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

LMFAO This guys voice doesn't go with a video series about quantum mechanics.
I can just picture him walking around the classroom with a gun shouting GIVE ME A PIE CHART MUTHA FUKAS.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
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?

edit on 4-11-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: added some

How is the photon NOT a capacitor?? Really? Do you have any understanding of QFT (theory of photons) or even basic circuitry (capacitance?) The fact that you even ask this question demonstrates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

there you go, knock yourself out, you might learn something

Originally posted by RedBird
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.

"force a state of quantum transition" doesn't MEAN anything! There is no "state of transition!" There are states and then there are transitions between quantum states, which are by definition not observable.

Honestly, I could pull any nonsense out of the air like "the sky is actually PINK!!!"
and when people look and then get back to me and say "no, it's blue..."
I would reply "Of course that's what you'd claim as a supporter of mainstream science! Nobody in meteorology wants to knock down the sacred walls of their dogmatic science, but I alone as the genius outsider realize the truth, that the sky is PINK as demonstrated by this calculation relating the contents of my pockets to the radius of the sun... the math doesn't lie!!!"

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

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.

edit on 4-11-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)

Yes, an R-L-C circuit has a same functional form for a damped driven oscillator. This is freshman physics. This does not mean an R-L-C circuit IS a mass on a spring.


One is a circuit.... made of wires and electricity.....

The other one is a mass on a spring.



Specifically, what you're trying to point out is that the equations describing the motion of charge in the circuit have the same form as the equations describing the position of the mass on the spring, and you can draw analogies. So what exactly is your point? Physics never claims that these are the same things, just the same math.

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by RedBird
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.

"force a state of quantum transition" doesn't MEAN anything! There is no "state of transition!" There are states and then there are transitions between quantum states, which are by definition not observable.

Honestly, I could pull any nonsense out of the air like "the sky is actually PINK!!!"
and when people look and then get back to me and say "no, it's blue..."
I would reply "Of course that's what you'd claim as a supporter of mainstream science! Nobody in meteorology wants to knock down the sacred walls of their dogmatic science, but I alone as the genius outsider realize the truth, that the sky is PINK as demonstrated by this calculation relating the contents of my pockets to the radius of the sun... the math doesn't lie!!!"

Frank is claiming that there IS a state of transition. That's the whole bloody point! And you're saying that he's wrong because there isn't such a thing. Well... OK I guess. But that's neither argument nor explanation. You're simply restating your position and pretending that it's an argument.

"Frank's theory is wrong because it's wrong." Convincing.

Your only argument in support of its wrongness is that it doesn't restate the current model. I'm not sure if you realize that. Better would be to explain WHY there cannot be a state of transition, and WHY the transitions are unobservable. See, then we'd be getting somewhere! I'm open to everything you have to say with regards to this.

And I would like to reiterate, once again, that I am NOT in agreement with Frank's theory. I am on the fence, and I want to see more debate! I am playing Devil's Advocate because too many have decided to come down on the "it's BS" side without giving the theory a fair appraisal.

reply to post by wirehead


Yes. The math is the same. You said it yourself.

We don't know the inductance of an electron. To use first principles you HAVE to re-arrange Coulombs formula in the form of a spring constant, because we do know the MASS of the electron.

Why exactly can't you do that? Because when you solve BACKWARDS for the indunctance of an electron, assuming VT, you get the same answer. But frank wanted it in first principles, so he used the spring constant.

The math works the same for capacitance or spring constant, they are just reciprocal, and you can't measure the inductance of an electron.

Originally posted by RedBird

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by RedBird
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.

"force a state of quantum transition" doesn't MEAN anything! There is no "state of transition!" There are states and then there are transitions between quantum states, which are by definition not observable.

Honestly, I could pull any nonsense out of the air like "the sky is actually PINK!!!"
and when people look and then get back to me and say "no, it's blue..."
I would reply "Of course that's what you'd claim as a supporter of mainstream science! Nobody in meteorology wants to knock down the sacred walls of their dogmatic science, but I alone as the genius outsider realize the truth, that the sky is PINK as demonstrated by this calculation relating the contents of my pockets to the radius of the sun... the math doesn't lie!!!"

Frank is claiming that there IS a state of transition. That's the whole bloody point! And you're saying that he's wrong because there isn't such a thing. Well... OK I guess. But that's neither argument nor explanation. You're simply restating your position and pretending that it's an argument.

"Frank's theory is wrong because it's wrong." Convincing.

Your only argument in support of its wrongness is that it doesn't restate the current model. I'm not sure if you realize that. Better would be to explain WHY there cannot be a state of transition, and WHY the transitions are unobservable. See, then we'd be getting somewhere! I'm open to everything you have to say with regards to this.

And I would like to reiterate, once again, that I am NOT in agreement with Frank's theory. I am on the fence, and I want to see more debate! I am playing Devil's Advocate because too many have decided to come down on the "it's BS" side without giving the theory a fair appraisal.

Okay, so maybe you'd like to enlighten me as to what exactly the positive claims of Frank's theory are. What is a quantum "state of transition"? How would it look? How would it behave? What experimental results might we expect by forcing a "state of transition" on a quantum object?

If these questions can be answered in anything approaching a coherent manner, I submit that the pre-existing theories of quantum mechanics will have already addressed these points in a more than adequate manner.

I appreciate your characterization of my argument- it's fair- but I'm trying to get at something much deeper than just "Frank's argument isn't canonical QM." I wouldn't be in this thread or forum expecting people to just reiterate what we know of quantum mechanics. It's just that, given what I DO know about quantum mechanics, the phrase "transition state" means absolutely squat. Is it somehow the state of the wavefunction in mid-collapse? If so, there's no way to measure such a thing. Is it somehow a wavefunction transitioning into a different form of a wavefunction? If so, Hilbert's approach to ordinary QM already describes in great detail how a state transitions into another.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by wirehead

 

Yes. The math is the same. You said it yourself.

We don't know the inductance of an electron. To use first principles you HAVE to re-arrange Coulombs formula in the form of a spring constant, because we do know the MASS of the electron.

Why exactly can't you do that? Because when you solve BACKWARDS for the indunctance of an electron, assuming VT, you get the same answer. But frank wanted it in first principles, so he used the spring constant.

The math works the same for capacitance or spring constant, they are just reciprocal, and you can't measure the inductance of an electron.

What on Earth does this even mean? Can you explain what you mean by "inductance" in the context of a single electron?

Originally posted by zorgon
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

No, Podkletnov showed an unusual experimental result which some people had trouble replicating.

He didn't spout nonsensical gibberish, like this guy.

People who supported "mainstream physics" accepted relativity and quantum mechanics---which are very radical (far more than this lunatic)---within 20 years.

Why? Because they explained things properly and there were experimental results.

Originally posted by wirehead

Honestly, I could pull any nonsense out of the air like "the sky is actually PINK!!!"
and when people look and then get back to me and say "no, it's blue..."
I would reply "Of course that's what you'd claim as a supporter of mainstream science! Nobody in meteorology wants to knock down the sacred walls of their dogmatic science, but I alone as the genius outsider realize the truth, that the sky is PINK as demonstrated by this calculation relating the contents of my pockets to the radius of the sun... the math doesn't lie!!!"

No, it's more like saying "The sky is actually burping mushroom!!" and then telling meterologists to disprove the carbuerator.

I am playing Devil's Advocate because too many have decided to come down on the "it's BS" side without giving the theory a fair appraisal.

Some people come down on the "it's BS" side after giving the theory a fair appraisal.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Some people come down on the "it's BS" side after giving the theory a fair appraisal.

How the hell can you have "given it a fair appraisal" when the video series isn't even done explaining it?

How does that work? By "fair appraisal" I think you mean "premature judgment".

Why don't you wait until the video series is done before you make the *claim* that you gave a fair appraisal. Actually don't bother. Your mind is already made up... If you lived 100 years ago you would have been saying Einstein was full of crap and insane... And his theories had a lot less solid calculations.

Maybe your ego hurts because you don't understand it fully yet, so that's why you have a vitriolic reaction. I'm no psych major though.

reply to post by zorgon



Back to the Future - Alternate Ending




We just need the Flux Capacitor

did we make something already like it ? Anti Gravity !?
Vril Machines



OUR ATS
Diagrams of Nazi VRIL, TR-3b, Andromeda Machine, and Time Machine, page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The Vril Disks 1941-1945, page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Haunebu, the Nazi Bell - Rare Pictures from forgotten Cases, page 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Flying saucers are real
46:16 - 3 years ago

Google Video Link

Here is an interview with Frank Znidarsic by AlienScientist, where he explains his paper himself.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

Why don't you wait until the video series is done before you make the *claim* that you gave a fair appraisal. Actually don't bother. Your mind is already made up... If you lived 100 years ago you would have been saying Einstein was full of crap and insane... And his theories had a lot less solid calculations.

Einstein correctly explained phenomena which were mysteries in physics.

This guy mis-explains things which are very well understood already in physics.

Calculations aren't the issue, it's physical understanding which is.

Maybe your ego hurts because you don't understand it fully yet, so that's why you have a vitriolic reaction. I'm no psych major though.

edit on 5-11-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: cuz im anal retentive

Maybe it's because I know something about physics.

The guy is simply wrong on the understanding on the correspondence between classical and quantum mechanics. On that last video he goes on and on how in classical world the "amplitude" scales with energy (he says proportional to, but that's not right either), but in quantum world (photons) it's the energy. He thinks this is a problem but it is not.

Higher amplitude corresponds to *more* photons, but each photon still has energy E=h*f as usual. Quantum mechanics comes because, in contradistinction to classical mechanics, electromagnetically induced transitions in atoms just don't occur unless the photon has a sufficient energy (i.e. high enough frequency) and more photons at lower frequencies are NOT an adequate substitute.

This is all about the photoelectric effect whose correct explanation (photons) won Einstein his first Nobel Prize. That is, more and more intense infrared or optical radiation does not eject electrons, but UV does.

The guy doesn't understand quantum mechanics well enough to criticize it.

The photoelectric effect and Compton effect---both fundamental experimental phenomena which must be explained---make quantum mechanics inevitable.

This guy mis-explains things which are very well understood already in physics

is that so? Did you understand were Plancks Constant came from before this video series?

like he said: "producing E=hf without using Planck's Constant and both calculating the energy level of an emitted photon by simply knowing the frequency of the photon and simontaniously producing Planck's Constant from scratch, must all be a coincidence right?"

reply to post by mbkennel


Hey Mr. Genius, please explain to me why the electron doesn't crash into the nucleous.

Because Frank can.

Please explain to me why energy of a photon is a function of frequency? Because Frank can.

Please explain to me why atoms (like hydrogen) seemingly "randomly" give off spectral emissions? Because Frank can.

Please explain to me how to derive Planck's constant. Because Frank can.

Please explain why the frequency of the emitted photon doesnt match anything in the static atomic state? Because Frank can.


Thank you kind sir. Your help will be much appreciated.

And you said:

The guy doesn't understand quantum mechanics well enough to criticize it.

"The photoelectric effect and Compton effect---both fundamental experimental phenomena which must be explained---make quantum mechanics inevitable."

Umm.. he actually DID just totally explain the photoelectric effect... What do u think videos 12, 13, and 14 were?? It made the photoelectric equation WITHOUT planck's constant and explained the underlying physics principles BEHIND IT, not simply stating e=hf but not explaining what the h is, means, or comes from.

Part 15 is released:


This segment covers how Frank originally got the number of 1.094 megahertz-meters for the speed of transition, impedance matching for wave propagation speeds, the significance of the fine structure constant, and the universes first working model of a perpetual motion machine.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged


the information you are supply us is greatly needed by me for some ideas i have
please could you pass a message on to frank for me
this information on the transition has for me been a revilation
my understanding of this interaction is critical to my designs
your work is more important than you realize and your fight against the establishment
is quite typical for anyone challenging the status quo
i have taken heart from your persistence and will continue my thought experiments
and designs instead of letting the mafia wear me down

here is an experiment that is still unexplained by physics and i hope you find it as interesting as i did



here is an example that physics doesnt explain but as you can see something is going on

to frank
thank you thank you thank you
dont let the nei sayers of the world slow you down
thought experiments are good for us when we get to comfy with clasical paradimes
you are challenging people to think
not regurgitate
predefined answers
thank you and god bless you if apropriate

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


hey Xploder, Frank's e-mail address is at the bottom of this letter

padrak.com...

In this letter, he requests the community to tell him if anyone runs into something related. I guess you can contact him directly.