discountbrains

I never looked to see if any of u gave a profile of your background. To the microwave 'expert': I'll need to get the link to the story about the British microwave device that can stop the speeding car, but u might look for it yourself. And, I know a whole lot more about electricity than u think and also microwaves. Yes, I do like my 'leapfrog' method. Incidentally frogs don't jump backwards do they? Wow, I didn't know u knew how gravity works; this the first time I've heard that. The explanation given that particles can be created to some observers of my distance increase relativity paradox(?) is a 'real' answer, but not a good one. Just because it might happen in some circumstances doesn't mean it happens here. So, 95% of those who saw UFOs don't knnow what they saw; they need u to tell them what they saw. I'll just have to muddle on with my ignorant exoeriments and do my mathematical calculations as I need them while u tell me this won't work.......Incidently (OT) I made more concentrated acetic acid by putting vinegar in the freezer and saving the liquid part. I could go by the complex eutectic graph for acetic acid solutions, but this works-verified with my pH meter.

OK, I realize people did actually answered my initial question when I 1st asked it. I wish someone would visualize my model though and see it has some merit. Maybe I should have drawn a diagram, but I might as well drop it. I'm just too lazy to wrire up something I haven't come up with a demo to show actually works. I don't buy Farrow's explanation of how his 'condensing dynamo' worked either. But, they knew very little about radio waves etc back then.

Sorry, I didn't include his name in my post. It's Edward S Ferrell. Did u look at my link about him? I'm surprised absolutely no one has come to my defense at all. I get nothing but critics. Are only the senior members allowed to comment? Is no one willing to follow my thought process or entertain any nonmainstream theories to see if they're plausible?

(*) is it still called "leapfrogging" if you go backwards?-good one!........ I've thought about this before. It might be a good thing to have doctors that have thorough knowledge of their field and universities to insist their graduates also have a thorough knowledge to maintain their reputation. I, on the other hand, prefer not to take that route. Maybe I'm doing it the hard way. I prefer the 'need to know' route. To this end I'd rather take a stab at rhis and that knowing there's a low peobabilty of success. Recently read a programmer's post on Quora who said he just learned as he acquired new projects and he said it was successful for him. This approach probably works best in his field though.

I would describe what I visualize like: Any body of some mass would have the 1st moment of both the + and - charges being the same point, but the 2nd moment of the - charges would be further from the center than it would for the + charges. And, thus any object placed on any surface of this body would experience a net attraction. This would be analogous to calculating the 2nd moment for some body with non-homogeneous mass. Thank you, MigL, for increasing my education of microwaves. Clearly, if I had any concrete knowledge of how these UFOs fly I'd probably be attempting it myself. I may have no clue. The 'net attraction' above would be because the - charges would push the - charges in the object further away making the object more + near the body. I wrote out some calculations to prove this to myself once, but there may be too many variables to come up with a precise answer. I would describe what I visualize like: Any body of some mass would have the 1st moment of both the + and - charges being the same point, but the 2nd moment of the - charges would be further from the center than it would for the + charges. And, thus any object placed on any surface of this body would experience a net attraction. This would be analogous to calculating the 2nd moment for some body with non-homogeneous mass. Thank you, MigL, for increasing my education of microwaves. Clearly, if I had any concrete knowledge of how these UFOs fly I'd probably be attempting it myself. I may have no clue. The 'net attraction' above would be because the - charges would push the - charges in the object further away making the object more + near the body. I wrote out some calculations to prove this to myself once, but there may be too many variables to come up with a precise answer. What shades a lot of my thinking is the following: http://rexresearch.com/farrow/farrow.htm I ran across this years ago. It was a news story in the New York Times in 1911. I actually looked at the microfiche of the story in the library so the story is real. Unfortunately, nothing else can be found about it. Was Ferrell really fooling himself? No patent was ever granted. I would assume he applied for one.

Thank you very much for your answer, swansort. I'll quit bothering people now. This was the sort of response I was hoping to get. Whoa strange! Let's back up here now. You are making an AWFULLY lot of assumptions. I never said anything about the Sun being + or - charged etc. You don't understand what I'm saying. This is the crucial point: The net - charges would be slightly closer to an object than the + charges or the sum of the - charges would be etc. Using the simple inverse square formula there would be a net attraction. And, if "np one can prove me wrong" means I'm right is adsurd. It's not me who claims there are conspiracies. Oh, I forgot to answer the one who claimed I was proposing microwave propulsion. Where did they get that idea? This is the 'straw man argument': twist something into something ridiculous so u can argue with it. I have no idea what the UFOs are doing. It just seems like some kind of manipulation of microwaves to me.

OK, I finally got a real answer from beecee, I believe, who says particles can be created for some observers. About the gravity theory no one has given ONE reason why what I say can't be true-I'm talking mainly about the distribution of charges in the Earth. I think this is supposed to be a question and answer forum. Somehow I'm continually being accused of trying to debunk established science. I'm very well aware physics is based on what has been examined in many ways and confirmed and reconfirmed over and over again. You're not telling me Anything I don't know. Please point out where my error lies.

Really? Oh my goodness. You sound like an alcoholic or someone who wants nothing but to tear others down. This shows u have inadequatecy feeling about yourself. I am already Quite proud of things I have done. I don't think I've done anything noteworthy in physics though. Math maybe; that's my field.

Yea, if and when I can do a repeatable experiment (IF) I will certainly try to publish it. Clearly, I know this is unlikely. I believe my question was answered early on with the classic ususal answers. Interestingly It is just my type of personality that does the astounding things-not the naysayers. I asked a legitimate question here and most of what I get is personal attacks. Several people have rold me of experiences I question. But, is it if the ordnary person tells u something it should be discarded and it can only be accepted if the high priests of physics say so. I may be violating scientific rigor , but I believe the accounts. Please forgive me for revisiting my old topic on relativity. You did make me discover my error. HOWEVER, let me pose another question: Suppose a long object is traveling at 0.99c to a point B and it's not traving in a vacuum, but air or some gas. So, there would be numerous particles of the gas between the object and B. Strange agrees with me that the distance between the front of the oblect and B would have to appear greater (since the object appears much shorter) to a stationary observer off to the side than it would if the object wasn't moving. So now what? Do the distances between each particle become greater or do more particles have to be created? There needs to be something acting on the object to make it move. Does this something have to also act on the particles in front of it too? What are we to believe?

Too bad u quoted that Carl Sagan. I could not care less what he thought. So he wrote a lot of books and got on TV, so what. So he got himself well known and famous We should therefore all bow down to him.

I never got a precise answer pointing out my error in thinking.I learned nothing more than I have always heard. We humans always want to think of being able to wrap the universe up into a nice neat package. It's always been my thinking a lot of this modern physics is really speculation and a fantasy. I believe what I said above about UFOs is fascinating. I have just about run out of ideas though and they won't sell microwave range frequency transmitters to the public over 1.5W. Clearly this is a shot in the dark with very low probability. Oh yes, I forgot to add an account of a man walking up and toucbing a UFO and having radiation like burns in a checkerboard pattern on his chest the next day.

"Why not learn what physicists have learnt by experiment instead of making it up?" Yes, but I really want to leapfrog over having to learn all this stuff. My only interest in it and my challenge is to figure out how UFOs fly. Let am convinced now from examining every account I've gotten hold of is that they use some sort of microwave. About 6mo ago the English police started deploying a 700 lb device that will stop the ignition of a fugitive's vehicle. It's said to use a frequency of between 1.5 Ghz and 3 Ghz. There must be 100 accounts of car ignition failures when UFOs become near. They dug up some grass where a UFO had landed and the roots were burnt. This indicates to me the ground had been exposed to electro-magnetic induction. My favorite accoint involved a young police officer in Nebraska from the 1950s who said he was abducted. He said they told him they used "reversable electro-magnetism". He was 'whooshed' up into the craft and said there was acircle of 55 gal drum-like objects with cables resembling battery cables attached to them. He drew them as being attached in parallel. When considering a small # of atoms at the center of the Earth we would observe the + charges pretty much in the center with the - more towards the outside. this in turn would cause the surrounding atoms to them to be slightly - to the outer edge of them. This in turn would push the next layer and so on. How could this not be so? Actually, in any ring of atoms the electrons on the inner surface would be more dense and would have to move towards the outer surface to equalize forces. I did some rudimentary calculations once, but concluded there is really no way I could tell what's going on. Sorry for the lack of editing. I was afraid my internet connection would be lost.

I believe that the electrons are free to move in the boundary of the atom and thus electrons in other atoms will push them far enough away to achieve an equilibrium. This would leave the protrons more exposed to the attraction of the other electrons near and further away, thus causing an attractive interaction in all matter.

I never studied physics past basic physics for engineers and one Modern Physics course. My notion is that while electrons and protons have a mutual attraction for each other neutrons only have an attraction for protons and none for electrons or each other. This is why the neucleus stays together. I say neutrons also have some attraction for protons in neighboring atoms. I had a theory of gravity that it's due to the distribution of the + and - charges in any material, but could never proof it or interferer with this experimentally because the neutrons also exhibit attractions to distant protons. Someone said once I was just talking about Van der Waal's forces. Anyone who has studied any chemistry or anything already knows this. This may be an extention of VdW's forces though.

I resolved my error myself. I was thinking of the distance from the leading end or leading object to it's destination 'B" to a statioonary observer as being a static measurement. I didn't consider that the length L would be shrinking to him as the speed increased. Also Wiki gives 3 ways of calculating L. The (x2-x1)gamma I've seen before and used before. My text or other sources don't use this. It leads to errors.

I can't find where to delete my ending question about wires. It doesn't matter anyway..... Proven wrong?... You yourself answered my question. I could scroll up and get the quote. As I showed before the math doesn't really work out though for calculation of distance from A. This is all useless information anyway: the mass of the objects would be unrealistic. Relativity works well for some things and maybe not so well for others. Isn't there still a conflict with quantum mechanics?

ok, I got some concrete answers this time pointing out my error. I see on the Brehm diagram where 2 different times are on one axis (same frame) and separated on another. I believe I was trying to think of distances from the rod ends to A or B as independent of the relativistic effects on the rod. At high enough speeds the rod getting shorter would make these distances greater. Yet, what if 2 rockets are both traveling 0.9999c on the same path with one nearly landing on planet B and the other is just leaving planet A. A stationary observer would think the 2nd one would be almost running into the 1st and they would both be many, many miles from each planet. I guess that's all possible though. Why am I even saying this? Both would be so massive this not even possible.I'm really bored with this whole thing. What about parallel currrents in two parallel wires?

My question is simple: Consider a rod of length L moving straight from A to B at 0.99c. L is much shorter than distance from A to B. An observer sitting at right angle to the motion can measure what he thinks L is at this moment. The question is: Now, what does he measure for the distance from the leading end of the rod to B and trailing end to A? Should these measurements be the same as when the rod is at rest or should they be greater or what? I was directed to Wiki which showed several discussions on length contraction that made their authors famous, but nothing about my question. I now think I have stumbled on something profound here. I think I could put together enough discussion to write a paper on this.

Gamma is the Lorentz transformation thing. For a simpler example ofseveral problems I have presented here consider a rod 4in long going 0.99c from point A to point B which are 3ft apart on a table top with an observer sitting at right angle to this motion. The length of the rod to the observer is x2-x1(gamma) where x2 is the position of the leading edge and x1 the trailing. Let xB be the position of B. Then the distance of the leading edge of the rod to B is xB -x2(gamma) which we see is greater than if the rod were at rest and it gets greater the closer the speed of the rod gets to c. Now consider the distance from the trailing edge to A. This is xB-xA-[xB- (x2-x1)gamma]-(x2-x1)gamma. Finally collecting terms we get the distance of the trailing edge to A to be x1(gamma)-xA. And this distance we see is less than it would be at rest. So, now what? did the distance from A to B change or is the rod not making much progress to B? What does this say about electrons moving on a wire or an electric current? Note that there always is a leading electron and a trailing electron finite non zero distances from a + and - terminals of a battery.

Janus, I'm just using 2 explanations of Einstein's electro-magnetic theory which I assume can be sourced right back to him. Yes, I've heard electrons actually drift. I think the current must be due to quantum jumps from one atom to another. Early on one said no examples showing any inconsistances have ever showed up. Well maybe I gave some. You tell me what's wrong with my analysis. So far I don't think I see any contradictions. Maybe you can't combine classical measurements with relativistic ones. But, I'm actually only plugging in values into equations Einstein already provided. It seems a bit arbitrary to make it a rule you can't do this anyway. To studiot, I'll try to answer you. I have to answer so many. Interesting explanations here. You might be correct in saying you can't use classical fcalculations and relativistic ones together. But, like I said you can simply plug the positions of the planets into the 'gamma' equations and get the same thing. Also you can choose any segment of electrons you want where the last one has already left the 1st terminal while the one closest to the terminal 2 has not reached it yet. I need to think about this scenario more. There might be more consequences. I got the references from Feynman's "Lectures in Physics" and Sears and Zimansky's "University Physics". You don't need a rigid rod between the 2 ships for their separation to contract. You're making wilder speculations than I'm being accused of.

Just as with my original example you just simply add the distance from the 1st electron to its respective terminal to the sum of incremental electron separations (which are all now contracted) to the distance of the last electron to the terminal it came from. This resulting sum has to be much less than with no current. Of course we are always talking about distances along the path of the current. Janus, I'm just using 2 explanations of Einstein's electro-magnetic theory which I assume can be sourced right back to him. Yes, I've heard electrons actually drift. I think the current must be due to quantum jumps from one atom to another. Early on one said no examples showing any inconsistances have ever showed up. Well maybe I gave some. You tell me what's wrong with my analysis. So far I don't think I see any contradictions. Maybe you can't combine classical measurements with relativistic ones. But, I'm actually only plugging in values into equations Einstein already provided. It seems a bit arbitrary to make it a rule you can't do this anyway.

The ground observer is only measuring distances; time or time dilation are not needed by him. I will give another problem I eluded to earlier: Consider two parallel wires with DC current flowing in the same direction in both. Einstein says because of relativistic length contraction the distance between each electron Δs’ < Δs. This would make Σ Δs’<Σ Δs and hence the protons and electrons would experience a larger density of the opposite charge in the other wire resulting in magnetic attraction. Choosing one wire there is a 1st electron closest to the second terminal of a battery and a last electron closest to the first battery terminal and they would be certain distances that don't change due relativity. So, now if an observer was sitting at a table with these wires on top he should think the wire length had shrunk considerably. But, no one has seen this happen have they? Please note, by this I'm not saying Einstein's explanation of magnetism is wrong. But, what's wrong here? I got my brain tied behind my back; I'm just using what Einstein has provided us with.

I can't answer all of u now. Some of u confuse what the occupants on the spaceships see with what's seen on the ground. I'm only talking about the ground observer. He is measuring both the relativistic distance contraction between the ships and the distances remaining from the ships to the planets. I plugged what the nummbers from the ships to the planets once into the equation and found it didn't change from what it otherwise would be. I should post my work here so you'll know precisely what I'm talking about. Time dialation doesn't have anything to do with it; the ground observer simply takes a snapshot of the scene and measures from there. There really is no other way he could do it. What measurement would he get the classical distance or the relativistic one? Saying many real world observations confirm this doesn't really prove something else cause them. I believe what Einstein says appears to be mostly right. There. however, are some discrepencies here. Guess what, it gets even more problematic. The ground observer sees that the distance between the two planets changes due to how close to the speed of light the ships are traveling and also how far apart they are!! I'm interested in what the F an Arepresent in the dF=d(dA) equation above.

I hope u come over to my thread and we'll discuss Minkowki's spaces or whatever u want.

I learned what you say long ago in class. The muons survive because time is slower for them. I don't think length contraction plays a role. I don't know how your mass remark relates to what I said. It's all simple arithmetic; it either adds up or it doesn't. Why does the distance between the two planets change-and by a large amount at that?