Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

How the hell can you guys say a theory is wrong without even learning what its saying??

OR ESPECIALLY WITHOUT STUDYING THE MATH!!!

Math doesn't lie. When the math produces results that the current world of physics says is impossible.. WITHOUT USING PLANCK'S CONSTANT, and actually, deriving planck's constant from FIRST PRINCIPLES, that means something.

Indeed, it usually means you did something wrong.

Planck's constant is dimensional, in units corresponding to arbitrary human choices. Deriving something from first principles may mean that you can fix nondimensional numbers. People have tried this for the fine structure constant for ages, though none is satisfactory or successful.

There are plenty of physical theories with correct mathematics which are nevertheless wrong physics; because physics is not mathematics. Good mathematics historically has had unusual power in describing correct physical theory (though the more contemporary experience with string theory may belie that), but just because it looks good doesn't mean it is a true physical representation of the universe.

General relativity has very beautiful (and for the time) innovative mathematics, but it is based most critically on physical axioms---not mathematical axioms---and these princples were the key insight of Einstein.

Did anyone else notice that in PART 2 (at time 4:54) the audio is distorted!? It sounds really out of place, as if someone messed with the original audio in order to distort the information. This is just conjecture on my part, but it doesn't sound like a problem created during the video's upload to YouTube. It sounds like somebody recorded a nonsensical mumbling, and then dubbed it over the original audio. I'm mainly thinking down this line of reasoning because of Cold Fusion's history of being regarded as a rather taboo area of interest among the scientific community, so as soon as the video (part 2, 4:54) started to detail part of the process of creating Cold Fusion, the audio is hijacked by a mubling from the Dark Lord Shabranigdo, WTF!? Or, it's also possible that my homework has driven me to hallucinate

Originally posted by prepared4truth
Also, who are you to say what high school teachers are NOT going to do? Like I said earlier, Einstein was a dropout...

Yes, from high-school (because it was too stifling), and he transferred to a degree program in a rigorous university (ETH) and subsequently earned a PhD from the University of Zurich. Even before completing his PhD, he was publishing papers in serious scientific journals.

Originally posted by die_another_day
...
There is no "anti-gravity,"

There are forces and equal and opposite reactions.

What would be the equal and opposite reaction of gravity?
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Thanks for the post, I actually watched all of them to my own surprise. Some complex stuff, but I gathered what I could understand from it. Some of the videos are no longer available though.

Enlightening information nevertheless, and yes the narrator is great, comedic in fact.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
However, its just sementics, gravity manipulation sounds like a bunch of douchebaggery.

Yes its semantics. but just look at the few pages of posts here at ATS in this thread alone...

In one sense an ordinary airplane is an 'anti-gravity' device as it defies gravity as long as the wings have lift

We have the same problem with 'dimensions' some consider time the 4th dimension while others consider parallel universes dimensions

So maybe we need a new term

And a gravity shield that would block of the moon would be a bad idea... but I wonder what would happen if you create a strong warp field between the Earth and the moon... Might be good to engage warp drive/jump gates outside the solar system

Phew!

Ok, finished the video series. Narrator has a good voice, and doesn't go too fast or to slow.

Everything sounds legit to me (and very cool!), but the devil is (as they say) in the details.

So he starts with this equation: Vt = ƒƛ

Vt = The speed of the quantum transmission
ƒ = The frequency of the emitted photon
ƛ = The wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission

Now, Frank picks a value of 1.094 x 10^6 m/s for Vt and in the video it is explained where this constant comes from. I believe it was empirically determined.

The point of this equation is that with Vt known, and the frequency of an emitted photon measurable, we can arrive at the wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission.

Next, he takes a formula describing capacitance between two square plates: C = e0A / D

C = capacitance
e0 = permittivity of free space
A = area
D = distance

He then substitutes ƛ^2 for A, and ƛ/2 for D, resulting in an equation that looks like C = e0ƛ^2 / (ƛ/2). This step seems fishy to me. He's using wavelength as a substitution for distance and area? Maybe this was explained in the video, but if it was, I didn't get it, and I still don't.

This simplifies further to C = 2e0ƛ and since ƛ = Vt / ƒ (as per the first equation, we end up with a formula that looks like this:

C = 2e0Vt / ƒ

If there is funny business going on in his math, it is with regards to this above equation! This just looks like unit manipulation to me. How can capacitance be expressed as a function of frequency at the moment of quantum transmission? Capacitance has nothing to do with the wavelength or frequency of photons. But I'm not a physicist, so what do I know?

Anyways, next we take a formula for energy stored in a capacitor: E = Q^2 / 2C

E = energy
Q = charge (in coulombs)
C = capacitance

He then subs in his 2e0Vt / ƒ in place of C in the denominator, and we arrive at:

E = [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] ƒ


And since Einstein's equation for the photo-electric effect is E = h ƒ

We can isolate [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] = h

Tada!

We've derived Plank's constant as a function of charge squared over speed of quantum transmission.

And just to make sure they're actually equivalent....

Q = 1.60217646 × 10-19 coulombs
Vt = 1.094 x 10^6 m/s
e0 = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2

(2.56696942 × 10-38) / 4(8.85418782 × 10-12)(1.094 x 10^6) = 6.62513376 × 10-34 m3 kg / s2

Which equals Plank's constant to within significant digits.

So, he's not lying - he does derive plank's constant. But as to whether or not that means anything, or has any relevance, I really have no idea.

I'm not a physicist, I just know how to do algebra. I'll leave it up to the self-described "experts" to explain all this. At least now you can all argue about the actual math, rather than nothing at all.

I mean, seriously, none of the skeptics in this thread so far have even bothered to watch the flippin' video. Now you don't have to. Here's the math. Debunk away.

Originally posted by prepared4truth
Einstein wasn't respected before he was well known either.

Einstein was wrong



Don't take my word for it just google that

Originally posted by RedBird
Phew!

Everything sounds legit to me (and very cool!), but the devil is (as they say) in the details.

So he starts with this equation: Vt = ƒƛ

Vt = The speed of the quantum transmission
ƒ = The frequency of the emitted photon
ƛ = The wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission

Now, Frank picks a value of 1.094 x 10^6 m/s for Vt and in the video it is explained where this constant comes from. I believe it was empirically determined.

In actual physics, the velocity of a photon, being a massless particle, is c, which is about 3 x 10^9 m/s.

The point of this equation is that with Vt known,

'known' in the sense of "random baloney pulled from my bellybutton lint"

and the frequency of an emitted photon measurable, we can arrive at the wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission.

Next, he takes a formula describing capacitance between two square plates: C = e0A / D

C = capacitance
e0 = permittivity of free space
A = area
D = distance

He then substitutes ƛ^2 for A, and ƛ/2 for D, resulting in an equation that looks like C = e0ƛ^2 / (ƛ/2). This step seems fishy to me. He's using wavelength as a substitution for distance and area? Maybe this was explained in the video, but if it was, I didn't get it, and I still don't.

Indeed, because it makes no sense at all.

This simplifies further to C = 2e0ƛ and since ƛ = Vt / ƒ (as per the first equation, we end up with a formula that looks like this:

C = 2e0Vt / ƒ

If there is funny business going on in his math, it is with regards to this above equation! This just looks like unit manipulation to me. How can capacitance be expressed as a function of frequency at the moment of quantum transmission? Capacitance has nothing to do with the wavelength or frequency of photons. But I'm not a physicist, so what do I know?

You know enough to smell bovine scatology.

Anyways, next we take a formula for energy stored in a capacitor: E = Q^2 / 2C

E = energy
Q = charge (in coulombs)
C = capacitance

He then subs in his 2e0Vt / ƒ in place of C in the denominator, and we arrive at:

E = [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] ƒ


And since Einstein's equation for the photo-electric effect is E = h ƒ

We can isolate [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] = h

Tada!

We've derived Plank's constant as a function of charge squared over speed of quantum transmission.

Suppose I discharge the Capacitor Of Eternal Life, so Q = 0. Whoops! Planck constant ain't! There goes quantum mechanics, Newton and Laplace ride again!

I'm not a physicist, I just know how to do algebra. I'll leave it up to the self-described "experts" to explain all this. At least now you can all argue about the actual math, rather than nothing at all.

I mean, seriously, none of the skeptics in this thread so far have even bothered to watch the flippin' video. Now you don't have to. Here's the math. Debunk away.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg. --- Abraham Lincoln