zztop
-
Posts
179 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by zztop
-
-
There is always a future for you in agriculture with all this experience of cherry picking ...
I wish I could have given you +10 for this!
!Moderator Note
If you keep ignoring the requests that your claims need to be supported, this will not end well. IOW, explain they physics behind this, don't just assert it.
This one deserves a +10 as well. Unfortunately, I could only give you a +1 only. Why is "madmac" still here?
Bender.
Make that 2 digits.
Some sources report plus 0.7%, some minus 0.2%.
A borehole analysis gave plus 1%.
A Russian source found a curious variation of up to 0.7% over time.
Prof Reg Cahill has measured turbulence of up to 20% (of speed or something) in what he calls Dynamic Space. And says that measurements of G (not by him) produce values that differ by nearly 40 times their error estimates. All of Cahill's 40 or so papers on Process Physics can be found in various sites on google, including Flinders University, & Mountain Man Graphics, & Physics arXiv. The one i was reading just now was Gravity as Quantum Foam Inflow (2003).
Cahill says that Newton's inverse square law is only applicable for spherical symmetry & is therefor inapplicable to say spiral galaxies & Cavendish type experiments. Not forgetting the wild swings due to turbulence.
Reg Cahill is a well known crank (coming from your part of the world). Why do you keep polluting this forum by posting utter rubbish? Read here and stop posting rubbish.
0 -
I think it is perfectly possible to teach yourself classical mechanics from textbooks. It should also be possible to teach yourself calculus and differential equations.
Knowing that stuff is extremely helpful in formal education.
By the way, Ed Witten's story is quite interestomg - he got a M.Sc in history and then stepped right into M.Sc. in physics and got a Ph.D. around 3 years later. He had to be exceptionally briliant (how else would you expect a history major to be allowed to get right into physics graduate program of a major university and then into a PhD program under a recent Nobel Proze winnter?)
I was thinking of mentioning him, he is definitely outside the norm
0 -
The chances of today's physics being wrong on the fundamental level some crackpots claim is practically impossible. The exceptions certainly exist, but will most likely not be complete game-changers.
Definitely. What is fascinating is the self-taught crackpots fascination with "I can prove Einstein wrong". I am longing for a crackpot that is obsessed with "I can prove QM wrong".
1 -
What chance now?
Given the complexity of today's physics, pretty low but not zero. Exceptions will appear.
0 -
You've done it the right way and more power to you but people most often mean just doing it themselves and then expecting to come up with something scientifically avant garde and meaningful.
There are exceptions, Faraday comes to mind but they are very rare.
0 -
This is the route I would recommend. There seem to be two distinct paths the self-taught travel down. The other path usually leads to misunderstanding, and eventually these folks start thinking they have a special insight and everybody else is wrong.
Yes, absolutely. It is important to get a formal education at some point, preferably sooner rather than later.
2 -
zztop.
I couldn't follow Cahill's derivation of his M&M calibration equation, however as usual i simply used some simple equations in an Excel table to calculate time difference in the 2 M&M arms & i got his answers, which convinced me he is correct. A good article re all this is --
"Review of Experiments that Contradict Special Relativity and Support Neo-Lorentz Relativity: Latest Technique to Detect Dynamical Space Using Quantum Detection (2015) -- Baltimore Conference.
Cahill is a crank.
0 -
zztop.
Re those thousands of confirmations re isotropy of c. U should cross off any of the M&M ones that are done in vacuum.
Vacuum gives a null result according to Prof Reg Cahill (because the refractive index is 1.0000) who gives the correct calibration for gas mode M&M experiments in --
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the discovery of absolute motion -- 2005, Progress In Physics.
This must i think also apply to some experiments using vacuum lasers & vacuum etalons.
Helium-Neon has a very low refractive index & hencely must be little better than vacuum i think. Air is ok.
Reg Cahill is yet another crank, he makes the same errors as Demjanov. Progress in Physics is a crackpot journal. Cease and desist.
0 -
I made a thread about this topic on http://www.physicsforums.com/ and some people on there called me a troll, my thread was locked as a result, and then when I tried making another thread, I wasn't able to because someone was messing with my ability to post (probably a mod). When I tried going back I got called a "crackpot" and it said that the ban will "never" be lifted. I spent like an hour making replies to people who posted on my thread and I never got a chance to post them.
Anyway, I really needed to vent about that. Now, I'm here for the same reasons I had on there and that is, well, to get different perspectives and maybe even a reality check (as was implied on the other site) about my wanting to become a theoretical physicist.
People have advised me to go back to school and get my PhD. I have money saved over from working for a decade but I don't want to spend it on school. I'd rather educate myself because I feel like I can learn better and faster on my own.
A little about me:
I'm in my mid twenties and when I was in my mid teens I quit school (legally) and went to work full time. Work was fullfilling but over time it became less so. After reading a couple of books about Richard Feynman (plus watching videos/docs about him), I have decided that that's what I see myself doing for the rest of my life. Physics. I recall that back in school I was a natural at science and math and really enjoyed it. I agree that college level physics is much harder than what was taught in high school but I also know that once you learn something it becomes easy. In other words, it's all relative.
Comments? Advice? Insights? Arguments? are all welcome. I know that I don't know everything so that's why I'm here trying to learn. Thanks!
You definitely can teach yourself. I recommend the "Feynman Lectures on Physics", you already know where to find them on the internet. I taught myself physics (from his books) starting at age 15. At 20, I enrolled in physics and I ended up with a phD at 26. I credit most of my success to the Feynman lectures. Go for it!
0 -
zztop.
Lemmeseenow -- my advice that the speed of light is anisotropic is rubbish because the speed of light is isotropic. Ok, i get it.
What I said is that there are thousands of experiments confirming light speed isotropy. I also said that you should stop posting rubbish, this is a mainstream forum, not a crank one.
0 -
Strange.
I googled censorship in science & indeed it is difficult to find anything. Pages of stuff about politics & global warming & Trump etc.
I cant paste links, but if u google -- "the corruption of science in America" -- (by J Marvin Herndon)(2011), the article (link) will come up ok.
But this-here thread is about SR & the train experiment, so let me think of something smelly somewhere on the platform.
Yes, i have an example pointing at something that stinks.
The train experiment, or at least Einstein's extension of it, relies on being able to synchronise clocks. Einstein's method is to time a beam of light that goes from A to B, & reflected back B to A. The clock at B is then re-set & synchronised based on a half of that time. If the speed of light A-B is not identical to B-A then this synchronisation method is kaput.
There is a better method of synchronising clocks A & B, which as we all know involves moving a clock C very slowly from A to B. But, this doesn't save the day for Einstein. If speed A-B is different to B-A then the whole of SR is kaput, dead, finished.
"Light Transmission and the Sagnac Effect on the Rotating Earth" -- by Stephan J G Gift (Sept 3 2013).
Mentions that GPS shows that signals on Earth going west-to-east are slower than signals going east-to-west.
Einsteinians accept this anomaly, but instead of admitting that SR & GR are wrong, they apply what they call the Sagnac correction, and continue on their merry way as if that answers that. No, it don't.
"The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light" -- by Paul Marmet.
This mentions same, & has some interesting wordage re west-to-east & east-to-west stuff.
S.J. Gift is a crackpot.
Paul Marmet was another crackpot.
The speed of light is isotropic.
Stop posting rubbish.
0 -
And re science, u are wrong. Einsteinism is wrong 99% of the time. It is a religion, kept alive by censorship, bullying, misinformation & propaganda.
Name any instance of Einstein being correct & i will refer u the real facts. Obviously not on this thread, unless it refers to simultaneity (or trains).
And another -1. When will you stop posting rubbish?
0 -
zztop.
I had another read of Hicks' 1905 analysis of M&M. Hicks says that M&M took readings while the interferometer was rotating (Michelson in 1881 took stationary readings). Hicks doesn't (in 43 pages) mention Doppler as such, but he does say....
"The theory is not so simple as it may appear at first sight owing to the changes produced by actual reflexion at a moving surface. The correction due to alteration in the angle of reflexion was first introduced by Lorentz, and was taken account of in the joint paper by Michelson & Morley in 1887. But reflexion produces also a change in the wave-length of the reflected light".
Hicks was fully aware of the effects of observer moving (or not moving) with the apparatus (& likewise the source of light moving or not), altho he probably wasn't aware of any pure Einsteinian SR effects.
Unfortunately in the above quoted wordage Hicks isn't i think 100% clear whether his observer is moving with his apparatus.
Also, throughout his article Hicks is almost never clear whether his moving mirrors are translating or rotating or both.
Interestingly Hicks later says, of the reflected light.........
"If an observer is fixed in the aether he sees that in this picture the waves have different wave-lengths, but that they advance with the same velocity V, and the apparatus moves with U.
If the observer is fixed to the apparatus he sees that in this picture the apparatus is fixed but that each system of waves advances with a different velocity, yet in all cases such, that as they reach him their frequencies are the same---the longer waves have the greater apparent velocity of propagation".
This wordage is Einsteinesque. Without analysing the quote more closely i think that Hicks is employing Lorentz Relativity (is there such a thing), which as we know has many similarities with SR (hencely his wording).
One trap for fellows like me is that Hicks' article deals mainly with wave-fronts not pure waves. It is M&M wave-fronts that make M&M fringes. Whereas pure waves belong to the photons (our eyes can see photons, & their color) -- but our eyes cant see M&M wave-fronts, but might see fringes if wave-fronts from two sources cross (i hope that this is correct).
I should add that pure waves are themselves wave-fronts too, & can make visible fringes. The distinction in my mind is that pure waves (& pure wave-fronts) travel at the same speed as their photons, but M&M wave-fronts are slower (but can be superluminal in certain cases)(i hope that this is correct).
There is no change in wavelength. Light reflected of moving mirrors has the same wavelength (frequency) as the incident light. Hicks is NOT using special relativity. Please stop the fringe posts, this is a mainstream science forum.
0 -
i claim that these waves travel at less than c (or less than the usual lightspeed in air etc).
This is false. Everything you claim is incorrect.
0 -
. I suspect that that is what the withdrawn bizness is all about, but i think i got all of his papers from his present website only say about 2 weeks ago. I suspect that my print might be his latest effort at removing that-there noise.
The withdrawal was due to Demjanov being a crackpot who has deep misconceptions about relativity.
zztop. I think that a rotating mirror does give an M&M Doppler effect.
No, it doesn't.
0 -
M&M experiments (or very similar) using i think glass or plexiglass include.....
Shamir & Fox in 1969. Report near-null result.
Trimmer et al in 1973. Report near-null result.
Demjanov in 1969 etc. Reports non-null results.
Demjanov has been refuted and his paper has been withdrawn.
0 -
Yeah - that's kinda what I meant was getting mixed up with scope and sight. I cherish my ignorance in matters of the reality of firearms; I think I am the first in about 5 generations of my family that didn't need to know
There are TWO sights: the rear one (also called elevator) , closer to the shooter and the front one (on top of the nozzle). They need to be aligned (by eye) and the resultant line needs to be aligned with the bottom of the dark disk on the target. This type of alignment is necessary in order to hit the target in the center, since the rifles come calibrated this way.
0 -
If a gun is aimed while the barrel is perfectly parallel to the ground and the ground itself is perfectly even, then how is it that the bullet lands where the tiny bit on top of the gun was pointing?
If you ever shot at targets you would know that, in order to hit the bull's eye, you must align the sight with the bottom of the black circle. This means that guns come sighted such that they point slightly upward, just enough to counter the gravitational pull on the bullets.
1 -
This is a severely crackpot paper, has no business being in arxiv. Refraction is frequency dependent, so , white (star)light , by virtue of being composed of a large spectrum of frequencies, would exhibit DIFFERENT bending for each frequency. This is NOT what is being observed. The authors of the paper are ignorant cranks.
A little checking confirms the authors to being heavy duty cranks:
[32] R.C. Gupta, A. Pradhan and Sushant Gupta, ‘A Novel Concept for Mass as Complex-Mass towards Wave-particle Duality’, Infinite Energy, Issue 101, 40-48, (2012), [arXiv:physics/1001.4647, (2010)].
[33] R.C. Gupta, ‘Fabric of Universe is not like that of the Emperor’s Cloth!www.wbabin.net/physics/gupta1.pdf, (2008).0 -
Light cannot escape from black hole = Escape velocity of black hole is greater than the velocity of light = Anything that falls from the space into the black hole hits the black hole with a velocity greater than the velocity of light. Isn't that possible?
This is a classical example of an incorrectly posed question.
Light falling radially into a black hole reaches and crosses the event horizon at....the speed of light.
No massive object can reach the speed of light, so, any massive object reaches and crosses the event horizon at...less than the speed of light.
0 -
Its my first time that I write an formula at mobile. I will gonna learn 'em all.
Please don't. You are writing nonsense.
0 -
Fc=(m1×v1 + m2v2)/√1-v2/c2.
Dimensions are all wrong.
2 -
Well my take was no doubt simplistic and not particularly useful or helpful here (just a special case I guess)
Two events are separated by the amount of time [latex]\Delta t[/latex] and by the space [latex]\Delta x[/latex] in frame F.
In frame F', the two events are separated by the time interval [latex]\Delta t'=\gamma(\Delta t -v \Delta x/c^2)[/latex].
Now, if the events are simultaneous in F, it means that [latex]\Delta t=0[/latex].
This means that , in frame F', the events are separated by the time interval:
[latex]\Delta t'=-\gamma v \Delta x/c^2[/latex].
You can have [latex]\Delta t'=0[/latex] if [latex]\Delta x=0[/latex].
Another way of looking at it is : if [latex]\Delta x=0[/latex] then [latex]\Delta t'=\gamma\Delta t[/latex] , so, in this PARTICULAR case, simultaneity is preserved across frames of reference.
0 -
If we assume for a minute that there is something wrong with the current thinking that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and assume that it is in fact still decelerating
Cannot be "still decelerating" because that would mean that the rate of expansion is diminishing which would mean that the cosmological redshift is diminishing which....is contradicted by astronomical observations.
Cannot be "still" because it never was to begin with. .
0
madmac surprise (Hijack from Two Bolts Strike Train)
in Speculations
Posted · Edited by zztop
Cahill, Gift, Hatch, Marmet, De Witte are heavy duty cranks. Instead of wasting your life digging up rubbish, you would be better off taking a class. You will NOT be able to "bury" Einstein, as you mention on your profile, you are only making a fool of yourself.
PS: Grusenick is seriously wrong as well, since you seem unable to follow any scientific argument I will not post the math that explains the "fringe shifts" that he's seeing. Suffice to say that they are perfectly explainable thru the fact that the "vertical" arm stretches and compresses becoming longer or shorter than the "horizontal" one. Not only that the stretching/compression occurs but it is also dynamic (it varies in time) and it affects BOTH arms. Only a totally insane person would envisage MMX the way Grusenick did it. Why do you think Michelson, Gale, Dayton Miller and all the modern re-enacters took and take such pains to keep the setup HORIZONTAL?