I recently noticed a rather obvious flaw in my description of the
history behind my gravity experiment.

I previously wrote (12-4-06):
-------------------
Some years ago I attempted to measure the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.

If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal. A disc that's
free to rotate within a housing which is forced to rotate at a
constant rate will never come to rest with its rotating housing.
It will always lag behind.

My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing. That was totally useless
though because the slightest difference between the slowdown and
speedup rates would drive the disc accordingly. i.e. If the slowdown
time was longest, the disc would be dragged more in that direction
because the forces applied to keep the bearing moving are constant
and are applied for the duration of every movement.

To overcome that problem, the bearing was mounted in a separate
housing so that either the inner or the outer of the bearing could
be attached to the disc. Running a test using each option, while
changing nothing else in the setup, would give me two sets of
results that could be combined. From that, I would expect a valid
result. But the free disc wandered all over the place and led to
total confusion.
----------------

That last paragraph doesn't remotely address the problem, does it!
That's because the problem that it's attempting to address was not
the problem at all. Thus I begin this post with a short repair.


Gravity and the speed of light (update 1).
------------------------------------------

Some years ago I attempted to measure the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.

If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal. A disc that's
free to rotate within a housing which is forced to rotate at a
constant rate will never come to rest with its rotating housing.
It will always lag behind.

My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing, with its center fixed
with the rotating housing. That was totally useless though because
any bearing clearance at all would cause the free disc bearing
surface to roll backwards on the lesser diameter mating shaft and
lag behind the rotating housing. And I could not possibly know how
much that would affect the result.

To overcome that problem, the bearing was mounted in a separate
housing so that either the inner or the outer of the bearing could
be attached to the disc. Running a test using each option, while
changing nothing else in the setup, would give me two sets of
results that could be combined. From that, I would expect a valid
result. But the free disc wandered all over the place and led to
total confusion.

The experiment was finally terminated when I realized that the
difference between the slowdown and speedup rates would drive the
free disc in the direction of the slowest rate of change. i.e.
Because the free disc is in constant motion relative to its rotating
housing as the housing hunts back and forth around the chosen
control point, and since the forces applied in overcoming the
bearing friction are applied for the duration of every movement,
the free disc will be drawn in the direction of slowest change.
-----

The rest of this post will make little sense for anyone not familiar
with the experiment. The entire updated version is stored at
http://www.optusnet.com.au./~maxkeon/gravity.html
-----

24-4-06.
The program I was using to control the rotation rate of the free
disc housing spends time servicing all of the calculations etc.
before it can return to again take care of the rotation rate of
the housing. There is a constant time chunk removed from the cycle,
regardless of the rotation rate. Therefore, the calculated rotation
rates were not quite correct. The modified program does the
calculations in the space between light off and light on behind the
housing flag, so changes to the rotation rate also change the time
width of the window in which the calculations are done. The flag
on the housing is 16mm wide, and if the program hasn't returned to
monitor the rotation rate by the time that window has gone, the
program is halted.

The updated program set is stored as a self extracting zip file,
at http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.exe

I have now inverted the needle point bearings and the result is
still much the same. I've also increased the shaft diameters of the
rotating housing to 17mm to allow for the free disc axle to be
extended outside the entire unit so that I can physically monitor
its performance, make adjustments, and carry out any test on the
spring loaded contact point without upsetting anything else. The
disc now weighs 59 grams, and with the disc weight pressing down
on the hozizontally aligned bearings, it takes 64 grams to separate
the needle from its seat. If the need arose, that force could be
substantially reduced and the disc bearings would still be held firm
with no clearance.

During the course of a marathon test, the affects from temperature
and atmospheric pressure changes were very obvious, and expected.
i.e. If all of the air was removed from inside the rotating housing
and there was zero friction in the free disc bearings, the free disc
would remain oriented with earth.

The following list of results were collected in a short duration
test conducted on a very still and overcast day, when temperature
and atmospheric pressure would be the most stable. The test was
conducted from the higher speed to the lower speed rotation rates.
A final check at the high speed end confirmed that everything was
still running as before. Even though the results carry no absolute
guarantees, they are certainly good enough to demonstrate my point,
for now.

The start point for the comparison has been set with multipliers
to all coincide close to block no.24. It can be set anywhere you
like and everything will still compare in the same way.

Block no. 24 ( 10.51875 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
11.4008009777522 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
11.40022319348239 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[11.4] per experiment.

Block no. 25 ( 10.098 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
12.28033779784611 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
12.90786140566394 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[12.4] per experiment.

Block no. 26 ( 9.709615384615384 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
13.2585317246221 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
14.70266880111816 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[14.6] per experiment.

Block no. 27 ( 9.35 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
14.36057376583463 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
16.87533038508906 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[15.2] per experiment.

Block no. 28 ( 9.016071428571427 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
15.62159391305323 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
19.55920645940607 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[16.4] per experiment.

Block no. 29 ( 8.705172413793104 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
17.09240875820361 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
22.95878282020759 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[18.4] per experiment.

Block no. 30 ( 8.414999999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
18.84995016142232 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
27.40438267664037 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[19.8] per experiment.

Block no. 31 ( 8.143548387096773 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
21.01768006803662 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
33.46656429904869 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[xxxx] per experiment.

Block no. 32 ( 7.8890625 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
23.80973429022801 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
42.22304886474959 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[25.2] per experiment.

Block no. 33 ( 7.649999999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
27.6403354219342 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
55.98323889656531 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[29.6] per experiment.

Block no. 34 ( 7.425 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
33.45565812222623 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
80.75158095383364 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[36.4] per experiment.

Block no. 35 ( 7.212857142857143 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
44.14924480557234 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
138.5443790874597 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[48.0] per experiment.

Block no. 36 ( 7.012499999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
78.10803022744601 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
427.5083697555903 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[64.8] per experiment.

The program points to infinity at block no. 36.5 because that's
where the bearing resistance is presumed to halt the free disc
rotation. During the physical test, block no. 37 took 131.6 seconds
on average for each free disc revolution. Block no. 38 took 171.5
seconds.

The best way to describe how I arrived at the results is with the
program that created them. Notice that the gravity affected result is
raised to ^.5 . In normal circumstances, the air within the rotating
housing provides a restraining force which increases proportionally to
the rotation rate of the free disc. But the air surrounding the free
disc is also being dragged proportionally to the rotation rate,
culminating in a free disc drag ^.5

DEFDBL A-Z
CLS
n$ = "grav.dat"
OPEN n$ FOR OUTPUT AS #1
'Free disc diameter = 346mm
c = 300000000#
g = 9.8#
aa: LOCATE 1, 12: PRINT hb; " 0 MUST be entered to exit the program."
LOCATE 4, 1
INPUT " Block no."; hb
IF hb = 0 THEN CLOSE : END
rps = 9.35# * (27# / hb) 'Block no.27 runs at 9.35rps on my computer.
PRINT " Revs per second ="; rps; "(for my computer)."
PRINT
v = rps * 1.087# 'Free disc circumference is 346mm *pi =1.087 meters.
gu = ((c + v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * g
PRINT " Gravity rate up = ((c+v)^2/c^2)*g ="; gu; "m/sec."
gd = ((c - v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * g
PRINT " Gravity rate down = ((c-v)^2/c^2)*g ="; gd; "m/sec."
PRINT " The gravity anisotropy is"; gu - gd; "m/sec."
PRINT

'---------------------------------------------------------------------
rp = 36.5 'Block no.?? Set this figure to the resistance break point.
'---------------------------------------------------------------------

r = (hb / rp) * v
PRINT " Resistance break point is set at block No."; rp

PRINT " Tangential velocity ="; v; "m/sec. "
PRINT " Minus constant bearing resistance factor of"; r; "m/sec."
PRINT " Effective velocity ="; v - r; "m/sec."

ma = (rp / 33#) * 1840665# 'If the resistance break point is set at
'block No.33 the required muliplier is
'1840665
m = ((gu - gd) / 2#) * ma

' "m" sets the gravity anisotropy to unity for the resistance break
'point of your own determination. That's where the bearing friction
'has been finally overcome. And that's where the cause of the movement
'begins to take effect.

PRINT
PRINT " The gravity anisotropy is acting on only half the disc-air"
PRINT " mass at any instant and is therefore"; (gu - gd) / 2; "m/sec."
PRINT " Gravity ratio (unity for block"; rp; "="; m
PRINT

'-----------------------------------------------------------------
ma = 1283 'These mutipliers must be changed to coincide with the
mb = 44.64 'compare point origin of your choice. But the relationship
'between curves generated from the results will never change.
'They are currently set to coincide at block No.24
'------------------------------------------------------------------

PRINT " Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes"
PRINT ""; SQR(ma / ((v * m) - r)); "seconds to lose 1 free disc rev."

PRINT ""; mb / (v - r); "seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear)."

PRINT #1, " Block no."; hb, "("; rps; "revs per second)."
PRINT #1, " Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes"
PRINT #1, SQR(ma / ((v * m) - r)); "seconds to lose 1 free disc rev."
PRINT #1, mb / (v - r); "seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear)."
PRINT #1, " [ ] per experiment."
PRINT #1,
'(the data file will be stored in the same directory as Qbasic)

GOTO aa

Example. (program execution for block no.24)

Block no.? 24 0 MUST be entered to exit the program.
Revs per second = 10.51875 (for my computer).

Gravity rate up = ((c+v)^2/c^2)*g = 9.800000747013589 m/sec.
Gravity rate down = ((c-v)^2/c^2)*g = 9.79999925298644 m/sec.
The gravity anisotropy is 1.494027149107069D-06 m/sec.

Resistance break point is set at block No. 36.5
Tangential velocity = 11.43388125 m/sec.
Minus constant bearing resistance factor of 7.518168493150684 m/sec.
Effective velocity = 3.915712756849315 m/sec.

The gravity anisotropy is acting on only half the disc-air mass
at any instant and is therefore 7.470135745535345D-07 m/sec.
Gravity ratio (unity for block 36.5 = 1.520835259212234

Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
11.4008009777522 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
11.40022319348239 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).

This is the resultant graph. The black curve is from experiment, the
red curve is the calculated curve assuming that a gravity anisotropy
exists, while the green curve is the best fit for the calculated
curve which assumes that some mechanical flaw in the device is the
cause. The first character in the full character set is No.0 for
this experiment. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/no-24.jpg

SOMETHING IS CAUSING THE FREE DISC TO ROTATE AS IT DOES, AND THAT
SOMETHING MUST BE IDENTIFIED. IF IT'S NOT A GRAVITY ANISOTROPY, THEN
WHAT IS IT?

The next step is to upgrade the precision of the needle point
bearings. Also, a free disc axle shaft that has a needle point on
one end and a cavity on the other will eliminate any possibility
of the axle rolling in either direction, even if there is slight
clearance between the mating parts.

27-4-06
The bearing upgrade has been completed. All mating parts are now
hardened and have been run in prior to assembly. The load on the
bearing ends is now 108 grams, and it runs much more freely than
the previous bearing set. In fact it runs so free that it's hard
to determine at what point the bearing friction is overcome. Because
the rotating housing is forever hunting back and forth around any
chosen speed control point, the bearing surfaces between the housing
and disc are in constant motion, and remain fluid. The disc just
keeps on slowly chugging along. That explains why the generated
curve drifts off to the right of the screen.

The next obvious task is to control temperature. Atmospheric
pressure change rates shouldn't be of consequence on the right day.

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:

[snip]

If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

A fundamental prediction of the zero origin concept is that
dimension is drawing inward at a rate which is proportional to mass.
The greater the concentration of matter the more advanced in time it
becomes, drawing into an additional void of dimension that we cannot
possibly comprehend because it's constantly in our future, existing
for a time within every instant of our time. Dimension is based on
that advanced distance in time. An up-down gravity anisotropy is an
obvious consequence around everything that's not moving along with
the base of dimension. The same of course applies for light.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/the1-1a.html is the home of
the zero origin concept. The stuff that's cluttering your mind will
place the universe beyond your powers of comprehension, so erase
your memory before you go there. Free your mind.

I didn't say it would be easy Neo.
I just said it would be the truth.

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite
propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup?

[snip babble]

Max Keon:

Now I'm stepping into the twilight zone...

I recently noticed a rather obvious flaw in my description of the
history behind my gravity experiment.

I previously wrote (12-4-06):
-------------------
Some years ago I attempted to measure the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.

If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal. A disc that's
free to rotate within a housing which is forced to rotate at a
constant rate will never come to rest with its rotating housing.
It will always lag behind.

My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing. That was totally useless
though because the slightest difference between the slowdown and
speedup rates would drive the disc accordingly. i.e. If the slowdown
time was longest, the disc would be dragged more in that direction
because the forces applied to keep the bearing moving are constant
and are applied for the duration of every movement.

To overcome that problem, the bearing was mounted in a separate
housing so that either the inner or the outer of the bearing could
be attached to the disc. Running a test using each option, while
changing nothing else in the setup, would give me two sets of
results that could be combined. From that, I would expect a valid
result. But the free disc wandered all over the place and led to
total confusion.
----------------

That last paragraph doesn't remotely address the problem, does it!
That's because the problem that it's attempting to address was not
the problem at all. Thus I begin this post with a short repair.


Gravity and the speed of light (update 1).
------------------------------------------

Some years ago I attempted to measure the speed at which the action
of gravity is applied.

If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal. A disc that's
free to rotate within a housing which is forced to rotate at a
constant rate will never come to rest with its rotating housing.
It will always lag behind.

My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing, with its center fixed
with the rotating housing. That was totally useless though because
any bearing clearance at all would cause the free disc bearing
surface to roll backwards on the lesser diameter mating shaft and
lag behind the rotating housing. And I could not possibly know how
much that would affect the result.

To overcome that problem, the bearing was mounted in a separate
housing so that either the inner or the outer of the bearing could
be attached to the disc. Running a test using each option, while
changing nothing else in the setup, would give me two sets of
results that could be combined. From that, I would expect a valid
result. But the free disc wandered all over the place and led to
total confusion.

The experiment was finally terminated when I realized that the
difference between the slowdown and speedup rates would drive the
free disc in the direction of the slowest rate of change. i.e.
Because the free disc is in constant motion relative to its rotating
housing as the housing hunts back and forth around the chosen
control point, and since the forces applied in overcoming the
bearing friction are applied for the duration of every movement,
the free disc will be drawn in the direction of slowest change.
-----

The rest of this post will make little sense for anyone not familiar
with the experiment. The entire updated version is stored at
http://www.optusnet.com.au./~maxkeon/gravity.html
-----

24-4-06.
The program I was using to control the rotation rate of the free
disc housing spends time servicing all of the calculations etc.
before it can return to again take care of the rotation rate of
the housing. There is a constant time chunk removed from the cycle,
regardless of the rotation rate. Therefore, the calculated rotation
rates were not quite correct. The modified program does the
calculations in the space between light off and light on behind the
housing flag, so changes to the rotation rate also change the time
width of the window in which the calculations are done. The flag
on the housing is 16mm wide, and if the program hasn't returned to
monitor the rotation rate by the time that window has gone, the
program is halted.

The updated program set is stored as a self extracting zip file,
at http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.exe

I have now inverted the needle point bearings and the result is
still much the same. I've also increased the shaft diameters of the
rotating housing to 17mm to allow for the free disc axle to be
extended outside the entire unit so that I can physically monitor
its performance, make adjustments, and carry out any test on the
spring loaded contact point without upsetting anything else. The
disc now weighs 59 grams, and with the disc weight pressing down
on the hozizontally aligned bearings, it takes 64 grams to separate
the needle from its seat. If the need arose, that force could be
substantially reduced and the disc bearings would still be held firm
with no clearance.

During the course of a marathon test, the affects from temperature
and atmospheric pressure changes were very obvious, and expected.
i.e. If all of the air was removed from inside the rotating housing
and there was zero friction in the free disc bearings, the free disc
would remain oriented with earth.

The following list of results were collected in a short duration
test conducted on a very still and overcast day, when temperature
and atmospheric pressure would be the most stable. The test was
conducted from the higher speed to the lower speed rotation rates.
A final check at the high speed end confirmed that everything was
still running as before. Even though the results carry no absolute
guarantees, they are certainly good enough to demonstrate my point,
for now.

The start point for the comparison has been set with multipliers
to all coincide close to block no.24. It can be set anywhere you
like and everything will still compare in the same way.

Block no. 24 ( 10.51875 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
11.4008009777522 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
11.40022319348239 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[11.4] per experiment.

Block no. 25 ( 10.098 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
12.28033779784611 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
12.90786140566394 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[12.4] per experiment.

Block no. 26 ( 9.709615384615384 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
13.2585317246221 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
14.70266880111816 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[14.6] per experiment.

Block no. 27 ( 9.35 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
14.36057376583463 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
16.87533038508906 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[15.2] per experiment.

Block no. 28 ( 9.016071428571427 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
15.62159391305323 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
19.55920645940607 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[16.4] per experiment.

Block no. 29 ( 8.705172413793104 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
17.09240875820361 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
22.95878282020759 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[18.4] per experiment.

Block no. 30 ( 8.414999999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
18.84995016142232 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
27.40438267664037 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[19.8] per experiment.

Block no. 31 ( 8.143548387096773 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
21.01768006803662 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
33.46656429904869 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[xxxx] per experiment.

Block no. 32 ( 7.8890625 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
23.80973429022801 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
42.22304886474959 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[25.2] per experiment.

Block no. 33 ( 7.649999999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
27.6403354219342 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
55.98323889656531 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[29.6] per experiment.

Block no. 34 ( 7.425 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
33.45565812222623 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
80.75158095383364 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[36.4] per experiment.

Block no. 35 ( 7.212857142857143 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
44.14924480557234 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
138.5443790874597 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[48.0] per experiment.

Block no. 36 ( 7.012499999999999 revs per second).
Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
78.10803022744601 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
427.5083697555903 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).
[64.8] per experiment.

The program points to infinity at block no. 36.5 because that's
where the bearing resistance is presumed to halt the free disc
rotation. During the physical test, block no. 37 took 131.6 seconds
on average for each free disc revolution. Block no. 38 took 171.5
seconds.

The best way to describe how I arrived at the results is with the
program that created them. Notice that the gravity affected result is
raised to ^.5 . In normal circumstances, the air within the rotating
housing provides a restraining force which increases proportionally to
the rotation rate of the free disc. But the air surrounding the free
disc is also being dragged proportionally to the rotation rate,
culminating in a free disc drag ^.5

DEFDBL A-Z
CLS
n$ = "grav.dat"
OPEN n$ FOR OUTPUT AS #1
'Free disc diameter = 346mm
c = 300000000#
g = 9.8#
aa: LOCATE 1, 12: PRINT hb; " 0 MUST be entered to exit the program."
LOCATE 4, 1
INPUT " Block no."; hb
IF hb = 0 THEN CLOSE : END
rps = 9.35# * (27# / hb) 'Block no.27 runs at 9.35rps on my computer.
PRINT " Revs per second ="; rps; "(for my computer)."
PRINT
v = rps * 1.087# 'Free disc circumference is 346mm *pi =1.087 meters.
gu = ((c + v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * g
PRINT " Gravity rate up = ((c+v)^2/c^2)*g ="; gu; "m/sec."
gd = ((c - v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * g
PRINT " Gravity rate down = ((c-v)^2/c^2)*g ="; gd; "m/sec."
PRINT " The gravity anisotropy is"; gu - gd; "m/sec."
PRINT

'---------------------------------------------------------------------
rp = 36.5 'Block no.?? Set this figure to the resistance break point.
'---------------------------------------------------------------------

r = (hb / rp) * v
PRINT " Resistance break point is set at block No."; rp

PRINT " Tangential velocity ="; v; "m/sec. "
PRINT " Minus constant bearing resistance factor of"; r; "m/sec."
PRINT " Effective velocity ="; v - r; "m/sec."

ma = (rp / 33#) * 1840665# 'If the resistance break point is set at
'block No.33 the required muliplier is
'1840665
m = ((gu - gd) / 2#) * ma

' "m" sets the gravity anisotropy to unity for the resistance break
'point of your own determination. That's where the bearing friction
'has been finally overcome. And that's where the cause of the movement
'begins to take effect.

PRINT
PRINT " The gravity anisotropy is acting on only half the disc-air"
PRINT " mass at any instant and is therefore"; (gu - gd) / 2; "m/sec."
PRINT " Gravity ratio (unity for block"; rp; "="; m
PRINT

'-----------------------------------------------------------------
ma = 1283 'These mutipliers must be changed to coincide with the
mb = 44.64 'compare point origin of your choice. But the relationship
'between curves generated from the results will never change.
'They are currently set to coincide at block No.24
'------------------------------------------------------------------

PRINT " Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes"
PRINT ""; SQR(ma / ((v * m) - r)); "seconds to lose 1 free disc rev."

PRINT ""; mb / (v - r); "seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear)."

PRINT #1, " Block no."; hb, "("; rps; "revs per second)."
PRINT #1, " Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes"
PRINT #1, SQR(ma / ((v * m) - r)); "seconds to lose 1 free disc rev."
PRINT #1, mb / (v - r); "seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear)."
PRINT #1, " [ ] per experiment."
PRINT #1,
'(the data file will be stored in the same directory as Qbasic)

GOTO aa

Example. (program execution for block no.24)

Block no.? 24 0 MUST be entered to exit the program.
Revs per second = 10.51875 (for my computer).

Gravity rate up = ((c+v)^2/c^2)*g = 9.800000747013589 m/sec.
Gravity rate down = ((c-v)^2/c^2)*g = 9.79999925298644 m/sec.
The gravity anisotropy is 1.494027149107069D-06 m/sec.

Resistance break point is set at block No. 36.5
Tangential velocity = 11.43388125 m/sec.
Minus constant bearing resistance factor of 7.518168493150684 m/sec.
Effective velocity = 3.915712756849315 m/sec.

The gravity anisotropy is acting on only half the disc-air mass
at any instant and is therefore 7.470135745535345D-07 m/sec.
Gravity ratio (unity for block 36.5 = 1.520835259212234

Assuming that gravity acts at light speed, it takes
11.4008009777522 seconds to lose 1 free disc rev.
11.40022319348239 seconds if the cause is mechanical (linear).

This is the resultant graph. The black curve is from experiment, the
red curve is the calculated curve assuming that a gravity anisotropy
exists, while the green curve is the best fit for the calculated
curve which assumes that some mechanical flaw in the device is the
cause. The first character in the full character set is No.0 for
this experiment. http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/no-24.jpg

SOMETHING IS CAUSING THE FREE DISC TO ROTATE AS IT DOES, AND THAT
SOMETHING MUST BE IDENTIFIED. IF IT'S NOT A GRAVITY ANISOTROPY, THEN
WHAT IS IT?

The next step is to upgrade the precision of the needle point
bearings. Also, a free disc axle shaft that has a needle point on
one end and a cavity on the other will eliminate any possibility
of the axle rolling in either direction, even if there is slight
clearance between the mating parts.

27-4-06
The bearing upgrade has been completed. All mating parts are now
hardened and have been run in prior to assembly. The load on the
bearing ends is now 108 grams, and it runs much more freely than
the previous bearing set. In fact it runs so free that it's hard
to determine at what point the bearing friction is overcome. Because
the rotating housing is forever hunting back and forth around any
chosen speed control point, the bearing surfaces between the housing
and disc are in constant motion, and remain fluid. The disc just
keeps on slowly chugging along. That explains why the generated
curve drifts off to the right of the screen.

The next obvious task is to control temperature. Atmospheric
pressure change rates shouldn't be of consequence on the right day.

-----

Max Keon

"Bilge" wrote in message
...
Max Keon:

Now I'm stepping into the twilight zone...

Yes. It will be one of the biggest steps mankind will ever take.
The step off the flat earth will pale into insignificance.

The universe is constructed on a false premise, without which it
would cease to exist. So it's little wonder that bull**** has
evolved to be the key to power in human society.

Show me the failings of the zero origin concept and I'll be happy
to join you in its condemnation. I don't like the zero origin
universe at all. It's the universe from hell. We worship the gods
of hell.

How does it sound so far?

-----

Max Keon

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal.

[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite
propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup?

You really don't get it do you!

This experiment should help clear up your previous comprehension
problem regarding the function of the water path for the propagation
of light in the experiment described at
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/fizza2.html The "up" directed
water flow is equivalent to the up rotating side of the spinning
disc in this experiment. And for the "down" moving orientation,
that's equivalent to the down moving side of the disc. If the water
was pumped around a circular path to simulate the spinning disc,
the same up-down asymmetry in the gravity force would be applied
to the water.

Relative to the device, a laser beam traveling in the up direction
through the water is propagating on a base which is moving downward
and is therefore slower than a beam traveling in the down direction.
Not much can be learnt by passing a laser beam in both directions
around the entire ring of water though. But if one side of the ring
is momentarily replaced with air, the opposing light paths are no
longer the same time length. Can you now see the function of the
water path in the up-down light speed anisotropy experiment.

The current experiment proves that the base of dimension (on which
light propagates) is constantly shifting into the earth. It
certainly supports the evidence from the up-down light speed
anisotropy experiment.

Perhaps you would like to explain why the free disc rotation falls
behind that of the rotating housing, in the current experiment?

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:

My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing, with its center fixed
with the rotating housing. That was totally useless though because
any bearing clearance at all would cause the free disc bearing
surface to roll backwards on the lesser diameter mating shaft and
lag behind the rotating housing.

That is obvious.

It is also obvious that this criticism applies to ANY mechanical
bearing technology, such as your needle point bearings, etc.

I have now inverted the needle point bearings and the result is
still much the same. I've also increased the shaft diameters of the
rotating housing to 17mm to allow for the free disc axle to be
extended outside the entire unit so that I can physically monitor
its performance, make adjustments, and carry out any test on the
spring loaded contact point without upsetting anything else. The
disc now weighs 59 grams, and with the disc weight pressing down
on the hozizontally aligned bearings, it takes 64 grams to separate
the needle from its seat. If the need arose, that force could be
substantially reduced and the disc bearings would still be held firm
with no clearance.

Any misalignments between needle point and bearing surface
will also manifest itself in anomalous differential rotations, of
a purely mechanical nature.

During the course of a marathon test, the affects from temperature
and atmospheric pressure changes were very obvious, and expected.
i.e. If all of the air was removed from inside the rotating housing
and there was zero friction in the free disc bearings, the free disc
would remain oriented with earth.

In other words, mechanical artifacts still dominated your results.

The following list of results were collected in a short duration
test conducted on a very still and overcast day, when temperature
and atmospheric pressure would be the most stable. The test was
conducted from the higher speed to the lower speed rotation rates.
A final check at the high speed end confirmed that everything was
still running as before. Even though the results carry no absolute
guarantees, they are certainly good enough to demonstrate my point,
for now.

Highly doubtful. In the past, you have consistently proven
yourself unable to conduct a well controlled experiment. You
show no evidence of any improvement in your current work.

Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
Max Keon wrote:
My original free disc was a 320mm * 10mm steel disc, rotating on
a very light duty unshielded ball bearing, with its center fixed
with the rotating housing. That was totally useless though because
any bearing clearance at all would cause the free disc bearing
surface to roll backwards on the lesser diameter mating shaft and
lag behind the rotating housing.

That is obvious.

Yes, it is obvious. But whether or not that would be a problem
wasn't even considered in the initial stages of the experiment.
The fundamental problem of maintaining a constant rotation rate was
a far greater priority. All of these little details would eventually
show their faces. This experiment didn't start off with any grand
master plan. It was a step by step process. If I couldn't overcome
problems as they emerged, that's where the experiment would end.

It is also obvious that this criticism applies to ANY mechanical
bearing technology, such as your needle point bearings, etc.

I have now inverted the needle point bearings and the result is
still much the same. I've also increased the shaft diameters of the
rotating housing to 17mm to allow for the free disc axle to be
extended outside the entire unit so that I can physically monitor
its performance, make adjustments, and carry out any test on the
spring loaded contact point without upsetting anything else. The
disc now weighs 59 grams, and with the disc weight pressing down
on the hozizontally aligned bearings, it takes 64 grams to separate
the needle from its seat. If the need arose, that force could be
substantially reduced and the disc bearings would still be held firm
with no clearance.

Any misalignments between needle point and bearing surface
will also manifest itself in anomalous differential rotations, of
a purely mechanical nature.

You are apparently not understanding the significance of inverting
the needle point bearings so that the needle points are fixed to
the rotating housing instead of the free disc. When the points are
fixed to the free disc the disc will roll forward of the rotating
housing, and will roll backwards when the points are fixed to the
housing. I could have been lucky enough to set the bearings so that
two completely opposing mechanical functions delivered exactly the
same result. Then of course I need to include the extra piece of
luck that caused the free disc to rotate, again in exactly the same
direction and by exactly the same amount, when I attached one needle
point to the housing and one to the free disc.

Whatever your mechanical flaw may then be in one bearing, it would
be the same in the other, **and each would counteract the other**.

During the course of a marathon test, the affects from temperature
and atmospheric pressure changes were very obvious, and expected.
i.e. If all of the air was removed from inside the rotating housing
and there was zero friction in the free disc bearings, the free disc
would remain oriented with earth.

In other words, mechanical artifacts still dominated your results.

That's some domination. A 100% reversal of rotation??? I think you
could be on track to discover perpetual motion. Good luck.

The following list of results were collected in a short duration
test conducted on a very still and overcast day, when temperature
and atmospheric pressure would be the most stable. The test was
conducted from the higher speed to the lower speed rotation rates.
A final check at the high speed end confirmed that everything was
still running as before. Even though the results carry no absolute
guarantees, they are certainly good enough to demonstrate my point,
for now.

Highly doubtful. In the past, you have consistently proven
yourself unable to conduct a well controlled experiment. You
show no evidence of any improvement in your current work.

My methods are unorthodox, that's why they succeed.

-----

Max Keon

Eric Gisse wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
If the action of gravity is not instantaneous, the forces applied
to the up and down moving sides of a disc rotating on an axis that's
parallel to the earth's surface will not be equal.
[snip]

What makes you say that?

Whatever it was, it has been proven correct.

You haven't answered my question. What makes you think a finite
propogation speed for gravitation causes a torque in your setup?

You really don't get it do you!

[snip IRRELEVANT experiment]

Perhaps it is a little bit beyond you.

You didn't listen to the last set of criticisms, so I'm not going to
bother repeating them.

Perhaps you would like to explain why the free disc rotation falls
behind that of the rotating housing, in the current experiment?

...friction?

What bloody friction? Is that the best you can do?

Perhaps you would like to explain what makes you think a fininte
propogation speed for gravity would create a torque. Like I asked 2
times already.

Why do you bother throwing up stupid little smoke screens. You
really can't be that dense that you can't understand a simple
experiment like this one.

-----

Max Keon