Physics of Anti-Gravity Explained in DETAIL... Legendary Video Series!!!

Originally posted by prepared4truth

Also, this doesn't change the fact that he was a dropout.

The common connotation of "dropout" does not include somebody sufficiently gifted and ambitious that they abandon high school in order to transfer to a major university after achieving exceptional marks in physics & mathematics on an entrance examination.

He had his ideas before he got his degree. He taught himself. A formal education isn't always right for people to learn, and does not dictate whether a person is smart. That was my original point.

Einstein developed all of his important ideas after many years of university & graduate level study. He taught much himself, true, but he was intensely and fully involved in the most advanced level of formal education available at the time.

A formal education does not dictate whether a person is smart, that is of course true.

However, in exceptionally technical subjects which are built on the history of thousands of previous, exceptionally intelligent people, a formal education is enormously useful and essentially necessary to gain the tools and knowledge necessary to advance the level of known science.

Just because you don't understand how a photon is formed into a capacitor when compacted during the transitional state yet, doesnt' mean it's wrong.

And a photon only travels at c OUTSIDE OF AN ATOM. They slow down, thats why light slows down in a medium. Duh...

And guess what, the speed Vt (speed of mechanical wave in the nucleous) IS derived from FIRST principles in Frank's paper.

That means that the speed of transition is from first principles, and is what allows you to derive planck's constant..
And also produce the energy level of the emitted photon and the orbital radii of all atoms.. WITHOUT using planck's constant at all...

Just wait til you understand it before you call BS.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by RedBird
Phew!

Everything sounds legit to me (and very cool!), but the devil is (as they say) in the details.

So he starts with this equation: Vt = ƒƛ

Vt = The speed of the quantum transmission
ƒ = The frequency of the emitted photon
ƛ = The wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission

Now, Frank picks a value of 1.094 x 10^6 m/s for Vt and in the video it is explained where this constant comes from. I believe it was empirically determined.

In actual physics, the velocity of a photon, being a massless particle, is c, which is about 3 x 10^9 m/s.

The point of this equation is that with Vt known,

'known' in the sense of "random baloney pulled from my bellybutton lint"

and the frequency of an emitted photon measurable, we can arrive at the wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission.

Next, he takes a formula describing capacitance between two square plates: C = e0A / D

C = capacitance
e0 = permittivity of free space
A = area
D = distance

He then substitutes ƛ^2 for A, and ƛ/2 for D, resulting in an equation that looks like C = e0ƛ^2 / (ƛ/2). This step seems fishy to me. He's using wavelength as a substitution for distance and area? Maybe this was explained in the video, but if it was, I didn't get it, and I still don't.

Indeed, because it makes no sense at all.

This simplifies further to C = 2e0ƛ and since ƛ = Vt / ƒ (as per the first equation, we end up with a formula that looks like this:

C = 2e0Vt / ƒ

If there is funny business going on in his math, it is with regards to this above equation! This just looks like unit manipulation to me. How can capacitance be expressed as a function of frequency at the moment of quantum transmission? Capacitance has nothing to do with the wavelength or frequency of photons. But I'm not a physicist, so what do I know?

You know enough to smell bovine scatology.

Anyways, next we take a formula for energy stored in a capacitor: E = Q^2 / 2C

E = energy
Q = charge (in coulombs)
C = capacitance

He then subs in his 2e0Vt / ƒ in place of C in the denominator, and we arrive at:

E = [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] ƒ


And since Einstein's equation for the photo-electric effect is E = h ƒ

We can isolate [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] = h

Tada!

We've derived Plank's constant as a function of charge squared over speed of quantum transmission.

Suppose I discharge the Capacitor Of Eternal Life, so Q = 0. Whoops! Planck constant ain't! There goes quantum mechanics, Newton and Laplace ride again!

I'm not a physicist, I just know how to do algebra. I'll leave it up to the self-described "experts" to explain all this. At least now you can all argue about the actual math, rather than nothing at all.

I mean, seriously, none of the skeptics in this thread so far have even bothered to watch the flippin' video. Now you don't have to. Here's the math. Debunk away.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg. --- Abraham Lincoln

All I see is blah blah blah from a 6 year old member....

How about since the OP, and the man in the video went through the trouble to post
the horribly incorrect math, and took the time to do so...

How about you post in your entirety a complete peer reviewed-esque rebuttal to
thoroughly debunk this piss poor attempt at math and once and for all...

and...reign supreme as the man who handed them their bovine scatological piles of road apple feces...

I will be waiting for this....

reply to post by Chinesis


He's clutching at straws, leave him alone. Name calling is the only thing he has left to go by considering his knowledge of physics (I can only assume from his responses) is lackluster and borderline non-existent. If he indeed was "debunking" this, he would actually provide proof or backing instead of just saying, "This is bovine baloney," and "It doesn't make it sense."

Originally posted by mbkennel
Einstein developed all of his important ideas after many years of university & graduate level study.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -Albert Einstein

However, in exceptionally technical subjects which are built on the history of thousands of previous, exceptionally intelligent people, a formal education is enormously useful and essentially necessary to gain the tools and knowledge necessary to advance the level of known science

What that gives you is a whole bunch of Ph.D.'s that THINK they know it all and toss stuff like Eugene's work on the trash heap because he isn't one of the elite

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Sir Arthur C Clarke

Originally posted by mbkennel
Einstein developed all of his important ideas after many years of university & graduate level study.

Are you joking? "graduate level physics" study before quantum mechanics was a joke. He essentially had less than a highschool physics education.

Frank Znidarsic took physics at university and is an electrical engineer... If you studied the math you would know how his insight into electricity is so vital to the advancements he is teaching us.


Or you can just scoff, and change your mind later, when this stuff is taught in physics 101.

So you know how you have the four forces right. Well just like you have Electro-Magnetic, there is gravito-magnetic in relation to gravity, or spin-orbit in relation to the strong force etc.. It's possible to create a local electromagnetic field, and amplify it, with no conservation problems since it's local, right?. Well you can also amplify a local gravito-magnetic field enough to have noticeable effects also.

I found a published paper Experimental-Detection-of-the-Gravitomagnetic-Lond on-Moment

From the conclusions of that particular paper.

The gravitational field is emitted from the superconductor and follows the laws of field propagation and induction similar to those of electromagnetism as formulated in linearized general relativity.

I don't know a lot about physics myself, just a weebit from my AP class in High School.. But I would think that if all four fundamental forces have an "electromagnetic" or "spin-orbit" or "gravito-magnetic" compenent. A field of their own akin to an "electromagnetic field" is possible (and apparently experimentally observed according to the published paper, funded by ESA I believe) So if you can create and amplify local electromagnetic fields then why not amplify a gravito-magnetic field? Because apparently you can create and observe a gravito-magnetic field (according to the paper..) I don't know, very interesting though.

Originally posted by Anjaba
So you know how you have the four forces right. Well just like you have Electro-Magnetic, there is gravito-magnetic in relation to gravity, or spin-orbit in relation to the strong force etc.. It's possible to create a local electromagnetic field, and amplify it, with no conservation problems since it's local, right?. Well you can also amplify a local gravito-magnetic field enough to have noticeable effects also.

I found a published paper Experimental-Detection-of-the-Gravitomagnetic-Lond on-Moment

From the conclusions of that particular paper.

The gravitational field is emitted from the superconductor and follows the laws of field propagation and induction similar to those of electromagnetism as formulated in linearized general relativity.

The work by Tajmar et al is completely different from the nonsensical bunkum on Youtube. I strongly support experimental investigation in gravitation and superconductors and hope somebody will soon understand quantum mechanical corrections to general relativity, especially if they have engineering relevance.

It is actual physics done by people who know something about what they're doing.

Classically (i.e. without QM) the size of the general relativistic correction to GR beyond traditional static gravitation is very small, i.e. the gravitomagnetic effect is believed to require enormous masses moving at significant velocities to have any substantial effect. If you compute how big it should be according to Einstein's relativity (Lense-Thirring effect) you find something that you can only measure in space (rotation of Earth) with some stupendously precise measurements. Tajmar et al believe that superconducing systems may greatly amplify this effect. Even still (greatly amplified) they report extremely small accelerations (by engineering standards).

Originally posted by Chinesis
How about since the OP, and the man in the video went through the trouble to post
the horribly incorrect math, and took the time to do so...

Mathematics isn't the problem (it is elementary) but the physical interpretation of the symbols which makes no sense.

reply to post by mbkennel


I thought that NASA has the experiment where they observed the Gravito-Magnetic force of the earth spinning using a satellite? In this paper, from what I understand, they artificially did it in a lab. Correct me if I am wrong though. What is being put forward in the OP videos is a way to "resonate" (I guess that is the word..) all 4 forces so they become equivalent. The electromagnetic force doesn't change since it's already the greatest, but the Strong, Weak and Gravity forces are increased to match the Electromagnetic force. This reduces the amount of energy required for fusion because of the increased Strong force, and also has a localized effect on the weight of objects due to an amplified gravito-magnetic force.

In the experiment from the paper, a gravitomagnetic field is created. A gravitomagnetic field is gravities equivalent to an electromagnetic field, so why can't it be amplified but an electromagnetic field can??

Also, I think that the OP title is a bad one.. I don't think that "Anti-Gravity" should be used.
If I were to create an electromagnet and place a compass near it, would it affect the magnet? This wouldn't be "Anti-electromagnetism" but a compass being effected within a localized electromagnetic field. I think that is what is being done here.. Creating a local "Gravitomagnetic" field, effecting ALL mass, not just ferrous material.. In no way is it "Anti" anything.

I would also like to say that anytime a person has to resort to name calling, it shows a real lack of respect and a little insecurity. If you have actual knowledge of a subject then you should use that knowledge in a respectful manner and educate your peers. Nobody is going to respect a person who doesn't give respect also, even if the person is wrong. If you think you are getting respect by using slander, then you obviously are unaware of what your peers may be saying about your arrogance when you aren't present.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Chinesis
How about since the OP, and the man in the video went through the trouble to post
the horribly incorrect math, and took the time to do so...

Mathematics isn't the problem (it is elementary) but the physical interpretation of the symbols which makes no sense.

edit on 2-11-2010 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Can you work through an example?

-rrr

reply to post by Anjaba

I thought that NASA has the experiment where they observed the Gravito-Magnetic force of the earth spinning using a satellite?

Do you mean what has been come to be called the "tether experiment"? (That mission usually gets most attention because of some extraneous objects (likely just ice crystals, and other debris) mistaken for "curious UFOs, in the videos of the event.

It was the Space Shuttle, STS-75. The result, the amount of energy (well, voltage) was apparently, more than anticipated or designed for.

.....the tether suddenly broke and its end whipped away into space in great wavy wiggles. The satellite payload at the far end of the tether remained linked by radio and was tracked for a while, but the tether experiment itself was over.
It took a considerable amount of detective work to figure out what had happened. Back on Earth the frayed end of the tether aboard the space shuttle was examined, and pieces of the cable were tested in a vacuum chamber. The nature of the break suggested it was not caused by excessive tension, but rather that an electric current had melted the tether.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Gravity probe B is the experiment used to test frame dragging (gravito-magnetism)

einstein.stanford.edu...

-rrr

reply to post by mbkennel


Thanks for the quick once-over.

I showed this gobbled-goop to my brother (an engineer) who pointed out that although he isn't making any mistakes with the math, he doesn't use the formulas appropriately.

To quote him: "I could derive plank's constant too if I was allowed to plug whatever random formulas together that I wanted."

I find these videos quite fascinating even though I don't fully understand them fully in every detail. I think that what doomed the cold fusion announcement back in 1989 was the use of the word "fusion". I'm not convinced that what is occurring is nuclear fusion like what goes on inside the sun. It would have been better to call it something like "nuclear reaction" because I don't think anyone really knows exactly what is going on.
In Part 9 he makes mention of a possible palladium contamination conspiracy. He conjectures that the Federal Reserve doesn't want low-cost limitless energy to come onto the market because the dollar is backed by the price of oil. Baloney. The U.S. Dollar is backed by absolutely NOTHING. There could in fact be a conspiracy to contaminate palladium to prevent successful cold fusion (since according to him there is exactly ONE source of palladium), but it doesn't have anything to do with the dollar. The shadow government that controls the world would quickly lose most of their control if we could get off the power grid and have cheap reliable energy.
Overall, I think this video series is very informative. I would suggest that in the future he should:
1) eliminate all jokes and humor (uber serious critics jump all over that type of stuff to discount everything else)
2) if you don't have any video to go with the narration, then show video of the narration text while it is being narrated. Watching a black screen is not good video.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Chinesis
How about since the OP, and the man in the video went through the trouble to post
the horribly incorrect math, and took the time to do so...

Mathematics isn't the problem (it is elementary) but the physical interpretation of the symbols which makes no sense.

edit on 2-11-2010 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

No offense but this sounds like back pedaling.
Your failure to refute any of your labeled *bovine scatology* has been dully noted.

Please be sure to follow up with "If you don't see how the physically interpreted symbols
make no sense then (insert ad hominem attack here) ."

We are collectively missing a trick maybe? Presumably we actually have a communication path back to the source here. This isn't some shadowy figure or 'friend of a friend' like so much bunk on here.

Mr Znidarsic is sufficiently convinced he is correct to have gone to a lot of continued effort. That doesn't mean he is correct but it does presumably mean he is engaged enough to debate those willing to offer a serious critique. He's not selling books and videos and isn't hiding behind the usual 'sign an NDA first' shield of the charlatan.

If one of those on here who are convinced the work is 'scatology' can post a detailed critique as to what is technically misapplied in the video (and supporting papers) we could attempt to elicit a response.

That would be interesting. I'd like to see this argued out. This is the reason this site exists.

reply to post by justwokeup


If you'll refer to my previous post (where I detail Frank's math) you'll see that he arbitrarily substitutes the variable for "wavelength" in place of both area and distance in a formula for solving capacitance in a system consisting of two square plates.

Capacitance has nothing to do with wavelength. You can't just plug random formulas into one another until you come up with something that looks neat. "Math" on its own without physical interpretations of it are meaningless.

To put it simply: Frank is misusing formulas for the purposes of unit manipulation. There is nothing new or groundbreaking in what he is doing. He is tweaking formulas through the use of an arbitrary constant (1.094 x 10^6 m/s) in such a way that he happens to come up with Plank's constant.


Answer this one simple question: Why is h = Q^2 / 4e0Vt ?

How and why can plank's constant be expressed as a function of charge and a permittivity of free space?


I'm not saying for 100% that he is wrong in suggesting that cold fusion is possible, what I AM saying is that he engages in the exact same kinds of mathematical trickery as other pseudo-physicists.

To say that the formulas are being used incorrectly just means that they are not CURRENTLY being used in such a fashion. However, since we do not have cold fusion right now, I would say that we aren't applying these formulas in the same manner, no. That's what makes this theory different. You can't get different results from the same old applications, that's typically labeled insanity.

Also, how should the symbols be interpreted? Someone who excels at physics would do well to enter here and explain exactly WHY this will not work...

Basically, can someone just explain why these formulas are not being applied correctly?