-
#3080 by Unentitled on 18 Mar, 2018 08:53
-
Always a pleasure to endure these discoveries (and research)
Looking forward to more from March, Monomorphic, Seeshells, and our other joining expirimenters.
Thanks to all the theorists, physicists, engineers, and other contributors.
May the force be with us
-
#3081 by Monomorphic on 20 Mar, 2018 00:48
-
I'm working on a liquid metal contact system. See pictures below. Not only will this allow me to remove the onboard computer (a huge source of heat), but also remove the need to regularly charge an on-board battery. Planned now are 4 liquid metal connections for USB and 2 for main power.
The design still maintains the option of going back to battery powered “flight” if test results turn out positive.
Work was also done on designing a support for the main amplifier and phase change heat sink. These three parts will be 3D printed in the coming days.
-
#3082 by fvlad on 20 Mar, 2018 06:44
-
Other questions have answers in my essays.
No, actually they aren't answered there.
Dear meberbs,
In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
there are answers to many questions. For example, you wrote about a very interesting for all question: the speed of propagation of gravitational waves.Contrary to experiments you are asserting the existence of an aether, dismissing the real results from actual experiments of gravitational wave detectors.
Here is an article describing how well that gravitational waves have been measured relative to the speed of light. Links to the original research are in the article.Quote... another team made up of a small army of physicists used the burst of gamma rays captured from last month's neutron star collision to come up with their own estimate.
Their method was a little more precise.
Ok, a whole lot more precise.
They found the difference between the lightning flash of the gamma ray burst and the thunderclap of the gravitational wave was extremely close - within -3 x 10^-15 and 7 x 10^-16 of c. Close enough to call it a tie, really.
This completely invalidates your claim of a gravitational aether and your claim that gravitational waves aren't correlated with actual events of large objects merging
Concerning gravitational waves then in my essay it is said:
«Gravitational waves are stationary, as particles and they are vortex gravitational toroidal fields, which can be transforming into photons and vice versa. Their action is observing in shape of plurality annular orbital resonances». https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5836/?category=images (the image of the Earth in the orbital gravitational wave "orbital resonance").
I.e., during the binary mergers there was a transformation of gravitational waves in the gravispheres of neutron stars into photons. It is clear that the powerful electromagnetic radiation from the binary mergers has come to the gravisphere of the Earth at the speed of light. A powerful electromagnetic action on the Earth's gravisphere led to the formation of toroidal gravitational waves, which were recorded by sensors of gravitational waves. Therefore, it is not surprising that the measured velocity of "gravitation" exactly coincides with the speed of light.
Conclusion - the measured velocity of propagation of gravitational waves has nothing to do with the true speed of gravity propagation. The speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves was simply measured again.
In the above works , the researchers themselves are surprised to the exact coincidence of the speed of light with the "velocity of gravitational waves."
«Now two teams of physicists used figures from the variety of gravitational waves to narrow estimates on just how fast we think gravity moves, and while their results aren't shocking, they are strangely comforting».
We see the transformation of gravitational waves into electromagnetic waves by the example of how electron-positron pairs (pairs of toroidal gravitational waves with the Compton wavelength) are transformed into photons, and the photons are transformed into electron-positron pairs.
Electrons and positrons interact with each other with the help of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie possessing mass.
The de Broglie waves of electrons and positrons can also annihilate and transform into photons, and the photons can again turn into de Broglie waves.
«Annihilation» of the electron-positron pair is analogous to the binary mergers of neutron stars.
Another analogue of the process of neutron stars is process of approaching of satellites of Saturn, Prometheus and Pandora. This process of approaching of the satellites was recorded by Cassini.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv
We see the force action of the set of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of each satellite with the matter of the rings of Saturn. The fans of de Broglie's gravitational waves are immobile relative to their satellites. The direction of the action of the force of the gravitational waves of de Broglie on the rings of Saturn coincides with the direction of the action of force on the satellites, i.e. the matter of the rings of Saturn is an indicator of the direction of the action of force. In this case, (see video), toroidal gravitational waves push satellites toward each other. This is how the mechanism of attraction of satellites is realized among themselves by means of toroidal gravitational waves.
In confirmation of the mutual transformation of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, it is possible to compare the spectra of electromagnetic and gravitational radiation in the Earth's gravisphere.
Virgo_02_10_2017__ELF spectrogram from the S-N Perugia_01.jpg
This comparison of the spectra is added to the comparison of the spectra of gravitational waves with the spectra of acoustic waves of drums that I previously quoted.
The coincidence of resonance frequencies in the spectra of electromagnetic, acoustic and gravitational waves speaks about the fundamental properties of the elements of the physical vacuum medium (toroidal gravitational waves) forming various fields that are transformed into each other due to a dynamic cause.
I can not imagine that a lot of identical complex atoms and chemical bonds in molecules are formed due to probabilistic events. But I easily imagine all this stable diversity of the elements of the world, as a result of the self-organization of matter. The self-organization of matter is due to the synchronizing dispersion process of the interaction of parametric resonances and the formation of soliton waves in the superfluid medium of the physical vacuum. This medium is very similar to liquid crystals in our gadgets.
One should always keep in mind that any experimental fact can be explained from several positions, and not only from the point of view of doctrinal physics. Unwillingness to discuss and ignore other explanations of the facts is the main problem of doctrinal physics.
I propose to be tolerant of all explanations of the facts.
Vladimir
-
#3083 by meberbs on 20 Mar, 2018 15:52
-
You truncated my post improperly. My post continued by pointing out that your papers are full of misuse of the words such as "neutrino" which is why your papers don't answer anything all of the statements in them are simply nonsensical. You do not actually address your misunderstanding of neutrinos at all in this post.Other questions have answers in my essays.
No, actually they aren't answered there.
Dear meberbs,
In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
there are answers to many questions. For example, you wrote about a very interesting for all question: the speed of propagation of gravitational waves.Concerning gravitational waves then in my essay it is said:
You never define what "gravitational toroidal fields" are, and act like they magically explain everything. This makes your statement meaningless. You equally could have said "invisible pink elephants, and the statement would have been equally meaningless.
«Gravitational waves are stationary, as particles and they are vortex gravitational toroidal fields, which can be transforming into photons and vice versa. Their action is observing in shape of plurality annular orbital resonances». https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5836/?category=images (the image of the Earth in the orbital gravitational wave "orbital resonance").I.e., during the binary mergers there was a transformation of gravitational waves in the gravispheres of neutron stars into photons. It is clear that the powerful electromagnetic radiation from the binary mergers has come to the gravisphere of the Earth at the speed of light. A powerful electromagnetic action on the Earth's gravisphere led to the formation of toroidal gravitational waves, which were recorded by sensors of gravitational waves. Therefore, it is not surprising that the measured velocity of "gravitation" exactly coincides with the speed of light.
"i.e." means "in other words," which means that what follows should be a simple restatement of the previous paragraph. What follows instead are completely different statements that have exactly 0 supporting evidence. For example, if the phenomena occurred in Earth's atmosphere as you claim, then gravitational wave detectors at different locations on earth would point to that, which would be a different direction for each detector, and not overlap the binary merger in most cases. Experiments have shown that you are wrong on this.
The rest of your post is tangential nonsense, claiming analogs between phenomena that are not at all analogous and behave completely differently. Your statements are all either baseless assertions, completely incorrect, or simply lacking in any meaning to begin with.One should always keep in mind that any experimental fact can be explained from several positions, and not only from the point of view of doctrinal physics. Unwillingness to discuss and ignore other explanations of the facts is the main problem of doctrinal physics.
In addition to multiple explanations of some facts, there are also an infinite number of explanations that contradict facts. Your explanations fall into the latter category of contradicting facts.
I propose to be tolerant of all explanations of the facts.
Of all of the problems in your posts and your papers that I have pointed out, the only one you seem to have even implicitly acknowledged is where you mention "binary mergers" in this post rather than "binary pulsars" that you mention in your paper. -
#3084 by oyzw on 20 Mar, 2018 23:52
-
I'm working on a liquid metal contact system. See pictures below. Not only will this allow me to remove the onboard computer (a huge source of heat), but also remove the need to regularly charge an on-board battery. Planned now are 4 liquid metal connections for USB and 2 for main power.
Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?
The design still maintains the option of going back to battery powered “flight” if test results turn out positive.
Work was also done on designing a support for the main amplifier and phase change heat sink. These three parts will be 3D printed in the coming days. -
#3085 by Monomorphic on 21 Mar, 2018 01:30
-
Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?
Thank you. The main amplifier is capable of 25-30W, depending on frequency. The cavity resonator has a Q value of 8,000 - 16,000 at mode TE013, depending on how well it is tuned. The small spherical end-plate is manually aligned with the large spherical end-plate via the three adjusters seen in the image below - all while antenna impedance is manually controlled using the central knob tuner.
-
#3086 by oyzw on 21 Mar, 2018 01:56
-
Excuse me, where do you live? I would like to give you the cavity and microwave amplifiers I made, and you can use him to carry out the high power and high Q cavity test.Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?
Thank you. The main amplifier is capable of 25-30W, depending on frequency. The cavity resonator has a Q value of 8,000 - 16,000 at mode TE013, depending on how well it is tuned. The small spherical end-plate is manually aligned with the large spherical end-plate via the three adjusters seen in the image below - all while antenna impedance is manually controlled using the central knob tuner. -
#3087 by Monomorphic on 21 Mar, 2018 02:01
-
I'm in Atlanta, USA. I would be happy to work with you. Please private message me for more info.
Excuse me, where do you live? I would like to give you the cavity and microwave amplifiers I made, and you can use him to carry out the high power and high Q cavity test.Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?
Thank you. The main amplifier is capable of 25-30W, depending on frequency. The cavity resonator has a Q value of 8,000 - 16,000 at mode TE013, depending on how well it is tuned. The small spherical end-plate is manually aligned with the large spherical end-plate via the three adjusters seen in the image below - all while antenna impedance is manually controlled using the central knob tuner. -
#3088 by rq3 on 24 Mar, 2018 12:42
-
#3089 by fvlad on 28 Mar, 2018 12:22
-
When I processed the data and plotted the graph for 2 weeks of measurement, I realized that some neutrino matter is registered from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit, obviously those detected by Michelson and Morley.
You apparently don't have a clue what neutrinos are. They have no relation to the Michelson-Morley experiment, in fact the existence of neutrinos was not theorized or detected by any experiment until after Michelson and Morley were both dead for decades. They also would not have anything to do with your experiment. they barely interact with most matter at all, because they are uncharged and do not interact via electromagnetic force.
Other questions have answers in my essays.
No, actually they aren't answered there.
Dear meberbs,
In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
there are answers to many questions. For example, you wrote about a very interesting for all question: the speed of propagation of gravitational waves.
You truncated my post improperly. My post continued by pointing out that your papers are full of misuse of the words such as "neutrino" which is why your papers don't answer anything all of the statements in them are simply nonsensical. You do not actually address your misunderstanding of neutrinos at all in this post.
Dear meberbs,
Yes indeed, during the experiments of Michelson and Morley there was no concept of neutrinos, and I did not say otherwise. But they found motion at a speed of 8 km/s of the luminiferous medium from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit.
In another COBE experiment, motion of a medium propagating infrared radiation from the eastern quadrature of the orbit was also detected.
In both cases, motion of the medium was detected, in which electromagnetic waves propagate, which I called the neutrino medium.
Let us read what a neutrino is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_(disambiguation)
«A neutrino is an elementary particle».
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
«The neutrino is so named because it is electrically neutral».
«neutrinos typically pass through normal matter unimpeded and undetected».
These generally accepted neutrino concepts are consistent with my assumptions about the medium of the physical vacuum, so I use them.
In my opinion, doctrinal physicists apparently do not have a clue what a neutrino is, if they write the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_neutrino
«One open question of particle physics is whether or not neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are the same particle in which case it would be a Majorana fermion or whether they are different particles in which case they would be Dirac fermions. They are produced in beta decay and other types weak interactions».
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced. So the doctrinal physicists «confirmed that the ether does not exist». And of course, the doctrinal physicists "splashed the baby out with the bathwater". Weird though, they do not care about the causality of the processes. They, of course, did not understand that this movement of the medium of light propagation is a dynamic cause of the formation of force, mass and gravity on Earth.
I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.
I believe that we need to learn from nature examples of the formation of force for the development of EM Drive, including considering "negative" experiments.
I understand neutrinos, like the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of particles and bodies, this is obvious and simple for me.
In doctrinal physics, de Broglie waves are probability waves. Therefore, to explain the violation of the balance of energies and particle masses, in the processes of their transformation, the problem was solved with the help of neutrinos.
Even now, the structure and properties are not defined for neutrinos. At the same time, for de Broglie waves, the law of variation of their wavelength is known, i.e. their dynamic properties are known.
Therefore, it is perfectly logical to represent neutrinos as the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves with certain topological, energy and mass parameters.
For example, chemists have long begun to lay the foundations of their chemical physics on a topological basis. And chemists and biologists need the mechanisms of self-organization of matter, and not mathematical abstractions.
I answered the question of the self-organization of matter already in the title essay "The reason for self-organization systems of matter is quantum parametric resonance and the formation of solitons" https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806 . Perhaps this question is not sufficiently disclosed in the essay. So I'll try to supplement.
If the electron accelerates to the speed of light, then the mass and length of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational wave approach the parameters of the electron. But the de Broglie wave of the electron forms its own, already secondary, de Broglie wave with parameters close to the electron, the secondary wave forms the third wave, etc. Thus, the energy and mass of the set of de Broglie and Compton waves moving with the speed of light tends to infinity, which agrees with the experiment. Conclusion - the relativistic mass of an electron is formed by a set of neutrino toroidal gravitational waves de Broglie of electron.
Such assumptions make it possible to uniquely determine the function toroidal gravitational waves of the de Broglie's of the electron to stabilize the electron parameters and to extract excess perturbation energy into de Broglie waves (into the energy of the turbulence waves of the medium of the physical vacuum).
A set of de Broglie waves with close parameters exists also around the electron-positron pair in a neutron. Therefore, at the moment when the neutron is converted into a proton, the electron always flies away, accompanied by always different complexes of de Broglie's neutrino toroidal gravitational waves, which determine the different energy of the emitted electrons.
The toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie are an entity that can change its wavelength only by a quantum mechanism, through a phase of transformation into spiral photons, which most often immediately turn into toroidal gravitational waves. As in toroidal gravitational waves, in spiral photons the elements of matter move with the speed of light.
The pair of spirals of a photon is screwed into the medium of a physical vacuum with a much smaller cross section of interaction and therefore the photons move rectilinearly in the equilibrium state of superfluidity, with the speed of light and do not form de Broglie waves, therefore photons have a very small mass. For the equilibrium motion of the elements of matter with the speed of light in toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie and Compton, a set of additional toroidal gravitational waves is required, which form a gravisphere and mass.
There are no other essence in the universe. I try to pay attention to the manifestations of this essence, and that this essence is the reason for the formation of mass and strength, including the forces in EM Drive.
In my work is written about neutrinos the following.
«the neutrino toroidal vortexes of turbulence in physical vacuum medium are stable».
«leads to an acceleration of neutrino gravitons in gravitational waves»
«Elements of different levels are neutrinos for each»
I'm not talking about specific neutrinos nowhere.
As for neutrinos as specific particles, their explanation varies with the development of science.
For example, I already wrote to you about changes in the concept of the Casimir effect, which now extends not only to conductive materials, but also to dielectrics.
Previously it was believed that neutrinos do not have mass, but now it is believed that neutrinos have a mass and our positions are converging on this basis.
I have a different concept of concrete neutrinos than in doctrinal physics. I know (because I see in the experiments) that all interactions of the elements of matter occur at the frequencies of parametric resonances in the medium of the physical vacuum, through the de Broglie neutrino toroidal gravitational waves of particles and bodies.
The mass of electron neutrinos is easy to calculate through the electron mass, it is inversely proportional to the neutrino wavelength (of electron de Broglie wavelength). And resonant frequencies can be easily calculated when there is a specific topological structure of de Broglie neutrino waves. Registering electronic neutrinos is also easy, at a time when they turn into photons. Each detected photon corresponds to the presence of a corresponding electronic neutrino.
Neutrinos do not interact with the familiar to us, the atomic matter, because it does not have resonant frequencies close to the resonant frequencies of the de Broglie gravitational waves of atomic matter. Gravitational waves of de Broglie form the spectral lines of atoms. The high density of the spectral lines of atoms and molecules causes a greater viscosity of the substance.
Toroidal gravitational waves are simple in structure and have a very low density of spectral lines, in comparison with atomic matter, and therefore they interact weakly with atomic matter. Therefore, toroidal gravitational waves are neutrino, so they form a superfluid medium of a physical vacuum with a viscosity determined by the Hubble parameter.
The finite magnitude of the viscosity and the dynamism of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves (elements of the physical vacuum environment) do not "magically explain everything", but are the causes of classical parametric resonances, solitons and self-organization mechanisms of matter that realize the extreme principle of least action.
It was necessary for me to point out more clearly that all background phenomena are associated with "continuous" energy spectra of the set of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of electrons, which are, in fact, generally accepted neutrinos.
The concept of neutrinos appeared for solving the problem of the continuous beta decay spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_neutrino
Energy Spectra for Beta Decay electrons_01.jpg
When I described the 14 fundamental backgrounds of the physical vacuum medium, I did not bring this experimental graph https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jSOsNljYwujH2O4kwQy3-c0SfspT3P5e/view http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase /Nuclear/beta2.html in my essay 2018 https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080 , as an experimental rationale for the first background.
«The maximum intensity of the background 179.6 keV is related to the electron 511.07 keV».
The above parameters of the first background characterize the energy distribution of the set of generally accepted electronic neutrinos.
«They are produced in beta decay and other types weak interactions».
Dear meberbs, I am very grateful to you, for your perseverance in the issue of neutrinos, which allowed me to formulate yet another argument confirming the great importance of studying regular background phenomena in the fractal structure of the universe.
Vladimir
-
#3090 by Monomorphic on 28 Mar, 2018 13:01
-
Here are the finished prints for the liquid metal contact system. Version 2.0 on the right improves upon version 1.0 on the left by adding more liquid metal contacts and cleaning up the geometry. With a slight increase in diameter, I was able to increase the number of contacts from 6 to 10. This will allow for a number of configurations such as 1 USB, 1 Power Mains, and 2 data channels, or 2 USB and 1 Power Mains and so on. Version 2.0 can rotate 9.5° in either direction, which is FAR more than is necessary. Most tests take place far below 1 radian. In fact, the pendulum arm would bump up against the laser displacement sensor long before the liquid metal contact electrodes came into contact with the vessel walls. Each set took about 5 hours to print at the fastest setting.
-
#3091 by flux_capacitor on 28 Mar, 2018 13:01
-
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.
Actually at that time, the "luminiferous aether" theory en vogue, i.e. supported by the majority of scientists of the 19th century, involved a complete dragging effect of the ether and a high speed induced "wind" of about 30 km/s due to the speed at which the Earth orbits around the Sun.
It is true that this theory was then completely falsified by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment.
However, that velocity discrepancy of about 8 km/s remaining, as measured by Michelson and Morley in 1887, Michelson and Miller in 1902, 1904 and 1905, and by Miller in 1925, 1926 and 1930, is in accordance with a "slow wind" of the aether drag hypothesis later involved in the controversial Allais effect (slow velocity measured and calculated by Maurice Allais at 7.95 km/s according to his hypothesis).
Allais summarized his long study in a memoir on behalf of NASA in 1999 (PDF here).
Moreover, Mike McCulloch wrote a few months ago with a grain of salt about a possible explanation of the Allais effect by his theory of quantised inertia (which also according to him could explain the EmDrive), due to the partial shielding of Unruh waves by the Moon as measured on Earth, although this is still a crude idea:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/10/the-allais-effect.html -
#3092 by kenny008 on 28 Mar, 2018 14:15
-
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.
Of course, this is one interpretation of Miller's results.
Another interpretation is that the 8 km/s has been shown to be experimental error and improper statistical analysis, by numerous experiments and data analyses since Miller's last observations in 1930. While Miller pioneered many experimental techniques, his data analysis has been shown to be incorrect, and without any further experimental evidence to the contrary, the null result is the accepted interpretation. -
#3093 by flux_capacitor on 28 Mar, 2018 15:16
-
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.
Of course, this is one interpretation of Miller's results.
Another interpretation is that the 8 km/s has been shown to be experimental error and improper statistical analysis, by numerous experiments and data analyses since Miller's last observations in 1930. While Miller pioneered many experimental techniques, his data analysis has been shown to be incorrect, and without any further experimental evidence to the contrary, the null result is the accepted interpretation.
References please? Miller's measured discrepancy of 8 km/s in his experiments (and previous ones by Michelson and Morley) explained as an experimental error due to temperature gradients in the room where the interferometer was located, has been proposed by:
• Robert S. Shankland et al. (April 1955) "New analysis of the Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller", Review of Modern Physics, Vol.27, No.2 (PDF)
Anyone was satisfied with that. Miller could not give an answer to it as he died in 1941. For that matter Shankland reused George Joos' 1934 critique about such thermal hypothesis (citing it) but without addressing nor citing Miller's rebuttal yet present at that time in the same exchange:
• G. Joos / D. C. Miller (January 1934) "Letters to the Editor", Physical Review 45, 114 (PDF)
Afterward though, Maurice Allais published several papers showing Shankland was wrong about the sensitivity of Miller's interferometer to temperature gradients, and especially highlighted statistically significant periodicities ("extraordinary and irrefragable regularities") in Miller's data unexplainable by spurious causes, especially thermal ones. Shankland himself saw such anomalous periodicities in Miller's data, although he said he didn't feel the need to investigate that issue further! Alas, Maurice Allais published these papers in French language in the proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences, so under the radar of the English-spoken scientific world.
Nevertheless, an article in English by James Demeo summarizing Allais' views, entitled "Dayton C. Miller revisited" is available as a contribution chapter in the book (pp. 285–315):
• "Should the Laws of Gravitation Be Reconsidered? The Scientific Legacy of Maurice Allais" by Héctor A. Múnera (Apeiron 2011), ISBN 978-0986492655.
DeMeo's contribution is available on ResearchGate, so I attach his article here. This is clearly a critique on Shankland's analysis, which would have been superficial in some ways and biased according to the author.
-
#3094 by meberbs on 28 Mar, 2018 15:51
-
Dear meberbs,
I don't know where you are getting this from, but by 1930 multiple experiments, including by Michelson had measured that it was at most 3 km/s, but no evidence it was actually greater than 0. Modern experiments have measured the speed of light in different directions and found it to be constant to many orders of magnitude. See partial list of such experiments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Yes indeed, during the experiments of Michelson and Morley there was no concept of neutrinos, and I did not say otherwise. But they found motion at a speed of 8 km/s of the luminiferous medium from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit.In another COBE experiment, motion of a medium propagating infrared radiation from the eastern quadrature of the orbit was also detected.
Doppler shift and difference in the speed of light are 2 very different things. You are misinterpreting these results in a way that is inconsistent with what the results actually say.In both cases, motion of the medium was detected, in which electromagnetic waves propagate, which I called the neutrino medium.
No, they aren't consistent. "electrically neutral" means they do not interact with electromagnetic waves at all. You are claiming that they not only interact, but are the very medium of propagation. Even in the completely nonsensical case of them interacting, we know they can't be the medium of propagation, because the local neutrino environment near Earth is in a near speed of light motion away from the sun. The motion of this medium would be trivial to detect, such as by any GPS receiver. (Even an 8 km/s offset in the speed of light would produce errors of around 500 m. GPS is much better than that.)
Let us read what a neutrino is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_(disambiguation)
«A neutrino is an elementary particle».
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
«The neutrino is so named because it is electrically neutral».
«neutrinos typically pass through normal matter unimpeded and undetected».
These generally accepted neutrino concepts are consistent with my assumptions about the medium of the physical vacuum, so I use them.In my opinion, doctrinal physicists apparently do not have a clue what a neutrino is, if they write the following.
No, this does not represent "no clue what a neutrino is" it means there is a single aspect of neutrinos that current technology does not have a way to measure. (There is one other aspect we can't measure yet, their mass, though we do have lower and upper bounds.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_neutrino
«One open question of particle physics is whether or not neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are the same particle in which case it would be a Majorana fermion or whether they are different particles in which case they would be Dirac fermions. They are produced in beta decay and other types weak interactions».The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.
This is called a conspiracy theory. It is not welcome here, as it is basically an insult to all scientists on the planet. Try using actual facts instead of whatever things you made up because you can't accept that your claims are wrong.I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.
Then stop making evidence free assertions and ignoring the results of whatever experiments you find convenient. You resorting to insults here reveals who the belligerent one is.
The rest of your post from this point on is a set of non-sequiters, false statements, and misuse of terms. None of your claims follow from your propositions, and you make exactly 0 testable predictions, even where you claim it is "easy" such as the neutrino mass. If you did the calculation, then it could be compared to the experimentally known range. Your claim about electron neutrinos turning into photons could be considered testable, but in that case it is already falsified by experiments that measure neutrino fluxes and would detect such a thing. You claim to know all of your statements are true because of "experiment" without a single explanation of how any experiment you have done could have shown any of this. (And the experiment you have described before simply showed a torsional pendulum insufficiently damped and isolated from the countless vibrations on the Earth, which experimenters in this thread have shown the difficulty of building one well.) -
#3095 by LowerAtmosphere on 29 Mar, 2018 09:02
-
Cosmology | Dark Matter | Breakthrough
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180328130724.htm
"We thought that every galaxy had dark matter and that dark matter is how a galaxy begins," said Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, lead researcher of the Hubble observations. "This invisible, mysterious substance is the most dominant aspect of any galaxy. So finding a galaxy without it is unexpected. It challenges the standard ideas of how we think galaxies work, and it shows that dark matter is real: it has its own separate existence apart from other components of galaxies. This result also suggests that there may be more than one way to form a galaxy."
Let's discuss. To me this discovery does not prove dark matter exists. Ever since the finding of stable quantum vortices and locked magnetic dipoles in metals (statistical motion without input) I always viewed the quantum foam as having a certain drag beyond mere frame lag or spacetime stiffness which also partially explains anomalous behaviors of spinning discs where the outer field does not begin to relax until motion halts*. Within the system being observed a sort of quantum equilibrium and collective entanglement is held between the particles until they are reorganized by currents.
The current behaves anomalously because certain paths are preferential based on prior particles (decreased resistance) as relationships are established within the shape of the foam itself which then reduce resistance for massive real particles. Think of it like a horse ploughing a furrow. Rain may smooth the furrow but it still remains there for a long time. These paths collapse the probability function of each particle based on the number of branching paths and random walk range based on initial trajectory. The furrow is not a kink or singularity in spacetime but rather the asymmetrical decrease in vacuum pressure. Such furrows may create average resistance when travelling perpendicular to long term emitted rays or alternatively decreased resistance when travelling well worn routes, beyond contemporary measurement tool resolution since measurement also alters the quantum states and density of surrounding particles.
*https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/89a3/4c8fbbb7cda8043930cada6de2565e66b915.pdf
On a cosmological scale this motion would explain the absence of dark matter in a sparse galaxy as the density of fresh furrows is low. Dark matter, dark photons are all errors based on misunderstanding gravity as being a force, not an expression of probability a la mach effect and binary bifurcating paths at the planck resolution. Spacetime doesn't depend on quantum channels for any massive movement, but it preferentially enables electromagnetic attraction along the ray paths. This hypothesis of mutable and soft quantum channels can be disproven if equally massive galaxies contain less dark matter if they are the more luminous. -
#3096 by VAXHeadroom on 29 Mar, 2018 15:26
-
Mike McCullough's TEDx talk is finally on YT:
He specifically mentions the EMDrive. -
#3097 by john smith 19 on 29 Mar, 2018 16:24
-
Mike McCullough's TEDx talk is finally on YT:
So.
He specifically mentions the EMDrive.
1) Takes visible, measurable phenomena and creates new theory.
2) Theory explains visible (even sometimes exotic) phenomena in simple way.
3) Theory generates predictions for behavior that can be proved either true or false.
And it's got a (small) side order of unification between GR and the quantum world.
Which looks to me the way physics should be done.
I think he's right. I could never quite shake the felling that "Hunting Dark Matter" had a lot in common with that other mythic beast, the Snark.
Now how you produce an acceleration of 1 x 10^20 m/s^2 is going to be tough. That's roughly 10 billion, billion g.
That said I dimly recall RL Forwards ideas about countering gravity by accelerating very dense fluids at very high speeds. Maybe very dense particles (Tungsten? SG about 19) in some low viscosity liquid? -
#3098 by flux_capacitor on 29 Mar, 2018 17:16
-
Mike McCullough's TEDx talk is finally on YT:
So.
He specifically mentions the EMDrive.
1) Takes visible, measurable phenomena and creates new theory.
2) Theory explains visible (even sometimes exotic) phenomena in simple way.
3) Theory generates predictions for behavior that can be proved either true or false.
And it's got a (small) side order of unification between GR and the quantum world.
Which looks to me the way physics should be done.
I think he's right. I could never quite shake the felling that "Hunting Dark Matter" had a lot in common with that other mythic beast, the Snark.
Now how you produce an acceleration of 1 x 10^20 m/s^2 is going to be tough. That's roughly 10 billion, billion g.
That said I dimly recall RL Forwards ideas about countering gravity by accelerating very dense fluids at very high speeds. Maybe very dense particles (Tungsten? SG about 19) in some low viscosity liquid?
I understand how McCulloch's theory of quantised inertia (aka MiHsC aka horizon mechanics) could modify the inertia of objects with respect to their acceleration, but I don't see how his theory explains inertia itself. His explanation even seems contradictory to me.
In layman terms, McCulloch says that inertia is a property that emerges from any accelerating object due to anisotropic Unruh radiation pressure on it (radiation pressure imbalance). Such an anisotropy would come from some information loss due to a relativistic Rindler (event) horizon appearing behind an accelerating object, shielding some of the distant Unruh waves it sees in that direction. As the object feels less Unruh radiation behind it, the radiation pushes back more in front of it, creating some resistance to acceleration, interpreted as inertia.
I see two main problems with such an explanation. Let's assume that "Unruh radiation" is something real. Yet it is a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, but it has never been proved to exist.
Unruh radiation is an increase of the ambient temperature as seen by an accelerating object, and not from a static observer located in the same inertial reference frame. To be very simple in such explanations, you can take the image of a thermometer that you shake in the air. The shaken thermometer would record a higher temperature due to the Unruh radiation it feels, than if it was not accelerating (then it would see no Unruh radiation). In both cases, Unruh radiation is never seen by the static observer in the room. It appears only for the point of view of the accelerating thermometer.
1) The first problem I see is that McCulloch's Unruh radiation pressure directly depends on the Unruh temperature, which is so tiny, so infinitesimally small, that it cannot be detected even with modern means, unless for unphysical, gigantic accelerations.
e.g. an acceleration of 1012 gee (a trillion times more than Earth gravity) triggers an increasing in Unruh radiation temperature of 40 billionths of a degree Kelvin.
In this regard, how could the inertia of, say, a car pushed on a road by hands, arise from such a ridiculous radiation pressure imbalance?
2) Second problem I see: information in relativity is conveyed at the speed of light, which is top speed. McCulloch interprets the word "radiation" in "Unruh radiation" as having an existence as a wave, that propagates. Such "Unruh waves" would have wavelengths ordinary in the order of light-years up to the size of the universe, except for anomalous cases like the EmDrive where Unruh wavelength would reach about the size of the cavity.
I don't see how Unruh waves in such Unruh radiation, coming from the Unruh temperature, could propagate faster than c, so you'd have to wait a loooong time before the loss of information beyond the distant relativistic event horizon created behind the object reaches that object.
Yet inertial reaction forces are instantaneous. As relativistic Rindler horizons are light-years away and McCulloch says that quantised inertia has its roots both in quantum mechanics and relativity with Mach's principle, is some action-at-a-distance field involving retarded/advanced waves a la Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (like in the Woodward effect) mandatory?
I asked Mike McCulloch (only in a shorter way) on Twitter but he didn't answered yet. Admittedly Twitter is not the best place to argue so I hope Mike will come here to address what I may have misunderstood in the foundations of his theory. -
#3099 by meberbs on 29 Mar, 2018 17:52
-
On a cosmological scale this motion would explain the absence of dark matter in a sparse galaxy as the density of fresh furrows is low. Dark matter, dark photons are all errors based on misunderstanding gravity as being a force, not an expression of probability a la mach effect and binary bifurcating paths at the planck resolution. Spacetime doesn't depend on quantum channels for any massive movement, but it preferentially enables electromagnetic attraction along the ray paths. This hypothesis of mutable and soft quantum channels can be disproven if equally massive galaxies contain less dark matter if they are the more luminous.
From the article you linked:QuoteGiven the object's large size and faint appearance, astronomers classify NGC 1052-DF2 as an ultra-diffuse galaxy. A 2015 survey of the Coma galaxy cluster showed these large, faint objects to be surprisingly common.
Other similarly sparse galaxies do not show this lack of dark matter, so explanations relying on it being a sparse galaxy are wrong.
But none of the ultra-diffuse galaxies discovered so far have been found to be lacking in dark matter.
Also, I have no idea why you linked to some random clearly not peer reviewed paper discussing something that is clearly pseudoscience, since it doesn't seem to have any relevance to your claims (which don't really make sense to begin with.)
