Physics of Anti-Gravity Explained in DETAIL... Legendary Video Series!!!

reply to post by prepared4truth


It just came out a few minutes ago lol... right on thanks for lettin us know

he said in part 13 it was his full time job.. without a paycheck... mad respect.. i hope it pays off for him somehow one day... imagine the first nobel prize for a youtube video LOL.. but frank deserves one more

reply to post by FalselyFlagged


Oh, this is definitely gonna end well for him. (Unless he and the other people involved are "silenced".)

If that doesn't happen, this will probably end VERY well for him.

Another note of interest, if you belong to RATS, send me a U2U and I'll send you something very interesting relating to all this...

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

Are you serious? You are critizing him for teaching TOO much information???

I really watched almost a full six of those videos and received next to no information regarding antigravity claims, just a lot of restated pop science and freshman physics.

Originally posted by zorgon
Would it not be more constructive to show WHY these ideas won't work? Just because you and others in your field say "it ain't so" really means very little. I could probably fill 20 pages of thread with examples where main stream scientists have said "It ain't so, your wacko" only to be proven wrong..

It's difficult to explain WHY these ideas don't work when they aren't even clearly laid out in any appreciable framework!

Eventually I had to google for Znidarsic, whose theory seems to underpin all of these youtube videos, and tried to read his paper "manipulation of natural forces" or whatever. It's almost completely incoherent! It's not a matter of showing why his ideas don't work, instead it's one of pointing out how what he's writing / saying doesn't really mean anything.

What if I walked into an auto mechanic's repair shop and said "my car can reach 600,000,000 miles per hour- I can demonstrate this by weighing the gas pedal and comparing it to the weight of the earth."
The mechanics obviously would respond "what does that even mean? You're crazy!"

And then I'd say "they said EINSTEIN was crazy too! You're all just so closed-minded with your dogmatic car engineering science! MY MATH DOESN'T LIE!!!"

Originally posted by prepared4truth
Another note of interest, if you belong to RATS, send me a U2U and I'll send you something very interesting relating to all this...

Sorry I am not a RAT

soooo... holding out on us eh?
A member of the 'elite' eh?

You RATS are just as bad as the Illuminati... that is how all this secrecy stuff started in the first place... private cliques that know something the rest don't

just saying...

Originally posted by wirehead
What if I walked into an auto mechanic's repair shop and said "my car can reach 600,000,000 miles per hour- I can demonstrate this by weighing the gas pedal and comparing it to the weight of the earth."
The mechanics obviously would respond "what does that even mean? You're crazy!"

If it was me I would want to know where the FTL drive is in the car

posted by wirehead
It's not a matter of showing why his ideas don't work, instead it's one of pointing out how what he's writing / saying doesn't really mean anything.

Please list why his writing / saying doesn't really mean anything, instead of mentioning the same empty argument over and over while failing to mention something tangible.

Originally posted by wirehead
Eventually I had to google for Znidarsic, whose theory seems to underpin all of these youtube videos, and tried to read his paper "manipulation of natural forces" or whatever. It's almost completely incoherent! It's not a matter of showing why his ideas don't work, instead it's one of pointing out how what he's writing / saying doesn't really mean anything.

Agree 100%. I went through the paper and it's basically a pile of nonsense.

reply to post by buddhasystem



Read his NEW paper... It's written much better. And just cause you don't understand it, doesnt mean it doesn't make sense.

The dude in the VIDEOS is explaining everything so the math DOES make sense.

The math just runs strange circles until it pulls somthing out that matches planks constant.

Not saying i don't think the ideas in the videos are cool and something new, but the maths off.

Classical and quantum math don't really mix.


Oh, wanted to add that I also had a nice talk with my chemistry professor about this, the math at least. She agrees it's wrong, and she's a quantum/computational chemist.

Originally posted by Sjakie

posted by wirehead
It's not a matter of showing why his ideas don't work, instead it's one of pointing out how what he's writing / saying doesn't really mean anything.

Please list why his writing / saying doesn't really mean anything, instead of mentioning the same empty argument over and over while failing to mention something tangible.

The whole point is that there is nothing tangible to even discuss, like arguing Platonic philosophy with a delusional schizophrenic.

"tangible": equating something which happens to have the same units as something else, for no good reason.

It isn't a coincidence that everybody who seems to know something about physics and chemistry say the same thing. It's not wrong, it's "not even wrong".

Awesome series, hopefully humanity makes a change eventually and start using real 21st century technology, and for good.

Flagged.

reply to post by mbkennel


Well the thing is.. I would EXPECT those who support main stream physics to denounce anything like this. That is after all why Eugene was ostracized from his peers and ridiculed

But on the other hand I do agree that while this is a great collection of ideas, there is no complete experiment to even begin to perform in all this

So at the end of the hour... we are no further ahead

"The results to date have been less than expected. I could use some feedback."

And even Frank himself states and sends out a plea

Is anyone else trying this? Anything in print about cold fusion, superconductivity, or vibration? If you run into any material related to these things please forward it to me. Is there any theory or any calculations on the subject. Has anyone else done this? Am I the first to file?

padrak.com...

Obama says NO to going back to the moon, 25 years before a Mars trip but its okay to go to an asteroid. Exiting times eh?

Well by that time I will be 6 feet under. Way to go Obama!!! Gotta keep those NASA pennies for the war effort

errr just WHO are we at 'war' with exactly?

I've already commented on this video a few times, but I feel I should do so again.

There is nothing wrong with Frank's math. Frank's math is 100% correct, and I checked for the subtle stuff like significant digits and whatnot.

The PROBLEMS I still have with his theory are:

a) His use of the capacitance equation. This was explained in videos 13 and 14, but I am still not convinced that this is an appropriate use of the formula.

b) The value of Vt. Supposedly this is explained in video 15, but I haven't yet been able to watch it.


THAT ALL BEING SAID:

Frank's theories are not "nonsense" nor are they obviously hokum. They are coherent, internally consistent, and genuinely intriguing. I am looking forward to seeing any kind of peer review of his work, because I believe that having a few other experts in the field look it over will perhaps tighten up the screws a bit, and maybe teach Frank to explain his theories better.

Frank is on to something. Even if his current hypothesis ends up being incorrect, he has definitely stumbled upon something worth investigating.

This constant:

1.094 MHz-m. (1,094,000 meters per second)

This constant is the basis of Frank's ideas, and it should be looked into. Someone needs to suggest an experiment that could verify this constant in some way. Obviously, there is no experiment that can "measure" the speed of transmission. But if it's true that by inducing this vibrational frequency into B.E.C. materials we can force a state of quantum transition, than we should be able to verify this. Continued research and experiments are imperative.

If Frank is correct, (and that's a big IF) than current ongoing research into cold fusion cells and gravity shielding devices should be able to verify much of what he is saying. This theory is falsifiable! We can PROVE this right or wrong if we design an appropriate experiment.

The very fact that this theory is falsifiable is impressive to me. Most pseudo-scientific hokum is unfalsifiable precisely because it is nonsense. (String theory comes to mind )

Now, I REALLY want to see some actual debate in this thread. 7 bloody pages and STILL no one is talking about the real issues, or discussing the math. All I hear is vague statements and one-liner dismissals/platitudes.

Originally posted by RedBird
Now, I REALLY want to see some actual debate in this thread. 7 bloody pages and STILL no one is talking about the real issues, or discussing the math. All I hear is vague statements and one-liner dismissals/platitudes.

Most posting here don't really understand the issues... or the math. And as you say even regular physicist have difficulty with the presentation so how can lay people discuss that math?

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Read his NEW paper... It's written much better. And just cause you don't understand it, doesnt mean it doesn't make sense.

Modeling attraction between the nucleus and the electron, as an elastic string with a particular coefficient is about as idiotic an affair as you are likely to ever see in pseudo-science, not to mention all that other nonsense.

Originally posted by cycondra
The math just runs strange circles until it pulls somthing out that matches planks constant.

Not saying i don't think the ideas in the videos are cool and something new, but the maths off.

Classical and quantum math don't really mix.


Oh, wanted to add that I also had a nice talk with my chemistry professor about this, the math at least. She agrees it's wrong, and she's a quantum/computational chemist.

edit on 4-11-2010 by cycondra because: added a line

Care to elaborate, or is it your M.O. to just make blanket statements without any justification?

How is the photon NOT a capacitor? How is the math wrong? How is it just "random equations"? How do you know that classical and quantum don't mix? The videos show that it DOES. Did you even watch parts 13 and 14?

reply to post by zorgon


as an electrical engineer i can understand the capatecence part and it makes sense in an electrical enviornment there is a fractional relationship to size pressure in a cap
the model of a photon as a capasitor that is modulated at a frequency level makes sence
like the wave example
the 2 slit experiment is explained better with franks model
and the information about transition does make sence with imput output observational data
my first problem to understand all of this is an electrical engineering back round as frank has
i can explain the way capacatence changes under certain cercumstances and what effect that has on pressure/voltage

the classical quantium guys are always going to miss the point that
the act of observence in the two slit experiment doesnt effect the photon in the transition state
the transition or modulation or compression of the capasitors size/ density has a proportional increase/decrease in the frequency of the wave at the atomic level

how could you find the energy in a photon from an interaction without knowing what the interaction is
in this case it is described as transition and fills the void between pre and post interaction

and as the utuber says

the maths works

i have put this idea though some paces in different interactions and have concluded this requires an open mind as all the information is different to what i have been taught

BUT THIS IS VERY important if proved correct by experimental validation under scientific conditions
but as a theory these ticks many boxes for me in a theoritical way

i found it hard at first not to argue classical answers but upon open investigation
i endose this idea on a theretical basis

as an electrical engineer

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
as an electrical engineer

But can you make me a cold fusion reactor to power the anti-gravity drive we need to get Pegasus's four seater off the ground? If so you should sign up with the team.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
tween the nucleus and the electron, as an elastic string with a particular coefficient is about as idiotic an affair as you are likely to ever see in pseudo-science, not to mention all that other nonsense.

Sure. If you don't understand it at all. Shouldn't you wait for the video series to be finished before you scream BS simply because you don't understand the reasoning yet?

And by the way, capacitance in an electrical system is the reciprocal of spring constant in a classical system.

The world of physics has known this for years, and they switch back and forth between the equations perfectly.

Inductance in electrical system is equivalent to mass in in the spring constant.

Or are you so smart you already knew all this? Why don't you wait before you claim it's BS... Seattle4truth explained it to me kind of but i can't wait for the video.