Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The Description for the video you posted:

Uploaded on Oct 31, 2008

Keep an eye on the upper left of the screen and spot a thin wire (maybe fishing line) moving in correlation to saucer.

At americanantigravity.com ,by way of excuse, they say:
"During DVD filming by American Antigravity, we were unable to capture the H-Effect on film due to Hutchison lacking the RF-tube equipment that he used throughout the 1980's to generate the classic effect. This inability (from 1992 to 2006) to recreate the classic Hutchison Effect is in fact the reason that Hutchison was experimenting with other projects, such as the single-wire transmission system filmed by Peter Von Puttkamer"

"Wire transmission system". Yeh! we know, yanking on a piece of wire. Great science!!

Maybe someone out there with editing software could show folks where the wire is and follow its movement. I think Hutchison might have realised that the wire was in view and then moved the camera towards the end.

www.youtube.com...

Also, it is always wise to read the About page of the YouTuber for any video, to try to ascertain where he or she is coming from:

Description
The King James Bible is the word of God. Every other modern English version is a perversion.
I love the mandolin playing of Bill Monroe, a great song writer, too. The best performer of bluesgrass music alive today is Larry Sparks. He is a bluegrass guitar player without equal.
Trying to see through deception, an ever increasingly difficult task. Still good apologetics are being undertaken by a few.

www.youtube.com...

I did a search of the website American Antigravity, and can find no match for the statement, “During DVD filming by American Antigravity, we were unable to capture the H-Effect . . . “

In my opinion, the video should not have been posted, as it is irrelevant.

a reply to: ConnectDots

During DVD filming by American Antigravity, we were unable to capture the H-Effect on film due to Hutchison lacking the RF-tube equipment that he used throughout the 1980's to generate the classic effect. This inability (from 1992 to 2006) to recreate the classic Hutchison Effect is in fact the reason that Hutchison was experimenting with other projects, such as the single-wire transmission system filmed by Peter Von Puttkamer. During part of this period of time, John was also under a voluntary test restriction by the local Vancouver mayor, who previously received calls from panicked neighbors during John's experiments.

johnkhutchison.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: zatara
You're welcome and I agree that wasn't too smart. I think the smart people who are good at fooling people with illusions are getting paid big bucks to do that in Las Vegas shows, so you probably won't see the wires in their levitation illusions, though of course they have wires too, they are just better at hiding them.

I've seen Chris angel pass through locked doors. He's proof that solid objects can pass through each other and physics is wrong. 😁

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei

Time is only movement.

Looks like all this is way above your head.

Looks like you can tell me one thing time is besides only movement, to justify your response to me stating 'time is only movement'. If you cant do so it looks like your comment is completely unsubstantiated and meaningless; merely a projected ad hominem due to the lack of sufficient intelligence to respond with substantial content.

Time is only movement.

If you disagree. Express your reasons for disagreeing.

Movement is something physically moving from point A to point B, whereas time domain is a complete dimension by itself

QUESTION 1

"particle smashes" like LHC are used to "look inside" the "fundamentals particles".
most of the time those particles are protons... right?

so... imagining this collision is easy, a proton smashes into another proton and we look for what happens.

how comes, those experiments smash billions of protons against billions of protons and the scientist still tell us, what we see as outcome is in any case true collision ??

F.. NO!
it's an interaction of 2X billions of protons
where is the TRUE collision and the TRUE outcome of the collision between 2 protons ???


QUESTION 2

how comes, an assumption about constants is applied as TRUE to EVERYTHING if it is and stays as assumption and nothing more ??

here, let's start with Planck units,


go to 1:25
we need a constant throughout the universe, and what we think we know is...

- Gravitational constant
- Planck's constant
- C.. speed of light


Planck's constant is based on Black Body radiation

In the last years of the nineteenth century, Planck was investigating the problem of black-body radiation first posed by Kirchhoff some forty years earlier.

en.wikipedia.org...

!!! ...but Kirchhoff's "low" is invalid

and so is the Planck's constant nothing more than an assumption !!


Gravitational constant is an measurement -> Cavendish experiment
here on Earth !!!
how can someone be so bigheaded and assume it holds for the whole universe ??
This is an assumption !!!

the same applies for C.

...back to the question...
what gives you the right to call your theory right and other wrong ?
assumption ?!?

hit me, kill me, punish me, because I don't agree with your believe system !!!

originally posted by: KrzYma
QUESTION 1
how comes, those experiments smash billions of protons against billions of protons and the scientist still tell us, what we see as outcome is in any case true collision ??

It's hard to get two protons to collide. If we aim 100,000 protons at each other in the LHC, most of them will miss, and of the 20 that have some kind of collision, not all of those have a perfect centered head-on collision, so you can get various types of outputs even from those 20 that collide out of 100,000.

F.. NO!
it's an interaction of 2X billions of protons
where is the TRUE collision and the TRUE outcome of the collision between 2 protons ???

What makes them not true collisions just because there's more than one?

QUESTION 2
how comes, an assumption about constants is applied as TRUE to EVERYTHING if it is and stays as assumption and nothing more ??

Gravitational constant is an measurement -> Cavendish experiment here on Earth !!!
how can someone be so bigheaded and assume it holds for the whole universe ?? This is an assumption !!! the same applies for C.

If you can prove they are not constant that would be very interesting. We actually do look for evidence of whether what we think are constants are really constant. Remember that as we look at greater and greater distances from Earth, in a sense we are also looking back in time, so the question of whether constants change over time or distance are somewhat related by the nature of our cosmological observations.

Have physical constants changed with time?

Have physical constants changed with time?

The fundamental laws of physics, as we presently understand them, depend on about 25 parameters, such as Planck's constant h, the gravitational constant G, and the mass and charge of the electron. It is natural to ask whether these parameters are really constants, or whether they vary in space or time...

Over the past few decades, there have been extensive searches for evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." Among the methods used have been astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, searches for variations of planetary radii and moments of inertia, investigations of orbital evolution, searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, and (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.

One powerful approach has been to study the "Oklo Phenomenon," a uranium deposit in Gabon that became a natural nuclear reactor about 1.8 billion years ago; the isotopic composition of fission products has permitted a detailed investigation of possible changes in nuclear interactions. Another has been to examine ratios of spectral lines of distant quasars coming from different types of atomic transitions (resonant, fine structure, and hyperfine). The resulting frequencies have different dependences on the electron charge and mass, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, and can be used to compare these parameters to their present values on Earth. Solar eclipses provide another sensitive test of variations of the gravitational constant. If G had varied, the eclipse track would have been different from the one we calculate today, so the mere fact that a total eclipse occurred at a particular location provides a powerful constraint, even if the date is poorly known.

So far, these investigations have found no evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." The current observational limits for most constants are on the order of one part in 1010 to one part in 1011 per year. So to the best of our current ability to observe, the fundamental constants really are constant.

...back to the question...
what gives you the right to call your theory right and other wrong ?
assumption ?!?

I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread. I've already said that relativity is almost certainly wrong in the same sense Newtonian mechanics was wrong, meaning they are both apparently right in the limiting cases where they are used but are incomplete. Einstein himself had barely finished publishing his theory of general relativity in 1915 when within a few years he was already talking about the need to rationalize that theory with quantum mechanics somehow, which to this date still hasn't been done for high energies.

hit me, kill me, punish me, because I don't agree with your believe system !!!

If by that you mean you doubt there's a singularity at the center of a black hole as general relativity predicts, I think you can find scientists to agree with you so I don't think they are convinced relativity is the ultimate theory, even Einstein doubted that.

However the basis for intelligent discussion would focus on examining evidence you have for a current model being incorrect, and the evidence for a better model that makes better predictions. This is always the goal of science. The reason models like electric sun are rejected is because the things that we already discussed like neutrino emissions and solar spectra, and many other lines of evidence support the fusion model of the sun.

What makes a model useful, is if it makes accurate predictions. One of the biggest failings of EU "theory" is that it doesn't tend to make quantitative predictions. The reason some models are accepted and others rejected is summarized well in this 1 minute video by Richard Feynman:

The key to science:

That short video explains exactly why some models are accepted and other models are rejected.

From what I can tell most of your objections to mainstream science are founded in ignorance of all the supporting evidence that has led scientists to support the models they think make good predictions. But if you have a better model, present it. We want better models.

Electric sun is not a better model however for reasons already explained. I don't really care if you believe electric sun or whatever else you want, but you have woefully failed to support that model when asked two questions about it, neutrinos and solar spectra. I suffered through the entire video you posted from Thornhill and he never did explain the process that is supposed to generate neutrinos, and neither did you. This lack of explaining the source of neutrinos (among other things) is what makes Thornhill's electric sun model wrong, since there is a good model that explains the neutrino production in the sun.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

NOT the Feynman again...
but he's right on one thing, if observation doesn't fit the theory, the theory is wrong !!!
-the theory was wrong before introduction to dark mater and dark energy
-the theory is wrong because Kirchhofs "law" is invalid
-the theory is wrong because "sub-paricles" don't follow the theory
Evidence suggests subatomic particles could defy the standard model

do you really think someone can correct something wrong adding more assumptions into it ??

watch this !


I agree with most of it and infinity is the starting point in "my picture of the whole",
except one thing... the observer who is defining what to do with it ( like the rotation of the sphere )
so.. all till 11min is OK, the rest is BS and mind tricks.
paradox is a creation and not a natural thing !

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

NOT the Feynman again...

but he's right on one thing, if observation doesn't fit the theory, the theory is wrong !!!
-the theory was wrong before introduction to dark mater and dark energy

I know that all the researchers in the dark energy research published in 1998 got some results they weren't expecting, so their first conclusion before they published anything was that they must have done something wrong with the way they collected or analyzed the data. It wouldn't help their careers to publish wrong data or analysis, so they went over the data and went over the analysis many times trying to figure out where they went wrong.

Finally they concluded that they didn't do anything wrong, the data and analysis was correct, and it was the existing ideas about the universe that were wrong.

When they published their data, the entire scientific community had to go through the same process starting with skepticism about the data. But when the results were confirmed within something like five or six years, the entire scientific community did a 180 and said the 1997 era model must have been wrong.

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with dark energy, but I went through that story of what happened to illustrate that scientists aren't married to a "belief system", and that just presenting data showing their 1997 model was wrong and letting them confirm the data was enough to get them all to admit that yes it was wrong. So they didn't stick to a wrong model, they came up with a model that better matched observation. The new ΛCDM certainly is not perfect since we don't know much about the Λ in that model yet, but scientists have demonstrated that they will admit that it too is wrong if repeatable data is presented showing that. (Note they didn't immediately toss everything in 1998 when the controversial results were first published...they needed confirmation).

So yes our current models could be proven wrong again with new data, and I'm not going to argue that they are 100% right because we don't claim that they are...that would be unscientific. They are the best models we have for now.

We have also entertained the idea that our model of gravity is wrong as a possible explanation for dark matter observations. One proposed solution was a new model called MoND or Modified Newtonian Dynamics. If it fit the data better we might be using it now but it has problems with the bullet cluster among other things.

Whether claims about dark matter are wrong depends on how they are presented. We have observations that suggest extra mass so we are looking for extra mass, or any other viable explanation for observations. I don't see how that claim can be wrong. If someone claims they know the answer the dark matter problem when they don't, if you say that answer may be wrong I'd tend to agree.

-the theory is wrong because Kirchhofs "law" is invalid

KrzYma, I've never seen any law that is 100% right all of the time and in all instances. I can show you a perfectly valid paper showing how we violated the second law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws are false when applied to subatomic particles. I could fill up this page with observational evidence contradicting known laws.

I think laypeople think laws have some kind of high status and can't be violated but that's not the case at all, in fact they don't even rate as high as a good theory, which is generally more comprehensive.

To discuss the nuances of what the law really means requires a level of technical understanding that as far as I can tell, most people attending an electric universe conference lack. Here are some more thoughts about the Kirchoff's law issue:

Pierre-Marie Robitaille claims in "pretend journal"

Onto his core beliefs – that Kirchoff’s law has been taken too seriously by science. These people fail to understand the level of experimentation that goes into all this as well as good hard theoretical work. It was never simply taken for granted (it presently isn’t) that all bodies act as blackbodies, it is merely inferred from measurements that they do. It has been known since John Dalton’s time that gases act as blackbodies when it comes to the emission of light – much though this guy knows. Finally, there is the question of universality – that physical laws coming from blackbody research don’t hold throughout the universe, or even on the Earth. We’ve sent probes to other planets, measured their temperature and compared it to our knowledge of the blackbody emissions and greenhouse heat trapping of atmospheres (as well as other thermodynamic effects such as winds). The temperatures hold up not just globally but locally in terms of atmospheric models.

In addition, his belief in a quasi-static universe comes from his belief that science is based on incorrect blackbody physics. In fact, whether or not blackbody physics is correct, Hubble’s measurement of the expansion of the Universe is very much an entirely independent piece of science.

Additional

Progress in Physics is one of several internet sites where people who have failed to show the discipline required to publish in scientific journals come together to create a pretend journal.

-the theory is wrong because "sub-paricles" don't follow the theory

I'll bet you can't find one particle physicist who will say that our current standard model of particle physics is perfect. It can't even explain gravity. We know it needs improvement.

But if you're looking for better models, I think you're barking up the wrong tree trying to get them from electric universe folks including Pierre-Marie Robitaille who is publishing where he is in a "pretend journal" because he can't get his work published in a real journal.

watch this !

I agree with most of it and infinity is the starting point in "my picture of the whole",
except one thing... the observer who is defining what to do with it ( like the rotation of the sphere )
so.. all till 11min is OK, the rest is BS and mind tricks.
paradox is a creation and not a natural thing !

It's nice to see that despite the differences in our outlook we can agree on something once in a while, as I more or less agree with your assessment of this video. So maybe not all hope is lost in coming to an agreement of better mutual understanding of other issues as well.

Is it possible that the strong nuclear force could actually be gravity? Yes, I know the strong force is what, roughly 30 magnitudes different than gravity? But, we don't know how gravity works at the quantum scale.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Is it possible that the strong nuclear force could actually be gravity? Yes, I know the strong force is what, roughly 30 magnitudes different than gravity? But, we don't know how gravity works at the quantum scale.

The guy who was simultaneously studying physics at MIT near Boston and Pearce Junior College in LA 2600 miles away said it is, so how could we doubt the claim of a guy who commutes 2600 miles between classes? Must be true.

Seriously though, even your question is off by a factor of a billion. It's more like 39 orders of magnitude difference, not 30. That's a thousand times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion. We may not know how gravity works on a quantum scale but there's no evidence it gets 39 orders of magnitude stronger.

Gravity follows the inverse square law, while the strong nuclear force doesn't, so how could it be gravity?

How does a nuke work if you compare it to a ordinary explosive?

a reply to: Hyperia

An ordinary explosive is a chemical reaction which rapidly releases energy.
A nuclear explosion causes a chain reaction within the atoms of the fuel element via neutron bombardment which actually converts a portion of the mass to pure energy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Magic! No, I just wanted someone well rounded in physics to tell me. I find it easier to believe well educated people, than I do uneducated people, who claim to have all the answers. Oh, those answers come with a small fee too!! Just $78.99 and you can have all the answers to the universe!

Ok, but, I have another question. Say another "anonymous" person, wanted to create a miniature fusion reactor, similar to what is seen in the Iron Man movies. Where should he start? I understand fusion takes place at extremely hot temperatures and maintaining those temperatures at a much smaller scale makes it's just that much harder. Is it even possible to make such a thing...

a reply to: pfishy

so its like spliting atoms? very advanced technology for "man"

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Ok, but, I have another question. Say another "anonymous" person, wanted to create a miniature fusion reactor, similar to what is seen in the Iron Man movies. Where should he start? I understand fusion takes place at extremely hot temperatures and maintaining those temperatures at a much smaller scale makes it's just that much harder. Is it even possible to make such a thing...

So far we have yet to build a commercially viable fusion reactor of any size, but Lockheed Martin has made claims about a compact reactor the size of a jet engine. Unlike the guy who commutes 2600 miles between classes, Lockheed Martin is a credible source, so, we just have to wait and see exactly what they come out with. For now I'd say your best bet of building a compact fusion reactor is getting a job at Lockheed Martin and helping them build it...it sounds like they might still have a few bugs to work out since it's not on the market yet. Here's an article about it:

Compact Fusion
My guess is, some of the first applications to use it would be on applications like ships or subs that currently use fission reactors, because the fusion reactor should be safer.

originally posted by: Hyperia
a reply to: pfishy

so its like spliting atoms? very advanced technology for "man"

The early bombs split atoms, called fission bombs. The later more powerful bombs joined or fused atoms, called fusion or hydrogen bombs. The sun gets its power from fusion.

Here.. "fundamental particles" explained.


and the "strong force"


sounds god, right ??

F..NO! all assumptions based on assumptions.
no one ever saw a quark or gluon not to mention measured any "strong forces"

those are all creations needed to fit the math

here a different story



the second one makes even much more sense if someone thinks about it...

I am lay dude, curious to know what is consensus on what space is? Is it indeed empty? Just some abstract volume where physical entities just have freedom to move? Why did Einstein call it 'space-time'? Was there a reason he thought of to tie space and time into one?

cheers)

originally posted by: KrzYma
those are all creations needed to fit the math

That's what some physicists thought in the 1960s:

The TOP QUARK, 20 years after its discovery

initially, most physicists were reluctant to accept that quarks were anything more than convenient abstractions aiding particle classification. The fractional electric charges seemed bizarre, and experiments repeatedly failed to turn up any individual free quarks ... But two developments during the 1970s established the reality of quarks.

So if you've got an alternate explanation for those experiments in the 1970s that established the reality of quarks, let's hear it. Otherwise you're stuck in the 1960s.

originally posted by: greenreflections
I am lay dude, curious to know what is consensus on what space is? Is it indeed empty? Just some abstract volume where physical entities just have freedom to move? Why did Einstein call it 'space-time'? Was there a reason he thought of to tie space and time into one?

There are two major theories involved.

In Einstein's theory of general relativity mass affects both space and time so they are linked together in that theory to explain what we see for anything from why the moon orbits the Earth to the precession of Mercury to why clocks in orbit run at a different speed than clocks on the ground. The predictions of general relativity seem to match observation extremely well for observations conducted of objects in our solar system.

In quantum mechanics space is called the "vacuum" and contains vacuum energy where our naive calculations of the predicted amount of energy don't match observation, so that theory still needs some work in order to come up with vacuum energy predictions that match observation.

thanks. That was clear enough.

2nd.

a reply to: KrzYma

Your wrong it's not based on assumptions it's based on experimentation. Now we can call them anything we like and in fact they may be part of something else but they do exist. This was proved through deep inelastic electron protron scattering. This allowed us to was see inside baryons. This was done at first using electrons. It showed us there is internal structure as it deflected off of them.n , there are three distinct points of deflection ( this is why we named them quarks and as we know there are three quarksin baryonic matter ). See it wasn't made up this isn't electric universe experiments are done we see the results and we draw conclusions from it. Then we again test again this was also repeated using neutrinos for example.

Your belief science is wrong just shows how little about it you understand. Science doesn't just make stuff up they perform an experiment the universe gives us results. Then we have to take those results and establish a theory as to why the universe does this. Then we test the theory by performing experiments to confirm or invalidate the theory.

In the case of electric universe the experiments already invalidated the theory. Attacking science isn't going to change that. We have experimental evidence proving the atomic model and evidence that disproves the electric sun. That was truly hard we could tell almost immediately it was wrong but on the early 1900s they were fascinated with electricity. Before you attempt to attack science I think you need to understand it. We are well aware of where we have problems but sadly it's not in the areas you believe.