@Lou

Quote:

It seems you don't understand what this magnetic component entails. It is responsible for frame-dragging

Gravitomagnetism has nothing to do with magnetism. The forces that arise from gravity are called 'magnetic' due to the mathetmatical similarities between the equations of those forces compared to the magnetism equations from EM. The magentism arising from gravity is NOT the same magetism that arises from EM. It's a mislabeled name that can cause confusion. This is why I stated Gravity does not have a magentic component.

For example, if we have a large Emagnetism field and try to interact it with the large Gmagnetism field they don't. As such they are a different type of force. Again analogus equations but both are not the same magnetism.

It appears my statement was unclear so let me rephrase: "Magnetic" equations in gravity are analogus to the magnetism in Electromagnetism. They are different. The way we typically think of magnetism as part of Electromagnetism does not exist within Gravity but only within EM.
....
To go on a bit more about this topic. You claimed that modern science has determined gravity to have a magnetic component. And you further claimed that this magnetic component is what causes frame dragging. I'd like to add that our experimental evidence for frame-dragging (and therefore your claimed underlying support for the component of gravity that's analogus to magntism) is not exactly too strong at this time. Prior to Gravity Probe B we had indirect evidence of this effect that was fairly indistinquishable from background noise. Only 1 experiment, gravity probe B, has direct evidence of this. The reports I've read said it too is only minorly distinguishable (about 15%) from background noise. The statistical probability is more in favor of frame-dragging than against it. Though the odds (for example) are worse for frame-dragging than they are for a particle existing in the expected Higgs range.... I find it rather odd that you assign well established to an idea that has worse probability and less evidence than the multiple Higgs experiments and higher probabilities evidence.

Quote:

Right, just like when I asked for evidence of general relativity and you were right there with it, right?

In actuality I was there. I provided you a number of papers and directions on how to get more. It was you that argued you'd prefer to sit on your lazyboy and not read.

Quote:

Go fly a kite.

Your first well evidenced postulate! We know well by repeatable experimentation this is a component of the reality in which we live. We can see this in the experiments of Ben Franklin and use of kites by Chinese and other societies throughout history. Great establishment, a first! Congrats.

@Lou

Quote:

Perhaps you should look up the results of Gravity Probe B

You and I appear to be writing similar things at similar times. This post wasn't on here when I started writing my response to you. Though since you included it I'll use it as an important point helping to clarify what I meant. That is that the magnetic component of gravity is not the same as the magnetic component of electromagnetism.
Quote:

gravitomagnetism. It is an analog of magnetism in classical electrodynamics

Exactly right the magnetisms are not the same but instead analogies of one other.

Quote:

Wait wait! Is BrianK wrong again? Say it isn't so!

As I explained in my previous post, which to be fair you weren't able to read before you posted this, is that the two definitions of magnetisms are different and the magnetisms don't interact therefore are different. I took the 'blame' upon myself for not being clear but you too just used magnetism and didn't definitely spell out that they are indeed not the same though they are analogus.

@Lou

Quote:

First, I should point out that GEM is the new modern version of 'gravity'.

Is it really? So when did it get successfully peer reviewed, and by which scientists

Quote:

GEM explains frame-dragging.

Even if I accept your claim about frame dragging, it still totally fails to explain the attraction of masses because there is insufficient pressure from external sources to account for the gravitational attraction between stars or even on asteroids.

Quote:

As for Brandenburg, as you have yet to fully review his work, you really have no basis for an educated opinion

I have followed the links that you have kindly provided and despite the fact that it irritates you, I have investigated his claims. From the information that he has placed in the public domain, I can categorically state that I refuse to pay good money to have my intelligence insulted by a word-merchant pulling a version of the shell and pea game. The information in this document, and in the videos based on it are inconsistent with observable facts.

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

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Nimrod and @Lou Ancient Aliens Debunked I haven't watched it all yet. The first 15 minutes, which I did watch, seemed well approached and documented.

Okay I'm now about an hour into the video. I'm following all the links they provide and reading the back story. There's LOTS of work here to go through. I bet I've spent 4 hours on the first 1 hour of video. It seems really solid as to why aliens didn't build this and what leaps of faith and lack of proof the Ancient Aliens Series committed. Some good stuff here.

Even if you don't want to dig into the back story check out at least the first hour to see this approach, presentation, and information.

And a side note for Lou - lately you've been demanding that we must reject things if those people don't have PhD at the end of their name. (For example you try this on Nimrod a number of times claiming he's false simply because he doesn't type PHD by his name). Therefore if you follow the links, the links will give you a woody with their certifications.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Oct-2012 at 09:13 PM.

More evidence that Voyager has left the Solar System

Thanks Jupiter for the Gravity Assist, old boy, had you not been there Voyager would have fallen back towards the sun. And Saturn and Uranus had the Gravity Slingshotting too.

Interesting results in this experiment.

Football stadium sized laser built to make Fusion Energy. After $5 Billion spent, no Fusion energy.

@BrianK

We already have a multitude of ways to tap into fusion power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity

and so on. The sun does the fusion for us, we only need to harvest the end result.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

We already have a multitude of ways to tap into fusion power:

True it's all Fusion power. Coal and Oil - too. At somepoint it's all energy derived from the sun (or a sun). We mostly use Fusion indirectly from storage vessels (biomass, hydro, coal, oil) and a bit of it directly (solar). These all require lots of land. It's estimated that if we double our population we'll triple the energy usage. Renewables solve the pollution problem. In their current state they worsen the land conflicts. Afterall, we need to feed all those people too.

We can probably do with renewables for the near term. If we expect the human population to continue to grow at some point we're unable to do that without Fusion power. (Of course we have made Fusion bombs but they're not controllable as a power source, with our current technology.) Unfortunately Fusion has been '20 years away' for the last ~60 years.

Good review : Steven Cowley at TED on Fusion

@BrianK

Meanwhile, solar power is here now. Space is full of (wait for it) space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

Which obviously leaves the question of how we get up there in the first place, out of the gravity well. But now I'm feeling the discussion making another full cycle as we start discussing what gravity is

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Solar power is here now. But, we also need power when the Sun is not around. Where I live we get about 11.5 hours of daylight right now. We'll go down to about 8hrs 45 minutes in Dec. This means we must use storage technology to capture the sun's energy and release it during the other 15 hours of the day.

Now don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of solar. It's more environmentally friendly then the coal we train in to provide our power. There's been some satellite technologies purposed to redirect the sun to solar collection grids or beam it down as microwave energy. But, we have nothing permanent on that front.

As for the Dyson Sphere the Sun makes up 98% of matter in our solar system. Not sure we'd want to rely on Dyson afterall their vaccums suck. (sorry bad pun).

We'd need Tritium for Fusion. We have to build Tritium or it appears we might be able to excavate it. There's those great Cold Fusion ideas abound. Though none of them have been demonstrated working. Let alone useable to any degree. Which, BTW, Fleischmann (of the infamous Cold Fusion flop) died about a month ago. .. I'd have to brush up on my reading. Fleischmann and Pons appeared to have discovered the reaction based on Weak Fundamental Force (again I may have to brush up.) They clearly did not discover one based on the Strong Force, which is the Force used in a Fusion reaction.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-Oct-2012 at 08:58 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 08-Oct-2012 at 08:50 PM.

@BrianK

Storing solar energy is easier than you would think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant
Hint: molten salt.

You scale up the area and the receiver to catch the required energy each day, then scale the steam generator according to the demanded peak power.

Situating in Spain obviously helps, but most of the US could do with more of this. It's not like land is hard to find in places like Nevada. African countries could benefit as well, not having to buy so much oil from us fortunate few...

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

Storing solar energy is easier than you would think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant Hint: molten salt.

There are always trade-offs. The Spain plant has enough storage for about 15 hours of power supply. The cost for that is much higher than using photovoltaics. It too needs a large area of land. It uses water to generate steam. Clean water is becoming a precious resource in some areas of the world. And valueable in the USA with our long drought this summer. We've seen rising costs in most everything due to the drought.

Quote:

Situating in Spain obviously helps, but most of the US could do with more of this.

I believe California is scheduled for a half dozen or so of these. Nevada was scheduled for the largest molten salt usage in the world. Not sure how that's going.

Molten salt is being looked at too for Thorium Fission reactors.

Hot fusion is no big deal. Many hobbyists are building hot fusion reactors in their appartments basically "just because they can": http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/deuterium-diy-man-builds-homemade-nuclear-fusion-reactor-brooklyn

The future lies in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard
Funny how he died when he went public...hmmm...

...and practical cold fusion, of course...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNn_Z6wCIk

@Lou

Quote:

Hot fusion is no big deal. Many hobbyists are building hot fusion reactors in their appartments basically "just because they can": http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/deuterium-diy-man-builds-homemade-nuclear-fusion-reactor-brooklyn

They've failed to acheive the Power released > Power input. They've failed to acheive continuous power. Those are the goals of a Fusion program. Hot Fusion is 'no big deal' in a Fusion bomb. But, in a controlled situtation in a usable form it doesn't yet exist. So yeah it'll be a big deal when it does.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard Funny how he died when he went public...hmmm...

Always good for asking why. Though a 79 year old dying of cancer is fairly mundane.

Quote:

...and practical cold fusion, of course... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNn_Z6wCIk

Nothing provides us power in this manner. It may be practical in the future but isn't in use today, which kinda breaks the practical. Also, this appears to not be Fusion as that's based on the results of the Strong Fundamental Force. This appears to be based on the Weak Fundamental Force. Important, no doubt. Fusion it is not.

Last edited by BrianK on 09-Oct-2012 at 04:33 PM.

@olegil

That's timely... ExtremeTech Fusion Update

@BrianK

I'm fairly certain the steam part of Gemasolar is a closed loop, got any references to it using up precious water?

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

I'm fairly certain the steam part of Gemasolar is a closed loop, got any references to it using up precious water?

. As I understand it the molten salt heats water to boiling which is where the steam is created. I assumed the plants used water in some capacity as this indicated the Rice Solar Energy was using Dry Cooling to save on water usage. Even in a closed loop system water has a useable lifecycle and must be dumped and replentished.

Here are some details on water usage with CSP in California It makes reference that Dry Cooling reduces water consumption by 90% in these plants. You can see in the charts that a wet system consums 456Million Gallons of water a year. The Dry Cooling system reduce this to a consumption of 50Millions gallons of water a year.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @olegil That's timely... ExtremeTech Fusion Update

It reads like a more refined version of the Bussard reactory I mentioned.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Hot fusion is no big deal. Many hobbyists are building hot fusion reactors in their appartments basically "just because they can": http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/deuterium-diy-man-builds-homemade-nuclear-fusion-reactor-brooklyn They've failed to acheive the Power released > Power input. They've failed to acheive continuous power. Those are the goals of a Fusion program. Hot Fusion is 'no big deal' in a Fusion bomb. But, in a controlled situtation in a usable form it doesn't yet exist. So yeah it'll be a big deal when it does.

In a 'fusion bomb', the [this will sound familiar] radiation pressure is built up from fission-side to compress [remember that according to nimrod, insignificant force], hence heat the fusion material the thermonuclear temperatures.

The difference between a bomb and a power-plant is more a matter of containment.
From a power plant, you want steady heat. From a bomb, you want a good container that will eventually be over-loaded and explode.

From the wiki (with my bolding of text, of course):
"Thermonuclear bombs work by using the energy of a fission bomb to compress and heat fusion fuel. In the Teller-Ulam design, which accounts for all multi-megaton yield hydrogen bombs, this is accomplished by placing a fission bomb and fusion fuel (tritium, deuterium, or lithium deuteride) in proximity within a special, radiation-reflecting container. When the fission bomb is detonated, gamma rays and X-rays emitted first compress the fusion fuel, then heat it to thermonuclear temperatures."

I do recall certain people (see, I'm being nice instead of honest and not using the term physics noobs) being in denial of this fact when I presented it some 30 pages ago. Finally the declassification of it has made its way to the wiki...
/sigh

Last edited by Lou on 09-Oct-2012 at 07:13 PM.

@BrianK

The thing is, that's a complete distraction from the point anyway, as all heat-based systems, including but not limited to fission, fusion, geothermal, coal, oil, gas or even biomass plants generate steam (you could run an engine on oil or gas and drive the generator directly, but most of the energy comes out as heat anyway so a steam turbine is more efficient. And you still need water for the coolant ).

So wind turbines and PV cells are basically the only forms of energy we have right now that doesn't require water. Allthough, PV cells do benefit from water cooling, so make of it what you will...

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.