Philip wrote: "There is no such thing as a solid . . . It is all space . . . Bernie, arn't you interested in the flywheel? get with the real world.. there might be money in it.. Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: Bernie Brauer To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:28 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Flywheel experiment. urgent for ALL. Philip wrote: "There is no such thing as a solid . . . It is all space . . . " I saw this whole New Age idea in quantum physics which is promoted by Deepak Chopra REFUTED in a book at Christian Publications, by two scientists who were Bible-believing Christians. I will have to try and find the two authors and article/chapter again. This is what was refuted, they called it a lie and a deception: Deepak Chopra: "Our senses play the same trick with reality at large. Our brains are too slow to register that every concrete object is winking in and out of existence at the quantum level thousands of times per second; therefore, we see solid objects where none in fact exist." from: http://ascension-2012.blogspot.com/2006/04/deepak-chopra-seeing-what-you-believe.html Bernie --- On Thu, 12/4/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [geocentrism] Flywheel experiment. urgent for ALL. To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008, 4:56 PM This may be an amazing revelation.. I want some PH D math experts to solve it.. My experiment is based on a real test.. It does what I say it does. No illusions. Please notice also for the conservative types... A new rule of presenting text... two or more full stops like this....replaces the need for a capital beginning the next phrase or sentence. Good idea HUH? and efficient...COZ MY SHIFT KEY IS FALTERING Perhaps it is the electrical training/education/asimov scienc fiction/ I received, but when I see the universe, I can see it as it really is, rather than to what my eyes limit me. There is no such thing as a solid.. It is all space... the only difference between space as in "outer space", and a solid, is that in the world, space is a bit more crowded. Molecules are galaxies. and they are in space. It all may come down to electrical charges.. spaced around . (pun intended) Therefore, when the world rotates, (should I say when an object like a plate rotates, because this world is unique) I see this molecule on the edge turning with it, and presenting the same face to the centre. Some cohesive force not gravity is causing this.. but the atoms have their own separate rotations within this structure. This cohesive force is/maybe included in what loads up the flywheel energy inherent to a spinning body of mass. If this cohesion was non existent then the flywheel theory would collapse or alter.. Thanks to Allens obstropolism, I have an idea....And while I am here, Allen, an axis like a line or a point has no dimension. It is a geometrical tool. at least when I ever refer to the term.... different entirely to an axel which has dimension. Can we model this as an experimental proof? I tried this experiment in simple form..it works. The wheel below in the diagram, or attached if not in view, we have all the grey circles as axels . The yellow circle represents a large disc or flywheel. On the rim of this flywheel are shown in blue four heavy 5kg discs ..centered 1 meter out . But keep in mind that we would consider an even amount of weights all around the rim for balance. In this diagram the weights are locked to their shafts and cannot turn independently hence the black bars show the constant positions as the blue wheels are forced to rotate with the main wheel...always facing the centre. . The problem is an easy mathmatical question for a phd math man. grin! Ive seen the pages of solutions to the flywheel. We are considering two sets of conditions. 1. Spinning the wheel at 3000rpm with all the blue weights/wheels locked to their shafts. and again , 2. Spinning the wheel at 3000rpm with all the blue wheels free to rotate on negligible/frictionless shafts. Will there be any difference in the amount of energy needed to bring the wheel up to its set speed of 3000 rpm in each case, and what will be the difference? It is my contention/guess and indicated under test, that in the second test the blue wheels will not alter their orientation, that their inertia will keep them always facing the same direction... these weights will have no spin. but they will "experience" a shaft that is spinning at 3000rpm on their bearing points. That latter is definite and true. easily proven by any on this list . My conclusion, but needs demonstrating by measured evidence, The first test, No 1. will take more power to reach full speed, than does test 2. This is because the first test requires all the weights to spin on their own centres at the periphery at 3000rpm. The energy dynamics are different. What is the recoverable energy from each test? If both tests reveal the same input and output power, for the flywheel theory, as it is identical mass in orbital motion/rotation, we have a mystery. If both tests reveal the same input power, we have a mystery, then Paul and I have a problem with our rotation philosophy... If so, then we have a delemma.. well we have a delemma either way! this is the same flywheel doing identical speeds with identical peripheral mass.. But the dynamics of experiment 1. involve additional energy stored in the mass of the blue wheels, which are physically rotating in their own space, whilst the blue wheels in experiment 2 are not so rotating. We have the further proof of the extra loading, by considering the implication of gumming up the bearings and so loading them with controllable torque. The math experts can have fun with this.. Ok I send a pic for the other position No 2 in the attachment as well.. Philip.