Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Powered by leedskalnin.com & buzzdev.net
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
The experimental set up
The theoretical background
One of the standard myths isvNewtons third law.
For every action there exists an equal nd opposite action . The word reaction carries the implication that these are connected. They are not .
For example if a breaking force is applied it does not stop the motion immediatly. The motion dissipates.
The standard explanation given is the momentum reduces because the kinetic energy is transformed into some other forms of energy. Eventually the momentum change is cancelled by the momentum change induced by the breaking lforce.
The action reaction is therefore not simple and the transmission of the effect of the breaking force is also not simple
The way a octet produces thrust is still not fully explained, but the standard theory is assumed good enough.
Newtons third law is not a given. It merely states that an equal opposite action cn be found in an equilibrium and inertial systm . It isbupnto the experimenter to find it! .
Typically we start by assuming static systems have this structure already, but innfactbwe know this is a relative perception .
"Give an estimate of the magnitude of the speed, at which a person has to run on water so as not to sink." This was one of the famous problems P. L. Kapitsa (a Russian physicist, who discovered in 1937 the effect of liquid helium superfluidity, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics) came up with in 1960s to test his postgraduate students' ability for creative thinking.
Is it indeed feasible to run on water? Short of miracle, obviously no man can do this. Most animals, capable of locomotion on water surface, are small insects, whose long limbs deform the water surface to generate surface tension forces and thus support their body weight. Vertebrates are too dense to support their bodies above the water surface using surface tension alone, therefore, they must generate sizable hydrodynamic forces to run on water. Under such circumstances, body mass plays a primary role in determining the difficulty of this feat.
Apart from insects, very few living creatures can run on water. Basilisk lizard is one of them. These lizards are not overly heavy creatures: females are generally 135 to 194 g, and weigh half as much as males. Younger basilisks can run 10 to 20 meters on water, while adults cross only a few meters before sinking. It shall be noted also that Basilisks have to gather sufficient momentum on the ground, before jumping into the water and pull the trick: Basilisk lizard running on water.
Few other vertebrates can run on water. The largest animals to accomplish this feat are western and Clark’s grebes. Grebes weigh by an order of magnitude more than Basilisk lizards, therefore, they face a greater challenge to support their body weight. How do these birds produce the hydrodynamic forces necessary to overcome gravity and sustain rushing: BBC Life: The Grebes? The results of the first quantitative study of water running by grebes were presented recently in an article Western and Clark’s grebes use novel strategies for running on water.
If the heavy grebes can run on water, there is no good reason why the same cannot be achieved by technical devices, designed just for that purpose. The invention, titled "Wheeled watercraft running on the surface of water", endeavors to prove that water skimming vessels on wheels are indeed feasible. I cannot go into the details of my invention here for the patent is still pending (filed on 05/24/2016, No 15/162,618 ).
We see then that force is defined as the quantity of change in motion . . From this viewpoint acceleration is not just the change in velocity of a body over time but the change in motion of the body o er time. .
Newton was well aware that motion caged by both factors so changing mass of a motion changed the motion . These changes of motion revealed the inertial forces of any system sustaining the motion. .
In his absolute system motive was that aspect of bodies in motion within the system quantifiable by their motion relative to th centre of the systm. So motion was quantifiable in a way connected to motive in a system . It is this notion of motion and motive that Newton used to understand the motion of celestial bodies around the sun or fractally around a planet.
So the motion of a rocket in space outside the planet was not conceived of asba reaction system, but as a motive system in which the motion quantifies the force embedded in the system. Here force means vis, that is life or liveliness and activity.
Inna he wider system the motion is governed by the centre of accelerative pressure which providesvanninertial background against which the rocket traces out a dynamic equilibriation of pressures.
When we focus on that equilibrium state where the rate of increase in motion s balanced by the rate of loss of motion we find that motion can change in a way that preserves that equilibrium: namely that if the mass and velocity of a body changes, then another mass nd velocity must change to maintain equilibrium.
We call this conservation of momentum and this is the law governing rocket motion , not the third law, or rathervascNewton called it axiom , which is rather a principle of the existence of a solution frame for any action.
The EMDrive as explained exhibit pressure on the system, but since no one was looking for motion in such a system it was ignored. Now it can not be ignored because it harness the magnetic aether. However it is very inefficient and based on a wrong theory of the aether force generated.
Claes Johnson revealed the importance of vorticular motions in the secret of flight. What looked Like a paradox revealed fundamental oversight of the role of rotational pressures In balancing the dynamic equilibrium of lift and drag system. Similarly the rotationl pressures in the emDrive are being ignored.
To give everyone a rough flavour of fractal topologies history .
In your comment above http://magneticuniverse.com/discussion/comment/4251/#Comment_4251
you have touched upon a number of interesting points regarding Newtonian mechanics, almost all of which has direct relevance to the private exchange I had during the last 3-4 weeks with David Tombe. Instead of replicating that long discussion here, I will open a separate thread and call it "Newton's Cradle and Electromagnetism".
At the best, they are honest misconceptions; at the worst, they are nothing but red herring and deliberate lies – a form of political/economic/scientific warfare in the struggle of two fundamentally different, and diametrically opposing concepts of globalization: the Western model of globalization, which is based on deception and moral leprosy of ordinary human beings by the "elite", and the Russian model, which is based on the notions of God, dignity, honor, spirituality, loyalty to the truth, healthy respect for the laws of Nature and the wisdom to live in harmony with these laws, ... and justice for all.
Circassian Circle, P2
There is something incredibly human about it all … something magnetic I would say – determinism instead of randomness, order instead of chaos, beauty instead of ugliness, life instead of death.
Don’t believe for a second that life exists only on the tiny planet called the Earth. Life exists on each and every level of the fractal hierarchy of unfathomable Universe. Russians call it matryoshka.
Life is everywhere, and there is no power in the entire Universe that could bring an end to life... for the Universe is life itself – literally.
But IMHO, the "Russian model" is exactly the same as "western", it's just it's counterpart. Just like the usual blue vs red, north vs south, east vs west, jews vs arabs, etc stuff... all the same game, and just any game has to have at least two players.
As Marcus says: "Nothing ever is, what it appears to be."
But to stay on the magnetic line, here's a little video on our topic:
This is a serviceable exposition of the Copenhagen agreement, and why classical theory was abandoned.
Bohr in his arguments with Einstein struggled to allow all weirdness to be included, to avoid deterministic outcomes for the behaviours in space.
Determinism means that we can predict the future from accurate analyses of the past, and that therefore in principle we can know everything about a discovered system , or we can imagine a mechanism that can perform every behaviour.
This kind of human triumphalism Bohr felt was intuitively wrong. .
However, it is a consequence of mathmatical, that is astrological thinking, that if we know the cycles of celestial bodies we can predict the future not only positions but also astrological influences.
In fact astrology is a dynamic subject, in which over millennia, orderly cycles change predictably, but not accurately. That innaccuracy reveals new information that refines astrological theory from the ground.
But now new information from space refines astrological theory from above. In other words : determinism is not a fact of physicality, but a mode of organising known information in a taxonomically, Ariistotelian manner engendering a sense of certainty.
Bohr fought against this fundamental mindset of certainty. He felt it stifled the progress of physics as a subject. In fact what he is referring to, like Bertrand qRussel, is the dead hand of conformity that elderly academicians laid on the shoulders of new talented students with fresh ideas. Quantum physics is more about upsetting the apple cart of academia than about physical behaviours.
While we have this debate between the now 2 sides of physics Bohr hoped that new ideas could be brought forward and explored scientifically despite the best efforts of vested interests and funding streams.
It did not quite work out that way as the Copenhagen agreement became the new stultifying orthodoxy, but at least weirdness was in the academic structure allowing some chance that odd ideas would get funding for research, if the board could be rigged in favour of that.
It takes some rigging as many will testify to because those that control the purse strings still push their own agendas, but at least now with the advent of mass communication and niche broadcasting , these points of view can be heard by a wider forum. Those who encultured the masses to support the one, religious view of physical and Natural law have no academic legs to stand on. They are revealed as cliques and groups pushing their own agendas and using authority, intrigue and machiavellian tactics to enforce a dogma they believe in or gain advantage from .
What is true ? You decide ! What is technologically viable ? You decide ! But what will change the economics of the world, they decide! That is until the masses become so aware that they can no longer control their thinking, then they ride the crest of the wave!
In many ways the Copenhagen agreement failed to deliver the academic physics Bohr wanted, and in other ways it laid a subversive foundation that made it more difficult for the elites to lock down knowledge as they did up until that time.
If we lost Quantum Mechanics we would literally lose wriggle room for new ideas and interpretations to impact on fundamental physics and technology as currently understood.
I happen to accept magnetic behaviour as fundamental but I value the challenge of comparing different models of fundamental behaviour with the acid test of technological innovation. Sometimes something works regardless of our explanations, and others work according to our explanations and prediction., but in neither case can we say we have the absolute Truth of the behaviour, in my opinion.
Quantum mechanics throws everything we know how to do into the melting pot to come up with weird explanations, which later we can rationalise against new data, or better understood phenomna or better more minutely observed behaviours using more precise and faster recording and measuring techniques.
The point is: a powerful technology should not be able to squelch everyone into conformity by virtue of its dominance . We all need wriggle room!
When I first spoke to Ivor Catt I assumed he was a radical thinker . It turned out that he is more an agitator of the accepted norm. It shows, if you do not know already, how difficult it is to explain new perceptions outside the established paradigms. Sometimes you have to be prepared to toss it all away and start again. Each of us will throw away our pet hates, and keep those icons or beacons that steered us away from the deluded path. But we have to go all the way, and throw even that away to rebuild sincerely.
The Electric Universe model is not prepared to do that. They want real power and influence and credibility, so they court the fringes of established science.
When Ken describes QM and GR as BS it is to tear it down to reveal the Newtonian Basics. We need to tear into the Newtonian basics to see if they are valid.
QM was one attempt to do that, based on an overburden of Mathmythics! The Pythagorean school tears things down to observable magnitudes, from which metric notions are developed. The metrics do not describe the topology, or the materiality, we do .
So it is my interpretation of the metrics that informs my expertise with any behaviour or material characteristics.
I can not tell myself the absolute identity of anything you care to point out, but I can tell you my observations of its relative behaviours and relative appearances, and agree on terminology for defined instances. QM as pushed by one school of physicists, the dominant one , is given one coercive dogmatic interpretation . An individul or even a counter group might give it another interpretation, and yet a third group might reject it as pure nonsense!
But we all have the opportunity to use the data to inform our own theory and expertise !
It would seem that Newtonian analysis and synthesis based on Pythagorean and Aristotelian analyses and syntheses are still the favoured foundational elements of any pragmatic theory.
Do you know any technology that came out of Ken Wheeler's "discoveries"? Perhaps, we could - and should - give Ken the benefit of the doubt and wait until his "discoveries" make it to proven technology.
Yet, let me ask you another question: Do you think that Ken's "discoveries" will ever materialize in some technological advancement? I for one highly doubt it. Why? Because paradigm shifting discoveries do not come to individuals who are obsessed with their own personalities. My intuition tells me that such discoveries are reserved to a different type of psyche. Ken does not fit in that fold. Nikola Tesla did. Edward Leedskalnin did. Ken does not.
Admittedly, I have offered you only a metaphysical argument in support of my belief. It's up to you to take it or reject it.
I know only one person who can beat Ken to it by a wide margin when it comes to egocentrism, bordering with insanity, and meaningless blabbering. His name is Miles Mathis, "Leonardo da Vinci" of our time - no less. Just check out his "masterpiece": The Extinction of π.
Freezing water with a powerful magnet in it
Inspired by Ken