It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Uploaded on Oct 31, 2008
Keep an eye on the upper left of the screen and spot a thin wire (maybe fishing line) moving in correlation to saucer.
At americanantigravity.com ,by way of excuse, they say:
"During DVD filming by American Antigravity, we were unable to capture the H-Effect on film due to Hutchison lacking the RF-tube equipment that he used throughout the 1980's to generate the classic effect. This inability (from 1992 to 2006) to recreate the classic Hutchison Effect is in fact the reason that Hutchison was experimenting with other projects, such as the single-wire transmission system filmed by Peter Von Puttkamer"
"Wire transmission system". Yeh! we know, yanking on a piece of wire. Great science!!
Maybe someone out there with editing software could show folks where the wire is and follow its movement. I think Hutchison might have realised that the wire was in view and then moved the camera towards the end.
The King James Bible is the word of God. Every other modern English version is a perversion.
I love the mandolin playing of Bill Monroe, a great song writer, too. The best performer of bluesgrass music alive today is Larry Sparks. He is a bluegrass guitar player without equal.
Trying to see through deception, an ever increasingly difficult task. Still good apologetics are being undertaken by a few.
During DVD filming by American Antigravity, we were unable to capture the H-Effect on film due to Hutchison lacking the RF-tube equipment that he used throughout the 1980's to generate the classic effect. This inability (from 1992 to 2006) to recreate the classic Hutchison Effect is in fact the reason that Hutchison was experimenting with other projects, such as the single-wire transmission system filmed by Peter Von Puttkamer. During part of this period of time, John was also under a voluntary test restriction by the local Vancouver mayor, who previously received calls from panicked neighbors during John's experiments.
I've seen Chris angel pass through locked doors. He's proof that solid objects can pass through each other and physics is wrong. 😁
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: zatara
You're welcome and I agree that wasn't too smart. I think the smart people who are good at fooling people with illusions are getting paid big bucks to do that in Las Vegas shows, so you probably won't see the wires in their levitation illusions, though of course they have wires too, they are just better at hiding them.
Movement is something physically moving from point A to point B, whereas time domain is a complete dimension by itself
originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: Nochzwei
Looks like you can tell me one thing time is besides only movement, to justify your response to me stating 'time is only movement'. If you cant do so it looks like your comment is completely unsubstantiated and meaningless; merely a projected ad hominem due to the lack of sufficient intelligence to respond with substantial content.
Time is only movement.
If you disagree. Express your reasons for disagreeing.
In the last years of the nineteenth century, Planck was investigating the problem of black-body radiation first posed by Kirchhoff some forty years earlier.
It's hard to get two protons to collide. If we aim 100,000 protons at each other in the LHC, most of them will miss, and of the 20 that have some kind of collision, not all of those have a perfect centered head-on collision, so you can get various types of outputs even from those 20 that collide out of 100,000.
originally posted by: KrzYma
how comes, those experiments smash billions of protons against billions of protons and the scientist still tell us, what we see as outcome is in any case true collision ??
What makes them not true collisions just because there's more than one?
it's an interaction of 2X billions of protons
where is the TRUE collision and the TRUE outcome of the collision between 2 protons ???
If you can prove they are not constant that would be very interesting. We actually do look for evidence of whether what we think are constants are really constant. Remember that as we look at greater and greater distances from Earth, in a sense we are also looking back in time, so the question of whether constants change over time or distance are somewhat related by the nature of our cosmological observations.
how comes, an assumption about constants is applied as TRUE to EVERYTHING if it is and stays as assumption and nothing more ??
Gravitational constant is an measurement -> Cavendish experiment here on Earth !!!
how can someone be so bigheaded and assume it holds for the whole universe ?? This is an assumption !!! the same applies for C.
Have physical constants changed with time?
The fundamental laws of physics, as we presently understand them, depend on about 25 parameters, such as Planck's constant h, the gravitational constant G, and the mass and charge of the electron. It is natural to ask whether these parameters are really constants, or whether they vary in space or time...
Over the past few decades, there have been extensive searches for evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." Among the methods used have been astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, searches for variations of planetary radii and moments of inertia, investigations of orbital evolution, searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, and (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.
One powerful approach has been to study the "Oklo Phenomenon," a uranium deposit in Gabon that became a natural nuclear reactor about 1.8 billion years ago; the isotopic composition of fission products has permitted a detailed investigation of possible changes in nuclear interactions. Another has been to examine ratios of spectral lines of distant quasars coming from different types of atomic transitions (resonant, fine structure, and hyperfine). The resulting frequencies have different dependences on the electron charge and mass, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, and can be used to compare these parameters to their present values on Earth. Solar eclipses provide another sensitive test of variations of the gravitational constant. If G had varied, the eclipse track would have been different from the one we calculate today, so the mere fact that a total eclipse occurred at a particular location provides a powerful constraint, even if the date is poorly known.
So far, these investigations have found no evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." The current observational limits for most constants are on the order of one part in 1010 to one part in 1011 per year. So to the best of our current ability to observe, the fundamental constants really are constant.
I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread. I've already said that relativity is almost certainly wrong in the same sense Newtonian mechanics was wrong, meaning they are both apparently right in the limiting cases where they are used but are incomplete. Einstein himself had barely finished publishing his theory of general relativity in 1915 when within a few years he was already talking about the need to rationalize that theory with quantum mechanics somehow, which to this date still hasn't been done for high energies.
...back to the question...
what gives you the right to call your theory right and other wrong ?
If by that you mean you doubt there's a singularity at the center of a black hole as general relativity predicts, I think you can find scientists to agree with you so I don't think they are convinced relativity is the ultimate theory, even Einstein doubted that.
hit me, kill me, punish me, because I don't agree with your believe system !!!
I know that all the researchers in the dark energy research published in 1998 got some results they weren't expecting, so their first conclusion before they published anything was that they must have done something wrong with the way they collected or analyzed the data. It wouldn't help their careers to publish wrong data or analysis, so they went over the data and went over the analysis many times trying to figure out where they went wrong.
originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur
NOT the Feynman again...
but he's right on one thing, if observation doesn't fit the theory, the theory is wrong !!!
-the theory was wrong before introduction to dark mater and dark energy
KrzYma, I've never seen any law that is 100% right all of the time and in all instances. I can show you a perfectly valid paper showing how we violated the second law of thermodynamics. Newton's laws are false when applied to subatomic particles. I could fill up this page with observational evidence contradicting known laws.
-the theory is wrong because Kirchhofs "law" is invalid
Onto his core beliefs – that Kirchoff’s law has been taken too seriously by science. These people fail to understand the level of experimentation that goes into all this as well as good hard theoretical work. It was never simply taken for granted (it presently isn’t) that all bodies act as blackbodies, it is merely inferred from measurements that they do. It has been known since John Dalton’s time that gases act as blackbodies when it comes to the emission of light – much though this guy knows. Finally, there is the question of universality – that physical laws coming from blackbody research don’t hold throughout the universe, or even on the Earth. We’ve sent probes to other planets, measured their temperature and compared it to our knowledge of the blackbody emissions and greenhouse heat trapping of atmospheres (as well as other thermodynamic effects such as winds). The temperatures hold up not just globally but locally in terms of atmospheric models.
In addition, his belief in a quasi-static universe comes from his belief that science is based on incorrect blackbody physics. In fact, whether or not blackbody physics is correct, Hubble’s measurement of the expansion of the Universe is very much an entirely independent piece of science.
Progress in Physics is one of several internet sites where people who have failed to show the discipline required to publish in scientific journals come together to create a pretend journal.
I'll bet you can't find one particle physicist who will say that our current standard model of particle physics is perfect. It can't even explain gravity. We know it needs improvement.
-the theory is wrong because "sub-paricles" don't follow the theory
It's nice to see that despite the differences in our outlook we can agree on something once in a while, as I more or less agree with your assessment of this video. So maybe not all hope is lost in coming to an agreement of better mutual understanding of other issues as well.
watch this !
I agree with most of it and infinity is the starting point in "my picture of the whole",
except one thing... the observer who is defining what to do with it ( like the rotation of the sphere )
so.. all till 11min is OK, the rest is BS and mind tricks.
paradox is a creation and not a natural thing !
The guy who was simultaneously studying physics at MIT near Boston and Pearce Junior College in LA 2600 miles away said it is, so how could we doubt the claim of a guy who commutes 2600 miles between classes? Must be true.
originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Is it possible that the strong nuclear force could actually be gravity? Yes, I know the strong force is what, roughly 30 magnitudes different than gravity? But, we don't know how gravity works at the quantum scale.
So far we have yet to build a commercially viable fusion reactor of any size, but Lockheed Martin has made claims about a compact reactor the size of a jet engine. Unlike the guy who commutes 2600 miles between classes, Lockheed Martin is a credible source, so, we just have to wait and see exactly what they come out with. For now I'd say your best bet of building a compact fusion reactor is getting a job at Lockheed Martin and helping them build it...it sounds like they might still have a few bugs to work out since it's not on the market yet. Here's an article about it:
originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Ok, but, I have another question. Say another "anonymous" person, wanted to create a miniature fusion reactor, similar to what is seen in the Iron Man movies. Where should he start? I understand fusion takes place at extremely hot temperatures and maintaining those temperatures at a much smaller scale makes it's just that much harder. Is it even possible to make such a thing...
That's what some physicists thought in the 1960s:
originally posted by: KrzYma
those are all creations needed to fit the math
So if you've got an alternate explanation for those experiments in the 1970s that established the reality of quarks, let's hear it. Otherwise you're stuck in the 1960s.
initially, most physicists were reluctant to accept that quarks were anything more than convenient abstractions aiding particle classification. The fractional electric charges seemed bizarre, and experiments repeatedly failed to turn up any individual free quarks ... But two developments during the 1970s established the reality of quarks.
There are two major theories involved.
originally posted by: greenreflections
I am lay dude, curious to know what is consensus on what space is? Is it indeed empty? Just some abstract volume where physical entities just have freedom to move? Why did Einstein call it 'space-time'? Was there a reason he thought of to tie space and time into one?