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

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

well, if now my posts are deleted still for the strategy from stupid persons, so frankly , it begins to be very irritating. You know what Jacob? The universal love will eat the bad at the breakfast with a little of hope.That, it is clear no?

And also , your maths do not improve, don't make the generalist !

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 !

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

In general it is possible to specify that the latent weight is a relativistic weight of rotation of a body about the axis.

As I understand, the relativity theory considers only rotation on circular orbits. At such trajectory the body gets cross-section relativistic weight.

But if there is a cross-section relativistic weight then there should be a relativistic weight of rotation too.

Best Regards

Jacob

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Jacob!

You make some very interesting conclusions. You might be familiar with the book Potapov "Energy of the Rotation." I highly appreciate your profound essay. Sincerely, Vladimir

Dear Hoang Cao Hai

First of all excuse me for answer delay. I had many affairs on work and only tonight has remembered FQXi.

Those questions which you put - are very interesting to me too.

If we don't understand new essence of the phenomena it will be difficult to describe them mathematically.

I think over these questions much and I will be glad to cooperate with you.

The true is born in disputes!

Kind Regards

Jacob

Dear Vladimir

I am very grateful to you for such appreciation.

I didn't know about the book of mister Potapov. Though I heard about its inventions much.

Thanks that you have prompted to me. I have found its link on the Internet. I will read necessarily. There are many interesting themes.

Kind Regards

Jacob