@Lou

Quote:

If you watched the 1st video, you'd see exactly what planck's constant is equal too.

Strangely enough, I did already know what the actual figure for Plancks constant was, but just to assume for a moment that I didn't, h, or h bar can be looked up using google, or even wikipedia, without some snake-oil salesman spinning a yarn about his pet fantasies.

Quote:

The # in question was observed during experiments with anti-gravity, done by NASA

You know, If I had one pound (£1=$1.551) for every time some crackpot said that they had evidence from some NASA secret project, I would have been able to actually retire, instead of being headhunted to do a better paid job. It was not that long ago you linked to some pictures taken through a telescope at the south pole by a "NASA insider" who had miraculously acquired optical images from a radio telescope. When I use the term "independently corroborated" I do not mean "A man I met in a pub told me his second cousin knows somebody who works for.... etc" NASA still uses rockets to launch stuff into space, and the ISS crews still float around rather than stroll around like the crew of NCC1701-F. By the way, as always, I did watch the videos posted, and I addressed the relevant points. If I had given a line by line rebuttal you would have complained that I pay too much attention to detail (again) and poor old Niolator would have got bored.

Quote:

His paper has been submitted for publication, which I told you about months ago.

Are you aware that "Submitted for publication" does not mean accepted , proved, the Nobel prize awarded and the cheque is in the post. It is the very start of a procedure of testing. A procedure that your much vaunted cold fusion idea failed at the first hurdle over twenty years ago.

To quickly recap: There is no evidence that the figure of Vt = 1.097MHz m, comes from any source other than reverse engineering plancks constant in the first place. There are no functioning productive cold fusion reactors for Mr Znidarsic to watch and measure the changing energy levels of an electron, and besides can't such things be measured elsewhere? If the people at CERN can put a stopwatch on neutrinos, do you really think they couldnt time an electrons transition between energy levels.

Quote:

He's also getting more recognition elsewhere:

Lou It is currently the first of January 2012. This discussion was started by MikeB on 3rd April 2011. Your "new recognition" was posted on 5/11/2010. Znidarsics "new physics" is a dead duck festering in a stagnant backwater. It doen't even rate Monty pythons "Dead parrot" sendoff.

For what it's worth the figure that Mr Znidarsics acolytes are calling the Z constant is nothing more than the reciprocal of Planck's constant multiplied by the square of the electron charge and divided by four times the permittivity of free space. So unless he can prove his measurement, he has less than nothing. It looks like all he has done is file the serial numbers off somebody else's work and claim it as his own.

Or as I have previously stated:
Plancks constant = Plancks constant. Big deal.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Lou It is currently the first of January 2012. This discussion was started by MikeB on 3rd April 2011

Don't worry the aliens will all come on 12/21/12 before the end of the world and make this technology all the clearer for you.

In related predictions I predict New Year's 2013 will clear our more end of the world woo-woo to make room for new end of the world woo-woo.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Jan-2012 at 04:46 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod Quote: Lou It is currently the first of January 2012. This discussion was started by MikeB on 3rd April 2011 Don't worry the aliens will all come on 12/21/12 before the end of the world and make this technology all the clearer for you. In related predictions I predict New Year's 2013 will clear our more end of the world woo-woo to make room for new end of the world woo-woo.

Hmmm...considering that it's been the media that has promoted 2012 hoo haa, I do wonder what they'll come up with next...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: If you watched the 1st video, you'd see exactly what planck's constant is equal too. Strangely enough, I did already know what the actual figure for Plancks constant was, but just to assume for a moment that I didn't, h, or h bar can be looked up using google, or even wikipedia, without some snake-oil salesman spinning a yarn about his pet fantasies. Quote: The # in question was observed during experiments with anti-gravity, done by NASA You know, If I had one pound (£1=$1.551) for every time some crackpot said that they had evidence from some NASA secret project, I would have been able to actually retire, instead of being headhunted to do a better paid job. It was not that long ago you linked to some pictures taken through a telescope at the south pole by a "NASA insider" who had miraculously acquired optical images from a radio telescope. When I use the term "independently corroborated" I do not mean "A man I met in a pub told me his second cousin knows somebody who works for.... etc" NASA still uses rockets to launch stuff into space, and the ISS crews still float around rather than stroll around like the crew of NCC1701-F. By the way, as always, I did watch the videos posted, and I addressed the relevant points. If I had given a line by line rebuttal you would have complained that I pay too much attention to detail (again) and poor old Niolator would have got bored. Quote: His paper has been submitted for publication, which I told you about months ago. Are you aware that "Submitted for publication" does not mean accepted , proved, the Nobel prize awarded and the cheque is in the post. It is the very start of a procedure of testing. A procedure that your much vaunted cold fusion idea failed at the first hurdle over twenty years ago. To quickly recap: There is no evidence that the figure of Vt = 1.097MHz m, comes from any source other than reverse engineering plancks constant in the first place. There are no functioning productive cold fusion reactors for Mr Znidarsic to watch and measure the changing energy levels of an electron, and besides can't such things be measured elsewhere? If the people at CERN can put a stopwatch on neutrinos, do you really think they couldnt time an electrons transition between energy levels. Quote: He's also getting more recognition elsewhere: Lou It is currently the first of January 2012. This discussion was started by MikeB on 3rd April 2011. Your "new recognition" was posted on 5/11/2010. Znidarsics "new physics" is a dead duck festering in a stagnant backwater. It doen't even rate Monty pythons "Dead parrot" sendoff. For what it's worth the figure that Mr Znidarsics acolytes are calling the Z constant is nothing more than the reciprocal of Planck's constant multiplied by the square of the electron charge and divided by four times the permittivity of free space. So unless he can prove his measurement, he has less than nothing. It looks like all he has done is file the serial numbers off somebody else's work and claim it as his own. Or as I have previously stated: Plancks constant = Plancks constant. Big deal.

Actually, the significance of this has completely escaped you. Hence, there is no point in discussing anything beyond I= V/R...

@Lou

Quote:

Actually, the significance of this has completely escaped you

The significance of what exactly? That some self publicist is trying to do a "think of a number" trick. Big deal, he has brought nothing new to the table. When, or if, he does, it will be taken into consideration.

Quote:

Hence, there is no point in discussing anything beyond I= V/R...

Congratulations Lou this is the second most complex equation that you have posted, and unlike the previous one it is actually relevant to the point that you are trying (and again failing) to make.

Actually, since I learned this equation at school, and it does not allow you to cherry pick the preferred answer for I given measured values for V and R, I am surprised that you are not claiming that it no longer applies, because the zetans say so.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

In the mid-1960s and electromagnetic submarine designed by Dr. Stuart Way, who was on leave from Westinghouse Research Laboratory, was successfully tested. It made use of the fact that electric and magnetic fields at right angles to each other produce a (Lorentz) force at right angles to both (OMG the Poynting vector). The force pushes against the surrounding electromagnetically conducting fluid (seawater) which pushes back and moves the submarine.

You can see it in action in this video about half way thru:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38wwOcb6fhU

So much for EM being orders of magnitude too weak to propel anything...

Now let's see how you react when its obvious that your archaic biases have failed you.

I find it quite ironic that the guy who invented the vacuum tube said we'd never get to the moon and back. He was probably an engineer...

Gee, 1966 they did this...now I'm no math rocket-scientist like all you big-blund...I mean big-banging geniuses but that seems like an awfully long time ago and they probably have since develop even better and more efficient versions of this since then...

Last edited by Lou on 03-Jan-2012 at 02:55 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 03-Jan-2012 at 02:51 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

So much for EM being orders of magnitude too weak to propel anything...

Congratulations Lou!!! Having set up a straw man you have been entirely successful in knocking it down.
You do not have to look up esoteric videos to find that EM can produce a noticeable effect, you just need to google the term "electric motor" to learn that EM can do things. As ever efficiency, effectiveness, and power levels let you down. In still water with no wind, a man in a canoe can theoretically tow a fully laden oil tanker (just not very quickly)
As a demonstration of the principles mentioned, I refer you to the tug of war match held by the Royal Navy in 1845 between HMS Rattler, and HMS Alecto to determine the capabilities of screw propellers compared with paddle wheels. Now compare the thrust produced for the power consumed in your video with that of either of the antiques in this contest.

I have never denied the existence of the forces that you describe. On the contrary, these forces have kept me in gainful employment for many years. The difference between you and me Lou is that I know about the magnitude of these forces and as a result, can earn a living from my knowledge.

Quote:

I find it quite ironic that the guy who invented the vacuum tube said we'd never get to the moon and back. He was probably an engineer...

Expertise in one particular field does not automatically guarantee expertise in any other. Lee De Forest's abilities in electronics led him to be able to predict the microwave oven,although not the advances of the humble transistor junction.

By the way, from your "expert" on the video you linked to (2m41s) "the objects that they approach would take on a red glow".
This individual needs to go back to school and learn something about the doppler shift.
Point 1. There would be a spectrum shift, not any form of illumination, or glow.
Point 2. The objects being approached would be blue shifted, not red.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: So much for EM being orders of magnitude too weak to propel anything... Congratulations Lou!!! Having set up a straw man you have been entirely successful in knocking it down. You do not have to look up esoteric videos to find that EM can produce a noticeable effect, you just need to google the term "electric motor" to learn that EM can do things. As ever efficiency, effectiveness, and power levels let you down. In still water with no wind, a man in a canoe can theoretically tow a fully laden oil tanker (just not very quickly) As a demonstration of the principles mentioned, I refer you to the tug of war match held by the Royal Navy in 1845 between HMS Rattler, and HMS Alecto to determine the capabilities of screw propellers compared with paddle wheels. Now compare the thrust produced for the power consumed in your video with that of either of the antiques in this contest. I have never denied the existence of the forces that you describe. On the contrary, these forces have kept me in gainful employment for many years. The difference between you and me Lou is that I know about the magnitude of these forces and as a result, can earn a living from my knowledge.

Once again you fail to take advances in technology into account since 1966. The propeller hasn't gotten any better as the materials used to keep it in place have limits...however ways to generate and store electricity have.

Quote:

By the way, from your "expert" on the video you linked to (2m41s) "the objects that they approach would take on a red glow". This individual needs to go back to school and learn something about the doppler shift. Point 1. There would be a spectrum shift, not any form of illumination, or glow. Point 2. The objects being approached would be blue shifted, not red.

Again, you make assumptions. The glow around ufos is due to ionized air courtesy of the magnetic field manipulations around the ufo and not due to its actual speed...

@Lou

Quote:

The glow around ufos is due to ionized air courtesy of the magnetic field manipulations around the ufo and not due to its actual speed...

Again you make assumptions. You have yet to demonstrate that UFOs are real. Let alone have failed to demonstrate one in your garage that you could possibly test and know what the blue light is from. What you have is an unsupported property of an unsupported object.

I have my own unsupported properties and I have just as much validity for my belief that UFO College kids are pimping their rides with Blue Lights because they think it's cool.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Jan-2012 at 04:25 PM.

@Lou

Why did the city of Angkor collapse?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45857260/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Droughts, no doubt caused by aliens.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The glow around ufos is due to ionized air courtesy of the magnetic field manipulations around the ufo and not due to its actual speed... Again you make assumptions. You have yet to demonstrate that UFOs are real. Let alone have failed to demonstrate one in your garage that you could possibly test and know what the blue light is from. What you have is an unsupported property of an unsupported object. I have my own unsupported properties and I have just as much validity for my belief that UFO College kids are pimping their rides with Blue Lights because they think it's cool.

I don't care what you don't accept.
You still haven't proved to me you don't live in a box.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Why did the city of Angkor collapse? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45857260/ns/technology_and_science-science/ Droughts, no doubt caused by aliens.

What you did here akin to having a discussion about tennis then saying Babe Ruth could probably be a good tennis player.

@Lou

Quote:

I don't care what you don't accept. You still haven't proved to me you don't live in a box.

Since your box is so closed it'll never be able to hold all my openness it will always have that problem.

@Lou

Quote:

What you did here akin to having a discussion about tennis then saying Babe Ruth could probably be a good tennis player.

EDIT- less flipant response.
I'm glad you identified the problem. Your statement just as fairly applies to the History Channel 'aliens did all of history before it was written' mantra you've been preaching.

Last edited by BrianK on 04-Jan-2012 at 09:31 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 04-Jan-2012 at 08:14 PM.

Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Merry Perihelion: Tonight, Earth passes closer to the Sun than at any other time during its annual oval-shaped orbit.

Just an FYI: During its January close-approach, Earth receives about 7% more sunlight than it does during July's far-approach. But In July, Earth's Sun-tipped axis gives N. Hemisphere's middle latitudes a factor of 5x more sunlight than in January. So, contrary to popular suspicion, seasons have nothing whatsoever to do with Earth's slowly varying distance from the Sun."

Now you know why lasers on television and movies always make cool sounds as they are fired:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/doing-the-laser-hokey-tokey.ars

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/if-them-neutrinos-are-faster-than-light-physicists-have-a-lot-of-work-to-do.ars

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist(or even engineer named Nimrod) states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Perhaps those neutrinos just hid themselves from time...

@Lou

Quote:

1.When a distinguished but elderly scientist(or even engineer named Nimrod) states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Some very nice quotes there Lou, it is just a pity you still have absolutely no understanding of the maths involved in probability. Just because something is theoretically possible, it doesn't mean that it is an absolute certainty. But of course it is always so much nicer to believe that the universe somehow cares about us and will go out of its way to send agents to protect us from our own folly, be they "Angels" or "Aliens".

In answer to quote 2, I would point out that just because Nicholas Alkemade got away with it, it doesnt mean that this chap was one of about 200 that would have been OK if they had just had a little more faith, or tried harder.

Number 3 may be true for those who haven't learned to truly think, but if you see somebody sawing a scantily clad female in half, chances are that it's neither magic nor new tech, but merely an illusion.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

The quotes are from Arthur Clarke.

Fyi, a good illusion is also indistinguishable from magic.

Oh and a few people have skydived and survived a non-opening parachute.

Last edited by Lou on 07-Jan-2012 at 12:12 AM.

Regarding aliens, SETI project found something odd:


http://seti.berkeley.edu/kepler-seti-interference

ET phone home?

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!