Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: Nochzwei

The video shows that the author has no idea about engineering or scientific experimentation beyond that of high school level...

The 'papers' also show that the author has no idea how algebra and unit analysis works or knowledge of the current state of physics. A wonderful test that can be performed can prove that the unit analysis that is the whole crux of the paper is false would be to take a calibrated detector and embed it inside different materials that scintillate along with a Sodium22 source.
If changing of the constant C, changes mass, then positron annihilation will happen at a different energy. in different materials...

Can assure you its the same energy The reason why this experiment proves things, i am sure will not be understood and you will simply do the usual thing of dismissing it without any evidence.

The other problem is that the video is 2 years old... no follow up videos? You say the machine might need to run for a few days until it negates gravity all together... well... its had roughly 700 days to do that... whats the problem?

Could the problem be that running it produces the deflection of the gauge and the scails and then it stops changing? because basically what is happening is thermal expansion and not anti-gravity...

So why not get started on the new physics? where are the papers? the many many many papers? They don't exist because the new physics in this case don't exist.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Both Fitzgerald and Lorentz are credited with the length contraction, and Larmor and Lorentz are credited with the time dilation.

And Heavyside. Curious as Lorentz I think was predicting contraction not only toward the direction of movement, but more like ellipsoid, squeezed sphere at it's 'poles' in example of electron.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

if the base of the machine is rising as much as the top your expansion excuse is utterly butterly moot. pl don't bring up such sheites again to mislead other posters. just admit you have lost and GR is indeed bunk

Whatever that silly theory (not really a theory) was called that you are backing, which is supposed to replace GR, it can't even produce newtons gravity can it?

In other words does it have an alternate way of showing all the mathematical laws that Newton came up with?
GR deals with curved space but it can reduce to flat space and give Newtonian gravity. So even if you don't believe in curved space-time it still can be used to show classical gravity.

So the idea that it's total "bunk" is already sketchy. But what about GR do you disagree with? I'm not asking to be directed to a video of a washing machine and a candle. I'm saying where did GR go wrong? Do you also disagree with Newtonian gravity?

Go here mate read this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

There isn't anything there that shows anything I asked about. All your examples are non-scientific misdirection. Like suggesting a gps manufacture doesn't use GR corrections in their software. No proof, but even if there were you aren't talking at all about GR in any meaningful way? Your best contribution is here-say?

I imagine you don't know anything about GR, gravity, it's replacement theory, but just enjoy the counter-culture aspects of going against a popular and well established theory.

so you didn't learn about how GR is wrong with the time aspect, did you? read chronaught and my posts in the thread again and again till it sinks in into your head .

If you can't simply explain how GR is wrong you simply don't know.
At the least, if you can't copy paste any references then there isn't anything explaining what's wrong.

How about linking to the actual page that explains where GR is wrong?

Or are you just saying that in general, because of the washing machine and the candle video that this to you means GR is wrong?
Is that your proof, because you're being really vague?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

so you didn't understand why the higher clock is reading faster time, did you?
looks like its beyond you. nm

You're right that I don't really understand what you mean, but it sounds like you're proposing something like "time is not what clocks measure", but if this was the case, you would need a full theory to explain observations. It doesn't have to be the theory of relativity, it could be an alternate theory that is capable of making predictions different from relativity in some alternate mathematical framework that can be tested.

You don't have an alternate theory, therefore there's no quantitative context by which to evaluate your claims. Even if relativity is wrong which it almost certainly is at big bang energies, it still seems to match observations well at lower energies and the concept of time as being something that a clock measures fits right in with the theory.

While I'm open to the idea that maybe time isn't what a clock measures, without fleshing out such an idea into a quantitative model or theory, and explaining exactly how we would know this and what predictions should be observed differently than GR, it seems like nothing more than a crank statement I'm afraid. Maybe if someone had a full theory it could be more than a crank statement, but until then, the concept of time being what a clock measures seems to work with relativity and the predictions at moderate to low energies are consistent with observation.

books.google.com...

Our operational definition of time is that time is what clocks measure.

If somebody wants to re-define time I have no fundamental objection to the concept, but to arbitrarily dismiss this operational definition without some kind of replacement model using a clear alternate definition of time doesn't make any sense to me. Your words won't have meanings that other people can relate to because when you say "time" you mean one thing, and when they hear the word "time" they think of this operational definition which is something else, so you're not communicating.

a reply to: ErosA433

Lol the machine hasn't been run since nov 2013. she was run for 2 hrs each day then for 10 days
i have to keep my navy job you know

a reply to: joelr

go here mate www.abovetopsecret.com...

now do you see?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Read a paper that said time was caused by entanglement. An elementary particle lacks defining physical properties and is defined only by probabilities of being in various states. But a parent ly the theory goes entanglement causes equilibrium of a system with its suroundings. This somewhat explains Eistine and his frames. A system links to its environment and effected by it causing a clock to run slower for example. So it's not intirely impossible to effect time in fact we know we can thr hiw becomes an issue. I change speed of an object I effect it's sense of time. But what would be reqhired from out metal box is showing somehow it effects the systems conection to the outsiDE system. And I find it very unlikely you could effect entanglement with a metal box in someone's yard. And even then your only effecting that one system meaning impractical to effect an outside system like oh say a candle.

a reply to: Nochzwei
excuses excuses, you know, you spend so much time telling people to go to your thread, you could have easily performed lots of experimentation, navy job or not... I work in a science lab... I don't use that as an excuse

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei
excuses excuses, you know, you spend so much time telling people to go to your thread, you could have easily performed lots of experimentation, navy job or not... I work in a science lab... I don't use that as an excuse

Not to mention he'd be rich and world famous and wouldn't need the navy job anymore being thr leading physicist in the world and all. Many have tried uncessfully to remove Einstine from his pedestal none have claimed the prize yet.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei
excuses excuses, you know, you spend so much time telling people to go to your thread, you could have easily performed lots of experimentation, navy job or not... I work in a science lab... I don't use that as an excuse

when i run it again, do a radiation survey to ensure it isn't and danger to me the operator, i will post the results. you are lucky to work in a science lab. not everyone is as lucky as you.
but don't go around doing taboo subject research lest you encounter myraid of difficulties and happenings that i cannot even begin to post here. remember tptb mean business

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: joelr

go here mate www.abovetopsecret.com...

now do you see?

Oh I see.

That page features another poster absolutely spanking you until you say to stop talking about GR because it's "already been proven wrong".
Your source is a paper featuring non-science conjecture by a stupid person.


He says the Universe must have it's own time because:

" it’s got to have its own time which makes it tick the way it does. Well
does it? Indeed it does as the following examples, which are my observations, will show. 1.

Fireworks get brighter as they ascend into the sky. 2.

Airplanes Nav Lights, Beacon and strobes get brighter as the airplane ascends into the sky. 3.

2 Identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster. 4.

A Flashlight again when moved 3 meters up also gets brighter. Brighter means that the freq of light emitted is higher"

Heh. If you moved a flashlight 3 meters up and it got brighter (enough to notice) then going up a mountain or skyscraper would make it insanely bright. The overhead reading lights on airplanes that you turn on before takeoff would blind you at 35,000 ft.
Same with matches and candles.

But forget that, the dude just said "Brighter means that the freq of light emitted is higher"
Brighter means more photons, more light, not higher frequency? Frequency change moves the light into different colors. But if you have white light (all the colors combined) and the frequency begins to increase you move into ultraviolet. So you would lose the red first and you would see different colors (combinations) until all the waves have moved past violet and into ultraviolet. Then the light would be invisible to the eye and if you kept increasing the light would become x-ray then gamma-ray.

The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
But because he used ascending fireworks as proof of GRs error then this is either a parody or written by a crazy person.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: joelr

go here mate www.abovetopsecret.com...

now do you see?

Oh I see.

That page features another poster absolutely spanking you until you say to stop talking about GR because it's "already been proven wrong".
Your source is a paper featuring non-science conjecture by a stupid person.


He says the Universe must have it's own time because:

" it’s got to have its own time which makes it tick the way it does. Well
does it? Indeed it does as the following examples, which are my observations, will show. 1.

Fireworks get brighter as they ascend into the sky. 2.

Airplanes Nav Lights, Beacon and strobes get brighter as the airplane ascends into the sky. 3.

2 Identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster. 4.

A Flashlight again when moved 3 meters up also gets brighter. Brighter means that the freq of light emitted is higher"

Heh. If you moved a flashlight 3 meters up and it got brighter (enough to notice) then going up a mountain or skyscraper would make it insanely bright. The overhead reading lights on airplanes that you turn on before takeoff would blind you at 35,000 ft.
Same with matches and candles.

But forget that, the dude just said "Brighter means that the freq of light emitted is higher"
Brighter means more photons, more light, not higher frequency? Frequency change moves the light into different colors. But if you have white light (all the colors combined) and the frequency begins to increase you move into ultraviolet. So you would lose the red first and you would see different colors (combinations) until all the waves have moved past violet and into ultraviolet. Then the light would be invisible to the eye and if you kept increasing the light would become x-ray then gamma-ray.

The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
But because he used ascending fireworks as proof of GRs error then this is either a parody or written by a crazy person.

Imagine using a flashlight on thr empire state building you could cause cars to wreck. On a more serious note more photons can't be produced by a flashlight so that leaves frequency change like you mentioned. But I'm not sure how the frequency would cause a light to get brighter?? If anything would have thr opisit effect it would seem to dim as it shifted in the light spectrum. And this has been proven over and over. So this means none of thr results can be taken seriously. But any scientific experiment that starts with trying to figure out If a candle is brighter than another is flawed from the start anyway .

Now he will come back and try to convince us that somehow time dilation will cause more photons but even experiments already done proves this not to be true. A photon is litterally unafected by time. They don't change they always move thr same speed. Oddly we call it the speed of light and it truly is the one constant in the universe.

a reply to: joelr

i gave you a link to a post and you like a comedian skeptic are talking about another related paper .
now are you competent enough to comment on that particular post? first do that and then we will talk about the paper you quoted

but don't go around doing taboo subject research lest you encounter myraid of difficulties and happenings that i cannot even begin to post here. remember tptb mean business

aaaaaaaand there we go, we have a tptb now as an excuse too... i know lots here would take that, nod and go, yeah yeah man i know what you mean, this is totally legit.

It is however another way of saying "I don't have anything substantial to say" Seriously not sure anyone is worried about the amount of thermal expansion your box exhibits.

originally posted by: ErosA433

but don't go around doing taboo subject research lest you encounter myraid of difficulties and happenings that i cannot even begin to post here. remember tptb mean business

aaaaaaaand there we go, we have a tptb now as an excuse too... i know lots here would take that, nod and go, yeah yeah man i know what you mean, this is totally legit.

It is however another way of saying "I don't have anything substantial to say" Seriously not sure anyone is worried about the amount of thermal expansion your box exhibits.

Ok go ahd and research gravity or any other research that would prove einstein wrong and see what happens to you and your friends and acquaintances and pl be sure you are not married and have kids. Try going against an unwritten law ' thy shall not prove einstein wrong' and it will be all hell on wheels.

btw your thermal expansion bit is already debunked and is becoming stale beyond measure.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Ok go ahd and research gravity or any other research that would prove einstein wrong and see what happens to you and your friends and acquaintances and pl be sure you are not married and have kids. Try going against an unwritten law ' thy shall not prove einstein wrong' and it will be all hell on wheels.

Why does anti-gravity research have to prove Einstein was wrong? Ning Li got funding from tptb for almost half a million dollars to research anti-gravity. I never saw the results of that funded research, but her earlier research mentioned Bose-Einstein condensate, the strange form of matter that Bose and Einstein predicted, and was later shown to exist, and its properties are still being researched.

The reason she got funding and you probably never will is that while her ideas were unconventional, she didn't come across as being completely incompetent in her knowledge of physics and experimentation as you do. It might not have hurt that she was working with something Einstein predicted instead of trying to work against Einstein and prove him wrong. Whether his theories are right or wrong, they appear to be consistent with observation at low to moderate energies and you've never shown otherwise. Nobody has that I know of.

btw your thermal expansion bit is already debunked and is becoming stale beyond measure.

Repeating that over and over doesn't make it true. I remember you saying something about the base rising but you had no indicator in place to prove that. That would be an extraordinary claim and you don't even have any evidence at all the base was rising, so there's no debunk. If you had shown the base was rising at least that would have made the video more interesting and would have made your contraption look less like a noisy heater.

originally posted by: joelr
"2 Identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster. "
The guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
But because he used ascending fireworks as proof of GRs error then this is either a parody or written by a crazy person.

If there's a high enough temperature gradient in the room it might be possible for temperature-related chemical reactions such as flame to proceed at a faster rate at a higher temperature, though I actually tried this at home and apparently didn't have enough of a temperature difference to matter as I couldn't see any difference in the candle itself.

The room on the other hand did seem to get a little bright with the candle closer to the ceiling, presumably because the ceiling is pointed white and when the light source is closer to the white reflective ceiling surface, more of the light gets reflected back into the room. If this is the illusion Nochzwei sees then it reinforces the need for careful experimentation.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
... Einstein and prove him wrong. Whether his theories are right or wrong, they appear to be consistent with observation at low to moderate energies and you've never shown otherwise. Nobody has that I know of. Also Bose-Einstein condensate was proven to exist after it was predicted, and its properties are still being researched.

Bells theorem tests done by Aspect Dalibard and Roger proved Einstein was wrong in his Einstein Podolski Rosen assertion. Even if we fall back on an argument that no useful knowledge can be transmitted at superluminal speed, the Bell's theorem tests do show that something is undergoing a "spooky action at a distance". This is not a high energy issue, and the results favour Lorentz over Einstein.

a reply to: delbertlarson
True, but that's not part of General Relativity, that's Quantum Mechanics, right? Einstein didn't know about the Bell tests, and would have conceded to experiment to experiment as his history shows.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: delbertlarson
True, but that's not part of General Relativity, that's Quantum Mechanics, right? Einstein didn't know about the Bell tests, and would have conceded to experiment to experiment as his history shows.

EPR was essentially a paper that proposed a test. Either QM or special relativity would prevail. QM won. The Bell's theorem tests show actions at a distance that occur in a faster than light way. Basically, as I understand it, a tangled quantum state emits particles back to back. Depending on the position of a detector far a way in one direction, the results will be different for a detector far away in the other direction. The position of the detector is varied in flight, so something is pretty clearly being transmitted in a faster than light way. This violates the special theory. There have been dodges about it, but it really does favor the Lorentz viewpoint over that of Einstein.

I do wish Einstein would have known about it. It would be interesting to get his take on it. While I don't view him as a paragon (one of his quips was 'hide your sources") I agree that he was quite strong when it comes to experiment being king.

originally posted by: delbertlarson

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: delbertlarson
True, but that's not part of General Relativity, that's Quantum Mechanics, right? Einstein didn't know about the Bell tests, and would have conceded to experiment to experiment as his history shows.

EPR was essentially a paper that proposed a test. Either QM or special relativity would prevail. QM won. The Bell's theorem tests show actions at a distance that occur in a faster than light way. Basically, as I understand it, a tangled quantum state emits particles back to back. Depending on the position of a detector far a way in one direction, the results will be different for a detector far away in the other direction. The position of the detector is varied in flight, so something is pretty clearly being transmitted in a faster than light way. This violates the special theory. There have been dodges about it, but it really does favor the Lorentz viewpoint over that of Einstein.

It violates special theory only if you assume a local realistic theory based on local fields (like gravitation and electromagnetism). But QM isn't like that, it's in an incomprehensible (to human intuition) functional space, and that's what all the entanglement business is about.

I do wish Einstein would have known about it. It would be interesting to get his take on it. While I don't view him as a paragon (one of his quips was 'hide your sources") I agree that he was quite strong when it comes to experiment being king.

He'd find it rather intriguing---macroscopic information is still bound by light cones and special relativity but underlying QM wavefunction isn't. He would wonder if thermodynamics somehow induces macroscopic locality principles.

In the Einstein vs Bohr debate, you can say that Einstein sort of half lost this one. But in another one, Einstein was completely right and Bohr wrong----in 1916 he predicted stimulated emission, and derived some properties; Bohr thought it was impossible. This paper also was the first one to show the key concept of transition probabilities, which is utterly essential to understanding quantum mechanics and is the basis of nearly all practical QM experimental results.

Stimulated emission is the central physics of the laser, and Einstein's own rate equations are still used as the simplest model of the laser. en.wikipedia.org...

Don't bet against Einstein.