Overbalanced wheels, a waste of time ?

[AgingYoung]

ME,

I have heard of the idea that matter is vibrating at a very high frequency. The idea that I've heard is that our whole reality is the manifestation of a spoken word or vibration. I was joking about an impossible frequency. When you look at motion at the atomic level things get a little different. I think that newtonian physics are adequate to explain motion in the solar system and Einstein's ideas work on a larger scale yet neither describe atomic and subatomic motion. I'm sure you know that.

Gene

[scott]

Title: Overbalanced wheels, a waste of time ?

Yes of course :-)

Yep, you are clearly right, Paul. Nothing interesting to see here. Move along... :-)

[scott]

Jon,

Scott provides us with a mixture from very private to fully exposed.

You can have your own private forum here where you control who can enter.

The Community Buzz forum has a little privacy since only memebers can see it.

The General Discussion forum if viewable by the whole world.

Thank you Jim. All I ever set out to do here is to hopefully expedite the arrival of a solution by bringing like minds together in whatever way I can. But sometimes it seems like I have caught nothing but guff for my efforts. I really appreciate your vote of confidence.

Best,
Scott

[scott]

If there's one chance in 10^48 occurences that something is going to happen that's about the same as there being a zero chance in one that it will happen. It's considered a statistical impossibility.

But I've played enough poker to also understand that no matter how improbable a certain event might be, if the probability is greater than zero then it WILL INDEED happen at some point sooner or later. And sometimes, for better or for worse, you might even get to witness it in person.

-Scott

[docfeelsgood]

Gene ; did you ever study about a man named Royal Ramond Rife? or the "universal microscope" , mortal osc. rate quite interesting . Doc.

[AgingYoung]

Scott,

Improbability and impossibility are two different things. What are the odds of being delt a royal flush? It's improbably yet it doesn't even come close to 1: 10^48


Poker Hand Rank.......Odds.......Explanation
Royal Flush.......1:649,750.......AKQJ10, same suit
Straight Flush.......1:81,218.......Any 5 card sequence in the same suit
Four of a kind.......1:4,165.......4 cards of the same number
Full house.......1:694.......Three of a kind combined with a pair
Flush.......1:508.......Any five cards of the same suit, but not in sequence
Straight.......1:283.......Five cards in sequence, but not in the same suit
Three of a Kind.......1:47.......Three cards of the same index
Two Pair.......1:21.......Two separate pairs
Pair.......1:2.4.......2 cards with the same number
High Card.......-.......Highest card in the hand

Doc,
No I haven't. I'll have to look at it.

Gene

edit: I don't know what a cosmic time scale is but if we had 10^48 seconds available and time/space were 20 billion years old we could distribute those seconds over 1,585,489,599,188,229,325,215,626,585,489.6 .....20 billion year periods. That's a lot of time. Cosmic, dude.

[scott]

On a cosmic time scale, 1:10^48 is just as likely as high card.

[ME]

I would like to talk more freely to just the people who are working on the same thing (wheel)

There are some forums out on the internet with some heavy Moderator-Control to keep a subject ontopic. Maybe this forum needs the same control, or just more discipline from the people who post.
In the meantime we have to wonder how to overbalance a poker game...

I have heard of the idea that matter is vibrating at a very high frequency.

Me also have heard matter is fibrating energy.

The idea that I've heard is that our whole reality is the manifestation of a spoken word or vibration.

In a biblical sense?
I think reality lies in the eyes (or heart) of the beholder.

I was joking about an impossible frequency.

When I try to joke around, most of the time these got lost in translation, with the result that some comments are sarcastically out of context. Eventually we just don't know enough about the universe to make solid statements.

...Newtonian physics... and Einstein's ideas... neither describe atomic and subatomic motion. I'm sure you know that.

We have to do with what we think we know. Most of our know formula's and universal constants are based on empirically measurements and hypotheses. They work in most of our known circumstances, unless they change (like the speed of light, and straight lines).

But the Newtonian physics will do while trying to create an overbalanced wheel, eeh does it?

On a cosmic time scale, 1:10^48 is just as likely as high card.

I once wanted to know how much is a Google (10^100). I calculated that the earth could be made up by a Google amount of Superstrings, or boxes with the size of 10^(-33)meter.

Marchello E.

[AgingYoung]

Marchello,

Yes, in a biblical sense. I think that reality is independent of perception. Think about the idea of newtonian physics and perpetual motion. Newton thought the idea was impossible. One thing a working wheel would do is to make us rethink what Newton thought. Our perception will change but the reality for us will be no different than it was for Newton. Our understanding of all the forces that have always been there will improve but the reality will be the same.

It is hard to know the precise details of our reality even for the greatest minds. Duh Vinci thought that the sun didn't move. Anyone can be wrong.

Gene

[Michael]

I don't know about that Gene. One thing is for sure is history's constant messing up the meanings of what was said. All comes down to perception. Davinci was right, if you take that statement from the point of view that was opposite to the point of view of the day. Then, they assumed the earth was the center of our solar system and the sun revolved around it. When in fact the sun doesn't revolve, our earth does. So maybe that's what he meant.

Take Aristotle. All correct way of thinking of the time was attributed to him, but when you get peoples own interpretation of things said/meant, add tyranny in the way of, well Aristotle said it so it is right, then soon you get revolt and slander. I've found that some statements attributed to Aristotle are really a high degree of mathematical thought if taken in a certain context. Take this for example. It was thought that in space there wasn't any real vacuum, that space was actually filled with a rarefied medium because, if there wasn't mass could travel at an infinite velocity. We know it is impossible for mass to travel at an infinite velocity so there fore what we surmised must be true.
This looks like a similistic statement filled with errors because it doesn't seem to answer anything. It's like a child asking, why does it rain and the answer given is because god is crying. If you look at the last statement though, there is a high degree of mystery behind it. First of all, relativity would agree. Mass cannot travel at an infinite velocity. What if this statement was based on something they knew, and not something they just guessed at? How on earth did they come to this conclusion, what would make them think that the answer given for there being a medium though out the universe was "because mass cannot travel at an infinite velocity"? I think the construction of this statement was purposeful because it leads one into contemplating, why can't mass travel at an infinite velocity. You have to take the vacuum/medium out of the contemplation because that is the part you are trying to justify. You have to contemplate mass itself.
There is much hidden understanding there, very interesting.

[Jon J Hutton]

Jim and others thanks,

I didn't realize that about the private forums that they had that much control. I guess I am trying, and probably trying in vain to keep out, those that simply would want to steal ideas and input very little. Ill look into a private forum when Im ready to post all my results.

Jon

[Wheeler]

Gene wrote

I think that reality is independent of perception.

So true.

Watch yourself if you drive while in an important conversation with someone.
When you come out of it, you find you may not of even been in the reality of driving, but deeply in concentration of your minds view of your thought.

[Jon J Hutton]

Jim and others

Thanks for help and input in the past. I finally put my design into wm2d version 6. I made my wheel and lift device.....I put all the pins on rotation dampen at .0001. I took that number from an actual test of a bicycle wheel. I then set the air resistance to high multiplied times 2. The design was taken and modified...you guessed it from the toy page. I was able to (in the program) lift the 1 lb weight 1 meter by moving a 1lb weight .8 meters. Which returned it to its original position. to start the process over again. Decided not to use the device (wast of time) that supposedly adjusts the center of gravity. Here is my question, how reliable is the wm2d program in comparison to actually making the prototype. Does any one have any tests they have built and compared it to. I've started making the design hopefully Ill have good results.

Jon

[ken_behrendt]

Jon...

I think that, in general, you can trust the results that you get from modeling with WM2D. If the program was not accurate, then it would not be sold to engineering colleges to help train students.

You say that you figured out a way to lift l lb weight a distance of 1 meter by allowing another 1 lb weight to move (and I assume you mean descend) a distance of only 0.8 meters. That is impressive, indeed. Good luck with your design.


ken

[AgingYoung]

Michael,

I don't know about that Gene..... All comes down to perception....

My point is that perceptions are the variable and reality is the constant. If someone were to make a gravity wheel they would be using the same reality that Newton had. He was of the opinion that perpetual motion was impossible. The reality is that either you can or can't make gravity turn a shaft . There are people in both camps of perception. Both can't be correct.

Gene