hoola

a purely mechanical system is what I am experimenting with now, using a double row of 24 contacts rotary switch spinning at 1800 rpm , sweep pulsing the piezos and scoping results with a 6th piezo at the end of the stack.  I am  in the process of assembling a purely electronic setup using an arduino  microcontoller to manage timing of the 5 power amps that will pulse each element individually, with the next pulse timed precisely to reinforce the previous one in the forward direction, or hit it at the next element's  "TDC". This hopefully will result in amplification of the pulse that after 5 repeated steps hits the end of the stack, and due to mechanical impedance mismatch, is reflected back in a way similar to a transmission line or an audio amp that has lost it's load. This reflected wave is the problem. It prevents thrust by equalizing forces. The driver schematic I am  drawing up has a full time negative feedback system, but with a hi Q 25khz trap in series, which is the resonant frequency of the piezos I am using.  This will suppress  the normal sideband noise but not the desired signal.  This could clean up the carrier signal and maybe even offer some added amplification due to reduced internal losses. At the end of the cycle, when the return wave is heading back through the stack, all feedback circuits remain on, but the 25khz trap is bypassed and all signals are suppressed  maximally within each element. This hopefully will cancel a portion of the  reflected wave energy within each element. So, the overall goal is to amplify kinetic forces in one direction and actively suppress it in the other. 

substances don't absorb force?  Wouldn't an absorbed force show up (at least)as heat within the material? The domed spring idea is interesting if it produces a diode like appearance to the system. The "thing" the spring is set against in this instance would be the inherent mass of the ring, but even then it seems the dome would couple as much energy overall in one direction than the other, although I see it might have a differing directional profile. If you had maxwell demons to do the job, such as tiny trap doors that all open in one direction allowing force through and close in the other, blocking such efforts with compressive release of heat from the stopped wave .

does anyone know of a rubberlike substance with a tailored characteristic that passes a mechanical force in one direction, and absorbs force from the opposite direction? In effect a non linear stiffness profile, or  "smart rubber". A material of this nature could act as a rectifier of physical forces, and this directionality might offer a thrust potential when placed between each piezo instead of a single conventional damper used in the woodward mechanism.

If a quantum gravity theory  contains or implies a mechanism for wormhole  structures, then we might be able to ascertain wormhole behavior and how often averaged remote entanglements might occur if the effect is global,  and if the effect is local, variations in G, or rule out such possibilities.

I am working with piezo ceramics, 5.5 mm thick. I need to know the rate of a shock wave as it travels through the material.  James Woodward, et al are developing a piezoelectric Mach thruster device they are claiming develops propellantless thrust as a physical analog to the Shawyer engine. The materials to do a few simple tests are cheaply available so I figure it could be an interesting side project. Thanks for any help if you know that detail about ceramic piezos or have an interest in mach thrusters in general.

if there is an entanglement field (wormholes), caused by random  disparate particles "coasting" in and out of momentary entanglements all over the universe, and this field creates a  constant average scalar pressure, could this be related to or be a component of the gravitational mechanism?

can entanglement ever be "incidental", in that with all the particles in the universe,  out of mere chance could entanglement occur between  disparate particles without human intervention ?

sorry for the misuse of the term "approximate" as proximate is what I meant

can two particles be entangled without having been created together, or ever having been approximate?

vote appropriately !

if it is mathematical,  the reason it's seems unsolvable could be that math evolved from simpler elements, which are only as of yet unsolved. It is not unreasonable to assume math can be reverse engineered at some point. Didn't Bertrand Russel propose it sprang from logic?

would a black hole's hawking radiation increase  if it's rotation were to be faster ?

possibly a premature action to close this thread..only a few years ago the Tegmark team had a hint of G waves embedded in the CMB which might have offered the first glimpse before the bang. Unfortunately, intergalactic dust foiled the test. There is also the primal neutrino relic which may offer some results. Since there is another possible test, and a possible retesting of the CMB with improved measures, please leave this thread open. Thanks

correct, as "science" deals with direct evidence and I deal without, unless gravitational waves or neutrinos can peer before the big bang  and some evidence may be forthcoming. Hopefully someday that will happen and I will be quite happy to have my idea falsified if that be the case.

not really, many qualified mathematicans have stated as much.(the discovered, not invented part)..hence my leaning towards my intuition as viable possibility. I agree with your dismissive attitude however. I am attempting to ascertain fundamentals, the pre-math of the maths, and realize the futility of the attempt.

I have no evidence that equations are only discovered, not invented, only intuition.

the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle and how it  relates to the early proto universe, would seem to indicate  base 2 calculations. Base 26 calculations of PI is an interesting question perhaps someone else might have some insights, but Occam's Razor would seem to limit the processing base to "least action" to accomplish the task, whatever base that calculation was made in.

 Equations are there to be discovered, not invented.  

the measured diameter of circle as relates to it's circumference offers a long lasting and perhaps non repeating numerical result...that in itself  may not be an equation per se, but equations do exist that closely approximate it. That's what I meant. As long as the information cranked out by the approximation goes on, and is faithful to the fundamental premise of  the metric, my assertion seems valid.

the number PI is but one of many such equations,  also E, sq rt of 2, etc..some of the "bones" delineating physical reality as ordered by classic logic. More ephemeral states seem ordered by sq rt minus one, in the companion quantum logic system, which among other things, determines empty space properties,  with virtual particles as the observable effects.

not really, only that there are two levels of "unrealness", with them. You can't hold a 6 in your hand, but a 6 does have some overall effect when combined with a near infinite number of associated digits, and they are ordered about in a reliable fashion over aeons  in a rapidly branching algorithmic evolution of equations. The MPR was the "least real" of the species, but became "more real" by relating to all other numbers, thus become real enough to  "do work" along with all the rest. With this, is an inference of 2 levels or realness, or functionality with numbers. The solitary MPR, and all the rest. However, the void is long gone, filled up with stuff, and with it, that MPR status that was the kick start part of the process, gone with it.

yeah, bowling with black holes to get a perfect strike seems something an advanced species might do to see if the results matched prediction.

a Mathematical Proxy Representation, is the "stand in" of a number, before there were any numbers to "fill that spot". In this case I posit that this MPR number (one nothing) was not a number until other numbers appeared and developed relationships with the MPR via a developing logic system.  This is akin to today's "nothing exists without an observer" effect, as expressed in it's earliest form, as applied to the question of how math could have evolved from this simple start in a natural, organic way. No need for god or eternality in the system as described. If it is relevant to ask why anything today, it seems relevant to ask why mathematics then.  

I agree that is is very unlikely,  perhaps impossible unless arranged somehow. I was more interested in the merger efficiency, that is, how much mass loss would be given by such a theoretical merger vs. the standard orbiting one. I was hoping that if a numerical simulation had been done,  it would be reported here.    Thanks.

well, my conjecture is that there was no nothing, allowing the minimum state of a supposed void to have a mathematical proxy representation of exactly one. How many voids were there? Three? Nine? ...could several voids be separated by a "less than void" state, differentiating them? Seems unlikely....the irreducible  "one and only one void",  or void singularity,  is the "bit" that "it" came from which I further conjecture was the seed of mathematic constructs of the various branches that  eventually led to complex mathematical, and therefore complex physical structures. I venture that this first bit was "unreal math", and only when math evolved additional potentialities (other numbers), did the original bit have a comparison to "measure" itself with, and become "less unreal" in a conventional sense, mostly due to persistence , or durability of internal value, which we see and confirm in routine fashion in relation to other numbers using simple arithmetic.

just google "john wheeler it from bit" on utube and you will get several interviews which discuss this.