So how does this relate to current quantum mechanics research? Check out this article: search: "Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics"
@DarkKnightBob1o1 the standing wave is gravity. its the pattern between them we call matter. ther is no such thing as anti gravity in a sense of cancel gravity. anti-gravity is just a standing wave inside another standing wave.
How are electromagnetic waves formed for that matter? beats me, but electromagnetic waves exist. While I do not buy the standing wave explanation of gravity, I do think that the old "ether" we gave up with Michelson Morley's experiment has now been replaced by a new ether, which is the covariant electromagnetic four potential field. It is in this field that standing waves (and electromagnetic waves for that matter) can exist. We now know there is a place for waves like that to exist.
Over many years we have all been lied to by our Govts. Not just our Govts but by Religous Leaders. We have been taught things that are not in Scripture & many have swallowed many lies by these false prophets. If you are a truth seeker please visit the web site which is displayed in our user name & take the time to read some of the articles.You will be shocked. THERE IS A GREAT AUDIO FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO. You WILL COME AWAY ASKING MANY QUESTIONS. REAL SHOCKING.
I solved the mystery of three six and nine, The dates are September in 1899, When Nikola Tesla made the land, Wave like the sea. Yakutat Bay Earthquakes from Pike's Peak YOU NOW SEE. -CMS If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe. — Nikola Tesla
Okay so if I understand this physical analogy correctly, he is saying that the fluid of coca-cola would be the space/time fabric, that those little balls would be celestial objects, and that the vibration generated would be gravitic waves... So the question I have would be is what, in our universe, does the speaker represent?
nobody knows "the frequency" for good reason: because it depends on the size and shape of the "coke bottle". Gravity is a standing wave in any medium, you actually have to resonate the bottle on it's special frequency, so that the waves from the centre amplify with themselves when they bouce off the wall and reach the centre again.
Can you explain how you replicated this? I tried with a Coke bottle slowly sweeping a sine wave from 20Hz to 200Hz, and nothing happened. I placed the speaker on the side of the bottle, maybe it has to be on the bottom?
imo, an easy way to do it is; jump on a software synthesizer like that of Maelstrom from Reason, (can dl many free or illegal ones). Set a loop, use sine wave (or square, or both), set your loop, and simply play with the pitch of the note until you find the right freq.
sacha4you , acoustic waves can also change a objects mass or split every atom thus become something out of the normal. this is 1 way to lift big stuff into the air !
Acoustic waves have still nothing to do with antigravity. You can lift objects in a acoustical resonant cavity by using constructive inteference of pressure waves to
counter gravity. However, you need a cavity and a medium. Aircrafts and rockets work without cavities. Antigravity is creation of a gravitational vetor that cancels out gravity of a mass or even repells from it without using accumulated mass. ;-))
Vibration can produce many strange effects, but this stunt proves nothing about gravity. The demonstrator is a pseudoscientist, and would be unable to 'cut it' among real scientists - who ask awkward questions. How, for instance, would he explain the absence of gravitational shielding by intermediate masses, and how would he explain the gravitational retardation of clocks. Pseudoscience only 'fits where it touches'; like a cheap suit.
It is a big problem, and the internet is generally making it worse. Look at the John Searl Youtube-clips: he is like a modern Otis T.Carr; getting supposedly cleverer people to believe in, and even invest in, his anti-gravity cum perpetual-motion machine.
Searl belong to the infamous group of perpetuum mobile (aka free energy, aka overunity device) scammers. The more scammers come up the more people belive, there ist something. However people could protect themselves by a better scientific education, or, at least listen to engineers and physicists, who offer real, tangible and feasable solutions. It makes me sad to see, that nobody is interested in true breakthrough technologies. (Since it's my profession I can tell what's the real stuff) ;-))
I agree about the consulting of physicists (I am, of course, biased). I am not so sure about engineers (especially electrical ones), as they often delude themselves (recall Eric Laithwaite and gyroscopes) and thereby mislead/confuse the general public.
'Electrical engineer' is indeed a title not protected by a law. (Everyone can call itself so) However, if an electrical engineer graduated at a known university and
is member of an acepted engineering organisation (e.g. I'am full member of triple-w (dot) ieee (dot) org), you can be pretty shure, an engineer got a correct scientific/technical education. Of course, there are charlatans in the academic world too. However there is a very good credibility filter: Check out other opinions! ;-))
I have not done a careful statistical study, but there does seem to be a pattern: Professor Laithwaite (electrical engineer), Dr H.A.Aspden (ee) another gyroscope crackpot [who co-patented an 'over-unity' electric motor with a New Zealander who, I believe, was once head of the NZ branch of IEEE(!)], Thomas Valone and many others. I know of a few crank physicists and mechanical engineers; but nowhere near as many as the electrical engineers. They all support each other, so how is one to check?
Possibly electrical engineers show a statistical siginificance of being more suscebtible for crackpot theories. I can't tell you. If it's so, the guys should shame. However what I can tell you is, whenever a really working theory or technology was found in the past, real applications were built around them and you had a broad scientific discussion around - even if a theory was disputet or not fully accecpted. This happened to relativity, as it happens today
2. Such an indication can be used by everybody as a credibility filter to find out, if sth. is on a claim - or not.
If you google a term and you run into many different (!) scientific reports and papers, then there may be a bingo; but if you see only the very same minded UFOlogy-, consipiracy-, secrecy-, free energy-
sites or blogs appearing, you should consider to put a fat question-mark behind a subject.
The better way instead of doing statistical analysis, since physics is exact science!
3. However the best protection against scientific frauds is a scientific education.
E.g. if you experienced, that our universe never came into existence if a perpetuum mobile existed (conservation of energy/momentum) and knew about Newton's laws,
you could debunk every 'free energy device' claim easily - even if a 'new magic force' are abused terms like ZPE were claimed being involved.
I cannot disagree with any of that. The problem, as I see it, is that those who ultimately control scientific funding are not scientists. It is much easier for them to get sucked into the nonsense on Youtube than for them to wade through textbooks. Look at how much NASA wasted on trying to reproduce the so-called Podkletnov effect. Although the experiment was first reported in a physics journal, physicists themselves quickly ignored it. NASA should have studied ceramic tiles more instead.
I don't see a problem. As you stated correctly, experimental reproduction IS the correct way to verify a claim. Nobody could reproduce Podkletnov's experiment; hence the thing is considered as a fraud. However Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion is reproducable. We know, the problem was buried in a special experimental setup, the authors were not aware of. R&D project managers may take a little more time to verify a claim, but the
Well, a lot of people do not even know what an experiment IS. They have vague memories of 'school experiments', but the latter are NEVER experiments: they are mere demonstrations. Physicists are very suspicious of successful experiments, whereas engineers and laymen tend to stop thinking at that point and reach for their wallets. To assume that a successful experiment proves a theory is contrary to the fundamental rules of logic.
flowerbower, you risk to make me unrelaxed. Physicists and engineers have the very same basic education, hence both species know exactly how to conduct an experiment, what a
proof is and why exact methodolody is inevitable. You talk about charlatanerie, that
exist within all demographic and professional
structures. You can't sentence a particular profession where 100'000's of people do a good
Don't worry; I have that effect on everyone. I do not agree that physicists and engineers have the same education, past first-degree level. Physicists are trained to look for new fundamental phenomena, engineers are trained to develop what is already known. They might, for instance, experiment in order to find the optimum strength/weight ratio structure for a wing; they will not be concerned with what governs that strength in the first place.
I'm NOT talking about professional education, I talk about BASIC education, where el. eng.
and phys. students sitting in the very same auditorium. Possibly, you have differences in the educational system in your country.
However, your statement is inaccurate. A physicist finds new fundamental knowledge, while the engineers combines this knowledge and develops useeful and useable technology.
You can be pretty shure an engineer knows, what governs the strength of a plane wing.
"You can be pretty shure an engineer knows, what governs the strength of a plane wing".
Not in my experience. The engineer thinks that knowing the tensile limit, fatigue strength, the creep rate and the Young's modulus is enough. The engineer's tendency not to look for the unexpected led to the loss of many 'liberty ships' during WWII and to the Comet crashes soon after WWII.
No incident: I originally trained as an engineer, saw how they operated (i.e. superficially), didn't like it, and decided to find out what was really going on.
Making mistakes is one thing; refusing to accept correction is quite another.
You have to understand that I am always talking about cutting-edge research here. I agree that most of what both engineers and physicists do is pretty mundane and is done adequately in both cases. I still contend that physicists are better prepared to detect unexpected causes of an observed result and are less inclined to jump to hasty conclusions. Electrical engineers seem to be particularly badly prepared. They use the same terms (electrons, waves, radiation, etc.) as do physicists, but ...
flowerbower, I think, you've comitted a logical short curcuit here. People from both professions have to obey the very same physical laws. No matters, if somebody does
new or older things. As an engineer has to expect the unexpected if he want to avoid the surprise, that e.g. a combination of two 'known' principles may show up new side-effect, the physicist has to verify, that
an alleged new effect is not a result of known
phenomena. The general claim of 'hasty conclusions' is ridiculous.
Well, that is fine if the engineer really does immediately hand it over to the physicist for closer examination. Unfortunately, a failure to do this (and to rush to contact journalists instead) has led to major wastages of time (Podkletnov effect, cold-fusion, polywater). I agree that one can be too 'fundamental': stress-corrosion-cracking would never be detected by studying corrosion and stress separately. Together, the unexpected synergy is devastating.
There is no such procedure to 'hand something over'. Science has nothing to do with ceremonies or protocols. Either you know exactly what you are doing, or you ask somebody how knows it. You can even go shure,
if you ask for a second opionion, but careful
work is within your own responsability. Neither Podkletnov, nor F&P did a good job with their prematured publications, but numerous other scientists DO good jobs. However charlatans fool people deliberatly.
I was using the expression metaphorically. If only there WAS such a formal hand-over process, a lot of mistakes could be avoided. I know of a case where a puzzling observation in physiology has gone unexplained for 40 years. Meanwhile, physicists have had the explanation 'to hand' for all of that time. Indeed, the basic explanation was mentioned by Aristotle!
But science IS 'supervised by inquisitors'; the only difference is that - nowadays - the inquisitors are other scientists. I should know, I am part of the process. Some people seem to have the idea that, when a new result is reported, it immediately becomes part of the scientific 'cannon'. All results should be treated with suspicion until convincingly replicated, again and again. Any other approach would be silly and would take us back to pre-Bacon times.
prescriptions, what a scientist has to publish. What we have is a mechanism called peer review that helps to find disputable claims verify results. A so called standard model creates a bottom line to minimize ingestion of wrong theories into that what we call accepted knowledge. Since validation of new theories takes time, there is an accepted delay until inclusion into standard model.
The scientific method is fine, in theory. But depending on the discipline - how much fudging or just-so story telling can get by in certain fields - the peer review does break down when real life steps in. Paradigms are a way for scientists to work under a common model or set of assumptions, and many times this leads to great strides and progress. But it's a double edged sword, and a prevalent paradigm can serve to stifle hypotheses or facts which don't meet the expectations of the group.
Poopookachew1, your args may be correct, if such a thing like paradigm existed. (I think, you wanted rather to mention dogmatism) A new theory do not replace an older, but extend it's applicable realm . E.g. it took more than
20 years to fully validate SR/GR. Today, we know, that even relativity is incomplete in the microscopic scale, since it can't explain e.g. QM, nor multidim. effects. Today, we have excellent multidim. QM candidates, but it takes time to validate them. (ff)
(ff) ... Validation process of a new theory (including peer review of publications) resembles indeed a cruel and inquisitory process. This process makes science rock solid und minimizes the chance of jumping on completly wrong theories. However, peer review do not prevent new things. E.g. I work practically with EHT (Ext. Heim Theory, a not validated multidim. QM theory). Although there is an overwhelming experimental support, I have to be very careful, because many claims are unverified yet.
you sound like your in the right profession to answer this question. Is the speed of light constant or does it vary. seeing as you mentioned how careful we need to be with new theories I'd love to know the answer to that one sngle question
planexzeropoint, speed of light in vacuum c=3E8m/s is the best investigated natural constant in the history of physics. And it is constant. Uneducated people misrepresent the fact as 'variation', c in a medium with a refractive index N above 1 is decreased by N (E.g. N-glass=1.5) and is effected by relativistic- and non-relativisic lenght contraction. I can assert you, we ARE very cautios and validate everything, before a new theory is accepted. Real science isn't bad-science.
[continued] not with the same understanding. The electrical engineer's understanding of simple electrical circuits, for instance, barely rises above that of the schoolboy's. If one tries to tell them that static charges must exist at bends in circuits, or that the energy sweeps across the space between the wires rather than flowing through them, it is the physicist who gets treated as a crackpot for presenting the correct theory! The wrong theory leads to many apparent paradoxes.
flowerbower, I think we should stop that discussion here. It seems, your understanding about the profession of a graduated engineer is that, we call a technician in our country.
Swiss engineers not only solder together electronic circuits, they have to understand e.g. a semiconductor down to all quantum effects - even better, then most physicists ever have to do.
Je suis heureux que vous mainteniez les normes en Suisse. J'enseignais là au niveau universitaire pendant beaucoup d'années. En français, évidemment!
Ich bin erfreut, daß Sie die Standards oben in der Schweiz halten. Ich unterrichtete dort auf dem Universitätsniveau für viele Jahre. Auf französisch offenbar!
I strongly disagree that cold-fusion is reproducible. A trickle of papers still appears in bona fide scientific journals, but the effects are now at the limits of experimental detection. When the story began, the effects were claimed to be spectacularly clear. Metal-hydrogen systems are very complex and have been studied since Victorian times because of the industrial problems caused by so-called hydrogen-embrittlement.
effect (D in Pd) is real, since neutrons could be detected, by multiple sources, ii) the effect is reproducable, but needs very careful experimental preparation iii) CF seems to rely on a nuclear quantum tunneling effect; hence yield is too poor to make big prower plants from it.
Google for CF, you'll find MANY scientific papers abaout all details. However, today we
have much better perspectives on fusion: Semi-cold fusion.
Google for +Sandia +"Linear transformer driver". You'll run into papers from SNL about a hiah yield z-pinch pulse plasma reator
that really gives off net power. The mechnism
was verified from U.K. ZETA facility. In a nutshell: Probably governed by a multidim. quantum process, you will get with ridiculous low discharge energy from a 30kK hi-Z-metal-plasma (Fe) a 3E9K plasma, that can burn rather all fusable fuels, and, fully scalable, and outperforms even future tokamaks. Today. ;-))
There seems to be another misunderstanding here. I am not questioning hot-fusion (Tokamaks, etc.), although Zeta WAS a notorious fiasco. I am deriding only the P&F work, and similar 'power-from-electrolysis' schemes (scams). No reputable scientist or journal even calls it cold-fusion anymore; there are instead only papers on 'slight anomalies', and guarded references to the original P&F paper.
Sandia corrected, what ZETA did indead notoriously wrong, since they denied for long times a paradigma (=theory) change. The underlying plasma superheating effect can only be explained with an officially incomplete multidim. quantum theory called EHT. However, I think you are rather hasty with your conclusions. We know, there are low energy plasma dissociation processes (e.g. HHO, COHO) that indeed beat Farady's law of electrolysis and consumes energy from nuclear magnetic moments M.
I do not believe that there is any cold-fusion effect at all. I think that it was all a social 'band-wagon' effect which caused all sorts of people to abandon proper scientific caution. I think that the anomalous effects (including radiation) are probably caused by microfracture-related phenomena. Sure, these are quantum effects, but only in the same sense that 'everything' is a quantum effect.
Nope. Nothing to do with belief. If you can detect properly moderated neutrons in correct quantities and the reaction product, you HAVE a proof for a particular type of nuclear reaction. This is a proven fact. Nobody ever abandonned scientific caution, since replication experiments were conducted. Please
don't try to speculate. Read point i)...iv) what I've written. You can verify that by Google.
N.B. One cannot verify anything by Googling. Google is only an index. One has to read the original papers, and evaluate them. Even Google Scholar does not seem to be compiled by scientists; the sources which it lists are often of the crackpot variety. GS should list only reputable journals.
The funny thing is that some experts, who had been saying for decades that H-embrittlement was caused by H atoms forcing metal lattices apart, suddenly 'changed their tune' (after P&F) and began to theorize that the metal lattice forced H atoms together and made them fuse. So, which theory had been incompetently formulated? What critical experiment had they failed to perform during all of those years? Which results had they pre-judged?
flowerbower, everybody can build a theory. It will even be accepted, if it can be validated by experiments, does not contradict already made observations and is mathematically correct. E.g. today, we have near as many multidim. quantum theories, as theoretical physicists exists. CERN has started a validation process for that, when LHC (large hadron collider) will take off in the end of this year.
That was my point: there was a H-embrittlement theory which explained the experimental facts. So how could it be so easily thrown out on the basis of a few dubious results that were never fully replicated? Cold-fusion is obeying perfectly Langmuir's Rule for a pseudoscience. The Hadron Collider: is that the one which recently had a catastrophic accident because someone had made an elementary mistake in his calculations?
Flowerbower, it seems, you have rather misunderstood what science is. It's neighter forbidden to have experimental results without a theory, nor to propose different theories on a topic. Pseudoscience can be taken into account in the moment, one claims
acknowledged wrong theories or experimantal results as beeing true. E.g. for alleged CF we have not less than 25 theories (!) H-embrillement is one among them; but this can't explain soft X-rays and neutrons.
I doubt that: apart from journal-editing being one of my jobs, my favourite 'relaxation' is studying the 'philosophy of experimentation' and the history of science.
I thought that I had mentioned before that all sorts of radiation phenomena accompany fracture, and H-embrittlement involves fracture.
In my experience, the usual cause of anomalous results is not an anomaly, but experimental carelessness (or ignorance of some known effect which is outside of the experimenter's knowledge).
flowerbower, It's your energy, you spend to turn science into philosophy - or, I guess rather, into theology. However with your final conclusion about CF, I respectfully disagree. The crystal-entropy argument is well known, but unproven yet. Since no real machine (neither natural nor human made) is perfect, all possible side effects must be taken into account and experimentally verified before a final conclusion can be drwan on very week effect systems. Read the papers a sent you.
2. ...The same pseudoscience claim may hit Sandia even harder. They use a plasma compression technique (not inertial confinement) that fit only in EHT today. The magnet problem at CERN's LHC occured, since FermiLab pysicists played being engineers and was not aware of dynamic force effects. (However, there was no 'accident')
So how does this relate to current quantum mechanics research? Check out this article: search: "Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics"
ltsguitar 1 year ago
This guy is poorly deluded.
This is standing waves.NOT anti-gravity. sigh.I should have known better than to trust this.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@DarkKnightBob1o1 the standing wave is gravity. its the pattern between them we call matter. ther is no such thing as anti gravity in a sense of cancel gravity. anti-gravity is just a standing wave inside another standing wave.
coldarc 7 months ago
And Michelson and Morley say there is no dark matter... How are the standing waves formed then?!
InfiniteCraziness 1 year ago
How are electromagnetic waves formed for that matter? beats me, but electromagnetic waves exist. While I do not buy the standing wave explanation of gravity, I do think that the old "ether" we gave up with Michelson Morley's experiment has now been replaced by a new ether, which is the covariant electromagnetic four potential field. It is in this field that standing waves (and electromagnetic waves for that matter) can exist. We now know there is a place for waves like that to exist.
purplenoise2002 1 year ago
Over many years we have all been lied to by our Govts. Not just our Govts but by Religous Leaders. We have been taught things that are not in Scripture & many have swallowed many lies by these false prophets. If you are a truth seeker please visit the web site which is displayed in our user name & take the time to read some of the articles.You will be shocked. THERE IS A GREAT AUDIO FOR YOU TO LISTEN TO. You WILL COME AWAY ASKING MANY QUESTIONS. REAL SHOCKING.
Blessings as you seek truth
2besavedcom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
insightllc 2 years ago
So can something be made to levitate in air alone?
rplende 2 years ago
Okay so if I understand this physical analogy correctly, he is saying that the fluid of coca-cola would be the space/time fabric, that those little balls would be celestial objects, and that the vibration generated would be gravitic waves... So the question I have would be is what, in our universe, does the speaker represent?
GearzVoNKod3 2 years ago
@GearzVoNKod3 the energy produced by a star?
1famekouby 1 year ago
nobody knows "the frequency" for good reason: because it depends on the size and shape of the "coke bottle". Gravity is a standing wave in any medium, you actually have to resonate the bottle on it's special frequency, so that the waves from the centre amplify with themselves when they bouce off the wall and reach the centre again.
MaZe741 3 years ago 3
What machine does he use?
Hansolo60 3 years ago
I never knew coke was so much fun : /
s3ansk1 3 years ago
thats like macro size vapor pressure
SlavaVB 3 years ago
I just tried this experiment and my ball popped up in the middle!
JammerJawz 3 years ago
Can you explain how you replicated this? I tried with a Coke bottle slowly sweeping a sine wave from 20Hz to 200Hz, and nothing happened. I placed the speaker on the side of the bottle, maybe it has to be on the bottom?
prosper4all 3 years ago
I used two seperate frequencies but I did not have a display working so I do not know what the frequencies were.
JammerJawz 3 years ago
imo, an easy way to do it is; jump on a software synthesizer like that of Maelstrom from Reason, (can dl many free or illegal ones). Set a loop, use sine wave (or square, or both), set your loop, and simply play with the pitch of the note until you find the right freq.
Cataclysm31 3 years ago
The spin explanation sounds ok to me. Thanks for the demo.
A humble engineer.
AndrewKFletcher 3 years ago
Nothing to do with antigravity. The guy showed a speaker exitating surface acoustic
waves on a liquid.
sacha4you 3 years ago
sacha4you , acoustic waves can also change a objects mass or split every atom thus become something out of the normal. this is 1 way to lift big stuff into the air !
msdnvp 3 years ago
Acoustic waves have still nothing to do with antigravity. You can lift objects in a acoustical resonant cavity by using constructive inteference of pressure waves to
counter gravity. However, you need a cavity and a medium. Aircrafts and rockets work without cavities. Antigravity is creation of a gravitational vetor that cancels out gravity of a mass or even repells from it without using accumulated mass. ;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
This is fake. FAKE! FAKE! FAKE!
toastyovens 4 years ago
Vibration can produce many strange effects, but this stunt proves nothing about gravity. The demonstrator is a pseudoscientist, and would be unable to 'cut it' among real scientists - who ask awkward questions. How, for instance, would he explain the absence of gravitational shielding by intermediate masses, and how would he explain the gravitational retardation of clocks. Pseudoscience only 'fits where it touches'; like a cheap suit.
flowerbower 4 years ago
I agree completly. A guy of the calibre of Bob Lizard. However, the problem goes deeper.
People want rather to believe than to know.
E.g. Google for '+ARC +"Gravitomagnetic London Moment". This IS the real stuff. But there are equations in such papers - snake-oil
sellers can do it without. ;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
It is a big problem, and the internet is generally making it worse. Look at the John Searl Youtube-clips: he is like a modern Otis T.Carr; getting supposedly cleverer people to believe in, and even invest in, his anti-gravity cum perpetual-motion machine.
flowerbower 3 years ago
Searl belong to the infamous group of perpetuum mobile (aka free energy, aka overunity device) scammers. The more scammers come up the more people belive, there ist something. However people could protect themselves by a better scientific education, or, at least listen to engineers and physicists, who offer real, tangible and feasable solutions. It makes me sad to see, that nobody is interested in true breakthrough technologies. (Since it's my profession I can tell what's the real stuff) ;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
I agree about the consulting of physicists (I am, of course, biased). I am not so sure about engineers (especially electrical ones), as they often delude themselves (recall Eric Laithwaite and gyroscopes) and thereby mislead/confuse the general public.
flowerbower 3 years ago
'Electrical engineer' is indeed a title not protected by a law. (Everyone can call itself so) However, if an electrical engineer graduated at a known university and
is member of an acepted engineering organisation (e.g. I'am full member of triple-w (dot) ieee (dot) org), you can be pretty shure, an engineer got a correct scientific/technical education. Of course, there are charlatans in the academic world too. However there is a very good credibility filter: Check out other opinions! ;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
I have not done a careful statistical study, but there does seem to be a pattern: Professor Laithwaite (electrical engineer), Dr H.A.Aspden (ee) another gyroscope crackpot [who co-patented an 'over-unity' electric motor with a New Zealander who, I believe, was once head of the NZ branch of IEEE(!)], Thomas Valone and many others. I know of a few crank physicists and mechanical engineers; but nowhere near as many as the electrical engineers. They all support each other, so how is one to check?
flowerbower 3 years ago
Possibly electrical engineers show a statistical siginificance of being more suscebtible for crackpot theories. I can't tell you. If it's so, the guys should shame. However what I can tell you is, whenever a really working theory or technology was found in the past, real applications were built around them and you had a broad scientific discussion around - even if a theory was disputet or not fully accecpted. This happened to relativity, as it happens today
to multidim. quantum theories.
;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
2. Such an indication can be used by everybody as a credibility filter to find out, if sth. is on a claim - or not.
If you google a term and you run into many different (!) scientific reports and papers, then there may be a bingo; but if you see only the very same minded UFOlogy-, consipiracy-, secrecy-, free energy-
sites or blogs appearing, you should consider to put a fat question-mark behind a subject.
The better way instead of doing statistical analysis, since physics is exact science!
sacha4you 3 years ago
3. However the best protection against scientific frauds is a scientific education.
E.g. if you experienced, that our universe never came into existence if a perpetuum mobile existed (conservation of energy/momentum) and knew about Newton's laws,
you could debunk every 'free energy device' claim easily - even if a 'new magic force' are abused terms like ZPE were claimed being involved.
sacha4you 3 years ago
I cannot disagree with any of that. The problem, as I see it, is that those who ultimately control scientific funding are not scientists. It is much easier for them to get sucked into the nonsense on Youtube than for them to wade through textbooks. Look at how much NASA wasted on trying to reproduce the so-called Podkletnov effect. Although the experiment was first reported in a physics journal, physicists themselves quickly ignored it. NASA should have studied ceramic tiles more instead.
flowerbower 3 years ago
I don't see a problem. As you stated correctly, experimental reproduction IS the correct way to verify a claim. Nobody could reproduce Podkletnov's experiment; hence the thing is considered as a fraud. However Pons & Fleischmann's cold fusion is reproducable. We know, the problem was buried in a special experimental setup, the authors were not aware of. R&D project managers may take a little more time to verify a claim, but the
result will be the same (if they do a good job).
sacha4you 3 years ago
Well, a lot of people do not even know what an experiment IS. They have vague memories of 'school experiments', but the latter are NEVER experiments: they are mere demonstrations. Physicists are very suspicious of successful experiments, whereas engineers and laymen tend to stop thinking at that point and reach for their wallets. To assume that a successful experiment proves a theory is contrary to the fundamental rules of logic.
flowerbower 3 years ago
flowerbower, you risk to make me unrelaxed. Physicists and engineers have the very same basic education, hence both species know exactly how to conduct an experiment, what a
proof is and why exact methodolody is inevitable. You talk about charlatanerie, that
exist within all demographic and professional
structures. You can't sentence a particular profession where 100'000's of people do a good
job, because a couple of them are scammers.
sacha4you 3 years ago
Don't worry; I have that effect on everyone. I do not agree that physicists and engineers have the same education, past first-degree level. Physicists are trained to look for new fundamental phenomena, engineers are trained to develop what is already known. They might, for instance, experiment in order to find the optimum strength/weight ratio structure for a wing; they will not be concerned with what governs that strength in the first place.
flowerbower 3 years ago
I'm NOT talking about professional education, I talk about BASIC education, where el. eng.
and phys. students sitting in the very same auditorium. Possibly, you have differences in the educational system in your country.
However, your statement is inaccurate. A physicist finds new fundamental knowledge, while the engineers combines this knowledge and develops useeful and useable technology.
You can be pretty shure an engineer knows, what governs the strength of a plane wing.
sacha4you 3 years ago
"You can be pretty shure an engineer knows, what governs the strength of a plane wing".
Not in my experience. The engineer thinks that knowing the tensile limit, fatigue strength, the creep rate and the Young's modulus is enough. The engineer's tendency not to look for the unexpected led to the loss of many 'liberty ships' during WWII and to the Comet crashes soon after WWII.
flowerbower 3 years ago
Flowerbower, I don't know what dramatic incident took place in your brain, but your unfounded accusations against my profession
looks, like one started a discussion, if carpenters were better suited to educate children than mecanicians. Humans do mistakes
on their work, some of them are even charlatans, regardless if you have a teacher, a policeman, an engineer - or whatever you want.
sacha4you 3 years ago
No incident: I originally trained as an engineer, saw how they operated (i.e. superficially), didn't like it, and decided to find out what was really going on.
Making mistakes is one thing; refusing to accept correction is quite another.
flowerbower 3 years ago
flowerbower, I can't tell you, how such a 'training' should make an engineer. It scared me, if it was possible. I had
to take lectures from professors, succeed in exams, collect ECTS credits, perform practical works to finally graduate and get my diploma.
sacha4you 3 years ago
You have to understand that I am always talking about cutting-edge research here. I agree that most of what both engineers and physicists do is pretty mundane and is done adequately in both cases. I still contend that physicists are better prepared to detect unexpected causes of an observed result and are less inclined to jump to hasty conclusions. Electrical engineers seem to be particularly badly prepared. They use the same terms (electrons, waves, radiation, etc.) as do physicists, but ...
flowerbower 3 years ago
flowerbower, I think, you've comitted a logical short curcuit here. People from both professions have to obey the very same physical laws. No matters, if somebody does
new or older things. As an engineer has to expect the unexpected if he want to avoid the surprise, that e.g. a combination of two 'known' principles may show up new side-effect, the physicist has to verify, that
an alleged new effect is not a result of known
phenomena. The general claim of 'hasty conclusions' is ridiculous.
sacha4you 3 years ago
Well, that is fine if the engineer really does immediately hand it over to the physicist for closer examination. Unfortunately, a failure to do this (and to rush to contact journalists instead) has led to major wastages of time (Podkletnov effect, cold-fusion, polywater). I agree that one can be too 'fundamental': stress-corrosion-cracking would never be detected by studying corrosion and stress separately. Together, the unexpected synergy is devastating.
flowerbower 3 years ago
There is no such procedure to 'hand something over'. Science has nothing to do with ceremonies or protocols. Either you know exactly what you are doing, or you ask somebody how knows it. You can even go shure,
if you ask for a second opionion, but careful
work is within your own responsability. Neither Podkletnov, nor F&P did a good job with their prematured publications, but numerous other scientists DO good jobs. However charlatans fool people deliberatly.
sacha4you 3 years ago
I was using the expression metaphorically. If only there WAS such a formal hand-over process, a lot of mistakes could be avoided. I know of a case where a puzzling observation in physiology has gone unexplained for 40 years. Meanwhile, physicists have had the explanation 'to hand' for all of that time. Indeed, the basic explanation was mentioned by Aristotle!
flowerbower 3 years ago
flowerbower, I makes me really sad, that people think, formal laws should be introduced in science. If we did that, we
did a huge step back into galileian ages, where inquisitors supervised scientists.
A second opinion is indeed not a bad thing, but only there were perticular circumstances
requires such a measure. If you take away responsibility from scientists, then nobody will be responsible for science in future.
Did you want that?
sacha4you 3 years ago
But science IS 'supervised by inquisitors'; the only difference is that - nowadays - the inquisitors are other scientists. I should know, I am part of the process. Some people seem to have the idea that, when a new result is reported, it immediately becomes part of the scientific 'cannon'. All results should be treated with suspicion until convincingly replicated, again and again. Any other approach would be silly and would take us back to pre-Bacon times.
flowerbower 3 years ago
Flowerbower, we have no inquisitors who make
prescriptions, what a scientist has to publish. What we have is a mechanism called peer review that helps to find disputable claims verify results. A so called standard model creates a bottom line to minimize ingestion of wrong theories into that what we call accepted knowledge. Since validation of new theories takes time, there is an accepted delay until inclusion into standard model.
sacha4you 3 years ago
The scientific method is fine, in theory. But depending on the discipline - how much fudging or just-so story telling can get by in certain fields - the peer review does break down when real life steps in. Paradigms are a way for scientists to work under a common model or set of assumptions, and many times this leads to great strides and progress. But it's a double edged sword, and a prevalent paradigm can serve to stifle hypotheses or facts which don't meet the expectations of the group.
Poopookachew1 3 years ago
Poopookachew1, your args may be correct, if such a thing like paradigm existed. (I think, you wanted rather to mention dogmatism) A new theory do not replace an older, but extend it's applicable realm . E.g. it took more than
20 years to fully validate SR/GR. Today, we know, that even relativity is incomplete in the microscopic scale, since it can't explain e.g. QM, nor multidim. effects. Today, we have excellent multidim. QM candidates, but it takes time to validate them. (ff)
sacha4you 3 years ago
(ff) ... Validation process of a new theory (including peer review of publications) resembles indeed a cruel and inquisitory process. This process makes science rock solid und minimizes the chance of jumping on completly wrong theories. However, peer review do not prevent new things. E.g. I work practically with EHT (Ext. Heim Theory, a not validated multidim. QM theory). Although there is an overwhelming experimental support, I have to be very careful, because many claims are unverified yet.
sacha4you 3 years ago
you sound like your in the right profession to answer this question. Is the speed of light constant or does it vary. seeing as you mentioned how careful we need to be with new theories I'd love to know the answer to that one sngle question
planexzeropoint 2 years ago
planexzeropoint, speed of light in vacuum c=3E8m/s is the best investigated natural constant in the history of physics. And it is constant. Uneducated people misrepresent the fact as 'variation', c in a medium with a refractive index N above 1 is decreased by N (E.g. N-glass=1.5) and is effected by relativistic- and non-relativisic lenght contraction. I can assert you, we ARE very cautios and validate everything, before a new theory is accepted. Real science isn't bad-science.
;-))
sacha4you 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@planexzeropoint Check out this youtube video, search: "Walter Russell - Light Does Not Travel"
ltsguitar 1 year ago
[continued] not with the same understanding. The electrical engineer's understanding of simple electrical circuits, for instance, barely rises above that of the schoolboy's. If one tries to tell them that static charges must exist at bends in circuits, or that the energy sweeps across the space between the wires rather than flowing through them, it is the physicist who gets treated as a crackpot for presenting the correct theory! The wrong theory leads to many apparent paradoxes.
flowerbower 3 years ago
flowerbower, I think we should stop that discussion here. It seems, your understanding about the profession of a graduated engineer is that, we call a technician in our country.
Swiss engineers not only solder together electronic circuits, they have to understand e.g. a semiconductor down to all quantum effects - even better, then most physicists ever have to do.
If we had no paradoxons in science, we'd now
all about our universe. However, we are far
from having this knowledge level.
sacha4you 3 years ago
Je suis heureux que vous mainteniez les normes en Suisse. J'enseignais là au niveau universitaire pendant beaucoup d'années. En français, évidemment!
Ich bin erfreut, daß Sie die Standards oben in der Schweiz halten. Ich unterrichtete dort auf dem Universitätsniveau für viele Jahre. Auf französisch offenbar!
flowerbower 3 years ago
I strongly disagree that cold-fusion is reproducible. A trickle of papers still appears in bona fide scientific journals, but the effects are now at the limits of experimental detection. When the story began, the effects were claimed to be spectacularly clear. Metal-hydrogen systems are very complex and have been studied since Victorian times because of the industrial problems caused by so-called hydrogen-embrittlement.
flowerbower 3 years ago
What we know today about CF is, that i) the
effect (D in Pd) is real, since neutrons could be detected, by multiple sources, ii) the effect is reproducable, but needs very careful experimental preparation iii) CF seems to rely on a nuclear quantum tunneling effect; hence yield is too poor to make big prower plants from it.
Google for CF, you'll find MANY scientific papers abaout all details. However, today we
have much better perspectives on fusion: Semi-cold fusion.
;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
Google for +Sandia +"Linear transformer driver". You'll run into papers from SNL about a hiah yield z-pinch pulse plasma reator
that really gives off net power. The mechnism
was verified from U.K. ZETA facility. In a nutshell: Probably governed by a multidim. quantum process, you will get with ridiculous low discharge energy from a 30kK hi-Z-metal-plasma (Fe) a 3E9K plasma, that can burn rather all fusable fuels, and, fully scalable, and outperforms even future tokamaks. Today. ;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
There seems to be another misunderstanding here. I am not questioning hot-fusion (Tokamaks, etc.), although Zeta WAS a notorious fiasco. I am deriding only the P&F work, and similar 'power-from-electrolysis' schemes (scams). No reputable scientist or journal even calls it cold-fusion anymore; there are instead only papers on 'slight anomalies', and guarded references to the original P&F paper.
flowerbower 3 years ago
Sandia corrected, what ZETA did indead notoriously wrong, since they denied for long times a paradigma (=theory) change. The underlying plasma superheating effect can only be explained with an officially incomplete multidim. quantum theory called EHT. However, I think you are rather hasty with your conclusions. We know, there are low energy plasma dissociation processes (e.g. HHO, COHO) that indeed beat Farady's law of electrolysis and consumes energy from nuclear magnetic moments M.
sacha4you 3 years ago
2. CF is indeed nothing more than a slight anomaly, as I explained in an earlier post.
You can use it to better understand quantum
tunneling, but not to harvest large amounts of
energy to power cities or cars. However semi-cold pulse plasma fusion can do this.
Insofar I agree, that in the moment, somebody
claims 'overunity' or 'magic-energy-from-whatever', all law of thermodynamic bells should ring up immediatly.
;-))
sacha4you 3 years ago
I do not believe that there is any cold-fusion effect at all. I think that it was all a social 'band-wagon' effect which caused all sorts of people to abandon proper scientific caution. I think that the anomalous effects (including radiation) are probably caused by microfracture-related phenomena. Sure, these are quantum effects, but only in the same sense that 'everything' is a quantum effect.
flowerbower 3 years ago
Nope. Nothing to do with belief. If you can detect properly moderated neutrons in correct quantities and the reaction product, you HAVE a proof for a particular type of nuclear reaction. This is a proven fact. Nobody ever abandonned scientific caution, since replication experiments were conducted. Please
don't try to speculate. Read point i)...iv) what I've written. You can verify that by Google.
sacha4you 3 years ago
N.B. One cannot verify anything by Googling. Google is only an index. One has to read the original papers, and evaluate them. Even Google Scholar does not seem to be compiled by scientists; the sources which it lists are often of the crackpot variety. GS should list only reputable journals.
flowerbower 3 years ago
The funny thing is that some experts, who had been saying for decades that H-embrittlement was caused by H atoms forcing metal lattices apart, suddenly 'changed their tune' (after P&F) and began to theorize that the metal lattice forced H atoms together and made them fuse. So, which theory had been incompetently formulated? What critical experiment had they failed to perform during all of those years? Which results had they pre-judged?
flowerbower 3 years ago
flowerbower, everybody can build a theory. It will even be accepted, if it can be validated by experiments, does not contradict already made observations and is mathematically correct. E.g. today, we have near as many multidim. quantum theories, as theoretical physicists exists. CERN has started a validation process for that, when LHC (large hadron collider) will take off in the end of this year.
sacha4you 3 years ago
That was my point: there was a H-embrittlement theory which explained the experimental facts. So how could it be so easily thrown out on the basis of a few dubious results that were never fully replicated? Cold-fusion is obeying perfectly Langmuir's Rule for a pseudoscience. The Hadron Collider: is that the one which recently had a catastrophic accident because someone had made an elementary mistake in his calculations?
flowerbower 3 years ago
Flowerbower, it seems, you have rather misunderstood what science is. It's neighter forbidden to have experimental results without a theory, nor to propose different theories on a topic. Pseudoscience can be taken into account in the moment, one claims
acknowledged wrong theories or experimantal results as beeing true. E.g. for alleged CF we have not less than 25 theories (!) H-embrillement is one among them; but this can't explain soft X-rays and neutrons.
sacha4you 3 years ago
I doubt that: apart from journal-editing being one of my jobs, my favourite 'relaxation' is studying the 'philosophy of experimentation' and the history of science.
I thought that I had mentioned before that all sorts of radiation phenomena accompany fracture, and H-embrittlement involves fracture.
In my experience, the usual cause of anomalous results is not an anomaly, but experimental carelessness (or ignorance of some known effect which is outside of the experimenter's knowledge).
flowerbower 3 years ago
flowerbower, It's your energy, you spend to turn science into philosophy - or, I guess rather, into theology. However with your final conclusion about CF, I respectfully disagree. The crystal-entropy argument is well known, but unproven yet. Since no real machine (neither natural nor human made) is perfect, all possible side effects must be taken into account and experimentally verified before a final conclusion can be drwan on very week effect systems. Read the papers a sent you.
sacha4you 3 years ago
2. However, read my earlier post. Since we have independet confirmation about neutron- and X-ray emission, my personal estimation is,
CF is mainly a quantum tunneling effect accompanied by several (!) side-effects. The
thing is a nice toy, but not suited for practical use. Hence, not many scientists in the world spend their time on the subject.
And these scientists are neither careless nor ignorant, but they want to unterstand, what really happens in the process.
sacha4you 3 years ago
2. ...The same pseudoscience claim may hit Sandia even harder. They use a plasma compression technique (not inertial confinement) that fit only in EHT today. The magnet problem at CERN's LHC occured, since FermiLab pysicists played being engineers and was not aware of dynamic force effects. (However, there was no 'accident')
I'll give you a link list in a seprate message.
sacha4you 3 years ago
wow
fringlishman 4 years ago
I'd like to try this.
joehadenuf 4 years ago