It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kirchhoff’s Law Proven Invalid, The Implications Are Enormous

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Oh jeebus cut the bickering and prove the damn thing is false or shut up.......




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Elton
reply to post by F4guy
 


Looks like he puts his work on viXra.org, a non peer reviewed repository for folks who can not get published on arXiv.org.
vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_robitaille


His letters were published on Vixra, as you note, because the arXiv server is controlled by political interests.

His academic papers are published in peer-reviewed journals.

I just found another paper of his that was published in the IEEE.

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

There are probably more that I'm unaware of.

It's worth noting that his IEEE paper was cited as recently as this year in regards to solar power applications.

ieeexplore.ieee.org...



edit on 4/10/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I read Kirchhoff’s Law in all respects as relates to the questionable premises
put forth in this thread. The OP's claims are outrageous and what's more
there's no acknowledgement, therefore no acceptance of his claims anywhere
in the scientific community.

To refute Kirchhoff’s Law, and by extension Plank's Constant is absurd.

But the most bizarre outcome of the OP's claims would lead to a refutation of
all of Einsteins marvelous achievements. Why? Because Einsteins work is
enmeshed in and reliant upon the work of Kirchhoff and Plank among others.

OP's claims are all bogus so I don't feel any obligation whatsoever to
comply with the OP's demand to read all of his material and view his videos. It
would be a waste of time.



edit on 10-4-2014 by valdonzontaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

valdonzontaz
The OP's claims are outrageous and what's more
there's no acknowledgement, therefore no acceptance of his claims anywhere
in the scientific community.


Because these people:

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

Didn't actually reference his paper on Kirchhoff's law. We are all just imagining things.

Thanks for your authoritative opinion on the matter.

Google Scholar says his paper has been referenced 40 times.

scholar.google.com...

It would be nice if you actually gave a scientific reason as to why his papers are incorrect, instead of just blindly assuming they are wrong because you don't like the idea of tossing out ancient theories.




edit on 4/10/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Robitaille's an Electric Universer. Thus the paper.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


OMG call in the thought police!

Someone dares question the orthodoxy!



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by GetHyped
 


Libertarian News is my blog and those are my words. I wrote them as a summary of the video and papers that are linked at the end of the article.

If you want to attack the article, attack the science. Stop going after reputations.


Reputations are irrelevant.

Granted, there may certainly be something to this, but lets do this the right way and wait for a full peer review before running with this.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by Bedlam
 


OMG call in the thought police!

Someone dares question the orthodoxy!


You too, right? Thought as much.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

AnarchoCapitalist
That is incorrect.

www.ptep-online.com...



Progress in Physics is an American scientific journal, registered with the Library of Congress (DC, USA): ISSN 1555-5534 (print version) and ISSN 1555-5615 (online version). Our journal is peer reviewed
Well, maybe they submit electric universe articles to other electric universe pseudoscientists, and call it peer review. But that's not what we normally mean when we ask about "peer review".

Physicsforums has stated they generally authorize the use of over 17,000 peer reviewed journals as a basis to discuss topics with the scientists on that forum. So, I looked up the list to see if this journal "Progress in Physics" is on it. It's not, though they have over a dozen different "Progress in..." Journals. Here is a screenshot of the listing I just made online, where it would be the second journal on the list if it was peer reviewed to standards which physicsforums considers acceptable:

ip-science.thomsonreuters.com...



Bedlam
Robitaille's an Electric Universer. Thus the paper.
He pointed out that:

-We have a model for ideal black body behavior
-Objects in nature often don't have characteristics of an ideal black body

Therefore he wants to throw the law out, but even he admits that the closer something is to a perfect black body, the closer its behavior is to our black body model. So he has a point with some of his premises, it's the irrational conclusions he draws from those premises that are causing him to publish in less reputable places.

To put this in context, I'll refer to a joke my Physics 101 professor used in class, which I always thought was kind of funny. He would say:

"Assume a perfectly spherical hippopotamus..." and go on to ask us to solve a gravitational problem using this assumption. Of course we know there's no such thing as a perfectly spherical hippopotamus in nature. While it was funny it also made the serious point that when we make observations in nature, our very simple models can become much more complicated very quickly when we try to apply them to natural observations, which would be the case if you had to model the gravitational field of an actual hippo, or perhaps in a more relevant example we know the Earth isn't a perfect sphere and also has various density differences so the gravitational field isn't uniform for objects in orbit like we would calculate for a perfect sphere using a simple model.

So using the same type of arguments as Robitaille that we generally don't have perfect blackbodies so our simple black body models don't always directly apply, we can say that simple models for calculating the gravitational field of a hippopotamus aren't accurate because the hippopotamus isn't spherical and therefore the assumptions we make to simplify the math don't work.

So far so good, but this doesn't mean we throw out black body or gravitational models, it simply means we try to recognize how natural phenomena differ from simplified models, and make the appropriate adjustments. This is the point that Robitaille seems to miss.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   

grey580
Where's Phage when you need him?
lol


Why do you need Phage? Are you incapable of doing the research yourself? Phage is not the end all be all of scientific examination on ATS. Ill never understand why so many people like you celebrate his existence and revere him as if he is some super hero. No offense to him.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
So far so good, but this doesn't mean we throw out black body or gravitational models, it simply means we try to recognize how natural phenomena differ from simplified models, and make the appropriate adjustments. This is the point that Robitaille seems to miss.


He's not missing it. It's advocacy science.

Similar to what the Tobacco Institute did for smoking studies, or PETA or one of their mouthpieces like CSPI does for dietary studies. The point is to try to publish an advocacy piece masquerading as a legitimate analysis.

I'm sure TI might have actually done a legitimate bit of research, maybe CSPI or PCRM once did an actual piece of dietary analysis. But you don't trust it because you know that the source is a near-religious advocate for a specific viewpoint. In this case, the guy's an Electric Universer, and he's going to write his research to that end. It doesn't mean that there aren't possibly bits of truth in there, but you aren't going to find a lot of people flocking to it to do any replication or analysis. It's also why he's having to publish where he is.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Just can't get enough ptep bashing in hey?

Thank god his seminal paper on this is published in the IEEE. That should leave you with nothing to complain about.

As for him 'missing the point', I believe that's a bit of Freudian projection on your part. You guys are the one's assuming your models actually describe reality. That's what us natural philosophy folks call reification.

If what you suggest was actually true, then there would be a huge number of papers on this subject already. Of course, that's not the case. When people bring it up, they are forced out.

edit on 4/10/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

smithjustinb

grey580
Where's Phage when you need him?
lol


Why do you need Phage? Are you incapable of doing the research yourself? Phage is not the end all be all of scientific examination on ATS. Ill never understand why so many people like you celebrate his existence and revere him as if he is some super hero. No offense to him.


Pretty interesting too... because i feel the same way regarding how Tesla is elevated to some kind of super human, despite anyone who can understand basic physics can tell you that... He didn't really understand what he was doing.

I don't worship anyone here, no point. There are just people who give things a better effort and a better debate than others. Im a PhD physics, do i get my own fan club? Nope, do i want one? Not really



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   

AnarchoCapitalist
You guys are the one's assuming your models actually describe reality.
I'm not assuming that, in fact we see deviations from our models all the time. Look at all the discussion that went into the Pioneer Anomaly. There were people proposing new physics as one possibility to explain observations that didn't seem to match our models. But that was a perfect case of what I'm talking about, because it wasn't until we used existing physics to make a very careful model that the observed anomaly was explained by the more complicated, and more accurate model. Making such accurate models is hard.

Robitaille even admits that the closer an object is to an ideal black body, the better the black body model works. But it's well known by most physicists that the simple black body model which applies to an ideal black body applies less and less as the object being observed becomes less and less like an ideal black body.


edit on 10-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

AnarchoCapitalist
You guys are the one's assuming your models actually describe reality.
I'm not assuming that, in fact we see deviations from our models all the time. Look at all the discussion that went into the Pioneer Anomaly. There were people proposing new physics as one possibility to explain observations that didn't seem to match our models. But that was a perfect case of what I'm talking about, because it wasn't until we used existing physics to make a very careful model that the observed anomaly was explained by the more complicated, and more accurate model. Making such accurate models is hard.

Robitaille even admits that the closer an object is to an ideal black body, the better the black body model works. But it's well known by most physicists that the simple black body model which applies to an ideal black body applies less and less as the object being observed becomes less and less like an ideal black body.


edit on 10-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Yeah, but this isn't about model approximation. This is about reification. The standard theorists insist that their models are a depiction of what is actually occurring, rather than simply being a mathematical construct that is useful for describing reality.

Take black holes for example. There is ample evidence to suggest the entire theory of black holes is total BS. Yet, rather than saying black holes really don't exist, and that the mathematicians are actually just creating mathematical models as a useful way of theorizing about what might be causing the concentration of observed energy, they insist that black holes really do exist! That their math really does depict what is actually occurring! And that my friend is a load of horse hockey, and these papers prove it.

I got no problem with mathematicians proposing models of bending space to explain away what we observe out in space. Let them do their math. The problem I have is when those models are taken to be the gospel truth of reality. I have a problem when other theories are pushed into obscure journals for political reasons rather than scientific reasons.



edit on 4/10/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


All I have to say is I am sorry your article about utter BS is exposed as .. utter BS. I arrived late to the party and really there is no more to add.

I liken this to someone saying 1+1=1.999(infinity) so the standard model of mathematics that says 1+1=2 is wrong and should be thrown out.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
 


All I have to say is I am sorry your article about utter BS is exposed as .. utter BS. I arrived late to the party and really there is no more to add.

I liken this to someone saying 1+1=1.999(infinity) so the standard model of mathematics that says 1+1=2 is wrong and should be thrown out.



Thanks for the sympathy, but I don't need any.

In fact, I feel sorry for you.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
This is quite interesting, and I agree that the potential implications for the future are enormous. I have come to believe that science, especially where physics is concerned, are incorrect in some aspects. I believe it has been demonstrated that scientific theories or laws could sufficiently explain natural phenomena, yet still not be correct, such as some of Newton's ideas being replaced by Einstein's Relativity. Although in this instance it was obvious that Newton's theory was not valid in all instances, but I think that an explanation can be valid in all instances, yet still be incorrect.

It is like we've reached the correct answer, but not in the right way. That may not seem like a big deal, since the end result is the same, but when one attempts to merge that theory with related theories, or unify them, things will not work out. I think this is what led up to String Theory and M-Theory, and that they are just vague abstractions, mathematical wrangling, that have no real value, since they are not going in the right direction. I even have problems with the introduction of 11 dimensions. I just think the universe is a bit more intuitive than scientists currently believe, and I think the main scientific errors are in some of our most simple and basic formulas.

I believe that incorrect assumptions were made regarding the nature of time itself most importantly. I don't know if things will ever be corrected, but I do not believe it is possible to progress past a certain point when such mistakes have been made. So we very well may see science hitting a wall in some instances, if they haven't already. I think it will be impossible to unify the fundamental forces, or to mold Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together in a way that adequately explains the universe around us.

So this is just in line with this new discovery, at least the way I see things. I think there should be more research done on some of the earliest discarded theories. If more scientists were working to find potential divergences, I think we would hit on the right idea and progress more quickly. Just speculation of course, and I could be wrong, but this thread perfectly illustrates the fallibility of science, and the fact that long held laws can still be wrong.



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   


"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend most all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Normal science, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. As a puzzle-solving activity, normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none."

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962
- Thomas Kuhn
- page 5.





But of course he goes on to describe the entrenched resistance to exposing these suppressed novelties, saying that real change and progress usually has to wait for the old-guard to die as they never give up their view of what the world is like.

For instance all the people in this very thread who feel threatened by the hint that quantum physics is a complete waste of time. They have seen counter arguments defeated before. They see counter arguments as a dead-horse.
















Thomas Kuhn performed a signal service for historiography of science by studying how new ideas and new ways of thinking displace the old. He invented the term 'paradigm shift' to describe what happens when 'normal science' runs into 'anomalies' and enters a 'crisis', which in turn leads to a 'scientific revolution'. Nobody had heard of such things before, so Kuhn had a scoop. He sketched some historical examples in iconoclastic style; the result is this short book, first published forty years ago and still wowing Cultural Studies students today.



Before Kuhn, we were taught in school that scientific progress was linear, that it was an unending progression of refinements and developments, with one "truth" leading to the next "truth." Kuhn's insights including pointing out that such a linear progression was mostly a lie. His thesis was that the major developments in science were mostly revolutionary. That some "truths" turned out to be false. Astronomy was revolutionized by Galielo and Copernicus, and man was divested from the center of the universe. Physics was revolutionized by Newton. Biology and Darwin. It didn't hurt that plate tectonics came along shortly after Kuhn published, and Kuhn looked like his model was predictive, too.



My favorite aspect of this book is how Kuhn describes people's blind resistance to new ideas and technology, even if it is something that will ultimately benefit mankind. In a moment of dark truth, Kuhn states that in many cases it is not a matter of convincing those who already established, but rather convincing the next generation and simply waiting for the current one to die off. It's both a guide to understanding how to really effect change in a world of stubborn thought, as well as a detailed history of innovations and the process required to make them mainstream. In its scathing criticism of the scientific establishment, it unveils how much further we could be if we did in fact adopt a linear structure for improving technology.


Now with all of that out of the way
I, for one,
am very excited to learn about this and study it in detail.
I plan on spending my spring break getting up to speed and visiting this thread repeatedly to contribute and learn.

Thanks OP!
S&F


Mike Grouchy





edit on 11-4-2014 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2014 @ 01:15 AM
link   

mikegrouchy
But of course he goes on to describe the entrenched resistance to exposing these suppressed novelties, saying that real change and progress usually has to wait for the old-guard to die as they never give up their view of what the world is like.


So true.

In fact, this is true for a lot more things than just science.

Take Keynesian economic theory for example. The people in control of the world's central banks believe they can create real wealth and prosperity out of infinite amounts of debt. They believe that debt-as-money serves the public good.

No amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change their opinion on this. This is how they make their living. They will never give up their golden goose, not even if it means the entire world is plunged into economic chaos and war.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join