Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
From what I recall her claim was more conservative than Podkletnovs...

Nay, nay, Pauline! She was going for the big time. Near total reduction of inertia, with exceptions caused by the equivalent of fringing fields and diffraction. The plate was supposed to be spin-aligned perfection, a piece de resistance of the quantum arts, using a manufacturing method only she knew.

At one time there was a really nifty interview with them that was on the net, just before, I suppose, she decided to sit back and do theoretical research with the money. If I can find it again, I'll toss out some excerpts.

What would happen to our understanding of physics if it were discovered time is bi-planar, or two dimensional best described with polar coordinates with rotations with an angle component, and a linear component that can be negative as well.

a reply to: Bedlam

After re-reading the original BFFT thread in which you commented; this seems like the perfect thread to ask what are your (and anybody elses) thoughts on Mach's hypothesis?

I've listened to a couple of interviews with Woodward and he describes decoupling from universal mass that could well be misinterpreted as anti gravity by the AG crew.... but then he looses me when he starts talking about time travel.

I have seen the metallic silver orb drones about the size of a medium size beach ball and I have seen space ships with stealth capabilities.

So the silver orbs have stealth capabilities and a smaller sized propulsion unit so obviously whatever it is scales to a pretty small size.

I suppose if you are millions of years ahead in nano-tech that would be all gravy to create that kind of advanced propulsion so small

originally posted by: TheLamb
What would happen to our understanding of physics if it were discovered time is bi-planar, or two dimensional best described with polar coordinates with rotations with an angle component, and a linear component that can be negative as well.

Q: What would happen to our understanding of physics if (Insert any radical new discovery here).
A: It would change.

For hypotheses about time I invoke Newton's flaming laser sword since a lot of ideas I hear about time apparently have no planned experiments to test them and they may not even be testable.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: Bedlam

After re-reading the original BFFT thread in which you commented; this seems like the perfect thread to ask what are your (and anybody elses) thoughts on Mach's hypothesis?

Which of the 21 versions did you have in mind, if any? In other words, that doesn't refer to any specific hypothesis as far as I know.

a reply to: stabstab
Is there a question in there somewhere?

originally posted by: Bedlam
If I can find it again, I'll toss out some excerpts.

If you happen to run across it, that would be interesting. Thanks.

they probably got pushed by the makers or builders .a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you happen to run across it, that would be interesting. Thanks.

I can see the page in my head, but what I don't recall is if it was in a trade rag, the school publication or on the net.

Worth looking around for. I'm off work for a few days sick as a dog. I guess they don't want me spreading the epizoodix to everyone.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
...and he describes decoupling from universal mass that could well be misinterpreted as anti gravity by the AG crew

Mach posits a lack of inertia, and changes in apparent C if you are decoupled from the reference background of the universe. He was a wise man.

I'm not sure I believe in 'anti gravity' per se.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
What is the difference between Hyperdimensional Physics and Newtonian physics?

Newtonian physics has a robust foundation in solid mathematics and uses the three dimensions of space and a parameter of time. Newtonian physics has a lot of very good experimental evidence.

Different people seem to mean somewhat different things by the concept "hyperdimensional physics."

Reputable physicists and even Dr Michio Kaku are talking about physics that has robust foundation in solid mathematics and just happens to be using a higher amount of mathematical dimensions than our 4-dimensional space-time. Some of their work has some experimental evidence. Moreover, Newtonian physics emerges (or at least should emerge) as a boundary case from their work when we examine moderately humanly accessible scales of time, mass, and distance.

Then there are people such as Richard Hoagland, who talk about "hyperdimensional physics" but do not present mathematical work. Even though they may talk about quartenions, they do not present the mathematical constructions where the effects they hypothesise are described in mathematical ways, with quartenions or otherwise. Neither have they published experimental results that are clearly consistent with their prose descriptions.

tl;dr - Newtonian physics works, high-dimensional mainstream physics like string theory work at least on paper, fringe hyperdimensional physics does neither, at least at its current state.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
What is the difference between Hyperdimensional Physics and Newtonian physics?

Newton was a real physicist.

Doctor Hyperdimensional only exists in science fiction.

a reply to: mbkennel

So the theory is viable then?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: mbkennel

So the theory is viable then?

You have to define what you mean by hyperdimensional physics before anybody can say if it's viable or not.

If your definition is the term used by known pseudoscience advocates like Tom Bearden, then no there is no theory, as it makes no predictions that can be tested (which is what a theory does), it's word soup.

List of Pseudosciences

This is a list of fields of endeavors and concepts that have been regarded as pseudoscientific by (1) organizations that are representative of the international scientific community and/or (2) mainstream skeptical organizations....

Hyperdimensional physics is a concept that has been very vaguely described by Tom Bearden. Mike Bara once summed it up as "a rotating body pulls energy from its higher state." None of the examples he gives are actually valid.

originally posted by: Pirvonen
high-dimensional mainstream physics like string theory work at least on paper, fringe hyperdimensional physics does neither, at least at its current state.

I'm not completely convinced whether string theory works on paper yet, because of things like this:

String Theory

In his book Not Even Wrong, Peter Woit, a lecturer in the mathematics department at Columbia University, has argued that the large number of different physical scenarios renders string theory vacuous as a framework for constructing models of particle physics.

In any case, string theory is normally called string theory and it's not usually called hyperdimensional physics.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
What is the difference between Hyperdimensional Physics and Newtonian physics?

Doctor Hyperdimensional only exists in science fiction.

Nope. Start dilating time on a tabletop and you are already delving into hyperdimensions

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
What is the difference between Hyperdimensional Physics and Newtonian physics?

Doctor Hyperdimensional only exists in science fiction.

Nope. Start dilating time on a tabletop and you are already delving into hyperdimensions

As I said---science fiction. I'd love for tabletop gravitational lensing to be real but....where's the beef?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Jukiodone
...and he describes decoupling from universal mass that could well be misinterpreted as anti gravity by the AG crew

Mach posits a lack of inertia, and changes in apparent C if you are decoupled from the reference background of the universe.

Now that's a neat trick. So now you have to have a 'perfect conductor' of gravitational waves or something like that, in analogy to a conducting sphere enclosing a charge, right?

a reply to: mbkennel

There's two things for two approaches. One works better in some cases, the other in others. Both suck ass in terms of controlling it.

a reply to: Bedlam

Can you elaborate any Bedlam ?
Are you referencing the 2 possible types of application as discussed by Woodward?

1: An Impulse drive : i.e. a Mach effect thruster for localised locomotion.
2: An effect that manipulates space/time to create a slipstream/wormhole/warp type capacity where C can be relativistically (probably bad use of the term) altered at the locality.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: Bedlam

Can you elaborate any Bedlam ?
Are you referencing the 2 possible types of application as discussed by Woodward?

1: An Impulse drive : i.e. a Mach effect thruster for localised locomotion.
2: An effect that manipulates space/time to create a slipstream/wormhole/warp type capacity where C can be relativistically (probably bad use of the term) altered at the locality.

Sounds like he got it through the 'telegraph' game.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
What is the difference between Hyperdimensional Physics and Newtonian physics?

Doctor Hyperdimensional only exists in science fiction.

Nope. Start dilating time on a tabletop and you are already delving into hyperdimensions

As I said---science fiction. I'd love for tabletop gravitational lensing to be real but....where's the beef?

Its in the interpretation of the cause of the so called gravitational lensing

ETA: Besides do you not see bending of light in the Ark Video in the thread in my signature?
a reply to: mbkennel