imatfaal

NASA have a bit of a reputation in this sphere - they were involved in various bits of the nickel/copper cold energy scam; I even think they had a hand in the arsenic based life-form farago. One cannot tell from the paper but it seems as if the "tuning" and setting of frequencies which took a huge amount of time might be interpreted (by a hardhearted observer) as a set-up designed to allow confirmation bias; ie if you only measure when you have your tuning right, and your tuning is only right when you observe a desired thrust, then all your measurement will show a thrust - but you hve proved nothing. And from all accounts this paper was the result of many years of work - not a quick proof of concept. The "proof of concept" was the previous paper which was so full of holes you could see straight through. Great leaps come from allowing guys like this to play - but we must be careful to not get carried away; mad experiments are brilliant but accepting insignificant results from sloppy metholdology is just silly. If tuning is important to thrust generation then the method is simple. Build a double ended device - identical in every way except right hand side is tuned, left hand side is not tuned; hang it on a string such that when turned off it hangs straight - turn it on. No worries with thermals as both sides will be heated equally

Sometimes you have to wonder about NASA. That paper is a bit of a shambles; huge swathes of missing information (calculation of frequency and modes) , virtually no data (as far as I can tell they ran 18 tests - WTF? 1800 would be more like the number), still absolutely no real theory to back it up (there is no model let alone a theory which could be tied into to modern physics), bad technique (they use a hand held camera for thermal analysis - that thing is only gonna accurate to one part in a hundred or so!) , attempts to replicate at other places have drawn a null result. They may be something going on - personally I doubt it because it requires a rewriting of the law of conservation of momentum - but this paper is not going to convince anyone. Hopefully, some real experimentalists can make it a project and either provide a good significant result or put it to bed (for all but the crackpots) for ever

! Moderator Note Thread locked. The OP has proven nothing, adduced zero evidence, and failed to provide even a basic rational argument for his contentions. In light of his latest post this thread has been locked to save us from more nonsense. Do not re-open this topic without first confirming to a staff member that you are bringing more than bald assertions and soapboxing. In future posts in the main science fora must be on a sound empirical or mathematical footing

I think that is a valid observation - although it should be borne in mind that if observations/measurements are obtained from sets of two entangled particles then the observed distributions can be shown not have come from a single, (even if hidden), joint distribution.

You are correct - I was referring to older experiments. That's a lot of reading to do... will revert The last set of experiments were pretty dreadful - these at least seem to be in vacuo and have a result that is different from the null.

1. It does violate conservation of momentum - if it is the one I have seen it is reactionless which means violation; this, in turn, means it does not work. 2. The empirical data is not just not conclusive it is clear where large errors have been made, proper techniques not followed, and failure to move above the level of confirmation bias. 3. Whilst experimental data is king - it is desirable that there is a theoretical basis; even more so that it doesn't upset the basis of all modern physics. If you have data which are more conclusive then please post a link / abstract. But the level of "thrust" produced is just so minimal that you must be doing this in vacuo, your results must be properly significant, and it will be repeated (and must be repeatable) as this is Nobel Prize territory.

No - nature is just that way. It was the case before we or our planet came into existence and it will still be the case be once we have gone. Just because characteristics and qualities of objects have independent methods of measurement, and we see them as distinct does not mean that they are independent. Is mass connected to velocity? - yes; because momentum is conserved in the absence of an external force. Must we always be concerned about an object's velocity in order to obtain its mass (or vice versa)? - no; because in many circumstances we either don't care about momentum or we are exerting an external force.

OK so he is administrator of the EPA rather than a Senator - but Damn all the same http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html

Ok - lets ignore the poker. But the take-home point is that if you can model it with a system which is classical (or mimics a classical system) then it does NOT model quantum mechanics. Two unknown sets of cards are just that - two separate sets; they re not sharing a single state of superposition

So you have gone from one mathematical truism to another* (presuming you have the algebra correct) - the question is "and...?" *the sum of two positive numbers (they are counts remember) divided by the sum of two other positive numbers is always gonna be between 0 and infinity unless denominator or numerator is zero in which case you either get zero or undefined

Sorry but I am pretty sure you have still messed up your primed and non-primed. Why not use a,b,c=a' and d=b' ? Much easier to follow

This was a nice puzzle - just realise I didn't post my results. Will see if I still have them and check they correspond

OK - that makes sense if you are dividing both denominator and numerator of the LHS by (b+a') . Which is allowed - but was not at all clear Can you elaborate on the last line?

As I know next to nothing about Poker and less about programming that all went a bit over my head. I will say that I do not think you are fully conceptualizing the difference between an entangled state in which two objects share a single state of superposition and the classical model when there are two unknown and inter-related states.

Yes it would change things - I would have to think what the resultant dimensions would be. And Thomas Young is a pretty cool scientist to share a name with

My post was directed to the OP - not to you. I have replied to you in your thread

! Moderator Note Thread locked. Our rules state that members should be able to participate without needing to leave the site. You may reopen this topic with an explanation of your contention included in the Opening Post if you wish. Please do not include links - unless they are to reputable sites providing evidence or references. We do not exist to provide an advertising platform for third party websites - as such link is deleted

Just no. You can only divide through by a factor for instance (a+b) and cancel when the factors are multiplied [(a+b)(c+d)]/(a+b) = 1*(c+d) but [(a+b)+(c+d)]/(a+b) Does not equal 1+(c+d) Just sub in numbers for a,b,c,d and you will see that it cannot be the case and - by the by - technically that formula is closer to CHSH than Bells original which relies on correlation values. Please get some basic education in before trying to overturn what is commonly regarded as one of the best pieces of modern science

Glad to read that you are still working on it. To be honest I think you need to separate in your head the logic, the maths, and the experiment. I believe you are coming up against what you think is a mathematical / logical conundrum but in fact it is a misunderstanding of the experimental set up. Remember that Bell's work whilst being accessible and not burdened by huge amounts of recondite higher maths is also very subtle and clever; Bell radically changed things with a short 6 page paper which threw EPR into a completely new light and did what people like Van Neumann had been working on for years.

I haven't read in detail (the format makes it difficult to take in). But Delayed Quantum Eraser does not require someone to know anything - the interference is lost if you measure the idler in such a way as to preserve path information and the interference is maintained if you measure the idler in such a way which does not tell you which path. The spooky thing is that you can delay measurement of the idler by a significant period of time such that you have already taken all your measurements for the signal - the measurement of the idler STILL destroys the interference. There is no need for conscious knowledge or a primer knower - the measurement is sufficient there is no need to interpret, understand or know the result

Not sure if that is entirely kosher - it is basically saying that the stiffness of spacetime is the coefficient between the Einstein Tensor G and the Stress-Energy Tensor T. Now that makes quite a lot of sense in heuristic terms G describes the curvature of spacetime, and T describes the stuff that is making it curve; it makes sense that the multiplier is related to the stiffness. The speed of light to the fourth power on the bottom means that is gonna be a small small number. But I think of stiffness as being measured in Newtons per metre - not seconds squared per kilogram metre. I also think of stiffness being a number which the higher it is the harder it is for a certain amount of oompf to distort something (being deliberately vague); ie you need more Newtons to produce a displacement in the SI measure of stiffness The 8 pi G over c^4 is in the wrong position for that - the higher that coefficient the easier it is to produce distortion. I think that number would be better called flexibilty (the inverse of stiffness - think of resistance and conductivity) - but I am quite prepared to believe that space time is very stiff, but not entirely convinced yet. Thinking a bit further - if you think of it as 1/stiffness that would be metres / Newton metres / Newton = metres / (kilogram . metres per second^2) = seconds^2 per kilogram Which is very similar to the dimension you gave from your video, but not exact which is disturbing. It is not the same as the inverse of pressure either which I think would make a lot of sense (Youngs Modulus has same units as pressure)

I haven't even done a back-of-the-envelope calculation but I would just say that whilst that is a supreme amount of energy for a very small change - it is over a sphere of unimaginable size. That black-hole interaction was 1.6 billion light years away - and we felt it! Admittedly we only felt it with the most sophiticated tool every built - but all the same. The maths behind the quadrapole gravitational radiation is nasty - I know that the signal is not uniform around the sphere but I have a feeling that the energy radiated is uniform. That stretch/squeeze that we felt was one part of the ringdown - with a maximum amplitude as you have said. So that three solar masses worth of converted energy did not just deform one bit of spacetime less than a thousandth of the width of a proton - it distorted vast unimaginable swathes of spacetime many many times . So maybe it is stiff maybe not so much - but you need to do more sums to say for sure

Great find - sometimes youtube really is good

"...for a photon there is no time, no past, no future ..." that is normally connected to the above misunderstanding of SR - I don't think we have any reason to say it otherwise. Photons move, change (red-/blue-shift for example), they are emitted, they are absorbed - they obviously exist within time. I am not sure we have a valid concept of what time is for a massless particle - but then I am not sure we have a particularly valid concept of what time is for a hairless ape. We must not anthropomorphise light; photons hate that (they are shy as well as being massless quantum mechanical objects) - what sort of notion of the passing of time would such a thing like that have?

"according to special relativity" - you say this but it is not true. SR says all inertial frames of reference are equivalent but that light speed is invariant for all inertial frames - together these mean that there is no inertial frame of reference for the photon; as such we understand that the theory is outside its bounds of application for the frame of reference of massless objects moving at the speed of light. You cannot do the normal sums, boosts, contractions etc based on a frame moving at the speed of light because it cannot be an inertial frame of reference. As massive objects approach the speed of light (no matter how close) then you can make very exact predictions based on SR which are borne out by observation - but you cannot cross over to using the same maths for massless objects traveling at the speed of light