Dear Eric Gisse:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jerry wrote:
....
Then again, my understanding of his device is rather
fluid - when did he start using smoke? I gave up
figuring out what he was trying to do since he listed
everything he has ever tried without really saying
what he is actually doing now. Metal rotor?
Styrofoam roater? Who the hell knows! Argh.

Styrofoam is never known to accumulate a static charge in motion
either. And moving static charges in non-uniform distribution
never induce dipoles in fluid molecules (yes, even gasses),
strongly influencing bulk fluid motion. He sure did his research
alright.

David A. Smith

Jerry wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
If you look at his brand new apparatus,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
you see that he introduces cigarette smoke at the center of the
rotor, and it exits out through a tube in the edge.

The point of the smoke is definitely subtle. I am confused as to how he
thinks a turbulent environment like this would reveal any "anisotropy",
much less how he justifys the existence of the anisotropy. My
understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal, but the term "non-linear"
and "turbulence" have meaning to me.

Without being able to view his mpeg and having only a vague idea of
the dimensions of the apparatus or velocity of flow, I'm not able to
estimate Reynolds number, so I can't say anything about turbulence
one way or another.

I've gone through this with him before. He says his theory predicts it,
but I point out that his entire theory is the assumption of the
anisotropy. I'm curious as to why he thinks a finite propogation speed
for the force of gravity would cause this "anisotropy".

So which one of us gets to break it to him that the electromagnetic
force has a finite propogation speed? I would *love* to see him test
his idea with an electrostatic field. It certaintly wouldn't require
this zany setup, either.


Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to the
exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
acceleration will be comparable.

http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/dload.html

I'm yet to find a non-propiarity video format that mplayer won't chew
through.

I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.

You see those pictures of the DOS program with the blocks? Thats what
the video is of.

I can't understand why he insists on doing it *that way* rather than
actually recording the data and doing analysis on it.


Jerry

"Jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
If you look at his brand new apparatus,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
you see that he introduces cigarette smoke at the center of the
rotor, and it exits out through a tube in the edge.

The point of the smoke is definitely subtle. I am confused as to how he
thinks a turbulent environment like this would reveal any "anisotropy",
much less how he justifys the existence of the anisotropy. My
understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal, but the term "non-linear"
and "turbulence" have meaning to me.

Without being able to view his mpeg and having only a vague idea of
the dimensions of the apparatus or velocity of flow, I'm not able to
estimate Reynolds number, so I can't say anything about turbulence
one way or another.

I've gone through this with him before. He says his theory predicts it,
but I point out that his entire theory is the assumption of the
anisotropy. I'm curious as to why he thinks a finite propogation speed
for the force of gravity would cause this "anisotropy".

So which one of us gets to break it to him that the electromagnetic
force has a finite propogation speed? I would *love* to see him test
his idea with an electrostatic field. It certaintly wouldn't require
this zany setup, either.


Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to the
exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
acceleration will be comparable.

http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/dload.html

I'm yet to find a non-propiarity video format that mplayer won't chew
through.

I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.

Don't go away just yet. I presume that you predict roughly the
same outcome if the rotation axis is tipped at 90 degrees to be
perpendicular to the earth's surface?

State your prediction Jerry, or buy yourself an everlasting
gobbstopper.

-----

Max Keon

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:xP1ng.480$RD.142@fed1read08...
Dear Max Keon:

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:LLwmg.424$RD.282@fed1read08...
Max Keon wrote:

According to current theory, there's no
reason at all why the air enclosed inside a
constantly rotating housing would not remain
in a stationary relationship with the housing.

Sure there is. Same thing that screws up all
your other experiments. Temperature gradients.

Temperature gradients? Where, why and how???
Care to explain?

You make reference to an experiment, you link to a webpage that
shows nothing about it. And you remove the link in your reply.
Care to explain?

The purpose of the link was to explain why, in this experiment, an
anisotropy in the **dynamic** action of gravity would cause the air
mass to slow relative to the rotating housing. I removed the link
because I was providing a better explanation in the post.

Insolation.

Insolation from what? And why? Are you suggesting
that some *gigantic* temperature gradient, or
something, is fixed oriented with the earth's surface
and is cycled around inside the rotating housing
enclosure as the housing rotates through it? That's
what it would take to make the air move as it does.

*What* "move as it does"? You don't have movies. You don't have
a section view. You spend more words on code than you do on
experimental setup. You don't describe instrumentation.

You are still apparently referring to the "foam disc" experiment.
The operation of the device is adequately described.

Brownian motion.

More like a Brownian tornado. Have a good look
at the rate of air movement inside the ENCLOSED
housing.

It is meaningless until you describe the experiment so that it
can be duplicated. Ever hear of the "butterfly effect"?

Are you still referring to the "foam disc" experiment?

Natural background radiation.

That would account for very minor air movement.
But it's not minor by any means, is it!

Who could tell? Not from that web page.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravity.html

Even if you can give a reasonable explanation as to why the foam
disc falls behind the rotating housing as it does, you will still
need to address the latest development. Why does the air mass fall
behind the rotation rate of the housing as it does?
-----
-----

But the air IS driven, and quite significantly.
Refer to the above link for detail on why a gravity
anisotropy should drive the air mass.

Didn't see it in the rambling. Have you tried a
tree structure, so that one can use an index,
and go straight to the point?

The "ramblings" are the result of how that
experiment evolved.

Sir, if you are trying to be heard/understood, you can make it
simpler.

This latest experiment couldn't possibly be any simpler. I just
spin the housing up to a constant speed, leave it run for a settling
time, turn on the strobe light, light up the cigarette in its holder
which is directly linked to the housing inner tube that carries the
smoke to the outer rim, fit the cigarette outer cover which has a
preset input airflow rate that's exhausting through a hole at the
cigarette butt end, then just place my finger over the hole and
observe the result.

It doesn't get much easier does it!

If the action of gravity is *dynamically* applied at
some speed greater than zero and less than
instantaneous, the action of gravity must reduce
with motion toward the gravity source, and
increase in the outward direction. That's what is
showing up, and that is exactly what the zero
origin concept predicts. It also gives a speed for
the action of gravity, which is of course light
speed. But that remains only a prediction for
now. But the anisotropy is well and truly proven.

It is a "cocaine dream" until you can allow others to duplicate
it.

Did you say you're an engineer?

Learn to embrace the truth folk because it is
soon to embrace us all (equally).

Only death will do that. In the mean time, we can try and
communicate.

And in the quest for truth we communicate via the entirely fluid
medium of physics which should not ever be dammed or damned.

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
[...]


This latest experiment couldn't possibly be any simpler. I just
spin the housing up to a constant speed, leave it run for a settling
time, turn on the strobe light, light up the cigarette in its holder
which is directly linked to the housing inner tube that carries the
smoke to the outer rim, fit the cigarette outer cover which has a
preset input airflow rate that's exhausting through a hole at the
cigarette butt end, then just place my finger over the hole and
observe the result.

You have NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON to believe what you are observing is the
result of a gravitational "anisotropy".

Nobody has ever seen anything like this. Were your "anisotropy" real,
experiments would have long ago detected what you claim you are
observing. Your "effect" is nothing more than the result of fluid flow
in a confined region. Have you talked to anyone who actually understand
fluid dynamics? Or have you refused to consider the possiblity you
haven't actually discovered something interesting?

[...]

In article .com,
Eric Gisse wrote:

You have NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON to believe what you are observing is the
result of a gravitational "anisotropy".

Nobody has ever seen anything like this. Were your "anisotropy" real,
experiments would have long ago detected what you claim you are
observing. Your "effect" is nothing more than the result of fluid flow
in a confined region. Have you talked to anyone who actually understand
fluid dynamics? Or have you refused to consider the possiblity you
haven't actually discovered something interesting?

"Its the ESTABLISHMENT MAN!!! They're hushing up my exciting new
discovery. They know its the secret of the .... UNIVERSE.....'"

10/1 on - thats the gist of the reply.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
If you look at his brand new apparatus,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
you see that he introduces cigarette smoke at the center of the
rotor, and it exits out through a tube in the edge.

The point of the smoke is definitely subtle. I am confused as to how he
thinks a turbulent environment like this would reveal any "anisotropy",
much less how he justifys the existence of the anisotropy. My
understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal, but the term "non-linear"
and "turbulence" have meaning to me.

Without being able to view his mpeg and having only a vague idea of
the dimensions of the apparatus or velocity of flow, I'm not able to
estimate Reynolds number, so I can't say anything about turbulence
one way or another.

I've gone through this with him before. He says his theory predicts it,
but I point out that his entire theory is the assumption of the
anisotropy. I'm curious as to why he thinks a finite propogation speed
for the force of gravity would cause this "anisotropy".

So which one of us gets to break it to him that the electromagnetic
force has a finite propogation speed? I would *love* to see him test
his idea with an electrostatic field. It certaintly wouldn't require
this zany setup, either.

Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to the
exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
acceleration will be comparable.

http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/dload.html

I'm yet to find a non-propiarity video format that mplayer won't chew
through.

I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.

You see those pictures of the DOS program with the blocks? Thats what
the video is of.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg and
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
are both (now better quality) extracts from the video clip.
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/~gravair.html
is supposed to be what we are discussing here.

I can understand why you run and hide Eric.
But you really should try addressing the current subject.

-----

Max Keon

In article , Max Keon
wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
If you look at his brand new apparatus,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
you see that he introduces cigarette smoke at the center of the
rotor, and it exits out through a tube in the edge.

The point of the smoke is definitely subtle. I am confused as to how he
thinks a turbulent environment like this would reveal any "anisotropy",
much less how he justifys the existence of the anisotropy. My
understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal, but the term "non-linear"
and "turbulence" have meaning to me.

Without being able to view his mpeg and having only a vague idea of
the dimensions of the apparatus or velocity of flow, I'm not able to
estimate Reynolds number, so I can't say anything about turbulence
one way or another.

I've gone through this with him before. He says his theory predicts it,
but I point out that his entire theory is the assumption of the
anisotropy. I'm curious as to why he thinks a finite propogation speed
for the force of gravity would cause this "anisotropy".

So which one of us gets to break it to him that the electromagnetic
force has a finite propogation speed? I would *love* to see him test
his idea with an electrostatic field. It certaintly wouldn't require
this zany setup, either.

Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to the
exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
acceleration will be comparable.

http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/dload.html

I'm yet to find a non-propiarity video format that mplayer won't chew
through.

I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.

You see those pictures of the DOS program with the blocks? Thats what
the video is of.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg and
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
are both (now better quality) extracts from the video clip.
ç is supposed to be what we are discussing here.

I can understand why you run and hide Eric.
But you really should try addressing the current subject.

-----

Max Keon



For gravair.html

Error 404 - Not Found
The page you have requested is unavailable on this server.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in
message news:250620060409372629%phineaspuddleduck@googlema il.com_NOSPAM...
In article , Max Keon
wrote:

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jerry wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Jerry wrote:
If you look at his brand new apparatus,
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smoke1.jpg
you see that he introduces cigarette smoke at the center of the
rotor, and it exits out through a tube in the edge.

The point of the smoke is definitely subtle. I am confused as to how
he
thinks a turbulent environment like this would reveal any
"anisotropy",
much less how he justifys the existence of the anisotropy. My
understanding of fluid dynamics is minimal, but the term
"non-linear"
and "turbulence" have meaning to me.

Without being able to view his mpeg and having only a vague idea of
the dimensions of the apparatus or velocity of flow, I'm not able to
estimate Reynolds number, so I can't say anything about turbulence
one way or another.

I've gone through this with him before. He says his theory predicts
it,
but I point out that his entire theory is the assumption of the
anisotropy. I'm curious as to why he thinks a finite propogation
speed
for the force of gravity would cause this "anisotropy".

So which one of us gets to break it to him that the electromagnetic
force has a finite propogation speed? I would *love* to see him test
his idea with an electrostatic field. It certaintly wouldn't require
this zany setup, either.

Evidently, Max blows air through the cigarette so that there is a
forced radial flow of smoke from center of the rotor outwards to
the
exit tube. I haven't been able to view Max's mpeg, because I can't
locate a codec that will let me play it. So my smoke velocity
estimates are mostly guesswork. It doesn't matter, though, since
whether the smoke velocity is mm/s, cm/s, or m/s, the Coriolis
acceleration will be comparable.

http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/dload.html

I'm yet to find a non-propiarity video format that mplayer won't
chew
through.

I'm going back on duty in a few hours, so I desperately need to get
some sleep. Tell me what you see when you play it.

You see those pictures of the DOS program with the blocks? Thats what
the video is of.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokon.jpg and
http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/smokoff.jpg
are both (now better quality) extracts from the video clip.
ç is supposed to be what we are discussing here.

I can understand why you run and hide Eric.
But you really should try addressing the current subject.

-----

Max Keon



For gravair.html

Error 404 - Not Found
The page you have requested is unavailable on this server.

My humble appologies.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html

In article , Max Keon
wrote:




For gravair.html

Error 404 - Not Found
The page you have requested is unavailable on this server.

My humble appologies.

http://www.optusnet.com.au/~maxkeon/gravair.html

How the hell did you encode this - my Mac won't play it.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE".
Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."