Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: CJCrawley

yes gravity is not a weak force. when you are picking up a paper clip, you are overcoming the gravity of the paperclip actually.
the physicists are working to keep the dogma of GR alive.

If you're not working against Earth's gravity when you pick up a paper clip, why do things weigh less on the moon, including paper clips?

Isaac Newton could have told you things would weigh less on the moon centuries before Einstein (though we have more accurate mass estimates now so Newton's estimates weren't as accurate). Your anti-General relativity obsession is showing because the weight of a paper clip seems more in the realm of Newtonian mechanics and doesn't require General Relativity.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: CJCrawley

You can also watch this youtube video, which demonstrates exactly what is going on in Nochzwei's thread...

I would omit the word "exactly" since it's slightly different, but yes it's demonstrating something very similar to what is going on in Nochzwei's video. I think Nochzwei might understand linear thermal expansion, which you could measure by measuring the length of the rod, then uniformly heating the entire rod, and measuring the length again, because it is those types of calculations he refers to in his denial of the thermal expansion effect.

What he doesn't understand and I don't believe he can calculate are the non-linear effects of deflection related to thermal expansion such as demonstrated in that good video you posted or in his own video. He says he knows how to do the math but he's never shown it and if he ever did it correctly he'd find it predicts what his video, and Eric Whyne's video show.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey let CJ crawley decide for himself

a reply to: Nochzwei

Yes we are, we are inviting CJcrawley to review the evidence and decide... we are offering a reason for all that is observed in the videos...

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

Yes we are, we are inviting CJcrawley to review the evidence and decide... we are offering a reason for all that is observed in the videos...

Lol, your reasoning has been debunked multiple times

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes the muon time dilation is well known but unfortunately your source contradicts Einstein's statement that it's momentum that increases with velocity, not mass.

Yes, I am no expert. What I wanted to say is there an observable phenomenon that was predicted by Einstein like time dilation in his SR works.
This phenomena with muon life is verified data, no?

space-time cannot be an infinite concept of cosmos being.
Just for a sake of it I'll ask-- why distant quasars are becoming more distant at increased rate?


thanks)

muon decy should read not mass, but a path distance it traveled to give longer than calculated life.
Meaning, muon has traveled shorter distance if we assume muon life is a fixed number.

Since we know the distance did not change, then time must been delayed, the only logical conclusion, no?

originally posted by: greenreflections
This phenomena with muon life is verified data, no?

Yes.

originally posted by: greenreflections
Since we know the distance did not change, then time must been delayed, the only logical conclusion, no?

"Time dilation" results in an apparent "delay" of the end of a muon's life.

originally posted by: greenreflections
space-time cannot be an infinite concept of cosmos being.
Just for a sake of it I'll ask-- why distant quasars are becoming more distant at increased rate?

Have you seen data saying that's the case? What I have read about are data from type 1A supernovae, a sort of "standard candle" in astronomy that allowed us to calculate the accelerating expansion of the universe. Once you make the inference of the expanding universe from the supernova measurements, then you can infer everything else is experiencing the same accelerating expansion effects, including quasars, though astronomers are still making more measurements that should result in more accurate information about the expansion profile.

Why is the expansion accelerating? We don't know exactly, but the best guess seems to be that space has a type of "dark energy" that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate, probably the same thing as what we call "vacuum energy" which is not well understood. When we try to predict the amount of vacuum energy using quantum field theory we come up with the wrong answer (which doesn't match observations), and it's wrong by a lot. That's just one of the interesting unsolved problems we are trying to solve.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

Yes we are, we are inviting CJcrawley to review the evidence and decide... we are offering a reason for all that is observed in the videos...

Lol, your reasoning has been debunked multiple times

You attempted to use linear thermal expansion coefficients to debunk it, but your explanation fails because the geometry of the experiment also results in non-linear deflections, which you've never addressed in any "debunk".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

if the base of the machine is rising as much as the top your expansion excuse is utterly butterly moot. pl don't bring up such sheites again to mislead other posters. just admit you have lost and GR is indeed bunk

a reply to: Nochzwei
There is nothing in your video to show the base of the machine is rising.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
There is nothing in your video to show the base of the machine is rising.

so what it was measured prior to shooting the video as only one deflection gauge was available

a reply to: Nochzwei
This is just one more example of the flawed experimental thinking that is apparent in your experiments, like trying to measure time dilation/brightness differences with candles of uncalibrated brightness with normal candle to candle variability and subjected to different amounts of wind, etc.

It doesn't even make any sense to say the rising of the base was measured before the experiment, because measurements before the experiment don't tell you what happened during the experiment. If the base was rising during the experiment you'd have to measure it during the experiment to know that.

I have no reason to believe the base rose and you saying measurements were made before the experiment doesn't suggest it did, but I would also note that there are ways to make the base rise without using anti-gravity. I can surmise there is a rotating device of some kind in your enclosure from the loud "whirring" sound. If you make that device a fan and you duct the air coming out of the fan through a hole in the bottom of your machine, you'll get a small amount of lift something along the lines of how a helicopter gets lift. If you think a helicopter is "anti-gravity", then you don't know the meaning of "anti-gravity".

I could literally write an entire book on all the experimental errors apparent in your video. Even careful scientists doing careful work inadvertently have small errors they didn't expect or anticipate sometimes, but there's nothing careful about drawing conclusions from the brightness of one shielded control candle and another candle that has a breeze blowing on it. This thread isn't about your failed experiment so please stop hijacking this thread to promote your failure, use your own thread to discuss that. No new physics is required to explain experimental errors, as you keep claiming.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Can't believe you are still talking about his candles on a metal box. All his conclusions were just unscientific hogwash. Candles being used as an indicator of anything borders on insanity. Two candles will never be the same. Millions of factors see to that from wax used humidity when it was made position. For example set a candle on a hot metal box thermal convection will feed the candle o2.

I think a better idea would be an explintion of the physics involved. However as we know he's unable to do that. All he does is spout garbage that has been disproved by real s scintific experiment using real instruments and not candles.

Funniest part is I f he was right he'd be thr next Einstine and make billions

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Length contraction is difficult to prove.

yes, but with muon decay it is clearly has been showed. One of two has to happen: muon has traveled shorter distance or time for muon was slower from our frame. Since we know muon life to be fixed number then 'time dilation' explanation is only option left logically, no?
Length contraction follows from SR conclusions, imo.
If time dilations is acknowledged, length contraction is a must attribute in entire Einstein vision of the universe and needs no separate proof.

From our reference frame the muons live longer and from the muons frame the Earth is speeding towards it, near light speed and the atmosphere is very contracted. To the muon the Earth atmosphere is so small that it can make it all the way through to detectors on the ground before it decays.

If the Earth were it's normal size (traveling way below light speed) the muon would only make it past the upper atmosphere before decaying.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

if the base of the machine is rising as much as the top your expansion excuse is utterly butterly moot. pl don't bring up such sheites again to mislead other posters. just admit you have lost and GR is indeed bunk

Whatever that silly theory (not really a theory) was called that you are backing, which is supposed to replace GR, it can't even produce newtons gravity can it?

In other words does it have an alternate way of showing all the mathematical laws that Newton came up with?
GR deals with curved space but it can reduce to flat space and give Newtonian gravity. So even if you don't believe in curved space-time it still can be used to show classical gravity.

So the idea that it's total "bunk" is already sketchy. But what about GR do you disagree with? I'm not asking to be directed to a video of a washing machine and a candle. I'm saying where did GR go wrong? Do you also disagree with Newtonian gravity?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ive heard your tripe before about this video in ques. Let cj crawley decide for himself.

a reply to: dragonridr

whatever resources were available were used, so it is pointless to pick on the candles which were used to corroborate other results.

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

if the base of the machine is rising as much as the top your expansion excuse is utterly butterly moot. pl don't bring up such sheites again to mislead other posters. just admit you have lost and GR is indeed bunk

Whatever that silly theory (not really a theory) was called that you are backing, which is supposed to replace GR, it can't even produce newtons gravity can it?

In other words does it have an alternate way of showing all the mathematical laws that Newton came up with?
GR deals with curved space but it can reduce to flat space and give Newtonian gravity. So even if you don't believe in curved space-time it still can be used to show classical gravity.

So the idea that it's total "bunk" is already sketchy. But what about GR do you disagree with? I'm not asking to be directed to a video of a washing machine and a candle. I'm saying where did GR go wrong? Do you also disagree with Newtonian gravity?

Go here mate read this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...