The Kidd Effect

Sandy Kidd discovered through his experiments with spinning wheels that under certain conditions, the spinning wheels will move inwards. This video is the first visual proof of the effect.

Experiment # 2.2

This experiment doubles the max torque from the previous experiment, which is still only around 10% of the power this machine can generate. Its obvious from the video though that the tipping point has been reached.

Both experiment 2.1 and 2.2 were performed at the same (relatively low) angular velocity of the flywheels. Lets designate this velocity of the flywheel as N₀. The max torque for experiment 2.1 is designated T₀.

For any pair of values (N, T) there exists one unique resonance frequency for any given relativistic machine we assemble. The experiments will build the angular velocity in order to amplify the relativistic energy transfer.

Experiment # 2.1

This experiment serves to set the baseline speed/torque requirements to produce a minmal amount of effect. The two wheels are operating within 10 RPM of each other. Having gradually increased the output power of the prototype of the Relativistic Machine to this level, we can now calibrate the device using this information.

As it is, the device outputs ~5% of its power. Even at such a low level of output, the wheels -which account for less than a quarter of the weight- already have a strong destabilizing effect on the Y-axis of the prototype.

Subsequent experiments will ratchet up the power to record any change in the behavior of the prototype.

Derivation of Resonance Frequency

Consider the figure below of a machine made up of an assembly with an outerframe supporting a spinning wheel in a carriage, with the entire carriage being made suitable to spin about the main Y axis of the machine. The spinning motion of the wheel provides the coupling force (inductive) and the non-spinning part of the carriage and the outerframe provide the inertial force (capacitive).



This is identical to the electrical situation below.



By analogy with electrical circuits, the resonance frequency would equal
ωR = 1/sqrt(LC) ~ ωR = 1/sqrt(Inductance of wheel * Capacitance of carriage and frame)

Recall that since by analogy with Faraday’s Law,

ωXprecess (t) = (Inductance of Spinning Wheel)*dαY/dt

=> Inductance of Spinning Wheel = ωXprecess (t)/dαY/dt

Capacitance of carriage and frame is a function of the design and the moments of inertia and is taken to be

IFX* IFY

where the subscript F indicates that its the frame (and w indicates that its the wheel) we are referring to.

Then, ωR = 1/sqrt(ωXprecess (t)* IFX* IFY/ (dαY/dt) )

Also for a spinning wheel, ωXprecess (t) = Torque/AngularMomentum = τwy/(Iwz*ωz)

where ωz is the angular velocity of the spinning wheel.

Substituting this, we get:

ωR = 1/sqrt(τy * IFX* IFY/( (Iwz*ωz)*(dαY/dt) ))

or

ωR = sqrt( ( Iwz*ωz*dαY/dt)/(τwy*IFX* IFY))


Now,

Iwz*dαY/dt = dτFY/dt (since torque to the wheel about the m/c Y axis can only be given by pushing against the frame)

So substituting that into the above equation, we get

ωR = sqrt( ωz*(dτFY/dt)/(τwy * IFX* IFY))

Note that since the frame and the wheels are reacting against each other,

(dτFY/dt)/τwy = (Iz/ sqrt(IFx*IFy))* ωv, i.e. a fixed frequency signifying how many times the torque produced by the vertical motor must change per second.

Substituting that further simplifies the above equation to:

ωR = sqrt( ωz*ωv*Iwz/sqrt(IFx*IFy)*sqrt (IFX* IFY))
Now, suppose we set ωv equal to the resonance frequency, ωR

ωR = sqrt( ωs*ωR*Iwzsquare/(IFx* IFy)

ωR = ωz*Iwz/sqrt(IFx* IFy)

The above formula represents the frequency at which the vertical motor must vary the carriage’s torque in order to emulate resonance conditions for the mechanical LC circuit. At resonance, the torque, angular momentum and angular displacement of the wheel’s center of mass are related as shown in the graph below (only one full cycle of a wave of variable torque is shown).



At resonance, there would be a conversion of internal energy into external energy, resulting in motion of the entire frame under certain conditions. When resonance occurs under such conditions the entire carriage assembly will acquire kinetic energy(’fly’) equal to an amount calculable from the rotational velocity of the flywheel and the moments of inertia of the component parts per every cycle of the variable torque.

Back-reaction and Time Symmetry

Although the observable universe does not suggest Time Symmetry as an inevitable, inescapable law, the physical laws themselves exibhit an indifference to the direction of flow of time.

Time symmetry itelf is a highly important condition for physical laws.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry
quote
Indeed, there is no apparent reason for which such symmetry should be broken, and therefore one time direction has no privilege to be more important than the other. Thus, a theory that respects this symmetry appears, at least, more elegant than theories with which one has to arbitrarily choose one time direction over the other as the preferred one.
end quote

General Relativity is a time-reversible Lagrangian theory. The Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory assumes that it is happening. Maxwell's equations also exhibit time symmetry i.e. symmetry of results whether we assume time to flow forward or backward. A mathematically rigorous solution of Maxwell's wave equation for EM waves would produce two possible solutions commonly labeled retarded and advanced solutions.

source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93Feynman_absorber_theory
The Maxwell equations and the wave equation for electromagnetic waves (and the accel-gravitic waves we are deducing via the analogy between electricity and mechanics - Ravi) have, in general, two possible solutions: a retarded solution and an advanced one.
end quote

This means that if we have an electromagnetic emitter which generates a wave at time t₀ = 0 and point x₀ = 0, then the wave of the first solution will arrive at point x₁ at the instant t₁ = x₁ / c after the emission (where c is the speed of light) while the second one will arrive at the same place at the instant t₂ = x₁ / c before the emission.

I propose that the advanced wave is physically significant for only those situations involving time scales and length scales comparable to that of the resonance frequency of the caacitor-inductor arrangement involved.

Under such circumstances, the wave travels into the past and brings energy with it. In the case of the gyro, the no-nutation condition shows that just the slightest nudge right as we start the inductive suspension is all thats necessary. (i.e the effect isn't travelling into the 'distant' past, for example, I dont need to already give the gyro that nudge several seconds before I release it in inductive suspension).

Besides, this only seems proportional and fair to the way the effect behaves in positive time - Suppose you were to release the gyro at rest, (rather than in the nonutation condition), beyond a few wave lengths of the inductive-capacitive circuit, there would be no noticeable nutation - ie. the tight damping of the nutation is also a measure of the tight damping of the energy travelling backward in time.

Its only that if we appropriately design a RelMachine, we can harness this backward flowing energy to amplify the thrusting torque to significant levels. In the case of non-inductive suspension, it would be capacitance that would be dominant (and capacitive interactions can be analyzed using Newton's Laws) and this would reduce to Newton's Third Law.

source: http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath528/kmath528.htm
quote
The Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory explains the resistance of a charged particle to changes in its state of motion as being due to advanced waves emanating backwards in time from an all-encompassing array of absorbers in the future, whose waves are excited by the retarded waves emanating forwards in time from the particle.
end quote

Therefore, similarly, we may postulate that inertia of any object is due to the advanced waves emanating backwards in time from an all-encompassing array o absorbers in the future, whose waves are excited by the retarded accel-gravitic waves emanating forwards in time from the particle. Further we may also postulate that in the case o the Relativistic Machine (as also in the case of the LC circuit), in operation at its resonant mode, this backward travelling feature of energy is being built up to create a large response.

Thus we see that the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory helps explain the self-interactive nature of an inductor (and now, we extend it to an inductively suspended spinning wheel) and the backreaction generated by inductive-capacitive arrangements as arising due to the time-symmetry of natural laws.

The Good Professor Vs The Jabberwock

That last paragraph in the previous post bears repetition and reexamination: The back reaction of a particle's own field on itself is necessary to explain the friction on charged particles when they emit radiation.

Now, in order to understand the gyro's behavior in purely electromagnetic terms, it is necessary to see understand how this back reaction works when a gyro is inductively suspended.

Refer to "Roll Isaac Roll" (Laithwaite, 1979): In Professor Eric Laithwaite's paper, "back reaction" are the very words used by him to describe the behavior of a gyroscope.

Quote:

So if the spin momentum remains constant (-for a spinning gyro-and why shouldn't it, if we postulate a wheel in perfect bearings ), then a torque T is seen to give rise to an angular velocity omega** (and for an electrical engineer it can easily be seen as the reverse way around, for a current can be seen as the cause of a voltage in a series circuit). Since when has an angular velocity been capable of producing a back reaction? I thought only an angular acceleration could do that...

End quote

What the good professor is asking is this: Since the gravitational torque produced the angular velocity, any back reaction that the initiating gravitational torque suffers (in this case, it was gravity that initiated the torque and the back reaction cancelled the gravitational torque and kept the gyro horizontal) can only have been initiated by the product of the torque. Since the product of the torque was simply a precession, it means it was the back reaction of the precession that canceled out the torque – ie. A velocity produced an acceleration. That back reaction is identical to the back reaction of a particle's field on itself. That is, inductance is a field element. This is complementary to the fact that capacitances behave as point particles – both in Brillouin's development of electrical/mechanical filters and in Newtonian/Laplacian analysis of lattices. The two together form a harmonic circuit or arrangement – one which we can harness.

We can still continue to follow the analogy- this time with Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED). I propose that what we are seeing here is more commonly called the ‘jangle fallacy’ (Thorndike, 1904) -it refers to cases where two different terms are used for the same entity. That is, self-induction (in EM)/ back-reaction (of gyros) are analogous words describing one and the same phenomenon. ("the jangle") (As opposed to the “jingle” fallacy where we give two different phenomena the same name – thereby introducing another of confusion.)

There are already tantalizing hints that this is correct, from previous attempts to bring Gravity into the framework of the Unified Field Theory. For example, for one such alternate theory to work, it would need a decidedly non-Newtonian head-start:

quote:

The Abraham-Lorentz theory had a non-causal "pre-acceleration". Sometimes an electron would start moving before the force is applied. This is a sign that the point limit is inconsistent. An extended body will start moving when a force is applied within one radius of the center of mass.

end quote

This is strikingly similar to the fact that pure Newtonian predictions would be unable to account for the 'lead' of the precession resulting from a torque over the torque itself. Newtonian predictions will likewise be unable to explain how a Relativistic Machine can function, as in pure Newtonian terms, such a machine would appear as in the Abraham-Lorentz theory, to be “moving when a force is applied within one radius of the center of mass”.

This it would seem that Abraham-Lorentz theory is lacking exactly the same thing that Newtonian Physics is lacking (when it attempts to explain how precession could lead the torque that produces it), when it comes to explaining how gravity fits with the strong and electroweak forces. Solve one and you just might solve the other.

It would also seem that the Abraham-Lorentz theory is implying that in order for a framework to be possible that integrates gravity successfully with the other three forces, it would also have to be possible to have “non-causal preacceleration” i.e. Precession leading torque as well as “an extended body to start moving under certain circumstances when a force is applied within one radius of the center of mass” i.e for a Rel Machine to be able to fly.

What is also being proposed in this discussion is that a gyro ( or a spin angular momentum which has been suspended inductively)'s behavioral response is the ultimate measure of "extension" or space. Therefore it dominates any discussion of field related formulations of gravity in ways that are analogous to inductive elements in Electro-Magnetism. In addition, all non-gyroscopic objects/arrangements can be dealt with as pure point masses without spatial extent.

Now, just how did QED solve the renormalization infinities problem when it first appeared?

The main idea that QED brought to renormalization is to correct the original Lagrangian of a quantum field theory by an infinite series of counterterms, each one of which is labelled by the Feynman Graphs that encode the perturbative expansion.

Quote
In this methodology, the divergences appear in calculations involving Feynman diagrams as closed loops of virtual particles in them.

A Feynman graph consist of loops and edges and satisfies certain conditions. Each loop or edge represents a segment of the worldline of a particle.

End quote

Vacuum bubbles for instances are represented by a simple loop. Since in graph theory, a loop is an edge that connects a vertex to itself. Note that Feynman graphs consist of edges representing segments of the worldline of the particles involved.

Now, the spinning wheel going a-b-c- and-so-on-and-on and then forms vertices like at b over and over.
Thus spinning (a loop) is represented by a vertex with cyclical sets of two edges. (Figure 1) But in the case of a spinning wheel, we know that if a RelMachine is possible then it means that with respect to a stationary inertial frame (whose worldline is represented by a-c), the zig-zagging wheel and its support arrangement will move in space away from the inertial observer, ie there will be a divergence between them(Figure 2). Thus over time, the two sets of lines appear to diverge. Now, suppose both objects have spin – one simply has more spin than the other. Then, in such a case, we can modify the relativistic diagram further to Figure 3.

This is a cumbersome way of representing whats going on in the situation. A simple way would be as in Figure 4, where a single cycle of the spin is shown to both give the frequency and to represent that there is an inductive process at work. Then, we would connect the middle points d and b to indicate that there is an energy exchange going on. We could further encode information into the diagram by using color to indicate whether there is a large amount of energy interchange, color of the edge represents the type of energy of the particle, etc etc. This is infact what a feynman diagram does. (Figure 5)

Thus, the divergences that appear in calculations are implied to be inductive energy exhanges and are symbolically represented by loops. There are further useful deductions to be drawn from the analogy of spin/rotation with the Feynman Rules for loops in QED

Feynman Rule: Incoming and outgoing lines carry an energy, momentum, and spin.
Interpretation: The are inductive + capacitive arrangements (and therefore determined by their harmonic behavior.

Feynman Rule: each vertex where lines meet gives a factor derived from an interaction term in the Lagrangian
Interpretation: Each inductive interaction has its own entry in the Lagrangian.

Feynman Rule: A point where lines connect to other lines is an interaction vertex, and this is where the particles meet and interact--- by emitting or absorbing new particles, deflecting one another, or changing type

Interpretation: The vertexes are situations where an event is occuring with a decay and a collision (analogues of emission and absorption) involved.

It is proposed here that these closed loops that Feynman Diagrams refer to are nothing but representatives of the energy involved in harmonic arrangements involving inductively suspended spinning objects coupled to the capactive elements (point objects), in calculations.

Thus, in a Feynman diagram, the capacitive objects are being shown are particle (localizable) inputs and outputs, while the inductive objects/arrangements are shown only abstractly as a loop similar to a spinning wheel's spacetime trajectory. This would mean that the Feynman diagrams/graphs would be the best choice of schema to sketch the behavior of both inertio-gravitational oscillators and electro-magetic oscillators. Having a single schema to analyze both behaviors, in a way harmonizes the analysis of both phenomena.

A (inductively suspended object) gyro's behavioral response is the ultimate measure of "extension" or space. All non-gyroscopic objects can be dealt with as pure point masses without spatial extent.

The inductive property is disruptive to theories which are based on capacitive rules of interaction. Instead of the object going this way like a billiard ball would, it might go some other way, photons create virtual particles, etc etc. That is why they appear as "violations" of interaction rules which have been capactively founded. Much of this distortion has to do with the fact that most of our 'intuitive' interactions in daily life proceed capacitively (and all purely capacitive interactions can be analyzed using Newton's Laws).

We would expect that accordingly, the need for these 'loops' would coincide with situations where a large amount of inductive capability is trapped inside the particles/arrangments involved in the interactions. Indeed this is the case. Those situations for which the interactions are divergent are significant, which have large momentum/energy values.

Quote:
While virtual particles obey conservation of energy and momentum, they can have any energy and momentum, even one that is not allowed by the relativistic energy-momentum relation for the observed mass of that particle. (That is, E2 - p2 is not necessarily the mass of the particle in that process (e.g. for a photon it could be nonzero).) Such a particle is called off-shell. When there is a loop, the momentum of the particles involved in the loop is not uniquely determined by the energies and momenta of incoming and outgoing particles.
End quote

Interpretation:
i.e., the inductance of the arrangement and the backreaction of that inductance's field upon itself, in response to local forces can play a large enough role in moulding the results of the interaction, even though they are largely invisible to the capacitively oriented Newtonian (Euclidean) laws.

Quote
A variation in the energy of one particle in the loop can be balanced by an equal and opposite variation in the energy of another particle in the loop. So to find the amplitude for the loop process one must integrate over all possible combinations of energy and momentum that could travel around the loop.
These integrals are often divergent, that is, they give infinite answers. The divergences which are significant are the "ultraviolet" (UV) ones. An ultraviolet divergence can be described as one which comes from- the region in the integral where all particles in the loop have large energies and momenta.
End quote

Interpretation:
(i.e. only those inductive processes are significant which have significant/large rotation energy and momentum) For such large energy processes (dubbed Ultraviolet divergences), the net result is calculated by adjusting the capactive laws to include an inductance (and the resulting harmonic oscillations term and its consequences) and its effects. The Feynman diagram is serving to document that adjusted calculation.

Quote
- very short wavelengths and high frequencies fluctuations of the fields, in the path integral for the field.
- Very short proper-time between particle emission and absorption, if the loop is thought of as a sum over particle paths
end quote

Interpretation: Thats exactly what we showed for the rotating wheel- cyclical emission and absorption.
The faster the rotation, the shorter the proper-time between particle emission and absorption, if the loop is thought of as a sum over particle parths.

That is, the loop implies rotational motion of the object or constituents of the object. Infinite answers imply that for large inductances, the resulting precessive output will be large and is going to cause divergences. The formulas are merely reflecting the unsuitability of capactive techniques to analyze inductive phenomena.

Some Final Remarks
Quote
The Higgs field has a non-trivial self-interaction, like the Mexican hat potential, which leads to spontaneous symmetry breaking:
End quote

That is, the Higgs field involved self-induction, which appears in the case of inductively suspended objects harnessed by a local variable torque.
So expect that in analogy, the weak gravitational force, inertia (capacitance) and induction arise through a Unified Field Theory with spin/rotation as a major driver.

Now,
Quote
In particle language, the constant Higgs field is a superfluid of charged particles, and a charged superfluid is a superconductor. Inside a superconductor, the gauge electric and magnetic fields both become short-ranged, or massive.
End quote

Thus, this formulation of the Higgs field as the resonant excitation of inductively suspended spinning objects can form explanations of SuperConductivity as well.

Please note that n this and the previous post, I have quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_graphs

The Problem With Gravitons

Although Albert Einstein spent the last two decades of his life seeking to unify Gravity with Electro-Magnetism, he did not succeed in building a Unified Field Theory. Even now, the current state of unified field theories is that there is as yet, no accepted unified field theory. Gravity has yet to be successfully included into the framework of such theories.

One of the best weapons in science is analogy. We apply the template of existing known processes in discovering/understanding new processes. Nature seems to somehow agree with us. Wave motion is one example of such a concept. In mathematics and physics, the Laplace operator is a differential operator used in modeling of many different kinds of wave propagation. It is used in formulating equations for acoustics, fluid dynamics heat flow, forming the Helmholtz equation, all the major equations in electrostatics, Electro-Magnetism, and in representing the kinetic energy term of the Schrödinger equation in Quantum Theory.

Harmonic motion is one other such concept - it has been applied successfully, over and over again in various (intially, to an untrained eye atleast) unrelated fields like mass-spring arrangements, a molecule inside a solid, an electron stuck in an atom, a car stuck in a ditch being rocked out, a pendulum and the earth in its orbit. (source: http://www.slideshare.net/makadelhi/applications-of-shm)

Capacitors and Inductors are also such a concept. While capacitors alone interact as point objects, inductive objects (consisting of a spinning object in suspension about an orthogonal axis) behave as objects with a finite extension. Thus, viewing all interactions as being either capacitive or inductive can become a generalized technique that sorts the spatially extended objects (ie field elements) from point objects in both Electro-Magnetism (EM) and Iner-Gravitation (lets say, IG). This analogy raises spin/rotation to a unique postion of being the progenitor of both effects via capacitive and inductive suspension. By giving us the ability to distinguish between capacitive and inductive interactions, this analogy can also help harmonize IG with EM by solving the problem of renormalization when combining gravitons with strong and electroweak interactions. The following section explores one way to resolve this current problem in Physics.

All this means we can guarantee a unified structure to natural laws that would still look very familiar, but with a twist (almost literally) of the third derivative. In merging Mechanics and Gravitation with EM, we open the door to the Unified Field Theory. Lets not forget that Gravitation has long been the wedge that kept the whole structure from beautifully fitting together. In addition, it will give us the key to building ships that can cross space and make green transportation a reality.

In order to incorporate gravity into the Unified Field Theory framework, we have to work to replace curved spacetime as in general relativity with a situation where the gravitational interaction is mediated by gravitons. However, attempts to replace general relativity (GR) with gravitons have run into serious theoretical difficulties at high energies (processes with energies close to or above the Planck scale) because of infinities arising due to quantum effects (in technical terms, gravitation is nonrenormalizable).

Even just trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions runs into fundamental difficulties which boil down to the non-renormalizability of the results. The incompatibility of GR and quantum mechanics (QM) is another current problem in physics. Both these problems involve mechanics/gravitation's relationship with the remaining three forces.

In physics, although in principle we can predict the behavior of matter by keeping track of each atom, it is often more practical to treat matter as a continuum and then taking the continuum limit. Newton for example considered that air could be modeled as a lattice of mass points. He assumed the simplest possible lattice – equal masses spaced equally along the direction of propagation.

Laplace used this conception of air to successfully calculate the speed of sound. In fact, the entire set of Newton's Laws of Motion as well as wave theory itself can be deduced by taking the continuum limit of this simple lattice. If you wish to see the derivation, it is available here:
[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Mechanics/The_Continuum_Limit]

In Quantum Field Theory (QED), renormalization refers to a collection of techniques used to take a continuum limit of space and time.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization)

When describing space and time as a continuum, certain statistical and quantum mechanical constructions are ill defined. In order to define them, the continuum limit has to be taken carefully.

Renormalization determines the relationship between parameters in the theory, when the parameters describing large distance scales differ from the parameters describing small distances.
end quote

However renormalization when gravitons and strong or electroweak interactions are combined is hindered by the problem of infinities. The problem of infinities is an old one dating back to the 19th and early 20th century. Back then, it arose in the application of classical electrodynamics to point particles. This first version of the problem was solved by QED (as will be discussed immediately below) and the second version of this problem that has arisen with respect to Gravitons is currently unsolved and is an open problem.

To put it simply,
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization)
quote
the mass of a charged particle should include the mass-energy involved in its electrostatic field. Assume that the particle is a charged spherical shell of radius re. The energy in the field is
end quote

m_em = q²/8*P*r_e

where

m_em = electron mass

Now normally, this classical electrodynamics formula performs well for all electromagnetic interactions for which quantum mechanics is not relevant. However, notice what happens when the radius falls to zero. The energy becomes infinite when re is zero. This directly implies that the point particle would be infinitely massive and could never be moved - an absurd conclusion.

Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Pascual Jordan, and Paul Dirac discovered that in perturbative calculations many integrals were divergent.

Further,(source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization) when calculating the electromagnetic interactions of charged particles, it is tempting to ignore the back-reaction of a particle's own field on itself. But this back reaction is necessary to explain the friction on charged particles when they emit radiation. If the electron is assumed to be a point, the value of the back-reaction diverges, for the same reason that the mass diverges, because the field is inverse-square.
end quote