@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Interestingly you've given no evidence to the contrary (and have none). Actually there has been a lot of evidence cited during the course of this debate, not all of it having been addressed. For example, in order to demonstrate the failings of the gravity model of the universe you pointed out that the pioneer and cassini probes currently on their way out of the solar system were not where original calculations placed them. The error in question is an acceleration sunwards of 8.74±1.33×10^−10 m/s2 and is less than the effect produced in earlier probes by firing adjusters to align the transmitter antenna for transmission. This is compared to its speed of 12.2 km/s to show just how small an error you call "broken" This error has been studied by scientists, not just written off by inventing wars between hypothetical alien civilizations, for whom there is absolutely no corroborative evidence. The scientists studying the anomaly looked for the possibility of other gravitational influences but rejected them as there were no effects on other objects nearby. They even considered the idea of "new physics" and are looking to get further data from Cassini and New Horizons when they get far enough out. Pleas feel free to compare these responses with your own when much larger anomalies are pointed out in your religious beliefs. As for your comment about me being unemployed, it is less than totally accurate. I have recently changed my job as a result of the current financial situation and am now working fewer hours for a better wage. Comfortable semi-retirement you might say, but will be spending most of the new free time relaxing, not trying to teach the willingly blind how to see.

LOL! Let's see who is blind, shall we?

You have yet to comment on my references to radiation pressure and Poynting vectors (S=ExB). Magnetic fields can be made to cancel out however Poynting vectors are still additive.

All subatomic particles that make up matter are charged and at a basic level move freely. The ExB drift, consisting of a crossed magnetic and electric field, causes all free charged particles to move at right angles to the E and B field with a uniform velocity. Its called Poynting vector drift.

Imagine 2 infinite parallel plates at different voltages with an electric field between them. If we add a magnetic field parallel to the faces of the plates then any charged particle will begin to move at the same velocity. The stronger the magnetic field that underlies the ExB drift, the faster the particles will all assume this motion. Now, change the voltage difference on the plates with time. The particles all smoothly pick up speed or slow down and all the velocities change in time identically, regardless of charge or mass.

You can do another thing to vary the fields, this time in space instead of time. Simply tilt the plates relative to each other so the electric field gets stronger in the direction of particle motion, where the plates are closer together. The particles again smoothly accelerate toward the strongest part of the electric field, regardless of charge and regardless of mass. What we have done, then, is make a "gravity field" with electricity and magnetism. It is as simple as that. "Gravity" can be made with pure EM.

@Lou

Quote:

LOL! Let's see who is blind, shall we?

It's not that I think of you as blind, merely so absolutely fixated on one immovable idea that you cannot look around and see how ridiculous the interventions you have to make to support that ridiculous fantasy really are.
Quote:

You have yet to comment on my references to radiation pressure and Poynting vectors (S=ExB).

Is the point you are trying to make here that I could not be any type of real Electrical/Electronic engineer without knowing about Poynting vectors? For what it is worth I had never heard of this until about 1974, when I was learning about microwave propagation in waveguide and free space. Once again though before dealing with the more advanced aspects we had to learn to understand the basic principles. These include orders of magnitude, and the variant of Kirchoffs first current law that simplifies to "You don't get something for nothing" (An amazing number of very complex laws boil down to this simple statement) What this means is that yes I have heard of Poynting vectors, and no they are not the holy ark of the covenant that will absolve all sins.

Quote:

Magnetic fields can be made to cancel out however Poynting vectors are still additive.

Well spotted. Gravity is also an additive property, but that does not mean that gravity is a result of Poynting vectors any more than Poynting vectors are a result of gravity.

Quote:

Imagine 2 infinite parallel plates at different voltages

Wouldn't they be a bit too large for practical usage?
Quote:

Simply tilt the plates relative to each other

so that they are no longer parallel, and being infinite no matter how slight the tilt they just connected, shorting out the different voltages.
Seriously though the use of infinite plates to move subatomic particles is almost laughable. Almost that is until an engineer plays around, varies the fields at high frequencies and uses the output to vibrate molecules. then you have a microwave cooker, not the thrusters of USS Enterprise NCC 1701. Orders of magnitude gets you every time Lou, you really should try to learn about the mathematics involved in all of this.

Quote:

What we have done, then, is make a "gravity field" with electricity and magnetism. It is as simple as that. "Gravity" can be made with pure EM.

The answer to this is contained in the phrase "orders of magnitude" and also in what I said about Kirchoffs first current law. You really need to learn the basics of walking before you try to run.

Going back to the discovery of the pioneer anomaly for a moment, I would point out that the scientists who discovered this spotted a shortfall of less than one part per million from a distance of greater than 3,000,000,000km. Do you really think that people who can spot such an infinitesimal error would miss the ExB fields needed to generate gravity in the manner you suggest. And if they did, the people who tried to find the answer looked at all sorts of possibilities, and would have found any such fluctuations in the background EM fields. But just to make it plainer for you I will repeat a challenge made to you before, and apply it to your "gravity wave device" the same as your "cold fusion", your "monopole magnets" and all of the other tat you have touted here.

You build it, and I will buy it.

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

@Nimrod

You still left out radiation pressure aka the pressure of light/EM.

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Magnetic fields can be made to cancel out however Poynting vectors are still additive. Well spotted. Gravity is also an additive property, but that does not mean that gravity is a result of Poynting vectors any more than Poynting vectors are a result of gravity.

Actually, it does. Remember, what you refer to as 'gravity' is actually gravity pressure.

Gravity pressure is an essential concept in understanding antigravity. Gravity is normally thought of as a force between objects like stars or planets that occurs between their center of mass. For a star or planet, being spheres, this is a simple way to think of the gravity force between them, because, Newton proved, the force can be calculated as if the masses were concentrated in their centers. But to understand the forces that make them spherical shape, one must understand the concept of gravity pressure.

Gravity fields as pressure in space is described mathematically as the gravity field intensity squared, divided by the all important Newton gravity constant. The idea that this expression for gravity pressure uses units of thermodynamic pressure was used by Sakharov in his breakthrough analysis equating gravity to a radiation pressure from ZPF. Here on Earth, the gravity pressure merely works tirelessly to contain the pressure of ordinary substances such as air, water and rock.

Force is created by pressure imbalance, not by pressure itself (aka no magical gravity wave). Hold a pressure gauge to the earth's surface and a gravity pressure gauge. On the surface, the pressure of the rock is low and the gravity pressure is high. At the center of the earth, the gravity pressure nets to zero but the pressure of the rock is extremely high. The mathematical sums, however, are constant.

All of space contains EM. Even empty space is filled with ZPF. Fluctuations in the pressure of EM (which is everywhere) are what you feel as gravity.

Quote:

Quote: Imagine 2 infinite parallel plates at different voltages Wouldn't they be a bit too large for practical usage?

Imagine a slight angle that you can follow for a considerable distance before the plates cross, but fine, cut them off before they touch, I don't care.

Quote:

Quote: Simply tilt the plates relative to each other so that they are no longer parallel, and being infinite no matter how slight the tilt they just connected, shorting out the different voltages. Seriously though the use of infinite plates to move subatomic particles is almost laughable. Almost that is until an engineer plays around, varies the fields at high frequencies and uses the output to vibrate molecules. then you have a microwave cooker, not the thrusters of USS Enterprise NCC 1701. Orders of magnitude gets you every time Lou, you really should try to learn about the mathematics involved in all of this.

What's laughable is your inability to grasp the application. In space, alot less force is required to move an object. At the atomic level, I already linked you articles of lasers and magnetic fields being used to move individual atoms and create nano-sized circuits. This is science fact, come out of the dark ages.

Quote:

Quote: What we have done, then, is make a "gravity field" with electricity and magnetism. It is as simple as that. "Gravity" can be made with pure EM. The answer to this is contained in the phrase "orders of magnitude" and also in what I said about Kirchoffs first current law. You really need to learn the basics of walking before you try to run.

Please go read the limitations of Kirchoff's laws before you use them someplace where they don't apply...which you actually did...

Quote:

Going back to the discovery of the pioneer anomaly for a moment, I would point out that the scientists who discovered this spotted a shortfall of less than one part per million from a distance of greater than 3,000,000,000km. Do you really think that people who can spot such an infinitesimal error would miss the ExB fields needed to generate gravity in the manner you suggest. And if they did, the people who tried to find the answer looked at all sorts of possibilities, and would have found any such fluctuations in the background EM fields. But just to make it plainer for you I will repeat a challenge made to you before, and apply it to your "gravity wave device" the same as your "cold fusion", your "monopole magnets" and all of the other tat you have touted here. You build it, and I will buy it.

Funny, as soon as satellites are not where they should be, the first thing they look for is sources of unexpected magnetic fields. The magnetic fields of the planets and sun are quite expected.

@Lou

Quote:

You still left out radiation pressure aka the pressure of light/EM.

You still haven't understood the term "orders of magnitude"

Mathematics is an alien concept to you.

If you want to believe that you can knock up an anti-gravity beam in your garden shed then fine. Go to it. When you have one up and working I will buy one. Until then I will keep my feet firmly on the ground learning about things that really exist.

The world has changed considerably since I left school and I have changed with it. Despite all of the changes one thing has remained constant, and that is mathematics.

Over the years computers have made the arithmetic faster and more precise. sensor improvements have made the measurements more precise. but the mathematics remains constant, and inescapable.
Despite all of your wishful thinking you will never reverse overall entropy or get something for nothing.

Quote:

What's laughable is your inability to grasp the application. In space, alot less force is required to move an object. At the atomic level, I already linked you articles of lasers and magnetic fields being used to move individual atoms and create nano-sized circuits. This is science fact, come out of the dark ages.

I don't know if you have realised yet that the planet Neptune is a little bit bigger than an atom. What is really laughable is the way that you simply refuse to accept that I have fully understood the point that you are attempting to make, and seen the flaw in your logic. You are the one that needs to come out of the dark ages and accept that mathematics has been invented and it does away with the need for Gods and Angels, even if you do call them Sitchin and aliens. You still haven't demonstrated that using EM you can accelerate a block of granite. Nor can you explain how a magnetic field can be too weak to align another magnetic field that is free to rotate in space where it is easier to do such things, but it is strong enough to drive the object associated with that field (an entire planet) along a given path (which you do not have the mathematics to describe) Nor can you say why Mars has its axial spin and orbit despite having no geomagnetic field. I know you claimed the spin was a reult of inertia because Mars lost its geomagnet in a recent nuclear war, but you didnt explain why the inertia that kept it spinning didn't have it keep on going in a straight line since it was no longer magnetically controlled by the sun, and would therefore no longer be constrained to follow a curved path.

Quote:

Please go read the limitations of Kirchoff's laws before you use them someplace where they don't apply...which you actually did...

The theme that is common to many, if not all laws is that you don't get something for nothing. Please bear in mind the fact that the laws of physics are not subject to democratic review. If we don't like them, repealing them by act of congress (or parliament) is as futile as telling the tide to turn.

Quote:

Funny, as soon as satellites are not where they should be, the first thing they look for is sources of unexpected magnetic fields. The magnetic fields of the planets and sun are quite expected.

If memory serves me correctly, the first thing they looked for was measurement error. This was examined and then rejected. As was gravitational interference from a potential unlisted source, but since no other nearby objects showed evidence of such objects the idea was rejected. the EM drag was considered but the measured densities were too small to cause the effect.
Apparently the solution was found earlier this year using something called mathematics.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You still left out radiation pressure aka the pressure of light/EM. You still haven't understood the term "orders of magnitude"

Splitting an atom is an EM reaction, look at how little matter it takes to create an atomic bomb. You are the one who fails to grasp anything it seems...

Quote:

Mathematics is an alien concept to you.

Just as logic is to you.

Quote:

The world has changed considerably since I left school and I have changed with it. Despite all of the changes one thing has remained constant, and that is mathematics.

Mathematics is useless without application. It's the application that has left you in the dust.

Quote:

Despite all of your wishful thinking you will never reverse overall entropy or get something for nothing.

And who claimed such a thing?

Quote:

Quote: What's laughable is your inability to grasp the application. In space, alot less force is required to move an object. At the atomic level, I already linked you articles of lasers and magnetic fields being used to move individual atoms and create nano-sized circuits. This is science fact, come out of the dark ages. I don't know if you have realised yet that the planet Neptune is a little bit bigger than an atom. What is really laughable is the way that you simply refuse to accept that I have fully understood the point that you are attempting to make, and seen the flaw in your logic. You are the one that needs to come out of the dark ages and accept that mathematics has been invented and it does away with the need for Gods and Angels, even if you do call them Sitchin and aliens. You still haven't demonstrated that using EM you can accelerate a block of granite. Nor can you explain how a magnetic field can be too weak to align another magnetic field that is free to rotate in space where it is easier to do such things, but it is strong enough to drive the object associated with that field (an entire planet) along a given path (which you do not have the mathematics to describe) Nor can you say why Mars has its axial spin and orbit despite having no geomagnetic field. I know you claimed the spin was a reult of inertia because Mars lost its geomagnet in a recent nuclear war, but you didnt explain why the inertia that kept it spinning didn't have it keep on going in a straight line since it was no longer magnetically controlled by the sun, and would therefore no longer be constrained to follow a curved path.

Here is where your 'orders of magnitude' slaps you in the face...
A planet loses its magnetic field and you assume it must stop spinning instantly because on a small scale, an induction motor stops quickly. Add a heavy flywheel to is and see how long it take to stop.

You say you get it but you don't. What I told you in the previous posts were the facts known to many a plasma scientist. I'll believe an active and current scientist over a retired out of touch engineer any day.

Quote:

Quote: Please go read the limitations of Kirchoff's laws before you use them someplace where they don't apply...which you actually did... The theme that is common to many, if not all laws is that you don't get something for nothing. Please bear in mind the fact that the laws of physics are not subject to democratic review. If we don't like them, repealing them by act of congress (or parliament) is as futile as telling the tide to turn.

From the wiki: This is a simplification of Faraday's law of induction for the special case where there is no fluctuating magnetic field linking the closed loop. Therefore, it practically suffices for explaining circuits containing only resistors and capacitors.

AKA we are not talking about circuits containg only resistors and capacitors. So bringing it up just adds to the evidence that: you just don't get it. You are a relic...but a genius in your own mind.

Quote:

Quote: Funny, as soon as satellites are not where they should be, the first thing they look for is sources of unexpected magnetic fields. The magnetic fields of the planets and sun are quite expected. If memory serves me correctly, the first thing they looked for was measurement error. This was examined and then rejected. As was gravitational interference from a potential unlisted source, but since no other nearby objects showed evidence of such objects the idea was rejected. the EM drag was considered but the measured densities were too small to cause the effect. Apparently the solution was found earlier this year using something called mathematics.

Yawn... Did you prove something because I missed it...or is this just more side-talk that is - useless.

As a final plea to you inability to grasp anyone more complex than circuit theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein
Yes, Einstein allowed its publication despite choosing to go down another road in pursuit of unification.

@Lou & Nimrod:

You guys are still at it? I appriciate the discussion, I learn a lot of new thing but you two won't get any further. It is more like propagnada for two completely opposite views now.

Very well, I'll begin reading thas thread agian. Ill tll you if I see Niburu in my telescope.

@Lou

Quote:

Quote: Despite all of your wishful thinking you will never reverse overall entropy or get something for nothing. And who claimed such a thing?

Actually you keep on making this ridiculous claim every time you assert that a tiny little EM field can move planets around, or a few tons of ice can destabilise the orbit of a planet. Small forces have small effects.

Quote:

Here is where your 'orders of magnitude' slaps you in the face... A planet loses its magnetic field and you assume it must stop spinning instantly because on a small scale, an induction motor stops quickly. Add a heavy flywheel to is and see how long it take to stop.

You are totally correct when you point out that there would be nothing to stop a planet from spinning once it had built up a spin and the source of that spin (The geomagnet in your EM fantasy) disappears, but by the same token the selfsame inertia would keep the planet going in a straight line as there would be no planetary magnetic field tethering the planet to the magnetic field of the sun. You might be observant enough to notice that Mars has not gone away. Then again, you may not

In an EM dominated system, EM fluctuations will produce observable effects. Over a period of 4,500,000,000 years these effects will be quite large.
In a Gravitationally dominated system fluctuations in EM are irrelevant and have no effect. therefore the tilt of a planets magnetic field has no relevance in orbital calculations.

The force required to align the magnetic field of Neptune is infinitessimally small compared to the force needed to accelerate the same magnetic field on its course, yet while Neptune clearly orbits the sun, its magnetic field remains unaligned, as does that of Saturn, jupiter, Uranus and of course the Earth.

Quote:

Yes, Einstein allowed its publication despite choosing to go down another road in pursuit of unification.

You really have no idea how the review system used in scienc works do you. Just as the laws of physics are not a democracy, they are not a monarchy either Einstein has no absolute authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. Neither can he allow or disallow publication. What happens is that scientists (real ones that is, not quacks and snake oil salesmen) publish their ideas, and other scientists review their ideas and try to reproduce the experiments. If the idea makes sense and the results can be confirmed the idea becomes established as fact, until a better idea comes along. What you fail to grasp is the fact that the new idea does actually have to be a better idea and does need to work. Just being different is not enough. I will close my comment on Kaluza-Klein by quoting from the article you linked to Quote:

Up to now, no experimental or observational signs of extra dimensions have been officially reported. An analysis of results from the Large Hadron Collider in December 2010 severely constrains theories with large extra dimensions.

What little evidence there is goes against K-K. While I realise that the theory is not yet fully discredited, the fact that the proposition has been made does not automatically make it true.

When you have built your gravity wave machine in your garden shed, let me know and I will buy one

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

@Nimrod

K-K is the theory that spawned spring theory...and GEM. It's old.
I believe once you factor in the discoveries of Frank Znidarsic and stop treating things like particles, when they are waves, the picture will be more complete.

Everything is a fluctuation from ZPF...hence everything is the source of a wave. Matter creates a pressure in the ZPF. With a magnetic vortex you can change the pressure (radiation pressure) and the difference is 'antigravity'. But ZPF is EM and hence gravity is not a separate force but as I always said, a side-effect of EM.

FYI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcMQSCjJSHY
Yes, 80 year old antigravity research de-classified...imagine what else you don't know and how far they have come...

Last edited by Lou on 30-Dec-2011 at 05:10 PM.

I haven´t had the strength to read through that much of the latest 35-40 pages of this thread but have you guys heard of the latest discoveries made by Kepler? Two planets of Earth size orbiting a former red giant (white dwarf now). I think it is gas giants who have gotten must of their masses blown away by the stellar wind. It must be truly massive planets.

@Lou

Quote:

I believe once you factor in the discoveries of Frank Znidarsic.....etc.

When will it penetrate that what you believe, or what BrianK believes, or what I believe is totally irrelevant. Only that which can be demonstrated, either by use of maths, or as a practical demonstration of the finished object, has any relevance. Now which of the "discoveries" of Znidarsic are you referring to. Is it his antigravity operated flying car that I have parked outside my home, or is it the Mr Fusion generator that supplies the one point twenty one jiggerwatts necessary to charge the flux capacitor... Sorry, wrong fantasy
None of his big ideas have been substantiated, and his derivation of plancks constant was the best example of the shell and pea game in reverse that it has been my privelege to see all week.
He inserts the figure required about half way through and then proceeds to demonstrate nothing more profound than

Plancks constant = Plancks constant

Big deal

I'm only surprised that he is not currently staring at goats

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: I believe once you factor in the discoveries of Frank Znidarsic.....etc. When will it penetrate that what you believe, or what BrianK believes, or what I believe is totally irrelevant. Only that which can be demonstrated, either by use of maths, or as a practical demonstration of the finished object, has any relevance. Now which of the "discoveries" of Znidarsic are you referring to. Is it his antigravity operated flying car that I have parked outside my home, or is it the Mr Fusion generator that supplies the one point twenty one jiggerwatts necessary to charge the flux capacitor... Sorry, wrong fantasy None of his big ideas have been substantiated, and his derivation of plancks constant was the best example of the shell and pea game in reverse that it has been my privelege to see all week. He inserts the figure required about half way through and then proceeds to demonstrate nothing more profound than Plancks constant = Plancks constant Big deal I'm only surprised that he is not currently staring at goats

Point me to the equation # where you think this, please.

@Lou

Quote:

Point me to the equation # where you think this, please.

The palmed card that is introduced in this particular piece of flimflam is the speed of transition which is derived from plancks constant. So what Znidarsic is saying is that, if you know Planck's constant, you can derive Planck's constant. Unless that is he can come up with some explanation of Vt = 1.097MHz m,

Old I may be. Senile I ain't.
And my eyesight is still good enough to spot the difference between sunlight reflecting off Brylcreem, and a gun.

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

@Nimrod

That is defined as the speed of transition. It causes an impedance match. Having an EE background he saw that as the requirement that linked the quantum world to relativity. Previously, there was no connection. Now, quantum mechanics is simply a subset of relativity. That was the major breakthru of this paper. Previously they seemed like separate worlds....

Last edited by Lou on 31-Dec-2011 at 08:36 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

That is defined as the speed of transition. It causes an impedance match

Yes Lou, I too learned to read quite a few years ago. I know that the figure quoted is defined as the speed of transition, what he does not specify is how he came up with the particular value. Having an EE background he would have sufficient ability at maths to reverse engineer plancks constant to get a value of 1.097MHz m. What is not evident, or apparent from Mr Znidarsic or any of his acolytes is confirmation of how (or even if) this speed of transition was measured, and until there is confirmed independent reproduction of the actual measurement the numbers produced by Mr Znidarsic owe more to numerology than mathematics.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: That is defined as the speed of transition. It causes an impedance match and until there is confirmed independent reproduction of the actual measurement the numbers produced by Mr Znidarsic owe more to numerology than mathematics.

It's so hugely important that we have evidence. From there is where we can have those anti-gravity cars and perpetual machines pulling energy from the Zero-Point. If readers don't know they should that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

@Nimrod
Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: That is defined as the speed of transition. It causes an impedance match Yes Lou, I too learned to read quite a few years ago. I know that the figure quoted is defined as the speed of transition, what he does not specify is how he came up with the particular value. Having an EE background he would have sufficient ability at maths to reverse engineer plancks constant to get a value of 1.097MHz m. What is not evident, or apparent from Mr Znidarsic or any of his acolytes is confirmation of how (or even if) this speed of transition was measured, and until there is confirmed independent reproduction of the actual measurement the numbers produced by Mr Znidarsic owe more to numerology than mathematics.

since you like math, I think this explains it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNSwZoFxnoA

And for you bench skeptics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ruFNzr7kk

Last edited by Lou on 31-Dec-2011 at 05:50 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

since you like math, I think this explains it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNSwZoFxnoA

Lou, since I have seen through the shell and pea game, simply switching to the three card trick will not convince me that magic exists.
There is still no evidence that anybody actually carried out the required measurements to produce the numbers that so conveniently appear at the relevant point in the "explanation".As things are the only explanation I can find for the values used is "We use the figure quoted because that is the number that makes it work" Once there is a full description of how the experiment is carried out, other scientists will be able to confirm and reproduce the results, and engineers will be able to build flying cars, Mr fusion reactors, flux capacitors ZPM's etc.

I will still refuse to wear a tinfoil suit though, or skin tight spandex.

When I can buy stuff that uses Mr Znidarsics cold fusion powered anti-gravity zero point energy technobabble I will freely admit I was wrong, but since all of his ideas require belief in pulling rabbits out of hats and getting something for nothing, excuse me if I don't hold my breath in the meantime.

Quote:

And for you bench skeptics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ruFNzr7kk

If hearing somebody make an unsubstantiated claim fails to convince me, why should hearing his acolyte repeat the same unsubstantiated claim convince me?
The main posters comment sums up the argument as follows

IF this is true it will solve all of our problems for us.
We want somebody to solve all of our problems for us and make everything nice and happy. Therefore this must be true
After all the consequences would be just too terrible to contemplate if it weren't true. Therefore this is true.

Edit endquote error on first quote

Last edited by Nimrod on 31-Dec-2011 at 07:12 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 31-Dec-2011 at 06:59 PM.

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

@Nimrod

I think your failing to see that he simply put a formula to quantam mechanics that works where as previously it was just: at quantum state x we have energy y. And during these quantum changes the forces 'align' to make it possible. There is no shell game, just a relevation that now links quantum mechanics as a subset of relativity. Its an egg that will spout a chicken someday. It was done treating something like a wave...because in the end everything is a wave despite the convenience of treating things as particles at times.

But you are simply in denial about how he found the original number of the speed of transition: by studying real phenomenon - antigravity and cold fusion. In the end, it doesn't matter how he found the number, only that it works.

You loving the math should be suitably impressed that you have now witnessed real science, the likes of which not seen since the early part of the 19th century, in your lifetime.

Last edited by Lou on 31-Dec-2011 at 08:34 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

In the end, it doesn't matter how he found the number, only that it works.

This is possibly the most ridiculous statement that you could possibly make. The only way this statement can ever have any validity is when I no longer drive my car on the left hand side of the road but somewhere above it in my Mr fusion powered DeLorean.
Where he gets the number is at present key to whether his formula works or not.
If I were to use his methodology to "prove" an idea, I could prove that Plancks constant=42, and here's how.
First I set in my mind the idea that Douglas Adams has the answer to the eternal question of life, the universe and everything...then I reverse engineer the answer (42) through a series of mathematical transformations until I get the figure of 88mph.
I then tell you that when the DeLorean reaches 88mph all sorts of wonderful things will happen, and I demonstrate the "proof" through a series of equations that I quickly flash past your eyes. As long as I do not let a real mathematician go through the figures at a careful pace, and talk quickly to hurry people along I can "prove" almost anything. You see stage show magicians do it all the time, except that they are at least entertaining.

These "equations" are related to Mathematics in about the same way astrology is related to Astronomy. (My sincerest apologies to any Astronomers reading this for mentioning your scientific discipline in the same sentence as the claptrap spouted in horoscopes.)

Quote:

You loving the math should be suitably impressed that you have now witnessed real science, the likes of which not seen since the early part of the 19th century, in your lifetime.

Curiously enough most of the mathematics responsible for the development of the computer that I am using to post this, was done by the likes of George Boole, Augustus De Morgan, and William Rowan Hamilton, all of whom lived and died in the nineteenth century, long before the invention of the desktop computer.
These gentlemen were mathematicians. I am an engineer who uses mathematics as one of many tools available to me. Znidarsic is also an engineer, one who seems to be attempting some form of numerological sleight of hand.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: In the end, it doesn't matter how he found the number, only that it works. This is possibly the most ridiculous statement that you could possibly make. The only way this statement can ever have any validity is when I no longer drive my car on the left hand side of the road but somewhere above it in my Mr fusion powered DeLorean. Where he gets the number is at present key to whether his formula works or not. If I were to use his methodology to "prove" an idea, I could prove that Plancks constant=42, and here's how.

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

The # in question was observed during experiments with anti-gravity, done by NASA, and cold fusion by another scientist. If you watched the 2nd video where he is interviewed, you would have known that.

His paper has been submitted for publication, which I told you about months ago.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092

He's also getting more recognition elsewhere:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_Z_theory_of_everything.php
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Review:_Anti-Gravity_/_Cold_Fusion_Explained_In_Detail:_A_New_Era_in_Physics
...

So it seems you are simply here to live in denial...or troll...