Mordred

Here is a good non math site to understand particle and wave properties. http://www.mitp.uni-...yerSymmetry.pdf

Gloat all ya want the rest of us will continue to laugh at your foolishness. We've provided examples where science evolves. You've provided zero zip evidence. Want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's obvious you have no interest in learning. So why are you even here posting on a physics forum?

The hands are probably better conversionalists. Obviously he's never studied models that have evolved in the last 100 years. Prime example big bang to LCDM. Where the cosmological constant and dark matter were later added to fit observational evidence. Second example quantum foam to LQC spin space. Nor the improvements in particle physics. Where back in the 20's the atom didn't include the neutron. Also all the later added standard model particles and the Higgs field itself. Science evolves as evidence is presented. He chooses to ignore this fact

Do you even know what the term isomorphic means? The above word salad makes no sense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism You obviously are ignoring any other posters explaining how the scientific method really works. Models can and do change as new evidence presents itself. Some models can change quickly others takes years of research to change. no model changes without rigorously being examined. When you post a idea or model on a physics forum. You should expect it to be examined and have holes punched into that idea or model. If you can fill those holes the models gains strength. If not then it needs work.

You had a latex error. I tried finding the error but not sure where it is Edit I see ya found it

This isn't true by any means. Anyone can publish ideas. Whether or not those ideas get accepted depends on its evidence and testable predictions. Just because an idea doesn't gain weight in mainstay thinking has absolutely nothing to do with suppression. It's due to lack of evidence and/or predictive ability. As pointed out there is zero conclusive evidence for UFOs. The majority has been found to be hoaxes. The term you should learn is irrefutable proof. Culture once believed in witchcraft, no irrefutable evidence of witchcraft exists therefore it isn't accepted by the scientific community. UFOs falls into a similar category. If you can't accept that then science isn't your field.

As mentioned if you can provide supporting evidence this wouldn't be the case. No one is foolish enough to consider ideas that fly in the face of established science simply on someone's say so. Unless that person can supply supporting evidence or at the very least a well thought out mathematic argument/model. It's not that we have a problem with ideas against the mainstream. The problem is posters can rarely support their ideas. They don't answer questions about their ideas. They ignore evidence against their ideas. In many cases they resort to name calling. Most times though they demonstrate a complete lack in understanding science. They make ridiculous errors and claims. Then refuse to acknowledge they are doing so. By the way I can think of a few still active threads with ideas that are not mainstay. They don't appear to be active. This is due to the poster listening, taking advise and studying. Those threads have not been locked and are still open for further discussion.

As Studiot mentioned this is extremely dangerous. Only a certified professional should be repairing this unit.How much experience do you have? What troubleshooting equipment do you have available ? As Studiot asked have you tried it under load?. Further questions will depend on the answer to question 1 and 2. I never feel comfortable telling someone how to troubleshoot electrical equipment without knowing they can safely do so Are you familiar with PWM? Pulse width modulation type circuits? 1) are any fuses popped? 2) are any component heating up ? 3) under load is it generating power? 4) are there any fault indicator lights or sounds? 5) does it have online connection for diagnostic software? 6) is there a burnt smell, sweet or otherwise? 7)what is it doing as opposed to not doing? 8) do you see any visual indications of component damage? 9)Do you have the users and manufacturers manual? 10) have you contacted the manufacturer for advise? Those questions are safe to check. (Oh on the visual checks, do any capacitors appear deformed? If you don't know how to recognize a capacitor. STOP NOW. Let a professional repair. Before you kill yourself.

While most of this post is accurate, the speculation forum doesn't suppress new ideas as per se. The problem is most people that post a speculation have taken very little time understanding the current models. They also cannot answer questions posed to them to demonstrate how their model improves upon current understanding. Nor do they include mathematics for the most part. Here is a good example of a correct approach. In this thread the poster is attempting to refine a more exact mass of the observable universe. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86694-observable-universe-mass/page-2#entry871244 His methods are a good example, he listens to suggestions and provides supporting papers and research. you can easily find examples where this isn't the case. New ideas are great, but one needs to demonstrate a solid working knowledge of the mainstream ideas for comparison. Posting ideas and getting the science wrong never works. This site is rare in that it even allows a speculation section. Most physics forums don't allow anything but main stay concordance discussion.

Agree Fuzzwood lol

Actually that's also false. There is A cost effective solution to reduce CO2 levels. Place in the ocean long flexible tubes with a series of pump style flaps. Long enough to reach the Ocean floor, mounted to a buoyancy tube. What we are doing in this is bringing nutrients to the ocean surface. Those nutrients encourage algae growth. That algae feeds on CO2 a replacing it with oxygen. (Also feeds fish). Lol secondary side note we can use algae to produce oil. That's a natural form of photosynthesis Tada . We have also developed artificial photosynthesis. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/04/16/major-advance-in-artificial-photosynthesis/ so we do in fact understand how CO2 works.... With your belligerent behavior I don't think that will matter though. I always find it incredible how many people can honestly believe that several hundreds of years of dedicated research with several hundreds of thousands of dedicated minds working in scientific fields are always wrong. That there personal ideas defeats the body of evidence? If you honestly want to convince us provide some thing other than your insults to the table. Trust me your not the first belligerent individual we have encountered. If and if you can bring some research to the table, or properly describe your idea. Mathematically is the ideal preference. However peer reviewed articles and discussing your understanding will also work. Will you ever gain listeners. If anything there is also something to be learned from a well rounded, and accurate discussion. Insults are a poor substitute to demonstrating a firm but accurate grasp on a subject.

A single molecule isn't going to have any measurable effect on space time. Gravity is immeasurable at the particle level. Go ahead run the calculations yourself.

Nothing Its still an important point to mention as this is also commonly misunderstood. It's more an FYI, as the universe can be infinite its singularity cannot be accurately thought of as a BH style point like singularity if you include the universe beyond our observable universe. We still don't know if the universe is finite or infinite. Though our observable universe is finite You'd be amazed how often this is misunderstood.

You might want to study which type of singularity. 1.the state of being singular, distinct, peculiar, uncommon or unusual 2.a point where all parallel lines meet 3 a point where a measured variable reaches unmeasurable or infinite value 4. the value or range of values of a function for which a derivative does not exist 5 a point or region in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density; associated with Black Holes. The universe singularity case is number 3 as opposed to 5. As mentioned though this depends on the metrics used. Some examples that avoid or solve number 3 have been mentioned. A notable one being the bounce of LQC.

The Higgs field changes potential at higher temperatures. It has a Mexican hat potential (metastability). These articles show the metastability Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 The low end of the Mexican hat is the vacuum expectation value at 246 GeV. The top of the hat is when the Higgs field no longer gives mass to elementary particles. This is roughly just above [latex]10^{16}[/latex] GeV. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_expectation_value This lecture shows the related formulas and has a decent image of the Mexican hat potential. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjABahUKEwiI3YKOq4rGAhXJlYAKHV07AIs&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ph.ed.ac.uk%2F~playfer%2FPPlect17.pdf&rct=j&q=vacuum%20expectation%20value&ei=vOh6VYiPCMmrggTd9oDYCA&usg=AFQjCNHgQwFmLTdYGa3h5OM_fL4mdAexgA&sig2=__TDScPUTdBe7hyvBnKLGQ

I agree it's a bit over the top, I've seen similar ideas presented on radiogeeks.com. Most people aren't aware of the legal issues, it's not commonly known. That forum typically points it out. Got to be habit forming lol

Change the resistance, voltage means nothing in terms of power. Your missing a key detail voltage is nothing but potential difference. The amount of current dictates the capable watts. Not voltage. Regardless the methodology is restricted, via the FCC regulations in Canada. In the US If memory serves correct its NECS. Regulations. Being in Canada. That's arbitrary. However every country has its own particulars on stealing radiation power via transmissions. This is exactly what is being shown on this video. Nothing more. It is by no means zero power. The laws of conservation of energy still apply. No free lunch. (This forum considers laws and infractions, theft and unsafe acts are inherently against forum rules) not implying that you yourself are attempting so. However there is still the risk on this thread, this forum does consider unsafe and regulation infraction acts. The circuit shown on the video is stealing power from what I see. Again I stress this isn't your intention. However it is a factor

As I explained its still not free energy. Your drawing from other transmission frequencies. In point of detail yes you can do so but doing so is illegal. There are regulations against this. This is a form of stealing power from transmitted signals http://www.academia.edu/6612738/Wireless_Power_Theft_Detection

just to add to studiots reply The formula is v=I*R voltage =current (in amps)*resistance(ohms). The amount of current is what is important in generating power. Voltage is the potential difference. If you have zero resistance, then no matter how much current you produce the voltage will be zero. If you have a set current ie 1 amp and increase the resistance you increase the voltage. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current Power however is measured in watts http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

At what current? You can have 0.25 volts at any current level

Magnets induce conduction voltage. Also they can receive other radiant stray electromagnetic signals. Note he wired up essentially a coil. Our air is full of various frequencies. The coil is probably picking up other frequencies. Your car antennae is tuned to receive a set range of frequencies without inducing impedance. (Impedance mismatch generates reflective waves that reduce overall efficiency) coil isn't tuned, nor is it shielded from stray signals.

You have presented a very specific QM model. I have been searching for the specific change between [latex]\phi^3[/latex] and [latex]\phi^4[/latex] (the latter being far more common). QM isn't my strongest point lol. Language of QM irritates me, yet I have a stronger understanding of QFT fields. As you have posed a very interesting topic (at least to me).As I have time, I will do my best to assist. (PS keep in mind RL. I just got home from 50 Km north pole). Must give quality time with wife lol.. (( repeat it like a Katra, Quality time, Quality time, Quality time......) [ let her set the schedule, you know nothing, Danielson)

An explosion regardless of when you measure it has a point of origin. As well as a preferred direction. It is inhomogeneos and isotropic. So when you measure how an explosion expands. It will be nothing like the balloon analogy. You will measure an increase in volume change with a preferred direction and location. All objects are moving from the center outward. However if you measure expansion you will not measure a preferred direction and location. That is precisely the point of the cosmological principle. The distance between all objects are increasing in all directions not an outward direction. Here Ned Wright's tutorial has some good visuals. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html Beaz has a decent write-up. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html Metrics expansion of space shows one decent image. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space http://oneminuteastronomer.com/6949/where-is-the-center-of-the-universe/ http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/ojta/c2c/largescale/cosmology/geometry_tl.html Granted the balloon analogy is 2d, the raisin bread is 3d. http://fundamentalweirdness.blogspot.ca/2010/03/raisin-bread-universe.html?m=1 Here is a decent YouTube video 11 minutes long. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/universe-scale-topic/big-bang-expansion-topic/v/hubble-s-law

To answer this you have to understand how fast information can travel. The horizon problem amounts to. " How can our universe have the same thermodynamic conditions everywhere, when the maximum speed any information can travel is the speed of light. Yet the universe is in the same thermodynamic state everywhere we look at a given distance and point in time.". This is in more technical terms called "shared causality". Thermodynamic processes on one side of our observable universe do not have time to interact with the other side of our observable universe. The speed of information prevents this from being able to occur. So why are these disconnected regions so evenly matched? The answer is they can only match thermodynamically is if they were once causally connected in the past. Now here is the technical part, in order to stay equally uniform and cover our entire observable universe the universe must have at one time time been small enough in volume that thermodynamic processes could balance out in a uniform homogeneous and isotropic state. However in order to explain that same state throughout the entire volume of the observable universe today without developing anisotropy regions. The universe must rapidly inflate an incredible volume in a very finite period of time. This sets the minimum number of e-folds of inflation. Which is roughly 60 e-folds. "In science, e-folding is the time interval in which an exponentially growing quantity increases by a factor of e; it is the base-e analog of doubling time." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-folding http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant) Here is a good detailed article on shared causality. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3943 Here is a brief article covering the horizon problem (without math detail FAQ style.) http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s12.htm The articles I already posted covers this in greater detail. By the way +1 for your dedication for understanding the current model rather than inventing your own Your the type of poster we like to see more often. Those that ask questions rather than assuming they have the answers that science doesnt or that they do not understand so invent their own explanation.

Excellent question. To answer this detail we need to clarify one key aspect. "What is the size of the entire universe" Well pop media shows and programs will almost always show this explosion like origin, starting from a volume less than an atom in size. This is entirely wrong. In point of detail we do not know the size of the entire universe.... We only know the size of our observable universe. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe The big bang model starts at [latex]10^{-49}[/latex] forward in time. Prior to that we cannot accurately describe due to the conditions prior to that point. We call this a singularity conditions, but not a point like singularity such as a BH. Our entire universe could be either finite or infinite in size. The big bang model only describes how our Observable universe evolves in volume since [latex]10^{-49}[/latex] forward. This is the detail missed in pop media literature. The other detail is that at all times the universe surrounds us. No matter what direction you look in, the further you look, the further back in time you look. However you will see not see a particular direction look any different from any other direction. So assuming you could directly see 10^-49 seconds forward you will still see the observable universe in every direction and the same thermodynamic conditions at a given distance in every observation direction. However you will never be able to see the entire universe. You will only ever be able to measure how our Observable portion evolves.