RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Cool. I'll try to temper my rhetoric as well. And I hope you realize that this is all in fun, jmpet. Just because I don't agree with your thought processes does not mean I hold you any ill will. As Darby pointed out, I will always stay "in character", and I will go toe-to-toe with anyone who adopts a certain rhetoric of their own. This is a free and open forum, and the way it is set up, no one can dominate another.
There are many who know what tensors mean, and understand how to manipulate this form of math to uncover physical truths. But this is where I would gently suggest to you that a good deal of formal schooling is generally necessary to understand complex mathematics and, specifically, how they DO reflect the physical world around us. You are not the only person who thinks that the entirety of physical phenomenon should be readily understandable to us in simple terms. I wish it were so also, but there is a LOT more going on in the physical universe than can be reported to us by our simple senses.
Honestly, jmpet, if I could teach the fundamentals of vectors (a necessary precursor to tensors) and the fundamentals of tensors on a text-based internet forum, the establishments of universities around our globe would have fallen under the pretext of "simplicity" long ago. There are people who have their BS degrees in engineering and science who still do not have a grasp on tensors, and barely have a grasp on vectors. I can apologize for the fact that vector and tensor calculus is difficult, but I cannot change that fact, nor can I "simplify" it to a 10 minute, 500 word essay on the internet.
Oh, but I am. But just "a little in your corner". IOW, I do not support you when the things you claim exceeds the boundaries of what science tells us is possible. Certainly, windmills "work", but at what economy? That is why I have continually pointed you to the equations. No amount of your fanciful thoughts can ever change the simple fact that wind power varys with the cube of wind velocity. Furthermore, there are physical losses that are a fact of nature when you try to harness that power and convert it into electricity. I have attempted to get you to recognize these limiting factors by pointing you to the established math and physics that limit how much windmills can be scaled-up to be a viable solution in low velocity winds. And yet you have ignored or otherwise resisted my call to realistic science. Leaving behind the equations I have pointed out for ideal and real wind power extraction, let's examine your other claim that these devices "run themselves" for 30 years:
There is a single "achilles heel" that any piece of rotating machinery possesses that drives the reliability (lifetime) of any such device. These are the ball bearings. The smoother and the more uniform the ball bearings in any rotating piece of machinery, the more efficient the machine they are part of. But... even if every single ball bearing in a wind turbine was machined to ultra-smoothness and each was machined to great precision with respect to each other, there is still the problem of how those bearings wear-down over their lifetime. As the generator continues to rotate, the ball bearings wear down and develop very small pits. Those pits increase rolling friction, and that increase in rolling friction has very deterimental effects to the efficiency by which the generator can convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. These little, innocuous componets are the biggest contributor to the simple fact that no wind turbine could be built that would be able to operate for 30 years without maintenance of their ball bearings and/or the ball bearing raceways.
Now, given that I have a lot of experience with motors in my profession as a flight control engineer, let me show you the simple math that governs current state-of-the-art for reliability of DC brushless motors (same sort of mechanical device that would be used as a generator). We measure reliability in Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) in terms of total operating hours. Currently, if you can get a DC brushless motor/generator that has a MTBF of 30,000 hours before it requires bearing maintenance, you've got yourself a good product. If you do the math and convert 30,000 continuous operating hours into years of continuous operation, you get about 3.4 years. That is an entire order of magnitude LESS than what you have claimed. I am only showing you the reality (physical and mathematical) surrounding your idea. There are hurdles to be overcome, and while you are either not aware of them or you wish to ignore them, I wish to point them out so that you and others can learn that science and engineering are not as "easy" as you would like to think they are.
I would also love nothing more than for this to be possible. But I implore you to exmaine the problems that I have only begun to outline above. If it really were as easy as you seem to make it, don't you think companies would be doing it (and profiting from it) on a massively large scale already?
I don't quite understand all the points you are making here, but I will let Darby's treatment of this stand, as he has (once again) outlined the precepts of "good science". If you can falsify my math, I welcome you to do so. And you are correct, if it can be falsified in even one case, then it is not "truth". But so far, there are ONLY TWO extensions beyond existing science that my theories utilize (Mass and Time as vectors), and as yet I do not see how anyone has been able to falsify them.
Again, I do not have anything to add to this beyond what Darby has stated. Math is the language of science, but they are NOT equivalent.
IMO, you would be better to look at the Titor story for its agenda, and understand that the "time travel" part of the story WAS Titor's McGuffin that was attempting to make you believe the story. I am confident that "it is all about information and the manipulation thereof." You will not be able to shake my belief in this, as I have worked out the math that convinces me that Information is a higher dimensional metric over Energy.
And nor do I try to do this. In fact, you should be able to see that I continually implore people to FALSIFY my work (not simply agree with me). If you CAN show me where it is wrong, then please do. But I must also say that it is not sufficient to use "words" as a means to falsify it. Since I frame my theories in math, then they must be falsified either in math or with actual, physical, experimental data.
Enjoy the long weekend!
RMT
