Local Hidden Variables - For the Win? Not 101st bad idea?

[d3x0r]

Roger


Some other examples - I realize it might be a lot to process; honestly you have to pretend to forget mostly everything and go back to before you even have fire.



       - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsvP1CaiVjI (red wheel)  This is pretty good - overbalance just flops out at 90 degrees.  and stays folded on the other side.

      - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA7noI8sHL8 (single tab flip)  This one could be gimmicked - it never completes a full rotation (maybe it broke? maybe it has a wind-up spring)

[stivep]

discrepancy between reality and the predicted math (if it's right),
-D3x

as a math student you will likely take very few or no physics classes throughout college,
but at 1:34 minute of this video you see when these two take different approach and Physics becomes leading over math.
https://youtu.be/NtKYh0e3RF8?t=97
That means that physics is overwhelmingly dominating- state or order authoritatively.
( some analogy may be expressed as a dominant sexual act
- that happened despite of level of domination with most if not all of the pleasure or benefit ,
  belonging to the dominator having a commanding position)

Despite all of variables ruling science( physics) dictates the rules and math is trying to support  its axioms , but axioms are based on models and its manifested, checked, verified, and approved behavior.

So with all do respect to you, your knowledge, passion, experience- you are dealing here with the guy  who is seating on 
practically checked, working, FE   
theoretically supported or delivered:
by Nikola Tesla, Dr James Corum,  Kenneth Corum, Dr Hans,
and critically approached with all scrutiny by Dr Roy.
Where Dr Hans and Dr Roy are my friends in science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He5xQOJHlrU

_________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion:
_{Overunity is a nonsense
Free Energy exists and there is nothing special about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ldus3AQSpE&t=771s}

- masturbating  one's brain by changing priority and flip math over physics is not my domain nor it leads in best of my believe to any results despite of just being entertaining.
- I'm not tempted.
try to understand minimalist .

Minimalist living is about intention.
You make room and time in your life for the things you love
and eliminate everything that distracts you .
I can't be purchased, corrupted, and yes I can be pushed, but not much.
I can only be convinced and you didn't convince me.
World respect is based on models of physics and people whose opinion can't be altered.
Model in physics doesn't have family to feed nor bosses.
Minimalists are creatures  led by :
clarity, purpose, and intentionality.-happy and sustained with not much needs for change.

_________________________________________________________________________
practicality:
- looking at impossible e.g perpetual motion we see nonsense of practical application
if the device can't produce any gain, it could serve only as an art- but even that is impossible as there is no perpetual motion.and we know it because physics rules over e.g math.

Theoretical physics needs time.
I'm not talking that life is to short for playing e.g  with:
spin / NMR
a basic 3D coordinate system  I did it.
https://youtu.be/QHBEHOOsxT4?t=457
however you may watch this video from the beginning of it.
-as I act there as assassinated together with Tariel Kapanadze, by some Russians, but still lucky to be alive.
-later on in time, they approached me few more times  ..
_________________________________________________________________________

,,, What about me:

who cares?
I'm nobody or to be more precise nobody special.
I feel good, great as a member of the crowd but you my friend not- you are different.( opinion of my wife- psychologist,
reading your  comments . )
My focus is in particle physics,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdlkeI0bXy4&t=12s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzujmKROWI&t=1136s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PJVIkyW5Y&t=600s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3gPFfgDp8&t=26s
but I'm quite good (or for some incredibly good) in electromagnetism in particular  electromagnetic wave from practical and theoretical perspective.
I'm definitely not a guru in all aspects of physics (e.g similar to a MD in internal medicine.)
Wesley

[stivep]

My focus is in particle physics,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdlkeI0bXy4&t=12s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izzujmKROWI&t=1136s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2PJVIkyW5Y&t=600s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ3gPFfgDp8&t=26s
but I'm quite good (or for some incredibly good) in electromagnetism in particular  electromagnetic wave from practical and theoretical perspective.
I'm definitely not a guru in all aspects of physics (e.g similar to a MD in internal medicine.)

below are my electron microscopes. I have few of them
but in total I had four.
Wesley

[d3x0r]

  funny complaint 'I'm too advanced to play with sticks and stones'; I do wish I had the connection to electro-static/electro-magnetic balance already.....


In the middle there - oh I'm a hermit, and I hate crowds; and am happier nowhere near them.... except when I have a eureka moment.


https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v5s6yi/whats_the_angle_of_deflection_for_a_ratio_of/ no answers
https://sciencehiddenfacts.quora.com/What-is-the-angle-of-deflection-for-a-ratio-of-objects-on-a-beam-balance-scale no answers (posted by me)
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9307/formula-for-implementing-a-simulated-weighing-scale/ no correct answers (except mine, but that's what the debate is about)


A beam balance is one of the simplest things you can play with - why is this such a impossible question?


I threw together this demo to show my math, and even what the equivalent classical physics answer is.   https://d3x0r.github.io/STFRPhysics/math/indexBeamBalance.html  At a 3:4 ratio 22.5 degrees in reality, physics measures 20 degrees - this is tough; need a near ideal scale (other than the classical answer should also be less than 20 for any non-ideal scale, so if the balance gets to 20 degrees it'd still be a win for the simple ratio...

simply, and with little explanation  A and B are a count of objects (they should all be the same type of thing, apples, pence, grams, etc - especially grams since 1 gram is very much like another gram). 
classical physics : cos( A/(A+B) ) or -cos( B/A+B ).
simple ratio : (A-B)/A or (A-B)/B, depending on which is larger.

Yes, math isn't physics and vice versa - but this is so simple... I even posted it as a challenge question https://discord.com/channels/834837272234426438/835139788742852669/983277950554243104  on Some2 ( 3 blue 1 brown's channel) and got 0 answers.

There's a math discord channel too - I asked, they said it should be a challenge, but I can't write to challenge, and got 0 answers.

I'd have preferred a challenge of the math... the derivitives of the functions mentioned above are entirely different, and lead to different results.   As I mentioned I chased this actually backward from QM, so everything, based on this idea of simple harmonic oscillators of e^(pi*i) is really arguably mathematically wrong for the situation of a balance beam... and in turn many other things.

Navier Stokes for example, is in complex numbers, where the radius and spin are inseparably combined; this leads to paths along the polar graph that are convergence and divergence, and loses that the flow is really still a regular linear/rectangular coordinate system of flow, and spin is caused by an offset of balance.

---
Approaching this from a rapid change in balance, especially at the balance point, a simple calculation... on the attached image, the bottom left quater are only hung by the rim of the wheel - the left top quarter does extra work, because the mass extends about 45 degrees, and if the arms are 4 inches, is only 3.4 inches out... If the wheel is also a 4 inch radius, then the are 8 inches and 7.4 inches respectively.  On the left there's 16 that are 7.4 inches for a total of 116.4 outword inches, plus 9*4 for the bottom quarter - another 36 inches.  152.4 total.

On the right there's 5 and most of a 6th that's at 7.4 inches for 42.58 and 15 at 8 inches for a total of 120, added together is 162.58... If there are weights at the end of the arms that are at least as much mass as the arm themselves, this is an excess of balance on the right side, which will provide a constant velocity.

(modeled on one of the videos above, the red paddle wheel thing in snow)

[sm0ky2]

The "red wheel" does not appear to be a functional device.
You can visibly see where the masses are from the center of rotation,
It is obviously being driven, by force or momenti.