Experiments So Far

I took three 2 oz (56 gm) weights, each 9 inches from the center on the outside ends of 3 small radial "booms" and above them where they spin (the outer radius 10 inches from the axis) I suspended two other 56 gm,. weights between a balance point 13 inches across (6.5 inches to the center). One of the balancing weights is just above the three spinning weights, which spin at about 2 revolutions per second. The results (so far) are not definite at this level of resolution.

Consider however, that a spinning bucket filled with water has force acting on it and by conservation of momentum, if there is a force, there most be transfer of momentum by the field from where the work is being done to the rest of the cosmos, this is via the conservation of energy, the most well proven idea in the history of science, so this is a possibility worth looking into with stronger centrifugal force since mine is a relatively low resolution experiment. Just going on a wheel at the circus in summer offers proof that something can counteract, or augment the force. I looked and nowhere on the web or anywhere else I've read in 35 years is any description of the field around or in a centrifuge, certainly, just more knowledge about this may be of worth just for the worth of science, if there is no field found, it may be of real worth to other physics to know why. It's not uniform motion, if there is acceleration, the field is being flexed and it seems there would be radiation for the worth of energy conservation.

If inertia is not connected with gravity, this may have important consequences for General Relativity, Einstein believed they were almost the same. I've held that General Relativity was in error (Please see my PHYSICS SYNOPSES link below). When you change inertia around the wheel, the equivalent of a force like gravity would be induced with it that moves other mass around it like gravity does. My belief is that inertia and gravity are loosely connected, not as exactly as in General Relativity, because you can change the ratio of the two just by going on the Wheel of Vanna or going from the tropics to the N realms on earth. They are loosely connected so I think if no reduction of weights at higher RPM of masses around the wheel is seen, while not impossible, this would be disproof of General Relativity's stronger link between inertia and gravity, there may be no link in this experiment, if it were cosmic like Einstein believed it would seem to show up in all the physics. A looser connection is already disproof of Einstein's ideas about gravity and inertia (in my physics Special Relativity would still hold. Gravity is not the same as inertia, e.g. gravity has a source and is much weaker than inertia, gravity does work on the masses it flexes, inertia is without labor and so on. Click Here for my PHYSICS SYNOPSES for more.). A loose connection would be a way to allow some connection and prove energy conservation more, because with no connection of the field and outflow of the acceleration of it and the space around the spinning bucket of water, no pressure would be exerted on it. Both would be caused by a field exerting pressure, like the pressure felt on the earth's surface. These considerations lead to my belief that the change in the inertia of the wheel's surrounding field will show up at higher resolution of speed of the wheel. Disproof of this radiance of the wheel will only be definite at all levels of resolution, with both higher speeds and greater mass. The centrifugal force of the masses in the above experiment is not great, and the distance between the spinning weights and the balanced ones may be reduced, and so on. I've been doing more experiments with preliminary though still inconclusive results.

As look on the web shows, machines to convert angular to linear motion like this this are IP, so presumably it's already been proven to labor well with a machine already built. I've seen of at least two of these patents online, I saw another patent about a machine that has a boom and weight to oscillate and cause the force, with searches like "directed centrifugal force" (not antigravity) or in sites like patentdatabase.com (see links below) you may find a few like the boom and oscillation of the centrifugal mass machine. While I'm not the inventor it's a good idea however and I think it's worth notice. On this my own site I find many uses for this machine. One patent may be wrong about linear outward force, but I would doubt if more would be so. I think because my experiment is of lower mass in power and the other reasons also the motif of reduced mass may show up at higher speeds of the wheel. I'm not trying to patent these machines since this site is purely for for science, I'm asking about how the physics involved in how they work.

Both patent pages below are for the machine of this type, and another that uses a belt with weights presumably like the inventor Keely of the 19th century, to reduce the weight underneath the overarching masses.

Science News says the stakes are huge for antigravity, why isn't Keely's machine well known? My best intuition is that the other inventions of Keely were mostly without feasible worth and all the hubbub about Einstein's belief in no ether may have also stolen much of Keely's thunder even though Maxwell (who Einstein copied the most about physics) used the assumption of a resilient medium to exactly predict the speed of light. My belief is that both Keely and Maxwell may have been more correct than Einstein, Einstein's belief may have been more a blind alley about the speed of light. Waves like the ether would be more fundamental to physics than particles because all forces speak gravity, gravity connects up energy conservation, and continuous attraction is like a continuous wave not a discontinuous particle which can't unify all the fields. The density of the waves would determine the top speed of a force, like with light, not empty space with discontinuous particles. With Maxwell a higher speed of light would have more density higher speed, lower density a slower speed, and relativity doesn't explain how Maxwell achieved this, so this is one of Keely's machines that may be of worth.

Here's the patent with weights on tracks, and so on).

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4726241/claims.html


Here's the same invention but with a better description, and no drawing, the patentstorm link above has the drawing with not as good description

FreePatents Online Patent # 4726241..

Basically this my site is about what the field around the high speed wheel (not just the machine itself) may be like, because if you have a starship propelled by centrifugal force in one direction (as in the patents on the links) this is a force like rocket propulsion, and it would be used to lift masses in any direction, and against the gravity. This can easily be achieved with a balloon, or a helicopter and you weigh the same while you are being elevated. My basic question is about maximizing the force, if you were inside the oscillating machine between the wheel and axis moving with the wheel you would have force on the outside, and at the axle no force much, somewhere in-between them the forces would seem to cancel. This is not the same as saying the general lift of the machine, already proven, adds lift like when in a helicopter or a plane, with mass, this may be another motif of the field inside and around the machines of this type I'm researching.

PHYSICS SYNOPSES
-