechanical world about us. The future is exciting , the opportunities countless,

 

 

. Lets research ourselves into the Future.

 

. .

 

.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[dimreepr]

Mainstream science is so called not because it blindly follows the loudest opinion but simply because the majority of evidence supports that view. Your attempt to loosely affiliate your idea with a colossus of science is simply an appeal to authority and one that Carl would vehemently deny as the effect you describe is purely fictitious when applied this way.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Well maybe you are right. When I discussed this with the now dead Prof Laithwaite , he said he is often approached with claims. He said he felt there was something there, but the first one to bring a working model to the table will silence critics. He at one time believed he had done it at one stage. Now he has gone. Its up to someone else to bring a working model to the table.

 

Your attempt to loosely affiliate your idea with a colossus of science is simply an appeal to authority and one that Carl would vehemently deny as the effect you describe is purely fictitious when applied this way.

 

I am not so sure about that. He wrote a very interesting Science fiction story called CONTACT. A film was made of it. Jodie Foster starred as the SETI expert.

 

The device proposed ( accepted it is Science Fiction) non the less written as you say by a giant. The device was four counter rotating swirling magnetic rings. SF giants stories have a habit of becoming Science fact as years roll by. [As with Arthur C Clark. Isaac Asimov, Etc ]

 

. Swirling , counter rotating Magnetic rings

 

.

 

. Jodie Foster

 

 

.Contact by Carl Sagan

 

 

 

.

 

.Contact by Carl Sagan

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Well maybe you are right. When I discussed this with the now dead Prof Laithwaite , he said he is often approached with claims. He said he felt there was something there, but the first one to bring a working model to the table will silence critics. He at one time believed he had done it at one stage. Now he has gone. Its up to someone else to bring a working model to the table.

!

Moderator Note

Gyroscopes are not magic and the effect is not a mystery.

 

The rules of speculations compel you to present a model or evidence to support your idea; this is not a place for wild claims, supported only by emotional appeals and crude drawings don't cut it. Ignoring the scientific critiques and insisting that this will somehow work follows neither the rules nor the spirit of the forum.

 

Closed.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Thread re-opened because the OP claims to have improved information.

Mike Smith Cosmos, please consider creating a new thread instead, where you explain the topic again. This is to avoid that we get distracted by some of the posts that caused the this thread to be (temporarily) closed. I'll leave the final decision to you.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike Smith Cosmos

Protist

• 
• Senior Members
• 781 posts
• 0 warning points

 

 

RE-OPEN of THREAD MASS TRANSPORT SYSTEM

 

 

 

• LocationU.K. / ITALY

Posted Today, 01:13 PM

I have returned from Italy bringing back my University Project on this subject with core RESEARCH EXPERIMENTS, RESULTS,and CONCLUSIONS.

 

 

Attatched. is a) project description b) title page c) copy of original letter from Prof Laithwaite.

 

 

:: LARGER FORMAT OF THESE DOCUMENTS BELOW ::

 

.

 

:: LARGER FORMAT OF THESE DOCUMENTS BELOW ::

 

i will make extracts available to support my original thread, for discussion and The Whole Publication

 

Below I show Shots of the apparatus used in the project. ( which I have to hand ) .

By way of a re-introduction of the subject

"Possibility for Mass Transport System"

 

It has often been a problem to have craft that need to go upward, first have to go down range at great speed , either to acquire lift by a wing cross section say at 100 mph , or by rocket propulsion first raising high then turning down range to acquire approx 17,700 mph to obtain orbit.

 

In an Ideal world it would be nice to go strait up but gently increasing in speed, and to just go strait up with neither the requirement for vast amounts of rocket fuel expelling or by trusting Air.

 

To this end it was investigated to find a way of Direct propulsion, neither by reaction fuel or by Air propulsion..

Such a force was noticed or observed within a rotating circle by a mass.

 

Unfortunately this remains in a closed system in a flywheel , or gyroscope. it was speculated by myself that it would be good to try and obtain a mechanical analogue of a Rectified Alternating Current (Electrical ) wave.

 

It was posited that such an analogue existed in the two ends of a tuning fork ( in principle ) . rather than a complete circle ,which could be resolved as a net Zero Force , rather a single directional force could be made as a resultant force in One direction. ( As AC [alternating current] can be converted to DC [Direct Current ] so it was posited that an alternating force around all directions of a circle COULD POSSIBLY be converted to a UniDirectional {one direction }. That this Uni-directional force could be achieved, was at the core of this project..

 

If this were possible A) No Air required B) no movement [speed] required to attain lift . All that would be required would be by Counter oscillation of two masses eg like a tuning fork with masses on the ends of the prongs. Thus was the concept born.

 

NOW

 

I am referring back to the two events which started the investigation into the possibility of attaining low earth orbit without Rocket Trajectory or air propulsion..

 

(1) The idea was first spawned in the approx 1970's. This lead, after experimentation on my part and contact with Prof Laithwaite in Nov 1981 and

(2) to a Plymouth University Project 1988 as Final Project of Hons Degree in Satellite Communication.

 

The first few pages of this report are now presented which include : [ Rest Later as required for evidence & verification ]

 

Introductory Pages including An ABSTRACT.and List of Contents.

 

 

 

 

Mike Smith

 

 

 

 

PHOTOs of the Apparatus :-

 

 

 

 

 

Note this is:-

 

Partial arc measurement of centrifugal force by means of a pendulum style radius and shock sensor.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

I appreciate the photograph of the original opening documents, are not very readable. I am in the process of getting the entire paper scanned and turned into short j.peg documents. I will publish them as soon as they are in my hands.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

. Further documents in Photographic form . scanning to follow later :-

 

You will see shortly , I had a go at a MathCAD modelling nearly 15/ years ago when I was in university for a second time but math cad did not seem up to 3D modelling then.( or I did not have access to it ).

It was part of this thesis that I have here, and I am trying to scan ,, but my dog walking seems to be taking priority. It needs one of the current maths/ computer modelers expertise coming to bear on the ,subject really.

 

Although as a famous scientist once said

 

. " a real live model would be very convincing " or something to that effect

 

 

 

(Continued)

 

Mike

Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos, Today, 09:55 AM.

(Continued)

 

1998 remember and things have moved on quite a way since then .( 16 years ) that a quarter of a lifetime ago ! When I was in my 50's fit and not hobbling about with a dog at my side.!

Edited January 18, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

New young entrant to the human endeavour to overcome gravity by a new principle .

 

NOBODYSHOME

 

Welcome young man . Take us to the stars ! And I mean that sincerely .

 

Mike

 

Ps here is link to NOBODYSHOME new thread : http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87636-if-i-was-smarter-id-probably-have-a-name-here/

Edited February 6, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

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 . )

[imatfaal]

All the forces are slightly different on our human (energy) scale - electric had plus and minus, and it seems magnetism is similar - but you get a single electric charge and as yet we have never found a separate magnetic monopole (ie a just north or a just south). Gravity is always additive - electromagnetism can be cancelled out. The strong force is really weird - where em and gravity fields die off - in qcd you get quark confinement which means that the energy needed to rip two quarks apart is enough to form a new quark and thus you never get a solo quark. The weak force even seems to violate handedness - ie things happen to left handed particles but not to right handed.

 

When you up the energy levels the forces become more and more similar - we have already unified most of them; but the physics and the mechanics of unifying gravity with the quantum field theories is beyond us.

 

Here is Hugh Hunt's page on Gyroscopes and Boomerangs - it is well worth a read if you still have a sneaking suspicion that the assurances in the other thread were not valid (they were). http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/boomerangs.htm

[Strange]

( A ). What is the possible opposite force or repulsion .

 

There isn't one.

 

( B ). How can these counter distortions be achieved .

 

Irrelevant because of the above.

 

 

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 . )

 

No.

 

As every other force has opposites ( positive charge has negative charge as opposite . )

 

I don't know if that is true. There are three colour charges for quarks it is not clear what "opposite" would mean in that case, for example.

[Endy0816]

Gravity.

Negative Mass.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

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

Edited March 2, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Gravity.

Negative Mass.

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

 

Mike

[Strange]

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

 

It doesn't exists. And there is the problem.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It doesn't exists. And there is the problem.

. 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 ?

 

Edited March 3, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

For gravity to be repulsive you need strange situations like negative energy densities or negative mass; this could be in the form of the cosmological constant. Or you need something like (slow-roll) inflation where you have an inflaton field and a false vacua.

[swansont]

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

 

One speculation can't be used to support another. Or are you saying these ideas are the same, and so the threads should be merged?

For that partial arc part of the time . The water appears to defy gravity !

 

 

Appears to, but doesn't actually defy gravity. Which is shown in any careful analysis using well-established physics. Much like a satellite in orbit appears to defy gravity by not falling into the body it orbits.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

One speculation can't be used to support another. Or are you saying these ideas are the same, and so the threads should be merged?

.

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 .

Appears to, but doesn't actually defy gravity. Which is shown in any careful analysis using well-established physics. Much like a satellite in orbit appears to defy gravity by not falling into the body it orbits.

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

Edited March 3, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

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 !

Yes, there is a difference. No, gravity is not defied in any way. The water follows the known laws of physics. At the top of the arc, if the speed is chosen properly, the water is temporarily in free-fall, with the bucket along for the ride. It's no different that a ball or car doing a loop-the-loop — there is a speed threshold below which it falls off the track. First-semster physics covers all of this.

 

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 .

 

These are not really analogues.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

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

Edited March 3, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

if I have done my sums right

 

Kudos for doing some analysis. If only more people would do that.

[swansont]

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 .

 

It's not really "opposition" but regardless, what does this have to do with anything? Your OP was about mass distortions and antigravity.

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 :-

 

 

That's not specific enough. I have the thing oscillating inside of something else. How much lift should I get? What if I have a smaller amplitude but higher frequency?

 

Why would that work at the earth's surface? 17,700 mph is the orbital requirement at 500 miles, according to your maths.