|
|
Post by firecracker on Jun 17, 2014 9:53:37 GMT -5
I have been thinking about the lack of 'intermediates that you have revealed. And that lack explains quite a lot about the lack of forward progress.
First, the information you shared about the PhD who continued forward with a failed theory, why? Likely because he had not built the stable 'support for the theory and had no fall back position from which to posit and explore a new theory.
Secondly, if one happens to hit the correct theory the first time, they go back and provide supporting data while writing the patent or peer review information, which is a little like CNBC reporting why the stock market fell....just entertainment, may have nothing to do with it since it is after the fact.
Could this be why U.S innovation and discovery has been surpassed by foreign? Those schooled in the discipline of a foreign culture who have not fallen into the vice of skipping the intermediate steps necessary to have a firm foundation for their new science?
What is driving this skip of the important middle? Is it ego, greed, or pressure from those funding the research?
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 17, 2014 16:16:40 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by firecracker on Jun 17, 2014 20:41:04 GMT -5
You have put the missing details in the thoughts I was attempting to express. So now the question that begs to be answered is this.
In the Nazi system, in other systems, what do they do or have that allows the creativity and provides the support...funding, labs, time, education....to explore the unknown so effectively.
And then secondarily, do we have that in highly secret areas?
Then if so, what we could conclude is that the system we struggle with in the U.S. is specifically designed to squash any exploration and discovery that is not within the system of control of the state and the corporations.
And further, our system is designed to capture and immobilize any challenge to the moneyed oil interests. Free energy is an abomination to those who would control the world. For instance, water is now the blue gold. And those who are quietly buying up the aquifers in this country have openly made statements that water, in the future, will not be free.
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 18, 2014 13:46:11 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 18, 2014 14:42:48 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 18, 2014 15:39:17 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by firecracker on Jun 18, 2014 20:56:31 GMT -5
Light, got it. Thanks, Inventor
Life is in the journey, good luck with yours also.
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 18, 2014 22:13:19 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 19, 2014 14:50:00 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 20, 2014 12:25:33 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 21, 2014 16:54:41 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by firecracker on Jun 21, 2014 21:39:21 GMT -5
"The presence of a magnetic field can make a portion of compressible fluid less dense than its surroundings, so that it floats upward under the influence of gravity. This magnetic buoyancy is thought, in fact, to be the mechanism by which magnetic flux tubes rise through the Sun's convection zone and break at the surface in the form of sunspots. academic.jesus.ox.ac.uk/dacheson/res8.htmlThe rate at which these magnetic flux tubes rise is of major interest, and was once thought to be far too fast, in fact, for the self-consistency of the whole picture. My own contribution was to show that the Sun's rotation would have a major effect on the process, by drastically reducing the rate at which the magnetic buoyancy instabilities develop. I argued, too, that it would substantially lengthen the time taken for the flux tubes to reach the surface." Imagine a world that has perfected this technology and the advantage to the society that first acquires it. There must be many more uses for this technology than space travel? |
|
|
|
Post by firecracker on Jun 21, 2014 21:44:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by firecracker on Jun 21, 2014 21:49:24 GMT -5
Instability of Vortex Leapfrogging
This research gives a new twist to a 100-year old problem in the theory of vortex motion.
In 1894, Love showed that two identical vortex pairs can engage in a perpetual leapfrogging motion, but it now turns out that this motion can be unstable, in a very curious way.
"Walkabout" instability of vortex leapfrogging (note pic in preceding post)
The research is described in European Journal of Physics Vol. 21, pp 269-273 (2000), and the animation software leapfrog.zip has been specially written to accompany that paper.
(To run the software on a modern PC, I suggest using qb64 and consulting the notes here.)
|
|
|
|
Post by inventorunknown on Jun 22, 2014 0:56:31 GMT -5
.
|
|
