[geocentrism] Re: Flywheel experiment. urgent for ALL.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:33:21 +1000
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.
Other related posts:
