Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 21st January 2020, 08:54 PM #1321 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,238 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Then why don't they try to publish their manuscript? At least 1 of the "three or four active threads" authors did and got published even though his fantasy is worse than 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions.. There are journals that accept just about anything. The paper was "Extension to the Cause of the Allais Effect Solved" paper in the dubious 'Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology' journal. Look it up to see what an abysmal paper it was. This is the delusion that the debated dark flow will measurably affect gravimeters here on Earth and only during solar eclipses to cause the alleged Allais effect. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 Yesterday, 07:24 AM #1322 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Reality Check At least 1 of the "three or four active threads" authors did and got published even though his fantasy is worse than 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions.. There are journals that accept just about anything. The paper was "Extension to the Cause of the Allais Effect Solved" paper in the dubious 'Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology' journal. Look it up to see what an abysmal paper it was. This is the delusion that the debated dark flow will measurably affect gravimeters here on Earth and only during solar eclipses to cause the alleged Allais effect. First time I hear Reality Check saying something intelligent...
 Yesterday, 08:24 AM #1323 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 That's what I've been doing for the last 40 days here on IS + former 90 days of CQ... If that's what you think you've been doing, then I have full confidence that you won't get through the peer review process. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Yesterday, 08:33 AM #1324 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Belz... If that's what you think you've been doing, then I have full confidence that you won't get through the peer review process. Ok so please list the questions so I can give you clear answers.
 Yesterday, 08:40 AM #1325 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Ok so please list the questions so I can give you clear answers. You've had a LOT of opportunities to clearly answer my questions and those of other posters. I don't believe you. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Yesterday, 09:24 AM #1326 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Belz... You've had a LOT of opportunities to clearly answer my questions and those of other posters. I don't believe you. I was busy perfecting the core of the manuscript. Please reiterate.
 Yesterday, 09:49 AM #1327 Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity     Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 12,775 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I was busy perfecting the core of the manuscript. Please reiterate. To start, I suggest that you back-up your claim that the 'last 300 years of physics is wrong' even though by using the Forum you are essentially showing that the last 300 years of physics has been proven to be quite valid. __________________ On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order." On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation." On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma.
 Yesterday, 09:52 AM #1328 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 I was busy perfecting the core of the manuscript. You were participating actively in the thread at the time. I don't believe you. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Yesterday, 10:03 AM #1329 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Belz... You were participating actively in the thread at the time. I don't believe you. When I have > 10 questions a day then I need to cherry pick a sampling.
 Yesterday, 10:05 AM #1330 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Crossbow To start, I suggest that you back-up your claim that the 'last 300 years of physics is wrong' even though by using the Forum you are essentially showing that the last 300 years of physics has been proven to be quite valid. How? By showing the right rotation curve then I am directly refuting Newton.
 Yesterday, 10:10 AM #1331 Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity     Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 12,775 Originally Posted by philippeb8 How? By showing the right rotation curve then I am directly refuting Newton. So what if you refute Newton? Anyone can refute Newton, but simply refuting Newton does not automatically make that person correct. __________________ On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order." On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation." On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma.
 Yesterday, 10:14 AM #1332 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Crossbow So what if you refute Newton? Anyone can refute Newton, but simply refuting Newton does not automatically make that person correct. Well yes but the likelihood I am correct = 1.
 Yesterday, 10:46 AM #1333 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 When I have > 10 questions a day then I need to cherry pick a sampling. Yes, and you transparently avoid the questions that require substance from you and focus on the surface. No one is fooled. Originally Posted by philippeb8 Well yes but the likelihood I am correct = 1. Show your math. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Yesterday, 01:15 PM #1334 Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity     Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 12,775 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Well yes but the likelihood I am correct = 1. If you have indeed proven that Newton was wrong, then do us all a favor publish your work. __________________ On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order." On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation." On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma.
 Yesterday, 01:16 PM #1335 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,238 Originally Posted by philippeb8 First time I hear Reality Check saying something intelligent... A stupid insult when 21 January 2020 philippeb8: A "historical milestone" with repeated ignorant garbage and maybe additions. and previous posts have intelligent statements. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 Yesterday, 01:26 PM #1336 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,238 Persistent lie of "showing the right rotation curve" Originally Posted by philippeb8 How? By showing the right rotation curve then I am directly refuting Newton. Persistent lie of "showing the right rotation curve when he has no fit to the actual data. He used to have a blatantly wrong galaxy rotation curve that could never fit the data, He now magically has a galaxy rotation curve generated somehow that might be able to fit the data. But we have the deep stupidity of not matching that curve to the data that has been available for about 50 years! A "directly refuting Newton" lie. He needs to learn about his own theory which is explicitly stated to be classical. Thus no change to Newtonian gravity! What he probably has is deluded calculations using Newton similar to his debunking of FT from his calculation the distance to the Moon by laser ranging. Started with being off by 2000 kilometers and corrected a few times to be off by a few kilometers in a measurement accurate to millimeters. He cannot refute Newton by using Newton ! He has never stated a replacement for Newton's law of gravitation. He has never stated a replacement for Newton's laws of motion. Newton explains galaxy rotation curves by adding matter. That is one of 11 lines of evidence for dark matter. He has not even refuted dark matter ! __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 01:36 PM.
 Yesterday, 03:27 PM #1337 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Reality Check Persistent lie of "showing the right rotation curve when he has no fit to the actual data. He used to have a blatantly wrong galaxy rotation curve that could never fit the data, He now magically has a galaxy rotation curve generated somehow that might be able to fit the data. But we have the deep stupidity of not matching that curve to the data that has been available for about 50 years! A "directly refuting Newton" lie. He needs to learn about his own theory which is explicitly stated to be classical. Thus no change to Newtonian gravity! What he probably has is deluded calculations using Newton similar to his debunking of FT from his calculation the distance to the Moon by laser ranging. Started with being off by 2000 kilometers and corrected a few times to be off by a few kilometers in a measurement accurate to millimeters. He cannot refute Newton by using Newton ! He has never stated a replacement for Newton's law of gravitation. He has never stated a replacement for Newton's laws of motion. Newton explains galaxy rotation curves by adding matter. That is one of 11 lines of evidence for dark matter. He has not even refuted dark matter ! Reality Check thinks because dark matter was proposed 70 years ago that makes it right over time.
 Yesterday, 04:29 PM #1338 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,238 A lie and abysmal ignorance about dark matter Originally Posted by philippeb8 Reality Check thinks because dark matter was proposed 70 years ago that makes it right over time. A lie and abysmal ignorance about dark matter. Anyone with knowledge of astronomy (obviously not philippeb8 !) knows that many decades of research make up the 11 lines of observational evidence which shows the existence for dark matter is almost certain. Almost because nothing in science is absolutely certain. Dark matter was proposed in 1884 () as "dark bodies" and the first empirical evidence published in 1922 and 1933. The 1960s and 1970s analysis of galaxy rotation curves by Rubin et. al. convinced astronomers that dark matter must exist. The analysis of CMB data convinced cosmologists that dark matter must exist. The analysis of colliding galaxy clusters established that dark matter is non-baryonic matter rather than a possible modification of Newtonian dynamics (MOND). __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 Yesterday, 06:52 PM #1339 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,238 The lie that FT explains galaxy rotation curves Originally Posted by Reality Check A lie and abysmal ignorance about dark matter..... Which reminds me of his lie that FT explains galaxy rotation curves. FT produced blatantly wrong curves back in 2015 - see 5 December 2018 philippeb8: 4 years of not understanding why your galaxy rotation curve are wrong! He replied with Here's a pretty curve for you which is the stupidity of a graph out of thin air. Magically a curve that had a peak and wiggles lost them. He could have just programed in curves that look right. That is actually probable since the graph is not what FT produced 4 years ago and he has not produced whatever produced the graph. Supposing that the graph is not faked, he has never matched it to the real world. Thus FT does not explain galaxy rotation curves and he is lying. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 06:54 PM.
 Yesterday, 07:08 PM #1340 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Reality Check A lie and abysmal ignorance about dark matter. Anyone with knowledge of astronomy (obviously not philippeb8 !) knows that many decades of research make up the 11 lines of observational evidence which shows the existence for dark matter is almost certain. Almost because nothing in science is absolutely certain. Dark matter was proposed in 1884 () as "dark bodies" and the first empirical evidence published in 1922 and 1933. The 1960s and 1970s analysis of galaxy rotation curves by Rubin et. al. convinced astronomers that dark matter must exist. The analysis of CMB data convinced cosmologists that dark matter must exist. The analysis of colliding galaxy clusters established that dark matter is non-baryonic matter rather than a possible modification of Newtonian dynamics (MOND). Instead of admitting classical physics are nonsense, Rubin invented non-baryonic dark matter and everyone acclaimed the idea instead of correcting the problem in the first place. Well I guess correcting the problem will cause problems the next time they’ll apply for grants hence let’s invent non-baryonic dark matter and worsen the problem!
 Yesterday, 07:16 PM #1341 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Reality Check Which reminds me of his lie that FT explains galaxy rotation curves. FT produced blatantly wrong curves back in 2015 - see 5 December 2018 philippeb8: 4 years of not understanding why your galaxy rotation curve are wrong! He replied with Here's a pretty curve for you which is the stupidity of a graph out of thin air. Magically a curve that had a peak and wiggles lost them. He could have just programed in curves that look right. That is actually probable since the graph is not what FT produced 4 years ago and he has not produced whatever produced the graph. Supposing that the graph is not faked, he has never matched it to the real world. Thus FT does not explain galaxy rotation curves and he is lying. Since the day I debunked his Frisch-Smith experiment (in less than 20 minutes), Reality Check have shown signs of desperation by relying on old intermediate notions.
 Yesterday, 07:42 PM #1342 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 26,238 A deluded "debunked his Frisch-Smith experiment" lie. Originally Posted by philippeb8 ... A deluded "debunked his Frisch-Smith experiment" lie. The Frisch-Smith experiment is a textbook test of time dilation in SR. philippeb8 previously wrote and is persisting with a delusion that the paper cannot use already tested SR. What makes this into a deluded lie is that he has read the paper and they state there are experiments that show the kinetic energy is relativistic, not classical ! This is the delusion and lie written on 6 December 2019: On page 351, they use SR to convert the energy into speed in the first place!?! I must conclude this paper is nonsense. The truth is that they use experimentally tested SR to convert the energy into speed as anyone who can read would understand. Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons by Frisch and Smith (1963). PDF available here. Section "C. Measurement of the Speed of the μ-Mesons", page 351 (which he has read) has Quote: To convert these energies to the speeds of the mesons we use the expression given by the Special Theory of Relativity... This relativistic prediction for the relation between the total energy and the speed has been checked in many experiments. For example, Fig. 8(a) gives the experimental results for v/c versus E/mc^2, obtained with electrons. 9 (my emphasis added). That reference is a filmed experiment by W. Bertozzi (The Ultimate Speed, An Exploration with High Energy Electrons). ETA: The film is on YouTube Quote: In his youth, Dr. William Bertozzi, an MIT professor who has long been a leader in experimental nuclear physics using beams of electrons, carried out an experiment in which he explored the relationship between the velocity of electrons and their kinetic energy by measurements over a range of accelerating voltages between 0.5 MeV and 15 MeV. The kinetic energy is measured using calorimetry and the velocity is measured by time-of-flight. This educational film, made in 1962, documents the experiment and shows that the electrons have a limiting speed equal to that of light, in agreement with Einstein's theory of relativity. The experiment was published in 1964: Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons by W. Bertozzi. Tests of relativistic energy and momentum. Some of the tests are simple enough to be undergraduate experiments. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; Yesterday at 08:00 PM.
 Yesterday, 08:43 PM #1343 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Reality Check A deluded "debunked his Frisch-Smith experiment" lie. The Frisch-Smith experiment is a textbook test of time dilation in SR. philippeb8 previously wrote and is persisting with a delusion that the paper cannot use already tested SR. What makes this into a deluded lie is that he has read the paper and they state there are experiments that show the kinetic energy is relativistic, not classical ! This is the delusion and lie written on 6 December 2019: On page 351, they use SR to convert the energy into speed in the first place!?! I must conclude this paper is nonsense. The truth is that they use experimentally tested SR to convert the energy into speed as anyone who can read would understand. Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons by Frisch and Smith (1963). PDF available here. Section "C. Measurement of the Speed of the μ-Mesons", page 351 (which he has read) has (my emphasis added). That reference is a filmed experiment by W. Bertozzi (The Ultimate Speed, An Exploration with High Energy Electrons). ETA: The film is on YouTube The experiment was published in 1964: Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons by W. Bertozzi. Tests of relativistic energy and momentum. Some of the tests are simple enough to be undergraduate experiments. Reality Check is manipulating the facts to twist stories and confuse other readers. In the Frisch-Smith experiment: - They use SR to convert energy into speed; - Then they use SR to convert speed into time dilation and they claim SR is precise. This is ridiculous and grotesque.
 Today, 06:49 AM #1344 Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity     Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Charleston, WV Posts: 12,775 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Reality Check is manipulating the facts to twist stories and confuse other readers. In the Frisch-Smith experiment: - They use SR to convert energy into speed; - Then they use SR to convert speed into time dilation and they claim SR is precise. This is ridiculous and grotesque. You do not know what you are talking about. __________________ On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order." On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation." On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma.
 Today, 07:14 AM #1345 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Instead of admitting classical physics are nonsense, Rubin invented non-baryonic dark matter and everyone acclaimed the idea instead of correcting the problem in the first place. Except that you can't explain the problem, much less solve it. Dark matter is one possible solution to it, but it's not the only one being looked into. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Today, 08:55 AM #1346 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Belz... Except that you can't explain the problem, much less solve it. Dark matter is one possible solution to it, but it's not the only one being looked into. How about: dark matter is a blunder and a waste of the taxpayer’s money?
 Today, 09:03 AM #1347 Steve Philosopher     Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,481 Originally Posted by philippeb8 How about: dark matter is a blunder and a waste of the taxpayer’s money? Well you deserve some credit in this one instance. It is extremely unlikely that any taxpayer money will ever be wasted on your doodlings. __________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
 Today, 09:04 AM #1348 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 How about: dark matter is a blunder and a waste of the taxpayer’s money? Denied. FACT: Galaxies behave as if there's a LOT of extra mass. SOLUTION: Either the theory is wrong, which is unlikely given how successful it is, or there's something else there we don't know about. Let's call this dark matter for now, and look for it. You've made no effort to change this. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Today, 09:47 AM #1349 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Belz... Denied. FACT: Galaxies behave as if there's a LOT of extra mass. SOLUTION: Either the theory is wrong, which is unlikely given how successful it is, or there's something else there we don't know about. Let's call this dark matter for now, and look for it. You've made no effort to change this. Just spend 5 minutes reading about the ‘comoving frameworks’ and you won’t need dark matter at all. If you don’t then it shows some apparent laziness from your end, in the hope grasping the straws, by grading Einstein as the scientist of the century, until you people run out of grants money. I think that’s pretty selfish.
 Today, 09:54 AM #1350 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Just spend 5 minutes reading about the ‘comoving frameworks’ and you won’t need dark matter at all. Good. Post the relevant bits here or explain it in your own words. Quote: If you don’t then it shows some apparent laziness from your end It's not my claim, it's yours. I won't do your own work for you, I've told you before. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Today, 10:10 AM #1351 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Belz... Good. Post the relevant bits here or explain it in your own words. It's not my claim, it's yours. I won't do your own work for you, I've told you before. Just click on the aforementioned link and fast forward to the definitions and hypotheses. It’s all explained professionally.
 Today, 10:11 AM #1352 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Just click on the aforementioned link and fast forward to the definitions and hypotheses. It’s all explained professionally. I've made a very simple request. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Today, 10:40 AM #1353 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Originally Posted by Belz... I've made a very simple request. Alright I’ll copy and paste it later.
 Today, 10:46 AM #1354 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 87,785 Originally Posted by philippeb8 Alright I’ll copy and paste it later. Sure you will. Just like last time. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 Today, 04:34 PM #1355 philippeb8 Muse   Join Date: Sep 2018 Posts: 649 Definitions & Hypotheses (correction) Definition 1 A 'comoving framework' moves coherently with the source of the strongest neighbouring gravitational acceleration amplitude. For example, if the observer and the observed object are nearby a planet then the comoving framework is set on the planet's center, rotating with the same angular speed. Note that this can be a non-inertial frame. Definition 2 A 'parent framework' is the source of the 2nd strongest gravitational acceleration amplitude. The source here is a collective noun and represents the conglomeration of its constituents. Definition 3 An 'absolute framework' is a comoving framework that has no parent framework. Definition 4 The kinetic energy is defined as $1/2mv^2$ (classical definition), with $v$ being the speed of the object with respect to the observer. Definition 5 A gravitational time dilation is directly proportional to the ratio of the superposed gravitational potentials of the observer and the observed object. Hypothesis 1 The speed of light in free space has value $c$ for any observer at rest relative to the comoving framework. However, observers in relative motion with respect to this frame will not measure the same value for $c$. Hypothesis 2 The time dilation experienced by an object moving with respect to an observer at rest relative to the comoving framework is directly proportional to the ratio between the kinetic energy and the maximum kinetic energy of the object, where the latter is the case when its speed equals $c$.

International Skeptics Forum