The Latent Weight - Result of a Spin of a Massive Body and a Source of Superfluous Energy by Jacob Bitsadze

I wish you success!

But it is better to create a website and put there all the math. Otherwise no one would believe only one formula. In addition, the formula should be written according to international rules. Otherwise, the all will think that your orbital velocity - O - is zero.

Solitude is the lot of geniuses. for a society to believe you, you need to make the explicit experiment. In my opinion to verify your proposed formula fits my machine ...

If you can build them with your friends, it will be very good. Other technical solutions can be found on my website:

http://technogeo.ucoz.com/load

I prefer here Mr Jacob,

Indeed you are right. It is well said. I will go soon in USA.I will see how are the relevances of the Institute of Advanced Studies. I d like speak with Mr Witten and Mr Guth and their friends. I am persuaded that we can make interesting convergences.

ps you know the socialism is not really a good thing when I see the pseychological states of people here in my region.In fact it is a balnce which is important between the creations of jobs and the social security. Of course my country has the best social protection, but be sure that it is not a solution.Be sure that it is bizare the effects on psychologics.The salaries are very weak here and the prizes very high.

In fact don't imagine that belgium is cool, be sure itis not so cool. We are 380/km² and all is already created and if you knew the responsabilities of these socialists and how they act ???? It is not really well you know. I have suffer a lot here due to this system Jacob. You think that it is easy to create an enterprize here.In fact the corrupted take all the funds or the socialist governments. It is bizare this bad governance.I am disgusted by my country.I love it but I am disgusted.

Thanks

Regards

There is one Georgian saying. To translate it precisely - it is impossible, but the sense is approximately such: "be happy as far as possible - according to circumstances. "

Diogen lived in a barrel but was quite happy. You likely know, what he has asked at Alexander the Great.

To work in research institute in the USA and to receive the Nobel Prize is certainly very perfectly.

But it is not necessary to be killed - if it will fail.

I have not understood in what context you speak about murder. If you will stay home somebody will kill you?

I do not think that someone wants to kill you. But in any case, to live under fear is not the best decision. The fear does not solve any problem.

True man should be always ready to war and death! :)

If somebody wants to kill you spit on them. They are dung. The worthy person never will want to kill you. And stupid dung never will understand that by means of murder it is impossible to destroy the person. The chemical body is one of your substances. If you will lose a chemical substance others will stay to live. Some from them will live eternally.

Except for that not-chemical bodies can revenge very easily. It is one of advantages of death.

But simply to die - is silly. Learn KaRaTe, buy the weapon and defend.:)))

Hunger doesn't say "Stale bread" and cold doesn't say "Old coat" (Georgian saying)

A word and a stone let go can not be called back. (English saying). Take care.

Dear Jabob Bitsadze,

I have taken a look at your essay. I think you begin with some interesting questions. There is a problem in cosmology, which is there seems insufficient mass in galaxies for gravity to hold them together. For which dark matter has been suggested as a solution. So finding some extra unaccounted for mass would be helpful.(I don't think gravity is due to curvature of space-time merely due to the presence of a mass but the disturbance of the environment of space when massive bodies progress along their universal journey. For a planet that journey can includes rotations as well as orbits and progressions with star system and galaxy. I think inertial mass is due to an -alteration- of the default motion).So the deficiency of mass may be due to not taking into account the universal motion of the objects, (the extra inertia). I don't know how exactly cosmologists calculate the mass of galaxies.

There is a difference between rest mass and mass of a moving object. The faster it is moving the harder to alter its course, it appears heavier (due to the resistance of the environment to the change in my opinion) but the rest mass stays the same, the amount of object itself is not altered. IMHO the seeming increase in mass is not a property just of the object but the object environment relationship. I know a spinning gyroscope is harder to move than a non spinning one. There is a continued steady alteration from the default course when an object is spinning at constant speed so the (one off )resistance of the environment is added ( but in this scenario too the amount of object itself is not altered). I don't think it will -continue to gain mass- just because it is spinning, as this new relationship is steady and not changing. (Unless the deposition of material onto the surface due to gravitational attraction is considered).

I don't know if you will consider any of those musings, which fit with my own explanatory model rather than mainstream physics, relevant or will think that I am missing the point of your essay, I may be. I am not a qualified physicist and not best qualified to comment on your mathematics, so I skimmed over it- and it was a large part of the essay. I may have missed out on a lot of helpful explanation. Your essay is unusual in that most other essays do not suggest an experiment. The experiment does not look too difficult to set up and perform. Have you tried it and got any interesting results? It ends abruptly.

I hope you get more interest in your essay and helpful feedback. Good luck.

Dear Georgina

I am very grateful to you for attention. Unfortunately I have no financial assets for carrying out of the described experiment. As the vacuum chamber is necessary for this device to exclude influence of Magnus-force . Official physics refuse to carry out this experiment. They name my formulas incorrect. But they cannot prove the criticism neither theoretically nor practically.

But I prove my correctness with VERY SIMPLE COMPARISON: At linear movement the body has only weight - m . But at rotation the weight is multiplied on a square of his radius -mR(2). And other dimensions have no value. If the flywheel will have length of 5 kilometers, its weight is multiplied only on a square of his radius.

If it is correct, so the weight of linearly moving body should be multiplied on his length, width or volume.

So itself rotary movement is incorrect, instead of my formulas... On the contrary, my equations take into account this incorrectness.

The equations are displayed here incorrectly. You can look the CORRECT EQUATIONS in the attached file.

As this theory is confirmed with experiments.

For example Тariel Кapanadze has changed an arrangement of pulleys in my generator and has lead the successful experiment. In his variant the effect of the lever is directed against centrifugal acceleration, but the generator works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90W00Yt_PLk&feature=player_embedded

Generator of Chas Chembell has the same inefficient proportions and besides many superfluous details, but works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QD2Whs_LxA&feature=player_embedded

And in my variants the effect of the lever promotes centrifugal acceleration, but I have no money to their construction.

As to the theory. The increase of weight is a conditional term. According to the Theory of the Relativity the Weight and Energy are equivalent. Even more - the weight is one of forms of energy. Therefore the weight increases at movement.

E=mc2 either means E=m0c2 for an object at rest, or E=mrelc2 when the object is moving.

Thus exists two kinds of the "increased" weight mrel :

longitudinal --

and cross-section --

Where -- the relativistic factor.

The increase in weight depends on a direction of the force enclosed to it.

.

If force is directed perpendicularly to movement -- . ..

And if in parallel --

In a rotating body force should be directed in parallel to his linear speed. Otherwise force will brake rotation.

In my formulas of rotation linear speed is cubed just as in the theory of a relativity the relativistic factor ascends in a cube.:))) ... And it is quite correct, because centrifugal acceleration is very real factor.

The kinetic weight is taken into account in gravitation too:

Under this formula gravitation depends not only on inert weight of rest, but also from speed and a direction of movement of this weight.

So it is possible to take into account also weight of rotation which should exist because of centrifugal acceleration.

The main theme of my article consists that, if the weight is equivalent always and everywhere then centrifugal acceleration should be equivalent to usual acceleration. But centrifugal acceleration is not taken into account in equivalent formulas.

For example the formula of Newton F=ma for a rotating body is M=Iε . Where I - the moment of inertia, and ε - only angular acceleration. During stable rotation this formula is not meaningful, as angular acceleration is equal to zero. Hence force becomes equal to zero too. But this is absurdity.... In that case the body should not rotate. But it rotates - because there is a centrifugal acceleration.

Therefore I suggest that in this formula together with angular acceleration to write down centrifugal acceleration.

Also it is necessary to take into account the centrifugal acceleration in the formula of kinetic energy of a flywheel.

As centrifugal acceleration can be considered as a special case of the relativistic spin .

ﾧ  - Tensor of a full pulse of system.

ﾧ

ﾧ  - total 4-speed of system

ﾧ  - Tensor of Levi-Civita.

Because of dissymmetricity of Levi-Civitas tensor, the 4-vector of a spin is always perpendicular to 4-speed Precisely so the vectors of centrifugal acceleration and linear speed of a flywheel are perpendicular.

In such system of the readout , in which the total pulse of system is equal to zero (i.e. during rotary movement about the axis), spatial components of the spin coincide with a vector of the moment of a pulse, and a component of time is equal to zero.

Component of time it is equal to zero in my formula

m V3 / R..

Thus a spatial component of the spin "recovers" a "dead" pulse and erects linear speed in a cubic degree.

At linear movement, a component of time t is kept, but the spin do not exist at all.

m V2 / 2t

BEST REGARDSAttachment #1: To_Georgina.doc

very well, Steve.

I like a poem Mayakovsky.

my amateur translation is:

in this life is not hard to die.

live in the world is much more difficult.

must first transform lives for the better.

after doing can sing a new life

so all success to you!

Hello,

Jacob, intersting all that .:)

Jacob Bitsadze,

The Principle of Equivalency belongs to Relativity theory. If your work is not relativistic and yet produces agreement with empirical results, then you don't need, as I expect you already know, to employ it. Rather straightforward analysis of forces has no need for Equivalency. Equivalency appears to me to be another piece of theoretical invention to shortcut the need to differentiate between gravity and acceleration. The scientist in the windowless room only needs a window to understand that gravity and acceleration are not the same thing. I do not presume that you agree with what I say. However, I like that you look for answers that go deeper than that theoretical shorcut called the Equivalency Principle. That is what I think. I will come back to your essay for further consideration. Thank you for enterring it.

James

Dear James

I am very grateful to you for attention and very essential criticism.

I agree with you but only in case we will focus attention only on weight - without acceleration.

On mine in this principle the main thing is not weight but inertness and the related acceleration. It is a principle of equivalence of inertia (acceleration) instead of masses.

The principle of equivalence proves that inertia (mass) of a body doesn't depend by nature (content, substance) of that force which affects on it.

I.e. gravitation is just the same force for a body as well as strength of the person or force of explosion of dynamite for example.

It means that gravitation doesn't change mass of a body, but simply gives it acceleration...

Thus, centrifugal acceleration it should be equivalent to rectilinear acceleration.

I use equivalence of accelerations on the basis of equivalence of masses.

Let's remember how Einstein defines an equivalence principle. In my opinion the main thing is equivalence of influence (and its result - accelerations) on weight, instead of the weight.

" A little reflection will show that the law of the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass is equivalent to the assertion that the acceleration imparted to a body by a gravitational field is independent of the nature of the body. For Newton's equation of motion in a gravitational field, written out in full, it is:

(Inertial mass) (Acceleration) (Intensity of the gravitational field) (Gravitational mass).

It is only when there is numerical equality between the inertial and gravitational mass that the acceleration is independent of the nature of the body."

Who is this Jonathan ?

a person of your team !

Don't be too much sad of the reality.

Regards

ps the team is known in fact, it was easy to find them in fact. Simply ion, seeing the generality of words said since several years.

I have not understood. My Team or your Team?

don't worry, all rationalists and generalists, understand what is a strategy.

I am alone me, I have not a team me.

You think what? Jacob with your strategy, that I am going to be in your line of reasoning. Learn Vallet !or kill me !

ahahah fear .Let me laugh ! Kalil Gibran said ,"how can you understand the secret of the life if you do not open your heart to the death, because the death and the life are linked like is linked the river and the ocean "

The death is just a step of evolution my friend, I don't fear to die. I wait it even ok !

I do not understand the context of the question ... But as I understand it, I can reply:

I would like to see you as the marshal of my army of physicists. But I also have no army .. :)

I really like your essay, especially the graphic at the end -- it appears to have been rendered using ambient occlusion or some other nice global illumination technique. I like that attention to detail.

I thank you for your positive opinion.

I will be even more grateful if you show this essay to people who might be interested in experimentation.

Best Regards

Jacob