DIY experiment proving graviton is a particle

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Just 1 century, not many. "Science" was extremely productive before the Nobel Prize and Einstein's spacetime curvature nonsense.

They have failed to silence me on time because everything is public now. Maybe that's because the Truck Convoy here in Canada has higher priority so that would suggest I've got the perfect timing.

On a final note, a have proven the Nobel / Breakthrough Prizes are actually counterproductive and slow human evolution down because of the following relation:
mainstream^5 * n_phd * n_np * n_bp

Where:
n_phd = number of new physics PhD per year
n_np = number of years since the dawn of the Nobel Prize
n_bp = number of years since the dawn of the Breakthrough Prize

Now in 2022 it's mathematically impossible to undo that mess and not worth the efforts.

I have also mathematically proven the sole purpose of the Kavli / Perimeter Institutes, the Snolab, Xenon lab, ... is to increase our deficit to benefit the Central Banks slowly but surely.

You think science hasn't been 'productive' since 1895?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Steve

In an infinite multiverse with infinite possibilities there is a universe chock full of gravitons where phillipeb8 has made his breakthrough and is sitting and laughing at us from atop his pile of $trillions. This will not be that universe.

Though it'd be a universe where gravity worked rather differently.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

By saying you and I aren't smart enough to understand my own manuscript you just proved whatever I say then you will say the exact opposite.

That means if you say Finite Theory is a crackpot effort that really means it's an absolute masterpiece. You are also confirming the defamation agenda you are following to the letter. So thanks again.

Yours is not the only possible interpretation of the facts.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

On a final note, a have proven the Nobel / Breakthrough Prizes are actually counterproductive and slow human evolution down because of the following relation:

mainstream^5 * n_phd * n_np * n_bp

Where:
n_phd = number of new physics PhD per year
n_np = number of years since the dawn of the Nobel Prize
n_bp = number of years since the dawn of the Breakthrough Prize

This is not a relation. It does not show an equality or any other relationship between anything and anything else. It's only some various quantities multiplied together. One of those quantities, "mainstream," is undefined and lacks units.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Do your own research.

Alfred Nobel was dubbed the "Angel of Death". Do you seriously I want to be associated with him or any "destructive science" after I keep bragging about my specific "constructive science" efforts?

Also even the Vatican is associated with the Central Banks / Freemasonry since 1832. All they do is flip around the values of the Vatican like the 7 virtues to the 7 deadly sins. And the Nobel Prize represents all that (reputation / pride) which is leading to our own demise.

Thus I reject any association with them.

How does any of that answer my question about the productivity of science over the last 100 years?

[Norman Alexander]

Anyhoo...

Have we proved that a graviton is a particle using an iPhone yet? Looking forward to the definitive answer.

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Have we proved that a graviton is a particle using an iPhone yet? Looking forward to the definitive answer.

I cheated.

"Your cheat provider / Walkthrough Levels 31-40 for Graviton: Physics Puzzle"
Release: Sep 27, 2019
Platform: iPhone - iPad
https://www.chaptercheats.com/cheat/...videos/258624/

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

You missed the part where it got simplified with a 5 minutes long search engine search + 67 lines long Python script.

That was for your proof of an "aether wind". Are you now claiming it was for proof of gravitons, too?

Either way, you haven't presented any proof, per se...just an empty claim. Now would be a great time to show what you have.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

That was for your proof of an "aether wind". Are you now claiming it was for proof of gravitons, too?

Either way, you haven't presented any proof, per se...just an empty claim. Now would be a great time to show what you have.

Actually it also proves that there is graviton attenuation down to 80% but I'll have to run the same script on a larger data set to verify its consistency.

[sarge]

Please confine posts to the thread topic

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:sarge

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Actually it also proves that there is graviton attenuation down to 80% but I'll have to run the same script on a larger data set to verify its consistency.

And I look forward to your Tractor Beams, Anti-Gravity Devices, Force Fields, and other such 'Star Trek' type things that you say that you will be producing.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

And I look forward to your Tractor Beams, Anti-Gravity Devices, Force Fields, and other such 'Star Trek' type things that you say that you will be producing.

Thank you Scotty, you will not be disappointed.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Originally Posted by jsfisher

That was for your proof of an "aether wind". Are you now claiming it was for proof of gravitons, too?

Either way, you haven't presented any proof, per se...just an empty claim. Now would be a great time to show what you have.

Actually it also proves that there is graviton attenuation down to 80% but I'll have to run the same script on a larger data set to verify its consistency.

You continue to avoid providing any sort of proof of your claims. What was your Google search, and the Python script you applied to it, and what was the results you obtained? I am not simply interested in what you think the results mean; I and others (I am sure) would like to see the raw information from which you drew your conclusions.

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Actually it also proves that there is graviton attenuation down to 80% but I'll have to run the same script on a larger data set to verify its consistency.

Show your work. Let's see the script and the data set, and explain how your got the data set too.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Show your work. Let's see the script and the data set, and explain how your got the data set too.

For a person who claims to make all his knowledge public, as per the quote below, philippeb8 seems strangely reluctant to make his knowledge public.

Originally Posted by philippeb8

They are not powerless, they are currently taxing me to death but making all my knowledge public and refuting the spacetime curvature nonsense within a week or two is an efficient counter-strategy.

I know this forum will be archived, so I want to be remembered as being part of the solution.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

You continue to avoid providing any sort of proof of your claims. What was your Google search, and the Python script you applied to it, and what was the results you obtained? I am not simply interested in what you think the results mean; I and others (I am sure) would like to see the raw information from which you drew your conclusions.

I'll post the link one more time but if I see you guys intentionally confuse everything I say then I'll leave for good. Because if I stay here that means I contribute to your ATMer defamation agenda, despite taking the time to warn you everything is clear to me.

Here's the data and the script:
https://github.com/philippeb8/microgal

The images are based on the following experiment:
http://cpb.iphy.ac.cn/article/2015/c...f8_hr.png.html

And Fig S5 below confirms other experiments all return similar sinusoidal residuals:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09084.pdf

The sinusoidal residual means that at 6 pm and 6 am, when the gravimeter is perfectly perpendicular to the Sun, it measures the highest discrepancy between what is predicted and what is measured. And this is very consistent.

The graviton attenuation is the ratio of the measured residual at 12 am and 12 pm which gets us 80%. But again, this will need to be confirmed with a larger data set.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

And yet, despite not taking your brilliance into account, we can get spaceships to land exactly where we want, even after they take slingshots around Jupiter.

In your universe Jupiter would massively interfere with the Sun's gravitons and thus the path of a spaceship would differ from one that does not take that into account.

The difference may be small, but space is big, so it would be enough to make things completely miss their intended targets.

They don't. So the odds of you being right are quite small.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

And yet, despite not taking your brilliance into account, we can get spaceships to land exactly where we want, even after they take slingshots around Jupiter.

In your universe Jupiter would massively interfere with the Sun's gravitons and thus the path of a spaceship would differ from one that does not take that into account.

The difference may be small, but space is big, so it would be enough to make things completely miss their intended targets.

They don't. So the odds of you being right are quite small.

A slingshot is lateral to the associated planet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

And yet, despite not taking your brilliance into account, we can get spaceships to land exactly where we want, even after they take slingshots around Jupiter.

In your universe Jupiter would massively interfere with the Sun's gravitons and thus the path of a spaceship would differ from one that does not take that into account.

The difference may be small, but space is big, so it would be enough to make things completely miss their intended targets.

They don't. So the odds of you being right are quite small.

What about all of those?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

A slingshot is lateral to the associated planet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

What is that supposed to mean?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What is that supposed to mean?

Gravitons man! They are out there by the bucket load! And they react exactly the way philippeb8's personal physics requires, regardless of what actual physics (which is a century old scam, remember) actually says.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Thank you Scotty, you will not be disappointed.

Great!

So start producing these items and you will easily become the richest person in all of recorded history.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

And Fig S5 below confirms other experiments all return similar sinusoidal residuals:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09084.pdf

The sinusoidal residual means that at 6 pm and 6 am, when the gravimeter is perfectly perpendicular to the Sun, it measures the highest discrepancy between what is predicted and what is measured. And this is very consistent.

Quoted from that paper, with my highlighting:

Originally Posted by Wu et al.

Because our laboratory is about 4.5 km east of the San Francisco Bay, the ocean tidal loading effect on gravity at our location is significant and is not accurately described in available models (31). Figure 2B shows that the residual gravity variation is correlated to the water-level variation measured in the Bay. As shown in Fig. 2C and 2D, the ocean tidal loading leads to the peaks in the Allan deviation and the power spectral density in a period-band between 6-24 hours....

....Because the local gravity is affected by the tidal effects, the inaccurate tide model at our location constrains the accuracy of the long-term stability measurement and the systematic effect evaluation. A gravity comparison at a geophysical observatory would allow us to characterize them more accurately (34). With these improvements, a more accurate measurement of the ocean tidal loading effect may be useful....

Figure S5 compares "measured gravity and the solid-earth tide model", without correcting for ocean tidal loading, so the residuals seen in Figure S5 are explained quite well by the correlation shown in Figure 2B.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Quoted from that paper, with my highlighting:

Figure S5 compares "measured gravity and the solid-earth tide model", without correcting for ocean tidal loading, so the residuals seen in Figure S5 are explained quite well by the correlation shown in Figure 2B.

It is common knowledge the residual is sinusoidal:



https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...-1394/51/5/452

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

It is common knowledge the residual is sinusoidal:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d0d651ff5e.png

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...-1394/51/5/452

Ummm, your cited article makes a similar claim as W.D.Clinger: "Red points represent the experimental data, black solid line is the theoretical tide model without correcting the ocean loading of the Earth."

On the other hand, your cited article does not support your claim, "It is common knowledge the residual is sinusoidal".

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

Ummm, your cited article makes a similar claim as W.D.Clinger: "Red points represent the experimental data, black solid line is the theoretical tide model without correcting the ocean loading of the Earth."

On the other hand, your cited article does not support your claim, "It is common knowledge the residual is sinusoidal".

The ocean loading is a consequence of the Earth's tides anyways.

Furthermore let's not silently dismiss the flyby anomalies.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The ocean loading is a consequence of the Earth's tides anyways.

Furthermore let's not silently dismiss the flyby anomalies.

You really have trouble staying on point, don't you?

W.D.Clinger made a claim, a claim you seemed to want to discount, but ended up just supporting. Are we done with that, or do you have other non sequiturs to introduce?

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

You really have trouble staying on point, don't you?

W.D.Clinger made a claim, a claim you seemed to want to discount, but ended up just supporting. Are we done with that, or do you have other non sequiturs to introduce?

So you are just proving you tend to silently dismiss important facts such as the flyby anomaly that is apparently explained by a dark matter cloud surrounding the Earth. Seriously?

Anyway my point was the ocean loading is affected by the Moon and the Sun but doesn't change the overall Earth gravitational acceleration because the overall mass doesn't change.

[jsfisher]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

So you are just proving you tend to silently dismiss important facts such as the flyby anomaly that is apparently explained by a dark matter cloud surrounding the Earth. Seriously?

I prove nothing of the sort. You continue to flutter from topic to topic without completing one before interjecting the next.

Quote:

Anyway my point was the ocean loading is affected by the Moon and the Sun but doesn't change the overall Earth gravitational acceleration because the overall mass doesn't change.

But that wasn't the point in W.D.Clinger's post, now was it? Let's close out that item, shall we? And then you can move to a new (singular) next point.

[philippeb8]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

But that wasn't the point in W.D.Clinger's post, now was it? Let's close out that item, shall we? And then you can move to a new (singular) next point.

The 3 experiments I've presented are not all next to the ocean. Even if they were then in what way should it change the Earth's gravitational acceleration? It's not worth the efforts to calculate that because it's obvious.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

The ocean loading is a consequence of the Earth's tides anyways.

Furthermore let's not silently dismiss the flyby anomalies.

Oh look, a Gish Gallop......

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Edited by jimbob:

moderated content removed

I suggest that you produce those force fields, those tractor beams, and those anti-gravity devices that you said you could produce and then you would no longer have to produce replies.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by philippeb8

Edited by jimbob:

moderated content removed

Great!

By producing those tractor beams, those force fields, and those anti-gravity devices you will become the richest person in all of human history.

As such, you will no longer have to respond to anyone that you do not wish to respond to.

[Crossbow]

As for me, I sure am looking forward to getting those force fields, tractor beams and anti-gravity devices that 'philippeb8' will be producing.

I install the anti-gravity device on my car so that it will float about 50 cm or so about the road,
then I will use the tractor beam to be pulled along by vehicles which are travelling more or less my way,
then I will use the force fields to protect my modified vehicle from getting dirty and/or theives,
and if necessary, I will use the car in a conventional way.

Just think of all the gas money, oil change money, tire money, and so on that I will be saving.

Woo hoo!

With all of this savings, then I will finally be able to buy my own Girl Scout cookies.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What is that supposed to mean?

It means some people can only think in two dimensions. Not meant as a criticism, but I have happened upon a lot of that lately in various folks. Where to place the blame for that? The education system? Dunno. I can still remember in my youth 3D spatial reasoning tests. Later on, my own kids had similar.

I consider the lack of 3D spatial reasoning to be one of the reasons why the flat earth wingnuts exist along with some other reasons.