[DPRG] radical research project
Subject: [DPRG] radical research project
From: Randy M. Dumse
rmd at newmicros.com
Date: Tue Nov 17 16:06:17 CST 2009
vincent lopresti opined: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 10:37 AM
> my ultimate goal is to virtually construct & simulate three
devices:
> 1. frictionless propulsion by amplification of gyroscopic
precession
> [gravitational bunching/streaming, not antigravity]
> 2. high volume electron pump. electricity from thin air!
> [free energy/overunity]
> 3. H2O rockaloon robotic interplanetary vehicle
> [recycles fuel energy while traveling]
You should not expect a physics simulator to simulate things
which are not physically possible under the laws of physics.
Hence you are doubly doomed to fail here. Meaning if you use the
simulator right, it will show it can't be done. If you abuse the
simulator and get an answer which is outside physical reality,
it still can't be done.
You can make simulations lie to you, if you don't consider the
limitations of numerical analysis. There are built in errors and
limits. For instance adding a too little floating point number
to a too big one always gives the big answer no mater if you add
the little one billions of times. But the overall laws of
physics can often guide you (such as there is no such thing as
free energy, also called energy convservation). If you think
you've got something like that, your time is much better trying
to prove the simulation wrong, because you know the final
answer, than you are getting your hopes up you are on to
something new.
Why do I seem so negative? I deal with just such issues myself.
Here's a clip from an email I sent to a research partner _just_
last night about alternatives to black holes: "Actually, I am
trying to figure the details of my results. I assume the results
are "toogoodtobetrue" and therefore suspect. And I am
attempting therefore to refine the results of the numerical
analysis result to eliminate the bobble at the near horizon to a
fluke of numerical analysis. But it you look closely at the plot
I sent in previous email, there's a burble at the beginning of
the plot. On close up, it shows a brief region just inside the
near horizon which goes negative to greater than expected. ...
The negative observation is that mass also has a little kick
near the horizon on both ends, which suggests it truly is a
numerical anamoly due to integration or formula, and not a valid
value." What I'm saying is I practice what I preach here.
Randy
More information about the DPRG mailing list
