Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 325305 times)

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Guys this is absolutely off topic but it's keeping me awake.  If anyone can help me out here please do.  If they can start a thread on the subject then I'll definitely be up for discussion.  I have no idea how to start a thread. 

I've watched one of Michio Kaku's videos on time travel.  He referenced Einstein's theory of Relativity - I think 'General' - that proposed that time dilates - decreasing in proportion to increased speed.  Not sure if there's a proposed ratio.  I know nothing about this.  I just heard Kaku mention that at close to light speed then time virtually stops.  I've heard all this before - but never really paid it much heed.  I've got my own take on time.  In any event - this is the puzzle.

I googled the rate of our planet's spin.  It's circumference is apparently 40 075 kilometers which gives one 1669.8 kilometers per hour - and over a twenty four hour period it completes an entire axial spin.  Now.  I have a spaceman - goes up in a ship which is sent into orbit.   It locks into a position that - unlike our moon - stays in precisely one position - let's say directly over Ntebe in Uganda - near the equator.  The space ship has compensated it's speed and travels faster - to ensure that it stays in precisely that same position over Ntebe.  Therefore sun up and sun down co-incides with Ntebe's sun up sun down.  But it's speed may have increased to  plus/minus 3 396 kilometers per hour to accommodate the greater distance in it's movement through a wider circumference.  Then tell me what time dilation does that spaceman experience?   He still sees the sun come up and the sun go down - he still travels through a time that is entirely co-incident with our day and our night.  Not only that - but the experiment is theoretically feasible.  And yet his 24 hours will precisely match the 24 hour period enjoyed by the inhabitants of Ntebe.  So.  What price 'time dilation'.  His own time frame matches Greenwich Mean Time.

But then I've got a problem.  Is it then theoretically possible to put the pedal to the metal - so to speak - and travel at, say 6 692 kilometers per hour - either with or against our axial spin?  And then?  What are the consequences?   Would that spaceman then see and earlier sunrise?  Alternatively - if he travelled in the same direction as our axial spin - would he see a later sunrise?  And if he then returned to earth - would it still be co-incident with our own time frame? 

I simply can't work it out.  All references that I've found talk about moving away in a straight line.  What happens when we move in the same space in an orbit?  Reminds me of the poem

'There was a young lady from Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light
She set off one day in a relative way
And returned the previous night.

Anyway - this subject will probably just hang here as so many of my questions do.  But I'd be glad of some comment - or better still - if someone could start a thread.  Then I'll delete this post.

Regards,
Rosemary

EDITED  Thanks Bubba.  I've amended the numbers.  But still not sure if they're right.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 03:34:33 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Bubba1

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
I googled the rate of our planet's spin.  It's apparently 40 075 kilometers per hour - and over a twenty four hour period it completes an entire axial spin.

I think it's more like 40,075 kilometers/day.  Speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers/second, quite a difference.


Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
I think it's more like 40,075 kilometers/day.  Speed of light is approximately 300,000 kilometers/second, quite a difference.

It seems that I was referencing the the circumference and not the rate of spin.  I think it's amended now.  Thanks for this Bubba. 

ADDED  Actually guys I've got the answer.  He sees the sun relative to it's postion over Ntebe - but just sees it more often depending on his speed... I think.  But that still leave the question related to 'time dilation'.  I don't see any if his position in space stays constant relative to earth and if his orbital velocity is co-incident to our own time frame.

regards
Rosemary
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 04:03:55 AM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
You'll most likely need the 555, which was stressed in my previous posts. The "over-riding" duty cycle occurs because of interference back to the 555.
Thanks for the advice - but frankly Poynty, I'd prefer to rest on the advices of those experts that I'm working with - is my first point.  And you state - unequivocally that the overriding of the duty cycle is the result of 'interference'?  That's an opinion.  I've already explained that the 555 is NOT subject to interference.  We're doing our switch tests without a load.  So.  Where then is that 'interference' coming from?  The 555 seems not to be efficient.  Certainly not at the level we're looking for.  So.  While you're happy with your opinion there are those of us who simply don't agree.

But try the microcontroller, it will provide a wide range of frequency and duty cycle outputs.
Again.  I'm grateful for your lenience here in 'allowing' us to do the required.  But I'm not sure that it's appropriate to give us advice. We'll do the tests under the advisement of experts.

I doubt the desired quasi-stable oscillation will be achieved with anything other than the right combination of chips, and the 555 seems up to the task, due to its inherent sensitivity to outside influences.
Are you indulging us here Poynty Point -  by 'allowing' us to do these tests but that your OPINION is that it won't work anyway?  In which case would you sooner we not even try this?  I'm really not sure that I care that much whether you think it may or may not work.  We'll do the tests that we need to satisfy our own curiosity about this matter - if you don't mind.

I read that you were going to do an Ainslie Circuit debunk?  May I assure you that you'll need to do this on an alternate thread and better yet - in your own forum - where you first proposed this.  I do not want this thread dominated with a debate on efficacy of the device.  This thread is to present the data when we do those tests.  You can debate that data elsewhere.  Else I suspect that you'll systematically errode the confidence of any readers here very much as Harvey and Glen have managed on their own thread at EF.com.  It's hard enough as it is - bringing this kind of data to the table - without the gratuitous involvement of 'debunkers' no matter their pretended interest in the technology.

R.

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Rose:

The only way to stay over a fixed point on the earth in space is to be at 22,500 miles up, known as geostationary orbit.  Orbital velocity is close to 17,500 miles/hour. This was posited by Arthur Clark (of 2001 fame) and later utilized in geosyncro satellite technology.

Einstein's relativity theory was proven by sending up an atomic clock into orbit and then comparing that very accurate time to another one on earth.  The time difference, although minuscule, was measurable and it proved that part of his theory.

Bill

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rose:

The only way to stay over a fixed point on the earth in space is to be at 22,500 miles up, known as geostationary orbit.  Orbital velocity is close to 17,500 miles/hour. This was posited by Arthur Clark (of 2001 fame) and later utilized in geosyncro satellite technology.

Einstein's relativity theory was proven by sending up an atomic clock into orbit and then comparing that very accurate time to another one on earth.  The time difference, although minuscule, was measurable and it proved that part of his theory.

Bill

Thank you Pirate.  At least someone answered me.  I know nothing about the proposed geostationary orbit - but I do know, that theoretically - it's possible to increase orbital speed so that one can stay locked over a single position on earth - and then one would also be in synch with Greenwich Mean Time.  That's about as accurate a standard of time as can be made.  And there would be absolutely no evidence of a time lag notwithstanding the increased velocity.  And if there was evidence of a difference in time then I'd propose that the astronaut check his clocks as they're probably wrong.  And I've read about that test done on an atomic clock.  I would argue that the it's only one test.  We all produce hundreds and even then the evidence isn't accepted.  So I'd put it to those 'relativity giants' that actually you'll need to replicate that test - and even then I'd be inclined to doubt it unless I could replicate for myself.   If they're using some kind of atomic standard - then it's accuracy would be forfeit to all that interaction with the earth's magnetic flux.  Of course it'll be wrong.

But I grant you that the argument won't be popular - and since I know so little about it - it's probably wrong.  But I can't get my head around it and it's cost me a decent night's sleep.  I was so hoping for an explanation.  But it seems that no-one here's interested in theory.  More's the pity.  And I'm banned from the physics forum for arguing that censorship rules science.  That would have been a more appropriate forum for the question.  In any event.  I'm still to learn that trick of keeping my questions to myself.  No-one really cares. 

Sorry for the rant Bill.  And thanks anyway for answering the post.  Otherwise it just hangs there as most of my posts do. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Rose:

If you check out any article on orbital mechanics, you will see that velocity only increases your altitude above the planet.  17,500 is the minimal velocity required to achieve orbit.  If you go faster, the orbit altitude increases.  If you go slower, you re-enter the atmosphere. If you get to 25,000 mph, which is escape velocity, then you can leave orbit as done in the Apollo program when they traveled to the moon.

The geostationary orbit requires that you be at 22,500 miles above the earth.  A little higher, or a little lower and the earth will be moving under you one way or the other.  Either you are advancing, or the earth is.  This is the only way to be and maintain a position above a fixed point on the planet.  This is a very complex calculation taking into consideration the diameter of the earth, gravity, and all of the other physics involved.  I am no scholar in this but what I am telling you is correct.  The math is extremely complex.

I hope this helps.

Bill

PS  Yes, you could be "in sync" with Greenwich mean time if in an orbit 22,500 miles above it, but, that only means you are above that point.  You are still traveling at 22,500 mph and, according to Einstein, time is being altered due to your high velocity.  Again, very little observable difference but a difference non the less that exactly went to his predictions.  Not just that it was changed, but the exact amount of change.

Very heavy stuff that I do NOT pretend to understand very much of.  I do understand some of it.

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rose:

If you check out any article on orbital mechanics, you will see that velocity only increases your altitude above the planet.  17,500 is the minimal velocity required to achieve orbit.  If you go faster, the orbit altitude increases.  If you go slower, you re-enter the atmosphere. If you get to 25,000 mph, which is escape velocity, then you can leave orbit as done in the Apollo program when they traveled to the moon.

The geostationary orbit requires that you be at 22,500 miles above the earth.  A little higher, or a little lower and the earth will be moving under you one way or the other.  Either you are advancing, or the earth is.  This is the only way to be and maintain a position above a fixed point on the planet.  This is a very complex calculation taking into consideration the diameter of the earth, gravity, and all of the other physics involved.  I am no scholar in this but what I am telling you is correct.  The math is extremely complex.

I hope this helps.

Bill

Ok.  I'm getting there.  But that also means that there is that preferred distance and preferred speed and at that point the concept of 'time lag' flies out the spacecraft window.  So what price 'time lag'? is my point.  But I must admit I forgot about adjustments against gravity to sustain that postion.  But in any event, I only argued the theoretical postulate.  And I still hold to it.  I believe that all time frames are dependant on velocity - but I also believe that our own time frame is consistent with light speed.  Anything faster and we're in a different time frame and a different universe.  Anything slower and we're in our own universe - which is always within a consistent frame of reference.  No time lags - except as measured against the speed of light.  If I travelled at close to the speed of light it would take ever longer for my signal to reach earth - I grant you.  Is that what's being proposed by time lag?  Actually I think I see it now.  That's the point.  My time frame would then be out of synch with earth's time frame.  Golly.  Thanks Pirate.  AT LAST. 

Let me think about this for a bit.  I think that's the point in any event.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Rose:

Now you are getting on the right track but, you are also getting over my current level of understanding as well.  I suggest a good read of the relativity theory, not the math involved but the basic posits.  That is what helped me to get to my, although very low, current level of understanding.

Bill

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Bill - it's all so hellishly compulsively interesting.  But I think I'm seeing the light here.  Think about it.  If light signals are dependent on velocity then the speed at which the signal travels through space is fixed at 186 000 miles per second.  Something like that.  In any event a really big number.  Therefore the speed at which it moves through space is fixed at that velocity.  So.  If you're in a space craft moving away from the signal receiver - at whatever velocity - then the time it takes to get your signal back to earth would be dependent on distance you are away from the earth when you sent your signal and the speed at which you're travelling.  There would be an inevitable delay - and that delay would be be a measure of the 'lag in time' which relates to your velocity and your distance from that signal receiver.  At light speed or close to light speed velocity and your distance is increased exponentially - as well as the short time taken in duration to cover that distance.  That truncated time frame is what makes time 'less' or 'slows' down time - relative to earth time.  I think.  Maybe.  I need to think this through more but I think it's somewhere here. 

Golly.  Not a good way to start the day.  I need to get moving.  I've just seen the time.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

edited spelling
« Last Edit: October 13, 2010, 04:57:20 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Ok.  In the unlikely event that anyone's reading here - to quote the immortal Elisa Doolittle - 'I think I've got it.'  Here's the thing.  Velocity is determined by distance and time - the greater the velocity the less time to cover a given distance, and conversely the slower velocity the greater the time to cover a given distance.  Extreme values in distance and velocity results in extreme differences in time.  All time is relative to distance and velocity.  All distance is determined by velocity relative to time.  All velocity is relative to distance and time.  It's a three way sum.  This would apply to an orbit or to a straight line through space.  But the straight line through space would, theoretically, allow for greater distances which would incorporate greater variations to time.  So.  That's not so difficult.  God alone knows why everyone complicates it.

Regards,
Rosemary

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Rose:

Ah, but you are missing one point, at least according to Albert, and that is that the speed of light is the constant.  So now, if you go back and review what you said in your post above you may see where relativity fits in.

I'll try to open one of my many books in my personal library over here that has a great, but yet understandable, explanation.  When I read it, it opened my eyes.

It is too late and I am too tired to even try to think about it because it is a bit mind boggling, but I will get back to you with it.  Your ideas are on the correct track though, in my opinion.

Bill

PS  Your pint about velocity being a function of both distance and time is correct.......but.....Albert showed that velocity was indeed, in the eye of the beholder....in other words, it was relative to your position at the time (there is that word again) the measurements were taken.  Velocity relative to what frame of reference?  That is the key.

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Rose:

OK, one more post before bed.

If you and I were on a train, and you walked forward on the moving train traveling at say 50 mph, inside the car, I would clock you at about 2 miles/hour.  This is how fast you were moving relative to my position on the same train with you.

Now, someone outside the train looking through the windows also clocks you....guess what?  Their speed of you is calculated at 52 miles/hour from their position.  Both answers are exactly correct.  But, that can't be right?  One of Albert's main points was that velocity was relative based on the frame of ref. of the observer.

I will write more when I check my books.  This is all I can recall at this time.

Bill

Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rose:

Ah, but you are missing one point, at least according to Albert, and that is that the speed of light is the constant.  So now, if you go back and review what you said in your post above you may see where relativity fits in.

I'll try to open one of my many books in my personal library over here that has a great, but yet understandable, explanation.  When I read it, it opened my eyes.

It is too late and I am too tired to even try to think about it because it is a bit mind boggling, but I will get back to you with it.  Your ideas are on the correct track though, in my opinion.

Bill

Bill - go to bed.  This subject can wait.  Quite apart from which you must remember that the speed of light which is, indeed, constant - is only a measure of something with a given velocity over a given time.  It just happens to be the fastest thing that we know and can use and compare things against.  It's not the 'theoretical' limit to velocity.  It's only the theoretical limit to velocities that we can measure.  It's like the gold standard.  But unlike the gold standard it's got a dependable predictable value.  We use it - is all.  It's the only 'finite' or 'extreme' limit that we can measure.  All else is invisible.   ::)  LOL.  That - I presume to propose is where our 'reality' stops and dark matter comes into the equation. 

Which is me going on an on about a pet peeve. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
Rose:

That reminds me of my first physics professor in college who said that the speed of light was the fastest thing we could imagine.  To which I replied "what about twice the speed of light?"

He was not amused.

Bill