Does physics say my notion is incorrect?

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, discountbrains said:

U're right. I got enough answers. I thought I might get something I didn't expect, but got nothing new.

You begin to see the problem with your approach? You're at the mercy of people who studied this stuff to tell you if you might be onto something, but you're rejecting what they're telling you because you want to be right about it. Your methodology is fatally flawed, and the sooner you fix it the better your whole perspective will be.

3 hours ago, discountbrains said:

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.

You're assuming this all happened based on a story Gleason's wife wrote for the National Enquirer? Snopes says there's no evidence, so why believe it so completely the way you seem to? That's not very rational. 

This is kind of a red herring, you know. You wanted to speculate on a possible alien propulsion system, which was shown to have flaws. Trying to defend your belief in ETs isn't necessary, not for this thread.

[discountbrains]

The National Enquirer is not a very reputable source. Had u known this story for a long time or did u feel u better check up on it? I didn't know this was in the N E. Again no one ever gave me reasons why I'm wrong, but u did answer my original question. I get into a flurry of posts sometimes when I'm annoyed and leave these boards alone for many months otherwise. I want to leave u with one more thing before it's BYE. You've probably seen those many 'lifters' on youtube. I made something a little similar once with HV. It didn't lose weight or anything. But, I did notice every time I flipped the switch it jumped just a little. If u watch the videos of the 'lifters' you'll notice they instantly jump into the air. This couldn't happen if they were levitating by moving air alone. I'm not a helicopter pilot, but I'd say it takes several seconds for the helicopter to begin rising when the pilot gives it full power.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, discountbrains said:

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.

Oh, well, you've convinced me, with this completely unsubstantiated story.

2 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

The National Enquirer is not a very reputable source. Had u known this story for a long time or did u feel u better check up on it? I didn't know this was in the N E. Again no one ever gave me reasons why I'm wrong, 

You own the burden of proof for your claims. IOW, you have to show that they are right.

[Phi for All]

50 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

The National Enquirer is not a very reputable source. Had u known this story for a long time or did u feel u better check up on it?

I was skeptical of your claim about the event. I didn't wish to remain that way, so I looked into it. I found it wasn't supported by any evidence I could trust, therefore I fell back on the null hypothesis, that this extraordinary event didn't happen. I feel better knowing which are facts and which are conjecture. It's a proven methodology that helps me decide what is trusted, and worthy of my belief.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, discountbrains said:

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.

He said, she said, did you ever actually do some research into this to verify the reputability of the claims, and the possibility of any journalistic sensationalistic writings? I actually no nothing about any such incident, but again see it as probably nothing but the usual conspiracy inspired nonsense akin to all the other nonsensical alternative accounts on any other momentous happenings, like 9/11, the faked Moon landings, etc. Do you also accept these unsupported drivelling accounts of history over evidence based accounts?

[Markus Hanke]

17 hours ago, discountbrains said:

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.

This general type of thing is called “anecdotal evidence”, and, while it may sometimes appeal to us (confirmation bias!), it carries no scientific value whatsoever. That is because its defining characteristic is its being anecdotal, meaning it cannot be independently subjected to the scientific method. 

[discountbrains]

I was going to leave for good, but I looked on YouTube to see if there were any new good 'lifter' videos. You gotta see this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=006d36WWyaQ     Note how it instantly jumps into the air many times as he turns it on. He even holds it down then releases it and it jumps back like a spring.He also demonstrates there is very little wind or air movement.Of course, there would have to be some caused by the movement. 

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

I was going to leave for good, but I looked on YouTube to see if there were any new good 'lifter' videos. You gotta see this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=006d36WWyaQ     Note how it instantly jumps into the air many times as he turns it on. He even holds it down then releases it and it jumps back like a spring.He also demonstrates there is very little wind or air movement.Of course, there would have to be some caused by the movement. 

The Biefeld-Brown effect. Ion wind. Notice how the power supply is not being levitated — there isn't all that much of a force involved. And it only works in atmosphere.

[discountbrains]

This may not prove much at all. NASA did some of this in a nearly complete vacuum and I believe it failed. but, did they do it in a partial vacuum? I think what this guy is doing is quite a bit different than what they've done before. You can see it's quite a bit heavier than the others. Some claim these work better in a vacuum; I'd have see a carefully controlled experiment. I still say u don't see any flight technology jump into the air like this. It also looked like it didn't want to be moved out of the location it was in.

[mistermack]

On 7/27/2018 at 7:27 PM, StringJunky said:

Neutrons and protons are bound by the strong interaction, which is a short range force. it is one of the four fundamental forces: strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity.

Sorry to come in so late on this, but is the action of dark energy considered to be one of these, or a brand new fundamental force? Or just another 'don't know' at the current time?

[Mordred]

Its not considered a fundamental force we may not know what causes DE but there is no indication it is a fundamental force.

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Its not considered a fundamental force we may not know what causes DE but there is no indication it is a fundamental force.

Could it be some opposite manifestation of spacetime; like gravity is but behaves differently? Perhaps the geometry is different. Is that an avenue of research?

Edited August 6, 2018 by StringJunky

[Mordred]

Its more readily described in terms of its effective equation of state [latex] w=\frac{\rho}{P}=-1[/latex] it has negative pressure (the negative is simply a vector assignment) characteristics. That characteristic can be described as antigravity like. However once you consider the thermodynamic influence the pressure term is more accurate. Mathematically the equation of state formula for a scalar field does an excellent job of modelling DE in terms of thermodynamic fluid statistics.

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Its more readily described in terms of its effective equation of state w=ρP=−1 it has negative pressure (the negative is simply a vector assignment) characteristics. That characteristic can be described as antigravity like. However once you consider the thermodynamic influence the pressure term is more accurate. Mathematically the equation of state formula for a scalar field does an excellent job of modelling DE in terms of thermodynamic fluid statistics.

Is that modelling like you do with gravity but with different values

[mistermack]

Since the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are short range and die off quickly, I don't see that they can come into the picture for dark energy. So that leaves gravity as the remaining option, as dark energy is proposed to be acting over huge distances. Would that be right?

[swansont]

10 hours ago, mistermack said:

Since the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are short range and die off quickly, I don't see that they can come into the picture for dark energy. So that leaves gravity as the remaining option, as dark energy is proposed to be acting over huge distances. Would that be right?

Electrostatic forces are not short-ranged, but things tend to be neutral once the scale is large enough. Plus, you have the problem of explaining an accelerating expansion being caused by a force that gets smaller as the distance increases.

[Mordred]

18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is that modelling like you do with gravity but with different values

Its modelling by its fluid/ ideal gas influence. We do the same with all particle species in that every particle has a pressure to energy density relation. Matter exerts zero pressure while radiation w=1/3.

[StringJunky]

33 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Its modelling by its fluid/ ideal gas influence. We do the same with all particle species in that every particle has a pressure to energy density relation. Matter exerts zero pressure while radiation w=1/3.

Right. Cheers.

[mistermack]

How is matter and energy conserved, with accelerating expansion? On the face of it, matter seems to be getting a free boost of kinetic energy.

I can see that matter is being converted to energy in stars, would that be a candidate for the apparent increase in kinetic energy of matter as the expansion progresses? Maybe there is some other source, where matter is being converted into energy? Maybe evaporating black holes balance the equation, by reducing the mass of the black hole (and hence it's kinetic energy,) while supplying energy to the accelerating expansion process.

[Strange]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

How is matter and energy conserved, with accelerating expansion?

It isn't necessarily.

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

On the face of it, matter seems to be getting a free boost of kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy depends on the frame of reference you measure it in. There isn't really a frame of reference where the kinetic energy of galaxies increases.

On the other hand, the photons we receive from those distant galaxies are red-shifted and so have lower energy. Where did it go? Nowhere. Energy is not really conserved in  GR.

 

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, mistermack said:

How is matter and energy conserved, with accelerating expansion? On the face of it, matter seems to be getting a free boost of kinetic energy.

There is no global energy conservation law across regions were gravitational effects cannot be neglected. But energy-momentum (not just energy) continues to be conserved everywhere locally.

[mistermack]

If you reduce it to two solid lumps, moving away from each other, then they are losing kinetic energy as they slow under gravity, but are gaining potential energy as the distance increases. Energy is conserved if the masses stay the same. If they are accelerating away from each other, it normally requires an energy input, as they are gaining in kinetic energy and also potential energy. If they are losing mass, and accelerating, then the total mass-energy in the system, including MC2 for the mass of the bodies, could be conserved.

Obviously, around the Universe, stars are losing mass, and so are black holes through evaporation via Hawking Radiation. If the Universe is finite, it's a closed system, so mass-energy must surely be conserved? So either the loss of mass is balancing the gain in velocities, or there's an external input of energy. 

[swansont]

Conservation of energy can only be applied in one reference frame at a time. It's not an invariant quantity.

When you jump and have a relative speed with respect to everything on earth, all of the sudden the earth has an enormous KE. Where did that energy come from?

[Janus]

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

Obviously, around the Universe, stars are losing mass, and so are black holes through evaporation via Hawking Radiation. If the Universe is finite, it's a closed system, so mass-energy must surely be conserved? So either the loss of mass is balancing the gain in velocities, or there's an external input of energy. 

But the mass loss is due to the production of radiation. And whether the radiation is electromagnetic or particulate,  it still contributes to the gravity of the universe. 

Imagine you enclosed the Sun with a sphere which had a perfectly reflective inner surface.  The Sun continues to convert hydrogen to helium,  but the sphere traps all the light, heat, etc inside it. 

The Earth,  outside of this sphere,  would experience no difference in the gravity from the Sun, even as some of Sun's matter is converted to energy.

[mistermack]

On 8/9/2018 at 11:37 AM, swansont said:

Conservation of energy can only be applied in one reference frame at a time. It's not an invariant quantity.

When you jump and have a relative speed with respect to everything on earth, all of the sudden the earth has an enormous KE. Where did that energy come from?

That's postulating a sudden change of reference frame. I'm certainly not advocating that. As you said, conservation requires keeping to the same reference frame. Jumping doesn't necessitate a change of frame. In any case, I thought that in relativity, it was inertial motion that was relative, while acceleration is absolute. So when you jump, it's you that accelerates the most, and the Earth just a minescule amount. So you can't really postulate the Earth suddenly gaining enormous KE. 

What I was postulating was that, in any reference frame that you choose, (and stick to) accelerating expansion would at first sight mean increasing kinetic energy for nearly all of the matter in the Universe. 

If you take the inertial frame of reference in which the Milky Way is stationary, then all of the other galaxies are moving faster and faster away from us. That means massively increasing kinetic energy in that inertial frame, unless mass being converted to energy balanced that out. 

On 8/9/2018 at 6:22 PM, Janus said:

But the mass loss is due to the production of radiation. And whether the radiation is electromagnetic or particulate,  it still contributes to the gravity of the universe. 

Imagine you enclosed the Sun with a sphere which had a perfectly reflective inner surface.  The Sun continues to convert hydrogen to helium,  but the sphere traps all the light, heat, etc inside it. 

The Earth,  outside of this sphere,  would experience no difference in the gravity from the Sun, even as some of Sun's matter is converted to energy.

That sounds like a bigger version, of the photon being trapped between two mirrors. The system gains apparent mass while the photon is being internally reflected. 

Imagine an imaginary black hole that evaporates rapidly to nothing. What happens to it's kinetic energy in a frame in which it's moving? Compared to a frame in which it's stationary? (I don't know the answer, I'm musing)