ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Reply
Old 4th January 2019, 11:49 AM   #81
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,288
This appears to be one of those Seinfeld* threads that show up here sometimes.



*thread about nothing
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 12:02 PM   #82
Emil
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 39
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 12:43 PM   #83
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Nice questions WhatRoughBeast. I'll try to keep it simple.

Yes these experiments are yet to be done, and yes I am sure about the results of the experiments; this is long story why.
We have all day. Saying that it's a long story is a copout. Start writing.

Quote:
I choose this type of expressing used also by Einstein with his gedanken experiments.
You need to familiarize yourself with the Crackpot Index So far you've got

"5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment."
"10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein"
"20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it."

which, added to the 5 points you get just for playing, gives you a score of 40.

Quote:
The interference needs Complete symmetry of the ray path, that is why is the first prism there.
This ignores my original question: why use prisms instead of mirrors? And why would "complete symmetry" be necessary? Shouldn't the effect occur in the presence of imperfect symmetry?

Quote:
You also can find calculation there,
No. I see a formula. I see no calculations whatever.

Quote:
it is not perfect, but works.
How would you know? You haven't done any experiments to show that. If you have applied your formula to other people's data (Ritz, perhaps?) you need to show the data and demonstrate how your formula applies. Just saying that it works and expecting everybody to accept your assurance suggests that you may have considerable mental health issues. I suggest you reread my original answer, and pay attention to my comment about Proof by Blatant Assertion. You are employing PbBA, and making a fool of yourself by doing so.

Quote:
This paper is preliminary, don't judge it too strong. I am making another paper.
I have actually held back in my judgement and criticism. However, given that your preliminary paper is entirely useless, I am not hopeful about your finished product.

Quote:
Thank you again!
You're welcome.

Last edited by WhatRoughBeast; 4th January 2019 at 12:46 PM.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 12:58 PM   #84
Emil
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
We have all day. Saying that it's a long story is a copout. Start writing.



You need to familiarize yourself with the Crackpot Index So far you've got

"5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment."
"10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein"
"20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it."

which, added to the 5 points you get just for playing, gives you a score of 40.



This ignores my original question: why use prisms instead of mirrors? And why would "complete symmetry" be necessary? Shouldn't the effect occur in the presence of imperfect symmetry?



No. I see a formula. I see no calculations whatever.



How would you know? You haven't done any experiments to show that. If you have applied your formula to other people's data (Ritz, perhaps?) you need to show the data and demonstrate how your formula applies. Just saying that it works and expecting everybody to accept your assurance suggests that you may have considerable mental health issues. I suggest you reread my original answer, and pay attention to my comment about Proof by Blatant Assertion. You are employing PbBA, and making a fool of yourself by doing so.



I have actually held back in my judgement and criticism. However, given that your preliminary paper is entirely useless, I am not hopeful about your finished product.



You're welcome.
Take it easy my friend.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 01:19 PM   #85
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,669
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Take it easy my friend.
No. You are insulting us. You refer to a paper that contains nothing but assertions. You claim idiotic conspiracy theories, and now that you have been called on it all, you retreat to making flippant replies.

You are a disgrace, even to pseudo scientists. You are wasting everybody's time.

You are not even a competent troll.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 02:04 PM   #86
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Take it easy my friend.
Emil, old buddy, I am taking it easy.

If you think what I've written so far is too intense, you have not been getting out enough. I'm just getting warmed up.

So, in the spirit of comradeship and gemutlichkeit, why don't you actually respond to some of my points? Rather than blowing me off, which is what you just did.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 02:11 PM   #87
Emil
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
Emil, old buddy, I am taking it easy.

If you think what I've written so far is too intense, you have not been getting out enough. I'm just getting warmed up.

So, in the spirit of comradeship and gemutlichkeit, why don't you actually respond to some of my points? Rather than blowing me off, which is what you just did.
I'm too busy. And on most of your questions you can answer yourself or I have already answered.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 02:30 PM   #88
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,426
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
I'm too busy. And on most of your questions you can answer yourself or I have already answered.
You have answered very few questions, and those that we can answer ourselves do not come out to your advantage.

Please try harder.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 02:34 PM   #89
gerdbonk
Penultimate Amazing
 
gerdbonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
I'm too busy. And on most of your questions you can answer yourself or I have already answered.
That is an absolute textbook crackpot response.

Why are you here in the first place? Didn't you ask for responses? Didn't you expect questions?
__________________
I'll bet you didn't notice that I was Totally ExoneratedTM when I wrote this.

Disavow any knowledge of my twitter here.
gerdbonk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 02:36 PM   #90
MEequalsIxR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 64
If you are too busy why did you start this?

You have answered nothing, at least with a meaningful answer.

You want to challenge some of the most tested and verified theories that have held up to rigorous testing for decades with a few ideas and no proof and expect it to be published?
MEequalsIxR is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 03:22 PM   #91
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,943
Emil, could you at least tell us the story of why you're sure your experiments would prove your claims?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:47 PM   #92
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Take it easy my friend.
He's actually being very nice and giving you every chance in the world to explain your case.

I think we'd all love it if you turned out to be right. We may not find the chances of that very high, but it would be pretty cool.

So please respond to his questions, or take the road suggested by theprestige and just explain your case in your own words.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 09:07 AM   #93
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
I'm too busy. And on most of your questions you can answer yourself or I have already answered.
A cruddy copout.
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:30 PM   #94
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,245
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
Hello!

The photons have inertia and so variable speed. This can be proven by this device:
gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/7555

Regards,
Emil
How big is your proposed device?

What wavelength(s) will you use? What will the light source be?

What detector(s) do you plan to use?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 01:39 PM   #95
Emil
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
How big is your proposed device?

What wavelength(s) will you use? What will the light source be?

What detector(s) do you plan to use?
About a meter.

Green light laser.

CCD camera.



According to the calculations:

L = 1m ; v = 10 m/s ; D = 0,4 wavelength.

Last edited by Emil; 5th January 2019 at 02:01 PM.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:00 PM   #96
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,077
In this 'theory', is the speed of gravity also subject to inertia? Is it of exactly the same level as that of light? So, to make it easier; if the speed of light is subject to inertia, is that very same inertia also affecting the speed of gravity? If so, how?

EDIT: Hopefully I don't have to spell out where I'm going with this!
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 5th January 2019 at 02:03 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:04 PM   #97
Emil
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
In this 'theory', is the speed of gravity also subject to inertia? Is it of exactly the same level as that of light? So, to make it easier; if the speed of light is subject to inertia, is that very same inertia also affecting the speed of gravity? If so, how?
No. I use Newton's classical theory in the case.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:12 PM   #98
Emil
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Emil, could you at least tell us the story of why you're sure your experiments would prove your claims?

Hi!

In short, if the photons have inertia, then the experiment of Michelson - Morley will not register Earth's translation in space, whereas the experiment of Sagnac will register Earth's rotation. Also, the star aberration will depend only on the movement of the Earth, given that the space is not quite empty. All of this has already been established.

And in order to be completely sure that photons have inertia, it remains to prove one more thing, which is a subject of a new article.

If the photons have inertia, then they are free as birds. But if it turns out that they do not have inertia, so relativity will be proper.

I don't have more answers for now.

Thanks, all! Arrivederci!

Last edited by Emil; 5th January 2019 at 02:18 PM.
Emil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:13 PM   #99
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,077
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
No. I use Newton's classical theory in the case.
Well, that's a busted flush then, isn't it? Go look at the timings of the gravitational wave detections from the neutron star merger, and the simultaneous detection of the EM signatures. If light was subject to inertia, it should have got here much later than ~ 1.7 s (iirc) after the GW. Hypothesis therefore fails.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:19 PM   #100
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,077
Originally Posted by Emil View Post

I don't have more answers for now.

Thanks, all! Arrivederci!
Yep, thought that might get rid of him!
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:25 PM   #101
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,077
Tired light, anyone? That has also taken a kicking. Not that it needed to. Idiocy. And numerous flavours of MOND. All from the GW and EM detection of the NS merger. And, as if relativity needed any more evidence in favour of it, there were also the measurements of the star S2 around Sgr A*.
I think we don't need to worry about cranks like Emil. All talk, no trousers.

EDIT:
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1825/
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 5th January 2019 at 02:45 PM. Reason: Added link.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:51 PM   #102
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,077
In case anyone was wondering what I was prattling on about re the neutron star merger;

Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger
Multiple authors and collaborations
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1710/1710.05833.pdf

In effect, the gravitational wave arrived 1.7 s before the EM detections. From 40 Mpc. That rather constrains the speed of gravity to the speed of light to one part in..............squillions.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 5th January 2019 at 02:54 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 06:43 PM   #103
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,696
1.7s ? Seems just about right. That's the time the light needed to accelerate !
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 05:24 AM   #104
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,323
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
You need to familiarize yourself with the Crackpot Index So far you've got

"5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment."
"10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein"
"20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it."

which, added to the 5 points you get just for playing, gives you a score of 40.
That's not all. There's at the very least another '40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.'

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 06:53 AM   #105
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,482
Originally Posted by WhatRoughBeast View Post
You need to familiarize yourself with the Crackpot Index So far you've got

"5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment."
"10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein"
"20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it."

which, added to the 5 points you get just for playing, gives you a score of 40.
John Baez actually awards -5 points just for playing, not +5, so that score would be 30, not 40.

But as Dave Rogers pointed out, you failed to award some other points that have been well earned.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 07:15 AM   #106
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,245
Thanks.
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
About a meter.

Green light laser.

CCD camera.



According to the calculations:

L = 1m ; v = 10 m/s ; D = 0,4 wavelength.
What is “D = 0,4 wavelength”?

What, approximately, is the size of the effect you think you’ll see?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 07:19 AM   #107
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,245
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
<snip>

Also, the star aberration will depend only on the movement of the Earth, given that the space is not quite empty.

<snip>
As space is not quite empty, there will be dispersion, won’t there?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 11:30 AM   #108
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,669
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
About a meter.

Green light laser.

CCD camera.



According to the calculations:

L = 1m ; v = 10 m/s ; D = 0,4 wavelength.
A green laser has a wavelenght of 532nm. So, please show your calculations.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 11:31 AM   #109
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,669
Originally Posted by Emil View Post
No. I use Newton's classical theory in the case.
And why do you do that? Just for kicks?

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 11:37 AM   #110
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Thanks.
What is “D = 0,4 wavelength”?

What, approximately, is the size of the effect you think you’ll see?
I may be giving him credit for too much consistency, but it seems likely that D is "Dephasing", or phase shift - in this case 0.4 times the wavelength (532 nm) of the light used.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2019, 11:50 AM   #111
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,339
Another "slight" problem that Emil has is his equation for "Dephasing" - it does not depend at all on the aspect ratio of the rectangle formed by the two rays (see the linked paper, figure 1). It only depends on the "active length" of the rays - whatever that means. In other words, it depends only on the length of the perimeter. As a result, if you keep the perimeter constant, the enclosed area can approach zero, and the two rays can become infinitesimally close to each other - but the phase shift will remain constant. Taking the limit of the process establishes that the effect will occur at full strength for two beams which are not separated at all.

And that's a pretty good trick. But a lousy theory.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.