Bignose

I think we all would be very interested in new outcomes. But you have wholeheartedly failed to actually present any outcomes. You didn't reach any meaningful outcome when asked about the altitude of geosynchronous orbits, for example. If there aren't any outcomes, I don't think you should be chastising people. But it is good that you recognize that you are not being understood. I, for one, don't understand why you can't present a straightforward answer to the altitude question.

Yeah, and when you discussed it with us here on the forum, we showed several of the elementary mistakes you made. This is why I included the phrase "Be prepared to present a great deal of evidence to support this extraordinary claim." You, Windevoid, failed to present almost any evidence, if the amount you've presented to this forum is any indication of what you did in your paper.

If you have truly done this, then write a journal article explaining what law of physics all the rest of us have gotten wrong all the rest of these years, and submit that article to Science. Once it is published in such a reputable journal, you will receive a great deal of attention and funding. Be prepared to present a great deal of evidence to support this extraordinary claim. The laws of physics as we know them today are supported by a tremendous amount of evidence -- that's how they became laws. That's why there is tremendous skepticism in your claims here; skepticism I share BTW.

Windevoid, I do not want to discourage any creative thinking. But I highly encourage you to do some reading on what actually constitutes a battery, and why metal are good conductors of electricity. All these questions you are asking have been answered, and the flaws in your idea would be apparent with some basic understanding of how batteries create electricity, and how charges & electrons behaved. Your questions like 'what if the wires were the energy course' aren't thought provoking, deep, or challenging the mainstream. They just make you look uneducated, and like one who doesn't think the ramification of their idea all the way out. Again, creativity is needed in the sciences. Highly, highly desired, as a matter of fact. But you don't get any cred just from tossing out any old idea that pops into your head. Where you get credit is when you show how all the effects based on your idea make predictions or explanations that are even better than the ones we have now. To do this right, you need to know how well we does this now. And let me give you a hint -- in terms of basic circuits, we are going really quite well with our predictions. You may indeed make even better predictions. But you need to show that, not just blurt out every untested idea that comes to you.

You do realize that you don't need wires for a battery to release its energy, right? If you doubt this, put your tongue on the ends of a 9V battery. The very first batteries were piles of rags with chemicals on them. Very simplistic voltaic piles. And people discovered that when you picked up the piles of rags, they'd get a shock. And what about a Van der Graaf generator? It doesn't have a closed loop of wire in its circuit; are you also going to claim that energy is coming from the air? There are a lot of phenomena that we know about that doesn't seem to fit this idea of yours.

Nice. So, rather than demonstrate the usefulness of your model, you decide to get all huffy. Strange is pointing out that the answer you gave is not an altitude. Altitude is measured in units of length, i.e. 10,000 feet. You gave us a velocity, and radians, and other things that don't answer the question. It's like asking someone "how much money do you make?" and being told "13 bananas per parsec". Answers to questions need to be in units that make sense. And now I want to address why this 'physics literature' question was asked. Because it is by going through examples that people learn. We have a model that gives an answer to that question -- we use it to put satellites in geosynchronous orbit all the time. But if you were going to show us an alternative method of calculating it using your model, we all could have learned from that. But no, you'd rather get all huffy when told that your explanation wasn't clear. You'd rather insult us. I don't understand this attitude at all. We're giving you and your idea a chance here -- why wouldn't you want to give every effort to ensure that it is understood?

also known as, you are writing science fiction stories. Because if you are going to just abdicate your responsibility to provide evidence for your story-telling, then you certainly aren't doing science. Science is the process of coming up with ideas AND coming up with evidence to support your ideas. In short, if you are just going to shirk the evidence portion of the process, then you need to take this to a metaphysics or spiritual or some other forum where the scientific process isn't held in high esteem. Because on this forum, we hold the scientific process very highly up. And you are basically explicitly telling us that you don't want to do science. Doesn't seem like a good fit to me. EDITED TO ADD: Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that I expect you to be able to go out and build your own super collider. What I am saying I expect is that if your supposed particles exist, that means they have effects that can be measured. And by predicting what those effects are, tests can be hypothesized as to how to quantify those effects. Furthermore, almost surely, experiments have been performed where some aspect of those effects should have shown up. You could use existing data sets and demonstrate that the effects from your particles were indeed seen by comparing predictions based on your model with actual measured results. The above would be much, much, much more meaningful scientifically, rather than just writing stories off the cuff.

There are all sorts of programming competitions and contests and the like out there. I like Project Euler, personally. http://projecteuler.net/about You can always volunteer to help on some open source project, too.

Because usually 'anti-graivty' presupposes some other force to cancel out or nullify gravity. This is what I assumed you meant when you used the word 'repel' But buoyancy does not need a concept of repelling. Density differences are sufficient. I guess it was mostly a question of your word choice, then.

A Helium filled balloon's behavior is very well explained without invoking any kind of anti-gravity. The density difference between pure helium and the mixture that makes up the normal air suffices very well. So I guess I am not sure what you're driving at here.

Good point. In short, I think it best to reiterate that the OP would be well advised to consult an introduction to fluid mechanics book. It is a subject with an extensive literature.

Right, and we propose constitutive models for the shear stress (often invoking Newton's viscosity as one example). The set of equations solve for the velocity field and pressure. rwjefferson, I would entreat you to please read any of the many, many books about fluid mechanics. These are basic questions that are typically answered in the first chapter or two. If you would like recommendations, I would be happy to give you some. But, I, like swansont, am afraid that this thread will be your typical ask 12 random questions and then a 'gotcha!' when you think you've won a point. I don't mind helping share knowledge on a subject I really enjoy -- fluid mechanics. But I'm not here to play games. Yes. This happens almost anywhere there is a physical boundary. Quite simply, the solid structure of the ball can support shear stresses whereas the fluid does not.

There is a specialized test to see if these Mersenne numbers are prime or not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas–Lehmer_primality_test don't expect it to be quick, though. You have a fairly large number on your hands there.

Not sure what this non-sequitur was meant to mean; I can assure you that conservation of energy is perfectly followed by air conditioning units. In fact, it is very commonly analyzed by students in thermodynamics classes. Good thing your agreement doesn't really mean all that much. Because conservation of energy may very well be one of the most validated ideas mankind has ever had. Never has a situation been found where it is violated. Never. The simple truth is that the predictions from conservation of energy have been supremely, supremely successful. Whether you agree with it or not. Unless you are prepared to present copious amounts of well verified objective evidence of situations where the conservation of energy fails, your disagreement with it just makes you appear irrational.

One can think something is right all they want. Opinions have very little scientific capital. If you want to gain some true scientific capital, you start making predictions and showing that those predictions agree with observations better than any other predictions have agreed before. There is none of that here. There are observations, such as these particles that accelerate also radiate -- that are not matching your prediction of no radiation. Until you can remedy this, the current theories whose agreement between prediction and observation are much, much closer. And hence, the current theories are much more useful scientifically. So, again, you can think something is right all you want. But that doesn't make it meaningful scientifically.

Think of all the advances we'd have in video game playing, pot smoking, and people not listening to reason in the Speculations section! (Just to pick on 3 of many, many things that people do as pastimes.) Look, I think I get your point here, and let me paraphrase -- and that is that if people didn't have to worry about 'working', there would be more time for creation and arts. And I don't think that anyone is going to argue with that. That is pretty much the world that is envisions in the Star Trek universe. But, I would also argue that we as a society are not mature enough for that yet. As an example, at my heart I am a bleeding liberal about illicit drug use. You want to inject heroin into both your eyeballs? I don't care, just do it at home. But there are far, far, far too many people who decide to do that in public, at work, while driving, anywhere where someone else can get hurt. Just look at all the DUIs and car wrecks due to drunken driven. We as a society aren't mature enough to have most drugs available to us. And I think it is similar in terms of having a society where the accumulation of wealth is not a motivating factor. Essentially, you are talking about communism. It is a great idea, but its been tried many times and failed many times. Orwell put it best in Animal Farm... all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. That is what has happened every time. Now, that doesn't mean we can't strive for it, just understand where our society is right now. And I would further argue that hamfisted "days of wealth redistribution" where forcing people to give up their wealth is a really poor idea. It went over like a lead balloon in Cyprus not all that long ago. If this is really an ideal you want to strive for, I think a process of educating people how material things don't actually make people happy would be far more successful. When people understand that things like friendship are more important than material things, they will willingly give up their wealth.

what is really funny, is that if the laws of physics were wrong on those circuits, his multimeter wouldn't work right either, since really a multimeter is just a specialized circuit! If the circuit laws weren't right, you can't use a tool whose implicit function depends on those same circuit laws as evidence!

Someone told you a capacitor was a resistor? Well, what is it? Those are two pretty different things. I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of confidence in any of your supposed reported results if you couldn't tell the difference between a resistor and a capacitor. Unless it was just completely stripped of color and markings, the markings between the two are pretty darn different. Even then, you should have been able to tell what is was pretty quickly with a really simple test circuit. I think you probably ought to back up, and tell us exactly what the circuit is (a drawing would be just super), and then tell us exactly what you were using the multimeter to measure, and what points you put the leads to. Before you go thinking you can rewrite the last 100 years of physics, let's make sure these basics are right.

I tried to converse with you. I invited you to present a plot with the experimental data, your predictions, and the predictions made by relativity. I am completely willing to pay attention if you can demonstrate that your idea is indeed better then what we have today. I think you'll find most scientists are similar. What most scientists do not appreciate, however, is someone telling them that the current theory is wrong without demonstrating a better alternative, because in the end scientists are very practical -- the theory that makes the best predictions are the most useful. So, demonstrate that your idea makes the most predictions. It will pretty quickly become the most useful and get noticed.

And this falls outside the current knowledge how? Is this is the best you can do, again, I am not surprised that it was ignored if submitted to journals.

Popcorn, this is all great fiction and what not -- would make one heck of a weapon in a good pop sci-fi book or movie. But this isn't science. You can't just describe something without invoking some kind of mechanism, and then showing that that mechanism exists using experimental data, and the making predictions based on that mechanism. You don't get to just jump right to that prediction step, and even then, you need to make specific predictions not just 'shreds'. E.g. what forces make these shreds? how does that force vary by position, temperature, mass, etc.? How big are the shreds, size and shape? Look, this imagination is great. It really is. But if you want to do science, you need to focus this imaginative energy into doing science by following the rules we've set up that makes really successful science. That means: prediction & comparison of that prediction with observation. Not just jumping ahead to fancifully describing what you think is the end result. Again, that is story telling. Not science. Sorry.

But you are the one on here telling us that our current models are wrong. The scientists and engineers who use these things every day haven't noticed that they are wrong. If you can't present evidence why they are wrong, and present something that does work better, what good reason would anyone have for abandoning the idea that is working pretty darn well? I'm sorry, but your word alone is not enough to convince anyone that something is wrong. Evidence needs to be presented why you think your idea is better. This is how science is actually done. This is how rational beings act. It is wholly irrational to abandon something that is working very well in favor of something that can't even demonstrate if it even works or not.

So, the current model is more useful then. Since you don't even know the equations, and hence can't even make predictions, the current model that makes predictions -- and pretty darn good ones at that -- is clearly superior. Case closed. Until there is a model that makes even better predictions, why would anyone be interested?

Ok, this should be easy then. Please post the equation of E = E(time, density, magnetism, distance, and dielectricity) and demonstrate how well it works in many of the most common uses of energy. I'll start with 2 easy ones. 1) I drop a golf ball from a height of 2 m. How much kinetic energy does it have when it hits the ground. 2) I burn 0.5 mol of octane in an excess of oxygen (so no incomplete burning, it all goes to CO2), how much energy is released in this exothermic reaction? ------------ Oh, and it needs to be pointed out, that the above doesn't answer the question 'If electrons are not the charge carriers in conductors, what is?' at all. Energy and charge, while often related to one another, are not the same thing. This is pretty fundamental. Units of energy are Joules, units of electric charge are Coulombs. Definitely not the same thing.