|
Main Forum Page
|
The Gyroscope Forum |
20 May 2024 15:23
|
|
Welcome to the gyroscope forum. If you have a question about gyroscopes in general,
want to know how they work, or what they can be used for then you can leave your question here for others to answer.
You may also be able to help others by answering some of the questions on the site.
|
Question |
| Asked by: |
Glenn Hawkins |
| Subject: |
WHAT IS ARCHULATION? |
| Question: |
WHAT IS ARCHULATION?
It is what you do every day, though you may not have a name for it. The distinction between the name, and what you do, is that you do not practice it to the full extent that you are capable. None of us do. Archulation is extensive.
It is a word I invented a long time ago. It is non mathematical. It is both a study and an exercise into the physical reasons ‘why’ and ‘how’ things happen the way they do. It is a practice of inventing and using mental images, of leverages and sequences, chain reactions and forces, pressures, collisions and all motion, particularly all things in curving motion, and how in a system of motions all motions may be related to every other motion at the same time. Archulation comes from two words, the architectural arch and the arc of electricity. It means mater and energy traveling in a curvature.
As time goes on you build a mental imagery library and may return to it as you wish to select a prier imagination and mechanical ways that were preciously solved and then apply it to something new. The library is uniquely yours, but sometimes you can borrow from somebody else’s library, or give from your own. Archulation is supposed to reveal truth as best as you can use it.
Here is but one question to apply it to. Does the reaction, which is precession, actually move mass without having had a rearward action? Am I forced to believe my eyes, or am I forced to believe the 3rd Law? In one hundred years no one has been able to give me a satisfactory mathematical answer and every time someone begins to give me a mechanical sequence answer to support the 3rd Law in this event, they are forced by inability to stop, and revert to statements only—not explanations. So I invented an extreme, in an effort to try to understand. That is Archulation, devoid of mathematics and those few mechanics designed only for the purpose to support mathematics, rather than accept the exact way of ‘how’ and ‘why’ the universe works the way it does in bits and piece.
If the universe had a mind and were compelled to explain itself, it could use physical mechanic only, or it could use math combined with a necessary, but very little amount of mechanics. Why would a mathematician from Berkeley be so vain and innocent as to say: “The Universe obeys mathematics.” We know what he meant. He meant the same conditions are repeatable in a way that equations allow for measuring, but the Universe obeys itself only and itself mechanically only. No mater how clever our tools, it dose not obey piss ants. It obeys its own rules and mechanics and that is what I study and I call that study archulation.
I’m a bit sad that I find it necessary to include this following non-essential paragraph so that I do not appear as a dullard and a mathematical illiterate. I have great respect for mathematics though I have purposely long since avoided it in all the ways I could. I can pick it back up by reviewing what I knew of it from my old books anytime I wish, or need to. My son was a mathematician, but his primary field was molecular biology. Even in college he saw answers to the most difficult test questions at the same time he saw the question. He guardedly wouldn’t tell anyone how he did it, then I ask him and of course he told his father the secret. Glenn Ethan said: “Dad, I don’t know how I do it.” Yeah, I respect mathematics. It is and will always be the most ingenious and powerful tool that can ever be built though man may exist a million years. It was built from every continent during two thousand years by many of the cleverest people our planet has known. It is a planetary achievement. Technology now advances all over the globe at light speed so to speak, because of mathematics. So as I begin to separate mathematics from mechanics it is not done derogatively, or ignorantly.
The best way to explain it is to use it and allow its use to be seen. I intend to do that. I hope I will. That is why I’m first publishing this explanation.
I can tell you something. The minds on this site are far different than usual. I’ll give you an example. I posed a little riddle that had always taken time to solve: ‘Chicken, fox and corn.’ Almost immediately three correct answers came to me. Nobody else is now repeating what he knows has already been answered. What astounded me was not the speed the replies came, but in all the years I had never heard but one correct answer and always the same answer. I received three correct answers, two more than I thought possible. I mean to point out this, if I can jump start Archulation here, there may begin on this site some of the wildest workings of the human minds-eye on the entire Internet. We haven’t begun to explain how our minds work, how we see things. The minds here, if not special are at least obviously different. Why else are we are drawn to this swept under the rug propulsion subject?
If I’m lucky I will eventually get to see some of you bouncing off the wall with the simplest and most creative imaginations using different tools of anywhere else and using them in a purposeful way, without reserve, shyness, or fear. Call it whatever you like. If you don’t have a name for it you can use the name I gave it.
From here I eventually hope to begin another thread with the actual use of a few of my tools, to open imagination and the thread to be called ‘Archulation and Rotation”. But, there’s so much more to be done. A long time a go a man I admire very much said that a gyro precessing had no momentum, or inertia and that it had no energy. And did he also say no centrifuge? We'll see if he was right! I already know. And we’ll see the why of it all and know it to be true.
How would you archulate? Would you see how energy and matter travel in a curvature? Would you see why? How do you see it so far, nonsense?
Glenn,
|
| Date: |
14 May 2005
|
| report abuse
|
|
Answers (Ordered by Date)
|
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 14/05/2005 14:59:06
| | | This is a prelude to the real work ahead, but it is about a most important distinction.
If a purely mechanical universe were an intelligent entity, would it question our math-based mechanics?
The first hint of confusion began for me in this early quotation and I found that the idea followed through into the study of rotation and other things. “The table pushes down and the earth pushes back.” If you see a little kid jumping up and down in the yard and ask if the earth pushed him up, he will tell you no. He might say: “I push me up.” If you ask him if he jumps on a trampoline dose the trampoline push him up and he would tell you, yes. In the future this little kid will go to school between twelve and twenty years and he will read and be told and be taught mathematics that rely on the idea that a non yielding condition is a push. He will come to believe it.
What if you brought one hundred pounds of groceries home (about four thousand dollars worth at my store) and set it down on your kitchen table. Now suppose your house cat had eaten a few of Homer Simpson’s three eyed fish and now has become a half-ton tiger over night and swiped the groceries off the table onto the floor the easier to eat them. (You don’t believe I have such a high-octane, radiation-confused cat? Then where dose the onions and mustard go when I try to make a sandwich late at night?) The table doesn’t leap up into the air when the weight is removed. Don’t you just know no force pushes up against the table, and that the floor is only capable of supporting weight in and as a one directional pressure resistance, and that it doesn’t supply an active energy? What did Newton say? Little kids know the answer. They haven’t received our education yet. Maybe if we set the table on a trampoline they’ll more easily come around to our way of thinking?
Let us try to stop an argument in support of ‘The earth pushes back’ before it begins. Suppose you envision a large object in space ‘ a battleship will do’ and a small force ‘an astronaut piss ant with a rocket backpack will do’. The ant is pushing at the object. Now, endlessly add mass to the ship and endlessly reduce the force of the backpack rocket. I think eventually the object will not yield to the force no matter that the force continues to eternity. It is my guess that mathematics would back me up on this. So we have a new condition to consider that I call Inertia Plus. If Inertia Plus is true, then the equation involving, time, force, mass and distance is only almost entirely true, but I would think it flawed when applied to a kid jumping up and down on the vastness of the earth. I think the earth in its entirety would not move in space even as an impossibly small reaction and that Inertial Plus would hold true. If it should be as I suppose, that mathematics would support me, there still is no way that I can think of to test the idea. So, in advance of a potential argument, perhaps as equally absurd as ‘the butterfly, the hurricane, the opposite side of the earth’, I say that an argument to oppose Inertia Plus equally can’t be tested. Finally I come back to the idea that the earth dose not push the kid up in the air, or push back in any way. In this condition the earth is an unyielding backdrop and does not supply energy, but only resist incoming energy. Is it not evident that the mechanics in physics sometimes alter the way things actually happen in order to support a single way of thinking mathematically? Is physics actually mechanically wrong sometimes and we mechanics keep beating our brains out against a mechanical error?
Here is an Important Distinction to note. I once had a lot of trouble with distinctions between pressure and force. Ultimately pressure is created, maintained and held by continuing actions. Think of moving molecules exerting force, or of atoms if you like. There’s lots of force by motion. Even the membrane that contains pressure in a non-action condition does so by actions occurring in the membrane. But, generally force must be considered as an action—movement. And, pressure as something that doesn’t move and causes no reaction and as it is contained is not a pure force, because it doesn’t produce action. When and if it dose produce movement then the condition isn’t pressure any more, but action--force. Pressure is immobile and causes nothing to happen, but it can resist action. It can resist force. Force is action. Force is movement. Force causes something to happen. Pressure isn’t force, until it drives a piston, or blows the tank apart. If we are unable to distinguish a difference between; passive resistance and active force we have little chance of determining an answer in the coming debate involving centrifuge and centripetal.
This is going to take a while to get into the subject of archulating images and rotation. But since I have failed to make myself understood on this before, I must go slowly.
Is there a clear distinction between force and pressure? Could an aborigine who’s never seen a book answer this one. Are we so overwhelmed by a contrivance that we can’t, or wont?
What do we think of reality verses an invention of mechanics only to support mathematics?
Do you think the floor pushes the table upward?
Do you think the kid’s leg’s furnishes the force to jump?
Can you think of other instances of explanations that trouble your observations?
Should I keep going? Do you care? I don’t know. I only know I don’t want to bore you.
What is your take so far?
I call my radiated cat, Miss Spot. I m guessing as long as I keep him doubly confused I can control him. But it’s dangerous. If he starts to get wise my next ploy is to tell him that if he continues his diet the earth is going to shove him into space. That should keep him confused for a few hundred years.
Best regards,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Eric James ----- - 15/05/2005 03:03:20
| | | Glenn,
Your cat is possesed! I recommend putting a big crucifix on the door of your refrigerator.
Eric
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2005 03:39:47
| | | Good Idea, Eric. But just right now my family members sleep with all the crusafes we have. Actually Miss Spot is for sale at the moment. Very cheep too. We’ll see.
Thank you Eric,
Glenn H.
|
| Report Abuse |
| Answer: |
Glenn Hawkins - 15/05/2005 17:00:23
| | | Hello anybody,
I can’t go further without producing many drawings and then there seem to be little common, present interest in this effort. And since I have no desire to impress and since you know how much this work pays, my shed awaits me, my building effort remains unfinished and unattended designs float in my mind and lay jumbled and waiting upon my tired old desk.
I though I could help simplify and define certain things that we could agree upon and thereby have for ourselves advanced standards from which to precede. Maybe we just want to discover and comunicate, but not to be taught? Maybe this is so! Anyway, like Arnold Schwaszenegger said upon learning late at night he could not even spell crusafes: “I’llllll be back.” I’ll see what I think about it later.
Best regards,
Glenn Hawkins
|
| Report Abuse |
| Add an Answer >> |
|
