awaterpon

Two set of gear box one with 1:14 and the other of 1:56 the total is 784

Torque is first reduced by 1:14 then stored in spring then the spring release its energy to the gearbox 1:56.

Video

Hello,

I was able to build a machine to reduce torque with high ratios up to 1:700 gear box.

What applications in mechanical engineering I could use my new invention in?

Thanks,

8 hours ago, swansont said:

So you're claiming that Newton's first law is wrong. That an object in uniform motion will not remain in uniform motion in the absence of an external force. It will instead come to rest as it displaces space, which exerts a force on it.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

An object at uniform motion is different from accelerated object my idea applies to accelerated objects gravitational waves also appears for accelerated objects

12 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Which theory is that? Movement of mass and curvature makes your description sound like detection of gravity waves, currently part of established science.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/press-release/

New range caused by a rotating mass is different from gravitational waves this is a prediction for my theory and now it could be tested

In my thread here and according to this quote" 

"When an object moves  , it tries to displace space in front of it " making non existence in space " space will resist its motion " inertia of an object"  logically space can't be displaced without exerting the same force against the mass .Exerting force continuously will result in displacing space continuously and making non-existence in space continuously .The two forces " force exerted on an object and  resistance force by space will make energy creation "as energy and mass are interchangeable then the process actually creates new mass amount"

I can predict and test my theory as follows:

instead of mass popping out from nowhere we have energy or mass/energy coming  from original energy transferred by force , when an object moves its mass increases causing new curvature in space-time doubling the curvature already there .I can predict that new range of gravity will start from time t equals zero and extend this also could be tested

When an object moves  , it tries to displace space in front of it " making non existence in space " space will resist its motion " inertia of an object"  logically space can't be displaced without exerting the same force against the mass .Exerting force continuously will result in displacing space continuously and making non-existence in space continuously .The two forces " force exerted on an object and  resistance force by space will make energy creation "as energy and mass are interchangeable then the process actually creates new mass amount I can conclude to this:

If space exerts force on mass "inertia" then non-space will also exert the same force on space.

if non-space exerts force on space between two masses and this space exerts force on the other mass then attraction or gravity will appear according to my view.

All these entities " space, non-space , mass " exert forces on each other mutually.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

What is your exact definition of the "space" that the mass "fills"? What is "mass" in your model?

Space is everything that is not anything mass is what has weight.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What predictions can you make, based on your idea? How can it be tested?

I will think about this.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What does this mean?

I made a  mistake mistake:

Mass m is attracted to non-existence of space inside mass M and mass M is attracted to non-existence of space in mass m.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s not what space is in mainstream physics.

I made another mistake mass and non-existence of space are opposites if there is mass then something is missing by the existence of mass " this thing is space itself" causing non-existence of space 

5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Ok, so the idea is about particle physics. How do you define a particle, radius and space in your idea? Is your definition compatible with quantum physics or are you suggesting something different? Radius, volume, density are not the most usable concepts at the small scales of subatomic particles, how does your model look? Is there a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons or quarks, which have no known internal structure*, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure?

 

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle

 

Whether there is internal structure or point particle in general we have mass that fills a place of space and we have space that fills the place where there is not mass.

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

A quick comment; a lot more details and math is required since the idea seems to say that Newton and GR is incorrect. Example: As far as I know a star that have run out of fuel may collapse. If for instance the result is a neutron star we have about the same mass in less volume, ok? What is your definition of "space" in this context? Does the star loose a lot of gravity when it turns* into a neutron star, according to your model? How does your idea match observations? There are already mainstream models for this.

Space doesn't mean measurements from mass edges .There is still gaps between particles. Gravity is particle to particle attraction the collection is mass m.

Does mass m exist in place of the space I mentioned? No space is nothingness there is not mass occupied in it

So mass m occupy space , this space is equivalent to mass m.

If mass m occupy space " there is not space in the place of the mass" then mass m causes Non-existence of space in that place

If we have to masses M and m they will attract each other This is due to mass m is attracted to non-existence of mass M and mass M is attracted to non-existence of mass m.

Mass tends to fulfill the non-existence of space caused by other masses .The two " space and matter" are opposite mass means no space , space means no mass so they have such interaction of fulfillment . 

The fulfillment tendency causes potential between masses and force we have such concept in electricity where positive charges are attracted to negative charges.

Non-existence of space could be like a negative charge and mass could be like a positive charge.

Notice the medium here for the force is space itself so I'm not against GR .

I mentioned the space which has been occupied is equivalent to the mass m so in the equation of Newton gravitation mass m and M can represent both masses and equivalent space

Fulfillment tendency happens for sure. If mass interacts with space and curve it according to GR then mass"positive " will also interact with non-space "negative" causes attraction between two masses

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

You don't seem to understand how science works. Here is a summary:

1. Develop a mathematical model to describe what we observe

2. Make quantifiable and testable predictions based on that model

3. Test those predictions by means of observation/experiment

The infinite reach of gravity is not testable.

 

Neither of these is applied to the fact that gravity is infinite then no one can scientifically say gravity is infinite.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

All tests of gravity are consistent with the GR model, so we have a lot of confidence that the model is correct.

Not gravity in general but the fact that it should be infinite,  how physics determines it should be infinite ?

I post a thread here in speculation proposing that gravity has a limited range I would like to ask some questions about the existing fact.

My questions are :

What does science think of infinite gravity " gravity being everywhere" ?

How it is mathematically described "giving the idea that Newtonian gravitational law doesn't work for infinity distance" ?

Is the idea of infinite gravity part of GR ? how it is described according to GR?

Is there a proof for gravity being infinite in range ?

Thanks,

On 4/23/2019 at 11:23 AM, Ghideon said:

start by opening a new thread with some relevant question in the cosmology section!

I have started one .

Thanks.

2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Detection of gravity waves, with finite speed c, and hence reaching finite distance in finite time, got a Nobel Prize: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2017/press-release/ So it is considered a well established part of science.

I mean gravity is not infinitely throughout space. It is limited to a range extendable with speed of light c.

What if there is not new math, is that possible ?and it's only an addition to GR and  just the equation I presented which shows limited time instead of infinite distance ?

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Again, nothing new. 

Is there any point of continuing this discussion? 

Just one last thing:

What if there is not new math, is that possible ?and it's only an addition to GR and  just the equation I presented which shows limited time instead of infinite distance ?

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Where is the distance r between m and M in the equation above?

r=cT , at each point from mass the mass spent T time to reach this point in the past.Time T spent at this point in the past multiplied by c equivalent to distance r.

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What new physics are you trying to describe?

We have limited time T instead of infinite distance r.

A new equation :

F= G  mM/(c^2* T^2)

T:  is from zero to current time since the existence of mass

14 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Something incorrect, such as negative gravity for small values of T? 

I will think about a new mathematical equation I think I get it now.

34 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I still think it was good that you introduced an equation in the discussion! From a scientific point of view I believe it leads to more fruitful discussions, vague descriptions with zero math are commonly seen in this section of the forum.

The math is difficult I will try again.

What if I eliminate both time and speed and add r?

(1-r/cT)

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I asked you to analyse your proposed equation for gravity but I see no response

Giving the idea that magnetic field in a wire spread with speed c , my equation would be  similar to electrodynamics one , but I couldn't find that equation for electrodynamics where magnetism on wire spread with c speed.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What mistake in current physics?

Well, when a current is started in wire the magnetic field starts to spread with speed c similar to light itself. Now let's test a point where the magnetic field didn't reach yet.How the equation of the squared proportional distance and force works then. 

There should be a point when magnetic field drops to zero suddenly .And there would be a place where magnetic field didn't reach " out of range" how the equation applies there?

The equation I'm referring to is the magnetic force is inversely proportional to distance r

17 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you show the math? 

I don't know yet. But should be something similar to what I presented for gravity, the same idea of limited range extendable with speed of light c. I showed a mistake in current physics a magnetized wire if its magnetism spread with c then it should have a limited range of magnetic force and the equation in which force is inversely proportional to squared distance won't apply"out of range" . The same for gravity I described in fact they  all  have things in common. 

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I think that it is already well established knowledge, according to current physics. It does not test the new equation you suggested. 

But magnetism equation is the same as gravity equation in which a magnet can affect a magnet at infinity and force is inversely proportional to the squared distance . If not and magnetism of a wire spread with c then how the equation applies for distances out of range.

T here will be measured from the time the magnetic field started in a wire.

18 hours ago, Ghideon said:

When does the equation apply? How can it be tested?

"It should be for both coulomb's law and magnetism.

For  a wire when the circuit is closed the magnetic field starts to spread with the speed of light an experiment could be performed to determine whether magnetic field is already available at a point or it will reach that point after a time"it is not logical that the magnetic field already at infinity since we had a current started to flow at specific moment and shouldn't be available before that moment ,so how it would be available everywhere at an instant?"

What do you think of this ?