Solomon Technologies - "Electric Wheel" electric motor propulsion systems

Pokin fun

Fred,

We aren't sposed to talk bout politics here - well we aren't sposed to talk about politics in the open discussion forum thead on politics either, so basically theres to be no politics talk here....OK?

I hope it was politically correct to post that!

Oops - there I done gone went & did it again!

As Gomer Pyle would say - well Gooohhhlllleeeyyy, shazzam!

Fred - for what it's worth I think Iraq wuill be the last thing on anyones mind after end March when your into Iran instead!

We are being softened up for it now...if you know how to read betwixt the lines in the press. Least Scott Ritter says so...

Scott Ritter for anyones forgotten - was the US CIA intel guy who was in Iraq with the Unscom Weapons inspectors under our Aussie Richard Butler chief weapons inspector for UNSCOM. He was the 2 i C to Butler and also the one who blew the whistle to Aussie 4 corners program about the CIA using Unscom to insert operatives into Iraq prior to the war to tap the Iraqi telephones system...from the weapons inspectors headquarters...

Anyway - he's now some kinda Military analyist or something...and says pretty unequivocally (as does Russian deputy PM Zhirinovski) that the decisions already been made and the USA will use limited yeild tactical battlefield nukes against Iran around 28th? March 2006..i.e about 6 weeks away!

If you guys don't start it...then likely the Israelis will, apparently (again reportedly) Ariel Sharon gave the March 28 deadline for nuking Irans reactor before he was "taken ill"...

Course could all be ********** too - but I wouldn't bet on it...

I've a bad feeling Iran will make Iraq look like a turkey shoot.

Lets see what 6 weeks brings shall we?

I think the Iranian Presdent "Ahminadad" (or however you spell it) dude is pretty much certain to get hit by France anyway - even if you guys & the Israeli's don't get in first. I don't think Chirac will miss the chance..

Course I could post my 'sources' but where would be the fun in that!

I'd sooner wait 6 weeks and say "told ya so".

Cheers!

 

"Electric Wheel" electric motor propulsion systems deteriorated?
was it not george bush recently saying the us will soon be independed of oil ?
so what does he know we dont?

 

I know Yipster!

M = Delta T

he he he!

Free energy from the vacuum of space...or

That theres about the be a gnu clea (new clear?) holocaust when he invades Iran and you won't be needing oil after Russia turns the USA into a glass bowl parking lot in retaliation (with their new topol 27 rocket mirved warheads)?

I think the Shrubs actually dumb enough to do it ya know!!

I think he should push the button first!

Yeah, but before ya give him the button - strap him to the front of the very first missile - so as he pushes da button, he zooms off into space FIRST!

Then - self detonnate / destroy the missile out in space..

Or better yet just deactivate it mid flight so he lands in Iran, with the missile - thattaway- he can lead his troops BY EXAMPLE and be the first US boots on Iranian soil... Yeah - like - "follow me boys". Now THATS being a leader of the troops!

Problem solvered!

International politics...my specialty!

I'm expecting a call from Kofi Annan anyday now!

Cheers!

 

I ask you...

Would you leave this man in charge to teach your children?

This man has a vision for your countrys future? - can see clearly where he is taking you?

Thats good, coz now I feel very reassured!

Cheers!

P.s. I am just funnin with you guys!! - I KNOW Jeff's gonna b!tch slap me for this!

Lets just say - tis a wee bit quiet here today...OK?..

I'll go back to takin my pills now and be a happy chappie...

100 times
I will NOT bite the porcupine!
I will NOT bite the porcupine!
I willl Not ............

he he he!

 

will you guys look at my thread and help me out ....remember Im not to smart

 

Can't be Longliner you've mates like us and still live in the U.S.

"i don't suffer from insanity, I'm loving every minute of it!

 

Only 6 weeks to go!

And yes Irans creating an oil 'Bourse' (exchange, where oil can be bought in $Euro's)!

Color me dumb, but wasn't Iraq's Saddam man selling oil in Euro's too when the whitehouse lied to everyone about weapons of mass dissapearance and chemical weapons and nuclear weapons etc etc, as a pretext to iinvade Iraq?

Heck - tis like de-ja-vu all over again!

Collapse of the US economy...or war with Iran (and or Syria)... not much of a choice really is it?

And all these innocent women and kids in Iran don't matter - you know why?

Collateral damage!

Heck - isn't that what "Dead Eye Dick" just claimed about his latest quail kill victim? Collateral damage?

You know - Osama probably said the same about the 9/11 victims.. Collateral damage...

(Theres no truth in the rumor when someone shouted quail - Dead Eye Dick misunderstood and thought they were talking bout Dan Quayle and just let rip instinctively is there?

So - whats this Iran Oil Bourse thing got to do with war in Iran?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html

You know - the sad thing is.....

If we'd a took up with M = delta T back before the Iraq war - BOTH these wars could have been avoided IMHO!

Maybe the electric wheel is the answer afterall!

6 weeks and counting down to Iran!

Cheers!

 

OK lets get back on track

Yes - tis time to get back on track with this electric wheel / solomons technology bidness - while we wait for the Iran war to eventuate in 6 weeks!!

So - to recap - I think i've covered a fair bit of territory..

One area I'd like to revisit, is ol Albert Einsteins special theory of relativity.

Now I know - the solar tea cup analogy I used to disppprove Albert was tough to follow..

But, I do believe - that I've found an even easier - dead simple way to disprove Albert E.

I have suggested to you- that the speed of light is not constant - but that it merely behaves as a 'near' constant in "near earth space".

Well, lets take an elementary math approach to Einsteins special theory, that any 14 year old kid from the "pre dumbed down american education system" could probably follow!

That would be old pharts like us that are intrested in boats!

Sooo,

Here we go!

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light,

Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment

In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature.

They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light. Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth.

No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed.

The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction.

For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong? In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution -- but he was wrong. Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathematician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations.

His equations have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes or doubt. While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C." Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire.

To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second.

Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light."

Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.

But not so!.

It was only an integration constant to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements!!.

What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have any experience with, was something which we now know as "time zones."

Time zones relate time to distance.

Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone.

None of the 19th century European scientist had ever experienced the need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country. Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel. This "virtual velocity" is not real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel.

This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones.

This "virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the same number.

What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon?

It's not the same as on earth.

A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are actually four possible explanations for the null or failed result.

Most scientists, including Einstein, who had no experience with time zones, only saw three possibilities. Many scientists in 1905 could not and some still do not fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities - since his theory clearly violates our sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics.

Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes.

In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic or theory produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise.

That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself.

That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's equations is 186,000 miles per second. This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per hour.

But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality when we arrive at the destination.

That's not hard or difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head. Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York.

This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment.

If the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same regardless of the motion of the light source.

Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the earth. Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity.

Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a failure.

It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong!!!!.

I confounded my professors by working out complex problems in relativistic mechanics in my head. They said I was mostly exactly correct but at extremely high velocities near 99.99999 percent of the velocity of light, my answers were just a tad bit too big, compared to Einstein's equations!!.

I said, that's because Einstein was wrong!!.

I should also add that recent experiments and measurements over long time periods or distances, such as the two Pioneer spacecraft which recently left beyond the edges of our solar system, seem to show that Einstein's equations give answers which are just a tad bit too small!!.

Soo how do we explain how Einstein managed to get his theory published and accepted - i.e. how did it ever get past the peer review process?

See next post below to find out!

Cheers!

 

Published without peer review!!

Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?

One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.

It has become the basis for much of modern physics.

When I read his paper, I found that it contained a simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be false!.

Years later as a physics student I told my professors about my discovery of the math error. They didn't believe me, even when I showed them a much simpler way to solve advanced physics problems. My solution was so simple that I could solve most of the problems in my head.

Today, I ask, "Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"

The answer is simple.

It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published.

In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize.

To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.

But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error.

Why did no one catch the obvious error?

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review. Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien, later won Nobel Prizes themselves.

They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.

It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year.

Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers."?

For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.

It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists.

But not so.

Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts. Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics.

Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize.

In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them.

It would take the innocence of a child to state the obvious.

I was 14 at the time when I found the obvious math mistake in Einstein's paper.

I was then too young and naive to know that winning a Nobel Prize would automatically and magically correct math errors in physics papers.

So I told what I had discovered to my teachers and professors.

This had several unintended consequences. As a student at High School, I told my chemistry and physics teachers what I had found. Within days, I became widely known around school as "The kid who proved Einstein wrong."

I was unanimously elected president of the Special Science Group for advanced students.

I was the "wunderkind" at school and district board meetings, who made outrageous financial requests, backed by grants I had gotten from local Silicon Valley corporations, for advanced school science projects. Projects such as wiring up the school for TV, the year before cable TV was invented. I later met the man who invented cable TV, so I know.

I also clearly noticed that the usual number of requests from the really cute girls who had wanted to wear my athletic sweater had precipitously dropped to a nerdy zero. That athletic sweater, with the varsity block letters for track, cross-country, wrestling and football, with all the medals and ribbons cascading down the left arm. For an "active" teenager, this simply wouldn't do.
I began a curious double-life. I might whisper after school to my teachers about new science projects I was working on, but then not a word to my fellow students. "Sorry, Donna, what? Einstein? Never heard of him. Wanna see my first place gold medal for 400-yard relay?" What two-faced cads teenage boys can be!. The curious double-life continued for decades.

I found it difficult to find jobs in business and industry, with the appelation "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I never mentioned it during job interviews. Otherwise, I often did not get the job because I was "way too over-qualified."

Jobs in academe were impossible.

In the university environment, not being a professed "believer" in Relativity Theory, was considered the near equivalent to being a heretic, blasphemer, or bomb-throwing anarchist.

By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that most professors simply could not see the obvious math error which I had found.

They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist.

Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were,
such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist.

For them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them.

And what was that Simple Math Error?

It's so simple even a child could figure it out.

It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed.

That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein.

He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.

I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform.
This is both mathematically and logically incorrect.

The Lorentz Transform

The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false.

The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.

Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root.

Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning!!.

But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect.

Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time.

That clearly is paradoxical.

This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two!.

For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct!.

But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two!!. :idea:

And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory.

But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.

For example:

(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.

Therefore:

All dogs are cats,

AND/OR

All cats are dogs!

Which premise is false?

With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.

Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, even though it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise!!.

The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.

Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason!!.

It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz,

Dr. Hendrik Lorentz, who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory.

Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment.

He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer.

But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.

Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned.

He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity."

Dr. Lorentz never accepted nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."

For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox.

Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper.

That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.

There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure Constant. It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect.

If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature; the nuclear, electric, magnetic, and gravitational (Time) forces, were all simply variations of the same force!!!.

errr - what have i been trying to tell you all for so long now????

M = delta T!! Theres as much energy in Mass (Nuclear energy) as there is within TIME (Yes about 9 x 10 ^16 joules per second!)

Why is it, that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light?

But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity!.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole.

This changes all observed measurements of time and distance.

The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, (meaning gravity), is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "Energy" to Time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumverate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space!!. :idea:

All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem are found in the definition of "alpha."

No paradoxical square root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed.

But 100 years ago, before the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it!!.

All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be described with a single equation.

It was the "Unified Field Theory" which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but somehow had eluded them.

Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray!.

And - what they were searching for was M = Delta T

Mass equals Change in Time!

Pretty simple really - heck - even a 14 year old kid could figure it out!

So - just whats wrong with the rest of you?

Is there REALLY any excuse - given that this knowledge exists - to invade Iraq or next Iran - and kill all those innocent women and kids (called collateral damage) given that there is absolutely NO SHORTAGE OF ***FREE*** ENERGY in this darn old world of ours????

I would NOT want to be the one who had to face his God on the day of judgement and explain my reason for killing all the women and kids of Iraq and Iran, for oil energy - knowing full well in advance that we had more free energy at our disposal than you could poke the proverbial stick at!

I do not feel - we could give a very good account of our actions as an aggressor nation in terms of waging war against those who never threatened us!

Anyone besides me feel this way?:?:

Sure do wish someone would listen!

Cheers!

 

that amazes me, earth anno 2006 still does not have head and tail lights ?

 

did some homework and figered the seas averaging 3/4 of the earths surface some 4 km deep,
does anyone realises how much energy that represents
better shut up before we are reported as terrorists

 

Struth Yipster!

Imagine the potential for global warming with that much DiHydrogenMonoxide getting about - could end up like a giant jacuuzy!

Cheers!

 

He he

 

I gotta admit, Trouty, I'm somewhat amused. Not sure whether you believe you're right or you're just having fun....?
Relativity's perfectly good on the large scale- it's at the atomic level and smaller that it seems to break down. Reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity is the Holy Grail of modern theoretical physics- if you've got a breakthrough, give your local university a call!

 

Marshmatt!

re

The two are necessarily mutually excusive?
i.e All dogs are Cats?

That could be classed as paradoxical! And we know from the above that therefore the original premise is fundamentally flawed!

Yeah - just funnin with you - but 'wondering out loud to myself and no one in particular at the same time, Marshmatt!

Before I go to the local Uni tho, I'm gonna let my young feller run his physics teacher around in circles first for a while!

Why not...they like to make students life a misery at times, so a little quid pro quo mightn't go astray.

What I'm hoping is, one of you intelligent folks will poke a hole in my theory about Mass and (change in) Time being just equal amounts of energy in a different form and that as a result we can "convert" time to a useable energy source just like we do now with Mass in the nuclear process.

I am trying to get this "fixed' clearly within my head, so that I understand it well enough to explain it to others and the "posting method" used at web forums suits the way I think / deal with, "chunks of information" or new ideas.

So it's a good chance for me to get other "intelligent folks" like yipster, yourself et al(Bergalia and safe walrus excluded!) to double check me and perhaps even offer insights of their own.

For example..

Consider this..

I saw the thread hereabouts - regarding a 200/300mph rocket propelled torpedo..

Now imagine for just ONE second...how fast would a Nuclear powered torpedo travel if the nuclear energy were converting the water to steam and generating the air / oxygen for the bubble to encase it????

Would it go faster than the Russian one?

I'm thinking it might..

BUT - taking what I suspect to be true about TIME having an equal amount of potential energy, If such a weapon were propelled by Time energy (and we know as we approach lightspeed (infinity) Mass lengthens, Time shortens etc etc...

Well if it's near lightspeed (infinity) and time is shortening - this torpedo could actually GET there BEFORE it left the submarine!:idea: :idea:

Thats right - send a torpedo BACKWARDS in time....

So consider this..

A ship detects a 300mph torpedo approaching from 50 Nm away, or 10 mins to intercept...what to do?

Easey send a torpedo back in time to 5 mins BEFORE the 300 MPH one was launched and two things happen..

1. the sub gets destroyed

2. The midwater torpedo ceases to exist!

Problem solvered!

Just call me First mate gunner "time lord"!

I'll crack this nut or die trying Marshmatt!

Cheers!