Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

"New" hoverboard science


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

#1 imagine

imagine

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 14 posts

Posted 4 September 2008 - 12:50 AM

You want to make a hoverboard?

There is a problem. How am I supposed to talk to you about this here? There is censorship.

I have worked out the science, apparently, of real hoverboards. That is, like in the Michael J. Fox movie "back to the future".

I have discovered an entire branch of physics, unknown to those who might claim to be leading scientists, it appears.

We need to talk somewhere else; I am looking for investors in this technology.

I can give some clues:

there is a phenomenon in skateboarding, called "the ollie". It is the most basic trick.
The physics of it are amazing. I discovered a direct link to the science-fiction-like physics of potentially real back-to-the-future style hoverboards.

Another amazing phenomenon is, some people can "ollie" with a "fingerboard" (apparently some people can do awesome tricks, visible on You-Tube). A fingerboard is a tiny precision skateboard that instead of two legs, you place two fingers on it.

There is an entire new branch of physics I discovered, which has an old name "centrifugal force" (alleged to be a pseudo force)(I call it "grip"; as to experience this always involves "grip": if you are sitting on the back bench seat of a car and it goes around a corner and you feel yourself being "thrown" sideways ("centrifugal force"), if there was no friction, how would you know "centrifugal force" existed?)

The science I discovered is the inverse of electro-magnetism. There is a formal representation of this new science which is closely related to Maxwell's Equations of electro-magnetism. I call this inverse science (which happens to also be called "centrifugal force", and be very misunderstood by orthodox physics) "magno-electricity". Like "electro-magnetism"; it has real natural world examples. Not "lightning" , which is a real world example of "electro-magnetism" ( which I also can call "slip"); but "lightening" which is a real world representation of "magno-electricity"
(or "grip"). Sometimes rocks fall, and collisions among the rocks are such that they experience a kind of "charge" (which I might call "Van de Waals charging") (or magno-electric charging), which partially disconnects a rock e.g. from Earth's gravity. It doesn't float necessarily, just doesn't press as much into the ground as its mass would suggest.

You can experience this yourself. Go to a climbing wall with a steep overhang and lots of good holds. Climb up (with top-rope protection) and after 40ft you may be surprised when you take a rest, that gravity is "weaker" than expected. Reason: the synchronisation of pushing and pulling as you climbed the overhanging cliff sets up a series of internal "collisions" re: inside your body, such that the Van De Waals forces (which resist gravity) are re-organised in a broader way: gravity is diluted. It's a weird experience.

I worked out heaps about this whole subject. Even where on the periodic table to find
elements asssociated with this phenomenon. I worked out how in theory to build a hoverboard of full sci-fi capability! I need investors!

#2 DrP

DrP

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 839 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 4 September 2008 - 03:32 PM

:rolleyes:

You can experience this yourself. Go to a climbing wall with a steep overhang and lots of good holds. Climb up (with top-rope protection) and after 40ft you may be surprised when you take a rest, that gravity is "weaker" than expected. Reason: the synchronisation of pushing and pulling as you climbed the overhanging cliff sets up a series of internal "collisions" re: inside your body, such that the Van De Waals forces (which resist gravity) are re-organised in a broader way: gravity is diluted. It's a weird experience.


The effect has to be psycological. That stuff about Van Der Waals forces if complete rubbish.

Perhaps your post was ment to be a funny joke, if so I missed that one, sorry.:D

I need investors!


So how much is this going to cost some unlucky chump then?

Edited by DrP, 4 September 2008 - 03:34 PM.
multiple post merged

  • 0
!!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE POINT TWENTYONE JIGGAWATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#3 swansont

swansont

    Shaken, not stirred

  • Moderators
  • 27,409 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 4 September 2008 - 08:15 PM

I have discovered an entire branch of physics


No, I don't think you have.


Frictionlessly split from hoverboard thread.
  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum                                   To shake my vodka martini, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#4 imagine

imagine

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 14 posts

Posted 4 September 2008 - 10:35 PM

As I said, there is censorship at this forum- it isn't a forum; it is a place where people aere bullied; and I find this highly offensive.

#5 bascule

bascule

    Genius

  • Validating
  • 8,433 posts
  • LocationThe center of the universe (from my frame of reference)

Posted 4 September 2008 - 11:10 PM

The only practical way I can imagine making a hoverboard would be to make the surface you intend to hover over a powerful electromagnet and have the board be a permanent magnet of opposite polarity. Effectively: a single-person maglev.

The board (or the floor) could contain a sensor which measures the distance between the board and the floor and varies the strength of the magnetic field accordingly. That way the board wouldn't go flying up in the air if you fell off.
  • 0
Radicalism: The conservatism of tomorrow injected into the affairs of today.
-- Ambrose Bierce

#6 Sayonara

Sayonara

    Doomy doom ♫

  • Administrators
  • 13,739 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 4 September 2008 - 11:23 PM

As I said, there is censorship at this forum- it isn't a forum; it is a place where people aere bullied; and I find this highly offensive.

At no point in this thread has censorship been implemented.

However if you continue with the persecuted genius routine there is a statistically significant probability value which says that it may well crop up.
  • 0

The Dictionary is not a technical resource.


#7 insane_alien

insane_alien

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 10,094 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 4 September 2008 - 11:38 PM

That stuff about Van Der Waals forces if complete rubbish.


well, it depends on the situation.

the van der waals force can be used to defy gravity otherwise you would never be able to pick up frozen xenon or any other frozen noble gas as the solid is held together by the van der waals force.

however, this just displaces the problem as the hover board would have to hang off something then instead of sitting on it and it would be a really weak bond.

and the van der waals forces are attractive by definition.
  • 0
Tired of waiting around for a reply on the forums? Use IRC, 'I don't know how' is no longer an excuse.

"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.

#8 Edtharan

Edtharan

    Organism

  • Senior Members
  • 1,639 posts

Posted 5 September 2008 - 03:48 AM

As I said, there is censorship at this forum- it isn't a forum; it is a place where people aere bullied; and I find this highly offensive.

This is a forum dedicated to scientific principles. One of these is that whatever is posted must conform to reality.

Science is an attempt to separate any idea from ideas about reality. As such if something does not conform to reality it is rejected. This is not censorship as you are indicating, but a reality check.

IF you provide evidence that supports your claims and show that there is no evidence that disproves your claim, then your ideas are accepted.

IF and you don't provide evidence for or against your claims, than that is just speculation.

IF, despite evidence being presented that disproves your claims and you continue regardless of the evidence against you, then you are rejected as, despite your belief that you are correct, reality says otherwise.

If you want to call it censorship, then it is not us that is doing the censoring, it is instead reality that is doing the censoring. :doh:

The physics of it are amazing. I discovered a direct link to the science-fiction-like physics of potentially real back-to-the-future style hoverboards.

As someone who used to skate a bit (yes I could do an ollie, but not much more :rolleyes:). I know that the physics of an ollie can be completely explained by simple physics. No sci-fi stuff is needed.

When you start an Ollie, you kick back on the board. This raises the front of the board. Also, once the back of the board is pressing on the ground, you are effectively jumping (on one leg so it is actually really hopping).

Then as your foot and the board it is pressing on leaves the ground, inertia is carrying you upwards. You also have to time it right as you also need the inertia of the board (as it was kicked up too just before you started your jump) to carry the board upwards as well. You can also use the friction of the grip on the board (that rough grainy stuff like sandpaper) to help drag the board upwards even further (but that doesn't really give much more height).

If you timed your jump right with the inertia of the board, then you will both move upwards together. Then at the height of the jump, you push your front foot down and this rotates the board. You can control the motion of the rotation of the board by putting more or less pressure of the back or front foot.

The idea here is to balance the board so that when you land you land with all four wheels at the same time. If you don't then the impact will send the board flying and you onto the ground in a very unceremonious way. :eek:

So it is entirely explainable by simple Newtonian physics. It might look like they are defying gravity, but that is only because they jumped.

You don't say that if you jump of the ground you are defying gravity do you? No, because you know that the energy needed to lift you off the ground came from you pushing off the ground with your legs.

It is no different for an ollie. The skateboarder is really just flicking the board upwards by kicking the back down and jumping of the ground to follow it.

I can send a pen on my desk flying in much the same way. I can flick down one end and the leaver action sends the pen upwards. It is not really any different for the skateboard, it is just the with an ollie, the rider is controlling the motion of the board in the air with their feet.

So, here is evidence against your claims. Simple Newtonian physics can (and does) explain the ollie. Occam's razor states that a claim that requires less complexity is the preferred solution.

Here you need to introduce a whole new branch of physics, just in an attempt to explain an ollie. Yet it can also be explained by using only what we already know. Which introduces less complexity? :doh:
  • 0
This sentance you are now reading is false...

#9 DrP

DrP

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 839 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 5 September 2008 - 08:37 AM

well, it depends on the situation.

the van der waals force can be used to defy gravity otherwise you would never be able to pick up frozen xenon or any other frozen noble gas as the solid is held together by the van der waals force.

....and the van der waals forces are attractive by definition.


They provide a force..... but they don't ignore or defy gravity. Its like saying I picked up the bag, so I ignored gravity. I didn't ignore it, I overcame it with a greater force. The origional post claimed that at 40feet, gravity is diluted due to the re-arrangement of wan der waals forces within the body - set up by internal frictions inside your body during the climb. This is why I said it was rubbish.

As I said, there is censorship at this forum- it isn't a forum; it is a place where people aere bullied; and I find this highly offensive.


Sorry if you thought my post was rude then - It wasn't an attempt at bullying. It's just that you get alot of people claiming the impossible and asking for money to make it happen. Happens alot. Unluky or stupid people that fall for it may well part with their money and regret it later.

On hoverboards and centripetal force: You've got me thinking (and this almost certainly won't work!! Just speculating) What if you had a series of balls on chains spinning very quickly under the board. Instead of them spinning round and round, their path is impeaded so they have to spin up in little semi circles (so that the ball's path is the same as one of those indoor running tracks - oval with raised ends) When the balls go round the raised ends there would be some upward force applied - however this may be cancelled out when the ball returns back to its origional path (even if its return to horisontal motion is smoothed out). WOn't work, but interesting to think about.
  • 0
!!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE POINT TWENTYONE JIGGAWATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#10 insane_alien

insane_alien

    Genius

  • Senior Members
  • 10,094 posts
  • LocationScotland

Posted 5 September 2008 - 09:02 AM

They provide a force..... but they don't ignore or defy gravity. Its like saying I picked up the bag, so I ignored gravity. I didn't ignore it, I overcame it with a greater force.


i didn't say ignore. don't put words in my mouth. i said defy which means 'acts against' much like pressure differentials are used to defy gravity with planes.

The origional post claimed that at 40feet, gravity is diluted due to the re-arrangement of wan der waals forces within the body - set up by internal frictions inside your body during the climb. This is why I said it was rubbish.


yeah, that is rubbish as its electrostatic repulsion doing the hanging on more than anything else and all the gravity is still there.

what causes you to feel really light is that there are certain positions you can get yourself into where you don't really need to use a lot of force keeping yourself in that position. (next time your at the beach bury your legs in the sand and see which is easier, standing up straight or leaning back at an angle) it is the same principle in rock climbing.
  • 0
Tired of waiting around for a reply on the forums? Use IRC, 'I don't know how' is no longer an excuse.

"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.

#11 DrP

DrP

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 839 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 5 September 2008 - 09:31 AM

i didn't say ignore. don't put words in my mouth. i said defy which means 'acts against' much like pressure differentials are used to defy gravity with planes.


lol..:cool: chill out o squirrel of wrath :D I know what you ment - I just wanted to make sure:D.
  • 0
!!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE POINT TWENTYONE JIGGAWATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#12 imagine

imagine

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 14 posts

Posted 6 September 2008 - 10:28 AM

If anyone is interested, here goes:

it is obviously impossible to have a free conversation here. I have witnessed the (alleged) appalling abuse of people here. Einstein would never survive this forum, nor anyone genuinely able to discover hitherto unrecognised secrets of the natural world; so it seems.

The problem may partly come from what has happened in the university physics world itself; where ego, status, self-importance, "hero-worship" etc. etc. result in an output of repressed over-subservient-to-authority graduates and under-graduates whose native talents have been firmly squashed.

It is very sad.

The only way to rescue this forum, is to make it fair. That means no person who actually participates, should have any power to move posts to a "trash can" called "pseudo science and speculations". If participants in discussions are to talk freely, it will have to be somewhere where everyone has no more power to move posts or ban than the next person. Rules of decency are then applied
by mediators who are not participants.

If scientific standards are really a worry; "pseudoscience" and "speculations" should be separated; "challenges to orthodox thinking" could be added; and only a non-participant could shift posts and only in extreme circumstances (speculating is part of breaking new ground and developing new theories and belongs in my opinion, to at least some degree, in ordinary physics discussions)

I appreciate that some people are trying to be decent.


Incidentally, a real ollie does not require, as far as I am aware, the back of the board to touch the ground; it is not jumping. It involves pushing down say on one leg causing the other half of the board to tip up; but countering that with a down-and sideways-movement with the other leg, and kind of canter-levering the board in to the air. I've done it briefly.

(If you are REALLY interested, and there is some speculation at this point: the elements involved in "magno-electricity" are the Rare earths. If you look at their electron shell configuration; and the role of "much-of-a-muchness" in both how a TRUE ollie is executed; and how a climber gets an "unexpected weakening of gravity", it's all related. The relevant everyday material is clay.

The trick with the Van de Waals is a factorisation of them. At its limit (gravitational disconnection) you have a shell effect: there are no internal "walls" stacking up against gravity; the only wall is the outer boundary of the object. It is real freaky stuff this, probably could scare people as it's quite "other-worldy" or "off the earth" science.
Now there is speculation here; the climbing evidence is real; so is the physics of skidding (which is related: a skier effectively makes a "hover board" out of their skis during a skid); no-one to my knowledge has fully "switched off" local gravity.

However, as it is a REAL science; you can work it out. Just as you know how to make a magnet; there is a process of building this kind of charge. The climber pushing and pulling themselves up an overhanging cliff builds enough of this charge to experience first-hand an unexpected additional rest from gravity when they stop. It is not magic. It is not psychological (nice guess though).

It is also related to why different ways of hitting a golf ball produce different results.


Now here is a speculation you can try for yourself: another pattern related to this whole thing is a geometrical shape called a "pebble" (or oblate speroid).
A metal called "misch metal" or similar aparently contains traces of all the Rare earths. Get some, shape it like a particular kind of pebble; vibrate it at a particular frequency; and watch what happens.

You want a flying saucer, you might just have one. Now that I agree is speculation.


The rock-climb effect of an unexpected "holiday" from gravity" is real; is evidence; is part of a brand-new (If you like) science which I have worked out to a considerable extent.
To you, this science challenges your pre-conceptions. It is "alien" to you. It is vast. For every invention that uses electro-magnetism, it is like there is one in this new science.

Now it is true that some of it is speculative.

I decided in principle I most probably need to leave this forum, as you cannot have a discussion (I don't mind severe scientific critique that's valuable; but being constantly threatened with posts being booted away or being banned is not a power participants should be allowed to intimidate each other with in my humble opinion) .

Re: local "gravity invisibility":

A related subject appears to be "drifting":

A DVD "Need for Speed: Tokyo Drift" (special features) explains how to drift a motor vehicle. It includes a world champion.
I apparently figured out the physics of 'drifting"; and what I found is consistent with the comments people made in the DVD.

First: about "carving" of skis:

In "How The Racers Ski", by Warren witherall, an all-time classic book of ski-racing from the late 80s (when skis were longer and straighter, but had enough sidecut to carve a curved narrow line if pressured and placed at an angle to the snow), the author gives the "biggest secret" in his book.

called "The Rise-Line Secret"; it is:

If you are skiing a round turn down the hill around a gate; the "fall-line" is the path a ball would take rolling down the hill from the gate. The "rise-line" is if you extend the fall-line uphill from the fall-line.
Get in a light inside edge for the new turn, then wait till your skis cross the rise-line above the gate. At that point, strongly pressure and edge the skis- a "comma-shape" turn will result with excellent grip. Why? because at the moment the skis cross the rise-line; centrifugal force and gravity are in opposition to each other. Minimum tendency to skid here.

(This works amazingly)

A modification of this secret may be needed now-a-days due to changes in ski design.

I worked out:

Drifting on skis:

When the skier comes horizontally level with the gate, centrifugal force and gravity are at right angles to each other. Maintain this balance, and I call that "drifting"- the line doesn't come under the gate but "drifts off partly down, partly across the slope, gradually more downhill. To drift on skis: keep an even keel: i.e. keep an equal balance between centrifugal force (traction control) and gravity (creates a "plank" or board effect (like you could walk up and down the ski like a surfer on a long board): a "wave equation" for skis (they seem to float ).


(Many discoveries can follow: take this "drift-line and map a parallel drift-line through the gate. The point above the gate where a skier crosses the "drift-line" occurs a little earlier than where they cross the "rise-line". Using modern carver skis; briefly engage the carver skis edges at the moment of crossing the "drift-line" and you can carve the skis as much or as little as you want after that through the turn (a theory). (Rise-line secret produces "drift acceleration" so comma-shaped turn; so easy to step the skis (to carve a variable line). Drift-line secret produces "step acceleration" so round-shape turn; so easy to ski the steps (bump skiing)(accelerate and decelerate the skis at will)(theory).

(Figured out Bode Miller's (U.S. ski-racer) breakthrough in how bindings are mounted may be allowing "double turn" technique related to above)


Drifting a motor vehicle: (this is not intended to substitute for professional instruction )

My theory;
Brief counter rotation from applying the handbrake (causes extra (sudden) traction inducing a start to skid)(Clutch in)
Sudden grip of tyres gives an overlap in defining wheel spin and momentum.
Wheel spin<->momentum so uncertainty of where the road is.
Momentum drives the car.
(handbrake takes time to engage so put clutch in after so engine spin and wheelspin "engage" gyroscopically to prevent "overtaking" i.e. gyroscopic swing of vehicle ).

If accelerate: the car rotates inwards about ita centre approximately. Engine drives wheels, get car spins in; it holds its overall curved trajectory i.e. "in control".

If decelerate: engine slows down wheels; get engine braking/braking (one or other or both): car could go either way i.e. "out of control" (car spins out both ways)

By using various visual and other cues a driver bcan develop "perfect pitch"i.e. can "tune the car" while driving (accelerate and decelerate at will to create a car that seems to flip over from end to end;
as if the car is 'weightless" in that it keeps to a narrow track even while turning because it makes a fair balance between gravity and centrifugal force (grip).


Theory: gravitational drifting and gravitational repulsive force:

What is centrifugal force?
Going around a circular path, the centrifugal force is directed where you were heading a quarter-turn ago. As you travel over rough ground, the ground brakes you (lurch backward) and you trip forward (lurch forward). After a quarter turn, these two merge (they are residual effects now acting at right angles to the quarter-turn-later (new) direction of travel. The structure of the Van De Waals forces appears to be identical to this lurch forwards, lurch backwards concept. This would mean Van De Waals is centifugal force in the making!


Going down a ski slope, a drift will incorporate gravity. "Gravitational drifting" would require a second lot of gravity. The ordinary drifting of skis on a slope involves the same idea as a drifted car: as if the whole length of the ski (or frame of the motor vehicle) is mapping itself lengthwise. Could call this effect a "board". Question is how to make a "hover board"- a "board" is already hovering in the sense it is frame-mapping (at least to some extent) along its path. (This is all apparently related to the tail structure of comet MacNaught on its spectacular re-emergence from going around the sun!)



A drifted ski can easily be rotated about a central axis at right angles to the ski extending above the ski. Same I guess with a drifted car in some way- not exactly - the car does some rotation around this axis as it takes a drift path around a corner. An axel (this is inspired by DrP) at right angles to the first axel , in a plane parallel to the ski; alows a full range of movement in any direction- (?) i.e. a "hoverboard effect".
Like an astronaut in outer space!

If the drifting skier put their poles out to each side at right angles to their direction of travel (or the car-driver put their elbow out the window and their hand on the roof of the car) then perhaps conservation of momentum (and momentum is doing the steering in drifting!) would cause this "steering uncertainty" to be repelled. But if you resist pulling the poles in, then

maybe momentum has nowhere to go; gravity is fed back
a gravitational repulsive force is generated?


Another perspective is: by analysing gravity I found: that the equation for the force of gravity F = G m1m2/r squared can be derived by asking the question "how do you know what is background"?

I found "gravity" appears to be consistent with:

gravity as background
gravity as the geometry of space
gravity as conservation of information
gravity as space-grip

force of gravity as "parallax" (a fixed angle of background)
inertia as "time grip"
gravity as "resistance to inertia"

("quantum gravity" as a fixed background
"loop quantum gravity" as "loop x 2" as "a string".)


It is possible for information to be internally "scanned" by a body such as to make it independent of a local gravity field?

Edtharan gives a plausible alternative explanation of an "ollie"; the type I was describing does not involve any contact between the back of the board and the ground.

The climbing effect is significant and very real; I was amazed by it and afterwards worked out a way of explaining it. It lasts for a short while. My activity in physics has real consequences, so far in sport. I figured out many secrets of nature that sports people must have stumbled across!

My methods can deliver: Someone bounced on their back to standing for ten bounces on a trampoline; wearing a polarfleece jacket. They held out their hand and invited me to make contact. I got an electric shock.

Using my thinking, I figured out if I tensed the muscles in my hand, the shock would be neutralised. The experiment was done again, I tensed the muscles of my hand; a crackle occured- but no electric shock! I might not get it right al the time, but get it right often enough, so far I think!

#13 DrP

DrP

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 839 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 6 September 2008 - 04:24 PM

There is so much in your thread that is just basic misunderstanding. What level are you in terms of qualifications? I don't know how old you are, but I would reccomend doing some kind of course in the physics of mechanics or chemical physcs or something. Are you planning to do a degree?

As an example:

My methods can deliver: Someone bounced on their back to standing for ten bounces on a trampoline; wearing a polarfleece jacket. They held out their hand and invited me to make contact. I got an electric shock.


This is no different to walking across a carpet in nylon socks. When you touch some when they get a shock. Same as rubbing a ballon on a jumper and then sticking it to the wall - it is due to static electricity. It's effects are well known and documented.
  • 0
!!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE POINT TWENTYONE JIGGAWATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#14 Bignose

Bignose

    Maths Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 2,296 posts
  • LocationIowa

Posted 6 September 2008 - 07:28 PM

Here's some more "abuse":

Any math at all? Any way to make a testable, falsifiable, quantitative experiment to prove or disprove your ideas?

Words are nice and all, but they only tell a story like a novel. If you have some math to actually back up what you're saying, then present it. You claimed above something "closely related to Maxwell's Equations" so let's see it.
  • 0

#15 imagine

imagine

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 14 posts

Posted 8 September 2008 - 10:59 AM

In response to your request (I'm not expecting you to like what I am about to say, but you never know, I do not want to prejudge your response):

what I have discovered can include things that are much harder to stomach than what I have demonstrated so far; but note; if a being from a far distant part of the galaxy turned up at this place, and tried to explain to you their science, they would probably get a similar reaction to what I have had.

It is not necessarily a question of hierarchies of civilisation; the boomerang is thousands of years old aboriginal technology that’s pretty incredible. If you had never heard of it, scientists might have said that anything thrown by hand cannot surely travel so far away yet come back?
And to the ancient tribal group, what would they make of a mini video camera?

Yes I have discovered a lot; including a new branch of physics which I describe as the inverse of electro-magnetism. It comes with a vast array of potential new inventions.

When I investigated electro-magnetism, I found that it appears that everything written in this science fits the pattern:

"electro" as "generalisation" as "a set" (like "the set of horses" is a generalisation as it involves more than one horse)(although some may argue of a set containing one item; such a set relies on the potential of more than one, or how could you refer to what it was?)

"magnetic" as "specification": like two sets that overlap; "magnetic" as the region of overlap.

To my knowledge, ALL electro-magnetic physics is now derivable (Ohm's law, Maxwell. etc.etc.).

FROM A POST IN ANOTHER FORUM 3 YEARS AGO:


(NOTE: I AM MAPPING PHYSICS AS PATTERNS OF INFORMATION AT A VERY SIMPLE WAY. THIS IS PRE-MATH: MATH HAS AN EFFECT OF CATEGORISING SO MAY “FLIP” THE “MATH_FREE” PATTERNS SO THE “LAWS OF ELECTRO-MAGNETISM MAY SEEM TO SWAP NAMES”)

******************************************************************************

“What if categorise a field of common factors?

common to "car" and "truck":

engine
wheels
chassis
brakes
doors

If I categorise this field of common factors to "car" and "truck" by: "vehicle" (as they are all parts of vehicles)

I need a "double slit experiment".

The sample has to go through one hole ("car" or "truck") or the other hole ("truck" or "car").

All on the list are parts of vehicles so there are other ways of combining these items (ways that don't involve cars or trucks) by definition of "vehicle" being independently defined (outside "car; truck" ) .

These other ways of combining the items in the field of common factors to "car" and "truck"; allow free association into INTERNAL GROUPS e.g. "engines wheels".

These "internal groups" = Russell's "grains of spacetime" -time ("vehicle" being "space" to complete "space-time").

***************************************************************
Maxwell's Equations:

How differentiate "vehicle" from the Lie Group:
"car and truck"; "car"; "truck"?

That is: "how make the string, theoretical?

Or:
how maximise wellness (how MAX WELL)?
(curious: scientist inspired by own name?)

If "equation" (If allow all concepts to be units so exchangeable so equated in this manner by mathematics: vehicle units; car units, truck units, car truck "units" (obviously a problem!)(No wonder you get vectors)

you get "vector space".

"vehicle vehicle": Faraday's Law of induction!
"car" plus "truck": Ampere
"car" OR "truck": guess the generalisation (Gauss Law Electricity)(could be car or truck)(Keeping options open)("feel the electricity" say)
"truck" only (I could have said "car" only):
I've specified which one (but which one did I specify?) Guess the specification (Gauss Law of magnetism)

**************************************************************


Newton's Laws:


How differentiate "vehicle"?

How "new town" !?
How gravitate (how come together)?

Need car truck) car truck) that is "action, reaction";

OR

car car) or truck truck):

the car truck (the force) = mass (car or truck) times the acceleration

note:

acceleration = meters per second per second = speed per time per time.

time = self referent reference distance (a clock self-refers to the center in defining a distance on its perimeter; a pendulum self-refers in defining the distance of one swing by being defined as maintaining same start and end of that swing in next swing)

acceleration = distance per self referent reference distance per self referent referent distance = distance (any direction) PER distance ONE direction = "Meters"

that is

"distance comparison"

that is

"light on distance".

car car) or truck truck):

the car truck (the force)(the freedom of "car" and "truck" to associate) is in the pattern of TWO "car" and TWO "truck"

is = to the mass (The uncertainty: the "car" OR "truck") times the acceleration ("this "car" or "that "car")(this "truck" or that "truck").

(car or car; truck or truck) = light on distance = acceleration.

Inertia: "IN hurts ya":

"car" "truck" just stay as they are.

They come together by staying apart (The background is fixed).


A field of common factors; common to "car" and to "truck":

engine, wheels, chassis, brakes, doors.

Categorised by "vehicle" (as all are parts of vehicles).

The question was asked "how differentiate "vehicle" from "car and truck; car; truck"?

How new town and max well?

Need new town max well; that is "probe ability amplitudes" or "the mechanics of meeting" i.e. "quantum mechanics".

Now ("car and truck"; "car"; "truck") can split (Rutherford: rather ford: rather cross (associations here: "ford a river" = "cross a river"): split the split)(nucleate: integrate by double differentiation i.e. split the atom by atomising the split (firing modifications (alpha paricles) at it)(keep doing stuff like that and you'll get a limit on differentiation; i.e. "6 quarks for Mr. Mark (Mr. Integration by a slip differential (By a Higgs mechanism)(By gearing!)

IF carry "car" "truck" (Einstein Relativity)
then get: counting vehicles (Plank quantum)
2 vehicles = ghost (car truck, car truck).
One must be "car" of these "quantum superpositions", one must be "truck"; but which is which?

Go est (need movement to establish identity, i.e. "location". A collision took place (EPR experiment)(note: double slit experiment = Michelson-Morley-like? EPR-"experiment(?)"
= large-hadron-supercollider-like)...

THREE vehicles = "universal time" = (car truck car OR truck car truck) = vehicle certainty uncertainty (vehicle relativity)(speed of light constant) = Eigen functions (I gain functions)(engine x 2 etc.? ) Relative Eigen functions = Eingen value (I gain value)(engine/2 e.g.) (Unchecked these last ideas)

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 04:07 AM
Correction:

"These "internal groups" = Russell's "grains of spacetime" -time ("vehicle" being "space" to complete "space-time")."

An omission here; should read:

= Russell's "grains of space-time" (car trucks, cars, trucks): time (as self referent reference)

vehicle: space”

******************************************************************************

INVERSE OF ELECTRO-MAGNETISM:

“MAGNO-ELECTRICITY” OR “CENTRIFUGAL FORCE”:

Not four equations as with Maxwell, but four space-time diagrams of which one is a group of four related diagrams:

From recall:

“space” on horizontal axis, “time” on vertical axis:

The diagrams are (“non-equations of magno-electricity” i.e. “of” inverse polarisation - hence the link with Van de Waals forces” and what happens when a climber sets up shock-waves travelling in opposite directions through his body, affecting how his body stacks-up- i.e. how his body is able to be differentiated by a local; gravity such as Earth)(He creates “an artificial earth” you may suppose- a local blindness to Earth’s gravitational field.


(This is ALIEN MATHEMATICS)(I’m supposing/thinking !)


The rare earth elements are postulated to already have this- if you vibrate them at the right frequency within the appropriate spacial structure; you get an inversion of how they are defined as matter-distibution)
(Somewhat speculative)

The Space-Time diagrams; for the science of “magno-electricity” (or “centrifugal force”(or “grip”)(the inverse of “electro-magnetism” i.e. the inverse of “juxta-positioning” i.e. NON-juxtapositioning i.e. “non-polar ionisation” i.e. “constantly (re)arranging in groups” (“your soaking in it” i.e. (super) liquidity (non-polar ionisation requires a continuous rotation (so steering)(“drift” catch) are:


DIAGRAM ONE (relates Gauss electricity)

A short vertical line somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes


DIAGRAM TWO (relates Gauss magnetism)

A short horizontal line somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes

DIAGRAM THREE (relevant Ampere’s Law)

A dot somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes

DIAGRAM FOUR (linked to Faraday’s Law of Induction)


A group of four diagrams:

a short vertical line connected to a short horizontal line (forming a little corner) somewhere within the space between the horizontal (space) and vertical (time) axes

three more such diagrams, each shows a different “corner” so all four ways of depicting this “corner” shape are shown.

#16 Klaynos

Klaynos

    Insert Witty Comment

  • Moderators
  • 7,448 posts

Posted 8 September 2008 - 02:27 PM

A quick first impression of the above post... there's no maths.

Electrodynamics/magnetodynamics/electromagnetism is highly mathematical discipline so this thread should also be so...

You seem to have just mentioned lots of things that are explained fine by accepted physics.
  • 0
Klaynos - share and enjoy.

#17 Sayonara

Sayonara

    Doomy doom ♫

  • Administrators
  • 13,739 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 8 September 2008 - 11:59 PM

For a thread which promises a new branch of physics, the delivery leaves something to be desired.
  • 0

The Dictionary is not a technical resource.


#18 imagine

imagine

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 14 posts

Posted 9 September 2008 - 04:23 AM

Well, thankyou especially Bignose because incredibly; last night i found the "math":

(no guarantees you are going to like this)

(It's unbelievable though)

QUANTUM CALCULUS ("hard math") too easy? You decide....


What is "calculus"? (By the way, my techniques allow rapid navigation through maths; also I get the impression that modern scientists have locked themselves in to a "mathematical jail" and could use a hand in breaking out of this mathematicalisation mentality... ; there are other ways of looking at creation )

Calculus is differentiating and integrating, say.

"Quantum" involves "more than one" (to know an object is a unit, it must be one of a category (or potential category of more than one; or how would you know what it was a unit of? ); Quantum relates to quantity ; or items that meet. So I refer to "quantum" as "meeting" ....

"Quantum Calculus" is "meeting differentiating integrating".

This is "integrating and differentiating in 2 dimensions".

Regular Calculus:

the derivative of x squared, I seem to recall, is 2x.

I can draw this to explain:

if I draw a square, with two sides marked "x"; this shows that there are two ways of looking at "x". The "background" of x squared are these two perspectives on "x".

What you can derive from "x, in the expression "x squared", is that there are 2 ways of looking at "x".

Consider now, an uncertainty in the background:

I can draw this as a cube, with two sides marked "x"; and with a third side marked "u" ("u" refers to "unknown", even whether there is a third side, or a fourth, or fifth, is not quantifiable at this stage )

What is the "quantum derivative" of x 'squared'?

(It is written as "x 'squared' " to denote the uncertainty or higher dimension in defining "x", i.e. to show the existence of a crossover in defining "x" and defining "squared")(i.e. x is at least "cubed" ; you could have a whole lot of different calculations: x squared + 10x to the power of 5 , + 7 x to the power of 10, and whatever)(this string of x variations is an "information series" )


(How do you know x is squared? It could be cubed or more, it could have many extra dimensions? You quantise all the dimensions into a string)

The "quantum derivative" of x squared is:

x times (2+u) + or - x times (2-u)


A drawing of a square, with two sides marked "x"; gives "two perspectives"
on "x".

If add an "unknown" to this (giving a drawing of a cube with two sides marked "x", and one "side" (or multiple sides)(where "how many sides" and "what these sides are" are rather muddly so far) marked "u";

then this divides x (so partial derivative?) yet this also times x (partial integral?) (once you have both, "x" is differentiated and integrated in a higher dimensional space, without actually having to see it. x is now a quantisable difference in the "many worlds" of x)


The "partial derivative?" and "partial integral?" = an "imaginary x squared"
one might say, or at least "x cubed" so denotes volume i.e. the idea of sphere i.e. round (dimension unsure but at least 3)(say "x factorisation"?)

+ or - x(2-u) could call this "teleport"

in other words: imaginary "y" i.e. other side (two sides were x)

or: "2" "squared" i.e. volume differentiation

i.e. stitching

i.e. polar

i.e. the reverse of x factorise

so establishes priority.



So this gives "dimension unsure but at least 3" i.e. (x factorisation)

(you know x is factorised but you don't know how or in what way (i.e. "how much") it is factorised)

and

volume differentiation i.e. stitching i.e. polar i.e. reverse of x factorisation so establishes priority

giving a result that looks like a soccer ball

i.e. a sphere-like object with surfaces stitched together

otherwise can be called "parallax relativity" or "relativistic quantum electro dynamics"

(fixed angle on background, is relative)
(relativistic meeting generalisation room to move)

a bar code

how things stack up

a constant pressure differential

?

grip

flotsam (floats the same)

quick comments:

examples of localised "switching off" of Earth's gravity effect on things:

when a heavy ball is bowled along a lawn; a "weighted" shot versus a non-weighted shot: a constant pressure is maintained over a period of time with the ball in hand to create the weighted shot. This I think is pressing LESS on the ground than the non-weighted shot, as it's "weighting" due to Earth's gravity is reduced by its differential weighting at right angles to Earth's gravity (causing it to partially "hover" board i.e. to create a fixed template; and to locally partly fix its position in space i.e. an "auto gyro" (note: "forces after the big bang" translates via math-free analysis to "gyroscopic x 2" or "auto gyro"!)

(The LHC at Cern may create this effect causing the whole ring to sink in to the ground a bit due to vibrations between becoming heavier and becoming ighter or something (called a "black hole" as it's a hole but you "don't know what caused it" ! - idea)

("Nothing" caused it i.e. "gravitational diffraction" )

A class of meteorites that are NOT "heavy" or necessarily magnetic; but which are objects that have skidded to a stop high in Earth's atmosphere due to their shallow angle and the direction of Earth's rotation with respect to the angle the object came on, and fluttered down to Earth; shedding mass so becoming unusually light (due to experiencing "gravitational electric charge").

A class of rocks which, though they may look massive, have shed "mass" through collisions and are now slightly or partly "floating" i.e. they do not press nearly as much on the ground as their bulk (or apparent bulk) suggest....

A climber can become "lighter" through how they synchronise pushing off holds and pulling on holds creating another way to differentiate their body's position in (geo) space...

#19 DrP

DrP

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 839 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 9 September 2008 - 08:11 AM

It doesn't happen Imagine. The climers DO NOT get lighter as they climb. Except for the equation: F = G.m1.m2 / 4piE0r2 (or something like that). It means that the force experienced due to gravity is dependent upon the mass of both objects and the inverse square of the distance between them multiplied by a load of constants (distance in this case being a negligable distance as he climbs). NOTHING to do with movement, centripetal forces or electrostatics. They may apply other external forces to the body! But they will then counter gravity acording to the laws of physics, not lessen it at all.


A class of meteorites that are NOT "heavy" or necessarily magnetic; but which are objects that have skidded to a stop high in Earth's atmosphere due to their shallow angle and the direction of Earth's rotation with respect to the angle the object came on, and fluttered down to Earth; shedding mass so becoming unusually light (due to experiencing "gravitational electric charge").

A class of rocks which, though they may look massive, have shed "mass" through collisions and are now slightly or partly "floating" i.e. they do not press nearly as much on the ground as their bulk (or apparent bulk) suggest.......


Doesn't happen.

A climber can become "lighter" through how they synchronise pushing off holds and pulling on holds creating another way to differentiate their body's position in (geo) space...


The forces acting on them from gravity are just the same - they still weigh the same and are not actually lighter in anyway at all.
  • 0
!!!!!!!!!!!!!ONE POINT TWENTYONE JIGGAWATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#20 Sayonara

Sayonara

    Doomy doom ♫

  • Administrators
  • 13,739 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 9 September 2008 - 09:38 AM

I think it's time for some censorship.

Imagine, please go and learn some physics.
  • 0

The Dictionary is not a technical resource.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users