A Proposed New Law

Russian theoretical physicist Gennady Shipov is the author of a paper, “Theoretical and experimental research of inertial mass of a four-dimensional gyroscope.” The 38 page PDF for this paper is online.

In the Conclusion, Shipov talks about the enigma for physicists that the force of inertia has been.

He goes on to state:

. . . Theoretical and the experimental research on the four- dimensional gyroscope have lead us to discover a new conservation law of momentum of the center of mass at fully elastic impact. This law is written as follows

- angular momentum of a system. As a consequence of this new law the multiple fully elastic impacts of the four-dimensional gyroscope demonstrate the possibility of acceleration of the center of mass of the
gyroscope without acting on it by external forces. . . .

shipov.com...

Something that conflicts with Newton is not “pseudoscience,” as some seem to assume.

It is simply a new finding, which is the essence of progress in science.

I invite the scientists on the forum to consider Shipov's work.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I understand the 4th D is collapsing. Better hurry it on up.

Conflict with accepted laws of known science is the very heart of " science."

Carry on.

(but do hurry)

a reply to: NewzNose

You're changing the subject, right?

a reply to: ConnectDots

It seems that Shipov holds a patent for the "4-dimensional Gyroscope" dating back 15 years ago: PATENT

The device is a four-dimensional gyroscope with self-action, that demonstrates the controlled connection between translational and rotational inertia, which makes the center of masses to move translationally as a result of the preformed " internal impact". Such impact is achieved by the sharp change of the rotational energy of the system, meanwhile the device performs the principally new type of motion - shifting the center of masses effected by the internal non-compensated inertial forces. For the proof of the principally new type of motion in classical mechanics the device is equipped with a scientific research complex, which allows to observe the motion of the center of. masses effected by the inertial forces, as well as to compare the theoretical results with the experimental data.

I have enough trouble understand 2 & 3 dimensions, the 4th dimension taxes the 3 remaining brain-cells that flop around inside my dusty skull.

Consideration takes time. My initial consideration, however, can be summed up by the wood "interesting."

TheRedneck

a reply to: ConnectDots

No. You made a thread about a potential new law of science. I used the word "science" twice. I spoke directly to your thread.

Do you want me to change the subject?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Question: Before I kindly ask my stressed scattered neurons to come together and work with me, have you read this and understood it in full? And if so is there anything specifically you would like to have emphasis on?

I'm still doing a little research on the other so I do not really want to do this pretty big on without some pointers/emphasis/info from you.

a reply to: seattlerat

I am presently working on tachyon energy and the 5th D. As I said, 4D is collapsing.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

My new motto" " Go BIG..or go home.". ☺

a reply to: NewzNose

I would rather go home and fill up my ducks pond in the backyard and play with my kitty in her clump of grass while she's tearing me hand apart then take on a big project that requires near complete dedication of time for a person over the net on a conspiracy site that has a new found alternative maths theory on a subject in a field that is considered by large a joke without first find out whether thst person has read and understood what is being requested.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: seattlerat

I am presently working on tachyon energy and the 5th D. As I said, 4D is collapsing.

Seriously? I would love to hear more about tachyon energy.

I guess I need to read more about the fourth and fifth dimension because I had no clue it was even proven to exist.

originally posted by: MamaJ
I guess I need to read more about the fourth and fifth dimension because I had no clue it was even proven to exist.

It's not.

a reply to: NewzNose

No.

I just don't "get it."

Sarcasm is not something I'm good at deciphering.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

No; I have scanned it to find the information I was looking for.

I put papers on the forum for the scientists to read and argue with, not for the purpose of analyzing them myself. I'm not educated in science myself; I only research what is going on in the world of science.

I am a serious researcher who does what I do because I want to participate in the best way I know how to make this a better world. I'm not on this forum for entertainment or to impress anybody with my debating skills. I want to spread the word about things I deem important.

I believe the best way to make this a better world is through science and technology. And I know from my research that there is a great deal of suppression, sometimes brutal of alternative viewpoints and the inventions that come out of them.

I post about suppressed science and technology because it is suppressed. When things are suppressed, there is a reason. That's a whole other subject.

Suffice it to say I'll be looking for comments from the science experts on ATS that will give me new leads for my ongoing research.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Russian theoretical physicist Gennady Shipov is the author of a paper, “Theoretical and experimental research of inertial mass of a four-dimensional gyroscope.”

What is a four-dimensional gyroscope?

There is this on page 17 of 38:

shipov.com...

The footnote “1” is referencing Shipov’s theory of the vacuum:

shipov.com...

The reason I’m interested in Shipov’s work is that all of my other research tells me that there is no such thing as “empty space,” actually, science went wrong when the aether was eliminated.

Shipov’s theory about the vacuum is about "torsion fields," which I understand constitute spiraling energy permeating all space, and really what we should be focusing on in Western science is the physics of space.

a reply to: ConnectDots

It appears from the context that the fourth dimension referred to is a rotational dimension about one of the three Cartesian axes. In that case, there would also be a fifth and sixth dimension.

The 6-D concept is commonly used in robotic control theory to describe all possible movements in the state space of an actuator.

This is different than the multiple dimensions used in quantum mechanics. To qualify as a dimension, the movement described need only be orthogonal to all other dimensional movements... i.e. movement in one dimension must have no effect on movement in any other dimension.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ConnectDots

The concept of the space aether was disproved by the Michelso-Morley experiment. But the experiment was designed to prove or disprove the aether concept based on the assumption that this aether had no interaction with matter. In reality, according to my hypotheses, the aether is the basis for all matter.

I have not yet completed the mathematical basis for that hypothesis, so it has obviously not been published and may still contain errors. But that statement I am reasonably certain of.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Would you equate aether to the virtual particle field? I recall reading an article talking about relativity affecting the density of the virtual particle field and producing effects such as enertia.

a reply to: VP740

That's one of the areas I need to finish the math on. It looks like inertia (and gravity) is the result of the elasticity of the aether as it moves relative to a particle. I suppose that could be described as a density function.

Inertia would be when the particle moves relative to the aether; gravity would be movement of the aether relative to a particle. Both are identical, distinguished only by the frame of reference. This is also what Einstein predicted.

If the final equations show what I am expecting them to, the same phenomenon that results in gravity/inertia is also responsible for the force holding subatomic particles apart (the 'strong' and 'weak' forces) in atomic nuclei. That's based on the inherent interaction between the aether and matter, coupled with the geometric relationship in 3-D (cartesian) space.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ConnectDots


Something that conflicts with Newton is not “pseudoscience,” as some seem to assume.

It is simply a new finding, which is the essence of progress in science.

It certainly is until it can be shown to work either mathematically and/or experimentally. Otherwise should we take every theory that crops up seriously and waste time? Im not sure why or where you and all the others who think scientists are scared to be wrong or dont want our current theories to be wrong....I mean, we (humans) use Einsteins and Newtons (and many other) laws every single day in our daily life. or at least, use devices that do.

Talk is cheap my friend. Show the laws we run our world on to be wrong and i assure you, you will have every single scientists attention. As well as go down in the history books along with the other scientific greats.

As it is, you and the guys who you desperately want to believe are nothing more than internet noise. Show us and become great.

SHould be straight forward if the theories you keep posting have any truth to them.