126 replies to this topic

[RingFenceTheCity]

I want you to understand the physics before attempting the math. Can you imagine a cluster of energised spiral structures which constantly emit much smaller spiral structures as radiation? This Archimedes principle means that a gravitational force of attraction can be imagined when the 'graviton' interacts with other structures. An impulse of energy is imparted to the 2nd body and the energy of the graviton is dimininished. Therefore *no energy violation* occurs in this simpler model.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 29 September 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

I want you to understand the physics before attempting the math.

I have heard that phrase many times from professors in my university classes. I have found that it is usually an indication of a poorly-taught class.

SunnyBlues, on 29 September 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

Can you imagine a cluster of energised spiral structures which constantly emit much smaller spiral structures as radiation?

Yes, I am familiar with your model, and I have previously objected to it, but I will accept it for the purposes of this discussion.

SunnyBlues, on 29 September 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

This Archimedes principle means that a gravitational force of attraction can be imagined when the 'graviton' interacts with other structures. An impulse of energy is imparted to the 2nd body and the energy of the graviton is dimininished. Therefore *no energy violation* occurs in this simpler model.

First, is this your model for all gravity, or just anomalous gravity?

Second, I have not been objecting to your mechanism of interaction, rather the spatial distribution of this interaction. In order for there to be a significant effect in one region (i.e. sinking a ship in the Bermuda triangle) but no effect in other regions (i.e. everywhere else that there are earthquake-detection accelerometers, iron-based magnetometers, or high-precision scientific equipment inside steel vacuum chambers) the force has to be extremely focussed.

It is therefore possible to generate ``free'' energy from this force by moving iron into the area of effect, letting the force pull the iron, them moving the iron out of the area of effect and back to the original position (and repeating the process).

This is why I called attention to the Divergence theorem, which has nothing to say about the interaction, only about the spatial distribution of the force field.

----------
By the way, why is bcc iron ``special'' in your model? What is so unique about body-centred cubics compared to face-centred cubics?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 29 September 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

First, is this your model for all gravity, or just anomalous gravity?

The Archimedes principle of spiral graviton interaction applies to both gravity fields.

sepulchrave, on 29 September 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

Second, I have not been objecting to your mechanism of interaction, rather the spatial distribution of this interaction. In order for there to be a significant effect in one region (i.e. sinking a ship in the Bermuda triangle) but no effect in other regions (i.e. everywhere else that there are earthquake-detection accelerometers, iron-based magnetometers, or high-precision scientific equipment inside steel vacuum chambers) the force has to be extremely focussed.

Yes, this is the idea of the gravity field being concentrated on the plane of rotation of it's creation. The idea is that regular matter is "spun" into irregular matter during the event before a stellar supernova. The irregular matter debris from this explosion is the source of Earth's exotic comets.

sepulchrave, on 29 September 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

It is therefore possible to generate ``free'' energy from this force by moving iron into the area of effect, letting the force pull the iron, them moving the iron out of the area of effect and back to the original position (and repeating the process).

No, this is where the confusion lies. No "free" energy occurs, see the explanation given above about it's origin. The graviton emission is simply focussed into a plane and not isotropic.

sepulchrave, on 29 September 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

By the way, why is bcc iron ``special'' in your model? What is so unique about body-centred cubics compared to face-centred cubics?

This is a working hypothesis of which I still need to finish the details. It's due to the tidal hypothesis of the ice ages with the exotic gravity filed of Jupiter attracting the iron core of the Earth. If it affected all things alike, this additional groundbreaking hypothesis wouldn't fit so easily, tha's all.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 01 October 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

No, this is where the confusion lies. No "free" energy occurs, see the explanation given above about it's origin. The graviton emission is simply focussed into a plane and not isotropic.

Does the focussed graviton emission use up the mass-energy of the exotic matter?

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 01 October 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Does the focussed graviton emission use up the mass-energy of the exotic matter?

The term "mass" refers to an isotropic model and therefore shouldn't be used in my model. But yes, the structure-energy of matter is deemed to diminish with graviton emission.

[sepulchrave]

SunnyBlues, on 02 October 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

The term "mass" refers to an isotropic model and therefore shouldn't be used in my model. But yes, the structure-energy of matter is deemed to diminish with graviton emission.

All matter loses ```structure-energy'', or just your exotic matter?

How long does it take until the exotic matter dissipates entirely?

How is new exotic matter created?

[keithisco]

A permanent magnet and keeper, produces work (retaining the "Keeper")with no detectable loss of Field Strength. External influences aside (such as Heat, mechanical intervention, and other de-magnetising influences) it is posited that the Field Strength is eternal aside from entropic decay of materials.

"Work" with no energy input to maintain that "Work", strongly suggests a gap in the Standard Model, not to mention Newtonian, and Eisteinian principles. So I suggest (nothing stronger) that to dismiss "Free Energy" as a violation of Scientific Principles is possibly too strident a stance to take.

IMO

[sepulchrave]

keithisco, on 02 October 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

A permanent magnet and keeper, produces work

``Work'' is the product of a force moving an object over a distance. Neither keeping an object in place nor motion that is orthogonal to the force constitute ``doing work''.

Magnets do not violate conservation of energy; and magnetic fields are conservative fields.

Conservation of energy is equivalent to physical laws being independent of time. Like most of physics, while conservation of energy is often expressed as an axiom, it is actually justified from abstract mathematics (see Noether's theorem).

Because of this it is reasonable to state that there is ``no such thing as free energy'', without bothering to take into account the specifics of the situation. To admit otherwise is equivalent to saying:

• Mathematical reasoning is not appropriate for explaining the Universe, and all of science is a waste of time, or
  
• We have somehow been unable to detect the time-dependence of physical laws, despite centuries of study.

[keithisco]

sepulchrave, on 02 October 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

``Work'' is the product of a force moving an object over a distance. Neither keeping an object in place nor motion that is orthogonal to the force constitute ``doing work''.

Magnets do not violate conservation of energy; and magnetic fields are conservative fields.

Conservation of energy is equivalent to physical laws being independent of time. Like most of physics, while conservation of energy is often expressed as an axiom, it is actually justified from abstract mathematics (see Noether's theorem).

Because of this it is reasonable to state that there is ``no such thing as free energy'', without bothering to take into account the specifics of the situation. To admit otherwise is equivalent to saying:

• Mathematical reasoning is not appropriate for explaining the Universe, and all of science is a waste of time, or
  
• We have somehow been unable to detect the time-dependence of physical laws, despite centuries of study.

Excuse me? The work is the opposition to gravity therefore "Work" is expended by retaining the "keeeper" in a localised gravitational frame of reference. The amount of "Work" being the expenditure of energy to prevent Gravity from having an effect. In a gravitational field (in this case the acceleration of gravity) on a massive object any such massive object is subject to "Work" to remain in place.

Your last 2 statements are simply rhettoric:

• Mathematical reasoning is not appropriate for explaining the Universe, and all of science is a waste of time, or
  
• We have somehow been unable to detect the time-dependence of physical laws, despite centuries of study.

and this in particular - WHAT centuries of research where Time is a co-efficient, or even a dependency of current Scientific orthodoxy??

Noether's Theorem does nothing more than prove A =A. it is a Tautology, it suggests symmetries but nothing more. it is not a viable proof

[sepulchrave]

keithisco, on 02 October 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Excuse me? The work is the opposition to gravity therefore "Work" is expended by retaining the "keeeper" in a localised gravitational frame of reference. The amount of "Work" being the expenditure of energy to prevent Gravity from having an effect. In a gravitational field (in this case the acceleration of gravity) on a massive object any such massive object is subject to "Work" to remain in place.

That is not the definition of work commonly used, nor the definition that applies to determining whether a force field violates conservation of energy or not.

The energy of a system may only be lost (or gained) through dynamics. ``Holding in place'' is statics.

This isn't really controversial.

A magnet stuck to a fridge door does not require work to stay there.

[keithisco]

sepulchrave, on 02 October 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

That is not the definition of work commonly used, nor the definition that applies to determining whether a force field violates conservation of energy or not.

The energy of a system may only be lost (or gained) through dynamics. ``Holding in place'' is statics.

This isn't really controversial.

A magnet stuck to a fridge door does not require work to stay there.

A Magnet being moved through planes that are not perpendicular to applied force IS producing Work.

By counteracting the "force" of 9.8mS2 it is producing work, yet with no identifiable source for the Energy required.

[RingFenceTheCity]

sepulchrave, on 02 October 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

All matter loses ```structure-energy'', or just your exotic matter?

Yes, all matter loses 'structure-energy' due to radiation of particle/waves.

sepulchrave, on 02 October 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

How long does it take until the exotic matter dissipates entirely?

I haven't worked this out just yet.

sepulchrave, on 02 October 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

How is new exotic matter created?

I've *TOLD* you more than once already! From the collapse and spin of a star before a supernova event.

[RingFenceTheCity]

keithisco, on 02 October 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Excuse me? The work is the opposition to gravity therefore "Work" is expended by retaining the "keeeper" in a localised gravitational frame of reference. The amount of "Work" being the expenditure of energy to prevent Gravity from having an effect. In a gravitational field (in this case the acceleration of gravity) on a massive object any such massive object is subject to "Work" to remain in place.

Your last 2 statements are simply rhettoric:

• Mathematical reasoning is not appropriate for explaining the Universe, and all of science is a waste of time, or
  
• We have somehow been unable to detect the time-dependence of physical laws, despite centuries of study.

and this in particular - WHAT centuries of research where Time is a co-efficient, or even a dependency of current Scientific orthodoxy??

Noether's Theorem does nothing more than prove A =A. it is a Tautology, it suggests symmetries but nothing more. it is not a viable proof

You're right of course kiethisco. Thank you for putting Sep in his place for me.
(1) Here's my explanation: Time is a construct and *not* an entity. A pendulum is a clock which swings more slowly in orbit of the Earth compared to it's surface.

The clock runs slower in a lower gravitational field = correct statement.
Time runs slower in a lower gravitational field = incorrect statement.

(2) The magnet and keeper is an excellent analogy when you say "A permanent magnet and keeper, produces work (retaining the "Keeper")with no detectable loss of Field Strength". So thanks again for the common sense input.

(3) I read Charles Berlitz's book 'Without A Trace' last night and was astounded at the way the idea of an extra force which suddenly sped ships and aircraft at tremdendous rates seemed to fit! The evidence is shocking when viewed in conjunction with the 'rocking exotic comet below the crust'. The amount of lateral movement in such a short time shudders the imagination.

I also took down 50 dates of ship losses given in his table and added 10 flying incidents which have added information from his text which indicate a lateral translation by an extra force. The match for the quarter before New Moon is *good*. I haven't done the stats, I'll leave that to someone else for now.

Edited by SunnyBlues, 03 October 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[sepulchrave]

keithisco, on 03 October 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

A Magnet being moved through planes that are not perpendicular to applied force IS producing Work.

By counteracting the "force" of 9.8mS2 it is producing work, yet with no identifiable source for the Energy required.

I don't understand. Where is the magnet being moved?

The magnet stuck to the fridge on the Earth is moving around the Sun, and work is being done moving the magnet through the Sun's magnetic field, but this energy is being supplied by the Earth. The Sun's magnetic field, the ionic solar wind, etc. all provide what is effectively a force of friction on the motion of the Earth. The Earth is (very very gradually) being slowed down by this process.

But for the fridge + magnet + Earth system, energy is not lost (or gained) when the magnet sticks to the fridge and resists the Earth's gravitational field.

SunnyBlues, on 03 October 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Yes, all matter loses 'structure-energy' due to radiation of particle/waves.

Why do all fundamental particles of a given type have identical masses, if these particles are radiating gravitational energy?

The lifetime of a proton is at least 10²⁹ years, doesn't this mean that the radiant gravitational energy is negligible?

Why have all measurements of gravity to-date suggested that it is not a radiation field?

SunnyBlues, on 03 October 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

I've *TOLD* you more than once already! From the collapse and spin of a star before a supernova event.

Sorry, my mistake. But if you would be so kind:

How is exotic dark matter formed from gravitationally-driven collisions with baryonic matter? What quantum numbers define exotic dark matter?

How does gravitationally-driven collapse circumvent conservation of quarks? Why have high-energy collider experiments not detected any loss (or gain) in the number of quarks?

SunnyBlues, on 03 October 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

(3) I read Charles Berlitz's book 'Without A Trace' last night and was astounded at the way the idea of an extra force which suddenly sped ships and aircraft at tremdendous rates seemed to fit! The evidence is shocking when viewed in conjunction with the 'rocking exotic comet below the crust'. The amount of lateral movement in such a short time shudders the imagination.

I just want to be perfectly clear you are aware of what you are claiming: You are saying that the effective gravitational acceleration would spontaneously increase by a significant fraction (say, 10% or more) for a significant period of time (at least a few minutes) to drag a ship or an aircraft to their doom, and yet this change in effective gravity has never been observed by any of the high-precision scientific instruments in labs around the world and in orbit around the planet.

There are many research groups actively looking for evidence of gravitational waves but thus far have not been able to detect anomalous variations in gravity in excess of ~10^-19%, and yet you feel this does not count as evidence against your theory.

[keithisco]

sepulchrave, on 03 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

I don't understand. Where is the magnet being moved?

The magnet stuck to the fridge on the Earth is moving around the Sun, and work is being done moving the magnet through the Sun's magnetic field, but this energy is being supplied by the Earth. The Sun's magnetic field, the ionic solar wind, etc. all provide what is effectively a force of friction on the motion of the Earth. The Earth is (very very gradually) being slowed down by this process.

But for the fridge + magnet + Earth system, energy is not lost (or gained) when the magnet sticks to the fridge and resists the Earth's gravitational field.
.

Sepulchrave, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my position on this (no sarcasm at all, I really appreciate different approaches).

From my original posit (though I admit I did not explain very clearly); the magnet can be rotated in any plane either perpendicular to, or at any angular deviation  plane from the Sun or the Earth's magnetic fileds. In  no case is it possible to measure any reduction in strength of the magnets own field.

I agree that energy is not lost or even measurably being expended, by a permanent magnet - but I do not accept that a potential source of replenishment of energy expended,  is actually from the Earth, because of the above statements that would suggest a negative (or positive) resultant in the magnet's field strength should affect the strength of the field and be measurable.

@Sunnyblues: ships sinking very quickly as a result of methane release in the oceans is a verifiable phenomenon. The sudden loss of bouyancy from such cavitation is a clear process, and very quick.

Edited by keithisco, 03 October 2012 - 06:25 PM.