Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by loner007
Einstein wasn't respected before he was well known either.
That is the problem with scientific institutions now. They assume that someone that is already well-respected has to come up with plausible theory. But the truth is, new possibilities come from new sources.
I just finished watching all twelve of these videos and I have to say, well done. I learned a lot from them and I look forward to more. The person who produced these only has a high-school education, yet he can teach physics more easily than most high school teachers these days. Because they're all conventional followers instead of crazy pioneers.
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.
Originally posted by mbkennel
Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by loner007
Einstein wasn't respected before he was well known either.
That is the problem with scientific institutions now. They assume that someone that is already well-respected has to come up with plausible theory. But the truth is, new possibilities come from new sources.
Scientific institutions assume that somebody who comes up with a plausible theory already has to understand the existing accepted theory and experiments sufficiently well.
I just finished watching all twelve of these videos and I have to say, well done. I learned a lot from them and I look forward to more. The person who produced these only has a high-school education, yet he can teach physics more easily than most high school teachers these days. Because they're all conventional followers instead of crazy pioneers.
High school teachers are not going to be successful pioneers discovering new fundamental physics.
But they can be crazy.
Originally posted by die_another_day
Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by die_another_day
And oh, you obviously haven't watched the videos. Your post is very close to bordering on "off-topic". Not only does seattle4truth discuss that it's not a 5th force, he states that the pre-existing forces are never tampered with. Their magnetic counterparts are tampered with. Anti-gravity is kind of a misleading term, so I could see how you were thrown off, but next time you should probably look at the videos before commenting on the validity of their claims, or asking questions which were answered within.
He also incorporates EM and super-symmetry. The concept itself is not a conspiracy, obviously. But there may be a conspiracy in the contamination and restraint of materials available to produce "anti-gravity" and "cold fusion". Along with the evidence of "foul play" among the scientific community concerning the results of a pretty simple lab experiment.
Contaminated palladium=contaminated results.edit on 1-11-2010 by prepared4truth because: address other issues
Actually I was waiting for someone to tell me what I missed.
I simply don't want to spend 2 hrs on a video about a physics conspiracy.
If you think that only the top secret laboratories of the US government can produce "anti-gravity" or "cold fusion" without universities or other countries knowing, then you must be disillusioned.
There is no "anti-gravity,"
There are forces and equal and opposite reactions.
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...
In the transient state of d-wave superconductors, we investigate the temporal variation of photoinduced changes in the superfluid weight. We derive the formula that relates the nonlinear response function to the nonequilibrium distribution function. The latter qunatity is obtained by solving the kinetic equation with the electron-electron and the electron-phonon interaction included. By numerical calculations, a nonexponential decay is found at low temperatures in contrast to the usual exponential decay at high temperatures. The nonexponential decay originates from the nonmonotonous temporal variation of the nonequilibrium distribution function at low energies. The main physical process that causes this behavior is not the recombination of quasiparticles as previous phenomenological studies suggested, but the absorption of phonons.
Originally posted by die_another_day
...
There is no "anti-gravity,"
There are forces and equal and opposite reactions.
Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Do you think the theory makes sense?
Anti-gravity is the idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to countering the gravitational force by an opposing force of a different nature, as a helium balloon does; instead, anti-gravity requires that the fundamental causes of the force of gravity be made either not present or not applicable to the place or object through some kind of technological intervention.
www.alienscientist.com...
Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
The antigravitational field is really gravitomagnetism. It's a purely local field, like how a magnet curves back onto itself.
Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
However, its just sementics, gravity manipulation sounds like a bunch of douchebaggery.
Originally posted by prepared4truth
Einstein wasn't respected before he was well known either.
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.
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.
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.