Post by: JLindgaard on 06/09/2022 17:32:23
This video clearly demonstrates that work can be factored as torque. The weight that is dropping obviously travels less than π1m/2 while the weight being lifted travels further
than, oops, because its radius decreases by a factor of 50cm/90 º so its average radius is .75m,
π.75m/2 is less than π1m/2
π.75/2 = 1.178 while π1m/2 = 1.571
Since Russia has cut off energy to Europe, it will be interesting to see the reaction when I finish my build.
A Dr. Jaaski at Utrecht university (rare book librarian) and a Dr. Poschl (atmospheric chemistry and physics)
know I am almost finished with my build. And Dr, Poschl is also aware of my experiment. I help to realize
Saxony, Germany's history and as a gesture of goodwill he might help me with my experiment.
And I am aware that scientists do not support any work that I am pursuing. As for my video, unless someone
can explain why the video is a hoax, it proves that one weight dropping can lift another weight higher. And scientists
claim that is not possible. Yet the math Bessler would have known shows an excess of torque can be generated.
The math shows that 25% of the torque the weight that drops is excess torque. The build is close to those values.
And this is because resistance increases entropy. Except in this instance it increases momentum by negating
the centripetal force of the weight being rotated (lifted) upward.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2022 17:40:17
It doesn't matter that the rim of wheel is longer than the diameter.
It's only the perpendicular height that matters.
You just don't seem to have grasped the basics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2022 17:41:45
. As for my video, unless someoneYour video does not show that.
can explain why the video is a hoax, it proves that one weight dropping can lift another weight higher
Post by: JLindgaard on 06/09/2022 18:04:58
My Father who art in thenakedscientists.com give us this day our daily bread and let us forgive those who are ignorant and know not the perfect science.
And bored chemist, why I compare you to a stalker. The video clearly shows over 90º of rotation and you say it doesn't show that. You are calling me a liar and a fraud. Others have made that claim as well saying someone proved it in the late 19th century. And since someone who didn't actually consider the math I am using, I say they got it wrong but people will defend science even when science is wrong. And I say you are a stalker and I will not post in here anymore because you've proven that science has become a religion. I guess you'll need to find someone else to stalk.
Post by: Origin on 06/09/2022 18:22:17
If this works I will tell Europe that bored chemist said that I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.No, just tell everyone you were wrong.
Post by: JLindgaard on 06/09/2022 19:41:47
work = mass times distance. And people have always told be that science will not allow me to calculate potential
torque/counter torque as "a cos ø" within the context of πr/2.
This means that r cos(x) ø - r cos(90 - x) ø * 9.81m/s. That is how potential acceleration (there will be some resistance) for every degree, minute or second can be calculated. Leibniz was a witness at Bessler's trial when Bessler was charged with being a fraud. Myself, the stupid fool that I am considered Leibniz to be credible.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3097
And if I want to enjoy anything that I do, I'll need to do it offline. Apparently most people haven't lived in 2 different countries and have spoken 2 different languages. I think that gives me an advantage when considering a perspective other than my own.
p.s., the radius of the weight rotating upward would obviously have some type of f(x) = because the retraction disc would allow for a constant rate of change in the radius as that weight is lifted via rotation.
Post by: evan_au on 06/09/2022 21:56:38
Quote from: OP
Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another DropsThis is well known - it is called a pulley. You can achieve the same effect with a lever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_advantage
However, what the video is trying to show is that you can achieve mechanical advantage using the same weights.
- This violates the principle of conservation of energy.
The device in the video intends to show a perpetual motion machine, with weights falling down providing the leverage to lift other (equal) weights up.
- It is significant that the device in the video only rotates a quarter turn before it stops and reverses.
- The fact that it produces noise shows that it is losing energy
- More interesting would be a video with the device rotating a full circle, and the speed increasing over time.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/09/2022 22:50:27
The video clearly shows over 90º of rotation and you say it doesn't show that.
Why not a full 360 degrees? What keeps it from working?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2022 23:06:19
Here are some "before and after" pictures.
One weight falls from A to B which, on my screen is from 12.5 cm to about 2 cm
The other rises from C to D which, on my screen is from 0.5 cm to about 8 cm
So, one falls about 10.5 cm and, in doing so, raises the other by about 7.5cm
it proves that one weight dropping can lift another weight higher.Not unless 7.5 is bigger than 10.5
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2022 23:09:05
If this worksIt still won't.
I will tell Europe that bored chemist said that I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.How do you plan to contact Europe?
Also, given that I'm a staunch atheist, the only ones who might recognise "bored chemist" will know you are deluded or lying.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/09/2022 23:22:47
Post by: The Spoon on 06/09/2022 23:27:28
If this works I will tell Europe that bored chemist said that I have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.The only thing you appear to be capable of demonstrating, like many of the delusional people who post their brain farts in this section is a profound lack of understanding of science. Not only specific knowledge of particular fields, but a nonsensical idea that 'science' is a body of people who preside over and control knowledge in a unified manner. You also appear to demonstrate paranoia along with self pity and think we should cut you some slack because you are a veteran.
My Father who art in thenakedscientists.com give us this day our daily bread and let us forgive those who are ignorant and know not the perfect science.
And bored chemist, why I compare you to a stalker. The video clearly shows over 90º of rotation and you say it doesn't show that. You are calling me a liar and a fraud. Others have made that claim as well saying someone proved it in the late 19th century. And since someone who didn't actually consider the math I am using, I say they got it wrong but people will defend science even when science is wrong. And I say you are a stalker and I will not post in here anymore because you've proven that science has become a religion. I guess you'll need to find someone else to stalk.
Post by: JLindgaard on 06/09/2022 23:32:21
When the arm is rotating downward, a part will strike a dowel causing everything to move outward. I am letting the stain dry for the modified capstans that will allow me to rig the outside of the wheel. That will make the frame stronger.
With the assembly in the 2nd image, the piece of wood with 2 slots will catch a "tab". That will hold the retraction line in place. And when that weight wheel is kicked out, it will release the "tab" for the opposing weight.
I do have holes drilled so I can somewhat lubricate all bushings and bearings. With the axle bearing, it might take loosening the bolts that will hold the hub to the axle so the axle can be slid out of the bearings. I am using radial bearings which now I think was a mistake.
@Bored chemist, watch the last 5 seconds of the video. What you showed is when I used axle grease. The last 5 seconds shows where I lubricated everything with brake fluid. Brake fluid might actually have more viscosity than 5 wt motor oil.
Just an FYI, this build works (my own research suggests it will) and I think I'll have friends in Europe.
@evan_au, from everything Bessler wrote, there will be a limit to its acceleration. With something like this, moment of inertia would cost f = ma and then as a weight accelerates with gravity, its acceleration will be limited. Above the level of the axle it could be said to be cancelled out by the other weight above the axle so no acceleration due to gravity.
Then it is the potential in difference between both weights below the axle (this might be able to be advanced as with the timing of a car's engine), energy lost to friction and to f = ma. And for it to generate electricity, markets are determined by cost per kWh. Wind turbines, solar farms and wind turbines all come with a cost.
Post by: JLindgaard on 06/09/2022 23:37:55
Post by: Kryptid on 06/09/2022 23:41:01
Just an FYI, this build works
Then why does it stop instead of keep going?
Post by: JLindgaard on 07/09/2022 00:07:53
Post by: JLindgaard on 07/09/2022 00:52:03
And Bessler's original book; https://www.uu.nl/en/special-collections/collections/early-printed-books/scientific-works/das-triumphirende-perpetuum-mobile-orffyreanum-by-johann-bessler
It's digital version; https://objects.library.uu.nl/reader/index.php?obj=1874-206158&lan=en&_ga=2.172428714.880806695.1594795323-938448423.1594186832#page//24/83/12/24831284496948047699702573152743842009.jpg/mode/1up
This is Dr. Poschl; https://www.mpic.de/3785120/profile-poeschl
I became acquainted with Dr. Poschl when I submitted a question to https://www.egu.eu/
Dr. Poschl is an editor and after exchanging a couple of emails I knew I had work that I needed to do. And along with Bessler's Wheel, over the last few years, it is what I've spent my time pursuing.
And both Dr. Jaski and Dr. Poschl know that my Father from Norway lived under the 3rd Reich. Today things are different, right? Politics is still politics. And a working wheel might offer some relief as far as energy is considered. Then a toxic concept might become just another feat of engineering.
p.s., with Dr. Jaski, my interest was doing a show at his university with Bessler's original book. In a sense that would've been Bessler saying Uf Da!.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2022 01:11:59
And a working wheel might offer some relief as far as energy is considered.
It would, but Noether's theorem won't allow it to work.
Post by: Kartazion on 07/09/2022 01:21:20
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Perpetual_motion_machines
Post by: JLindgaard on 07/09/2022 02:20:38
that he supported Bessler.
And I know with a working wheel, a lot of people will be interested in how much energy it might generate. Because of my research I'll probably be asked to explain the theory to engineers. Europe needs energy. And if I know Bessler's Wheel then do I understand its theory? That would allow for engineers to do modeling based on what they know of mass/structures and friction.
Someone did design the Eye of London. What if something had 1/2 of its diameter? And yet I'd
only be the messenger and not the inventor.
p.s., I read a lot of these research papers. Knowing what modeling is accurate and then when it is always off as it is with CH2O, what should I think?
https://www.academia.edu/30281588/Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Physics_Interactive_chemistry_in_the_Laboratoire_de_M%C3%A9t%C3%A9orologie_Dynamique_general_circulation_model_model_description_and_impact_analysis_of_biogenic_hydrocarbons_on_tropospheric_chemistry?email_work_card=view-paper
And then there's this;
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001JD000722
What do you think? It's what I receive in my inbox. Could you imagine creating a model from hundreds of research papers? Kind of why I think I figured out Bessler's Wheel.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2022 04:57:09
@Kryptid, I can only say that I consider Leibniz to be a credible source. Historical records shows
that he supported Bessler.
Even if that was so, that doesn't put him beyond the ability to be fooled. Noether's theorem is a mathematical proof. If someone's claims are at odds with a mathematical proof, I'd side with the proof.
Post by: JLindgaard on 07/09/2022 05:33:49
Post by: Kartazion on 07/09/2022 07:20:32
Post by: The Spoon on 07/09/2022 08:24:11
And both Dr. Jaski and Dr. Poschl know that my Father from Norway lived under the 3rd Reich. Today things are different, right? Politics is still politics. And a working wheel might offer some relief as far as energy is considered.What does the political regime your father lived under, no matter how awful, have to do with the credibility of your outlandish claims?
Even if you could eliminate all friction (hint - you cannot) and create create a wheel that works, how would this generate electricity? To do so would require the wheel to output more energy than you are putting in. In other words, it will not solve any energy crisis.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/09/2022 09:33:56
@alancalverd, this cannot be patented.......because it is a perpetual motion machine. But my investors are prepared to retain trade secrets or just be first in the market. No excuses - just bring me one that works, and don't tell anyone else how to do it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2022 10:17:14
AFAIK the proofs are not the province of science.Then you don't know enough.
The proof, in this case, is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Post by: paul cotter on 07/09/2022 10:56:20
Post by: evan_au on 07/09/2022 11:09:10
Quote from: paul cotter
Emmy Noether's work is a mathematical argument and hence open to proof-qed.In my primitive understanding, Noether's Theorem is of the form: "If symmetry X holds, then conservation law Y also holds".
- There are several pairs of X & Y
- Most physicists think that the premise X holds (but this hasn't been proven beyond all doubt)
- So most physicists believe that Y also holds (but you can't be totally sure until you prove X)
One form of Y is "Conservation of Energy"
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2022 11:24:06
One form of Y is "Conservation of Energy"And the corresponding symmetry is time.
Essentially, as I understand it, if the laws of physics are the same yesterday as they are today then energy is conserved.
So, is there a credible mechanism by which some planks and string could alter the temporal symmetry of the laws of physics, or is the OP wrong?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2022 16:33:22
I think revision is allowed when proof merits such consideration.
That would require mathematics itself to be revised. Not exactly likely.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/09/2022 17:38:18
Post by: paul cotter on 07/09/2022 18:50:14
Post by: Colin2B on 07/09/2022 18:53:36
Surely this bessler wheel stuff has already argued to death on another thread(possibly closed?).and on other forums, we sites etc.
The op appears to think they are all stalking him and it has to do with his nationality or some such
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2022 19:28:20
Surely this bessler wheel stuff has already argued to deathStarting in the 17th century and carrying on until Noether ended it.
There is no longer an argument.
1:11
Post by: alancalverd on 07/09/2022 19:31:05
Meanwhile we plod on making a living with stuff that obeys the known laws of physics: boring but profitable.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2022 21:56:47
@Bored chemist, watch the last 5 seconds of the video. What you showed is when I used axle grease. The last 5 seconds shows where I lubricated everything with brake fluid. Brake fluid might actually have more viscosity than 5 wt motor oil.It's your job to justify your claim and I can't be bothered doing your job for you.
So, if you think you can, you should take "start" and "finish" pictures like I did.
And then do the height measurements.
Post by: Kartazion on 07/09/2022 22:40:09
For the radiative and not of rotational work of the particle mentioned above, you must be able to use gravity in its vector sense through its total potential energy. Opposite it you have its kinetic energy. Without it you can't demonstrate anything to interpret viable perpetual motion. Moreover, this experiment must be done in a vacuum. Then the wheel as perpetual motion is for the naives.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kartazion#/media/File:Gravitational_Oscillator_&_law_of_Conservation_of_Energy_between_Kinetic_Energy_&_Potential_Energy.gif
Post by: JLindgaard on 08/09/2022 20:03:47
reason scientists have given is that gravity does not have energy so conservation of energy is not possible.
Scientists say that gravity is a force that attracts 2 bodies to each other. And what is between those 2 bodies
is empty space.
I did show 2BCollin a research paper where scientists said
Ayers et al. [1997] proposed a second reaction channel directly producing CH2O and showed
that a 40% yield of this branch is sufficient to resolve the discrepancy between model and measurement.
In over 20+ years they haven't found it yet. With what I am building, it uses an external force to change the
movement of a body in motion. Newton said that changes things. While people have difficulty understand the
trick of motion, as the wheel rotates, the disc increases the distance between the fulcrum and its bob (weight).
That is why the path of the weight moves closer to the axle as the wheel rotates.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2022 20:15:46
And if it works then I'll have to thanks scientists for convincing everyone it wasn't possible. The actual
reason scientists have given is that gravity does not have energy so conservation of energy is not possible.
Scientists say that gravity is a force that attracts 2 bodies to each other. And what is between those 2 bodies
is empty space.
I did show 2BCollin a research paper where scientists said
Ayers et al. [1997] proposed a second reaction channel directly producing CH2O and showed
that a 40% yield of this branch is sufficient to resolve the discrepancy between model and measurement.
In over 20+ years they haven't found it yet. With what I am building, it uses an external force to change the
movement of a body in motion. Newton said that changes things. While people have difficulty understand the
trick of motion, as the wheel rotates, the disc increases the distance between the fulcrum and its bob (weight).
That is why the path of the weight moves closer to the axle as the wheel rotates.
@Bored chemist, watch the last 5 seconds of the video. What you showed is when I used axle grease. The last 5 seconds shows where I lubricated everything with brake fluid. Brake fluid might actually have more viscosity than 5 wt motor oil.It's your job to justify your claim and I can't be bothered doing your job for you.
So, if you think you can, you should take "start" and "finish" pictures like I did.
And then do the height measurements.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2022 20:24:03
And if it works
It seems that talking this out isn't going to end this, so what else do you need to do to finish building the machine?
I am tempted to try to do an in-depth mathematical analysis of a Bessler wheel in order to show why it can't work...
Post by: Kartazion on 08/09/2022 21:46:26
The actualYou don't know your subject well. Gravity is Potential Energy. Energy conservation degrades under the influence of gravity.
reason scientists have given is that gravity does not have energy so conservation of energy is not possible.
Scientists say that gravity is a forceGravity is no longer a force.
Post by: evan_au on 08/09/2022 22:29:52
Quote from:
gravity is a force that attracts 2 bodies to each other. And what is between those 2 bodies is empty space.It is true that gravity works through empty space.
- It is also true that gravity works through a solid body
- The ocean tides on Earth are due to the gravity of the Moon acting on every atom of the Earth. The strength of that attraction is given by Newton's formula F=GM1M2/r2
- So the ocean atoms closer to the Moon are attracted more strongly than the center of the solid Earth, which is in turn attracted more strongly than the ocean atoms on the far side of the Earth.
- As Einstein showed, gravity can also be viewed as a distortion in spacetime, and the distortion caused by the Moon adds to the distortion caused by the Earth, which adds to the distortion of the Sun (and the galaxy...). All of these distortions cause an acceleration in different directions, so you have to do a vector sum.
So you can't "block" gravity with anything of which we know.
H.G.Wells science fiction "Cavorite" can't get your machine to work, any more than it could get his characters to the Moon in the 1900 classic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Men_in_the_Moon
Post by: Colin2B on 08/09/2022 22:56:43
Gravity is no longer a force.Gravitational force has not gone away just because we understand the cause better.
Post by: Kartazion on 08/09/2022 23:23:50
Gravitational force has not gone away just because we understand the cause better.Good evidence of ambiguity. But isn't what we better understand better? So why keep what is also less explicit? This is just to remember how man and through his theories did to get there at the level of understanding. Einstein clearly states that gravity is not a force, but rather the curvature of spacetime.
Post by: JLindgaard on 09/09/2022 07:34:39
https://photos.app.goo.gl/uk7XyYSRqKobHs3e9
When Einstein said warped, it is possible how to explain it to people? A bowl is warped. Yet if you drew a straight line from one edge to the other, the amount of material for each mm moving towards the center of the bowl would increase by volume. It might be a 45 degree bowl. But this is to get the idea. https://photos.app.goo.gl/XC2ARq4YFHLXQdWd7
Post by: Kartazion on 09/09/2022 07:56:42
When Einstein said warped, it is possible how to explain it to people?By geodesics.
Post by: JLindgaard on 09/09/2022 08:04:04
Post by: Kartazion on 09/09/2022 08:25:04
The density being proportional to the influence of gravity on the photon. Indeed gravity on earth is not strong enough to deflect the light accordingly.
Post by: Colin2B on 09/09/2022 08:36:49
So why keep what is also less explicit?Because it is measurable and useful. Just in the same way as we can use and experience centrifugal force even though we know a deeper cause.
Einstein clearly states that gravity is not a force, but rather the curvature of spacetime.He did not state that. Gravity has never been a force, but there is a measurable force due to gravitational attraction and Einstein offers an explanation for how that attraction occurs. He also linked it to the inertial force due to acceleration, another force that has a deeper cause, but we still experience it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2022 08:48:08
"Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops"
actually happens.
Post by: JLindgaard on 09/09/2022 14:44:35
that would separate how the planets orbit the Sun from the Sun's acceleration of gravity towards its surface. That would suggest that a "graviton" would have 2 different behaviors associated with it.
With my build, I think my radial bearings are shot or just extremely dirty. I have roller bearing that I will use instead. It will be easier to keep them lubricated. I am making new mounts but should have that finished by tomorrow. The objective now is to repeat the cycle that allowed a weight to be lifted.
I know, one step at a time while thinking 3 or 4 steps ahead but that is how to track progress. With the radial bearings, I think soaking them in mineral spirits is what caused them to become damaged. Once exposed to air again a chemical reaction was probably underway. There are dark rings around the outside of the races (what the bearings are in).
Post by: Origin on 09/09/2022 15:10:00
Is it possible that the planets are orbiting the Sun based on its magnetic field and phonovoltaic behavior?No.
Post by: JLindgaard on 09/09/2022 15:23:47
And with space which basically has no resistance, how much force would it take to change something's motion?
Post by: Deecart on 09/09/2022 15:44:32
Gravity is no longer a force.
Gravity remain what we call a force.
Quote from: Space.com
Facts about the four fundamental forces that describe every interaction in nature.https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
GRAVITY
WEAK FORCE
ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE
STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE
Post by: Deecart on 09/09/2022 15:54:12
Is it possible that the planets are orbiting the Sun based on its magnetic field and phonovoltaic behavior?
I dont see the point really, but you indeed pointed some interresting possibility : The phonovoltaic behavior.
I dont think there is any phonovoiltaic behavior, but you juste talked about a compression wave (phonons propagate in the matter by compression).
You could use this analogy with the waves doing compression of the space. These waves Lirgo have measured.
The question is : If you take some heavy strong bar (of steel or ceramic) and apply some fast and strong compression at one end, the compression wave propagate into to bar. So, do this compression product a gravitational effect around the bar ? (the bar attract matter ?) (the inverse effect we mesaure with lirgo : Gravitational wave => local compression. And the inverted phenomenon : local compression => gravitational wave. ).
Like electricity in some wire product some magnetic effect around the wire.
If you make spires of this bar, do you have some bigger gravitationnal effect ? (probably).
Post by: Deecart on 09/09/2022 16:02:57
He did not state that. Gravity has never been a force, but there is a measurable force due to gravitational attraction and Einstein offers an explanation for how that attraction occurs. He also linked it to the inertial force due to acceleration, another force that has a deeper cause, but we still experience it.
Gravity was a force, even with Newton.
The difference is that with Newton, the representation of this force was a scalar vector.
With Einstein, the difference is that the representation is not a scalar vector any more.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2022 16:04:20
Post by: JLindgaard on 09/09/2022 16:41:11
Once a planet developed a magnetic potential then did that influence its orbit? It is like the Moon orbits the Earth and it has an iron core with no magnetic field.
Post by: Deecart on 09/09/2022 16:47:35
Vector or scalar?
Yes sorry, i should only say "a vector" in the common sense, but i was thinking that we can create vectors using other mathematical entities then scalars.
So yes, a vector, instead of a "scalar vector" is what i intended to say.
Post by: JLindgaard on 09/09/2022 17:02:50
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2022 17:42:33
But we are diverting attention from the development of your wonderful machine, and my backers are wondering whether to invest in something else. Pity, because your potential profit is unlimited.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2022 17:48:44
Did light move closer to the Sun because it is also magnetic? It's well known that magnetic fields can control that which is electromagnetic in nature."Did light move closer to the Sun because it is also magnetic?"
And with space which basically has no resistance, how much force would it take to change something's motion?
No.
We know about the effect of magnetic fields on light and, in a vacuum, it's zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect
" And with space which basically has no resistance, how much force would it take to change something's motion?"
The force needed to change the movement of something (in a given time) is dependent on the mass of the thing, not teh surroundings.
By the way, do you plan to actually address the fact that you haven't shown that this
"Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops"
actually happens?
Or are you going to continue to argue about why unicorns prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla?
Post by: alancalverd on 09/09/2022 18:15:10
The force needed to change the movement of something (in a given time) is dependent on the mass of the thing, not teh surroundings.Pity nobody told the common eel or the US Navy that. They have wasted millions of years of evolution and billions of dollars, respectively, reducing the viscosity of their surroundings, to no avail.
Post by: JLindgaard on 09/09/2022 20:06:26
In this video, it shows it would've worked if I allowed the retraction to be released by the weight rolling outward. I decided to do a nicer build A working sequence is looped. And when you watch the video, do you notice how hard the wheel jerks when it stops? How much lost energy is that?
Before the planets around the Sun were planets, what were they? Or were they always planets? And just as their is a relationship between the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars, there is also a mathematical relationship to their orbits around the Sun. In Earth days, Venus - 224, Earth - 368.48 and Mars 688.8.
Actual orbits, 224, 365.25 and 686.68
Can anyone figure out the math formula I used?
As for gravity, I have said I support a flow of gravitons which could have an electric/magnetic component such as being phonovoltaic. Electrons have a wave/particle duality. Are you sure that a planet's or the Sun's spin helps to cause a magnetic field? The Earth's magnetic field seems to be in agreement with the kinetic energy of its rotation. Why there is no magnetosphere above either pole.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/09/2022 20:15:54
Post by: Kartazion on 09/09/2022 20:19:49
Before the planets around the Sun were planets, what were they? Or were they always planets?they were created from fragments that agglomerated and from the asteroid belt.
And just as their is a relationship between the atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars, there is also a mathematical relationship to their orbits around the Sun.Your experience don't takes place in a vacuum with your wheel. So the atmospheric pressure...
Post by: JLindgaard on 09/09/2022 20:46:26
I demonstrate how an outside for (a retraction line) changes the motion of the weight. The distance
from the stationary fulcrum to the weight does not change. The work performed is the wheel rotating.
And physical testing shows that this can work. Kind of why......
And I am pursuing an experiment in atmospheric chemistry. I think I'll be able to explain why the
tropopause is a cold air inversion layer which even keeps stratospheric gasses that cool out of it.
This would help to support my working hypothesis. And a successful experiment would support why
I think the tropopause is the way it is. Then atmospheric chemistry might need to consider astrophysics.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/09/2022 21:00:29
Post by: Origin on 09/09/2022 22:45:42
In this video, it shows it would've worked if I allowed the retraction to be released by the weight rolling outward. I decided to do a nicer buildAn animation is useless. I can make an animation of a cow living on the moon. It proves nothing.
Post by: Deecart on 09/09/2022 23:06:05
Look at the space elevator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
Almost every scientist actually agree with this.
You can climb the tether toward the sky and the tether stay straight "without countereaction", the centrifuge force aiutomaticaly pull the tether straight away (Noether is here out of date...).
You climb the tether but you dont have to change the couterweight position using any energy.
So yes, because they agree this, we must understand that almost every scientist actually agree that we can gain energy from gravity.
Post by: Kartazion on 09/09/2022 23:14:34
we must understand that almost every scientist actually agree that we can gain energy from gravity.
Its name is gravitational energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
Potential energy is possible only when it has been "charged" with energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery
Post by: Deecart on 09/09/2022 23:38:03
Its name is gravitational energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy
It is not, but i agree that you can be confused with that.
Potential energy is possible only when it has been "charged" with energy.
I know it since i was 8 years old.
Then when i was 9 years old i invented the balance attracted by some magnet, pulling some antimagnetic matter (not letting magnetism to go trought) between the magnet and the weight of the balance. So we have the weight pulling back and so forth.
Of course this "antimagnetic matter" doesent exist and if we use normal matter we would need the same amount of energy to couteract the gain of the weigth by putting the matter between the weight and the magnet. That is what i discovered when i was 10 years old.
Recently (because i like to think like a 10 year old child) i found the way to create a rotating wheel attracted and repelled by magnets, with a gain of speed (and power).
The condition is to be able to invert the north and the south pole of the magnet without energy loss.
This Gedankenexperiment permit me to postulate the impossibility to reverse magnetic poles without energy use... (yes i am not a 10 years old kid anymore).
This is what i like with these free energy machines, it permit to understand physic further just by using postulates..
Post by: Kartazion on 10/09/2022 00:27:19
It is not, but i agree that you can be confused with that.Gravitational energy or gravitational potential energy are the same and is the potential energy a massive object.
Or what am I confusing it with?
This is what i like with these free energy machines, it permit to understand physic further just by using postulates..https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kartazion#/media/File:Gravitational_Oscillator_&_law_of_Conservation_of_Energy_between_Kinetic_Energy_&_Potential_Energy.gif
Post by: JLindgaard on 10/09/2022 00:37:39
And Newton's First Law of Motion states;
Every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force.
The tether that wraps around the disc is an external force (it is not a part of the wheel) and changes the motion of the weight rotating upward. And if this build works like I think it will, then it will show that gravity can do meaningful work.
Lifting one weight higher than one drops has already been shown. And with how much the wheel shakes when it stops shows it has momentum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2022 00:56:33
Thanks for explaining that you don't understand a net force.The force needed to change the movement of something (in a given time) is dependent on the mass of the thing, not teh surroundings.Pity nobody told the common eel or the US Navy that. They have wasted millions of years of evolution and billions of dollars, respectively, reducing the viscosity of their surroundings, to no avail.
F still equals M A
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2022 00:59:30
It might help with Europe's energy shortageNo, it won't.
Can anyone figure out the math formula I used?Yes. You used numerology or Kepler's laws.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2022 01:02:37
With a wheel, it is torque that needs to be calculated.With a proposed PM machine, it is energy that needs to be calculated.
That's why I keep asking you to do it.
It won't take long; why don't you do it?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/09/2022 21:56:47
Quote from: JLindgaard on 06/09/2022 23:32:21
@Bored chemist, watch the last 5 seconds of the video. What you showed is when I used axle grease. The last 5 seconds shows where I lubricated everything with brake fluid. Brake fluid might actually have more viscosity than 5 wt motor oil.
It's your job to justify your claim and I can't be bothered doing your job for you.
So, if you think you can, you should take "start" and "finish" pictures like I did.
And then do the height measurements.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2022 01:05:03
Then when i was 9 years old i invented the balance attracted by some magnet, pulling some antimagnetic matter (not letting magnetism to go trought) be...Guess again.
Of course this "antimagnetic matter" doesent exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdiamagnetism
Post by: JLindgaard on 10/09/2022 02:47:40
And with me, I think it will work for the same reason the Wright Brothers thought their plane could fly. And interestingly enough, I am from Dayton, Ohio, I served on board the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk and have worked for the Boeing Airplane Company.
While Bessler was 1/2 Polish and 1/2 German, I am 1/2 Norwegian and 1/2 American. I think this might matter because when people say I was taught this one way how things work, I know another way. The U.S. is a capitalist country while that evil Norway is a socialist country.
And with history, Bessler was born circa 1680 while Newton published his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
in 1687. Bessler would've grown up learning about this new discovery. And since he built windmills, who knows what he saw that inspired him. I mean if you let a bob swing from its fulcrum and have an external force change the motion of the bob, it will swing upward from a lower point with the same energy. Just a basic conservation of momentum example.
What actually caught my interest is when I had 2 weights at 90º almost rotate 90º. And knowing about Bessler and Newton and conservation of momentum, how to have the weight swing upward move towards the axle with minimal resistance? It is a complicated thought process and if it works you guys will be saying we weren't taught this.
p.s., every job has job qualifications. And for fun, when I was learning to talk I moved to Norway. I started learning to snakk Norske and Engleske at the same time. Going to school in the U.S. when coming from Norway with a Norwegian accent has its drawbacks. There is the right way to think and to talk.
Post by: Colin2B on 10/09/2022 05:35:55
…..But we are diverting attention from the development of your wonderful machine, and my backers are wondering whether to invest in something else. Pity, because your potential profit is unlimited.Agreed, lets not get diverted, I’ll match any investment you make if I see a working model.
Post by: JLindgaard on 10/09/2022 05:50:56
be a universal Uf Da!!! You know, some people are simply better than others. After all, he is a librarian
who has a book I am interested in. He's at the top of the food chain so to speak.
It is a mater of priorities.
Post by: Colin2B on 10/09/2022 06:09:08
He's at the top of the food chain so to speak..Librarians are never at the top of the food chain and they rarely have the sort of funds we are talking about.
Anyway, your choice, a book or your fortune. The offer still stands if you bring it to a lab in Cambridge.
Post by: Kartazion on 10/09/2022 06:45:26
A working wheelIt will never happen, because your wheel does not work. You only show a simple pulley system.
Post by: Colin2B on 10/09/2022 09:27:00
It will never happen, because your wheel does not work. You only show a simple pulley system.I might say please don’t spoil the fun, but take care or you will be accused of stalking.
I don’t want to prolong this distraction, but as the OP is not interested in large amounts of cash we might as well clear this up:
Gravity was a force, even with Newton.I’m afraid you and Kartasion are misunderstanding the use of English. That’s not surprising as even native English speakers can get this wrong and even technical journals do so.
The difference is that with Newton, the representation of this force was a scalar vector.
With Einstein, the difference is that the representation is not a scalar vector any more.
“In physics, gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight') is a fundamental interaction which causes mutual attraction between all things with mass or energy”. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity)
Or, in the article you quote “Gravity is the attraction between two objects that have mass or energy,”
It is true that some use the term force loosely or as a shorthand, but it is more correct to say the force due to gravity or gravitational force. The reason for this is that the ‘force’ is not felt until it is resisted; an object in freefall (under the action of gravity) feels no force unless resisted by, say, the ground.
If you use loose English and say that gravity is a force then, more correctly, you would have to say that Einstein said that gravity does not exist. What he actually said is that the mutual attraction is not due to a force acting at a distance, but a natural motion through spacetime.
By the way, all forces are vectors so your comment is superfluous.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2022 10:20:50
I took a break from working on it. The video shows there is no support for the axle. I have to make tooling and design a mount to hold the other bearings I have. I bought the bearings because I anticipated this might be a problem.While you are waiting for the bearings to be delivered, or one evening whiten consideration of the neighbours means that you can't do noisy woodworking, you can do as I asked and take two screenshots from the video and measure the heights of the weights.
It's a ten minute job.
Why are you scared to do it?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2022 10:25:50
Suppose we have a machine that generates more energy than it consumes. That describes a primary battery, but it is clearly not going to make a big impact because the life energy cost begins with mining the minerals that make the battery, then processing the chemical components and assembling it. So overall it generates less useful energy than we used to make it - despite the name, it is a store, not a primary generator.
What we need from Mr Lindgaard's machine is the demonstrated ability to produce more energy (and only a tiny bit more) than it takes to build another one before the first one wears out. Remember wood is the product of less than 1% of the solar energy that falls on a tree, so it may not be an ideal material to start with.
Post by: JLindgaard on 10/09/2022 13:28:51
I think that person is the same person who used to say he will call my daddy if I don't personally please him.
I got banned from the forum when I told him I wasn't a little boy. That is what the internet is about.
And to be a jerk, I will mention my experiment and will say that over 700 scientists with the IPCC
came up with no solution to their observation just as in over 25+ years no atmospheric chemistry scientist has. And yet I'm on latrine duty with a toothbrush and people can watch this movie to get a clue.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7231572/
I know, I'll say the IPCC and the Christian church were teaching me that when I do for them I am doing for God and then God will love me.
And I'll avoid church for the same reason but what isn't toxic anymore?
Post by: alancalverd on 10/09/2022 16:49:26
And to be a jerk, I will mention my experiment and will say that over 700 scientists with the IPCCBecause they would find themselves unemployed if they did! The important phrase that must end every "scientific" paper is "further research is needed."
came up with no solution to their observation just as in over 25+ years
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2022 17:58:53
The important phrase that must end every "scientific" paper is "further research is needed."That phrase is actually banned in some journals.
Post by: Deecart on 11/09/2022 18:31:19
Because they would find themselves unemployed if they did! The important phrase that must end every "scientific" paper is "further research is needed."
The full sentence is : It is multifactorial, further research is needed.
(Doing this you can assure yourself to be payed for you research for decades).
Post by: JLindgaard on 12/09/2022 20:09:47
I am also 110% disabled. 100% Social Security and 10% service connected.
And if things work out, I'll explain why the tropopause is a boundary layer besides
saying it's a cold inversion. When that is said, it is not explaining why it is.
And as I mention on my website, if my experiment works and the number of reactions
changes with latitude, altitude and distance from the magnetosphere, would that be an
example of non-local behavior/quantum entanglement on an astronomical level like gravity is?
The laws of physics are the same at the elemental level (strong/weak nuclear force) and at
the astronomical level (gravity and magnetic fields).
Besides if my build and science experiment works (both of them), then maybe I'm peeking
behind the curtain instead of looking at the curtain and wondering what's behind it?
An FYI, all of this might come from having a Norwegian accent in the U.S. That is why I am
a disabled Veteran. I heard shipmates saying "he is not one of us so let's screw him". This
was said to the people in charge. Luckily I read a biography on Einstein when I was 13 and was fascinated by what he wanted to know, what propagates the motion of light? To me that is
what his light bending when passing the Sun was about, something was moving it.
And today he'd probably say gravitons but in 1916/1919 his work was revolutionary.
And this creates a problem if I am right. Dr. Poschl is aware of this. I happen to like science
and a lot of scientists whose work is well known. He also knows I'm doing this because of my interest
in science and that I don't have the need to say who is better. My Father lived under the 3rd Reich, Bessler's Wheel is German history and Dr. Poschl is also German and asked me why he should want to work with me.
And both myself and Dr. Poschl know that I have to give him a reason. There really are no science clubs that allow for amateur scientists. What has helped me is posting in toxic forums because I can have my own opinion. And with why the tropopause is a barrier, that will also be my own opinion.
And with being "different", is Europe better than the U.S.? And is the U.S. better than Norway?
Did I make a mistake learning to speak Engleske when I moved (back) to the U.S.?
And with the war in Ukraine, Dr. Poschl might like the idea of working together. Myself, I think the guy actually likes atmospheric chemistry.
p.s., to use different bearings and a different housing requires coming up with a new design while maintaining the same hole locations and how to make the parts as well. If that is easy to do then why haven't you guys figured out what allows for the tropopause? I know that gets possibly into astrophysics as well but it is science, right?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2022 20:52:47
THE WHEL DOES NOT ACTUALLY MOVE.
Post by: JLindgaard on 12/09/2022 21:59:31
Those are 2 different branches of science. At the moment they are the same branch. If my work proves
out then I'll create the field of atmospheric chemistry and astrophysics.
It'd be like my American mother hooking up with my Norwegian Father. And yet who gets to create a new
field in science? That just doesn't happen. This is why on my website I do mention that if a relationship is
shown between the magnetosphere and atmospheric chemistry then dark matter allowing for quantum
entanglement/non-local behavior will need to be a consideration. And I do mention 1916/1919 as what those
individuals were referring to.
Post by: JLindgaard on 12/09/2022 22:25:16
to like Norway, its people and its culture. At the same time, on my website I say Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics. Is that better than organic chemistry? Do I hate George Washington Carver?
Or is that what I am pursuing? And I do need to say dark matter allows for quantum entanglement, non-local behavior and gravity. Otherwise if I am successful people will say that I did not know what I was talking about.
I do need to support the work that I have been and will continue to pursue.
Post by: alancalverd on 12/09/2022 22:47:27
Post by: JLindgaard on 12/09/2022 23:04:29
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2022 23:35:25
@Bored chemist, can you also say 100% disabled? Atmospheric chemistry is not organic chemistry.You might want to try a little less autobiography and a lot more science,
Those are 2 different branches of science. At the moment they are the same branch. If my work proves
out then I'll create the field of atmospheric chemistry and astrophysics.
It'd be like my American mother hooking up with my Norwegian Father. And yet who gets to create a new
field in science? That just doesn't happen. This is why on my website I do mention that if a relationship is
shown between the magnetosphere and atmospheric chemistry then dark matter allowing for quantum
entanglement/non-local behavior will need to be a consideration. And I do mention 1916/1919 as what those
individuals were referring to.
Post by: JLindgaard on 13/09/2022 00:30:22
pursuing, I have to say I am aware of what it allows for. If dark matter is considered as an allotrope, I
have to be aware of this.
This video was made near Ålesund. While it doesn't matter to you, neither does Ålesund. And yet Ålesund matters to me.
My mother was from Berea, Ky., music like this I do follow her channel.
Post by: JLindgaard on 13/09/2022 02:34:35
What does his general theory represent? Does it deviate from Newton's work and his missing 43 arc seconds per century of the missing orbit of Mercury?
It is what we are discussing. Why does such a small amount of time matter? And with me, I do listen to bluegrass music. In Appalachia and outside of it, it is what "hillbillies" listen to.
p.s.., to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time. It can be a + or -. How to account for missing time? Precession does not say before or after.
And yet this is what Einstein's general theory of relativity is based on.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/09/2022 04:04:35
o be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.
It's a unit of angular measurement, actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_and_second_of_arc
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 08:53:30
someone does not create a new field in science overnight.And if they ignore the facts, they don't create it at all.
If dark matter is considered as an allotrope, IDark matter is not an allotrope.
have to be aware of this.
to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.To be technically correct, that's you being wrong again.
And that's why there's not much point in me doing this.
Could you please start a discussion based on Einstein's work?
What does his general theory represent? Does it deviate from Newton's work and his missing 43 arc seconds per century of the missing orbit of Mercury?
I could start one (though there are others here better qualified).
But you could't usefully contribute to it because you simply don't know your stuff.
Now, perhaps you should stop advertising YT videos and address this.
By the way, do you plan to actually address the fact that you haven't shown that this
"Lifting One Weight Higher Than Another Drops"
actually happens?
Or are you going to continue to argue about why unicorns prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla?
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 14:05:24
Quote from: JLindgaard
to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.
Quote from: Bored chemist
To be technically correct, that's you being wrong again.
To be technically correct, he is correct and you are wrong.
I suppose you do the confusion (because you see "arc second", but this doesent mean that this is some time...) between the "arc second" angle with the time this angle is supposed to describe.
So yes there is a 43 arc second deviation in time for 1 Mercury year revolution (ANGULAR ORBIT) because the deviation apply to the "Mercury year".
Quote from: SpaceEngine
Indeed, with general relativity "turned on", the radial oscillation is faster than before. But so is the angular oscillation, even more so! The two oscillation periods are unequal, and Mercury completes one 360° revolution in less time than it takes to complete one oscillation radially.https://spaceengine.org/articles/the-anomalous-advance-of-the-perihelion-of-mercury/
Why is the time to complete one angular orbit reduced so much, and more so than the radial one?
Post by: The Spoon on 13/09/2022 14:17:36
To be technically correct, he is correct and you are wrong.As pointed out by Kryptid earlier, an arc second is a unit of angular measurement, not time. So you are wrong.
I suppose you do the confusion (because you see "arc second", but this doesent mean that this is some time...) between the "arc second" angle with the time this angle is supposed to describe.
So yes there is a 43 arc second deviation in time for 1 Mercury year revolution (ANGULAR ORBIT) because the deviation apply to the "Mercury year".
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 19:08:48
As pointed out by Kryptid earlier, an arc second is a unit of angular measurement, not time. So you are wrong.
Everyone know that the arc second is a unit of angle.
Try to understand why talking of some arc second when refering to some delay of the orbital year is right.
I am sure you can do it if you think hard enough.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 20:24:00
to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.
And he's still wrong because the discrepancy of the precession of mercury's orbit is an angular velocity.
That's an angle (43 arcseconds) in unit time (a year).
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 20:27:31
I am sure you can do it if you think hard enough.Perhaps you need a mirror to help you see how needs to think harder.
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 20:38:06
Here's what he said.to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.
And he's still wrong because the discrepancy of the precession of mercury's orbit is an angular velocity.
That's an angle (43 arcseconds) in unit time (a year).
No it is just you who is understanding wrong.
I understand well what he say.
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 20:40:42
Perhaps you need a mirror to help you see how needs to think harder.
Do you even understand that saying "perhaps" nullify all what you said previously ?
"Perhaps" the moon will disappear today.
You are not right and not wrong saying that.
Thats how mystic people speak.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 20:42:38
So, just to make sure, you are saying that Kryptid, The Spoon and I are all wrong, while you (for whom English is not a first language) and the OP (who believes in perpetual motion machines made of wood) are the ones who understand what was said.Here's what he said.to be technically correct, 43 arc seconds is missing time.
And he's still wrong because the discrepancy of the precession of mercury's orbit is an angular velocity.
That's an angle (43 arcseconds) in unit time (a year).
No it is just you who is understanding wrong.
I understand well what he say.
That's brave.
43 arc seconds is still not a time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 20:43:02
Do you even understand that saying "perhaps" nullify all what you said precedently ?Perhaps you don't understand irony.
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 20:46:50
43 arc seconds is still not a time.
And it is not what he said.
... but it is what you want us to believe.
Thats just a typical "straw man" argument used by some people not able to use scientific argumentation.
Quote
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[4]
Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.[5][6]
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 20:52:31
Perhaps you don't understand irony.
Surely you dont know how to produce irony.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 20:54:50
And it is not what he said.You do realise, don't you that this is a discussion forum.
It's easy to flick back and see what he said- and also to quote it.
43 arc seconds is missing time.So, between you saying the past didn't happen, and the OP saying that he has a perpetual motion machine, it looks like this thread has run out of science.
By the way, I think most of us know what a straw man is.
And, in this case, it is ... irrelevant.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 20:56:38
So, do you now understand that I was correct?Perhaps you don't understand irony.
Surely you dont know how to produce irony.
I was telling you to look in a mirror, in order to see who needs help with thinking.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 20:57:58
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 21:05:15
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
So what ?
Now the problem is not that i dont understand english ?
Try to stay focused.
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 21:06:21
So, do you now understand that I was correct?
I was telling you to look in a mirror, in order to see who needs help with thinking.
Sorry but there is no argumentation here.
Like everytime you say something in fact.
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 21:07:02
It's easy to flick back and see what he said- and also to quote it.
Thats why i am pretty sure everyone with a brain will understand that you are wrong.
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 21:08:15
So, between you saying the past didn't happen, and the OP saying that he has a perpetual motion machine, it looks like this thread has run out of science.
Laking of arguments yourself you ask mommy to end up the discussion ?
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 21:09:28
By the way, I think most of us know what a straw man is.
And, in this case, it is ... irrelevant.
Every one that know what a Straw man argument is can recognize this one.
Post by: The Spoon on 13/09/2022 21:19:55
Don't be a patronising tool.As pointed out by Kryptid earlier, an arc second is a unit of angular measurement, not time. So you are wrong.
Everyone know that the arc second is a unit of angle.
Try to understand why talking of some arc second when refering to some delay of the orbital year is right.
I am sure you can do it if you think hard enough.
Post by: Deecart on 13/09/2022 21:28:37
Don't be a patronising tool.
Thats exactly what you do yourself when you say that someone who tell about second of arc is speaking of seconds.
I repeat : Everyone know the difference... So why do you think you are superior and only be the one able to know that ?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/09/2022 21:30:27
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2022 23:41:13
Everyone know the differenceNot quite everyone.
The OP thinks it's a time
43 arc seconds is missing time.
And you said he was right.
Post by: The Spoon on 14/09/2022 07:19:53
Thats exactly what you do yourself when you say that someone who tell about second of arc is speaking of seconds.[Quote from: JLindgaard on Yesterday at 02:34:35
I repeat : Everyone know the difference... So why do you think you are superior and only be the one able to know that ?
43 arc seconds is missing time.[/quote]
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 08:37:54
And it is not what he said.It is.
It is a direct quote.
Why are you trying to pretend it isn't?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 08:42:09
To be technically correct, he is correct and you are wrong.You are wrong.
I suppose you do the confusion (because you see "arc second", but this doesent mean that this is some time...)
Why are you agreeing with the guy who is plainly wrong?
You seem to have not realised that you were wrong in your supposition.
You say"I suppose you do the confusion (because you see "arc second", but this doesent mean that this is some time...)"
But it's not that I see "arc second" and think it's time.
I see the OP write "43 arc seconds is missing time." and I see that he thinks it's a measure of time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 08:44:30
Laking of arguments yourself you ask mommy to end up the discussion ?I was able to put forward an argument, and did so.
I didn't ask anyone to end the discussion.
My dead mother is only relevant in that she was an English teacher.
Would you like me to invoke her spirit and correct all your mistakes for you?
Post by: Deecart on 14/09/2022 09:13:34
My dead mother is only relevant in that she was an English teacher.
Would you like me to invoke her spirit and correct all your mistakes for you?
Perhaps you should invoke her for yourself.
I am sure she could also give you some teaching on general comprehension.
Here it is said : 43 arc seconds is missing time.
I repeat, again and again, that this sentence do no imply that arc seconds are time.
If you dont understand simple general sentences like that, you could effectivly, like you suggested yourself, ask the spirit of your mother to give you some lessons.
Because in reality this sentence mean that seeing that we have a 43 arc seconds difference we can deduce that there is some difference in time.
So simple.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 12:30:15
If I say "US presidents are tall people" I'm saying that US presidents are people. (specifically, people who are tall)
If I say "43 arc seconds is missing time." am saying that 43 arc seconds is time. (Specifically, time that is missing)
It's not me who needs help with sentence comprehension here.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 12:32:01
I repeat, again and again, that this sentence do no imply that arc seconds are time.Yes.
You keep saying that thing which is clearly not true.
People have pointed out that you should stop saying it, because it is clearly wrong.
Yet you persist in saying it.
This makes you look like an idiot.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 12:33:37
we can deduce that there is some difference in time.We can't deduce anything about time.
We deduce that there is a difference in position- specifically a difference in angle.
Post by: JLindgaard on 14/09/2022 15:37:04
This demonstrates IMO that gravity is a source of gravity's force. It is like my inferring that CO2 and H2O and a direct interaction is responsible for the IPCC's observations. And using the logic behind proving a trigonometric identity allows for "proving" atmospheric chemistry. And if my experiment verifies what I hypothesized, I guess it would suggest remembering what you learned in school.
Anyone can check my math for the orbits having a relationship. The formula I used had these values.
Distance from the Sun greater than Venus with Venus being 1. And then that value squared. Both are added and then divided by 2. An example is
(224 * 1.38) + (224 * 1.91)/2 = (309.12 + 427.84)/2 = 736.92/2 = 368.48 and another example is
(224 * 2.12) + (224 * 4.03)/2 = (474.88 + 902.72)/2 = 1377.6/2 = 688.8
Venus orbit is 224 days, Earth is 265.26 and Mars is 687. With the math I used, I used times further from the Sun plus its inverse square value averaged. This is why I tend to think that gravity has energy. And IMO this allows both the orbital velocity and its acceleration to have a proportional relationship with matter in its field.
I think it would be interesting to associate this relationship with why the tropopause is barrier that does not allow warm air to rise. It would be changing the way the Earth's atmosphere is considered. And with my build, I am making some minor adjustments. My own videos reminds me I had to have everything properly aligned and lubricated.
With dry needle bearings, After 45º it needed 0.14 kg of force to keep it rotating. And with needle bearings, they are not like radial bearings where precise alignment is necessary. Basically with the bearing being 1 inch or 2.54cm wide, the axle can bind inside the bearing creating a lot of resistance.
As for my math, anyone can check and will find the math is right.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2022 16:43:33
With science and math, we can observe a relationship between the orbits (time in Earth days) and atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars. 2 could be considered a coincidence while 3 shows a pattern.
This was debunked in an earlier thread.
And IMO this allows both the orbital velocity and its acceleration to have a proportional relationship with matter in its field.
Kepler's laws already told us there was a relationship between distance and orbital period.
Post by: The Spoon on 14/09/2022 16:50:27
With science and math, we can observe a relationship between the orbits (time in Earth days) and atmospheric pressures of Venus, Earth and Mars.What about the atmospheric pressures of the next planets out? E.g. jupiter etc?
Post by: JLindgaard on 14/09/2022 17:34:53
After all, I'd be suggesting that the tropopause is denser than the troposphere and the stratosphere which is why it's colder. There are a few different specific reasons that I think plays a role in why the tropopause is different.
Jupiter's moon Io collapses when it moves behind Jupiter. With how minimal solar radiation from the Sun is that far out,
it also is moving in rotation with the Sun's gravitational when it collapses while when it's atmosphere becomes a gas again, it is rotating against the Sun's gravitational field. If dark matter is composed of a particle that has energy (graviton),
could it generate heat in Io's atmosphere because of friction? I think after this I'll leave those planets and moons to astronomers and astrophysicists.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 18:39:14
2 could be considered a coincidence while 3 shows a pattern.Not when the other 5 don't follow it.
We already explained why you were wrong about this. Why have you brought it up again?
Did you think we would have forgotten?
The formula I used had these values.Does it agree with this 400 year old formula which gives the right answer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 18:40:29
I think after this I'll leave those planets and moons to astronomers and astrophysicists.I don't know about leaving those planets, but it's not clear what planet you are on.
Post by: JLindgaard on 14/09/2022 22:02:02
What you are missing is that the inverse square allows for a relationship between atmospheric air pressure. With the length of an orbit, it is the distance from the Sun added to the inverse square value divided by 2.
That would also allow for a relationship/ratio between a planet's orbit and its atmospheric pressure. Think of it as complimenting Keppler's work. And this would with what I am considering, allowing for Keppler's universal electricity, Newton's gravity and dark matter (Einstein's æther?). And this would suggest that the gas giants would obey the same laws of physics as the planets inside the asteroid belt do.
And I did buy some oil today to lubricate my bearings and bushings with. While I wasn't aware of it then, it does seem that I damaged my radial bearings by how I cleaned them and then the lubricant I used. Very frustrating and I should have known better. If necessary I will be able to make a bearing housing that will allow needle bearings to have a limited movement so they could mimic radial bearings. They'd have a slight radial movement. And I think most people have seen my video in which I show the difference lubrication makes.
You need to understand that I believe that Venus is denser than the Earth. And has been made known Newton about gravity, the mass/density of matter accelerates the same 9.81m/s. With Venus, the CO2 in its atmosphere came from rock. What happened to the rock? Has the floor in the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix) sink over 20 feet because water was pumped out of the ground?
While Venus is denser than the Earth, if its rocks near the surface (its mantle) have been out-gassed, will they become denser? If people assumed I was wrong, that is their mistake. Of course some people say Venus has less gravity than the Earth. And yet its atmospheric pressure is about 92 times greater. You can say I made a mistake when I learned math and geology.
@All, the purpose of science is to consider facts. And as some of you know, some of the research that I am pursuing is based on some researchers saying we don't have all of the answers. I like those people because they created opportunity for me. Without their research, I wouldn't have had the information I need for what I am pursing. And if I am right about atmospheric chemistry, I think they'll like hearing me say how research like theirs helped me. They didn't have the answer and yet they made known what the issue was.
Would this make Venus a smaller planet than the Earth?
Post by: JLindgaard on 14/09/2022 22:15:27
And yet there is a relationship between 14.7 and 30. That I'm into atmospheric chemistry and atmospheric pressure, that should make it obvious. I mean rocks out-gassing creating a denser planet wasn't obvious so we can try this one.
p.s., does this mean that Venus doesn't have water underground? I know I need to be nice with you guys. If I am right then it shows how not being a "real" American influenced me. I mean I was always made aware of why I was different one way or another.
Could you guys imagine if scientists like my work? Then they might ask some of the same questions that you're asking. And it's basically when does the inversion become the rule? Why gas giants are not rock type planets.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 22:55:04
I haven't been proven wrong.What would your second guess be?
What you are missing is that the inverse square allows for a relationship between atmospheric air pressure. With the length of an orbit, it is the distance from the Sun added to the inverse square value divided by 2.It fails for almost all the planets, doesn't it?
You also need to get to grips with "curve fitting".
Here's the plot of pressure vs radius for the planets will well defined pressures.
planet pressures.JPG (30.8 kB . 507x457 - viewed 1213 times)There is no pattern
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2022 22:59:04
While Venus is denser than the Earth,It's not.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/
Post by: Kartazion on 14/09/2022 23:30:43
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2022 23:51:15
I haven't been proven wrong.
Your equation only correctly predicted the atmospheric pressure of two planets (Earth and Mars). When you use it to try to predict the pressure on Venus, you get 8.731 bars as the answer (very wrong). I did the math in an earlier thread:
As distances from the Sun increase, the exponent will increase as well. This means that your equation predicts thinner and thinner atmospheres for planets as you get further from the Sun. However, the gas giants have thicker atmospheres than Mars, so it doesn't work for them. It also doesn't work for Venus itself:
93.079 bars * (1-0.9062)^1
93.079 bars * (0.0938)^1
93.079 bars * 0.0938
= 8.731 bars
As you say, two is a coincidence, and all you have is two.
Post by: JLindgaard on 15/09/2022 00:41:51
With Venus, does heat disrupt a magnetic field at its core? Does a denser gravitational field increase resistance in a planet's rotation? Sometimes the best part about science is being able to ask a question.
@Kryptid , since Venus is the baseline, it would be factored as 1350 * (1-0.02339)^0 = 1350 * 1 = 1350. Venus is not further out in its orbit from the Sun than itself. This simply means that its exponent is 0. With 1.01 being the exponent, as 1.01 it would actually be 1.0201 and gave an air pressure of 1317.796 psi. It is different doing math this way and I know I made enough mistakes when I was still learning it. And I still make mistakes. I have to check my own work and will go over it many times. What you guys see is an edited, finished product.
@Kryptid, I got 8.73 bars on my calculator. It is possible that your computer made a mistake. I know it happens because it has happened to me. I've actually used search engines to verify my math because of my experience with this issue. And having verification from different sources allows me to know if my own computer is functioning properly.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2022 06:38:16
since Venus is the baseline, it would be factored as 1350 * (1-0.02339)^0
No, you can't just arbitrarily change the rules for the equation to force-fit the data. In your other thread, the exponent was supposedly the square of how much further out the planet in question was than Venus. You had Earth as being 1.38 times further out than Venus, and squaring that number gives you 1.91 (which is the number you used as the exponent to calculate Earth's atmospheric pressure). You then did the same for Mars by squaring 2.007 to get 4.03.
Like you said, Venus is not further out from the Sun than itself, so dividing Venus' orbit by Venus' orbit gives you 1 as the exponent, not 0.
I got 8.73 bars on my calculator.
So did I. So why are you calling it a mistake? Are you saying your calculator made the same mistake as mine? Then what is the right answer?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2022 08:39:37
What you guys see is an edited, finished product.LOL
Post by: JLindgaard on 15/09/2022 11:21:12
And I have watched my own video using radial bearings that had good rotation so this is a little stressful. And if my build works then I can have surgery and pursue my experiment. And what will help me with that is if I give a good reason for why the tropopause is the barrier that it is. If dark matter exists and it has a uniform behavior, since it wouldn't emit any energy, how would you tell it's there? With particles like electrons and atoms, they have both linear and angular momentum. Gravity has these characteristics as well, orbital velocity and acceleration.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2022 12:47:02
if my build works then I can have surgery and pursue my experimentThat's some odd causality.
It's also worrying because the build won't work.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2022 12:47:49
If dark matter exists and it has a uniform behavior, since it wouldn't emit any energy, how would you tell it's there?It has mass and thus has an effect via gravity.
Post by: JLindgaard on 15/09/2022 17:28:45
With needle bearings, since everything was not machined to within about 0.01 inch tolerance, the axle is trying to leverage the bearing in its mount. That creates resistance.
And since I like my work on atmospheric chemistry, I also like my wood working. In a way it's funny but with what I'm pursuing I'll be able to say there is what KE = 3/2kT suggests. But I only need to concern myself with finishing my build and getting the details right. I will be modifying the housing for both sets of bearings. The needle bearings will have less resistance because they have less surface area so would prefer to use those. Why the mount needs to allow for some axial movement (twisting) in the bearing mount. That would allow for some "give" in the alignment of both bearings.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2022 17:32:46
When Venus is the base value, it is not further out from the Sun, its exponent is 0. A distance further out than Venus is 1.xx.
108,000,000 kilometers divided by 108,000,000 kilometers and then squared is 1, not 0.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2022 17:41:37
I could've had the prototype workingNo you couldn't.
Post by: JLindgaard on 16/09/2022 01:13:19
multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/eAKoLxNsCuYuJzXq8
Just an FYI, there is a solution that allows for multiplying by either 2 or -2 to change the number 2 by the same value.
At the same time there is a solution that allows for 2 * 2 to = 4 and for 2 * (-2) to = -4. Why there are 2 solutions is because they are 2 different problems. As for atmospheric pressures and my build, I am satisfied with my work.
p.s., the 2 math problems are to see if either of you can do problem solving.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/09/2022 05:33:36
Just an FYI, there is a solution that allows for multiplying by either 2 or -2 to change the number 2 by the same value.
At the same time there is a solution that allows for 2 * 2 to = 4 and for 2 * (-2) to = -4.
Question: is that a solution that was already known and confirmed by others or is it something you came up with?
As for atmospheric pressures and my build, I am satisfied with my work.
It might be satisfactory for you, but you shouldn't expect anyone else to be satisfied with (1) an equation with a mere 25% accuracy rate, and (2) a claimed perpetual motion machine that has yet to demonstrate perpetual motion.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2022 08:29:32
Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2. Then whenIt isn't.
multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2022 08:31:29
p.s., the 2 math problems are to see if either of you can do problem solving.Your problem is not mathematical.
Post by: Deecart on 16/09/2022 11:14:49
Maybe the 2 of you can explain this for me? Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2. Then when
multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/eAKoLxNsCuYuJzXq8
Simple
"Why when multiplying 2 * 2, the value is +2" :
2 * 2 = 4
So 4 - 2 = 2
So the value is +2
"Then when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6."
2 * (-2) = -4
So -4 - 2 = -6
So the value is -6
Your problem is not mathematical.
Lol.
Post by: Colin2B on 16/09/2022 11:34:52
"Then when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6."“ -4 - 2 = -6 “ was not the formula posed, it is very different from “when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6”
2 * (-2) = -4
So -4 - 2 = -6
So the value is -6
Post by: Deecart on 16/09/2022 13:50:48
“ -4 - 2 = -6 “ was not the formula posed, it is very different from “when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6”
I suppose you do the confusion between the word "value" and the word "result".
Post by: Colin2B on 16/09/2022 14:10:19
I do not confuse value and result. In math, value is a number signifying the result of a calculation or function.“ -4 - 2 = -6 “ was not the formula posed, it is very different from “when multiplying 2 * (-2) the value is -6”
I suppose you do the confusion between the word "value" and the word "result".
If someone presents the calculation 2 * (-2) then the value & result are both -4
This thread is descending into absurdity and I am very tempted to lock it
Post by: Deecart on 16/09/2022 14:39:50
This thread is descending into absurdity and I am very tempted to lock it
At least i aggre that it is totally absurd to think that the OP can not do the right calculation of 2*(-2).
Post by: JLindgaard on 16/09/2022 15:37:53
2 - 6 = -4
That is what is meant by a value of -6.
2 * 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4.
That is a value of 2. When I refer to value, it is the change from the number being multiplied.
When multiplying by 2, the solution should show a relationship to 2 in both the + and - direction.
With atmospheric pressures, I did show a relationship between 3 planets. I can factor Venus
as 1350 * (1-0.02339)^0 because it is the initial value. It would not make since to give Venus
another value when both Earth's and Mars atmospheric pressures are relative to Venus'.
0 is an acceptable exponent.
With Mercury, I finish my build then I can explain Mercury. It's magnetic field is considered to be neutralized by the solar wind. Isn't it interesting that a weak magnetosphere does not allow for
much of an atmosphere?
And since I have clarified the issue with the relationship between a number and its multiplier, I'll
leave my critics to see if they can find the 2 solutions that would explain why 2 * +/-x = +/-2x does
not have the same rate of change. And since I have my build to finish, when someone realizes both
solutions to the math problem, they'll know it.
To be nice, I will give one solution. [2] * 2 = [4] and [2] * -2 = -[4] or [-4].
That is one solution. When multiplying [set] values.........
Problem solving will allow the other solution to be realized. Then when graphed in either the +/-
direction it will have the same rate of change.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2022 16:39:06
When I refer to value,If you use a word to mean something that nobody else uses it for, nobody can understand what you are talking about.
This failure to communicate is your fault; not anyone else's.
. I can factor VenusWhere did the two numbers (1350 and 0.02339) come from?
as 1350 * (1-0.02339)^0
Post by: JLindgaard on 16/09/2022 17:13:10
As for 0.02339, where did Newton's universal constant G come from? It is a modifier
that allows a relationship to be shown. That would be another discussion.
And now back to the 2nd solution. bored chemist, can you solve that problem? No
deflecting is allowed.
Post by: Colin2B on 16/09/2022 17:20:57
2 * (-2) = = -4That is an incorrect use of the term “value”
2 - 6 = -4
That is what is meant by a value of -6.
2 * 2 = 4
2 + 2 = 4.
That is a value of 2. When I refer to value, it is the change from the number being multiplied.
When multiplying by 2, the solution should show a relationship to 2 in both the + and - direction.
As you have decided to invent your own definitions for standard terminology this thread is locked.
Do not attempt to resurrect it or any of the topics contained in it, in a separate thread otherwise your posting rights will be removed.
At least i aggre that it is totally absurd to think that the OP can not do the right calculation of 2*(-2).I agree, equally absurd is the thought that someone else might try to suggest he is right.
Even children know the correct use of ‘value’ and ‘result’:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/value.html