Lets see who is intelligent!!!
Amy
You work in a patent office. One day this chap walks in with a rather
large box and said he has invented antigravity. He places his box on
your trusted old spring balance and the reading is 30kg. He then
presses a button on a remote control, and series of strange noises
are heard coming from the box. Lo and behold, the weight has gone
down to 29.5kg!
After about 30 seconds he presses his remote control again, and the
reading went back to 30kg.
The box is hermetically sealed and your weighing balance is not
compromised in anyway.
You said calmly,"We know that the Laws of Gravitation cannot be
defied, and neither can the Law of Conversation of Mass. I know wht's
going on in the box."
The Question is: What is going on in the box?
*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
Sam Wormley
Won't work on a triple beam balance scale!
Tomasso makes things
"Amy" <gal_born...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:41b53f90$1...@Usenet.com...
An anti-gravity device, of course.
It can't be a canary because the downward pressure (resulting from flapping
its wings to get lift) will be transferred to the floor of the box.
Question is: what happens if the box has holes in it?
Tomasso.
Mobious
the box? 1 cubic meter of air weighs around 1.3 kilograms at sea level
(if I remember correctly)
Morituri-|-Max
> are heard coming from the box. Lo and behold, the weight has gone
> down to 29.5kg!
> The Question is: What is going on in the box?
I'd say a better question is why do you call it anti-gravity when it doesn't
reduce the weight to 0 kg.
He needs to go back to the drawing board before he can patent that.
Sam Wormley
The box is hermetically sealed.
Sam Wormley
> Question is: what happens if the box has holes in it?
>
The box is hermetically sealed.
Sam Wormley
That's for sure!
Lzmain
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:G9ctd.150165$V41.53324@attbi_s52...
You could do it with electromagnets.
As a button is pushed, something works across the hermetically sealed
interface to cause a drop in weight.
Ross A. Finlayson
Lzmain wrote:
How about the intertial capacitor? Basically it uses the gyroscope, and
springs, on the molecular level.
When you compress the spring does its mass change? How about its weight?
The gyroscope tends to provide rotational inertia, if you have gyroscopes in a
bunch of directions then maybe the box has more inertia without more mass,
allowing that if those are activated on the jump side of a ballast spring then
the inertia doesn't vary over time.
There is conservation of energy and momentum. Is that not so?
Nonsense?
Who is not intelligent?
Can gravity be focused or occluded?
Regards,
Ross F.
Sam Wormley
>
> You could do it with electromagnets.
> As a button is pushed, something works across the hermetically sealed
> interface to cause a drop in weight.
>
Hermetically sealed doesn't mean Faraday cage!
Sam Wormley
>
> Can gravity be focused or occluded?
>
Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison
Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law ia a 1/r^2
interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.
Uncle Al
>
> Re:Antigravity
www.GroupSrv.com is Usent's cloaca.
> You work in a patent office. One day this chap walks in with a rather
> large box and said he has invented antigravity. He places his box on
> your trusted old spring balance and the reading is 30kg. He then
> presses a button on a remote control, and series of strange noises
> are heard coming from the box. Lo and behold, the weight has gone
> down to 29.5kg!
1) http://arXiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Aquino_F/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0205089
Table at end of paper. That's ludicrous. Beneath contempt. Suppose
you could turn a dial and have a 60.5 kg lump exhibit 41 kg of
buoyancy instead, shooting up off the bench. Wouldn't you hold a
press conference and thereafter expect a phone call from Sweden in the
Fall? NASA would emerge from a sudden puddle of steaming body fluids
tossing bags of $100 bills your way. Large, heavy bags.
2) Podkletnov.
3) "Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."
Do you have three grandfathers?
4) Bullshit.
[snip crap]
> The Question is: What is going on in the box?
>
> *-----------------------*
> Posted at:
> www.GroupSrv.com
> *-----------------------*
Vida supra (4).
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
puppe...@hotmail.com
old. And it has fooled the masters. And it continues to fool them.
The issue here is, non-linearity of ordinary weigh scales under
vibration. You can see a very similar effect in a common office
swivel chair. Sit on the chair with no part of you touching anything
but the chair. Now, give a little "surge" in one direction. Can
you get the chair to move a little? Move yourself quickly to one
side in the chair, then slowly back. Can you slowly inch across the
floor? Whee hee! That's a riot. Now, ask yourself if you have anti-
gravity. Or if you have a reactionless drive.
When some confidence trickster comes to you with a black box, and
won't show you what is in it, then he is automatically a liar and a
thief. If he tells you there's no new physics in there, just
application of existing stuff, then he's insulting you as well.
Socks
tj Frazir
has a hole in it plugged and you let H inside the box fill it up so it
got lighter then let it out to get heavy again .
Cheep balloon trick.
tj Frazir
fills the box.
Then pop a hole open out the top and let it go.
simple balloon trick
Gregory L. Hansen
The question is "If you want to file a patent you'll have to submit
diagrams and text that fully discloses the operation of your device."
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
ji...@specsol-spam-sux.com
> In article <41b53f90$1...@Usenet.com>,
> Amy <gal_born...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
> >Re:Antigravity
> >
> >You work in a patent office. One day this chap walks in with a rather
> >large box and said he has invented antigravity. He places his box on
> >your trusted old spring balance and the reading is 30kg. He then
> >presses a button on a remote control, and series of strange noises
> >are heard coming from the box. Lo and behold, the weight has gone
> >down to 29.5kg!
> >
> >After about 30 seconds he presses his remote control again, and the
> >reading went back to 30kg.
> >
> >The box is hermetically sealed and your weighing balance is not
> >compromised in anyway.
> >
> >You said calmly,"We know that the Laws of Gravitation cannot be
> >defied, and neither can the Law of Conversation of Mass. I know wht's
> >going on in the box."
> >
> >The Question is: What is going on in the box?
> The question is "If you want to file a patent you'll have to submit
> diagrams and text that fully discloses the operation of your device."
The question is "How long was he in interrogation for trying to bring
a sealed box into a government building and what was the biggest piece
left after the bomb squad blew it up?".
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Sam Wormley
The box is hermetically sealed.
Sam Wormley
The box is hermetically sealed.
Brad D
How much would you need to do to change the atmosphere around the box to
make it more buoyant? Maybe you could have a heater in the bottom of
the box that heated the air just under the box and a refrigerated
surface on top? Or you could have some completely unrelated device in
the room... pass an air current over the surface of the box to reduce
downward pressure? Or change the air temperature?
I can't be bothered working out how great these effects might be, but
yeah, just guessing :)
Carlos L
The box has inside a heavy ball that is released to spirall down a
slope (ramp).
Steven Gray
news:41b53f90$1...@Usenet.com:
Well, in principle there could be one ferocious power source in there,
generating gamma rays (or some such) that penetrate the box and are
directed downward. You'd need a couple of gigawatts, though.
--
Steve Gray
sgr...@cfl.rr.com
tj Frazir
The balloon insid the box is better than yours.
A hellicopter inside the box is better.
It rotors make it fly and hover inside the box.
Its a make the fucker work deal,,does your work ??
tj Frazir
Puke up somthng that works sam .
you do allot of bitchin but no buildin.
The Ghost In The Machine
<gal_born...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid>
wrote
on 6 Dec 2004 23:28:48 -0600
<41b53f90$1...@Usenet.com>:
You mean what's going on *outside* the box. You said the box is
hermetically sealed, but it has attachments on the side that
grow legs, and the box lifts itself off the scale in a
fairly straightforward fashion.
An even more straightforward alterative, but one which would
depend on an overhead ferromagnetic object, would involve a
battery in the box, an electromagnet, a small radio receiver,
and a switch. (A variant that levitates the box by pushing
down on the usually metallic pan scale is interesting, but
it wouldn't change the weight unless the box is bigger than
the pan scale, and the table is metallic, too.)
If one allows a sufficiently large box and a rather naive clerk,
one could get away with a large piston. This piston would
evacuate the box (only part of which is hermetically sealed)
through an unnoticed hole. The main problem is that 0.5 kg
of air takes up 0.42 m^3 at room temperature and pressure.
There's also the issue of structural soundness; if one has
a 1 m^3 cube with 6 1 m^2 sides, the force on the top side of
that cube will be 101,350 N -- the equivalent of 10 metric tonnes
sitting on the top of the box. (The other sides get an equally
strong force.)
An interesting experiment is to place some water in an
otherwise empty aluminum soda can, heat it to boiling
(carefully), then, using a pair of tongs or a hot pad,
upend the can into a handy dish of cold water. Not quite
as spectacular (or as dangerous!) as pouring a gallon
of liquid oxygen on a smoking charcoal, but the results
are instructive.
Another variant would liquefy the air in the box and dribble
it through the small hole. However, the sizzling sound on
the scale proper would probably be noticed.
Another idea: a matter bomb. Of course, one would want
to move quite some distance away before converting 0.5 kg
of, say, hydrogen to 450,000 teraJoules. (By comparison
the entire state of California might generate 45,000 megaWatts.
The conversion of 0.5 kg of matter would satisfy our power needs
for a week and a half.) Putting that matter back would be
difficult, if not impossible.
And if all else fails, one could simply surreptitiously put
one's thumb on the scale, or lift the box using a wire attached
thereto (is the remote control the wireless variety, or is
it the by now *very* old fashioned wire-to-box affair?).
Presto! Antigravity -- until the clerk notices.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Ross A. Finlayson
Sam Wormley wrote:
Hey thanks.
Have you heard of the micro-lensing anomalies between the Earth and Sun? What are those?
I don't know about the nanogyroscope system. It seems that if you had enough of them then
you could import inertia in 6 DOF.
I was thinking about gravity the other day, where I have a notion that the universe is
infinite and is surrounded by an infinitely distant, infinitely dense shell of energy. So,
I was thinking why gravity is attractive, and then wonder if instead gravity is repulsive,
where mass is repulsed towards the omnipresent origin and that mass would block or occlude
that repulsion. This is where I think the resolution of the 2-body system would be the
same. I abandon that notion. Where I readily abandon that notion, I still wonder about
which force acts constantly at infinite distance.
About this mysterious box, I wonder what the original poster has in mind. I'm surprised no
one has yet said "dude, antigravity." If the remote control springs a jack-in-the-box then
the free-moving scale would indicate that change in the system. This is where you would
expect that if the mass of the box is 30 kg, and it is measured at less then it must then be
measured at more than that, ie, the force times time equations need to balance, the spring
is connected to only one side of the box.
You can set a gyroscope to spinning at an angle and gravity will not pull it over until it
overcomes the rotational inertia of the gyroscope. While that is so, if you put the
spinning gyroscope on the scale then it would mass the same as the still gyroscope. I think
that is so, yet, when the spring is compressed, does it have more weight or mass?
So, if the box contains a jack-in-the-box and billions and billions of gyroscopes averaged
over each axis through the sphere, and the jack-in-the-box erupts and initially imports
_more_ force onto the balance arm, then towards the end of its initial spring _less_, when
there is less force and all the gyroscopes start in a balanced way, the system of the box
would eventually return to the exact same force on the balance arm. The question is: would
it do it more slowly? If so, could it be indefinite in duration depending on idealized
infinite velocity gyroscopes?
The box is imparted upwards, and then the gyros start, and it slowly drifts down onto the
balance and presses firmly into it with the increased inertia it has from single axis
rotational inertia in many dimensions, to a maximum of the same maximum from the
jack-in-the-box spring alone.
That's like those springy jumps in ballet, what is that, ballon? Kung Fu flight.
What goes up must come down.
Chuji Tsuboi's _Gravity_ I have read.
About the single gyroscope, consider this one: put the gyroscope on the table and start it
spinning at an angle, and slide the balance pan so that it is incident to the frame of the
gyroscope, and the mass is light. As the gyroscope slows, the mass reading increases. The
mass on the table is constant. The point there is conservation of momentum.
Nonsense?
Regards,
Ross F.
Ross A. Finlayson
When the gyroscope is spun, it exerts the same force as is applied to spin against its
foundation. Then, if there are balanced gyroscopes, eg a pair of gyroscopes spinning in
parallel axes in opposite directions in the same frame, then the force of spinning would seem
to cancel out any force external to the gyroscope assembly, yet when spinning the assembly
would have increased rotational inertia.
With the box on the balance, it is set on a flat side, there is no rotational force on it as it
and the Earth are idealized point masses. Thus, I wonder if any balanced gyroscopes could ever
increase the linear inertia of the box, without increasing the mass, as the gyroscope increases
the rotational inertia of itself without increasing its mass. That leads to more inertia in
the system without necessarily more energy, due to conservation of energy.
Then, the idea is that if there are on average in every axis of motion increased "components"
of inertia, then with F=ma, force equals mass times acceleration, there would be an
interaction. While that might be so, it is easy to see why that is not so because there are
only linear components of gravitational force between the box and planet.
Consider the line connecting the centers of mass of the box and planet, each indefinitely small
piece of either planet or box has the same mass where they are uniformly dense but different
position relative to each other component of the same or other element of the 2-body system.
Besides the continuous map of force, there is the notion of lines of force that basically
approximate a magnetic field, where any gravitic interaction would be an energy field and would
have linear and rotational components. This might be easier to see if the box and Earth has
the variable of their mass reversed, or comparing a very dense ball's interaction to a beam
given various conditions of the system of the beam and ball.
.The rotational inertia of the spinning gyroscope is basically just the acceleration of the
spinning component of the system in addition to imparting rotation, that it takes further
acceleration to rotate the system because what that does is slow the gyroscope, except when it
flips over. Flipping the non-powered spinning gyroscope over its axis causes it to slow,
stumble, and stop.
Anyways this is all quite trivial and mundane where it is not incorrect.
It was interesting to read about the system where two spinning components in a fluid at one
relative frequency attract each other, and at another repel each other, I wonder how that
changes with different shapes of the enclosing tub, basically concave or convex in terms of
various lattices about the spinning components agitating the fluid medium. If that effect then
existing, then rotational force could be converted to linear, but only oscillatingly linear.
I mentioned the idea that gravity is repulsive instead of attractive. Here's some more along
those lines, it has to do with the "dark matter". So, I wonder if the dark matter represents
"2/3" of the mass of the "universe", but is not present, if it is instead infinitely distant in
basically one dimension where just as the "origin" would be everywhere that the N-dimensions is
1 dimension at these infinite distances. So then the mass of the universe appears to be the
same as the dark matter to the left, and the dark matter to the right.
Another place "thirds" appear is in the standard model of subatomic particles, where for
example the quarks have a third of the mass or charge of each other. The three items comprise
each 1/3. Would you please explain the appearance of the ratios "1/3" and "2/3" in "subatomic"
"particles"? I'm aware of the law of small numbers, where that means just because something is
so for 1, 2, 3, that without an inductive guarantee that there is none..
Then, the notion is that if you have this line of things, each infinitely distant, then those
things might be the same thing or different, and each might or might not have its own distant
neighbors. Then that could represent a variety of theories about the universe.
Anyways this is mostly just ignorant layman's conceptualization of these gross quantities.
While that is so, I also believe in the scientific method, and tend to believe what I see.
Science fiction is an informed guess. Here, instead, I'm trying to get an idea of how we can
scientifically explain the poster's box. Can the nanogyrscopes convert potential energy to
linear inertia and thus cause the box to float?
The ball on the inclined plane ramp seems the best answer. While that is so it might not work,
depending on how long between start and stop of the effect., and 30 kg of the box and .5 kg of
the reduced measured mass, in say a 50 cm cube box. Also when the dropping ball stopped it
would impart an "impulse" to the balance for a reading above 30 kg. There is reached a point
where the ball on the ramp would mass more than 30 kg and require more than 50 cm in dropping
to continue the effect. The same issue would hold for some inertial dampener of the
nanogyroscope, yet in different terms as much energy could be stored in a small amount of mass
to spin the gyroscope arrays, the ball rolls down the ramp as accelerated by (the force of)
gravity.
"The box is hermetically sealed." Also it is radiation proof. How sure are we that the
demonstrator is a hoaxor?
Is there any utility in the notion of adding and removing linear inertia by affecting
rotational inertia, or is it nonsense? I'm interested in a method to convert rotational to
linear inertia or momentum.
Is the universe its own dark matter to the left and right? Is gravity repulsive?
Warm regards,
Ross F.
Uncle Al
>
> The gyroscope array might not be useful for seeming to lighten the load on the balance.
Ignorant idiot. Gravity Probe-B has four fused silica gyroballs
spinning at 10,000 rpm in anti-parallel pairs. The fused silica
housing spins at a small fractional rpm. Everything free falls in
step to sub parts-per-billion. Spin vs. no spin has no effect
whatsoever on mass or weight by empirical demonstration over months of
continuous accumulated observation to date.
How much longer are you going to remain a fucking imbecile?
Ross A. Finlayson
Uncle Al wrote:
Hi Al,
I'm not a fucking imbecile, you know that. Ignorant, yes, idiot, no. I've been known to
fuck, and enjoy it, and have a positive self esteem, fucking tool. Please pardon my use of
the f-word, if it makes you feel any better, I know worse ones.
Al, may I beat your wife?
So the spin is coriolis, is that right? Is the rpm planned or what?
I'm asking about the inertia. Is that not different? The rotational inertia skew to the
gyros is higher than them still.
I asked you before if Gravity Probe B worked and you didn't have an answer then. What has
Gravity Probe B shewed you, as I am ignorant? Does it verify what it was supposed to do or
not?
As I'm ignorant, would you please explain in some few words what Gravity Probe B was
supposed to show, besides that five or ten dollars of raw material can be converted to a
billion dollars and launched into space?
Don't get me wrong, that's a beautiful machine, with its acclaimed "highest precision balls
in history", but has it not yet verified the uh, General Relativity it was to verify
empirically?
Coriolis, Casimir, Cerenkov, what is a list of "effects"? Can you help me compile a list of
all known physical "effects"?
Dear Al, you have part of the dictionary there in your brain, we need that. Thanks for
sharing it with sci.
If you have 1/3, and 2/3 is missing, how much do you think is gone? Why is the charge 1/3?
Pleased accept the uncouth words here as humorous, or don't.
Did they measure it on the ground and then up in space where the Earth becomes a point mass?
I don't actually know, Al, I am ignorant.
To readers of sci.physics, while some joviality and even unfriendly banter is not to be
unexpected, I hope as physics enthusiasts that you would definitely continue putting forth
your physical opinions, theories, and argument about them.
Thanks for your reply, Al! I feel honored because you are so knowledgeable, signed dolt. I
like reading your website, you have an entertaining vocabulary. Hey will you hire me as a
research assistant? I got no education. I can lift fifty pounds and have a tolerance to
some poisonous chemicals. I type 60 words per minute! I work cheap.
Anyways, about the universe being infinite, with gravity being repulsive, and the universe
being its own dark matter twice over, that's an easily formable opinion from popularly
available knowledge with little need of mathematics.
About mathematics, I have to tell you, I am way behind on an adequate mathematical
background to discuss physics and physical models of reality. I have in my hands right here
1200 pages of tensor and differential equation books, forty or fifty dollars of raw
materials. Hell, I'm not even done reading "The Theory of Spinors". I am so ignorant on
calculus and differential equations that it's not funny.
So anyways, Al, what's in the box?
Please list all known effects.
Warm regards,
Ross F.
tj Frazir
The toy will fly inside the box .
Sam Wormley
> toy hellicopter is in the box.
> The toy will fly inside the box .
>
Ross A. Finlayson
> So anyways, Al, what's in the box?
>
> Please list all known effects.
>
Hey, here's one, an effect, they call it a "paradox". Now, I think it's good to hear about
what people call a "paradox" in the physical science. That's because the paradox is where you
can make an advance! So anyways, in searching for "Coriolis Casimir Cerenkov", I came across a
description of what is called the Ehrenfest "paradox", from reading E.M. Francis' web pages,
that actually has to do with rotating gymbals at high speed, like a gyroscope. The
contradiction has to do with the rotational velocity being at relativistically significant
speeds.
I research Ehrenfest, his MacTutor biography describes him as dieing in a dramatic fashion as
he killed his son and then shot himself to death. That aside, Ehrenfest knew Einstein and
Bohr, early proponents of the quantum revolution of the mid-twentieth century, and he was
well-regarded by them, and contributed to quantum mechanics. The biography reports that he was
upset to not be able to reconcile their differing views. That's depressing. There are lots of
human stories.
Research on the Ehrenfest "paradox" leads to discussion of the Sagnac "effect." Those are two
things I never heard of before today!
Hey, that (c^2 - v^2) looks familiar.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
A quote, those MathPages are usually very good:
"Despite the ease and clarity with which special relativity accounts for the Sagnac
effect, people who lack a sound grasp of basic physics and mathematics
sometimes imagine that this effect entails a conflict with the principles of
special relativity. The usual claim is that the Sagnac effect somehow falsifies the
invariance of light speed with respect to all inertial coordinate systems. Of
course, any attempt to show that the Sagnac effect implies non-isotropic
light-speed with respect to some system of inertial coordinates is doomed from
the start, because the simple description of an arbitrary Sagnac device given
above is based on isotropic light speed with respect to one particular system of
inertial coordinates, and all other inertial coordinate systems are related to this
one by Lorentz transformations, which are defined as the transformations that
preserve light speed. Hence it's clear that no description of a Sagnac device in
terms of any system of inertial coordinates can possibly yield non-isotropic light
speed, nor can any such description yield physically observable results different
from those derived above (which are known to agree with experiment)."
The box could contain a superheated core, and on activation Peltier converts the heat to
electricity, storing the energy and cooling the mass, diminishing its weight. Nonsense?
When I write the query "Nonsense?" that means it seems a feasible explanation, and if it is not
I want to know and why.
Inertial "capacitors", converting linear to rotational inertia, basically imply luggage that
carries itself. They would wind themselves up, though, necessarily returning to the point
where they started, or rather, their _momentum_ would have to return. If they were mechanical,
soon they'd be disposable. So, it would be more like a rubber band system, or a spring
system. Don't worry, that's nonsense.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22c%5E2+-+v%5E2%22
http://www.karlscalculus.org/einstein.html
I had heard that mentioned, derivations of the mass/energy formula. I don't think I could do
it myself right now as a closed-book exam.
Now, to a list of physical effects:
Casimir
Cerenkov
Cerenkov Synchrotron
Coriolis
Einstein/Podolsky/Rosen
Sagnac
Faraday
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys403/303Project/PROJ303File.html
Einstein-DeHaas
DeHaas
Hall
Meissner
Mossbauer
Spin Echo
Optogalvanic
(Einstein) Photoelectric
AC Josephson
Zero Bias in Andreev
Zeeman
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/search/ "Effect"
That should be enough to get going. There are scores of them! Are there? I just put those
items in a list because a ten minute search on the Internet retrieved references to them. I
don't know what they mean.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/search/ "Paradox"
http://www.google.com/search?q=Anomaly+Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Superluminal.html
That, I have already read.
And warm regards,
Ross F.
Mark Martin
> The box could contain a superheated core, and on activation Peltier
converts the heat to
> electricity, storing the energy and cooling the mass, diminishing its
weight. Nonsense?
>
It doesn't matter what form the energy takes, 'heat' or 'electricity'.
If the energy stays stored within the box, then the system stays at a
constant mass/energy. The weight stays the same.
-Mark Martin
Ross A. Finlayson
Mark Martin wrote:
That's right.
The box is hermetically sealed, radiation proof (except for the remote
control command), and its surface is constantly room temperature.
It seems that the ball on the ramp would partially explain the effect,
which otherwise appears to defy the laws of physics. However when the
ball was stopped then the balance would register a mass higher than 30
kg. As well, when the ball was reset then the force on the box would be
more than gravity in the direction of gravitational force as the ball was
imparted potential energy.
That leads into some consideration of the difference between a scale and a
balance, and weight and mass.
I consider further the gyroscope case, where the balanced gyroscopes are
accelerated to near c. Then, does not the mass of the gyroscope
increase? For a massy object to reach c, it takes an infinite amount of
energy, because its mass increases as it approaches c. If the box in its
initial state contains a gyroscope spinning at near c, and then it is
slowed, does its mass reduce? That energy would still be in the box.
Consider a modification to the experiment where the box is firmly attached
to the end of a swivel arm bolted to the table by an unbreakable arm and
swivel. It is simple to see how the system of all components of
gravitational force between the box, arm, balance, and the table would
remain the same, but a gyroscope plus spring mass could lead to various
.systems on the balance.
I'm ignorant, the other day I heard that a spring under tension has a
higher mass than the relaxed spring.
I guess the box experiment resolves to that conservation of energy is the
same thing as conservation of momentum. No energy or mass enters or
leaves the box.
So, I wonder if the energy can be converted rapidly in the box, and if
between mass and energy in conversion among various types of mass and
energy there are fluctuations in the system, where mass and energy are
conserved, perhaps over time, perhaps specifically in the black box, that
the fluctuations could be superimposed upon each other to be measurable.
This is a thought exercise where it is basically axiomatized that the
experiment proceeds as was mentioned in the original post, and then to
explain it. It seems rather obvious that that axiomatization is
inconsistent, and the basic explanation is thus: that's impossible.
So, what happens as the (matched) gyroscope(s) spins at near c?
Warm regards,
Ross F.
Ross A. Finlayson
For example, say you have two gyroscope assemblies, where an asembly is
basically a set of gyroscopes balanced so that they don't impart rotational
force to the box, they are spun at the same speed in the same plane in
opposite directions.
There is the lighter and heavier gyroscope array, and the lighter array is
spinning much faster than the heavier array. Now, the light array is slowed,
and it loses mass because it was near c, but all the energy that comes off of
that isn't enough to accelerate the heavier gyroscope array that it gains as
much mass, because it is much heavier and remains at non-relativistic speeds.
Thus, energy is conserved.
It seems that there is in that sense conservation of energy or increased mass
of extremely fast objects, and not both. Then again, they could balance
perfectly, as would be implied.
They have that "teleportation" in the lab, could the box have matter
teleported into and out of it with no physical interaction across the box
boundaries? Would then the box necessarily have been open at some point to
correlate or entangle particles?
There are no closed black boxes.
If the atom is the smallest particle, then there is consideration of its
comprising particles, and its and theirs, it reminds me of the infinitesimals
from the mathematics.
So, does a massy object gain mass as it is accelerated?
Ross
Uncle Al
[snip]
> So, does a massy object gain mass as it is accelerated?
CERN/LHC, SLAC, FermiLab, RHIC...
http://laacg1.lanl.gov/laacg/acclist/accdbs.html
Ernest O.Lawrence, cyclotron vs. synchrotron. Relativistic color
correction in color TV large CRTs. Accelerating an object traveling
hard by lightspeed increases its apparent mass rather then its
velocity (plus an RCH). Beta.
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
Ignorant idiot.
Ross A. Finlayson
Uncle Al wrote:
On the idiot scale, even Feldmann's an idiot.
What the hell is Beta? alpha and beta are particles released from
radioactive nuclei.
ECF is Error Correction Factor. What's RCH, reverse correlation hack?
Recursively combinatoric hyperspace? Random coefficient hedge? Royal
college hysteria? Recent cantilevered heaviness? Reality correcting
hypothesis?
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.65.046504
I admit, I don't know the differences between Special and General
Relativity where I have seen a variety of definitions several times. I'll
read those papers.
So, adding energy to increase the speed of the whirligig device at
relativistic speeds preserves in the system the same amount of mass and
energy because it just adds to the mass as much equivalent energy would
otherwise accelerate the rim about the center.
Al, what's in the box? Does Gravity Probe B verify and/or nullify General
Relativity?
Damn it, Al, I like to have something new in every post and this is just
rehashed.
Thanks!
Ross
Ross A. Finlayson
get to reading about the deflection angle and how the special relativity
predicts, say, twice the deflection of Newton's theory, and that is borne out
by experiment.
I get to reading about the light cone, and how the events would be in event
simultaneity planes skew to various observers. Then, I consider the three
observer system, and how as the relative velocities of the two observers
going in opposite directions approached light speed, that their simultaneity
plane as ellipse would become a hyperbola, just as any cross section of a
right cone is an ellipse or hyperbola, or angle-interior.
As well, where A is stationary and L and R go off to the left and right at
(near) c, the intersection of their simultaneity planes is A's entire
worldline. Thus, time stops for L and R.
About the Linear <-> Rotational, it's like trying to get a plane out of a
line, which is almost as bad as getting a line from a point. Then, you get
into infinital geometry mutations, and then the damn epistemological.
There's a straight line from nothing.
This is gonna be fun.
Ross
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > So, does a massy object gain mass as it is accelerated?
> >
> > CERN/LHC, SLAC, FermiLab, RHIC...
> >
> > http://laacg1.lanl.gov/laacg/acclist/accdbs.html
> >
> > Ernest O.Lawrence, cyclotron vs. synchrotron. Relativistic color
> > correction in color TV large CRTs. Accelerating an object traveling
> > hard by lightspeed increases its apparent mass rather then its
> > velocity (plus an RCH). Beta.
> >
> > http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
> > <http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
> > <http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
> >
> > Ignorant idiot.
> On the idiot scale, even Feldmann's an idiot.
Mewing idiot.
> What the hell is Beta? alpha and beta are particles released from
> radioactive nuclei.
Fucking imbecile,
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
> ECF is Error Correction Factor. What's RCH, reverse correlation hack?
Red Cunt Hair. Learn some engineering, too. Tad, skosh, RCH, BCH.
[snip crap]
Learn something you hopeless jackass, then drool your spew.
Uncle Al
>
> Hi, so I read these papers, or rather glance through them guiltily.
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
[snip crap]
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
tj Frazir
will fly INSIDE THE BOX ya stuuuuuupid idiot SAM .
A flying toy inside the box FITS all the requirements ya stupid
moron.................................................................
1 . the toy can fly inside the box and WILL BE LESS WEIGHT ON THE
SCALE.
2 , the flying toy in the box can be allmost as big as the box .
3...if you removed the box and they mass of the toy flys off the scale
it will read zerro.
4. the toy can be more mass than the box.
........................................................................
NOW idiot ,,,,.....................................................all
the POSIBLE methods comes down to a flying toy inside the box.
...........................................................................
Its the only method that fits all the requirements.
....................................................................
..
Sam ,,have you listed a posible method ????
Did you solve the method used in the GRAVITYBOX
???????????????????????????
tj Frazir
solved the simple
box ¡¡¡
WAS IT TOO SIMPLE and WHY did you all fail <<<< FAILED <<<<<
flunked...
The ONLY METHOD THAT FITS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS IS A FLYING TOY INSIDE
THE BOX.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
all the other crap was so inteligent BUT did NOT produce any working
answer to whats inside the simple box that works IDENTICAL to the
qualities .
It is a BUST because you failed to solve the simple box .
There is a flying toy inside the box that flys up off the scale wile
still inide the box.
NONE of you briliant fuckers and none of the morons solved this simple
box that has just one POSIBLE method hidden inside.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
BUSTED
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
If your coment did not include a flying toy inside the box YOU FLUNKED
and are BUSTED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SAM BUSTED
UNCLE IDIOT BUSTED
ALL the crap you wrote is VOID because you cant and did not solve
whats in the simple box.
One simple method and you could not find it .
I bet you still don't understand it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 ,,fly the toy by its self up off the scale !!!
2 . now put the toy in a box and do it !!!!!!!!!!
Its just that simple yet you could not do it.
.......................................................................
Ill make it a bit harder ,,the toy has a string so when it flys up
inside the box,,,((( can the toy pick te box off the scale ????
))))))))))))))
The toy flys its mass off the scale inside the box But can it pick the
box off the scale wile inside the box ????????????????????????
Will what the real box does and what you say will happen be identical
??????????????????
ALL the parts was $ 15 bucks at walmart.
tj Frazir
Lets see who is intelligent!!!
Group: sci.physics Date: Mon, Dec 6, 2004, 11:28pm (EST-1) From:
*_____________*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*
Gravityphysics has tapped 2 cones inside the box to make the air
flow in a circle wile a flying toy helicopter (electric toy from
walmart )
inside the box .. modified with a capaciter power sup for 30 seconds at
0.1 HP.
Inside a cardboard box this toy does pick te box off the ground. <<
Ive posted this knowing the idiots like Uncle and sam and martin
wount read this one .
So after they get stupid this post was allready here !!!
They cant solve a simple problem and wount belive the toy can pick the
box off the ground wile inside the box.
I left one simple pice of cardboard out of the puzzel but listed the
2 cones .
For 30 seconds this cardboard box will fly.
Its xmass wrapped and is remote controle.
You would think the down force of the air would push the box down as
much as it picks the toy up if the toy is tied to the box bottom inside
the box .
Thats not true , the box flyes .
The air has resistance to flow.
There is more resistance to flow within the air than there is aganst
the bottom of the box.
The lift is on boath sides of the blades and is more force than hits
the bottom of the box .
THIS SIMPLE BOX CLOSED FLYS for 30 seconds and BEAT Nasa
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This stupid toy inside the box was solar charged and beat nasa
requirements for the task
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4 pounds of thrust instead of 1 for 30 seconds in a closed box and
solar charged.
Nasa could NOT produce 1 pound of thrust inside a sealed box in space
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can do it for $ 100 bucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nasa spent $ 10,000,000 bucks and failed to do it.
tj Frazir
solve the simple box much less make a large lite box fly and land.
My sealed box flys for 30 seconds and lands back on the scale
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
tj Frazir
It will leave the scale and fly up for 30 seconds.
There is a flying helicopter toy inside the box.
it has 8 pounds of lift and can haul the box and it's self 4 pounds for
30 sec.
The air wount compress at the bottom of the box , it flows to the top
of the box too easy.
Ross A. Finlayson
Hey I'm still wondering if you would hire me as your research
assistant. I don't have a criminal record, I have a driver's license
and am insurable. My only traffic accident in the last five years was
a blown out tire doing 85. In Montana they don't have speeding
tickets, I don't yet have any speeding tickets. Oh wait, that's wrong,
the donut blew out 300 miles later, longer than its expected life. Now
I carry a full-size spare instead, the other ancient and revered Toyo,
my bowling ball clocks an average 21.5, I think it's a 14 pound ball.
I still owe some guy for scratching his car. I remember your tire
advice, but don't care, I'm riding Seiberling and Big-O. Seiberling
was the first tire manufacturer to cut grooves in the tire treads,
almost a hundred years ago, and after Einstein's seminal QED paper. I
speak English and am legally employable in the United States, being a
United States citizen. I'm familiar with auto mechanics. I'm more
familiar with pre-95 than post-95 automobile systems. I have some of
my own tools, basically I don't have a dwell meter or eeprom burner.
I'm familiar with library systems. I only need 1200 calories a day,
that being 1.2 * 10^6 calories, but I can handle much more, and coffee,
with sometimes nicotine. I get good coffee, the doughnut people like
me.
If I was your research assistant, _then_ you could tell me what to do.
If I didn't like it I'd quit. (Don't get me wrong, I think I would
enjoy being your research assistant.)
So anyways, you cantankerous old bastard, spill it. With your tad,
skosh, smidgen, fudge factor, random statistical noise, shim, red or
blonde pubic hair, well, now you've got me distracted, play, etcetera,
what exactly are you talking about when you say, "oh, there's just this
minor unexplained phenomenon, please don't push that large red plunger
there", and then, "please read and decipher the instructions for the
use of that large red plunger". (Klaxons.)
I would think that the gyro would gain as much mass as was equivalent
energy put into it that otherwise in a quite linear fashion as torque
axially accelerates the gyro spin past c. It's not accelerable to c,
that one of the tenets of the science that we use to explain the nature
of physical reality.
So, I would state that, and now you're telling me that's not the case.
I tell you what, nothing's wrong, nature doesn't give a care. That's
not to say physicists can't care up nature pretty bad.
Reality Correcting the Hypothesis, or any of those other spontaneous
acronyms, now here I have deleted paragraphs I have written about the
redhead vagina, and its biological connection to the generative organs
with direct links to the bearer's brain. Royal College Hysterium,
that's pretty good.
Obviously enough, in context, I and other readers can decipher the
meaning of some of your less technically superspecific expert and
practiced explanations of primarily chemistry and also other fields.
Also, Al, as I am writing this directly to you, I hope to educate
others that your opinions of your own non-scientific opinions vary.
Also, people should know you're almost always right about scientific
things.
Hey, do you ever play that StarCraft - Brood War video game like old
Koreans? Here are some replays, I play solitaire against the computer.
It gives me a chance. If you put them in the StarCraft replays folder
the game can play them. I play against the computer, those kids who
play StarCraft online would just destroy me. They would definitely
destroy you. I use the same snow skis as Team USA, 185 cm. I like 'em
short.
http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/starcraft/
While you're there, here, you can see what I think of these other
fields, or rather, my perspective seven years ago:
http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/science.html
Only old Koreans use e-mail and nonstandard analysis.
Warm regards,
Ross F.
--
"Also, consider this: the unit impulse function times
one less twice the unit step function times plus/minus
one is the mother of all wavelets."
Uncle Al
[snip 87 lines of crap]
You know nothing by demonstration. Cease boasting of it, idiot.
Screw your leaden idiot's ass into a chair and read,
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating
Experimenthttp://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Testing the weak postulate of metric gravitation
Ross A. Finlayson
Gladly.
The books on my bedside table, of which I am ignorant, are
Introduction to Partial Differential Equations, Tensor Analysis for
Physicists, Tensors, Differential Forms, and Variational
Principles, Tensor Analysis on Manifolds, and Tensor Calculus, JPEG
Still Image Data Compression Standard, and Verification of Digital
and Hybrid Systems.
I must first browse the PDF documents, must of them are posted on
ArXiv, a UC Davis system fronted by the amicable Greg Kuperberg,
with the e. I wrote to him some months ago with a question about
the ArXiv, he is very forthcoming and polite. The HEP category is
for "High Energy Physics", GR is for General Relativity, and ASTRO
is for Astrophysics, as general categories.
http://arXiv.org/
http://arXiv.org/list/gr-qc/recent
Now, I have downloaded those papers, where I have already
downloaded a copy of your paper, months ago, before it was cool.
Schucker: Forces from Connes' geometry, June 2002
Baez and Bunn: The Meaning of Einstein's Equation, August 2004
Baez is an excellent popularizer and widely read.
Avramidi: Matrix General Relativity: A New Look at Old Problems,
July 2003
Turyshev et al.: 35 Years of Testing Relativistic Gravity: Where
do we go from here?, November 2003
Lyne, et al.: A Double-Pulsar System -- A Rare Laboratory for
Relativistic Gravity and Plasma Physics, January 2004
Burgay, et al.: An increased estimate of the merger rate of double
neutron stars from observations of a highly relativistic system,
December 2003
Those are the papers hosted on ArXiv with titles on their web
page. The other PDF documents in your list of recommended reading:
Taylor: from Exploring Black Holes, Appendix A, Student Project on
Relativity in GPS
Francis et al.: Timekeeping and time Dissimenination in a
Distributed Space Based Clock Ensemble
Jacob: PHY-494 Applied Relativity Lecture 16 The Global
Positioning System
Schwartz: Affine versus metric gravitation parity test, November
2004
Then the web pages include:
Hillman: Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on
General Relativity, January 2001
Ashby, Relativity in the Global Positioning System, January 2003
Schlief: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity
Theory?, January 1998
Nave: Hafele and Keating Experiment
You have two links to the Ashby paper, he is referenced in the
front matter of the lecture notes of Jacob.
Do I get a grant now?
McAllister: The Twin Paradox
The link is not separated, that is a typo there.
Lane: Chuck Lane's Lorentz-violation page
The page crashes the browser on loading. That's Lorentz with a t.
Bluhm: Breaking Lorentz Symmetry March 2004
It seems that I should read Baez and Bunn, then Turyshev, then all
of Taylor's web site, Hillman, and then Ashby.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/relativity.html
I was reading that the other day, it seemed useful, particularly to
a beginner like myself, perhaps even moreso for a self-inflated
beginner with delusions of grandeur.
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0411053
http://arXiv.org/abs/math.DG/0408121
http://arXiv.org/abs/math.DG/0406585
Clifford, Finsler, Riemann-Cartan, and Kaluza-Klein
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311007
"Geometric Algebra Techniques for General Relativity"
I'll get started on that. You could get started on that.
Warm regards,
Ross F.
Morituri-|-Max
> Uncle AL is telling someone to learn some engineering !!! But he can't
> solve the simple box much less make a large lite box fly and land.
> My sealed box flys for 30 seconds and lands back on the scale
Exception mode on:
No, your box don't fly anywhere.. it's *hermetically* sealed.
Morituri-|-Max
> There is a flying toy inside the box.
>
> Lets see who is intelligent!!!
Not you.. the box is hermetically sealed.
Morituri-|-Max
> There is a flying helicopter toy inside the box.
The helicopter ain't going anywhere dumass... the box is hermetically sealed.
Exception mode off.
Nicholas Sherlock
> tj Frazir wrote:
>
>> There is a flying helicopter toy inside the box.
>
>
> The helicopter ain't going anywhere dumass... the box is hermetically
> sealed.
What he obviously means is that the helicopter hovers inside the box,
therefore not contributing to the weight of the box. Dumbass.
Morituri-|-Max
And how pray tell does a helicopter fly with no air?
H e r m e t i c a l l y s e a l e d .
If you look it up on the internet, you'll discover that helicopters need air to
fly or even hover.
Morituri-|-Max
It's hermetically sealed. So the helicopter can't move it's rotors inside the
raspberry jelllo filling it.
Morituri-|-Max
The box is hermetically sealed. Helicopter rotors don't work very well trying
to move chicken soup around.
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
it'll weight *just the same*, whether the helicopter rests on the floor
of the box or hovers inside the box. The force of gravity on the box
does not depend on what's happening inside it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
The Ghost In The Machine
<mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Dec 2004 06:47:47 GMT
<nQRud.43$45.1...@news.uchicago.edu>:
> In article <2kRud.18648$2e....@fe2.texas.rr.com>, "Morituri-|-Max" <new...@sendarico.net> writes:
>>Nicholas Sherlock wrote:
>>> Morituri-|-Max wrote:
>>>> tj Frazir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is a flying helicopter toy inside the box.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The helicopter ain't going anywhere dumass... the box is hermetically
>>>> sealed.
>>>
>>> What he obviously means is that the helicopter hovers inside the box,
>>> therefore not contributing to the weight of the box. Dumbass.
>>
>>And how pray tell does a helicopter fly with no air?
>>
>>H e r m e t i c a l l y s e a l e d .
>>
>>If you look it up on the internet, you'll discover that helicopters need air to
>>fly or even hover.
>>
> Oh, the box can be hermeticall sealed *and* filled with air. Only,
> it'll weight *just the same*, whether the helicopter rests on the floor
> of the box or hovers inside the box. The force of gravity on the box
> does not depend on what's happening inside it.
Or, put another way, if there is a hovering helicopter inside of
the air-filled hermetically sealed box, it is lifting itself by
pushing down on the air. [*] The air has to push down on something
else, namely the inside of the box.
About all one will get out of this exercise is a slightly
warmer hermetically sealed box.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
[*] this is admittedly an oversimplification of the Bernoulli effect.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Sam Wormley
But the box is hermetically sealed!
tj Frazir
1 , place the toy over the scale with it running and see if the down
air equals the rotor displacement ..no the rotor displacment is much
more .
2 .. This box DOES fly for 30 seconds.
3 . the toy AND the box push the scale down untill the toy flyes off
te scale .
EVEN WHEN THE TOY IS SEALED INSIDE THE BOX. < this is physical
reality , the real toy and the real box and real observation.
..............................................................
The psi on the bottom of the rotor is 8 pounds of lift. The box and
the toy is 4 pounds.
.......................................................................
The air will be compressed ON THE BOTTOM OF THE TOY ROTOR and toatal
8 pounds WILE the air wount compress at the bottom of the box and the
airflow curls up and is directed against the top sheet so the air must
change directions nd slow down befor going threw the rotor again.
The bigger the box the slower the ar flow damper the better the lift.
...........................................................................
The toy inside the box is wired in place inside the box . It does
fly and is real and you can do it for under $ 20.
..................................................................
If the air presure ON the surface of the rotor is 40 psi ..........
You cat hold 40 psi or even 1 psi in the bottom of the box and it is
counteraction by the air hitting the top that wount compress but will
flow inside a large box.
................................................................
When the toy flys inside the box it is not on the scale , only the box
is on the scale.
..........................................................................
IF the lid was off the top of the box, would you still think the mass of
the toy was part of the box and at what point do you think they become
two ??????????????????????
The mass of the toy sits on the mass of the box , and the mass off te
toy can lift off the mass of the box wile inside the box.
....................................................................
NOW Moron max ,,,put a brick in a box stupid..
" for you Ill do the test for a nickel ""\$0.05 cents... Now grab box
with brick inside and yank the box up and stop..notice the weight of the
bick is gone an the box is light !! untill the bick comes back down !!
............................................................
If yer still stupid put a rock in a can and do the same thing.
...........................................................................
Notice the mass of the rock inside the can is not conected to the mass
of the can.
.......................................................................
if the rock could fly inside the can it would take the wieght off your
hand .......but the toy does fly inside the box ..and in fact does make
the box fly. I am flying the box and getting good at it. Its 2cm
and one grade up from paper.
well I was inforemed the toy cost more around $1500 not 15 bucks
,,but its just a toy anyone can buy. The gift wrap and bow I din't
wiegh. I may only have 1/2 pound of lift but its more lift than the
box neads to stay in the mess deck. The crew thinks the xmass flying
box is slicker than snot on the helm.
.................................................................
tj Frazir
When the toy flys up inside the box it flys off the scale and the box
wieghs LESS on the scale. You think the box weighs the same but the
toy flew off the box wile inside it.
Re: Rotational ‹-› Linear Inertia, Repulsive Gravity
Group: sci.physics Date: Sun, Dec 12, 2004, 6:47am (EST+5) From:
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
The Ghost In The Machine
<swor...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:13:54 GMT
<41BC5222...@mchsi.com>:
This is getting slightly silly, but there are seals and there are seals.
[1] Impervious to escaping gas. This is the usual meaning, but would
not preclude electromagnetic activity. For example, a plastic
box full of air, a battery, and an electromagnet which can
lift itself up off the weight -- assuming that there's something
above it that is magnetic in nature (e.g., a block of iron)
that could help in that regard, which there probably isn't.
[2] Faraday cage. If the box is solid-copper-clad, it is very resistant
to electric and magnetic fields, and also to any electromagnetic
waves larger than a few hundred picometers in wavelength.
If one uses a fine copper mesh, electromagnetic waves larger than
the mesh can't slip through and the resistance is weaker --
and of course air molecules aren't all that big.
I'll admit to some curiosity here, but there is a minor lift problem
as Bernoulli is usually taught.
high-speed, low-pressure path
--------------
-- ------
*-------------------------------trailing edge
low-speed, high-pressure path
It's actually rather impressive, considering the density of the medium,
that a wing can lift a plane at all, but lift it does, and the
plane travels through the air faster than an equivalent vehicle
on the ground. However, at the trailing edge of the wing, the
air streams merge, and, since the top air is going faster, it
will most likely tend to push the slower-moving stream downward.
However, I'm not all that up on my fluid mechanics, and the
upper air stream does have slightly reduced density.
There's also the vortex at the edge of the wing, which presumably
saps some of the energy as well (and can leave a nasty whorl for
a following plane to get mixed up in). How that affects the
analysis, I don't know.
A helicopter is basically a rotating wing, which presumably pushes
through the air using Bernoulli's Principle to generate lift;
however, AFAICT it also *twists* the air, generating a mild
cyclone-like effect. (The milder, the better.) The wing
vortices probably won't do much either way in this case.
My guess is that the hermetically sealed box will heat a bit,
as the helicopter inside is lifting itself off the bottom of
its box. It will also make noises. It won't reduce the
weight (force of the box bottom on whatever it's sitting on).
Of course there is the question as to the motive force of the
helicopter; if it uses standard gasoline/diesel/avaition fuel
it will quickly exhaust the oxygen supply within the box and
come crashing down as its engine dies. A battery-powered
affair might fare slightly better but it too will eventually
run out of energy.
The best way to reduce the weight is to interfere with the
scale mechanism. :-)
tj Frazir
with and have it air tite.
I cut a circle for the rotor in the center of a square sheet of paper
and cut flaps at its eges where the sheet glues near the top of the tall
2m³ box. I wired the toy so the rotor and orentation is fixd at the
center of the hole in te paper glued near the top of box an glued air
tite the charge wire so I can recharge it.
You can stear the box around the room the bow on the side of the box
drags the box so it turns slow wile flying. the tail rudder dont work
very well. But it gets there.
The AIR WILL COMPRESS ON THE SRFACE OF THE ROTOR BUT CANT COMPRESS
INSIDE THE BOX. thasts why it flys.
..........................................................
tj Frazir
sealed.
1 , its air tite and all overlaps of paper are hermetically sealed with
glue.
Sam likes to use one word and be libral with it.
Magnetic gas and magnetized gas are not the same thing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Befor you can bark one word set you up and you faailed to be
intelligent and make the box fly and solve " What is inside the box ? "
Evryone that failed to tell what exsactly is inside the box as if they
could posibly replicate it failed the inteligent question.
Sam wrote ::
Who's Stupid ??? ,
The very next week I answered him !
let me know if you think this was my anual setup and you got busted
again : )
tj Frazir
inside so there is some air flow problems with a 2 m³ box and a 0.75
hp 12 inch rotor that I midified to 01.25 hp buy running it wile
watching its heat with IR tempgun at wtice its Vots till it gets hot ..I
can run at twice the volts for 30 seconds ,,then matched the quick
charge system bat and cap. I can play with it till the motor fries.
....................................... The lift is at the rotor and
if the air pushes air or not ,,the rotor tossed the mass of the ar in
that direction and it dont matter what it does
...........................................
Cavatation is limited by the flaps in the paper.
letting it cool off for 5 minuts ,charge 120 seconds and run for 30
seconds.
Nicholas Sherlock
I was just explaining what tj Frazir meant.
Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock
Sam Wormley
> One idiot thinks the air must push on somthing else.
> 1 , place the toy over the scale with it running and see if the down
> air equals the rotor displacement ..no the rotor displacment is much
> more .
> 2 .. This box DOES fly for 30 seconds.
> 3 . the toy AND the box push the scale down untill the toy flyes off
> te scale .
> EVEN WHEN THE TOY IS SEALED INSIDE THE BOX. < this is physical
> reality , the real toy and the real box and real observation.
> ..............................................................
> The psi on the bottom of the rotor is 8 pounds of lift. The box and
> the toy is 4 pounds.
> The air will be compressed ON THE BOTTOM OF THE TOY ROTOR and toatal
> 8 pounds WILE the air wount compress at the bottom of the box and the
> airflow curls up and is directed against the top sheet so the air must
> change directions nd slow down befor going threw the rotor again.
> The bigger the box the slower the ar flow damper the better the lift.
> The toy inside the box is wired in place inside the box . It does
> fly and is real and you can do it for under $ 20.
> If the air presure ON the surface of the rotor is 40 psi ..........
> You cat hold 40 psi or even 1 psi in the bottom of the box and it is
> counteraction by the air hitting the top that wount compress but will
> flow inside a large box.
> ................................................................
> When the toy flys inside the box it is not on the scale , only the box
> is on the scale.
> ..........................................................................
> IF the lid was off the top of the box, would you still think the mass of
> the toy was part of the box and at what point do you think they become
> two ??????????????????????
> The mass of the toy sits on the mass of the box , and the mass off te
> toy can lift off the mass of the box wile inside the box.
> ....................................................................
> NOW Moron max ,,,put a brick in a box stupid..
> " for you Ill do the test for a nickel ""\$0.05 cents... Now grab box
> with brick inside and yank the box up and stop..notice the weight of the
> bick is gone an the box is light !! untill the bick comes back down !!
> ............................................................
> If yer still stupid put a rock in a can and do the same thing.
> Notice the mass of the rock inside the can is not conected to the mass
> of the can.
> if the rock could fly inside the can it would take the wieght off your
> hand .......but the toy does fly inside the box ..and in fact does make
> the box fly. I am flying the box and getting good at it. Its 2cm
> and one grade up from paper.
> well I was inforemed the toy cost more around $1500 not 15 bucks
> ,,but its just a toy anyone can buy. The gift wrap and bow I din't
> wiegh. I may only have 1/2 pound of lift but its more lift than the
> box neads to stay in the mess deck. The crew thinks the xmass flying
> box is slicker than snot on the helm.
>
> .................................................................
>
>
Sam Wormley
> The toy picks the box up 3 times better when its outside the box than
> hp 12 inch rotor that I midified to 01.25 hp buy running it wile
> watching its heat with IR tempgun at wtice its Vots till it gets hot ..I
> can run at twice the volts for 30 seconds ,,then matched the quick
> charge system bat and cap. I can play with it till the motor fries.
> if the air pushes air or not ,,the rotor tossed the mass of the ar in
> that direction and it dont matter what it does
> Cavatation is limited by the flaps in the paper.
> letting it cool off for 5 minuts ,charge 120 seconds and run for 30
> seconds.
>
>
>
>
Boris Mohar
<n_she...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was just explaining what tj Frazir meant.
That is not possible.
--
Boris Mohar
Ross A. Finlayson
back and review, you'll notice I changed the thread subject to
"Rotational <-> Linear Inertia, Repulsive Gravity."
This is where I posit the box contains a pair or set of gyroscope
arrays of increasing mass. The first gyroscope spins at such a high
rate of speed that its apparent mass has increased. By using some of
its energy to spin a massier gyroscope, the mass of the first gyroscope
decreases as its velocity decreases, and the velocity of the massier
gyroscope increases, as does presumably its mass to not violate special
relativity or rather the interpretation of the notion that light speed
is constant in all reference frames.
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR97/BAPSAPR97/abs/S370.html#SC11.008
I've seen there are a variety of reasons why the gyroscope can not spin
near light speed because it would contract. Another notion is that the
two gyroscopes in opposite directions to form the array would have
their "sides" spinning in opposite directions, thus that when the array
reached half c in its own little reference frame, then compared to a
particle on the other gyro it would be going 1c.
-> .5c
O
<-
.5c <-
O
->
So the gyroscope can not spin to .5c, in the presence of another gyro
going the opposite direction.
If you have four gyroscopes in the balanced array
-> <-
O O
O O
-> <-
Then it begins to look like the "Spacetime Wheel."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Lorentz+Boost%22+paravector
One result:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912025
Pezzaglia: Dimensionally Democratic Calculus and Principles of
Polydimensional Physics
Anyways, I hope you would clarify what is the RCH there. Would it
allow the light gyroscope to spin down and de-mass the box? I'm not
expecting your answer to be affirmative.
Warm regards,
Ross F.
Uncle Al
>
> As I scan Al's suggested reading, I'm on page two, but I need to go
> back and review, you'll notice I changed the thread subject to
> "Rotational <-> Linear Inertia, Repulsive Gravity."
Bloviating idiot.
[snip crap]
tj Frazir
string going threw the top of the box ,,,as you pick the rock up off the
bottom of the box the box wieghs less not having a rock sit on it
inside it.
The toy helicopter can fly up inside the box so the box is lighter on
the scale.
The blades of the rotor dont push air that pushes off the bottom to
lift.
The rotor lift is the displacement between top and bottom side of the
rotor.
Air wount and cant compress in the bottom of the box. The BOX FLYS
for 30 seconds.
..............................................................
Sam has no say unless sam can make the box fly
.......................... to offer your self as a critic without the
ability to solve the work order.
I filled the work order by saying " What is in the box ". Sam cant
come up with a method to lift the box within the listed paramiters .
Sam can't answer the First post that ask......
WHAT IS IN THE BOX THEN SAM ?????
make the box work as the poster posted.
How can you critisize my flying box if you dont prove another
working method and have not yet posted one ???????????????????
Nasa failed it with ten million bucks.
I solved it with a wallmart flying toy.
tj Frazir
it flys up inside the box.
The same as if I picked a rock up off the bottom of the box ,,,lid on
or off .
For a very simple task ,,most are having trouble as if the paramiters
cought them in thier week spot.
This xmass box flys its self and is a closed system once charged air
tite.
I wish I could post it ..
Oh ,,maybe I can post it.
Maybe I found another flying box !!!!!!!
I have 8 pounds of lift and 4 pounds of load and one pound of box
,,,,,is going up.
The box flys .
tj Frazir
He don't know shit about gravity and I know where his quantom
weekness is that leaves him in a void.
AL and SAM thought a beam of photons could
split an atom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But a photon is 1 millionth the mass of a electron and 1000
millionth the mass of the nutron.
that is equal to a housefly knocking a train off the tracks head on
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Other IDIOTS think the mass of the toy is conected to the mass of the
box ¿¿¿
None of you think the FAIMOUSE box flys .
tj Frazir
with a working method.
A bird sits in the box ,,,when I give it the signal it flys inside the
box and removes 10 oz off the scale ,,and I sig again and the bird lands
replacing its 10 oz on the scale.
Maxwel ,,his second thought.
Morituri-|-Max
> It is air tite ,,Im fucking with sam using a word like hemetically
> sealed.
The statement "fucking with sam" has no meaning here since 1, sam doesn't care
about what tj does, says, or thinks, and 2, tj isn't equal with sam in any way,
shape, or form, so tj thinking he is having an equal dialogue with someone WITH
brains is about as funny as an ant thinking it is equal to a thinking person.
Morituri-|-Max
lots of stuff, thinking he is on an equal level with those here who have brains.
Ross A. Finlayson
When you say left-right symmetry, is that just for chirality?
The geodesics as paths in the curved space-time Cl(3,1) (or Cl(1, 3))
seem to be complicated for non-point masses.
Warm regards,
Ross F.
Ross A. Finlayson
gyroscopes.
In the case of the paper you reference, there are two pulsars in a
double-neutron-star (DNS) binary system, J0737-3039A and J0737-3039B, at
23 milliseconds and 2.8 seconds, where that measure for pulsars is how
often they rotate.
So the fast pulsar of the binary, 3039A, is spinning every 23
milliseconds, and presumably that is quite a fast angular velocity of 1/
2.3 * 10^3 * 2pi radians/sec, where given the radius r of the pulsar
the velocity of the outside of the pulsar at the equator would be the
angular velocity times r.
http://news.space-explorers.com/display.asp?v=1&i=8&a=4
The above article says that for some reason the pulsar only attains half
of the otherwise maximum speed. Who knew?
So anyways in that system there as the pulsars have a different period
they will be slightly affecting each other gravitationally, via
Coriolis. As their rotations equilibriate, then the faster pulsar is
going to lose some mass as its speed is decreased. While the system can
probably be considered far enough away from other systems that there is
no input energy, the system is emitting energy. In taking that into
account, there might be enough precision in the instrument data to
determine if mass leaves the system as the pulsar rotations equalize, or
rather equilibriate.
This is presuming that the faster pulsar has lighter mass. Otherwise,
we'd (or rather I'd) expect the lighter pulsar, or system, to gain mass,
as it leisurely proceeds towards the pulsar collision in 85000000 years.
Humor: http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2004/4/1/81449/27584
So, there is the pulsar system as gyroscope array: a free laboratory,
with no regulations, except light speed is constant.
"Try not to hate."
Warm regards,
Ross F.
Ross A. Finlayson
> 2.3 * 10^3 * 2pi radians/sec [sic], where given the radius r of the
> pulsar...
2.3 * 10^2 ...
Also the asterisks separate the operands funny, eg a/b * c means ac/b.
tj Frazir
What is in the box ??????????????????
My box works ,,
I allmost can't belive what came out of evryones heads on this.
Even Carrs Sam and others !!
They should know the box flys .
just like they should know the bird in the box .
They all got it wrong ,,,,because you can't look the answer up.
You SAM must pick the math THEN what ever you use to make it fly must
be identical to the math.
There is a bird that can fly inside the box fits
the math.
Math then invented the flying box ...............
The math on each method of the system ,,,
the experiment of building the methos system composit that is a flying
box and seeing if it flys.
IF your box wount fly ,,,then you failed to do the math on evrthing.
My BOX flys .
1 pound box 1 pound toy 1 pound batt/cap
8 pounds lift for 30 seconds.
Biult the flying box on 4 facts.
The performance has exceaded my math .
its better than my math because the off the shelf toy is better .( 8
pounds lift instead of 4 but I modified it by double volts for 30
seconds ).
You moron max ,,,idiot ,,,cant even answer the question
tj Frazir
This 10 oz toy in a 5 oz paper box with a paper cavitation/director
sheet with rotor .
Double batt X2 volts 21 oz of lift modified to get 40 oz. lift.
Can you make the box fly ??
Honey Bee Electric RC Mini Helicopter from Hobby Lobby!
Address:http://www.hobby-lobby.com/honeybee.htm
Sam Wormley
The box is hermetically sealed.
tj Frazir
Hermeticlly sealed
again.
Ya sam ,,,250 people in a jet are hermeticlly sealed inside a
balloon..
The air inside a balloon is in a hermetically sealed container.
Its not just plastics filling gaps .
Not allways a vaccume aplication
tj Frazir
????????????????????????
Its sealed so what ,,make it work and tell us whats in the box
¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
1 pound toy 1/2 pound box 1/4 pound power suply
1.75 pounds on the scale . The toy posted
for 250 bucks is 10 oz with 40 oz lift normal but running double volts
at 80 oz lift.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
My box flys ,,sam has no idia whats in the box because he has not
posted anything.
SEALED is a WRONG answer to ;;
quote " what is in the box ? "" unquote.
Tomasso vs Noises
--
"Amy" <gal_born...@yahoo-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message news:41b53f90$1...@Usenet.com...
> Re:Antigravity
>
> You work in a patent office. One day this chap walks in with a rather
> large box and said he has invented antigravity. He places his box on
> your trusted old spring balance and the reading is 30kg. He then
> presses a button on a remote control, and series of strange noises
> are heard coming from the box. Lo and behold, the weight has gone
> down to 29.5kg!
There must be some communication between the remote control and the
spring balance. Possibly via the box, but not necessarily.
> The box is hermetically sealed and your weighing balance is not
> compromised in anyway.
This doesn't rule out an electromagnet, except it would somehow have
to be attracted away from the spring balance (of maybe affect the
spring constant).
> The Question is: What is going on in the box?
I don't know.
Were drugs involved?
Tomasso.
tj Frazir
fly.
Ross A. Finlayson
B & B have something along the lines of what they "parallel transport."
For some reason that seems ridiculous. It's not, it just seems that way.
The Turyshev paper thesis is that the weakness of relativism and relativity
is gravity, and there are described several experiments to gain further
precision in testing relativistic effects of basically the second
dierviative of light bending, where they can get the first derivative here
on Earth. They should be able to get the second derivative on Earth as
well instead of installing "a 100 meter panel on the International Space
Station."
Schucker's paper discusses Connes geometry and something about even
spectral triplets, that have five components, variously commutative and
anti-commutative, with unitary reflections, in an unruly manner.
I scanned through part of Schwartz's paper, that's Al here, Schwartz is on
some kind of bender about the "weak equivalence principle" of gravity and
thus as well the "strong equivalency principle." Crammed in three or four
pages are introductory material, then experiment description progresses,
with a few log plots showing straight lines, and then some discussion.
Appendix A says "Hund's Paradox". A paradox to me is like a red flag to a
matador. Hund's Paradox is that there be chiral molecules displaying
empirical R- or S- configurations but not superposed opposite parity
states. What the hell is that? Appendix B discusses the Green's function
and considerations of Newtonian actions in the large.
The Dual Neutron Star data is probably sitting there for the asking. It
might only take ten or so years of data to verify that conservation of mass
at relativistic speeds.
Dude, HEP.
Warm regards,
Ross F.