The Scientific Method?

[Bill McC]

On 4/19/2021 at 7:18 AM, Ghideon said:

 

Trying to understand you claim and its implications: are you claiming that you created gravity* that did the lifting or was your "gravity" and electromagnetic effect?

As far as I can tell a device** capable of artificially generating enough gravity to move or affect a small, (low-mass) object would also have an effect on large objects (with large mass). How does this match your observations?  

 

*) As modelled by mainstream physics
**) No such device exists. Artificial gravity=having a significantly different gravitational pull than what is modelled by m1*m2*G/r^2. Hope this is enough precision for this discussion 

I have a limited amount of time; I didn’t overlook your points; I was doing many things. 

Proximity and the angle of the radiation bombarding the object are why a small object creating a lot of gravity does not affect distant objects with the same force. 

When you are standing on the planet, just about all ambient radiation hitting you from above will also pass through the planet that will slow it, and cause it to impart gravity force upon you. As you move away from the planet, some of the rays striking you from above are not going to strike the planet, so they will not slow, and they will not impart a repulsive force upon you towards the planet. Subsequently, causing less repulsive force/gravity, the original definition of gravity. Not the new and incorrect light-bending definition of gravity. 

Once you realize what gravity is, you know it will not and cannot bend light. Light passing nearby to planets bends from the ramping density gases around the planet, not the gravity. The hydrogen gas that fills space is at extremely low pressure. Near planets, there is a ramping density of gas that creates a spherical lens that will cause refraction of light passing through it. There is even ramping density gas around a galaxy because it is a structure that slows ambient radiation heading to it.  

So a tiny object creating a lot of gravity will only affect objects very close to it.  As bomb cores get larger, they can create a rather large amount of gravity towards the bomb before the bomb detonates and creates the pressure wave. 

About “government” I was speaking of my American government but we know that other governments follow what America does with education for the most part. If we re-released Universal Science other countries would have to follow and the world would be a better place. People tend to suffer from strong reproductive impulses when they are under duress, stress, overworked have no future, it is a natural body survival instinct. That is why countries that suffer under socialism or communism usually have massive over population problems. 

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

When you are standing on the planet, just about all ambient radiation hitting you from above will also pass through the planet that will slow it, and cause it to impart gravity force upon you.

That's a rather strange interpretation of the Higg's field...

25 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

Once you realize what gravity is, you know it will not and cannot bend light.

Indeed, gravity is a straight line, even when it's not...

[Ghideon]

Thanks for your reply. 

5 hours ago, Bill McC said:

Proximity and the angle of the radiation bombarding the object are why a small object creating a lot of gravity does not affect distant objects with the same force. 

Since your description deviates from the predictions of Newton's law of universal gravitation (and also general relativity) can you provide the mathematical equations used in your model that predicts the results you claim? What scientific method did you use?

6 hours ago, Bill McC said:

Once you realize what gravity is, you know it will not and cannot bend light.

I know about models for gravity and a few things about applying such models. As an engineer I find Newton useful for low relative velocities and masses. Einsteins model predicts bending of light and is supported by experiments. What experiments and observations support your idea?

 

[John Cuthber]

23 hours ago, Bill McC said:

If you wanted to ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) weld, 

I have seen that hogwash before (I  think it was on a different forum).

The poster there insisted that was what the word meant.
Even though the word "arc" was in use long before the words Anode and Cathode.

 

Would you like to give up this tosh now?
I found it.
I know it's "poor form" to post stuff from one forum to another but...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=45336.msg395033#msg395033

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by John Cuthber

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Bill McC said:

IOnce you realize what gravity is, you know it will not and cannot bend light.  

You again misunderstand or are simply being obtuse? Light simply follows geodesics in curved spacetime. We interpret the curvature as gravity. Gravity is geometry. That's what the last 100 years of observational data and experiments is telling us and we have no reason to doubt that.

8 hours ago, Bill McC said:

Light passing nearby to planets bends from the ramping density gases around the planet, not the gravity. The hydrogen gas that fills space is at extremely low pressure. Near planets, there is a ramping density of gas that creates a spherical lens that will cause refraction of light passing through it. There is even ramping density gas around a galaxy because it is a structure that slows ambient radiation heading to it.  

Any density of gas, adds to the mass and along with the mass of the planet or whatever else the gas surrounds, will warp and/or curve the spacetime. We see that as gravity. Why are you seemingly making this sound so nonsensically complicated? In conclusion anything with mass [including gas] curves/warps the spacetime. We see that geometry as gravity. It's that simple.

8 hours ago, Bill McC said:

As you move away from the planet, some of the rays striking you from above are not going to strike the planet, so they will not slow, and they will not impart a repulsive force upon you towards the planet. Subsequently, causing less repulsive force/gravity, the original definition of gravity. Not the new and incorrect light-bending definition of gravity.  

No. The original definition of gravity [Newtonian] was simply an attraction between two masses, falling off as the inverse square of the distance between them. It generally works fine. When relativistic speeds are approached or more accuracy is required we use GR, which so far aligns with all our data and gives the same results as Newtonian with that extra accuracy, which mostly is not needed. Your denial of these facts are unsupported rhetoric. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by beecee

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

Any density of gas, adds to the mass and along with the mass of the planet or whatever else the gas surrounds, will warp and/or curve the spacetime. We see that as gravity. Why are you seemingly making this sound so nonsensically complicated? In conclusion anything with mass [including gas] curves/warps the spacetime. We see that geometry as gravity. It's that simple.

 

It's not that simple and Bill has a point. It's just that

The bending of light in variable density atmospheres by refraction was known a century and a half before 1973 and studied in connection with the anomalous astronomical readings as a proposed mechanism a century before 1973. Surveyors and Astronomers routinely use a correction to observations for refraction.

Bill's problem is that refraction just doesn't produce the observed deflections.
It was indeed the experimental readings from Principe and Sobral that matched the calculations of GR, when the refraction calculations didn't.

 

 

[MigL]

11 hours ago, Bill McC said:

They are just particles of electricity traveling at a velocity not conceivable by a man's mind. When slowed, they create gravity, x-rays, UV, light, heat, and any other effects in our universe.

Not conceivable by a man's mind ????
Maybe you should apply scientific methodology, before making such nonsensical statements; are they magic ?

Been locked in the house with Covid-19 for 5 days.
No shortness of breath or fever, but aches and pains all over.
The amount of laughing, while reading this thread, made those aches worse.
It was well worth it

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

It's not that simple and Bill has a point. It's just that

The bending of light in variable density atmospheres by refraction was known a century and a half before 1973 and studied in connection with the anomalous astronomical readings as a proposed mechanism a century before 1973. Surveyors and Astronomers routinely use a correction to observations for refraction.

Bill's problem is that refraction just doesn't produce the observed deflections.
It was indeed the experimental readings from Principe and Sobral that matched the calculations of GR, when the refraction calculations didn't.

 

Yeah OK, I ignored [actually forgot] about refraction of light. The way I see it is that refraction is a change of direction due to differing densities of the medium, whereas the geodesical path of light, due to the curvature of spacetime caused by all the mass, is as we all know just that.

Some of Bill's "statements of certainty" just seem way off and completely opposed to the verified data that we do have.

 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Not conceivable by a man's mind ????
Maybe you should apply scientific methodology, before making such nonsensical statements; are they magic ?

Been locked in the house with Covid-19 for 5 days.
No shortness of breath or fever, but aches and pains all over.
The amount of laughing, while reading this thread, made those aches worse.
It was well worth it

And it was so close to your vaccine appointment! Hope you feel better soon! 😓

[Bill McC]

 

14 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It's longer.

No.

One "face" of the heated tip was connected to a length of tungsten rod that will have acted as a heat sink.

I doubt that, It looks like a calculated adiabatic flame temperature, converted to the wrong units and with spurious accuracy.
 

 

But you didn't use one.

You didn't use tungsten, you used thoriated tungsten.

 

How did you measure the attraction?

 

Here is a link about thoriated tungsten that is rather old but will demonstrate where things were 50 years ago. 

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5760281

 

Thorium is a naturally occurring substance, and it is all around us. We would use thoriated mantles in kerosene lanterns to spearfish at night when we were kids. It creates sunlight-like effects on the sea bottom.

 

 If thorium becomes airborne during the welding process, it breaks down relatively quickly to radon, and radon lasts about three days. With studies done using pure tungsten, pure tungsten produced hazardous substances with very long half-lives. Worse than those created with thoriated tungsten. 

 

Thoriated tungsten melts at a higher temperature than pure tungsten. Thoria, the substance in thoriated tungsten rods, has a melting point similar to tungsten. When combined, it raises the temperature at which tungsten melts, which is one of the purposes of adding it.. 

 

The end of the tungsten rod in the experiment melted during the heating of it. The same result will occur by substituting a pure tungsten rod; it will melt more quickly than a thoriated tungsten rod.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Bill McC

[Bill McC]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

And it was so close to your vaccine appointment! Hope you feel better soon! 😓

A man's mind cannot duplicate the distance across the universe; even if given some exact number of miles, whose digits would fill all the servers on earth, he would just be dealing with some vast but unknowable distance. 

A single human cannot deal with that amount of distance with any sanity. A stranded individual upon the ocean will explain how he suddenly knew very little about where he was, despite being highly confident seconds before. He will explain how large the ocean suddenly became. Nevertheless, the distance across the ocean, compared to the distance across the universe, would be laughable because no sane or known comparison is humanly possible. So a man can discuss, he can postulate, he can extrapolate through tools and equipment, he can scale down the universe, but he can never know that distance. 
However, upon finding that particles are moving through dark space at a velocity that is not affected by any distance we know, one can then assume they cross the universe in the blink of an eye.   

During the Apollo missions, an astronaut somewhat facetiously put his glove in front of the laser they were using to time laser light from the moon to earth. Ground control immediately mentioned they recorded a partial block of the laser beam, and the recorded time on synchronized timing instruments was the same. The particles that create a beam of light are moving at an exponentially higher velocity than the beam, very much like electricity flowing through a tungsten element or a plasma ARC. The electricity has been flowing long before the created light. That is how a beam of light works. The atoms of gas in the beam must be excited before the creation of the light beam. Once created, instant communication over the beam is possible. It would be similar to slightly lowering the voltage to a lit tungsten element in a bulb; the effect would be instantaneous to the human eye.  

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Bill McC

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

It is funny that men who love science would rather discuss a dreamt up illness to avoid it. 

I’m not a very smart man, but it’s a priority of mine to accurately understand the thoughts of others. 

Sadly, I’m struggling with this last bit of your previous post. It sounds to me like you’re claiming covid is a hoax, but surely I’m mistaken. 

Because I respect you enough to ask, will you please clarify what is meant by these words of yours I’ve quoted here? 

[Bill McC]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m not a very smart man, but it’s a priority of mine to accurately understand the thoughts of others. 

Sadly, I’m struggling with this last bit of your previous post. It sounds to me like you’re claiming covid is a hoax, but surely I’m mistaken. 

Because I respect you enough to ask, will you please clarify what is meant by these words of yours I’ve quoted here? 

A miscommunication I am new to the quote format. I worked in the all-Chinese Manahatten schools and other schools when it broke out. So many employees in the schools were sick. I also got the first SAR about ten years ago, which put me down hard; My projectile vomiting made the movie the Exorcist seem silly. I got it a second time when I did a big job outside in the cold a week after feeling a little better. Closest I came to death. With this one, I couldn't get warm, not at any temperature. I switched to aspirin and tonic water which helped me during the first SAR; I instantly came around. The aspirin helps with the clotting and the tonic helps with inflammation. My brother, who had it too, told me to sit outside in the sun on that warm day in March 2020 that helped a lot. 

I thought there would be more discussion of science, rather than insults.

I hope everyone with it gets better. 
 

[zapatos]

47 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

Once created, instant communication over the beam is possible.

Just so I'm clear. Faster than light communication?

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

I thought there would be more discussion of science, rather than insults.

Where I come from, it’s not an insult to inform you that you’ve completely failed to answer my actual question and have evaded a meaningful exchange with an unrelated anecdote. 

[Bill McC]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Where I come from, it’s not an insult to inform you that you’ve completely failed to answer my actual question and have evaded a meaningful exchange with an unrelated anecdote. 

If I went to a sci-fi convention and they were all taking Klingon, and all were in agreement, and I tell them the building is on fire, you need to get out, and they told me it is ok they are going to time dilate their way out. First, I would have to explain that time is a human conception of movement, nothing else. With rays, we can change the rate atoms vibrate, so even atomic clocks can be made to error significantly. By triangulating rays upon an atomic clock, we could detonate it. 

A study in the '50s done by a university showed that slowly, over time, by speeding up a person's surroundings, he could function many times as fast as what was normal to him, and he would not even know it happened. Time has no force; it is an observation and comparison of movements of a collection of objects. When a satellite does not stay in exact orbit, they tweak the output of the atomic clock to match the earth's rotations anyway. The universe is a giant perpetual motion clock.

I am sharing the history I grew up with because I was part of the Grumman family that built a ship that put individuals on the moon. Something that modern science is struggling heavily with over 50 years later. Science is burning down, and I can highlight the reasons. They came out and told everyone they were going to hide science. Many want to play and act like everything is ok till the end. With real science, we could fix it. 

[iNow]

Was your intent with that post to confirm my assertion that you’re evasive and that any reasonable mature dialog with you is impossible? Is so, congratulations, sir. You’ve succeeded. 

[Bill McC]

51 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just so I'm clear. Faster than light communication?

That would be correct. If you watched the Apollo missions on TV, you might remember many times ground control was being filmed live by the networks perhaps not known to them. They would communicate and instantly get a reply from the moon, especially when something unexpected happened. That is why so many people thought it was a hoax. But if you establish a radio beam, you can instantly communicate over any distance. But you have to establish a beam first that will take a second and a half to the moon. 

It could be why they lost most of the tapes of the Apollo missions. 

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Was your intent with that post to confirm my assertion that you’re evasive and that any reasonable mature dialog with you is impossible? Is so, congratulations, sir. You’ve succeeded. 

My intent was to relay to people claiming to have science that the known flaws of science have skewed them and their "science." They must also have missed the government announcing that they would rape science of its dignity so countries that already had the bomb would not learn it from us. Some of the math and experiments of modern science are beautiful but done on a skewed foundation making it silly, a lesson not to repeat. 

[Bill McC]

On 4/18/2021 at 8:19 AM, dimreepr said:

 

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, Bill McC said:

 

 If thorium becomes airborne during the welding process, it breaks down relatively quickly to radon,

No

It "breaks down" with a half life of 14,500,000,000 years.

9 hours ago, Bill McC said:

Thoriated tungsten melts at a higher temperature than pure tungsten.

No, it doesn't.

9 hours ago, Bill McC said:

With studies done using pure tungsten, pure tungsten produced hazardous substances with very long half-lives.

No, it couldn't, unless those experiments were in a nuclear reactor.

 

9 hours ago, Bill McC said:

with very long half-lives. Worse than those created with thoriated tungsten. 

A long half life means that it is LESS hazardous.

But since they aren't actually produced, it doesn't matter much.

 

9 hours ago, Bill McC said:

, the substance in thoriated tungsten rods, has a melting point similar to tungsten. When combined, it raises the temperature at which tungsten melts,

That's not true. Mixtures have reduced melting points. However the solubility of thoria in tungsten is so low that the effect will be small.

 

9 hours ago, Bill McC said:

, which is one of the purposes of adding it.. 

No.

The point of adding it is to reduce the electron work function which makes it easier to sustain an arc.

 

9 hours ago, Bill McC said:

The end of the tungsten rod in the experiment melted during the heating of it.

Finally, a valid observation.

That strongly suggests that you got somewhere near 6000^oF

You could have saved a lot of trouble by saying that earlier.

 

You still failed to answer the bit about gravity. We will all just assume you made it up.

Now, speaking of arcs, why did you try to post the nonsense about Anode Rectified Cathode, when you know that it is wrong, and have known that since it was pointed out in 2012?

 

 

6 hours ago, Bill McC said:

But if you establish a radio beam, you can instantly communicate over any distance.

No.

 

7 hours ago, Bill McC said:

I thought there would be more discussion of science

There was, until you arrived, talking nonsense.

On 4/17/2021 at 11:30 PM, Bill McC said:

Universal Scientists

You keep using this phrase (and cognates) what do you think it means?

Edited April 21, 2021 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Bill McC said:

 I thought there would be more discussion of science, rather than insults.

We were expecting this, too. So far you've spouted mostly nonsense, and unsupported nonsense at that. If that doesn't change soon (i.e. you need to provide support for claims) then you will find that you don't have a platform for any discussion at all here.

 

For example: you claimed "In 1973 by law, no school receiving Federal Tax Breaks or grant money could teach the scientific method that demanded you demonstrate your hypothesis." and I asked for a pointer to the actual law. Where is it? What is the federal statute that says this? Or are you making it up?

 

[Bufofrog]

6 hours ago, Bill McC said:

A study in the '50s done by a university showed that slowly, over time, by speeding up a person's surroundings, he could function many times as fast as what was normal to him, and he would not even know it happened.

The surroundings were speeded up?  That sounds like an experiment that should be pretty well known!  I don't recall ever reading about a method to speed up someone's surrounding, I don't even know what that means.

Perhaps you could zero in on which year in the 50's this happened and in which university it was done?  Maybe like an actual citation?

Edited April 21, 2021 by Bufofrog

[John Cuthber]

On 4/19/2021 at 10:18 PM, Bill McC said:

They had reversed battery markings during the war years. At one time, colleges bragged about their decision to do so. Claiming Benjamin Franklin couldn't have known which way electricity was flowing,

If this happened, how come my dad never mentioned it?
 

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, Bill McC said:

My intent was to relay to people claiming to have science that the known flaws of science have skewed them and their "science." They must also have missed the government announcing that they would rape science of its dignity so countries that already had the bomb would not learn it from us. Some of the math and experiments of modern science are beautiful but done on a skewed foundation making it silly, a lesson not to repeat. 

!

Moderator Note

This, among other posts, is an example of bad faith arguments. You appear to have no intention of supporting your extraordinary assertions with even a minimal amount of evidence, let alone the extraordinary amounts it should take. You mention "skews" and "rapes" and "flaws" that show a limited understanding of the science involved. You make statements when you should be removing ignorance with questions. 

Step up the rigor or this gets shut down. This is a SCIENCE discussion forum. 

 

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Bill McC said:

 

That's a whole heaping of irony...