It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Mary Rose
Is it really an insult to say you don't have the knowledge needed to verify any such claims inventors make? How exactly would you "investigate" it?
Isn't that flowchart missing a step?
Originally posted by Bobathon
This ought to clear a few things up:
Crackpot Flowchart
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by buddhasystem
With the money they are charging for such crap you could buy a few decent textbooks on the sciences and really educate yourself to have the background needed to examine a scientific claim.
And if you go with Dover books, you could pretty much study an undergrad degree on your own, provided you can self-study.
It's not extremely advanced but it does contain knowledge which is lacking by some participants in this thread, and doesn't cost a dime. But to comprehend the math in that book would probably require several years worth of math for some people, depending on their current math ability. Who studies that much calculus and differential equations besides people in math, physics and engineering?
This text has developed out of an alternate beginning physics course at New Mexico Tech designed for those students with a strong interest in physics. The course includes students intending to major in physics, but is not limited to them. The idea for a "radically modern" course arose out of frustration with the standard two-semester treatment. It is basically impossible to incorporate a significant amount of "modern physics" (meaning post-19th century!) in that format. Furthermore, the standard course would seem to be specifically designed to discourage any but the most intrepid students from continuing their studies in this area - students don't go into physics to learn about balls rolling down inclined planes - they are (rightly) interested in quarks and black holes and quantum computing, and at this stage they are largely unable to make the connection between such mundane topics and the exciting things that they have read about in popular books and magazines.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Particles (The stuff Beebs doesn't believe in?)It doesn't get into much math but it defines a lot of concepts, though buddhasystem would have to tell me how accurate it is, it's not my area of expertise. But based on my knowledge of the areas I am familiar with, it looks reasonably accurate.
Thanks for the link buddhasystem, I do find it interesting, I'd love to have these two publications but if the site is up to date, they aren't out yet:
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Particle Data Group
You may find it interesting. It's pro stuff
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Thanks for the link buddhasystem, I do find it interesting, I'd love to have these two publications but if the site is up to date, they aren't out yet:
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Particle Data Group
You may find it interesting. It's pro stuff
pdg.lbl.gov...
• Particle Physics Booklet (available in September; 320 pages)
• Review of Particle Physics (available soon; 1422 pages)
So does that mean in September 2011? And I wonder if the larger book will be out sooner or later? ("soon" isn't all that descriptive). If you have any idea let me know, otherwise I'll check the site once in a while, I bookmarked it. And it sounds like they might make a pdf available for download? I don't really need a paper copy.
Photons can be described as particles, and they are energy only. It seems that you regard a particle as a solid piece of mass, a grain-of-sand-like structure as you called it earlier. You even suggested I should not regard it like that, but it seems that you do it yourself. Particle like behavior just means there is an object of "something" that occupies a fixed amount of space or is in a certain point in space. A photon can be described as such.
As for the form of energy, it seems to me that it would be thermal energy in the case of a light bulb. But what does it matter? And yes, it behaves like a particle when we measure, hence the wave/particle duality. It seems you totally agree on that, but somehow you still want to look at it as a wave only. I don't really understand why you want to ignore the particle-like behavior which you agree there is.
By assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, Einstein wrote an equation for the photoelectric effect that agreed with experimental results. It explained why the energy of photoelectrons were dependent only on the frequency of the incident light and not on its intensity: a low-intensity, high-frequency source could supply a few high energy photons, whereas a high-intensity, low-frequency source would supply no photons of sufficient individual energy to dislodge any electrons. This was an enormous theoretical leap, but the concept was strongly resisted at first because it contradicted the wave theory of light that followed naturally from James Clerk Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic behavior, and more generally, the assumption of infinite divisibility of energy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, resistance to the idea of photons continued, since it appeared to contradict Maxwell's equations, which were well-understood and verified.
Superposition of quantum mechanics? Do you mean the Everett many-worlds interpretation?
That we measure light as particles is a fact, it isn't a misinterpretation. We are entering the field of philosophy and leave the field of science by claiming otherwise. But basically you say that you just don't like the Copenhagen interpretation. Despite the fact we measure light as particles.
I don't need to do research, I can logically deduce its a scam. If it was real he would be selling working generators that do not require fuel, he had enough time to put them in production. He isn't so its a scam. Any but it just for the gullible.
I think it's ignorant to assume any perpetual motion machine works, or whatever other name you want to call it. History repeats itself with respect to these scams.
Originally posted by beebs
Surely you aren't referring to your argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Well, of course there's no probability particle function; the 'waves" you see are experimentally described probabilities of where a particle will go. It doesn't mean that nature is continuous. Where it is likely to hit is not the same as hitting all those places at the same time.
You agree nature in quantized, yet you insist everything is continuous. Do you see a problem there?