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

[Tarsier_79]

"The fat kid on the teeter totter is always on the ground"

Ha ha. I will have to use that.

[d3x0r]

what is a value of wasted time vs pursuit of some larger life goal?
Why are you here?
What do you expect?
____________________________
For math, game, popular entertainment there are other places to go to.
For showing yourself smart, in math,  it is to small and to diversified  audience.
Real beauty of electromagnetic wave,- is not your domain, nor you would  dedicate to it your next 2 years of life
People wants to gain something:
- some knowledge, ideas. Practicality is appreciated too.
- the field of energy and mechanisms related.
-something is interesting, and so what?

___________________________

Wesley

(links in descriptions) THese are my videos ... 'EM isn't me...'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJYLTFiUeU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsorE1JD7HM


I haven't gotten there YET - I only just discovered that there is an alternate math; if it's not right, then the result is - for a random simulator emulating photons passing through polarizers, I just have to apply `cos( ratio)`  and there's some magical force that means for a count of things the curve is modified.  From analysis of weights at a quantized level, which is the same math for just comparting correlation of 2 obersevers with different measuring devices viewing the same event.    I realized just how simple this would be to disprove one or the other with a simple, fairly deterministic experiment... I'm building up to mine, I made a few models, but I had my phase off ... and was expecting only 3.5 degrees vs 10 degrees which would have been like 250% error and surely easy to see... the real discprepancy is only 2.47 degrees at the worst case.


I'm fine with just modifying my result for comparing the ratio of events that happen or don't happen after applying cos() to it - that matches QM exactly and nothings broken, and we go back to Aldo Costa's wheel relies on external forces.

[d3x0r]

Dexor

I like math, I have done these calcs before and have been studying gravity wheels for over 20 years.

If you had done the calculations correctly, you would get 0, or very close to 0 torque for your red wheel. If there was torque, they wouldn't need a drill to drive it.

Dynamically, it will act differently to a static model. The faster you spin it, the less positive torques will exist: ie. the levers will take relatively longer to flip out or in, creating drag on the system.

The "Balancewheel" is balanced when still, and an inertial brake when moving.

ADD: The overbalance wheel in France, (Aldo Costa's) wheel works due to change in air pressure, hence the little sealed bottles.

I get it - I walked away from the idea after investigating the John Device, and working out 'oh it's the cos(angle of tilt (whichis powre in)) raises the weight by well the arc... and imparts a spin of ... that weight falling down the slope, and the output of the weight is the same as the input.


That's presuming that cos(ratio) is the proper output.  Having seen the slopes of the derivitives I'm not so sure. 


Part of the problem is the 4D spacetime.... there's really 7, 3 for velocity, 3 for spin, 1 for time. Yes you might consider the spin a linear transformation with sin and cos which certainly work in this case to move all points around an axis the same amount; but the specific angle to move them might be calculated differently.


(This is still a work in progress)
Collisions for 3D (and maybe I should start with 2D, but really should be basically the same) could be modeled instead of taking a cross product of the velocity with the differences in positions to find a spin axis and cos(angle) to transform them to, could be taken as the mass*velocity (weight) applied to a balance beam with a fulcrum of the center of mass, the point of collision a direct projection forward, the plane of the fulrums it will apply spin to is perpendicular to the velocity vector, and doesn't need any additional information to find where the axis is... then the ratio of the masses and offset from the fulcum ends up being the ratio of 0-90 spin for that object.   


One is finding a lot of information from the future (assuming you knew the angle, the cos( angle) is in the cross product) this isntead already knows the angle, and knows where the pivots are.


If I go back and revisit the math, instead applying what I know is the error in the curve, then things like Aldo's wheel makes a lot of sense.  And still VEProject is clear they cannot work - there's no tipping the scales, it's just all letting the scale settle into a balance.

[d3x0r]

@dex
the angle of deflection (+ or -) is the angle of restricted motion of the lever or it's maximum.
in the most extreme case it is 90-degrees.

-1 to +1 and 0 is in the middle.   this is sort of like 'i' is 90 degrees, 1 is 90 degrees, 2 is 180 3 the same as -1, ... if you numbered the sine wave with quaters of 0 1 2 3   you'd get 0 1 0 -1 0...


It's actually quarter turns that apply here - while the numbers from -1 to 1 are the fraction from -90 to 90  (can simply be modified)

I apologize, I may slip between the two systems - and even radians because you can just throw a pi/2 in there.

[/size]


At less than the force to overcome the levers friction this may be offset to some degree:
This is defined by the mechanics of the lever and the proportionality between the masses.
Otherwise: Anything either side of 1:1 the angle of deflection is maximum for the lever system.


"The fat kid on the teeter totter is always on the ground"

https://overunity.com/19139/local-hidden-variables-for-the-win-not-101st-bad-idea/msg567774/#msg567774  but I already posted a picture that's easy to see - if you have a fulcrum that's a pivot point that can't fall off the support, a 2:1 ratio is 45 degrees.  3:4 is 22.5 degrees... whatever to whatever is some degrees, and is not a critical failure.

[stivep]

(links in descriptions) THese are my videos ... 'EM isn't me...'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAJYLTFiUeU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsorE1JD7HM

I haven't gotten there YET

your videos as seven and six years old.
That doesn't indicate an interest in physics of energy transfer and conversion.
Physics rules and model is just the tool used by it.
please take it, as a  friendly advice, I wish you the best.

______________________________________________________________

Supposedly you were looking for energy conversion resulting in effect electrical energy for free called also Free Energy.
here you have it.
It's so easy.
Explanation:
there are two mechanisms present here:
#1. Energy transfer from point A to point B using earth/air two dimensional interface.
#2. Energy extraction from Schumann waveguide that uses mechanism of #1 as a base.

Assuming that you have wire for free and labor is your own that would be close to zero cost of making it.
but you are interested with math I assumed at least for the last seven years.

Dr. James Corum.
I assume he knew about energy extraction from Schumann waveguide,
but this was not good for his business.
In his business energy transfer from point A to point B was the goal.
so I instead of making patents I decided to give it for free, but free is often not appreciated.
That is the unfortunate truth about human mammal.


Below I am giving you the  patents of Dr. James Corum.
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/james-f-corum

but you have no freaking idea, what you reading, what is it about, what to do with.
With all due respect you will be  like a man from the jungle, trying to read Shakespeare .Please correct me if I'm wrong.

______________________________________________________________

You want to test yourself?
So it takes approximately two years of school,
or two months of study for an amateur  with basic knowledge about electromagnetism.
But it takes two weeks , for talented intelligent  usually young men to be able to read and understand
these patents.

so my friend you instead of, hanky-panky, cruising around of nothing, possibly B'S-ing yourself,
can find how good you are, and we can check it out two weeks from now.

I would love to be wrong
but you're possibly going to be looking at those patents like a cow on plasma TV .
I'm on your side I wish you the best
Wesley



<sub>ps: you like math , so look at math there in patents and pictures
and after that  go here and this mechanism is a key to A to B energy transfer.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIIABIU3tRw&t=156s

It doesn't talk about ELF ( extra low frequency used by us to get energy from Schumann Waveguide, but
it explained the entire mechanism of Zenneck wave that has many names. And is not important if we call it  plasmon or polariton
Name Zenneck Wave is reserved to ELF.
the mechanism  is simpler for ELF too.</sub> 
     
After that  you are ready to read with easiness my two other topics.