"Electrogravitics Is a Pseudoscience"

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Anyone who has been involved in any form of high accuracy lab experiment will know that unfolding systematics and taking them out of a measurement is extremely difficult. 3 Years is actually not a great deal of time. I did one of the first absolute measurements of photon detection efficiency of a novel photosensor device, getting the setup stable and such that I could understand all of the possible optics and systematics of the setup took about one and a half years.

To whip up this experiment and then take 3 years to play around with it... it isn't that big amount of time.

The prototype for the Dark Matter Experiment I work on was played around with for about 6 years... it was extremely useful but in the end my point is, after all that time, we were still finding things we needed to change.




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
a'la podkletnov? well that's not the only mode of operation for his apparatus. it does not have to be under the rocket.


for example; he has also claimed a projective force beam capable of busting concrete and bending steel from a considerable distance away. in addition podkletnov is not the only game in town.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

stormbringer1701
www.esa.int...

www.sciencedaily.com...


Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.


so the critics can line up to plant a big wet smootchie on my left buttock cheek.


Do you know what "gravitomagnetic" field actually means?

It does NOT mean a field which couples to the motion of charged particles, and with the coupling strength of electromagnetism.

The use of the word 'magnetic' is intended as an analogy to electromagnetism, not to mean they are the same physics.

Magnetism (the real magnetism) is an inevitable consequence of electric fields etc combined with relativity. Gravitomagnetism (from moving masses) is similarly an inevitable consequence of regular gravitational fields combined with relativity.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Mary Rose
What do you think UFOs are powered by?

Ghost blood.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


*COugh* NING LI *COUGH* I have apparently caught the asian flu don't mind that at all.... nor the astronauts who are doing gravitics research at an american corporation that operates in China...


Now Mary the Electrogravitics they are referring to specifically as a pseudoscience are the original T. Townsend Brown Electrogravitics / Assymetric force on a capacitor devices....

Now where it gets interesting is that as "discredited" as the field is Lockheed Martin and MIT are both saying that the phenomena has potential to be THE hot technology for micro UAV propulsion shortly. I'd post the crap ton of links but really all you have to do is type "Ionic Thruster Drone" into google and you'll have days and days worth of fun reading.

Although I think in some ways they're yanking people's chains in a way as what I suspect they're actually wanting to build is in the class of devices I tried to build for an idea I called my Electrostatically enhanced hovercraft. It turns out though I don't know nearly enough about working with HV to do too much more than let the smoke out of lots of formerly good electronic components. (I just build guns now instead... works better for me heh)

I suspect "lifters" probably have something to do with boeing's very short lived pulse ejector thruster video released a few years ago. Beyond that I'm absolutely certain they have something to do with things like high end but stealthy supersonic adjustable fighter jet intakes and maybe even thrust nozzles.

Also ring wings, custer's channel wing, and even ornithopters are also going to be big I think. I've always wanted to try and replicate the adalbert schmid ornithopter that could supposedly fly at 50+ miles per hour and got better than economy car gas mileage doing so even in the 40's.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Mary Rose

stormbringer1701
it's OK. they used to give magneto-gravitics the same treatment.


Thank you. I'm not sure I've ever seen that term before.

It's not in The Free Dictionary, though. I also don't see it in Wikipedia.

The Free Dictionary redirects you to "magneto-gravity," which brings up "magnetogravity wave":


Magnetogravity wave

A magnetogravity wave is a type of plasma wave. A magnetogravity wave is an acoustic gravity wave which is associated with fluctuations in the background magnetic field.[1] In this context, gravity wave refers to a classical fluid wave, and is completely unrelated to the relativistic gravitational wave.


Examples

Magnetogravity waves are found in the corona of the sun.


Used in that way, they're talking about the sort of gravity waves you get with clouds going over a mountain range. Not the sort of gravity wave you might associate with general relativity.
edit on 8-2-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Mary RoseBut it's disturbing that a dictionary online shows Wikipedia using the word "pseudoscience" regarding a connection between gravity and electricity when mainstream science cannot define gravity and we know something is powering UFOs.




Yes, imagination. Since other than in people's imagination there is no KNOWN ET-UFO. Pseudoscience sound about right.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   

stormbringer1701
however it turns out NASA could not fabricate a test article to his specifications nor could they rig a means of achieving his rotation speed so they failed to meet his protocol. He did not recant and still works on his experiments. Some of his critics are unwarrantedly harsh and ad hominem in their efforts to discredit him.


Interdisciplinary scientist J. Marvin Herndon has written an article "Corruption of Science in America" about the ineffective system that exists for scientific research in the U.S. He talks about before and after World War II:


Before World War II, there was very little government funding of science, but that changed because of war-time necessities. In 1951, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) was established to provide support for post World War II civilian scientific research. The process for administrating the government’s science funding, invented in the early 1950s by NSF, has been adopted, essentially unchanged, by virtually all subsequent U.S. Government science funding agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

The problem, I discovered, is that the science funding process that the NSF invented and passed on to other U.S. Government agencies is seriously and fundamentally flawed. As a consequence, for more than half a century, the NSF has been doing what no foreign power or terrorist organization can do: slowly, imperceptibly undermining American scientific capability, driving America toward third-world status in science and in education, corrupting individuals and institutions, rewarding the deceitful and the institutions that they serve, stifling creative science, and infecting the whole scientific community with flawed anti-science practices based upon an unrealistic vision of human behavior. These are the principal flaws . . .



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   


I found a .pdf file of LaViolette's book, copyright 2008, online.

Here is a screenshot:



LaViolette's theory of subquantum kinetics is alternative physics which could provide a theoretical foundation for how UFOs work: Subquantum Kinetics.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Interdisciplinary scientist J. Marvin Herndon has written an article "Corruption of Science in America" about the ineffective system that exists for scientific research in the U.S. He talks about before and after World War II:
Long article but I'll respond to two significant points in it.

1. He says the system doesn't work because of his personal bad experience with it. While I'm certain any system would be less than perfect including the one we have, look at his example of why he's censored:


On January 27, 2009, I submitted a brief but important scientific communication to Physical Review Letters which demonstrated that convection is physically impossible in the Earth’s fluid core because: (1) The core is too bottom-heavy due to compression by the weight above; (2) The core-bottom cannot remain hotter than the top, as required for convection, because the core is wrapped in an insulating blanket...
Anybody who lives in a northern climate can prove this guy is wrong, we don't need arXiv moderators to do it. Try turning your heater off in the winter and you find the insulating materials in your wall do indeed allow heat flow. An insulating blanket doesn't stop heat flow, it only slows it down. So it appears to me he's making a claim to the contrary which is completely illogical and it's no wonder if he's making such illogical claims that he's being censored.

2. He complains about arXiv:


Presumably in a coordinated way, Cornell University, through a proposal to the National Science Foundation [NSF # 0132355, July 16, 2001], took over ownership of the author self-posting archive, now called arXiv.org, and presumably was given the requested US$958,798 to do that. That proposal contains the following statement made to justify Cornell University’s proposed use of a ‘refereeing mechanism’: “The research archives become less useful once they are inundated for example by submissions from vociferous ‘amateurs’ promoting their own perpetual motion machines.…”
Now we know how much you like reading about perpetual motion machines and their modern equivalents, but he's implying that people can't self publish such ideas.

But they can, they just can't do it on arXiv, in fact viXra was created to address this very issue so people with perpetual motion machines and other ideas not accepted by the mainstream can self-publish:

vixra.org...

A few of the cases where people have been blocked from submitting to the arXiv have been detailed on the Archive Freedom website, but as time has gone by it has become clear that Cornell has no plans to bow to pressure and change their policies. Some of us now feel that the time has come to start an alternative archive which will be open to the whole scientific community. That is why viXra has been created. viXra will be open to anybody for both reading and submitting articles. We will not prevent anybody from submitting and will only reject articles in extreme cases of abuse, e.g. where the work may be vulgar, libellous, plagiaristic or dangerously misleading.



Bedlam
Used in that way, they're talking about the sort of gravity waves you get with clouds going over a mountain range. Not the sort of gravity wave you might associate with general relativity.
I was tripped up by this terminology at one point and it seems like they try to avoid the confusion by calling the one associated with relativity a "gravitational wave", while using the term "gravity wave" to refer to the type not associated with relativity.
edit on 8-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Mary RoseBut it's disturbing that a dictionary online shows Wikipedia using the word "pseudoscience" regarding a connection between gravity and electricity when mainstream science cannot define gravity and we know something is powering UFOs.




Yes, imagination. Since other than in people's imagination there is no KNOWN ET-UFO. Pseudoscience sound about right.


Ahh I guess millions of people including presidents, airline pilots, military pilots and other credible witnesses are just full of crap eh?
Thanks for clearing that up.. but I think the things that aren't known by you personally. may be what you are referring to, since you couldn't possibly be speaking for everyone on the planet, or could you?
edit on 8-2-2014 by alienreality because: add



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

alienreality
Ahh I guess millions of people including presidents, airline pilots, military pilots and other credible witnesses are just full of crap eh?
At least one former president uses some logic instead of an illogical thought process like "I don't know what it is, therefore, it must be aliens". If you don't know what it is, then you don't know what it is. It's silly to talk about how it's propelled:

en.wikipedia.org...

While puzzled by the object and its origins Carter, himself, later said that while he had considered the object to be a UFO—on the grounds it was unexplained—his knowledge of physics had meant he had not believed himself to be witnessing an alien spacecraft.

So is it too much to ask people to apply a little logic to UFOs like the former president did? And no he's not full of crap, he's spot on.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Reminds me of this little skit from Red Dwarf (British Comedy from the late 80s and early 90s)

Lister: Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys, it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall, it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog roll in a day, you thought that was aliens as well.
Rimmer: Well we didn't use it all, Lister. Who did?
Lister: Rimmer, ALIENS used our bog roll?
Rimmer: Just cause they're aliens doesn't mean to say they don't have to visit the little boys' room. Only they probably do something weird and alien-esque, like it comes out of the top of their heads or something.
Lister: Well I wouldn't like to be stuck behind one in a cinema.


The point here and above in many of the posts is the following
'Just because you do not understand or know with any certainty what an object is, you cannot firstly assume that it means it is Aliens. You also cannot then go ahead on that assumption and make any kind of statement to propulsion.'

Also the idea of suppression in somewhere such as the arXiv is not really a true suppression. The point is that author who wishes to publish there much like any reputable place, should hold themselves to general good practice. These are as follows

1) Papers much be clear and concise
This means no word salad, in general, you cannot construct a sentence that makes it sound like you just said something profound to an uneducated reader, but anyone with any knowledge can see that you just strung some fancy words together and what you said has no meaning at all.

2) Experimentation
Experiment that is clear what is being measured, how it is being measured. If something new is being measured then it must be justified, a paper cannot just spring in and say "This device that no one has ever heard of is measuring jabble waves in units of gaggles per miliwinkles." Because again this is word salad. Any extraneous wiring if the device is something new and wonderful must be explained and no part of the experiment can be 'conveniently ignored'
Experimentation must also control as many external factors as possible, allowing for control of systematics, systematics must be examined and discussed. This allows the author to explain that the measurement they present actually is valid.

3) Data and Data analysis
While it is not common practice to show a raw dataset, it is however common practice to explain the analysis at the level you did it. That means that if you took data using some device that gives you a whole pre-chain of analysis, this fact needs to be known. Analysis also must be logical and conclusions must follow the same logic. The whole double slit paper in one of the other threads really showed how not to do analysis. The reason is the basic statement above. You cannot gun straight for your proposition and analyse your data backwards so that it looks like you proved something. If your data does not support your original proposition, it quite simply doesn't support it. This is what I like to call 'Analysing the lack of evidence into evidence'

4) Neutrality
Ah yes a favourite word used here by a few members as criticisms for mainstream science. Neutrality is very important, and it must be exercised at all times in papers. A paper should not open with an emotive statement about how mainstream science is wrong etc etc etc, why? Well because your paper is about the subject title, not the subject title and the personal ramblings of the author. Your personal opinions are NOT what is being experimented and presented. A little foreground/background information is completely acceptable, but it must remain within sensible limits. Examples being something like this.

Bad
Science has ignored the subject of perpetual motion though out the years, inventors have been killed or suppressed by the mainstream and the powers that be who want to stop their devices being given to the public. Science holds onto its arrogant assumptions and actively holds people back, and does not invite new and fresh ideas. Now I am going to talk about my ground breaking work that will revolutionize chocolate production with my perpetual quantum dirac aether choco gun

Good
Chocolate production is an intensive process, both difficult for farmers who often work in challenging environments, but also difficult for producers who must overcome logistical and processing challenges. I took this problem and have worked on a solution which has potential to shift the burden of farming away from physical labour and instead be a burden of electrical requirements. I present a theory and a device that uses novel application of quantum mechanics to produce high quality chocolate.


Now both of those are totally bananas (or should i say chocolatey), but the bad is basically filled with irrelevance, opinion and generally a lack of substance. The good, while also making some very tall claims, steers away from what is not relevant to the paper, It gives a general outline of why the work was done, and a little nibble at what the results are, without making 8 jumping assumptions.


This is just my take, but these are the basic rules that scientists use when writing a paper. I mean, I didn't start a paper about radioactivity in steel by talking about doom and gloom of radiation killing everyone, fukashima, oh god! No, because I'm not insane and also because those things are completely irrelevant to the subject matter



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
"Corruption of Science in America"


These are the principal flaws . . .


Continuing:


NSF Flaw #1: Proposals for scientific funding are generally reviewed by anonymous ‘peer reviewers’. . . .


The problem there is secrecy.


NSF Flaw #2: NSF invented the concept of scientists proposing specific projects for funding, which has led to the trivialization and bureaucratization of science. . . .

NSF Flaw #3: NSF began the now widespread practice of making grants to universities and other non-profit institutions, with scientists, usually faculty members, now being classed as ‘principal investigators’. . . .

NSF Flaw #4: NSF began the now widespread practice whereby the government pays the publication costs, ‘page charges’, for scientific articles in journals run by for profit companies or by special interest science organizations. . . .



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Subquantum Kinetics


. . . Instead of beginning with physical observations, subquantum kinetics begins by postulating a set of well-ordered reaction processes that are proposed to take place at the subquantum level. Collectively, these reaction processes compose what is termed the transmuting ether, an active substrate that is quite different from the passive mechanical ethers considered in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It further proposes that the concentrations of the substrates composing this ether are the energy potential fields that form the basis of all matter and energy in our universe. The operation of these ether reactions causes wave-like field gradients (spatial concentration patterns) to emerge and form the observable quantum level structures and physical phenomena (e.g., subatomic particles with mass, charge, spin, and force field effects and electromagnetic waves). . . .


The website has a tab devoted to Subquantum Kinetics theory verifications: Theory Verifications



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Mary Rose
Maybe because what we need to do is throw out the old theories and start over again?


From Subquantum Kinetics:


So, subquantum kinetics: a) begins with a mathematical model of subquantum processes; b) it then computer simulates this model to generate quantum level phenomena; and c) it compares the model’s simulated results to actual observations. The model’s mathematical parameters are then “fine-tuned” so that its simulated results accurately reflect experimental observation, thereby making the model a realistic representation of the physical world. Because, it begins with a single reaction system model as its point of departure for describing essentially all observable physical phenomena, subquantum kinetics qualifies as a unified theory. By comparison, conventional physics begins with many theories conceived independently from one another and later attempts to “sew” these together. But the result is far from unified, being instead a self-contradictory aglomeration.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Mary Rose

The problem there is secrecy.



The problem here is you credulously accept literally anything and everything these conspiracy "alternative" types say but refuse to accept or even attempt to validate anything the "mainstream" says. If someone said "Tesla said the earth is flat!" you'd believe them without so much as a second thought.
edit on 9-2-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GetHyped
 


No I don't.

I just do my homework whereas many people on this site love to ridicule and assume the mainstream is correct and an authority figure which can be cited as such. Wikipedia is the often posted "authority figure."

The tone of your post indicates where you're coming from.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


I must say the cover of that book looks very impressive. Straight out of the Golden Age of science-fiction pulp magazines.



posted on Feb, 9 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


You should read the book.

You might learn something.

The author is a credible one. Very knowledgeable.





new topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join