| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Max Keon" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2006 09:12:58 PM |
| Object: |
Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
I recently noticed a rather obvious flaw in my description of the
history behind my gravity experiment.
I previously wrote (12-4-06):
-------------------
Some years ago I attempted to measure the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.
If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal. A disc that's
free to rotate within a housing which is forced to rotate at a
constant rate will never come to rest with its rotating housing.
It will always lag behind.
My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing. That was totally useless
though because the slightest difference between the slowdown and
speedup rates would drive the disc accordingly. i.e. If the slowdown
time was longest, the disc would be dragged more in that direction
because the forces applied to keep the bearing moving are constant
and are applied for the duration of every movement.
To overcome that problem, the bearing was mounted in a separate
housing so that either the inner or the outer of the bearing could
be attached to the disc. Running a test using each option, while
changing nothing else in the setup, would give me two sets of
results that could be combined. From that, I would expect a valid
result. But the free disc wandered all over the place and led to
total confusion.
----------------
That last paragraph doesn't remotely address the problem, does it!
That's because the problem that it's attempting to address was not
the problem at all. Thus I begin this post with a short repair.
Gravity and the speed of light (update 1).
------------------------------------------
Some years ago I attempted to measure the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.
If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal. A disc that's
free to rotate within a housing which is forced to rotate at a
constant rate will never come to rest with its rotating housing.
It will always lag behind.
My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing, with its center fixed
with the rotating housing. That was totally useless though because
any bearing clearance at all would cause the free disc bearing
surface to roll backwards on the lesser diameter mating shaft and
lag behind the rotating housing. And I could not possibly know how
much that would affect the result.
To overcome that problem, the bearing was mounted in a separate
housing so that either the inner or the outer of the bearing could
be attached to the disc. Running a test using each option, while
changing nothing else in the setup, would give me two sets of
results that could be combined. From that, I would expect a valid
result. But the free disc wandered all over the place and led to
total confusion.
The experiment was finally terminated when I realized that the
difference between the slowdown and speedup rates would drive the
free disc in the direction of the slowest rate of change. i.e.
Because the free disc is in constant motion relative to its rotating
housing as the housing hunts back and forth around the chosen
control point, and since the forces applied in overcoming the
bearing friction are applied for the duration of every movement,
the free disc will be drawn in the direction of slowest change.
-----
The rest of this post will make little sense for anyone not familiar
with the experiment. The entire updated version is stored at
http://www.optusnet.com.au./~maxkeon/gravity.html
-----
24-4-06.
The program I was using to control the rotation rate of the free
disc housing spends time servicing all of the calculations etc.
before it can return to again take care of the rotation rate of
the housing. There is a constant time chunk removed from the cycle,
regardless of the rotation rate. Therefore, the calculated rotation
rates were not quite correct. The modified program does the
calculations in the space between light off and light on behind the
housing flag, so changes to the rotation rate also change the time
width of the window in which the calculations are done. The flag
on the housing is 16mm wide, and if the program hasn't returned to
monitor the rotation rate by the time that window has gone, the
program is halted.
The updated program set is stored as a self extracting zip file,
at http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.exe
I have now inverted the needle point bearings and the result is
still much the same. I've also increased the shaft diameters of the
rotating housing to 17mm to allow for the free disc axle to be
extended outside the entire unit so that I can physically monitor
its performance, make adjustments, and carry out any test on the
spring loaded contact point without upsetting anything else. The
disc now weighs 59 grams, and with the disc weight pressing down
on the hozizontally aligned bearings, it takes 64 grams to separate
the needle from its seat. If the need arose, that force could be
substantially reduced and the disc bearings would still be held firm
with no clearance.
During the course of a marathon test, the affects from temperature
and atmospheric pressure changes were very obvious, and expected.
i.e. If all of the air was removed from inside the rotating housing
and there was zero friction in the free disc bearings, the free disc
would remain oriented with earth.
The following list of results were collected in a short duration
test conducted on a very still and overcast day, when temperature
and atmospheric pressure would be the most stable. The test was
conducted from the higher speed to the lower speed rotation rates.
A final check at the high speed end confirmed that everything was
still running as before. Even though the results carry no absolute
guarantees, they are certainly good enough to demonstrate my point,
for now.
The start point for the comparison has been set with multipliers
to all coincide close to block no.24. It can be set anywhere you
like and everything will still compare in the same way.
Block no. 24 ( 10.51875 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
11.4008009777522 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
11.40022319348239 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[11.4] per experiment.
Block no. 25 ( 10.098 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
12.28033779784611 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
12.90786140566394 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[12.4] per experiment.
Block no. 26 ( 9.709615384615384 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
13.2585317246221 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
14.70266880111816 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[14.6] per experiment.
Block no. 27 ( 9.35 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
14.36057376583463 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
16.87533038508906 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[15.2] per experiment.
Block no. 28 ( 9.016071428571427 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
15.62159391305323 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
19.55920645940607 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[16.4] per experiment.
Block no. 29 ( 8.705172413793104 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
17.09240875820361 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
22.95878282020759 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[18.4] per experiment.
Block no. 30 ( 8.414999999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
18.84995016142232 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
27.40438267664037 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[19.8] per experiment.
Block no. 31 ( 8.143548387096773 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
21.01768006803662 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
33.46656429904869 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[xxxx] per experiment.
Block no. 32 ( 7.8890625 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
23.80973429022801 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
42.22304886474959 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[25.2] per experiment.
Block no. 33 ( 7.649999999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
27.6403354219342 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
55.98323889656531 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[29.6] per experiment.
Block no. 34 ( 7.425 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
33.45565812222623 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
80.75158095383364 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[36.4] per experiment.
Block no. 35 ( 7.212857142857143 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
44.14924480557234 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
138.5443790874597 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[48.0] per experiment.
Block no. 36 ( 7.012499999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
78.10803022744601 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
427.5083697555903 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[64.8] per experiment.
The program points to infinity at block no. 36.5 because that's
where the bearing resistance is presumed to halt the free disc
rotation. During the physical test, block no. 37 took 131.6 seconds
on average for each free disc revolution. Block no. 38 took 171.5
seconds.
The best way to describe how I arrived at the results is with the
program that created them. Notice that the gravity affected result is
raised to ^.5 . In normal circumstances, the air within the rotating
housing provides a restraining force which increases proportionally to
the rotation rate of the free disc. But the air surrounding the free
disc is also being dragged proportionally to the rotation rate,
culminating in a free disc drag ^.5
DEFDBL A-Z
CLS
n$ = "grav.dat"
OPEN n$ FOR OUTPUT AS #1
'Free disc diameter = 346mm
c = 300000000#
g = 9.8#
aa: LOCATE 1, 12: PRINT hb; " 0 MUST be entered to exit the program."
LOCATE 4, 1
INPUT " Block no."; hb
IF hb = 0 THEN CLOSE : END
rps = 9.35# * (27# / hb) 'Block no.27 runs at 9.35rps on my computer.
PRINT " Revs per second ="; rps; "(for my computer)."
PRINT
v = rps * 1.087# 'Free disc circumference is 346mm *pi =1.087 meters.
gu = ((c + v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * g
PRINT " Gravity rate up = ((c+v)^2/c^2)*g ="; gu; "m/sec."
gd = ((c - v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * g
PRINT " Gravity rate down = ((c-v)^2/c^2)*g ="; gd; "m/sec."
PRINT " The gravity anisotropy is"; gu - gd; "m/sec."
PRINT
'---------------------------------------------------------------------
rp = 36.5 'Block no.?? Set this figure to the resistance break point.
'---------------------------------------------------------------------
r = (hb / rp) * v
PRINT " Resistance break point is set at block No."; rp
PRINT " Tangential velocity ="; v; "m/sec. "
PRINT " Minus constant bearing resistance factor of"; r; "m/sec."
PRINT " Effective velocity ="; v - r; "m/sec."
ma = (rp / 33#) * 1840665# 'If the resistance break point is set at
'block No.33 the required muliplier is
'1840665
m = ((gu - gd) / 2#) * ma
' "m" sets the gravity anisotropy to unity for the resistance break
'point of your own determination. That's where the bearing friction
'has been finally overcome. And that's where the cause of the movement
'begins to take effect.
PRINT
PRINT " The gravity anisotropy is acting on only half the disc-air"
PRINT " mass at any instant and is therefore"; (gu - gd) / 2; "m/sec."
PRINT " Gravity ratio (unity for block"; rp; "="; m
PRINT
'-----------------------------------------------------------------
ma = 1283 'These mutipliers must be changed to coincide with the
mb = 44.64 'compare point origin of your choice. But the relationship
'between curves generated from the results will never change.
'They are currently set to coincide at block No.24
'------------------------------------------------------------------
PRINT " Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes"
PRINT ""; SQR(ma / ((v * m) - r)); "seconds to lose 1 free disc rev."
PRINT ""; mb / (v - r); "seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear)."
PRINT #1, " Block no."; hb, "("; rps; "revs per second)."
PRINT #1, " Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes"
PRINT #1, SQR(ma / ((v * m) - r)); "seconds to lose 1 free disc rev."
PRINT #1, mb / (v - r); "seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear)."
PRINT #1, " [ ] per experiment."
PRINT #1,
'(the data file will be stored in the same directory as Qbasic)
GOTO aa
Example. (program execution for block no.24)
Block no.? 24 0 MUST be entered to exit the program.
Revs per second = 10.51875 (for my computer).
Gravity rate up = ((c+v)^2/c^2)*g = 9.800000747013589 m/sec.
Gravity rate down = ((c-v)^2/c^2)*g = 9.79999925298644 m/sec.
The gravity anisotropy is 1.494027149107069D-06 m/sec.
Resistance break point is set at block No. 36.5
Tangential velocity = 11.43388125 m/sec.
Minus constant bearing resistance factor of 7.518168493150684 m/sec.
Effective velocity = 3.915712756849315 m/sec.
The gravity anisotropy is acting on only half the disc-air mass
at any instant and is therefore 7.470135745535345D-07 m/sec.
Gravity ratio (unity for block 36.5 = 1.520835259212234
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
11.4008009777522 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
11.40022319348239 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
This is the resultant graph. The black curve is from experiment, the
red curve is the calculated curve assuming that a gravity anisotropy
exists, while the green curve is the best fit for the calculated
curve which assumes that some mechanical flaw in the device is the
cause. The first character in the full character set is No.0 for
this experiment. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/no-24.jpg
SOMETHING IS CAUSING THE FREE DISC TO ROTATE AS IT DOES, AND THAT
SOMETHING MUST BE IDENTIFIED. IF IT'S NOT A GRAVITY ANISOTROPY, THEN
WHAT IS IT?
The next step is to upgrade the precision of the needle point
bearings. Also, a free disc axle shaft that has a needle point on
one end and a cavity on the other will eliminate any possibility
of the axle rolling in either direction, even if there is slight
clearance between the mating parts.
27-4-06
The bearing upgrade has been completed. All mating parts are now
hardened and have been run in prior to assembly. The load on the
bearing ends is now 108 grams, and it runs much more freely than
the previous bearing set. In fact it runs so free that it's hard
to determine at what point the bearing friction is overcome. Because
the rotating housing is forever hunting back and forth around any
chosen speed control point, the bearing surfaces between the housing
and disc are in constant motion, and remain fluid. The disc just
keeps on slowly chugging along. That explains why the generated
curve drifts off to the right of the screen.
The next obvious task is to control temperature. Atmospheric
pressure change rates shouldn't be of consequence on the right day.
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
| User: "Jerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
26 May 2006 05:45:06 PM |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
My eyeball
estimate is that the amplitude decreased by about 50% with each
swing, meaning that about 75% of the energy was lost each cycle.
Correction: The amplitude decreased by approximately 50%
each -cycle-, i.e. an "up-and-down" swing.
Jerry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
26 May 2006 05:56:21 PM |
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
Just because a polystyrene foam bell doesn't develop resonance
between its walls via the air medium is no indication that it's not
entirely elastic. All that proves is that foam doesn't resonate.
How high does a styrofoam ball bounce?
Even after allowing for air resistance, not very high....
Jerry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Max Keon" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
24 May 2006 07:00:31 AM |
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148345627.784947.216010@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1147438017.386020.66150@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
Well, you could try spinning a 346mm diameter foam disc in a vaccum
and watch the eddy currents whizzing about in it. Make sure you have
the rotation plane set perpendicular to earth's surface and at 90
degrees to the poles though. Even if that's not enough, the enormous
eddy currents flowing in the 6mm diameter steel axle which is
spinning at the gigantic rate of around 10 revs per second will
surely be enough to cause the disc to slow at an unexpectedly high
rate? It's not the housing that's slowing you know. Or perhaps you
didn't know?
Well, you know, Max, the other idea is to construct the rotor
of a deformable material that converts a large fraction of the
energy of deformation (result from its sagging under gravity) into
heat. Like foam, for instance...
Do you have any idea how much energy would be generated by foam
sagging when the rotation rate is only around 10 revs per second?
The foam material is entirely elastic to minor distortions, so where
do you imagine this energy might be generated?.
Oh, yes, the beautiful elasticity of polystyrene foam! Bells cast
of styrofoam ring beautifully, with a wonderfully resonant tone!
Tuning forks cast from styrofoam exhibit high Q, with virtually
no damping! Echo chambers are lined with styrofoam because
they reflect sound virtually without absorption! Styrofoam cups
tinkle prettily when people clink them together in toast!
The minute deformation of the styrofoam disc due to the effects of
gravity would result in no permanent distortion of its structure
whatever. It would recoil completely. And just how that is far from
the critical point where permanent distortion would occur is made
very obvious by studying the deck of my 3 year old sailboard. I've
belted the crap out of that thing with my feet and there are still
only a couple of slight indents to show for my efforts.
Consider a 1 gram, 32mm cube foam equivalent in the form of a steel
wool type lattice that is rigidly linked at all crossover junctions,
and the steel wool fibers are resilient enough to withstand the
effects of gravity without permanent deformation. The block would
obviously recoil back to its true shape if the influence of gravity
was suddenly removed. When you clink cups made of such stuff
together, the cups still resonate perfectly, but at a lesser
frequency than your tinkling toast cups made of glass.
The walls of a styrofoam padded cell resonate at a frequency that
you can't hear. Damn, there I go again.
Variants of the idea include mounting a cup in the middle of the
rotor and filling the cup partially with sand. Basically the same
principle of nonelastic changes in shape.
But polystyrene foam isn't sand is it.
But I suspect the major effect is rotor imbalance.
Rotor imbalance *must* be evident right from the start of rotation.
It's not.
At the start of rotation, you need to overcome static frictional
effects. Please review carefully your assumptions. For your disk
to be lagging as it does, it must be constantly dissipating energy.
Follow the logical consequences of that observation.
Are you asking me to follow **your** logical consequences of that
observation? My logical consequence of that observation is that the
predicted gravity anisotropy is behaving exactly as it should.
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
24 May 2006 09:30:32 AM |
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148345627.784947.216010@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
Do you have any idea how much energy would be generated by foam
sagging when the rotation rate is only around 10 revs per second?
The foam material is entirely elastic to minor distortions, so where
do you imagine this energy might be generated?.
Oh, yes, the beautiful elasticity of polystyrene foam! Bells cast
of styrofoam ring beautifully, with a wonderfully resonant tone!
Tuning forks cast from styrofoam exhibit high Q, with virtually
no damping! Echo chambers are lined with styrofoam because
they reflect sound virtually without absorption! Styrofoam cups
tinkle prettily when people clink them together in toast!
The minute deformation of the styrofoam disc due to the effects of
gravity would result in no permanent distortion of its structure
whatever. It would recoil completely. And just how that is far from
the critical point where permanent distortion would occur is made
very obvious by studying the deck of my 3 year old sailboard. I've
belted the crap out of that thing with my feet and there are still
only a couple of slight indents to show for my efforts.
Consider a weighted, spring-loaded hinged bar
X - weight
0 - hinge
@@@@@ - spring
========= - bar
X=========0=========X
@@@@@
In gravity, the two ends of the bar will sag, but no permanent
distortion occurs, because the spring will recoil the bar back to
its original straight conformation.
Since there is no permanent distortion as a result of gravitational
sag, are you claiming that there are no frictional losses in the hinge?
Your mechanical insight leaves much to be desired.
Consider a 1 gram, 32mm cube foam equivalent in the form of a steel
wool type lattice that is rigidly linked at all crossover junctions,
and the steel wool fibers are resilient enough to withstand the
effects of gravity without permanent deformation. The block would
obviously recoil back to its true shape if the influence of gravity
was suddenly removed. When you clink cups made of such stuff
together, the cups still resonate perfectly, but at a lesser
frequency than your tinkling toast cups made of glass.
The walls of a styrofoam padded cell resonate at a frequency that
you can't hear. Damn, there I go again.
Variants of the idea include mounting a cup in the middle of the
rotor and filling the cup partially with sand. Basically the same
principle of nonelastic changes in shape.
But polystyrene foam isn't sand is it.
But I suspect the major effect is rotor imbalance.
Rotor imbalance *must* be evident right from the start of rotation.
It's not.
At the start of rotation, you need to overcome static frictional
effects. Please review carefully your assumptions. For your disk
to be lagging as it does, it must be constantly dissipating energy.
Follow the logical consequences of that observation.
Are you asking me to follow **your** logical consequences of that
observation? My logical consequence of that observation is that the
predicted gravity anisotropy is behaving exactly as it should.
Put yourself in the rotating frame of the housing. In this frame, the
disk is slowly rotating backwards at what, say, a few rpm or so?
Given that your bearings are very low friction, very little energy
is required to sustain this slow rotation.
You are trying to claim that the internal friction from styrofoam
sagging is very small, and insufficient to account for this slow
rotation. Well, you need -very- little energy to overcome bearing
friction. The better your bearings, the less energy dissipation is
needed to account for your results. And remember, internal
losses from styrofoam sagging are only -one- of the two major
effects that could account for your observations.
Jerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Max Keon" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
25 May 2006 04:51:11 AM |
|
|
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148481032.127546.74190@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1148345627.784947.216010@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
Do you have any idea how much energy would be generated by foam
sagging when the rotation rate is only around 10 revs per second?
The foam material is entirely elastic to minor distortions, so where
do you imagine this energy might be generated?.
Oh, yes, the beautiful elasticity of polystyrene foam! Bells cast
of styrofoam ring beautifully, with a wonderfully resonant tone!
Tuning forks cast from styrofoam exhibit high Q, with virtually
no damping! Echo chambers are lined with styrofoam because
they reflect sound virtually without absorption! Styrofoam cups
tinkle prettily when people clink them together in toast!
The minute deformation of the styrofoam disc due to the effects of
gravity would result in no permanent distortion of its structure
whatever. It would recoil completely. And just how that is far from
the critical point where permanent distortion would occur is made
very obvious by studying the deck of my 3 year old sailboard. I've
belted the crap out of that thing with my feet and there are still
only a couple of slight indents to show for my efforts.
Consider a weighted, spring-loaded hinged bar
X - weight
0 - hinge
@@@@@ - spring
========= - bar
X=========0=========X
@@@@@
In gravity, the two ends of the bar will sag, but no permanent
distortion occurs, because the spring will recoil the bar back to
its original straight conformation.
Since there is no permanent distortion as a result of gravitational
sag, are you claiming that there are no frictional losses in the hinge?
And what has frictional losses in the hinge got to do with my
experiment? Are you suggesting that foam cells around a centerline
through the disc perpendicular to the earth's surface physically
break and slip across each other as the disc rotates? Wouldn't the
disc fall in half, or disintegrate completely?
Your mechanical insight leaves much to be desired.
Ditto.
-----
-----
Variants of the idea include mounting a cup in the middle of the
rotor and filling the cup partially with sand. Basically the same
principle of nonelastic changes in shape.
But polystyrene foam isn't sand is it.
But I suspect the major effect is rotor imbalance.
Rotor imbalance *must* be evident right from the start of rotation.
It's not.
At the start of rotation, you need to overcome static frictional
effects. Please review carefully your assumptions. For your disk
to be lagging as it does, it must be constantly dissipating energy.
Follow the logical consequences of that observation.
Are you asking me to follow **your** logical consequences of that
observation? My logical consequence of that observation is that the
predicted gravity anisotropy is behaving exactly as it should.
Put yourself in the rotating frame of the housing. In this frame, the
disk is slowly rotating backwards at what, say, a few rpm or so?
Given that your bearings are very low friction, very little energy
is required to sustain this slow rotation.
120mm per second tangential velocity relative to the housing, in a
chamber which has only a 6mm air gap between the 346mm diameter free
disc and the housing, is not slow rotation. It requires a substantial
amount of energy to distort the air mass between the disc and housing
at that rate.
You are trying to claim that the internal friction from styrofoam
sagging is very small, and insufficient to account for this slow
rotation. Well, you need -very- little energy to overcome bearing
friction. The better your bearings, the less energy dissipation is
needed to account for your results. And remember, internal
losses from styrofoam sagging are only -one- of the two major
effects that could account for your observations.
What internal losses?
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
24 May 2006 07:23:20 AM |
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
[snip]
Variants of the idea include mounting a cup in the middle of the
rotor and filling the cup partially with sand. Basically the same
principle of nonelastic changes in shape.
But polystyrene foam isn't sand is it.
But I suspect the major effect is rotor imbalance.
Rotor imbalance *must* be evident right from the start of rotation.
It's not.
At the start of rotation, you need to overcome static frictional
effects. Please review carefully your assumptions. For your disk
to be lagging as it does, it must be constantly dissipating energy.
Follow the logical consequences of that observation.
Are you asking me to follow **your** logical consequences of that
observation? My logical consequence of that observation is that the
predicted gravity anisotropy is behaving exactly as it should.
....and we are back at square one.
1) Jerry's argument that what you are observing is strictly mechanical
in nature is convincing and you have done nothing to satisfy her
concerns.
2) You have been using the wrong g. If it doesn't matter what g is, the
effect is independant of gravity.
3) Your theoretical justification is NONEXISTANT. You believe there is
an anisotropy but you cannot explain why beyond "my theory says so".
4) No error bars. You talk a lot about sensitivity and accuracy but you
don't really have any clue how accurate your device is, assuming it
actually measures what you think it does.
5) If the effect is actually what you think it is, why does it matter
what the air temperature and pressure is?
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Max Keon" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
25 May 2006 04:53:10 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148473400.015534.177170@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
At the start of rotation, you need to overcome static frictional
effects. Please review carefully your assumptions. For your disk
to be lagging as it does, it must be constantly dissipating energy.
Follow the logical consequences of that observation.
Are you asking me to follow **your** logical consequences of that
observation? My logical consequence of that observation is that the
predicted gravity anisotropy is behaving exactly as it should.
...and we are back at square one.
Yes Eric, that you are. You haven't learnt one damn thing.
1) Jerry's argument that what you are observing is strictly mechanical
in nature is convincing and you have done nothing to satisfy her
concerns.
2) You have been using the wrong g. If it doesn't matter what g is, the
effect is independant of gravity.
3) Your theoretical justification is NONEXISTANT. You believe there is
an anisotropy but you cannot explain why beyond "my theory says so".
4) No error bars. You talk a lot about sensitivity and accuracy but you
don't really have any clue how accurate your device is, assuming it
actually measures what you think it does.
5) If the effect is actually what you think it is, why does it matter
what the air temperature and pressure is?
Your gallantry is (perhaps) commendable. Here's a little known
paradox that may assist in your journey down the rocky road of life.
When one combines two twerps, the result is not twerp * 2, it's
twerp ^2 because they interact. The paradox occurs when one tries
to separate the twerp package. The square root of the package is
always zero. That is of course because each twerp is rooted without
the other.
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
25 May 2006 10:53:47 AM |
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148473400.015534.177170@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
At the start of rotation, you need to overcome static frictional
effects. Please review carefully your assumptions. For your disk
to be lagging as it does, it must be constantly dissipating energy.
Follow the logical consequences of that observation.
Are you asking me to follow **your** logical consequences of that
observation? My logical consequence of that observation is that the
predicted gravity anisotropy is behaving exactly as it should.
...and we are back at square one.
Yes Eric, that you are. You haven't learnt one damn thing.
That is not true, I finally learned how to spell "guarantee" properly.
1) Jerry's argument that what you are observing is strictly mechanical
in nature is convincing and you have done nothing to satisfy her
concerns.
I notice your reply to her latest post was stupid as usual.
2) You have been using the wrong g. If it doesn't matter what g is, the
effect is independant of gravity.
You say the effect you observe agrees exactly with theory.
The difference between local g and 9.8m/s^2 is several orders of
magnitude larger than the predicted effect.
What does this tell you?
3) Your theoretical justification is NONEXISTANT. You believe there is
an anisotropy but you cannot explain why beyond "my theory says so".
4) No error bars. You talk a lot about sensitivity and accuracy but you
don't really have any clue how accurate your device is, assuming it
actually measures what you think it does.
5) If the effect is actually what you think it is, why does it matter
what the air temperature and pressure is?
Still waiting.
Your gallantry is (perhaps) commendable. Here's a little known
paradox that may assist in your journey down the rocky road of life.
When one combines two twerps, the result is not twerp * 2, it's
twerp ^2 because they interact. The paradox occurs when one tries
to separate the twerp package. The square root of the package is
always zero. That is of course because each twerp is rooted without
the other.
What, are you trying to induce a stroke in me by concentrating so much
stupidity that my brain cannot process it?
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Max Keon" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
26 May 2006 07:54:38 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148572427.311516.88120@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148473400.015534.177170@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
Are you asking me to follow **your** logical consequences of that
observation? My logical consequence of that observation is that the
predicted gravity anisotropy is behaving exactly as it should.
...and we are back at square one.
Yes Eric, that you are. You haven't learnt one damn thing.
That is not true, I finally learned how to spell "guarantee" properly.
Good lad. Now see how you go with "*****".
1) Jerry's argument that what you are observing is strictly mechanical
in nature is convincing and you have done nothing to satisfy her
concerns.
I notice your reply to her latest post was stupid as usual.
That comment and the way you came blundering through the wall on
your mighty stead to rescue the maiden in distress is a fair
indication that you had something to do with her reply.
2) You have been using the wrong g. If it doesn't matter what g is, the
effect is independant of gravity.
You say the effect you observe agrees exactly with theory.
The difference between local g and 9.8m/s^2 is several orders of
magnitude larger than the predicted effect.
What does this tell you?
It doesn't tell me anything that I wasn't already aware of, but it
should tell you that my first priority was to prove that the
gravity anisotropy existed. And since nobody can provide any other
logical reason why the free disc lags behind the rotating housing
in the manner it does, that has been proven.
The link below is to a graph from the latest update which shows
the linear curve generated from the cutoff point where bearing
resistance has been overcome (yellow), and the same curve which
has been adjusted assuming that the action of gravity is applied
at light speed (purple). The anisotropy adjusted curve is amplified
5000 times on the graph. As you can no doubt see, the error bars
generated from experiment are far wider than the true anisotropy
adjusted curve. With my current setup, there's not a hope in hell
that those error bars could be shortened enough to demonstrate a
light speed gravity action rate. But that's only the icing on the
cake.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg
The set of figures shown on the graph are for the final plot point.
3) Your theoretical justification is NONEXISTANT. You believe there is
an anisotropy but you cannot explain why beyond "my theory says so".
4) No error bars. You talk a lot about sensitivity and accuracy but you
don't really have any clue how accurate your device is, assuming it
actually measures what you think it does.
5) If the effect is actually what you think it is, why does it matter
what the air temperature and pressure is?
Still waiting.
The pages of your questions book must be stuck together. We've been
through this bit before.
Your gallantry is (perhaps) commendable. Here's a little known
paradox that may assist in your journey down the rocky road of life.
When one combines two twerps, the result is not twerp * 2, it's
twerp ^2 because they interact. The paradox occurs when one tries
to separate the twerp package. The square root of the package is
always zero. That is of course because each twerp is rooted without
the other.
What, are you trying to induce a stroke in me by concentrating so much
stupidity that my brain cannot process it?
Charm, strange, up, down, are four known twerp types.
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
27 May 2006 02:53:54 AM |
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148572427.311516.88120@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148473400.015534.177170@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
Are you asking me to follow **your** logical consequences of that
observation? My logical consequence of that observation is that the
predicted gravity anisotropy is behaving exactly as it should.
...and we are back at square one.
Yes Eric, that you are. You haven't learnt one damn thing.
That is not true, I finally learned how to spell "guarantee" properly.
Good lad. Now see how you go with "*****".
"M O O N H O A X"
1) Jerry's argument that what you are observing is strictly mechanical
in nature is convincing and you have done nothing to satisfy her
concerns.
I notice your reply to her latest post was stupid as usual.
That comment and the way you came blundering through the wall on
your mighty stead to rescue the maiden in distress is a fair
indication that you had something to do with her reply.
Yes, clearly my participation in this thread is based entirely on
defending a woman I will never, ever see. Makes perfect sense.
2) You have been using the wrong g. If it doesn't matter what g is, the
effect is independant of gravity.
You say the effect you observe agrees exactly with theory.
The difference between local g and 9.8m/s^2 is several orders of
magnitude larger than the predicted effect.
What does this tell you?
It doesn't tell me anything that I wasn't already aware of, but it
should tell you that my first priority was to prove that the
gravity anisotropy existed. And since nobody can provide any other
logical reason why the free disc lags behind the rotating housing
in the manner it does, that has been proven.
You have proven there is lag. Nothing else. Jerry has an excellent
reason for why there is lag.
You have admitted the results are dependant on how warm it is
outside....why is that?
You are also missing the simple reasoning I am making. If your
experiment matches your theory EXACTLY and you have been using the
wrong g, either the experiment isn't measuing what you think it
measuring or the theory is wrong.
I'm not going to waste my time making a more technical argument for why
you are wrong when you cannot even deal with this one.
The link below is to a graph from the latest update which shows
the linear curve generated from the cutoff point where bearing
resistance has been overcome (yellow), and the same curve which
has been adjusted assuming that the action of gravity is applied
at light speed (purple). The anisotropy adjusted curve is amplified
5000 times on the graph. As you can no doubt see, the error bars
generated from experiment are far wider than the true anisotropy
adjusted curve. With my current setup, there's not a hope in hell
that those error bars could be shortened enough to demonstrate a
light speed gravity action rate. But that's only the icing on the
cake.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg
The set of figures shown on the graph are for the final plot point.
WHAT error bars? Looks like you fitted a curve in Excel and called it a
day. I see no uncertainty in your measurments, and I REALLY doubt your
kitbashed setup is accurate to 15 figures with no isolation from the
environment with your admission that the setup is temperature
dependant.
Did you know most handheld calculators are only accurate to 15 digits?
Interesting how you claim to have 15 digits of accuracy...
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Max Keon" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
28 May 2006 08:13:04 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148716434.116965.64370@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148572427.311516.88120@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
-----
-----
You say the effect you observe agrees exactly with theory.
The difference between local g and 9.8m/s^2 is several orders of
magnitude larger than the predicted effect.
What does this tell you?
It doesn't tell me anything that I wasn't already aware of, but it
should tell you that my first priority was to prove that the
gravity anisotropy existed. And since nobody can provide any other
logical reason why the free disc lags behind the rotating housing
in the manner it does, that has been proven.
You have proven there is lag. Nothing else. Jerry has an excellent
reason for why there is lag.
You have admitted the results are dependant on how warm it is
outside....why is that?
Do you really need help with that? No wonder I'm having trouble
getting through to you. If the air density in the link between the
free disc and rotating housing varies, so too will its ability to
carry the free disc along with it.
You are also missing the simple reasoning I am making. If your
experiment matches your theory EXACTLY and you have been using the
wrong g, either the experiment isn't measuing what you think it
measuring or the theory is wrong.
The theory predicts a gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
It also predicts a light speed anisotropy in the up-down directions.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza2.html
Added to that is the prediction of a light speed anisotropy in the
east-west directions.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
My last three experiments have confirmed all of these predictions.
Why do you think the results always agree with prediction? Is it
perhaps a combination of flaws in each setup that always delivers
by some amazing coincidence? How many more amazing coincidences do
you think it will it take?
I'm not going to waste my time making a more technical argument for why
you are wrong when you cannot even deal with this one.
I would like to here your "technical" argument.
The link below is to a graph from the latest update which shows
the linear curve generated from the cutoff point where bearing
resistance has been overcome (yellow), and the same curve which
has been adjusted assuming that the action of gravity is applied
at light speed (purple). The anisotropy adjusted curve is amplified
5000 times on the graph. As you can no doubt see, the error bars
generated from experiment are far wider than the true anisotropy
adjusted curve. With my current setup, there's not a hope in hell
that those error bars could be shortened enough to demonstrate a
light speed gravity action rate. But that's only the icing on the
cake.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg
The set of figures shown on the graph are for the final plot point.
WHAT error bars? Looks like you fitted a curve in Excel and called it a
day.
If you look at the graph you will notice that the data points from
experiment (blue dots) wander around the curve shape to some degree.
As you can see, there is a margin of error between the result from
experiment and the best fit curve that can be generated. Fit your
own error bars in there if you like. I'm sure you can handle that.
All of the curve shapes are generated in a linear fashion from the
cutoff point where bearing resistance has been determined to have
been first broken. The curve is raised from the base line with a
multiplier until the best fit is established. Any other curve that's
not generated from the same formula cannot **ever** compare. I'm
probably pushing my luck expecting you to understand that though.
If the curve origin is restricted to the start of rotation, it can't
be forced to compare with the test results either. It only works if
bearing friction bias is included.
See if you can understand (below) why curves generated from a
common formula can always be brought into a state of compare with
multipliers and will always exactly compare, while no other curve
shape can **ever** compare regardless of how they are multiplied.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/cmbr.html
You may notice that the compare curve origins are from the zero
mark i.e no justifiable bias. But there is one justifiable deviation
from that rule, which is to do with the zero origin concept.
I see no uncertainty in your measurments, and I REALLY doubt your
kitbashed setup is accurate to 15 figures with no isolation from the
environment with your admission that the setup is temperature
dependant.
That's an admission which has been proven to be of little
consequence. And by the way, while you're quick to criticize my
experiments, your own monkey see monkey do attempts at proving
absolutely nothing that isn't already well documented don't impress
anyone either. Get off your bum and do something useful. Perhaps
you could spend the rest of your life, and your money, in the
pursuit of answers because you so firmly believe that all life in
the universe has a far higher purpose than to simply let natural
evolution of life run its course until it eventually extinguishes
itself in an eternal cycle of pointlessness, just like the one
we're in now.
Did you know most handheld calculators are only accurate to 15 digits?
Interesting how you claim to have 15 digits of accuracy...
The 15 digit accuracy is essential only in determining the effect
that the gravity anisotropy will have on the curve. The gravity
anisotropy isn't going to disappear just because my device can't
measure it exactly though, is it!
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
28 May 2006 09:16:48 AM |
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148716434.116965.64370@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148572427.311516.88120@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
-----
-----
You say the effect you observe agrees exactly with theory.
The difference between local g and 9.8m/s^2 is several orders of
magnitude larger than the predicted effect.
What does this tell you?
It doesn't tell me anything that I wasn't already aware of, but it
should tell you that my first priority was to prove that the
gravity anisotropy existed. And since nobody can provide any other
logical reason why the free disc lags behind the rotating housing
in the manner it does, that has been proven.
You have proven there is lag. Nothing else. Jerry has an excellent
reason for why there is lag.
You have admitted the results are dependant on how warm it is
outside....why is that?
Do you really need help with that? No wonder I'm having trouble
getting through to you. If the air density in the link between the
free disc and rotating housing varies, so too will its ability to
carry the free disc along with it.
So the observed lag is extremely temperature dependant.
Yea, that just screams "gravitational effect", plus a few other things.
You are also missing the simple reasoning I am making. If your
experiment matches your theory EXACTLY and you have been using the
wrong g, either the experiment isn't measuing what you think it
measuring or the theory is wrong.
The theory predicts a gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions.
No, the theory POSTULATES that the anisotropy is there because the
theory does not derive it. Open any college level textbook that
contains mathematics to see what an actual prediction is.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
It also predicts a light speed anisotropy in the up-down directions.
No, the theory postulates the light speed anisotropy for the same
reason as before.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza2.html
Added to that is the prediction of a light speed anisotropy in the
east-west directions.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
Oddly enough no other experiment has observed this anisotropy in light
speed in any other measurment. Even more oddly, you have no data and no
error bars.
My last three experiments have confirmed all of these predictions.
Actually, they don't.
Why do you think the results always agree with prediction?
It is easy to say that when you have no data to compare theory to.
I look and I look but I don't see any actual data.
Is it perhaps a combination of flaws in each setup that always delivers
by some amazing coincidence? How many more amazing coincidences do
you think it will it take?
If you think you actually have something worth more than the paper it
is printed on, publish it in a journal.
I'm not going to waste my time making a more technical argument for why
you are wrong when you cannot even deal with this one.
I would like to here your "technical" argument.
Your interpretation of your "observation" is highly questionable
because your result suggests you have found a way to make a static
gravitational field do work. I think that breaks a conservation law or
two.
The link below is to a graph from the latest update which shows
the linear curve generated from the cutoff point where bearing
resistance has been overcome (yellow), and the same curve which
has been adjusted assuming that the action of gravity is applied
at light speed (purple). The anisotropy adjusted curve is amplified
5000 times on the graph. As you can no doubt see, the error bars
generated from experiment are far wider than the true anisotropy
adjusted curve. With my current setup, there's not a hope in hell
that those error bars could be shortened enough to demonstrate a
light speed gravity action rate. But that's only the icing on the
cake.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg
The set of figures shown on the graph are for the final plot point.
WHAT error bars? Looks like you fitted a curve in Excel and called it a
day.
If you look at the graph you will notice that the data points from
experiment (blue dots) wander around the curve shape to some degree.
As you can see, there is a margin of error between the result from
experiment and the best fit curve that can be generated. Fit your
own error bars in there if you like. I'm sure you can handle that.
That is not what an error bar is.
Read this page. Then read it again. Then look at what you are
presenting to me as convincing experimental results. Notice the many
glaring differences.
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm
[...]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Max Keon" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
30 May 2006 05:50:33 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148825807.976547.120810@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148716434.116965.64370@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
You have proven there is lag. Nothing else. Jerry has an excellent
reason for why there is lag.
You have admitted the results are dependant on how warm it is
outside....why is that?
Do you really need help with that? No wonder I'm having trouble
getting through to you. If the air density in the link between the
free disc and rotating housing varies, so too will its ability to
carry the free disc along with it.
So the observed lag is extremely temperature dependant.
Not at all. When the device was running in a temperature controlled
environment, no noticeable difference showed up in the results when
the temperature was shifted by a couple of degrees. The cause of
that affect was later identified as faulty components, which have
since been replaced.
You are also missing the simple reasoning I am making. If your
experiment matches your theory EXACTLY and you have been using the
wrong g, either the experiment isn't measuing what you think it
measuring or the theory is wrong.
The theory predicts a gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions.
No, the theory POSTULATES that the anisotropy is there because the
theory does not derive it. Open any college level textbook that
contains mathematics to see what an actual prediction is.
It's enlightening to note how you react to "POSTULATES". I feel the
same way. But I can't criticize you for not understanding the zero
origin concept.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
It also predicts a light speed anisotropy in the up-down directions.
No, the theory postulates the light speed anisotropy for the same
reason as before.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza2.html
Added to that is the prediction of a light speed anisotropy in the
east-west directions.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
Oddly enough no other experiment has observed this anisotropy in light
speed in any other measurment. Even more oddly, you have no data and
no error bars.
My last three experiments have confirmed all of these predictions.
Actually, they don't.
Actually your opinion really doesn't amount to much, and that's all
it is, an opinion. Anyway, regarless of what you think, the power
of truth can't be stopped once it's on the move. I only hope it's
not too late.
-----
-----
I'm not going to waste my time making a more technical argument
for why you are wrong when you cannot even deal with this one.
I would like to hear your "technical" argument.
Your interpretation of your "observation" is highly questionable
because your result suggests you have found a way to make a static
gravitational field do work. I think that breaks a conservation law
or two.
There is no static gravitational field in the zero origin universe.
It's very dynamic. Hence the **predicted** gravity anisotropy for
up-down motion relative to the gravity source.
The link below is to a graph from the latest update which shows
the linear curve generated from the cutoff point where bearing
resistance has been overcome (yellow), and the same curve which
has been adjusted assuming that the action of gravity is applied
at light speed (purple). The anisotropy adjusted curve is amplified
5000 times on the graph. As you can no doubt see, the error bars
generated from experiment are far wider than the true anisotropy
adjusted curve. With my current setup, there's not a hope in hell
that those error bars could be shortened enough to demonstrate a
light speed gravity action rate. But that's only the icing on the
cake.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg
The set of figures shown on the graph are for the final plot point.
WHAT error bars? Looks like you fitted a curve in Excel and called it a
day.
If you look at the graph you will notice that the data points from
experiment (blue dots) wander around the curve shape to some degree.
As you can see, there is a margin of error between the result from
experiment and the best fit curve that can be generated. Fit your
own error bars in there if you like. I'm sure you can handle that.
That is not what an error bar is.
I know it's not. Do you think I'm going to spend a year collecting
data just to prove what is already blatantly obvious, that I don't
stand a chance of correctly identifying the exact speed of the
gravity force?
I've proven the existence of a gravity anisotropy. That'll have to
do for now.
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
30 May 2006 06:19:35 AM |
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148825807.976547.120810@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148716434.116965.64370@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
You have proven there is lag. Nothing else. Jerry has an excellent
reason for why there is lag.
You have admitted the results are dependant on how warm it is
outside....why is that?
Do you really need help with that? No wonder I'm having trouble
getting through to you. If the air density in the link between the
free disc and rotating housing varies, so too will its ability to
carry the free disc along with it.
So the observed lag is extremely temperature dependant.
Not at all. When the device was running in a temperature controlled
environment, no noticeable difference showed up in the results when
the temperature was shifted by a couple of degrees. The cause of
that affect was later identified as faulty components, which have
since been replaced.
Yea, right.
"no noticable difference". How accuratly can your device measure
differing rotation rates? Do you even know?
"a coubple of degrees". You have no idea what you are talking about, so
you figure since you didn't see anything the natural temperature flux
in your garage is good enough.
Your page said NOTHING about faulty components. You need to rewrite
your page so it is readable and contains everything that actually
happened.
You are also missing the simple reasoning I am making. If your
experiment matches your theory EXACTLY and you have been using the
wrong g, either the experiment isn't measuing what you think it
measuring or the theory is wrong.
The theory predicts a gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions.
No, the theory POSTULATES that the anisotropy is there because the
theory does not derive it. Open any college level textbook that
contains mathematics to see what an actual prediction is.
It's enlightening to note how you react to "POSTULATES". I feel the
same way. But I can't criticize you for not understanding the zero
origin concept.
You don't understand my criticism.
You postulate the anisotropy is there, which is fine. What is not fine
is saying your theory predicts the anisotropy. If you postulate it, it
is not a prediction.
Your theory boils down to you believing there is an effect there
without any theoretical or experimental justification.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html
It also predicts a light speed anisotropy in the up-down directions.
No, the theory postulates the light speed anisotropy for the same
reason as before.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza2.html
Added to that is the prediction of a light speed anisotropy in the
east-west directions.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html
Oddly enough no other experiment has observed this anisotropy in light
speed in any other measurment. Even more oddly, you have no data and
no error bars.
My last three experiments have confirmed all of these predictions.
Actually, they don't.
Actually your opinion really doesn't amount to much, and that's all
it is, an opinion. Anyway, regarless of what you think, the power
of truth can't be stopped once it's on the move. I only hope it's
not too late.
-----
-----
I'm not going to waste my time making a more technical argument
for why you are wrong when you cannot even deal with this one.
I would like to hear your "technical" argument.
Your interpretation of your "observation" is highly questionable
because your result suggests you have found a way to make a static
gravitational field do work. I think that breaks a conservation law
or two.
There is no static gravitational field in the zero origin universe.
It's very dynamic. Hence the **predicted** gravity anisotropy for
up-down motion relative to the gravity source.
A theory that predicts an energy conservation violation is dead on
arrival.
The link below is to a graph from the latest update which shows
the linear curve generated from the cutoff point where bearing
resistance has been overcome (yellow), and the same curve which
has been adjusted assuming that the action of gravity is applied
at light speed (purple). The anisotropy adjusted curve is amplified
5000 times on the graph. As you can no doubt see, the error bars
generated from experiment are far wider than the true anisotropy
adjusted curve. With my current setup, there's not a hope in hell
that those error bars could be shortened enough to demonstrate a
light speed gravity action rate. But that's only the icing on the
cake.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg
The set of figures shown on the graph are for the final plot point.
WHAT error bars? Looks like you fitted a curve in Excel and called it a
day.
If you look at the graph you will notice that the data points from
experiment (blue dots) wander around the curve shape to some degree.
As you can see, there is a margin of error between the result from
experiment and the best fit curve that can be generated. Fit your
own error bars in there if you like. I'm sure you can handle that.
That is not what an error bar is.
You forgot to mark your snip. Here, I will restore the part you are
afraid to respond to:
Read this page. Then read it again. Then look at what you are
presenting to me as convincing experimental results. Notice the many
glaring differences.
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm
I know it's not. Do you think I'm going to spend a year collecting
data just to prove what is already blatantly obvious, that I don't
stand a chance of correctly identifying the exact speed of the
gravity force?
What data?
You have shown me NO DATA. You have shown pictures, plots, and
halfassed theory but NO actual data. Where is it?
I've proven the existence of a gravity anisotropy. That'll have to
do for now.
Think so? Why are you wasting your time on USENET? Publish your theory
and the writeup of the experiment.
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Max Keon" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
01 Jun 2006 05:09:22 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148987975.573202.17780@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148825807.976547.120810@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
So the observed lag is extremely temperature dependant.
Not at all. When the device was running in a temperature controlled
environment, no noticeable difference showed up in the results when
the temperature was shifted by a couple of degrees. The cause of
that affect was later identified as faulty components, which have
since been replaced.
Yea, right.
"no noticable difference". How accuratly can your device measure
differing rotation rates? Do you even know?
"a coubple of degrees". You have no idea what you are talking about, so
you figure since you didn't see anything the natural temperature flux
in your garage is good enough.
What are you babbling about, in your own little world? Two degrees
is 360 / 5248 = 29.16 program cycles if the housing is set to rotate
at e.g. 12.625 revs per second (which is full character set block
no.20 http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/grav7.jpg ).
The rotating housing flag travels (390mm dia * pi) 1.225 meters
* 12.625 = 15.47 m/sec. The number of program cycles (character set
blocks) per rev is 5248, which is 5248 * 12.625 = 66256 program
cycles per second. The distance between each block is 15.47 / 66256
= 2.33E-4 meters. The housing rotation rate can be contained within
two adjacent blocks, which is within .23 millimeters. That's not bad
considering the velocity of the housing flag.
The same level of precision applies for measuring the distance
between the rotating housing and the free disc.
The above image is showing the total path length for block no.22
22 * 256 + 128 = 5760 character set blocks (just in case there's
any confusion).
Your page said NOTHING about faulty components. You need to rewrite
your page so it is readable and contains everything that actually
happened.
That is mentioned in the previous update (14-5-06), to which I've
just added this paragraph;
The test criteria is now, for each chosen housing rotation rate,
the time taken for the free disc to complete one full rotation cycle
relative to the housing is recorded for many completed free disc
rotations. That data is then averaged. But before any data can be
taken, at each chosen rotation rate, it is essential that that rate
be maintained for ten minutes or more (much more for slower rotation
rates) so that the free disc can settle down to fall behind the
rotating housing at a uniform rate.
The theory predicts a gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions.
No, the theory POSTULATES that the anisotropy is there because the
theory does not derive it. Open any college level textbook that
contains mathematics to see what an actual prediction is.
It's enlightening to note how you react to "POSTULATES". I feel the
same way. But I can't criticize you for not understanding the zero
origin concept.
You don't understand my criticism.
You postulate the anisotropy is there, which is fine. What is not fine
is saying your theory predicts the anisotropy. If you postulate it, it
is not a prediction.
Your theory boils down to you believing there is an effect there
without any theoretical or experimental justification.
I don't expect you to have an immediate comprehensive understanding
of the zero origin concept, but you could at least try.
-----
-----
Your interpretation of your "observation" is highly questionable
because your result suggests you have found a way to make a static
gravitational field do work. I think that breaks a conservation law
or two.
There is no static gravitational field in the zero origin universe.
It's very dynamic. Hence the **predicted** gravity anisotropy for
up-down motion relative to the gravity source.
A theory that predicts an energy conservation violation is dead on
arrival.
An interesting observation. GR more or less postulates that the
speed at which the action of gravity can be applied is limited to
light speed, and thus complies with a philosophy that the
9.8 m/sec^2 acceleration rate at the earth's surface reduces with
velocity toward the earth's center of mass, becoming zero for a
light speed approach. But that would cause GR to fall on its face,
wouldn't it! GR must then postulate a much faster than light speed
action of gravity. The trouble is, the next logical alignment of
the three coconuts beyond light speed, is infinity.
-----
-----
If you look at the graph you will notice that the data points from
experiment (blue dots) wander around the curve shape to some degree.
As you can see, there is a margin of error between the result from
experiment and the best fit curve that can be generated. Fit your
own error bars in there if you like. I'm sure you can handle that.
That is not what an error bar is.
You forgot to mark your snip. Here, I will restore the part you are
afraid to respond to:
Read this page. Then read it again. Then look at what you are
presenting to me as convincing experimental results. Notice the many
glaring differences.
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm
I know it's not. Do you think I'm going to spend a year collecting
data just to prove what is already blatantly obvious, that I don't
stand a chance of correctly identifying the exact speed of the
gravity force?
What data?
You have shown me NO DATA. You have shown pictures, plots, and
halfassed theory but NO actual data. Where is it?
Show me the raw data for the CMBR and I'll show you mine.
On the web page, I thought I had explained how the data
was collected. Perhaps if I repeat the latest inclusion. After a
time, when a specific rotation rate is well established, the time
it takes for the free disc to lose one complete revolution relative
to the rotating housing is recorded many times, and is then
averaged. The next chosen rate is tested in the same manner, etc^2.
The blue dot-circles on the graph are the results from one such test
series. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
01 Jun 2006 09:04:11 AM |
|
|
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148987975.573202.17780@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148825807.976547.120810@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
So the observed lag is extremely temperature dependant.
Not at all. When the device was running in a temperature controlled
environment, no noticeable difference showed up in the results when
the temperature was shifted by a couple of degrees. The cause of
that affect was later identified as faulty components, which have
since been replaced.
Yea, right.
"no noticable difference". How accuratly can your device measure
differing rotation rates? Do you even know?
"a coubple of degrees". You have no idea what you are talking about, so
you figure since you didn't see anything the natural temperature flux
in your garage is good enough.
What are you babbling about, in your own little world? Two degrees
is 360 / 5248 = 29.16 program cycles if the housing is set to rotate
at e.g. 12.625 revs per second (which is full character set block
no.20 http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/grav7.jpg ).
The rotating housing flag travels (390mm dia * pi) 1.225 meters
* 12.625 = 15.47 m/sec. The number of program cycles (character set
blocks) per rev is 5248, which is 5248 * 12.625 = 66256 program
cycles per second. The distance between each block is 15.47 / 66256
= 2.33E-4 meters. The housing rotation rate can be contained within
two adjacent blocks, which is within .23 millimeters. That's not bad
considering the velocity of the housing flag.
....and how accurate is your detector?
I see you only use 3 digits this time. Did you suddenly realise you
don't have 15 signifigant digits to work with?
The same level of precision applies for measuring the distance
between the rotating housing and the free disc.
You have no idea how precise your measurments are. It appears you have
only did one experimental run according to your....plots.
The above image is showing the total path length for block no.22
22 * 256 + 128 = 5760 character set blocks (just in case there's
any confusion).
Your page said NOTHING about faulty components. You need to rewrite
your page so it is readable and contains everything that actually
happened.
That is mentioned in the previous update (14-5-06), to which I've
just added this paragraph;
The test criteria is now, for each chosen housing rotation rate,
the time taken for the free disc to complete one full rotation cycle
relative to the housing is recorded for many completed free disc
rotations. That data is then averaged. But before any data can be
taken, at each chosen rotation rate, it is essential that that rate
be maintained for ten minutes or more (much more for slower rotation
rates) so that the free disc can settle down to fall behind the
rotating housing at a uniform rate.
I am tired of looking through your experimental blog to figure out what
your setup is now as opposed to its 50 previous iterations.
Nobody will ever take your setup seriously if you intend that to be how
you present it.
The theory predicts a gravity anisotropy in the up-down directions.
No, the theory POSTULATES that the anisotropy is there because the
theory does not derive it. Open any college level textbook that
contains mathematics to see what an actual prediction is.
It's enlightening to note how you react to "POSTULATES". I feel the
same way. But I can't criticize you for not understanding the zero
origin concept.
You don't understand my criticism.
You postulate the anisotropy is there, which is fine. What is not fine
is saying your theory predicts the anisotropy. If you postulate it, it
is not a prediction.
Your theory boils down to you believing there is an effect there
without any theoretical or experimental justification.
I don't expect you to have an immediate comprehensive understanding
of the zero origin concept, but you could at least try.
You make the faulty assumption that my opinion will change to agree
with you just because I "think about it some more".
-----
-----
Your interpretation of your "observation" is highly questionable
because your result suggests you have found a way to make a static
gravitational field do work. I think that breaks a conservation law
or two.
There is no static gravitational field in the zero origin universe.
It's very dynamic. Hence the **predicted** gravity anisotropy for
up-down motion relative to the gravity source.
A theory that predicts an energy conservation violation is dead on
arrival.
An interesting observation. GR more or less postulates that the
speed at which the action of gravity can be applied is limited to
light speed, and thus complies with a philosophy that the
9.8 m/sec^2 acceleration rate at the earth's surface reduces with
velocity toward the earth's center of mass, becoming zero for a
light speed approach. But that would cause GR to fall on its face,
wouldn't it! GR must then postulate a much faster than light speed
action of gravity. The trouble is, the next logical alignment of
the three coconuts beyond light speed, is infinity.
You didn't address the "interesting observation". Instead, you reply
with a word salad of meaningless babble that just points out you don't
understand GR.
-----
-----
If you look at the graph you will notice that the data points from
experiment (blue dots) wander around the curve shape to some degree.
As you can see, there is a margin of error between the result from
experiment and the best fit curve that can be generated. Fit your
own error bars in there if you like. I'm sure you can handle that.
That is not what an error bar is.
You forgot to mark your snip. Here, I will restore the part you are
afraid to respond to:
Read this page. Then read it again. Then look at what you are
presenting to me as convincing experimental results. Notice the many
glaring differences.
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm
Well?
I know it's not. Do you think I'm going to spend a year collecting
data just to prove what is already blatantly obvious, that I don't
stand a chance of correctly identifying the exact speed of the
gravity force?
What data?
You have shown me NO DATA. You have shown pictures, plots, and
halfassed theory but NO actual data. Where is it?
Show me the raw data for the CMBR and I'll show you mine.
I was not talking about the CMBR. I'm certaintly not going to start
now.
On the web page, I thought I had explained how the data
was collected. Perhaps if I repeat the latest inclusion. After a
time, when a specific rotation rate is well established, the time
it takes for the free disc to lose one complete revolution relative
to the rotating housing is recorded many times, and is then
averaged. The next chosen rate is tested in the same manner, etc^2.
The blue dot-circles on the graph are the results from one such test
series. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/anistrop.jpg
Same criticisms as before.
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm
No data, no error bars, and more signifigant figures than you could
possibly have for that setup.
Again, if you think you actually have something try to publish it. I'm
sure Henri Wilson would love to assist.
-----
Max Keon
.
|
|
|
| User: "Max Keon" |
|
| Title: Re: Anisotropy in the gravity FORCE (update 1) |
03 Jun 2006 05:26:31 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149170651.177730.23280@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148987975.573202.17780@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
-----
-----
"no noticable difference". How accuratly can your device measure
differing rotation rates? Do you even know?
"a coubple of degrees". You have no idea what you are talking about, so
you figure since you didn't see anything the natural temperature flux
in your garage is good enough.
What are you babbling about, in your own little world? Two degrees
is 360 / 5248 = 29.16 program cycles if the housing is set to rotate
at e.g. 12.625 revs per second (which is full character set block
no.20 http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/grav7.jpg ).
The rotating housing flag travels (390mm dia * pi) 1.225 meters
* 12.625 = 15.47 m/sec. The number of program cycles (character set
blocks) per rev is 5248, which is 5248 * 12.625 = 66256 program
cycles per second. The distance between each block is 15.47 / 66256
= 2.33E-4 meters. The housing rotation rate can be contained within
two adjacent blocks, which is within .23 millimeters. That's not bad
considering the velocity of the housing flag.
...and how accurate is your detector?
At higher rotation rates the detector is identifying one of the two
adjacent blocks at the page center (128 characters in) for each
completed housing rotation. I intend to check its true capability
with a much faster computer one day.
I see you only use 3 digits this time. Did you suddenly realise you
don't have 15 signifigant digits to work with?
That's all I need to prove that the gravity anisotropy exists.
The same level of precision applies for measuring the distance
between the rotating housing and the free disc.
You have no idea how precise your measurments are. It appears you have
only did one experimental run according to your....plots.
The two graph plots displayed on the web page are representative
of the general trend. They were generated from different axle
setups, while the resistance break points were set to be directly
comparable. But most of my time was spent in marathon tests trying
to understand what was happening at low rotation rates, around the
bearing resistance break point.
So long as I could identify a general curve shape and compare that
with the predicted shape was all that really concerned me. The
curve shape generated through experiment highlighted a flaw in my
reasoning.
The above image is showing the total path length for block no.22
22 * 256 + 128 = 5760 character set blocks (just in case there's
any confusion).
Your page said NOTHING about faulty components. You need to rewrite
your page so it is readable and contains everything that actually
happened.
That is mentioned in the previous update (14-5-06), to which I've
just added this paragraph;
The test criteria is now, for each chosen housing rotation rate,
the time taken for the free disc to complete one full rotation cycle
relative to the housing is recorded for many completed free disc
rotations. That data is then averaged. But before any data can be
taken, at each chosen rotation rate, it is essential that that rate
be maintained for ten minutes or more (much more for slower rotation
rates) so that the free disc can settle down to fall behind the
rotating housing at a uniform rate.
I am tired of looking through your experimental blog to figure out what
your setup is now as opposed to its 50 previous iterations.
After considering the negative reaction to my experiment
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza.html which falsifies SR
at every re-run, this time I decided to take interested parties
along for the ride to follow the progress of the experiment, instead
of lumping it all together at the end.
Nobody will ever take your setup seriously if you intend that to be how
you present it.
It's not over yet.
-----
-----
I don't expect you to have an immediate comprehensive understanding
of the zero origin concept, but you could at least try.
You make the faulty assumption that my opinion will change to agree
with you just because I "think about it some more".
I don't imagine it ever will. But the world doesn't end with you.
-----
-----
There is no static gravitational field in the zero origin universe.
It's very dynamic. Hence the **predicted** gravity anisotropy for
up-down motion relative to the gravity source.
A theory that predicts an energy conservation violation is dead on
arrival.
An interesting observation. GR more or less postulates that the
speed at which the action of gravity can be applied is limited to
light speed, and thus complies with a philosophy that the
9.8 m/sec^2 acceleration rate at the earth's surface reduces with
velocity toward the earth's center of mass, becoming zero for a
light speed approach. But that would cause GR to fall on its face,
wouldn't it! GR must then postulate a much faster than light speed
action of gravity. The trouble is, the next logical alignment of
the three coconuts beyond light speed, is infinity.
You didn't address the "interesting observation". Instead, you reply
with a word salad of meaningless babble that just points out you don't
understand GR.
GR is however very relevant to this debate because my predictions
are in direct conflict with it.
Trying to understand how a static space curve accelerates matter
in the first place leaves me, and many others I'm sure, completely
bewildered. Added to that is the requirement that the static space
curve, in any specific location around a gravity source, will always
accelerate matter at the same rate regardless of its velocity toward
the gravity source. It's little wonder that such things as gravitons
are invented in an attempt to fill the conceptual void.
Even if a static space curve can accelerate matter to light speed,
it has no mechanism with which to accelerate matter beyond that
speed. Whether or not matter can reach light speed is irrelevant.
Then the action of gravity either, reduces with speed toward the
gravity source, or is maintained as a constant, right up to light
speed, where the transition to zero gravity action takes place,
which is a ridiculous thought.
An instantaneous action of gravity is the only possible way to
remove the gravity anisotropy completely, regardless of what *any*
theory predicts, or postulates.
You seem to understand how it all works.
Would you care to explain it to me?
-----
-----
You forgot to mark your snip. Here, I will restore the part you are
afraid to respond to:
Read this page. Then read it again. Then look at what you are
presenting to me as convincing experimental results. Notice the many
glaring differences.
http://www.cas.muohio.edu/~marcumsd/p293/lab0/lab0.htm
Well?
Well what? http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/the1-1a.html
You might learn something too.
-----
-----
You have shown me NO DATA. You have shown pictures, plots, and
halfassed theory but NO actual data. Where is it?
Show me the raw data for the CMBR and I'll show you mine.
I was not talking about the CMBR. I'm certaintly not going to start
now.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
