Anti-Gravity Experiment

[Einstein]

Well, I've been thinking about this alot lately. Actually I was dreaming about a little anomaly with the experiment. Really strange dream. Like it was me talking to me telling me to take another look at the experiment. There is something strange going on that untill now I have just overlooked. In the experiment when the capacitor discharges through the coil, I initially expected to see attraction. Because the magnetic field is decreasing in value. But that isn't what happened. I get repulsion instead. It's backwards.

In the sticky space experiment when I pull the magnet away from the magnesium disc, that should simulate a magnetic field decreasing in value. An electric field is induced in the disc causing an accompanying magnetic field which attracts it to the magnet. So that is how I reasoned that there should be attraction with the current experiment. A magnetic field decreasing in value should cause attraction.

So here I have two situations where the magnetic field is decreasing in value with opposite effects. But it did occur to me that what is causing the magnetic field to decrease in value is different. One being a mechanical force, and the other being an electric force. It's kind of like the flow of time is backwards for one of the forces. Or possibly there are two types of magnetic fields. Or maybe the magnetic field behaves differently based on what kind of force is acting on it. But this asymetry in the magnetic field does suggest a way to rectify force to create linear acceleration.

There appears to be a basic principal involved here. But this might not be the first time this principal has been discovered. It occurred to me that while in school we were taught that a man named Norman Dean had invented what he called the Dean Drive. It was reported to be a device that could translate rotational motion into linear acceleration. There was alot of publicity at the time on the invention. He reportedly operated the device on a scale and demonstrated that the Dean drive could actually reduce an objects weight. All one need do is use more power and the device should lift off the ground. This is documented and is historical fact. We were told that Norman tried to sell the invention to the military for a million dollars. They didn't buy it. So Norman patented the device. But what he patented didn't do what his invention did. Apparently Norman kept it a secret and never really told anyone how the device actually worked. Norman Dean took the secret to his grave. The only reason I bring him up is because the device he patented actually has some very strong similarities to something I might construct. I think Norman Dean discovered this same asymetrical behavior with the magnetic field as I have.

I haven't put a Dean Drive together yet, so I don't know if it will work. But I do have some experiemnts that suggest it's possible. And with the materials available today as opposed to what Norman had available 50 years ago, I'm speculating that there just might be some impressive results.

 

[creedo299]

Dean drive I've heard of.

Lorentz force is an electronic wind, so is ever present, yata yata yata.

You know' I was once at a bar, where this girl was up on stage and she was dancing in almost nothing, very stylishly in front of these guys and they were all likeing it.

For just a fraction of a second I visualized the beer bottle they held as being baby milk bottles and the babes up on stage, as their mothers.

Geese' , looking at them I said to myself, "You know these guys really need their mothers"?!

 

[RainmanTime]

Good Luck, Einstein. I hope you keep us informed about your findings as you move forward. Now, as to this...

There is something strange going on that untill now I have just overlooked. In the experiment when the capacitor discharges through the coil, I initially expected to see attraction. Because the magnetic field is decreasing in value. But that isn't what happened. I get repulsion instead. It's backwards.

In the sticky space experiment when I pull the magnet away from the magnesium disc, that should simulate a magnetic field decreasing in value. An electric field is induced in the disc causing an accompanying magnetic field which attracts it to the magnet. So that is how I reasoned that there should be attraction with the current experiment. A magnetic field decreasing in value should cause attraction.

This is a good example where "reason" and/or "visualization" can lead you down an incorrect path that mathematical exploration might help you to avoid. In reasoning about this without mathematics, your mind can cause you to expect something that you believe is reasonable, but that a mathematical description would show is not at all reasonable.

It appears that your error is in not considering velocity, which is one of the terms of the cross product in a magnetic field. The reason you get repulsion in both cases is easily explained by the fact that in both cases the charge velocity (current) is in the same direction (moving from anode to cathode). Your expectation with your discharging capacitor is incorrect because you have not changed the sign of the current. The magnitude of the current is decreasing, yes, due to the capacitor discharge. However, the sign of the current's magnitude is still positive because it is still flowing in the same direction. When you do the vector math, you will see that the direction of the resulting force is always determined by the algebraic sign of the velocity term. Since it was only the magnitude of your current that was changing, and not the algebraic sign, there is no reason to expect that the force would change direction. Only that the magnitude of the force would change.

A magnetic field decreasing in value should cause attraction.

The established mathematics do not coincide with what your reason is telling you, however.

But it did occur to me that what is causing the magnetic field to decrease in value is different. One being a mechanical force, and the other being an electric force. It's kind of like the flow of time is backwards for one of the forces. Or possibly there are two types of magnetic fields. Or maybe the magnetic field behaves differently based on what kind of force is acting on it.

Again I am providing friendly suggestions that are intended to help you avoid wasting time where your intuition could lead you astray. You've come to conclusions based on observations where you "missed" something that is described quite well in established math. With these statements you now appear to be going further down that road of supposition without correcting the error that lead you here. This is where exploring the math, BEFORE you go further with your reasoning process, can help immensely in avoiding wasted time.

I must once again point out that in your "sticky space" experiment you have never quantified the time variance of position, velocity, and acceleration of your hand. My friend, this is where what you perceive and what is actually happening can easily diverge... and that can lead you to incorrect reasoning. You are not serving yourself, or your work, in the least by reasoning about the "sticky space" experiment without having quantified data. Even if you do not wish to do the math, by at least taking quantified data that you can analyze you may (and likely will) uncover more solid reasoning for what you are observing. The "normal" path to follow would be to instrument the experiment to collect such data, and then follow this up by modeling the situation with existing mathematics to build a simulation. If the simulation matches the quantified data, then you now know that the phenomenon you had originally thought was anomalous is actually well understood and predicted by current mathematics. And this, in turn, will help you avoid going down paths of reasoning that are in direct conflict with what is really going on (and can be accurately measured).

I again encourage you to set up a precision rate table with which you can accurately control the position, rate, and acceleration of any object. Use this rate table in your "stick space" experiment in substitution for your uncalibrated hand motions. This will help you to avoid making generalizations about that experiment which are untrue. And while I know you appreciate "trial and error" over academic/mathematical reasoning, I would think you would be interested in avoiding wasted time, thereby allowing more valuable trial and error experiments to be done without the hazard of going down an incorrect path of reasoning.

I offer this advice because I do see your passion for understanding nature and trying to crack the gravity nut. But I find it sad that such passion is subject to errors that can easily be avoided by application of scientific rigor that has borne fruit for so many in the past.

Again...good luck! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Good Luck, Einstein. I hope you keep us informed about your findings as you move forward. Now, as to this...

Thanks, and if things go as planned, you might actually get to see a hoverboard in operation. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that I could actually say how it works and no one would still comprehend. But what is amazing is that suddenly you seem to have developed an amazing ability to comprehend my visualizations.

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is something strange going on that untill now I have just overlooked. In the experiment when the capacitor discharges through the coil, I initially expected to see attraction. Because the magnetic field is decreasing in value. But that isn't what happened. I get repulsion instead. It's backwards.

This is a good example where "reason" and/or "visualization" can lead you down an incorrect path that mathematical exploration might help you to avoid. In reasoning about this without mathematics, your mind can cause you to expect something that you believe is reasonable, but that a mathematical description would show is not at all reasonable.

This is what amazes me. You actually followed what it was that I presented as a visualization. And to me this is a prime example of showing where the equations that describe these situations may be leading us astray. The math at best is only going to describe what the initial observer saw. If he missed something, then of course it will be missing in the equations as well.

It appears that your error is in not considering velocity, which is one of the terms of the cross product in a magnetic field. The reason you get repulsion in both cases is easily explained by the fact that in both cases the charge velocity (current) is in the same direction (moving from anode to cathode). Your expectation with your discharging capacitor is incorrect because you have not changed the sign of the current. The magnitude of the current is decreasing, yes, due to the capacitor discharge. However, the sign of the current's magnitude is still positive because it is still flowing in the same direction. When you do the vector math, you will see that the direction of the resulting force is always determined by the algebraic sign of the velocity term. Since it was only the magnitude of your current that was changing, and not the algebraic sign, there is no reason to expect that the force would change direction. Only that the magnitude of the force would change.

Based on my observations I have to conclude that the math you are referring to is in complete error. It makes no difference on which way the current is flowing. I demonstrated this by showing that I still get repulsion with a coil connected to the charging side of the capacitor. But the scope shows the magnitude of the current decreases during the charge cycle as well as during the discharge cycle. So I have to conclude that the decreasing magnitude of current is to be associated with repulsion. The direction of the current doesn't seem to govern this at all. But this does suggest that if a reverse situation were to be simulated I could get attraction to occur. If I had a method to create a situation where the magnitude of charge rapidly increases in repeatable cycles, I believe I could demonstrate the attraction principal.

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A magnetic field decreasing in value should cause attraction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The established mathematics do not coincide with what your reason is telling you, however.


In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it did occur to me that what is causing the magnetic field to decrease in value is different. One being a mechanical force, and the other being an electric force. It's kind of like the flow of time is backwards for one of the forces. Or possibly there are two types of magnetic fields. Or maybe the magnetic field behaves differently based on what kind of force is acting on it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again I am providing friendly suggestions that are intended to help you avoid wasting time where your intuition could lead you astray. You've come to conclusions based on observations where you "missed" something that is described quite well in established math. With these statements you now appear to be going further down that road of supposition without correcting the error that lead you here. This is where exploring the math, BEFORE you go further with your reasoning process, can help immensely in avoiding wasted time.

Actually I have been exploring the math, but from a different perspective. It has occurred to me that somewhere along the line we are leaving out an important part of the puzzle. I do believe I have mentioned that there appears to be an unaccounted for acceleration field in the background which does register on my accelerometer. But the direction of that acceleration field is opposite to that of earths gravity field. And I have an object with mass moving in one direction. So the math appears to me to be lacking in a complete description of what is going on. It is starting to seem like all four forces are in play here. So exploring this mathematically is probably more time wasting than my present angle of attack. I don't think you realize that trying to explain all this using all four forces is an untroden road all by itself. In order to do that successfully I will need much more data on how these forces interact. The rules of operation. Or to be more precise. A unified field theory.

Now i guess I should mention that I have built lots of machines that I call do nothing machines. But some of those machines have taught me things about making machines that you just wont find in a book anywhere. Lately I seem to be having a rash of do something machines. Finally!

I must once again point out that in your "sticky space" experiment you have never quantified the time variance of position, velocity, and acceleration of your hand. My friend, this is where what you perceive and what is actually happening can easily diverge... and that can lead you to incorrect reasoning. You are not serving yourself, or your work, in the least by reasoning about the "sticky space" experiment without having quantified data. Even if you do not wish to do the math, by at least taking quantified data that you can analyze you may (and likely will) uncover more solid reasoning for what you are observing. The "normal" path to follow would be to instrument the experiment to collect such data, and then follow this up by modeling the situation with existing mathematics to build a simulation. If the simulation matches the quantified data, then you now know that the phenomenon you had originally thought was anomalous is actually well understood and predicted by current mathematics. And this, in turn, will help you avoid going down paths of reasoning that are in direct conflict with what is really going on (and can be accurately measured).

Actually it is the different paths of reasoning that is really the key to understanding. You already know I have a parallel theory on mass. It's just compressed length. And my initial analysis of sticky space was that it was just an area of compressed length. If I tie that parallel understanding into how I know the sticky space phenomena works now, I come up with a Electro-Magnetic phenomena that appears to create mass. And just recently I find out I can turn it off.
I do believe I have mentioned that the sticky space phenomena is a version of the Lorentz Force. The object which does appear to be attached to the magnet at a distance does actually move toward or away from the magnet as I move the magnet. But the amount of motion which might be as small as a thousandth of an inch is creating either an attraction or repulsion magnetic field. But the Lorentz force does not show this apparent mass effect. It is not obvious from the equations. But from observation it might be possible to set up an equality. At the very least it could be construed as an electromagnetic version of mass.

Now I think I mentioned that I seen asymetry between the motion generated by an electrically collapsing magnetic field and a mechanically induced collapsing field. I will be investigating that with physical models. You see I am immensely interested in any phenomena that just might have the slightest indication that negative length could be present. Of course negative length would probably be in the Merkaba diagram. Along with negative mass and negative time. Could it be that the negative length I think I see is actually being generated by the neodymium magnet I am using?

So I am not afraid to build something that doesn't work. But I am really fed up with using math that doesn't work. There is lots of reality that just doesn't have satisfactory mathematical solutions. I have to face the fact that math is just an incomplete language. We don't have all the words formulated yet. And I do believe it will take a lot more observations to obtain those words.

I offer this advice because I do see your passion for understanding nature and trying to crack the gravity nut. But I find it sad that such passion is subject to errors that can easily be avoided by application of scientific rigor that has borne fruit for so many in the past.

Trial and error is the key. This one avenue that I pursue seems to be one that requires an understanding that goes beyond our accepted methods of understanding. So I want to make mistakes. It is the mistakes that give me more understanding. Besides I might make a mistake that teaches me something that is forbidden. Forbidden knowledge is always the best kind.

Again...good luck!
RMT

Hmmmmm? Was that a goodbye? Do you know something that I don't? I must say that you seemd to be much more cognizant of my visualizations than usual today. Almost as if I wasn't talking to the same RMT as just two weeks ago. Or maybe this is Hello! Which might mean that I am an Einstein from a parallel timeline. Or maybe the time field disrupter circuit that I was about to initialize today will be detected by the orbital detection satellite grid. They'll never find me. I've been playing around with this negative length generator for quite a while now. It's very difficult to see anything that has zero length.