re wesley's video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE the simplified version is nothing like the original. The proposed magnet has a much greater mass (and more flux), with the rings folded over each other you don't have a path of flux through the rings, just around the rings, and most of it leaks immediately in the area of the block magnet. The magnets he used were really rather small, and really comes down to having a balance of flux, not more is better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsBplmMDcRQ (overbalanced ferris wheel). This works, any time, night, day, still wind or gusty wind (there's not really any aerodynamic character to it). Others other than the inventor and his camera have stood next to it, and seen it work.

If I can 'troll' a little bit for more awareness... I started

https://overunity.com/19139/local-hidden-variables-for-the-win-not-101st-bad-idea/msg567777 to discuss the math.

Yes, I know classical mechanics/physics and forces. That's all you can learn out there... and I did learn it, I'm aware of all of it; and yes, I can do math.

Yes, I realize what I'm proposing seems ludicrous in light of what I know.

There's actually a long back story, and I didn't just hit my head in the bath and come to a realization, I instead took a very long path from something entirely related to where I ended up. So let me just share some of the highlights. I may say a lot of things you disagree with from the classical approaches to things, a lot of this is Independent research and DEVELOPMENT (there are at least interactive results, even if they are virtual); please at least let me get to the end for the thing you will disagree with, and grant me that I've taken everything leading up to that as 'given' and if I haven't said it or shown it in this, I have reasons that these things are fundamental.)

I started with spin vectors - 3D representations for spin; which are more commonly treated as axis*angle with a unit vector axis scaled by an angle. The math generally normalizes the 3D vector before using it, so keeping it as 4 components makes sense for efficiency, but they're still really just 3 numbers. (none of this spin axis is technically needed for where I end up, and don't make me defend this) I found them actually very elegant to use (although I am a software developer, so when I 'use' things a lot of complex calculation can end up going into it, and I certainly wouldn't want to generally deal with a lot of rotational math with 3D vectors on paper.)

So I made a bunch of demos and entertaining things with rotation vectors, even replaced Quaternions with rotation vectors in a version of cannon-es (

https://d3x0r.github.io/cannon.js/ ). Some of the operations ended up simplifying out especially where integrate() was called to apply a partial rotation. And basically all was well, and of course the math works

I started digging into spin mechanics described by QM

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZSC7wgBq3RSLKoJDfGL0Rg/videos NoahExplainsPhysics was the source that really made it click - especially Quantum Spin (3) - The Bloch Sphere and Quantum Spin (2) - Pauli Matrices. So I reverse applied what QM says should be for some spin axis (mind you QM does NOT have a spin axis. Mostly because it's just not available in the math; they converted all the angles to sin(angle),cos(angle) for each of the angles (convert polar to complex basically), and then multiply the 6 values in various combinations, so whatever the angle was, is lost to the wind).

Noone was impressed with my graph that resulted with *shrug* me either. But this at least let me consider what QM thinks of the world. I did a lot more digging and learning about the QM approach to things, and came across this CHSH game described here

https://qubit.guide/9.3-chsh-inequality.html or more technically here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality , and realized 'heck if there is a so-called hidden variable, it would be spin axis.' So I made some comparitive simulations behaving according to those rules, as spin axis would apply to, and got this game

https://d3x0r.github.io/STFRPhysics/math/CHSH_Game.html . The samples and counts, and all information used is shown, and if I sum the results the way prescribed by the inequality, then indeed, my simulation = 2.0. But there's more than one way to measure, and you can weigh the results instead (I'm getting a little ahead of myself).

I saw in the data, that 50% that QM predicts at 60 degrees, the samples are say 120 same and 60 different. So, what I have is the samples, and I have the degrees of the QM test device, and I know what the values should be, so I can compare the samples a different way and use basically `1 - (same-different)/different` (or over same, which ever is bigger), which then makes my measure of samples relate to QM; however not exactly.

What QM predicts is based on a harmonic oscillator, and is `cos(angle of devices)` or the dot product of the alignment vectors of the devices. So, here's my problem, I find the math is '1-(same-different)/same' and physics says it should be cos(). And yes, I get it, I'm not 'right'. But AM I?

I continued with a few more simulations, 1) independent correlations, 2) 2 polarizer stack, 3) 3 polarizer stack, and my results of the simulations are all within range of QM's prediction (by like 3%, very close). It's got to be, what, in how I compare the samples to get the final ratio? What other information do I have other than (A)Samples that were the same and (B) samples that were different? really nothing.

QM Experiments done in real life have technical difficulties; electrons are hard to get to go in a specific direction (Stern Gerlach Tests), Polarizers aren't perfect and are only 92-97% transmissive, and the photo multiplier used to detect individual photons will just fire randomly from random high energy particles from space. (Perfect light is never perfect, and perfect dark is never perfectly dark), so now, all the results of the experiment have at least 4% error in them (or are they actually very close, and my 3% difference between my math and the math predicted by QM is part of that? It is, generally the direction that the experiment is off is towards my graph. (I will assert 'MY' for now, because at this point in the history, I don't know of anyone else who didn't have a homework assignment to complete, that could take the time to push this idea to its limits; but it broadens).

So great, I decide to abandon fitting my results with QM predictions, and instead I have a simulation and the predicted value of that simulation that overlap 100% and then I have QM's prediction which off.

So, I talked with a few people, got some information, got some challenge to defend why there was a '2' in my math and various other aspects. This led me to come up with different models to show the same math. I could build the same QM thought experiment of hidden variables, but really the particles going through have no knowledge or information. (It's long to explain in detail, so just the gist) you have red and blue boxes; these catch marbles, when a marble entered a red box it will leave any other red box, similarly with blue. (depending on the experiment) If a ball enters a red box from a red box, it's dumped to the right, otherwise it goes left, if a ball enters a blue box from any color box, it's dumped to the left. (blue is the half of the polarizer the blocks transmission). If I have on of each pair red-red, blue-blue, red-blue and blue-red, what ends up on the right vs left is 1:2. If you measure these samples with A+B=1, then the transmission is 33%. If you weigh the marbles (A+B=2c), a balance beam scale will be at 1/2 of 90 degrees or 50%. So it comes down to a difference between weight and measure.

So then it comes down to 'what is the angle of a beam-balance for a ratio of objects?'. It's a constant based purely on the ratio of objects (other than a bias towards zero for the weight of the scale itself which comes in like (A-B+scale)/((A or B)+scale)). So this multi-part function, that's got to be an annoyance right? *shrug* if(A) A else B; happens all the time in programming, but again, I understand on paper that's no so pleasant.

But how can I prove this? Well, I suppose, if I have a balance beam and put 4 objects on one side and 5 on the other, and compare 1-cos(pi/2 * 1/5) with (5-4)/5, it's like a 250% difference where the cos() term from classical mechanics says '3.5 degrees' and my ratio says '10 degrees'. So all I need is a good, nearly massless (relative to the objects compared) scale, and measure? Well, it's 10 degrees, and classical mechanics says 'well it's a complex problem of changing masses, and just doing the integral for all angles, and matching that curve against A and B ratios in a sort in inverse relationship isn't sufficient. There's a correction term especially blamed on the scale itself... but then I have to ask, if I have this simple ratio that tells me exactly what the tilt is, without any corrections, and it's simple, without any calculus? Im still wrong. Gotit.

I'll just touch one some details of the derivatives... 1-cos(theta) at theta=0 has a slope of sin(theta) and at 0, the slope is 0. 1-(x/(pi-x)) (scaled to match cos inputs) has a slope of 2 at 0; which since I was already thinking about it made sense... if I have a scale with N and N things, and I move one from one to the other, the difference in the ratio goes up by 2. This approach also extends to the limits though... and N and 1 (where everything is on side and just one on the other) then (N-1)/N has a slope of 1/2... and I can take a piece of graph paper and draw what happens at the edge of infinity, because N can be arbitrarily large, and I can still what happens at infinity-1.

I get it... a balance beam based on stone age tech is a terribly hard thing to conceive. And yet, without calculus, without a limit approaching 0, without cos, sin, etc, I can exactly predict the angle of the beam.

So ya, it's not that the ratio is right, it's still wrong, and I'm just doing classical mechanics wrong; let me refer you to other physical evidence (see ferris wheel second link).