Does physics say my notion is incorrect?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

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.

I offered you a way to test your idea. Have you done this? You have to be willing to do some work to test it.

If neutrons do not attract each other, adding a neutron to a nucleus without many protons should have only a small change in the binding energy, but adding to a similar nucleus with more protons should show a larger change, because binding energy depends on the forces present in the nucleus.

 

For example, if you add a neutron to a proton, and form H-2, you release 2.25 MeV of energy as they become bound to each other. If your idea is right, you should release a similar amount of energy if you add another neutron and form H-3.

But you don't. You release 6.25 MeV of energy. Conclusion: The neutron is attracted to both the proton and the neutron. (it's more than double because the spin matters to the interaction)

And there are more nuclei you could look at, but this is the simplest example.

 

[discountbrains]

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. 

[MigL]

The 'one' would be me.
And you just repeated that they must be manipulating microwaves.

Do everyone a favor and look up microwaves before making absurd claims.
Microwaves have very low energy, and cannot even affect electron transitions in matter.
They are non-ionizing radiation
Their usual effect is bending/stretching molecular bonds ( microwave ovens ), and vibrating conduction electrons ( in antennas for communication ).

So what exactly, are these UFOs/aliens using the microwaves for ?
Communication ? Radar ? Or to heat their food ?

 

[Markus Hanke]

9 hours ago, discountbrains said:

Using the simple inverse square formula there would be a net attraction.

The thing with this is that gravity is not actually a force, and even if it were, it does not behave anything like electromagnetism.

[Strange]

10 hours ago, discountbrains said:

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.

Please show mathematically that this would result in an inverse square law of attraction.

This mathematical proof should demonstrate two things:

1. That the force is always attractive and never repulsive.

(If the net -ve charges are closer in both objects then you should have a net repulsive force. It will be interesting to see your mathematical proof that this is not the case.)

2. That the force follows an inverse square law.

(As anyone who has studied basic physics knows this is not the case,  it will be interesting to see your mathematical proof that this is not the case.)

 

10 hours ago, discountbrains said:

Oh, I forgot to answer the one who claimed I was proposing microwave propulsion. Where did they get that idea?

From you:

Quote

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.

 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, discountbrains said:

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.

And having you work through the science was the sort of response I was hoping to get.

[discountbrains]

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.

[Strange]

44 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I would describe what I visualize like

Anyone can describe what they visualise.

It has no value unless you can show quantitatively (mathematically) that the effects you claim would result.

You really should learn some basic physics and then you might be able to: demonstrate what you are talking about; work out if it would work or not; understand the refutations given; use terminology in the correct way; and so on. 

As noted, "leapfrogging" (*) an education is not a useful way to do anything. Would you be happy seeing a car mechanic or a doctor who said they had "leapfrogged" education and were making it up as they go along?

 

(*) is it still called "leapfrogging" if you go backwards?

[discountbrains]

(*) 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.

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Maybe I'm doing it the hard way.

You're doing it the practically impossible way.

Your misunderstanding of how microwaves work, how long did you work using bad information? How quickly did you banish your ignorance when MigL gave you some structured direction? That's how education works, and why leapfrogging is an immature wish. Do you want a pony too?

Isn't this a lot like trying to explain how baseball works without knowing the rules of the game? You spend your time jumping up and down, insisting you know a better way to keep the other team from scoring, until a player gently points out you're not allowed to tag someone out by throwing the ball at them. 

This isn't a trip where you can decide to fly instead of drive. You really need to look at the scenery along the way to understand how you got where you are, and where you need to be to get where you're going.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, discountbrains said:

. 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.  

 Was Ferrell really fooling himself? No patent was ever granted. I would assume he applied for one.

Fooling one's self is pretty easy. It's analogous to a hundred Mothers, each believing their own child is the most attractive and lovable. 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, discountbrains said:

Was Ferrell really fooling himself? 

Who is "Ferrell"? (This is typical of your sloppy approach)

And he was either fooling himself or attempt to con other people.

[discountbrains]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Who is "Ferrell"? (This is typical of your sloppy approach).

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?

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Is no one willing to follow my thought process or entertain any nonmainstream theories to see if they're plausible?

Pretty sure that's EXACTLY what we've been doing here. Why do you think the idea is plausible after so many reasons why it's not were given? 

You're bitching about why nobody wants to ride in your shiny new car, but the problem is you haven't gotten it to start yet, so where would we go anyway?

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Sorry, I didn't include his name in my post. It's Edward S Ferrell. Did u look at my link about him?

Did you? His name is Farrow. But maybe you decided to leapfrog the correct spelling.

29 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I'm surprised absolutely no one has come to my defense at all.

Why? This is a science site where most people know just a little bit about science and therefore can see that your ideas are wrong. Even if they don't know enough physics to dismiss them instantly, they can see you have absolutely no basis for your claims: no model, no math, no evidence....

Quote

Is no one willing to follow my thought process or entertain any nonmainstream theories to see if they're plausible?

As even you can't do that, why should anyone else?

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You're bitching about why nobody wants to ride in your shiny new car, but the problem is you haven't gotten it to start yet, so where would we go anyway?

We haven't even seen the car yet. Just claims that it exists and "it really is shiny, honest. Or it will be if someone can help me polish it. Well, I'll need someone to help me build it first. And ..."

[discountbrains]

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. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by discountbrains
misspelled word

[Eise]

3 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I'm just too lazy to wrire up something I haven't come up with a demo to show  actually works.

3 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I wish someone would visualize my model though and see it has some merit.

So you are too lazy, and therefore others should do it?

Hmm...

Let's see, if I can represent your way of thinking:

1. You do not understand how physics explains gravity.
2. Therefore you need an explanation in terms of electricity, which you think you understand (but in fact don't).
3. Then you ask physicists here, and they answer you that we already have explanations of gravity, already know what holds protons and neutrons together.
4. Then they explain also why your ideas will not work. 
5. Then you ask if they please want to 'visualize your model though and see it has some merit'. (You do not seem to realise that  nobody will even try, because ((1) and (3)) we already have very good models for gravitation and nuclear interaction that contradict your ideas), and because (4) people have told you your ideas simply are wrong.
6. You think you are not taken seriously, because nobody is prepared to support and/or test your model.
7. And as an aside, you want to explain the 'space drive' of UFOs, (where we pretty well know what UFOs are: 95% observations by people who do not understand what phenomena can be seen in the sky, and 5% unexplained. 'Unexplained' does definitely not mean 'alien spaceships'), with micro waves, of which you do not understand what what they are, and what they are capable of.

If you are too lazy to learn some basic physics, then better do not hypothesise any idea about physics, because (I say it again, maybe you will get it if it is repeated enough):

• you do not know how physics explains phenomena you do not understand
• you do not know how your ideas conflict with established science (you know, 'established science' is e.g. science on which technology is based, and that so prove the theories behind them, like computers, nuclear reactors, particle accelerators and detectors, GPS, micro wave ovens etc.)

Ready to start reading on real physics? (I hope others have good suggestions for elementary introductions to physics).

 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, discountbrains said:

 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. 

One must first establish that it did work as advertised, rather than being some trick. I mean, if it was viable, where are all of the condensing dynamo machines, helping lift heavy objects?

[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.  

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Yes, I do like my 'leapfrog' method. Incidentally frogs don't jump backwards do they?

Do you feel like you've learned anything because you leapt? Or did you learn what you learned because you were forced to go back and walk carefully over the explanations you were given in order to reach this conclusion:

14 hours ago, discountbrains said:

OK, I realize  people did actually answered my initial question when I 1st asked it.

It seems to me like the leaping led you back to where you started. 

Also, leapfrogging will keep you from learning to drive that car you can't start that you want everyone to ride with you in. Just sayin'.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, discountbrains said:

. So, 95% of those who saw UFOs don't knnow what they saw; they need u to tell them what they saw. 

Actually its 95% of UFO sightings that are explained by a myriad of more mundane explanations, with around 5% remaining as unexplained, or unidentified. That's what the "Ü" in UFO means.

[discountbrains]

beecee that's not true .......About "physicists know what causes gravity" no one told me what u know did they?

In my past experiments I tried charging metal plates above and below an object + below and - above with high voltage DC The plates attached to the ground. This would make the pbject - below and + above which is opposite the natural charge. This should have made the object lighter. Nothing happened. Of course not, single platres can't hold much charge and if carbon was used for the object there would be Avagadro's # of atoms in 12grams of carbon with 6x6.02x10²³ electrons in a gmole. Most of them need not be caused to move to see an effect but this would take unimaginable coulombs of charge. There MUST be another way: oscillating waves. 

  

Edited August 2, 2018 by discountbrains
incorrect statement

[beecee]

5 hours ago, discountbrains said:

beecee that's not true .......About "physicists know what causes gravity" no one told me what u know did they?  

Umm, sure what I said is true....And I'm not talking about gravity...I'm talking about UFO's. Again around 95% are explained away by mundane means....mirages, illusions, abnormal and unusual weather anomalies, meteor showers, sprites, St Elmo's fire, cloud configurations, Iridium flares, militaristic "top secret" aircraft etc etc etc, not leaving out Venus and/or Jupiter.

The UFO's that there are no know explanations for, are just that...unknown, or unidentified. Please don't jump to unsupported conclusions that unidentified or unexplained, means  Alien controlled objects. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: Carl Sagan.

Edited August 3, 2018 by beecee

[Eise]

Well, discountbrains, it seems to me you have enough reactions to know what the answer on your main question is:

Does physics say my notion is incorrect?

The answer is clearly "yes". Several physicists have explained it here to you. So time to accept the answer, and start living.

Don't forget: any new, better theory must:

- explain the same facts as our present theories, i.e. it must not be inconsistent with what we already know (e.g. that gravity and electromagnetism are totally different phenomena that have nothing to do with each other)

- explain additional facts that could not be explained until now, or predict phenomena that can be measured, and cannot be explained with theories we already have

Good luck!

 

[discountbrains]

U're right. I got enough answers. I thought I might get something I didn't expect, but got nothing new. One last question for beecee before I go: Explain this, Nixon was a friend of Jackie Gleason and he knew Gleason was interested in UFOs. When Nixon was pres he sent a car around to Gleason's home and took him to a building on a military base in FL. Inside were 4 small alien dead bodies. Gleason's wife said he was speechless for a week after seeing this.