We should talk about negative friction.

[broli]

From perhaps the very first year of any science you are thought about friction, losses and decay (entropy). But what if the inverse also existed. What if "negative" friction existed. Meaning when we apply "friction" to something it increases its energy rather than decrease.

How would such a machine look like?

[broli]

As you say you can fool some people some of the time, but not all people all of the time. At some point the suppression game runs out and things reverse liberating all the surpressed energy and the process resets. But I don't want to get too preachy and keep it to what I love, science.

It's not so much that permanent magnets are the magic it's more fundamental than that, it's due the nature of linearity vs non linearity in physics.

Or rather linear motion vs circular motion. We see this everywhere with all known forces. Everything is either laminar (linear) vs turbulent (nonlinear). A force either acts along the direction of motion or side ways. A line or a circle. Or More symbolic and poetic, 1's and 0's. That's pretty much the whole universe in a nutshell. Now we know the universe is not as boring as binary code. The beauty of the linear vs non linear is due to friction we step away from the boring binary nature of things and get to see everything in between. Slow motion vortex rings can be quite mesmerising

However what's key is how to handle friction between such two forces. Because friction is the intermediate energy carrier. Without friction this universe would be very boring and cold. However just like "positive" friction there is also "negative" friction. Negative friction has been ignored for some reason.

Essentially what I am saying is you get positive friction when you work with linear vs linear or nonlinear.(circular) vs nonlinear systems.

But when you combine linear vs nonlinear motion your friction suddenly introduces energy, in the case of mechanical AND electrical energy.

All the while conserving angular and linear momentum. Energy can flow in either direction by freely choosing the direction of friction BUT momentum will ALWAYS be conserved in either case. The best example of an energy losing but momentum conserving system is shooting a Bullet in a large block of wood. All momentum will be conserved but a lot of energy will be lost.

What would then an energy producing, momentum conserving, negative friction (that was a mouth full) system look like. Again friction is not the enemy but KEY. Without friction energy has no meaning as the universe would be a cold dead place. But we only have been taught one direction of friction but as usual if there something there is its opposite too.

[Frederik2k1]

Am I missing something here?
Didn't you already expand on your explanations, Broli?

[broli]

I got too arrogant too fast and discovered a huge blunder. Will come back when the error is amended and my ego put down.

[F6FLT]

...
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself"
...

If you understand it, you can explain relativity to a 6-year-old, but at his level. And his level of understanding won't allow him to calculate the age difference between twins when one of them goes to Alpha Centauri and then returns to see his brother on Earth, or to build a nuclear power plant.
I fear that many "FE researchers" are in the same boat as 6-year-olds. They take for science what little simplistic popularization they've understood (or not), and so can't get anything from it. What's worse is that, in the midst of projection, they accuse scientists of having understood nothing when it's them.

[TinMan]

If you understand it, you can explain relativity to a 6-year-old,

Assuming relativity is correct.
Otherwise you are just teaching the same mistake to the next generation as the previous generation taught to you.


Brad

[F6FLT]

Assuming relativity is correct.
Otherwise you are just teaching the same mistake to the next generation as the previous generation taught to you.


Brad

In science, it's very easy to invalidate a theory: all you need to do is prove a counter-example.
Who does? Do you?

Unlike FE researchers who accept anything from one of their own, physicists always try to invalidate their own theories. This is the only way to obtain a valid theory, the one that remains after everything has been done to prove it is incorrect.
The latest experiment to invalidate relativity was the gravity probe B experiment, and it confirmed relativity. For a century, attempts have been made to invalidate relativity, without success. So until proven otherwise, relativity is valid, and what is incompatible with relativity up to the number of decimal places of experimental verification, is false.

Those who have problems understanding this approach are proving to be completely useless in the search for FE, as demonstrated by the absence of a free energy solution for the general public, despite all the stupid but recurrent claims that it already exists.

So enough of the nonsense, you can't talk about a "mistake" about relativity without providing proof, it's time to show a little intelligence, rationality and modesty in relation to people who have 20 or 30 IQ points more than us and who have provided all the evidence.
If you don't understand the merits of scientific theories, study them. Nature doesn't conform to simplistic, alternative pseudo-theories produced out of spite by those who are overwhelmed by reality.
Sorry for the mood swing, but it had to be said.

Coming back to the subject of "negative friction", I think it's an idea worth exploring, and I've already said so to Broli. In particular, the thermal agitation of magnetic particles, which is disordered kinetic energy obtained from the ordered energy linked to the origin of motion, could perhaps in my opinion have an effect on magnetism by defeating or circumventing the conservativity of the magnetic flux. So proven theories such as relativity doesn't preclude extravagant ideas. How to test this experimentally remains to be seen.

[TinMan]

quote author=F6FLT link=topic=4616.msg111073#msg111073 date=1711534257]

In science, it's very easy to invalidate a theory: all you need to do is prove a counter-example.
Who does? Do you?

Yes,
How about the biggest example there is--
General relativity predicts that the expansion of the universe should slow down at a rate determined by the density of matter and energy within it.
So the fact that the universe is expanding, and this expansion rate is speeding up, not slowing down, is a prime example that general relativity is not absolute.
And then we see what often happens when things do not meet the !absolute! science--they invent things, so as the scientific theory sticks.
So to account for this expansion that go's against general relativity, they come up with this mystical dark energy-just so as Einstein's theory sticks.
But so far, this dark energy and dark matter have not been detected in any way shape or form.
Until such time as this !dark! energy is found and observed (science), then general relativity is not absolute.

And to quote: Quantum mechanics can be said to be the cornerstone of modern physics. For every physical field theory it should be possible to formulate it as quantum field theory. Actually, it is generally accepted that the field theories of electromagnetism or gravitation are but an approximation, the "classical limit", of more fundamental underlying quantum field theories. It is also assumed that interaction theories have to be gauge theories. The possibility of formulating gravity as quantum field theory is essential in the context of the unification of all fundamental interactions. However, all attempts to find a consistent quantum gauge field theory of general relativity have failed. This indicates again that general relativity can hardly be an absolutely correct theory of gravitation.

Unlike FE researchers who accept anything from one of their own

That is simply not true, and we see that time and time again on this forum alone, where the top guns here are always pointing out mistakes that the other top guns make.
This forum is not energetic forum.

physicists always try to invalidate their own theories.

Maybe in the past, but no so much now, for the fear of reprisal and defunding.
The governments now determine the science, and say who can say what.
Take for example the last pandemic, where doctors in Australia (my country) were silenced against any bad outcome that could happen in relation to the vaccines.\
Fancy that, unqualified members of the government telling medical experts how to do there job, and determine what doctors could talk to patients about.

Those who have problems understanding this approach are proving to be completely useless in the search for FE, as demonstrated by the absence of a free energy solution for the general public, despite all the stupid but recurrent claims that it already exists.

I remember a long time ago, some of these !experts! said heavier than air machines could not fly.
Along came a couple of pushbike mechanics 
These laws of physics you value so much say that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but only transformed.
If that is the case, then the outcome of every experiment carried out on this forum has already been determined.
But- these very same scientists and physicists came up with this !dark! energy, which has yet to be proven to even exists, so as Einstein's theory of general relativity has an escape goat--> it must stand true at all costs.

Have you determined that things like the TPU, and Stan Myres water fuel car were a hoax ? If so, how exactly did you determine that ?
Was it by blindly believing what you read in text books, or was it done by way of examining the devices ?
Which way would have been the scientific method ?

So enough of the nonsense, you can't talk about a "mistake" about relativity without providing proof

I did just that.

t's time to show a little intelligence, rationality and modesty in relation to people who have 20 or 30 IQ points more than us

There is no evidence that Einstein even took an IQ test. The 160 was a guess based around his work.
They figured Einstein was a genius, and an IQ of 160 is classed as genius, so that is how they came up with that number.
But what is an IQ test anyway ?, and how do different IQ tests determine your actual IQ.
I did two official Australian IQ tests. On the first i got 156, and on the second, which was completely different, i got just 139
I bet there are a lot of us here that could do things Einstein has no idea about, like strip and rebuild a motorcycle engine.

If you don't understand the merits of scientific theories, study them.

Scientific merits are gained through experimentation and data, which is exactly what we do here.

Nature doesn't conform to simplistic, alternative pseudo-theories

Nor is it dictated by what man knows today, or mans interpretation of the laws of physics.
We are far from fully understanding the laws of the universe.
Perhaps one of us will find this !dark! energy ?

Sorry for the mood swing, but it had to be said.

We all have the right to put forth our arguments, regardless of mood.

Coming back to the subject of "negative friction", I think it's an idea worth exploring, and I've already said so to Broli. In particular, the thermal agitation of magnetic particles, which is disordered kinetic energy obtained from the ordered energy linked to the origin of motion, could perhaps in my opinion have an effect on magnetism by defeating or circumventing the conservativity of the magnetic flux. So proven theories such as relativity doesn't preclude extravagant ideas. How to test this experimentally remains to be seen.

Magnetic fields have energy, so they can do useful work.


Brad

[Excelsior]

"Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence"

Without re-addressing the fundamentals of the work to be produced, how can one expect different results than have been previously acquired, or results which at least mimic those of previous known successful innovators?

Given how many inept professionals (the last thing some of which would ever do is actually "profess" to errors) can exist in a given sector at a given time - one would hope that said fundamentals are considered in a multitude of ways by people with varying insights.

IE who's doing the work, and why?
The old saying rings true, "follows the money"
If we do indeed live in an age of suppression then this is the first thing to grasp.
It would mean we have been working with intentionally flawed models, to which no over-unity result can ever be attributed.
Much of what Bearden said on the matter in 2006 is unequivocally and undeniably, true. (big monkey dilemma etc)

Why don't we regard this purely for what it is? - an engineering problem - instead of grounds for unnecessary theoretical debate.

[TinMan]

"Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence"

Without re-addressing the fundamentals of the work to be produced, how can one expect different results than have been previously acquired, or results which at least mimic those of previous known successful innovators?

Given how many inept professionals (the last thing some of which would ever do is actually "profess" to errors) can exist in a given sector at a given time - one would hope that said fundamentals are considered in a multitude of ways by people with varying insights.

IE who's doing the work, and why?
The old saying rings true, "follows the money"
If we do indeed live in an age of suppression then this is the first thing to grasp.
It would mean we have been working with intentionally flawed models, to which no over-unity result can ever be attributed.
Much of what Bearden said on the matter in 2006 is unequivocally and undeniably, true. (big monkey dilemma etc)

Why don't we regard this purely for what it is? - an engineering problem - instead of grounds for unnecessary theoretical debate.

Couldn't agree more.
Money/funding is now king, and actual scientific research must allow for the money to keep flowing.
And yes, it is just a matter of engineering, not known laws of physics, that is stopping most from achieving what they wish to achieve.

Brad

[JimBoot]

The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake is a good read. Also "Give me one free miracle and we'll explain everything else" = Big Bang

[broli]

Indeed, money is monkey business. Everything is limited to our own imagination and the time needed to achieve it.

I always found it curious why nuclear fusion of elements gave energy below iron and takes energy above it.

[chief kolbacict]

Money/funding is now king,

Nothing worked out for me without money, and nothing worked out for you with money either.
So What is the difference? 

[TinMan]

Nothing worked out for me without money, and nothing worked out for you with money either.
So What is the difference? 

What do you mean that nothing worked out for me with money ?
I am now dept free, and have a lot more time to myself and for my family.
Things have worked out just fine thanks.

[chief kolbacict]

What do you mean that nothing worked out for me with money ?

I meant that there is no working model. Although I won't be categorical. I don't know. I definitely don't have one.

[broli]

Can we please not stray too far off topic please, thank you 

F6FLT made an interesting remark about thermal agitation and ferromagnetism. Ferromagnetism can be "killed" by heat. However and more interestingly, when ferromagnetic materials are magnetized they INCREASE in temperature slightly, some more than others. Where did this "friction" energy come from? Surely the source of the field didn't care if the material increased it temperature, it only cared about the total increase in magnetic energy. Yes I know the "source" of this "friction" is the crystalline lattice deforming as the domains rotate, align and deform, but again the source doesn't care about this deformation and its subsequent energy emission.

Another interesting material that behaves similarly is nitinol. Which they say doesn't break any rules. But how exactly do you measure this? When you heat it or run current through it behaves the opposite way as any other metal. It gets more "ordered" rather than "disordered" with heat. Are there other such unusual materials or things perhaps? How about gyroscopes?

Btw I am not trying to lead people on here either. I have nothing working yet. Just thinking out loud to have these ideas challenged and perhaps open up new perspectives from my side too.

[broli]

I read quite some science news and papers as I believe these guys are really smart but have been misguided by a constrained way of thinking. However from time to time they produce work that is truly an engineering feet which should also be commended as it helps everyone get a better picture of things.

Here's one such thing, we are starting to realize that magnetism is perhaps as essential as "gravity" on the large scale in the cosmos, well something many of the alternate science guys have been Harkin about for ages, think of the Electric Universe Theory and many others. Magnetism is not a small force, maybe someday they realize that gravity is also an illusion and that there are only two forces in nature. Electrostatics and electromagnetism. And the thing we call "dark matter" is just magnetism. One force acting "linear" and the other "non-linear" and their interaction causing everything in between including the universe and life itself.

https://www.space.com/black-hole-milky-way-new-image-hidden-feature

Hate them or love them but being able to produce such image is truly cool and an incredible engineering feet lets hope they now wake up from their 150 year old slumber too. Perhaps then we can finally stop being such a matter obsessed species and evolve beyond.

Now how does this new information help us?

Things are getting more exciting everywhere it seems.

[broli]

Linear and non-linear motion are everything indeed and these two dont always interact "conservative" from our point of view  . A line or a circle is boring on their own, but when you bring these two children close enough that they start to interact, aka "friction", an entire universe emerges of laminar and turbulent flow where these two continuously change between eachother making things much more interesting. Electrostatics and electromagnetism (linear and non linear) are the ONLY forces in the universe representing the line and circle and everything in between is due their "friction" mediated by time.

We are just used to the one direction of this energy "conservative" train. What is always conserved on the other hand in ALL directions is momentum, linear or non-linear (angular momentum). So even if your system produces energy momentum will ALWAYS be conserved.

The ironic part is that this has been part of Maxwellian electrodynamics for over 150 years and can be seen in your average simulation software. We just never understood the true meaning of energy and time. Time and Timing is everything as we know within chaos theory we have chaos but windows of stability as well, also see the 3 body problem. We can exploit that instability and instead of positive friction we get negative friction out but things need to be timed right. And we have been using these timing devices everywhere in the industrial world for centuries. The black hole image above even hints at one. It is amazing how this very idea plays tricks on your mind as well, up and down, linear and non-linear if you are not careful IT can become unstable too and flip it over from sanity into chaos and insanity. For everyone that manages to figure it out before me (as I am always the slowest of the class) dont forget to love and pray to not only keep yourself and sanity safe but that of your loved ones as well.

I have said too much for now.

[broli]

Another day another example of negative friction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O78dHmzHgP8

Starting to love this guy.

[broli]

How would you explain electromagnetism to a child? Surely such a complex subject is impossible for a child to grasp? What if you can explain electromagnetism in great detail without ever needing to show a single equation? Would something like that not be useful for children that want to grow up to be curious about nature and its mysterious inner workings.

Well if a child can understand the difference between a circle and a line they can understand the whole of electromagnetism.

So here goes. A while ago I had an interesting thought. What if you were surrounded by iron, yes pure iron, and you were charged. Considering these magnetic domains are little current loops, what happens to these magnetic domains as you started moving?

Well its quite simple, they will form a sort of torus around you, in classical EM we would explain this by using the "field" of the moving charge which forms concentric circles around it.

However we dont need fancy equations to visualize why. These ferromagnetic electron "circuits" which I will call "circles" from now on will move in such a way that they are "recruited" and want to be TANGENT with the line of your movement. So in essence they are attracted by this "line" because their tangent component is in the same direction, like attracts like.  forming a torus shape around the moving charge. This torus shape follows the charge forever with little to no loss (makes you think about how stable and near lossless smoke vortex rings are) as long as the amount of recruited circles dont change. More recruited circles means more "inertia" as turning and aligning these circles is not free of charge but once they have been recruited and there is no longer a change to recruit more you will feel no more resistance from them.

Here is a visualization of this where I only drew the nearest circles around the moving charge as to not clutter the idea:

https://imgur.com/a/oRgfgY5

The Maxwellian critiques will scoff at this and tell me what benefit does this have over our fancy partial derivatives and integrals it doesn't even explain how forces and induction arise with your stupid line and circle obsession?

Ah there lies the magic. First as long nothing changes this "torus" following the charge does not impede the motion once formed as long as the charge does not accelerate. But this is where Newtons second law comes in handy. As soon as we accelerate the charge, these circles will bunch up MORE around this line as more are recruited, however we already established that more circles being recruited means more apparent inertia (F=ma) any CHANGE always comes at a cost. So the charge will appear to have more inertia/mass due its acceleration as more circles are "recruited" around it. So you will feel a force opposing you as you try to accelerate the charge. But again if the change (acceleration) stops the charge continues unimpeded, now with even more circles recruited around it.

Oke this toy representation doesn't do much besides tells us how domains align around a moving charge in iron right?

Lets talk about interactions then with other charges. Lets place 2 random charges near our moving charge, they dont need to move as relative movement is the only important thing. What then does this  toy representation tell us about the resulting forces felt on these charge by the moving charges?

Well its quite simple, the circles around the moving charge tells us the direction of the force acting on external charges. Yes just follow the circle, a concept even a child can grasp . Because as we said, if more circles bunch up around the moving charge it will have a larger perceived inertia, thus the external charges will move in such a way to make more circles bunch up around the moving charge as this will reduce its velocity and thus its effect on them. The direction will thus be the LINE which is TANGENT to the circle at the location of that "stationary" charge. The circles and its rate change at the tangent point now represent the direction and magnitude of the forces at any given location. I let it up to the reader to analyze the resulting reaction forces on the moving charge, hint: F=-ma.

Again less talk more drawings: https://imgur.com/a/sdnUG1u

And there we go, we have explained the most of classical electromagnetism with nothing more than a line and circle and even a child would tell how the magnitude AND direction of these forces behave on moving charges without ever hearing about the Lorentz force "law" or Biot Savart "law". Even explaining the longitudinal forces found in EM, which the previous dont (Weber does, however I believe Weber Force model is also not complete, there is no reason to "impose" newtons third law in its "strong" form when dealing with linear v non linear forces. What is absolute is conservation of linear and non-linear (angular) momentum).

Now that is quite a powerful weapon to be wielded by a child no? I can even continue on the nature of the force being proportional to r_squared because as the circle expands its area also expands by a rate of r_squared (Area=pi*r_squared) too and so its effects will diminish by this same rate and thus a dependency on r_squared arises naturally in the math but we need the concept of time to explain why this expansion occurs so I digress for now.

The interesting thought is, what if these "circles" are not limited to iron, what if iron is giving us a big clue to what the so called "empty" vacuum really holds. More circles perhaps being aligned by moving charge ? Is Iron a reflection of something? Why is iron even special, the first ferromagnetic element, the element that moves fusion over from being exothermic to being endothermic. An element on the very boundary of this linear v non-linear universe, an element at the core of every celestial body, the element being the epitome to the idea of "friction". A coincidence? Lets stop there to spare the child's brain.

And that is how you explain electromagnetism to a child, just by using lines and circles instead of using magical "poles" on a magnet. I wonder what that child brain will invent growing up having such a clear and fundamental view on electromagnetism.

To the critiques saying this is baseless and doesn't support any "real" world data. I can show you a simulation that uses this childish idea and gives you EXACTLY the same results and forces ALL known EM force models return. No calculus, no complex math, no tensors, no Hamiltonian, no right hand rules, no voodoo physics. Just circles and lines.

Since I like to champion friends that do good work. Here is one such "alternate" simulation software made by a good friend, resulting in calculations orders of magnitude faster than typical EM solvers. Unlike me he is much smarter and more into equations to quantify these ideas: https://github.com/StKuehn/OpenWME

I hope this liberates some minds from the linear thinking that has been impressed on us for so long, because the world can be beautiful if we got out of the linear tunnel vision and opened our minds to non-linear thinking by looking side ways from time to time.

The next elementary lesson will perhaps be on the interesting concept called "time" and how it changes our circles and lines . A concept that I also call "friction".

Until next time and may the Line and Circle be with you during these turbulent times.

[broli]

More lines and circles.

[broli]

Anyone have a clue what the most basic form of friction is?

[chief kolbacict]

I don't know.

[broli]

I don't know.

Ah I was starting to think I was talking to myself and going crazy  .

Well friction is when two surfaces meet and apply a sliding or rolling force on to each other. But even here you can split them up in linear v. linear and linear v. non-linear friction. With the latter, the most basic shapes that do this is a "line" and a "circle". But rolling friction is very special, in order for the circle to roll over the "line" and apply friction, a part of it needs to be "flat" with the line (or ground) otherwise nothing happens. This is the beauty of the invention of the wheel. Mathematically this "linear" part of the circle can be infinitesimally small as to become the very tangent of the circle itself meaning you can arbitrary reduce friction until there is little to no energy loss. BUT even at this infinitesimal contact point, these two objects can interact but there is little to no energy "lost" in the interaction exchange. And by interaction I mean (linear and angular) momentum transfer.

This is a very unique aspect to rolling friction. And at the very nature of how something linear (the ground) interacts with something non-linear (the circle) through friction with little to no losses. Whereas regular sliding friction is the interaction of two "like" things (linear v. linear) which produces significant amount of losses when they interact (aka transfer momentum) as "heat", for example current in a wire. But no such thing is produced with linear v. non-linear friction regardless of the force they are pressed on to each other even though they clearly interact through this rolling "friction" or what I call "negative friction".

Again highlighting the importance linear v. non-linear interactions and their exchange in momentum and energy.

So here is the next question. What is the equivalent of linear and non-linear forces in electromagnetism. And can we use this knowledge of a "circle rolling on a line" to do something with it? Perhaps even build an entire universe.

Attached are some interesting art pieces of what happens when you allow circles and lines to interact through friction. Makes you stop in ahw and wonder about this whole linear v non-linear universe we live in. "Free" energy becomes an afterthought however we still live in a material world so one must be built.

These "cesspool" inhabitants seemed to also have been onto something some 20 years ago: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2227843_Recycling_the_universe_using_scalar_fields

That should be plenty enough to kickstart those cycloids in your minds, for now.

[broli]

In the past I always disliked how so called people with "knowledge" led people on for ages, talking in riddles, never really showing or revealing anything meaningful besides their delusional rants or theories that haunted their minds. Trust me that is not what I am doing here. However pace and timing are key to everything.

However this is a forum of freely sharing and experimenting with ideas and I have always shared mine in the past free of esotheric nonsense. So lets take a small break from the floaty stuff. Who is up for an experiment with lines and circles?

Attached is such experiment anyone care to predict or even better curious enough to build and show what such thing does? I sure am curious.