General

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

AJ — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:12:09 GMT

Undefined terms make idiots of us all.

This is why modern physics is a total sham.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

thelion — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:38:06 GMT

The alternative hypothesis is that curvature of space-time and conservation of energy causes inertia. See my post above regarding the best verbal description of how.

Curvature has actually been measured and is already part of every geometry (sometimes it simply 1, in which case it is ignored, or a constant, which gives the two simplest non-euclidean geometries). If the curvature is a function of the position in a smooth differential manifold (space-time), which gives a tensor as output, then you get non-euclidean general relativity. This argument goes W. Clifford 1876 -> K. Pearson (his book of essay) -> A. Einstein 1916, 1922, if you want to look up the references.

By number of independent hypotheses required, general relativity is a better theory with more explanatory power, because it doesn't require any supplementary hypothesis, whereas your theory requires 1 supplementary hypothesis.

It's too bad that Pearson (who mostly communicated Cliffords other unpublished lectures on curvature and intertia) and Einstein were frightful socialists, who lost their brains whenever they argued about economics. Clifford on the other hand wrote a very Mises-like (Theory and History) essay against "empirical" economics and social science, arguing that controlled experiments in social science are not possible, against the German Historical school.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

Anenome — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 03:31:33 GMT

Similarly, photons can't drop below c, so they gain and lose energy by changing frequency.

Thus moving a piece of matter, which is energy fluctuating in contained space, producers inertia because essentialy the energy contained in matter is moving virtually in all directions simultaneously because of how quickly it's fluctuating in that incredibly small confined area, where it's likely spinning in place as it fluctuates at nearly the speed of light. So it's near always moving in every direction.

So, any attempt to move it threatens to move it faster than the speed of light, even by a small amount. Inertia is the resistance you feel by moving matter and thus grinding it against the speed of light, and the resistance is probably produced by the photons catching onto spacetime itself, the resistance between the two producing high frequencies of fluctuation in that matter-energy as a result of pushing against that inertia.

Conservation of energy is why inertia exists. The light in matter cannot gain in frequency without that energy gain coming from somewhere. So it comes from matter resisting your attempt to change its vector.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

Malachi — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 01:06:12 GMT

I c.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

shackleford — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:53:12 GMT

Malachi:
thelion:

Um, conservation of energy is not an experimental fact. It's a necessary law of nature, because every system eventually reduces to cause = effect. That is, whole effect is never greater than whole cause.

Even Leibniz's famous example, a match in the gunpower-room is not the whole cause, but the potential energy of the gunpower must be considered, and then, the explosion is no more energetic than the energy already in the room.

That is precisely how Leibniz's dynamics presented conservation of energy, and Mayer "confirmed" it when he said the same thing (including E = M C ^ 2) and found the mechanical equivalent of heat, which nobody earlier knew what it was.

It just means that you cannot get more than you started with, no matter what system you have.

[....]
I see that this is a reply to me. I hope that I didnt somehow mislead you into thinking that I reject conservation of energy, because I dont. Otherwise I dont see a reason to reply.

It's probably directed towards Wibee. If photons have mass, then it would require infinte energy to acclerate them to speed c.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

Malachi — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 23:08:59 GMT

thelion:
Um, conservation of energy is not an experimental fact. It's a necessary law of nature, because every system eventually reduces to cause = effect. That is, whole effect is never greater than whole cause.

Even Leibniz's famous example, a match in the gunpower-room is not the whole cause, but the potential energy of the gunpower must be considered, and then, the explosion is no more energetic than the energy already in the room.

That is precisely how Leibniz's dynamics presented conservation of energy, and Mayer "confirmed" it when he said the same thing (including E = M C ^ 2) and found the mechanical equivalent of heat, which nobody earlier knew what it was.

It just means that you cannot get more than you started with, no matter what system you have.
[....]

I see that this is a reply to me. I hope that I didnt somehow mislead you into thinking that I reject conservation of energy, because I dont. Otherwise I dont see a reason to reply.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

thelion — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 05:12:21 GMT

Black holes, by their mass, curve space-time, changing the curvature tensor. As does any massive object, although how that happens is still studied.

Light is not sucked in. Black holes do not themselves apply any force on light waves. Newtonian law of graviational attractive force between two points as function of mass and distance. Light has no mass in fact, and black holes cannot interact with it according to Newtonian gravity. Because light converges to black holes does not imply that light has mass. Rather Newtonian gravity is not strictly true, but merely an approximation.

In reality, because of different curvature, which is a set of coefficients, as function of location in space, by which the components of all vectors as they would appear in flat space-time are multiplied, respectively, geodesics converge, resulting in light cones not being able to converge anywhere in the future except the black hole once light waves approach near enough to it to a place in space-time where curvature is sufficiently great.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

shackleford — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 04:53:29 GMT

Wibee:

Blackholes can bend/ suck in light. Therefore, light has mass or the black hole is affect light in other ways.

Special relativity shows that the photon is massless.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

Wibee — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 03:46:59 GMT

Blackholes can bend/ suck in light. Therefore, light has mass or the black hole is affect light in other ways.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

shackleford — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 03:26:33 GMT

Anenome:

shackleford:

The photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.

c may be different in each medium, but that doesn't change anything.

I was merely correcting your original statement. It's too general. That's why I said a photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.

We know matter is made of energy, energy must always be moving at the speed of light, clearly it's doing this in place as matter. All quite basic so far.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

thelion — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 03:01:49 GMT

Um, conservation of energy is not an experimental fact. It's a necessary law of nature, because every system eventually reduces to cause = effect. That is, whole effect is never greater than whole cause.

Even Leibniz's famous example, a match in the gunpower-room is not the whole cause, but the potential energy of the gunpower must be considered, and then, the explosion is no more energetic than the energy already in the room.

That is precisely how Leibniz's dynamics presented conservation of energy, and Mayer "confirmed" it when he said the same thing (including E = M C ^ 2) and found the mechanical equivalent of heat, which nobody earlier knew what it was.

It just means that you cannot get more than you started with, no matter what system you have.

In other words, if mathematics is true about the real workd, then nothing produce more energy than it started with when a closed system. One cannot do more work than work in the system.

Gravity is not energy, although gravitional waves do tranmit energy. It is curvature of space-time. Inertia is most vaguely this:

Take a tube. Then bend it. Take a straight wire (a geodesic with mass or energy) and push it into the tube. It will encounter resistence and force is required to bend it. The curvature tensor changes the energy relations of the system in it, and gravitational waves move energy around from one system into another.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

abskebabs — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 02:46:48 GMT

You mean like Eugene Podkletnov?

Cool story: Quirino Majorana who did the original gravity shielding experiments was the uncle of the genius theoretical physicist Ettiore Marjorana (one of Enrico Fermi's "Via Panismera" boys) and corresponded with him.

Marjorana disappeared mysteriosuly in March 1938 and his fate remains unexplained. Did he know too much? Did he already know neutrinos were fermions that were their own antiparticles? The Italian government seems tohave strongly suspected he surfaced in Buenos Aires in 1955! :P

Does this have anything to do with his work on neutrino masses as well as investigating his uncle's hyppothesis?... According to Wikipedia:

Majorana did prescient theoretical work on neutrino masses, a currently active subject of research. He also worked on an idea that mass may exert a small shielding effect on gravitational waves, which did not gain much traction.

Incidentally failure to predict neutrino mass is one of the well known flaws of the Standard Model.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

Malachi — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 02:12:12 GMT

And if he says anything other than that they create ion wind he's blowing smoke.

Its great that youre willing to dismiss a book you havent read because it contradicts your worldview.

Wouldn't matter if it made the news or not, because if such a device did exist, there would be a precipitous and suspicious oversupply of energy.

which wouldnt come to the attention of anyone, particularly not the u.s. Department of energy.

Meaning the inventor could very quickly make billions of dollar by starting an energy company and building ad infinitum.

assuming the energy industry was unregulated. Nay, the very act of starting a company is regulated. Its very easy to talk about starting a company and building and infinite number of devices and making billions but the reality is a bit different.

The fact that this hasn't been done is large inductive evidence that it's not possible, besides all the other laws of physics it would violate. Extraordinary claim .:. proof.

Thats not very good evidence, as for thousands of years it could have been applied to commercial airflight.

How did Ford get cars off the ground without the horse industry shutting him down.

we there was plenty of inductive evidence against him for several centuries but look now, they didnt even take a bailout.

Talk about it all you want, but demonstrate something one of these days.

You mean like Eugene Podkletnov?

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

Anenome — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:41:28 GMT

shackleford:

The photon moves at speed c in a vacuum.

c may be different in each medium, but that doesn't change anything.

Re: WTF Chemistry/Physics - LIGHT

Anenome — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:40:19 GMT

Malachi:
The supposedly electrogravitic effects are just devices that use ion-produced wind to produce thrust--being passed off as something else.
it might interest you to know that Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion addresses the topic of ion wind.

And if he says anything other than that they create ion wind he's blowing smoke.

Malachi:
And no overunity device (meaning perpetual motion machine) has -ever- been shown to exist, that would be news of the century.
Yes everyone knows that anything important makes the news.

Wouldn't matter if it made the news or not, because if such a device did exist, there would be a precipitous and suspicious oversupply of energy. Meaning the inventor could very quickly make billions of dollar by starting an energy company and building ad infinitum. He'd be king of the universe in no time, a power source with no inputs? Make Bill Gates's fortune look like a sneeze in comparison.

The fact that this hasn't been done is large inductive evidence that it's not possible, besides all the other laws of physics it would violate. Extraordinary claim .:. proof.

Malachi:
Life without government, that would be the news of the century. Someone who managed to publicize an overunity machine without being shut down by the energy oligopsony would be the news of the century.

How did Ford get cars off the ground without the horse industry shutting him down.

Malachi:
its funny, because this belief that entropy is a one-way street is something of an axiom of faith among those who consider themselves educated. Youre not even allowed to talk about violating it without being dismissed outright. Overunity (meaning machines that produce more than they consume) is an observable fact of nature but to talk about somehow harnessing it is blasphemy.

Talk about it all you want, but demonstrate something one of these days.