Dennis P . Allen Jr. (original) (raw)
Books by Dennis P . Allen Jr.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2024
This volume contains an extension of classical mechanics to "Jones-Laithwaite effects" as well as... more This volume contains an extension of classical mechanics to "Jones-Laithwaite effects" as well as to relativistic velocities. The extension may helpfully be viewed as a minimal variable inertial mass revision of Newtonian mechanics that is, however, in line with anomalous gyroscopic behavior reported by the late Alex Jones closely followed by the late Eric Laithwaite and then others such as the late Harvey Fiala, and then finally with the recent horizontal spinning rotor levitation experiments of Prof. Alexander L. Dmitriev.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2023
We slightly revise the fifth edition on the first page of Chapter 2. In this little book, we gi... more We slightly revise the fifth edition on the first page of Chapter 2. In this little book, we give a conceptual introduction to Gottfried Gutsche's Inertial Propulsion Mechanics which holds that momentum need not necessarily be conserved in small machines some of which he gives examples of that may be viewed in operation on You Tube.
Kindle Direct Publishing
This book introduces the energy over momentum, inertial propulsion (i.e. thrust from within) mech... more This book introduces the energy over momentum, inertial propulsion (i.e. thrust from within) mechanics of Gottfried J. Gutsche. It is aimed at explaining this alternative mechanics's conceptual basis. Since classical mechanics gives excellent results in almost all mechanical situations, then Gutsche's mechanics must necessarily give the same results in cases where classical mechanics does well; yet it's conceptual basis differs quite a bit from classical mechanics's ... although mathematically it may appear to be much the same since both mechanics usually give the (same) correct answer. And since almost all physics is (at least) partially based upon classical mechanics, then it must almost all be considered to be foundationally obsolete ... even though it will undoubtedly continue to be used by engineers & applied physicists in their work simply because of being habitual and also since it's easier to work with and almost always gives good results as well. (This is the fifth edition.)
Kindle Direct Publishing
Gottfried Gutsche is a semi-retired German electrical engineer (now living in Canada) who designs... more Gottfried Gutsche is a semi-retired German electrical engineer (now living in Canada) who designs and builds specialty machines, and who has used this skill to devise an energy over momentum mechanics that enables him to design mechanical inertial propulsion devices that he then patents and sells. But he is not a native English speaker, and his books on IP have proved to be quite puzzling to mainline mechanical engineers and physicists who, otherwise, might well profit from his very ingenious work. And so this book is intended to be a concise conceptual key to the reading of these difficult IP books of his.
We examine a case study of Prof. Ryspek Usubamatov consisting of a small object with center of ma... more We examine a case study of Prof. Ryspek Usubamatov consisting of a small object with center of mass rotating about a fixed point in a circle with constant angular acceleration in the light of our Neo-Newtonian mechanics which involves variable (increasing) inertial mass. We calculate -- using Prof. Usubamatov's case study parameters -- both the Neo-Newtonian percent mass gain and relativistic percent mass gain at various (high)
velocities occurring in this situation and show that the relativistic effect is completely
negligible compared with the Neo-Newtonian effect.
We use the Bergman-Allen Electron Modeling methodology to show an error in J.P. Wesley's generali... more We use the Bergman-Allen Electron Modeling methodology to show an error in J.P. Wesley's generalization of the traditional electromagnetic energy density and in his generalization of the traditional Poynting vector.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2020
The classical Lebesgue measure of the subsets of the real line is a very delicate result of its u... more The classical Lebesgue measure of the subsets of the real line is a very delicate result of its usual topology, and great care must be taken when constructing a non-measurable subset of the real numbers because of this. And the continuum problem, in the author's view, cannot be solved unless this care is afforded the Lebesgue measure ... in as much as more set theoretic axioms must first be discovered, and how can this be accomplished if the Lebesgue measure is not treated properly?
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2020
We examine Pope Francis's actions in the light of 20th century Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh's well... more We examine Pope Francis's actions in the light of 20th century Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh's well known poem, "Raglan Road" that has been hauntingly sung by the contemporary Irish vocal group, "The High Kings" (and others as well). It is a story of apparent modern idolatry, unfortunately; the rise of the modernist heresy in the Catholic Church that Pope Pius X -- great & wonderful saint that he was -- tried so hard to forestall.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019
A retired mathematician shares his hard won insights on such matters as just why physics is becom... more A retired mathematician shares his hard won insights on such matters as just why physics is becoming so mathematical today while simultaneously moving farther and farther away from application. Also he speaks to G.H. Hardey's related, widely held opinion concerning applied mathematics being manifestly inferior to pure mathematics.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019
This second volume is an extension of Heaviside-Jefimenko Gravitational and Cogravitational theor... more This second volume is an extension of Heaviside-Jefimenko Gravitational and Cogravitational theory to take into account the experimental work of Harvey Morgan, H. W. Wallace, and V. N. Samokhvalov; and it goes into some of Ernst Mach's famous speculations concerning Newtonian mechanics and especially Newton's water bucket experiment ... all in the light of the Neo-Newtonian mechanics treated in the first volume. (Seventh Edition)
CreateSpace.com, 2019
This book is in two parts. The first is our generalizing Morton F. Spears's gravitational theory... more This book is in two parts. The first is our generalizing Morton F. Spears's gravitational theory to the ionized atom case thereby offering a partial explanation of the Biefeld-Brown effects in electrogravitics while the second part applies this theory to enable implementation of an idea of Dr. Erwin J. Saxl, a post-doctorial student of Einstein, concerning earthquake early-warning systems. The text uses only elementary algebra as the potential theory used id introduced without proof thus obviating the necessity of utilizing partial differential equations or even trigonometry. The book is much more physics than mathematics ... in the tradition of Michael Faraday!
CreateSpace.com, 2019
A retired mathematician shares his hard won insights on such matters as just why physics is becom... more A retired mathematician shares his hard won insights on such matters as just why physics is becoming so mathematical today while simultaneously moving farther and farther away from application. Also he speaks to G.H. Hardy's related, widely held opinion concerning applied mathematics being manifestly inferior to pure mathematics.
Why Does Clasical Mechanics Forbid Inertial Propulsion Devices When They Evidently Do Exist?, 2019
A Critical Inquiry into the Anathema Pronounced Against Inertial Propulsion by the Physics Elite.... more A Critical Inquiry into the Anathema Pronounced Against Inertial Propulsion by the Physics Elite. (Fifth Edition)
This is an electrostatic theory of gravity with application to earthquake early warning systems.
Drafts by Dennis P . Allen Jr.
Russian Prof. A.L. Dmitriev has performed many very interesting gravity experiments which he atte... more Russian Prof. A.L. Dmitriev has performed many very interesting gravity experiments which he attempts to explain in terms of "gravitational induction" along the lines of electromagnetic induction. However, the author argues that they may well be better explained by inertial mass increase rather than gravitational mass decrease based upon (the late) David Bergman's and his proton, electron, and neutron modeling that yields a purely electromagnetic characterization of both gravitational & inertial masses for these elementary particles (& the positron as well)..
We examine J. P. Wesley's analysis of the Mikhailov (1999) experiment ascribing inertial mass to ... more We examine J. P. Wesley's analysis of the Mikhailov (1999) experiment ascribing inertial mass to an electron in a uniform electrostatic potential field, and offer a correction to his analysis in the light of the Bergman-Allen electromagnetic electron modeling.
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed) so that its diameter is 0.0047 meter. The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. (This situation is the case discussed in " There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also is the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; and we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases.
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed) so that its diameter is 0.0047 meter. The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. (This situation is the case discussed in " There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also is the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; and we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases.
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed) so that its diameter is 0.0047 meter. The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. (This situation is the case discussed in " There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also is the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; and we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases.
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning to be in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed). The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line impact. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph of page 1 of his article. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also are the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; but we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases to simulate such collisions and to attempt to quantitatively explain Prof. Dimitriev's very anomalous mechanical results via our Neo-Newtonian mechanics by picking a good trial value for our unknown Neo-Newtonian lowest order constant "b102."
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2024
This volume contains an extension of classical mechanics to "Jones-Laithwaite effects" as well as... more This volume contains an extension of classical mechanics to "Jones-Laithwaite effects" as well as to relativistic velocities. The extension may helpfully be viewed as a minimal variable inertial mass revision of Newtonian mechanics that is, however, in line with anomalous gyroscopic behavior reported by the late Alex Jones closely followed by the late Eric Laithwaite and then others such as the late Harvey Fiala, and then finally with the recent horizontal spinning rotor levitation experiments of Prof. Alexander L. Dmitriev.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2023
We slightly revise the fifth edition on the first page of Chapter 2. In this little book, we gi... more We slightly revise the fifth edition on the first page of Chapter 2. In this little book, we give a conceptual introduction to Gottfried Gutsche's Inertial Propulsion Mechanics which holds that momentum need not necessarily be conserved in small machines some of which he gives examples of that may be viewed in operation on You Tube.
Kindle Direct Publishing
This book introduces the energy over momentum, inertial propulsion (i.e. thrust from within) mech... more This book introduces the energy over momentum, inertial propulsion (i.e. thrust from within) mechanics of Gottfried J. Gutsche. It is aimed at explaining this alternative mechanics's conceptual basis. Since classical mechanics gives excellent results in almost all mechanical situations, then Gutsche's mechanics must necessarily give the same results in cases where classical mechanics does well; yet it's conceptual basis differs quite a bit from classical mechanics's ... although mathematically it may appear to be much the same since both mechanics usually give the (same) correct answer. And since almost all physics is (at least) partially based upon classical mechanics, then it must almost all be considered to be foundationally obsolete ... even though it will undoubtedly continue to be used by engineers & applied physicists in their work simply because of being habitual and also since it's easier to work with and almost always gives good results as well. (This is the fifth edition.)
Kindle Direct Publishing
Gottfried Gutsche is a semi-retired German electrical engineer (now living in Canada) who designs... more Gottfried Gutsche is a semi-retired German electrical engineer (now living in Canada) who designs and builds specialty machines, and who has used this skill to devise an energy over momentum mechanics that enables him to design mechanical inertial propulsion devices that he then patents and sells. But he is not a native English speaker, and his books on IP have proved to be quite puzzling to mainline mechanical engineers and physicists who, otherwise, might well profit from his very ingenious work. And so this book is intended to be a concise conceptual key to the reading of these difficult IP books of his.
We examine a case study of Prof. Ryspek Usubamatov consisting of a small object with center of ma... more We examine a case study of Prof. Ryspek Usubamatov consisting of a small object with center of mass rotating about a fixed point in a circle with constant angular acceleration in the light of our Neo-Newtonian mechanics which involves variable (increasing) inertial mass. We calculate -- using Prof. Usubamatov's case study parameters -- both the Neo-Newtonian percent mass gain and relativistic percent mass gain at various (high)
velocities occurring in this situation and show that the relativistic effect is completely
negligible compared with the Neo-Newtonian effect.
We use the Bergman-Allen Electron Modeling methodology to show an error in J.P. Wesley's generali... more We use the Bergman-Allen Electron Modeling methodology to show an error in J.P. Wesley's generalization of the traditional electromagnetic energy density and in his generalization of the traditional Poynting vector.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2020
The classical Lebesgue measure of the subsets of the real line is a very delicate result of its u... more The classical Lebesgue measure of the subsets of the real line is a very delicate result of its usual topology, and great care must be taken when constructing a non-measurable subset of the real numbers because of this. And the continuum problem, in the author's view, cannot be solved unless this care is afforded the Lebesgue measure ... in as much as more set theoretic axioms must first be discovered, and how can this be accomplished if the Lebesgue measure is not treated properly?
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2020
We examine Pope Francis's actions in the light of 20th century Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh's well... more We examine Pope Francis's actions in the light of 20th century Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh's well known poem, "Raglan Road" that has been hauntingly sung by the contemporary Irish vocal group, "The High Kings" (and others as well). It is a story of apparent modern idolatry, unfortunately; the rise of the modernist heresy in the Catholic Church that Pope Pius X -- great & wonderful saint that he was -- tried so hard to forestall.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019
A retired mathematician shares his hard won insights on such matters as just why physics is becom... more A retired mathematician shares his hard won insights on such matters as just why physics is becoming so mathematical today while simultaneously moving farther and farther away from application. Also he speaks to G.H. Hardey's related, widely held opinion concerning applied mathematics being manifestly inferior to pure mathematics.
Kindle Direct Publishing, 2019
This second volume is an extension of Heaviside-Jefimenko Gravitational and Cogravitational theor... more This second volume is an extension of Heaviside-Jefimenko Gravitational and Cogravitational theory to take into account the experimental work of Harvey Morgan, H. W. Wallace, and V. N. Samokhvalov; and it goes into some of Ernst Mach's famous speculations concerning Newtonian mechanics and especially Newton's water bucket experiment ... all in the light of the Neo-Newtonian mechanics treated in the first volume. (Seventh Edition)
CreateSpace.com, 2019
This book is in two parts. The first is our generalizing Morton F. Spears's gravitational theory... more This book is in two parts. The first is our generalizing Morton F. Spears's gravitational theory to the ionized atom case thereby offering a partial explanation of the Biefeld-Brown effects in electrogravitics while the second part applies this theory to enable implementation of an idea of Dr. Erwin J. Saxl, a post-doctorial student of Einstein, concerning earthquake early-warning systems. The text uses only elementary algebra as the potential theory used id introduced without proof thus obviating the necessity of utilizing partial differential equations or even trigonometry. The book is much more physics than mathematics ... in the tradition of Michael Faraday!
CreateSpace.com, 2019
A retired mathematician shares his hard won insights on such matters as just why physics is becom... more A retired mathematician shares his hard won insights on such matters as just why physics is becoming so mathematical today while simultaneously moving farther and farther away from application. Also he speaks to G.H. Hardy's related, widely held opinion concerning applied mathematics being manifestly inferior to pure mathematics.
Why Does Clasical Mechanics Forbid Inertial Propulsion Devices When They Evidently Do Exist?, 2019
A Critical Inquiry into the Anathema Pronounced Against Inertial Propulsion by the Physics Elite.... more A Critical Inquiry into the Anathema Pronounced Against Inertial Propulsion by the Physics Elite. (Fifth Edition)
This is an electrostatic theory of gravity with application to earthquake early warning systems.
Russian Prof. A.L. Dmitriev has performed many very interesting gravity experiments which he atte... more Russian Prof. A.L. Dmitriev has performed many very interesting gravity experiments which he attempts to explain in terms of "gravitational induction" along the lines of electromagnetic induction. However, the author argues that they may well be better explained by inertial mass increase rather than gravitational mass decrease based upon (the late) David Bergman's and his proton, electron, and neutron modeling that yields a purely electromagnetic characterization of both gravitational & inertial masses for these elementary particles (& the positron as well)..
We examine J. P. Wesley's analysis of the Mikhailov (1999) experiment ascribing inertial mass to ... more We examine J. P. Wesley's analysis of the Mikhailov (1999) experiment ascribing inertial mass to an electron in a uniform electrostatic potential field, and offer a correction to his analysis in the light of the Bergman-Allen electromagnetic electron modeling.
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed) so that its diameter is 0.0047 meter. The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. (This situation is the case discussed in " There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also is the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; and we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases.
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed) so that its diameter is 0.0047 meter. The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. (This situation is the case discussed in " There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also is the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; and we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases.
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed) so that its diameter is 0.0047 meter. The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. (This situation is the case discussed in " There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also is the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; and we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases.
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning to be in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed). The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line impact. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph of page 1 of his article. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also are the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; but we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases to simulate such collisions and to attempt to quantitatively explain Prof. Dimitriev's very anomalous mechanical results via our Neo-Newtonian mechanics by picking a good trial value for our unknown Neo-Newtonian lowest order constant "b102."
Appendix 3
Appendix 3 is an appendix that, God Willing, should appear as the "Appendix 3" at the end of Dr. ... more Appendix 3 is an appendix that, God Willing, should appear as the "Appendix 3" at the end of Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies's and the author's "Neo-Newtonian Mechanics with Extension to Relativistic Velocities; Part 1: Non-Radiative Effects" (10th edition) when perfected. It further goes into the analysis of Section 3 of Chapter 4 of this work, and also uses as an example a heavy gyroscope very similar to the one used by Prof. Eric Laithwaite (who invented the trains in Japan & Germany that float on magnetic fields and so do not touch the rails) in his (in)famous demonstration to the Royal Society that caused him so much grief; however, we use a higher spin so as to satisfy certain approximation conditions needed to analytically justify the use of Neo-Newtonian mechanics in this situation.
We consider Veljko Milkovic's oblique pendulum driven cart inertial propulsion device and compute... more We consider Veljko Milkovic's oblique pendulum driven cart inertial propulsion device and computer simulate it using a slightly modified classical mechanics to ensure the simulation imitates the actual cart performance. (The key system plots are at the end for those who are short of time.)
We consider the exploding wires part of the Graneaus' "Ampere Tension In Electric Conductors". We... more We consider the exploding wires part of the Graneaus' "Ampere Tension In Electric Conductors". We have that the voltage should be about 68 kV, the peak current of about 5 kA, and using 1.19 mm diameter aluminum wire having resistitivity of about 2.8 10^-8 ohm-meters at 20 C. The frequency "f" is 1830 Hz. The ionic diameter of aluminum is 250 10^-12 meter, the number of free electrons per cubic meter is about 1.81 10^29, and the number of free electrons per atom is three. We proceed by calculating the various experimental parameters, and then by using the author's Neo-Newtonian mechanics to calculate the tension inside the wire after the onset of the capacitor bank's sudden discharge at t = 0. We find that then the r-masses (that is, the dynamic inertial masses) of the free electrons in the wire become much larger than their rest mass ... indicating that the tension inside the wire is considerably larger than in the Newtonian calculation using electrons, where the Graneaus mention that the rest mass of the electrons being so small means (using Newtonian mechanics) that the wire electron-ion collisions are unimportant to the calculation of the tension in the wire during the rapid capacitor bank discharge. That inertial mass is NOT, in general, constant has been experimentally established by the late Prof. Eric Laithwaite, Harvey Fiala, Prof. Alex Dmitriyev, and others; and the author develops a minimally revised mechanics that takes this fact into account in "Neo-Newtonian Mechanics ..." that is co-authored by Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies. (See the Amazon.com web site.)
Explaining Neo-Newtonian mechanics in terms of the Barnett-Monstein effect and the Crane-Monstein... more Explaining Neo-Newtonian mechanics in terms of the Barnett-Monstein effect and the Crane-Monstein effect
We use Derive 5 to redo our electron modeling with a parameter "alpha" between 1 (our Mathematica... more We use Derive 5 to redo our electron modeling with a parameter "alpha" between 1 (our Mathematica modeling case) and root3 ... as the famous Stern-Gerlach experiment is CLAIMED to show that alpha should actually be root3 (see A. Beiser's "Concepts of Modern Physics" [Fourth Edition] on pages 240-242). But we feel that the free electrons' dipole vectors were actually at an angle with the uniform magnetic field, not because of alleged space quantization, but rather because of the fact that the neutral silver atoms each with a free electron had just come from an oven and so were HOT; and hence the electron's magnetic moment vectors were thus each precessing about the uniform magnetic field vector at roughly a constant angle, and this is actually what Stern and Gerlach picked up using their inhomogeneous magnetic field, and NOT (alleged) "space quantization"! Non-doubled energies case (J.P. Wesley mistakenly doubled the electric and magnetic energies in his "Scientific Physics", and we mistakenly used this in our modeling) with alpha between 1 and root3 because of Beiser's text. We calculate the value of alpha in this interval for which the small radius "r" is a minimum, where the electron spin angular momentum is assumed to be equal to (alpha (hbar / 2)). And that value of "alpha" is shown (graphically) to be unity, the smallest value of "alpha" in this region. That is, the minimum value of "r" occurs when the particle dipole vector is parallel (or anti-parallel) to the (assumed) uniform magnetic field vectors. We also show that this model is EXTREMELY sensitive to the exact measured value of Plank's constant, "hbar", and we feel that this is strong evidence for "Intelligent Design" (see #226 and the discussion just after it). Finally, we show that although the model DOES have a mathematical singularity, it does NOT have a physical singularity!!! (See this preprint's end.)
Gravitational and inertail masses are given a classical electromagnetic characterization, and the... more Gravitational and inertail masses are given a classical electromagnetic characterization, and they are shown not necessarily equal as the equivalence principle says.
We determine gravitational and inertial mass electromagnetically by using the work of a key GPS s... more We determine gravitational and inertial mass electromagnetically by using the work of a key GPS scientist, Ronald Ray Hatch, and the Bergman-Allen electron and proton models using Ampere's circuital law, Couloumb's electrostatic law, the usual electromagnetic energy density formula, and the usual mass-energy equivalence ... all in line with Poincare's assertion that all physics is ultimately electromagnetic in nature.
We present first a classical mechanical analysis due to Mechanical Engineering Prof. James Casey ... more We present first a classical mechanical analysis due to Mechanical Engineering Prof. James Casey of UC Berkeley showing conservation of momentum in its operation and another mechanical analysis involving a black box approach that fails to predict conservation of momentum in line with the Maurice Couloumbe YouTube video showing a similar device in operation and exhibiting robust inertial propulsion that runs counter to momentum conservation by definition.
Physics Essays, Dec 1, 1993
University Microfilms eBooks, 1968
Publikationsansicht. 5095162. Some relationships between local and global structure of finite sem... more Publikationsansicht. 5095162. Some relationships between local and global structure of finite semigroups. (1968). Allen, Dennis Patrick. Abstract. Thesis (Ph. D. in Mathematics)--Univ. of California, March 1968.. Bibliography: l. 110. Details der Publikation. Herausgeber, [Berkeley ...
Semigroup Forum, 1971
A GENERALIZATION OF THE REES THEOREM TO A CLASS OF REGULAR SEMIGROUPS* Dennis Allen, Jr. Communic... more A GENERALIZATION OF THE REES THEOREM TO A CLASS OF REGULAR SEMIGROUPS* Dennis Allen, Jr. Communicated by AH Clifford Let S be a regular semigroup for which Green's rela-tions J and D coincide, and which is max-principal in the sense ...
Advances in Mathematics, Oct 1, 1973
Physics Essays, Sep 1, 2011
We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just... more We consider a steel spherical ball having radius R = 0.00235 meter and a massive steel plate just beginning in collision; and we attempt a Neo-Newtonian mechanical, Timoshenko and Goodier, "The Theory of Elasticity", analysis of their contact and the pressure between them at any time during the collision process. We see the ball as having its center at y = R at t = 0. We then have that the ball's mass, m, is equal to ((4/3)(0.00235)^3) lambda), where "lambda" is the density of (mild) steel (7.85 10^3 kg/meter cubed) so that its diameter is 0.0047 meter. The ball is initially immobile at t = 0 and and is then centered at y = R, where "y" parameterizes the straight line. The polished steel plate is fixed in either a horizontal position or else in a vertical position. Thus, the two are just touching at t = 0 and the collision is beginning then at the ball having velocity v0 < 0 by assumption as the ball is either dropped on the horizontal plate or else spring ejected against the plate that is vertical and fixed. The range of impact velocities is-4.0 < v0 <-2.0 meters per second. (This situation is the case discussed in " There are, then, two cases: the first case is when the straight line is vertical with increasing "y" meaning increase in height so the ball is falling at negative velocity "v0" at t = 0, and the second is that the line is horizontal. Now there are seven distinct points (8 in total) on Prof. Dmitriev's plot, and there are two situations: one for the vertical impact augmented by gravity and one for a horizontal impact, (apparently) not involving gravity as he explains in his second to last paragraph. The two situations have a point on the graph in common. The points for vertical impact (augmented WITH gravity) are about (0.6239, 2.253), (0.5927, 2.751), (0.5710, 3.243), and (0.5610, 3.752), where the first coordinate is the restitution coefficient and the second being the impact velocity magnitude in meters per second. The first of these four points is also on the plot for horizontal impact (apparently without gravity). And there also is the points (0.5811, 3.752), (0.5800, 3.243), (0.5939, 2.751), and (0.6239, 2.253) on the plot of horizontal impact (apparently) not connected with gravity; and we will use Neo-Newtonian mechanics in both these cases.
Researchgate.com, 2023
A function υ(s) is derived that shares all the nontrivial zeros of Riemann's zeta function ζ(s), ... more A function υ(s) is derived that shares all the nontrivial zeros of Riemann's zeta function ζ(s), and a novel representation of ζ(s) is presented that relates the two. From this, the zeros of ζ(s) may be grouped into two types: ζ(s) = 0 ∧ υ(s) = 0 ⇔ R(s) = 1/2 and ζ(s) = 0 ∧ υ(s) ̸ = 0 ⇔ R(s) ̸ = 1/2. A direct algebraic proof of the Riemann hypothesis is obtained by setting both functions υ(s) and ζ(s) to zero and solving for two general solutions for all the nontrivial zeros.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED AND THEORETICAL MECHANICS
We present the mechanics for the oscillation of an inclined large-angle pendulum-drive attached t... more We present the mechanics for the oscillation of an inclined large-angle pendulum-drive attached to a cart which is allowed to perform translation in one direction only. Neglecting the overall friction, the application of Newton’s second law shows that the oscillation of the pendulum is continuously converted into oscillating linear motion thus achieving a travel of infinite length. It is also shown that the frequency depends on the usual data of any pendulum plus the mass of the cart on which it is attached. After the determination of a novel effective pendulum length, a closed-form accurate analytical expression is presented for the amplitude of the pendulum, whereas semi-analytical formulas are provided for the period as well as the time-variation of the large azimuthal-like angle. Moreover, a simple expression was found for the position of the cart in terms of the azimuthal angle of the pendulum and the elapsed time. The extraction of the analytical formulas was facilitated by a ...
There is an important paper (on Academia.edu) that convincingly recommends adding a velocity term... more There is an important paper (on Academia.edu) that convincingly recommends adding a velocity term to Coulomb's electrostatic law rather than admitting relativistic mass gain; and it is a relativity theory (in Dr. J.P. Wesley's sense). And I've used this new law to model Dr. J.P. Wesley's positron-electron photon discussed in his (2006) "Light Is a Photon Flux" (with Dr. Peter Marquardt). The two charge rings modeling the positron & electron, one of positive charge and one on negative charge -- for stability in equilibrium -- must face each other with a north pole facing a south pole, and also the line joining their centers must be perpendicular to the (parallel) planes containing them, each plane containing exactly one particle. And we begin by assuming that -- while in stable equilibrium -- the two particles orbit each other in circles, not ellipses, so their angular velocities relative to their centers of mass are then constant in time. Thus, this two particle photon of Wesley's will exhibit a (double) helix trajectory as required by experimental evidence for the helicity of light. And we do not need to assume that the velocity of the photon is exactly c, the measured two-way velocity of light in a vacuum. And we note that several (senior) experimental physicists at SLAC and at Fermilab (such as Dr. Don Lincoln) have publicly stated that mass gain with velocity is an illusion and that SLAC is a linear accelerator, not an accelerator that accelerates its particles in a curved path. Thus, SLAC's findings here should be given considerably more weight than the others (such as CERN's) since these others' calculations also involve such odd rotational effects as Sagnac effects and Thomas precession ... all of which -- in turn -- are (supposedly!) well explained by Einstein's SRT, of course, but who really knows?
Solving an equation with complex parameters in Wolfram|Alpha